The New American appears to be a propaganda engine, from what I read it seems to be, at best, sensationalitic journalism. That's not to say that it doesn't have sources, but that they are to the right wing what Michael Moore is to the left.
I'm curious as to the context in which you've studied these topics. You've yet to offer what I would view as proof or irrefutable facts. Your reference(s) are all from a source that I would consider highly dubious. Are you suggesting that NOAA and the WMO (the founder of the the IPCC) are wrong? Or is it that these well organisations, revered in the scientific comunity, are working towards some sinister end?
In both my studies in Chemistry and Oceanography, the latter being the most relevant to climate issues, I've encountered several scientists who have studied/are studying the climate issue and I've yet to encounter one who refutes it. I've seen the data plots of historical CO2 levels more times that I can count and within the glacial-interglacial oscillations we are well above the highest measured levels: based on ice core measurements.
I understand that geologists have little interest in climate change, on a geological time scale and cycling it's irrelevant, but most of us care more what happens in the next 1000 years than 1000,000 years. I could go more in depth as to why it doesn't matter to a geologist, but I'd rather not.
So you see, I am very interestested in what facts from what sources have convinced you that climate change is a big lie. I have access to all the major repudable journals through the University Library, so don't feel that you need limit yourself to internet references.
I'm curious as to the context in which you've studied these topics. You've yet to offer what I would view as proof or irrefutable facts. Your reference(s) are all from a source that I would consider highly dubious. Are you suggesting that NOAA and the WMO (the founder of the the IPCC) are wrong? Or is it that these well organisations, revered in the scientific comunity, are working towards some sinister end?
In both my studies in Chemistry and Oceanography, the latter being the most relevant to climate issues, I've encountered several scientists who have studied/are studying the climate issue and I've yet to encounter one who refutes it. I've seen the data plots of historical CO2 levels more times that I can count and within the glacial-interglacial oscillations we are well above the highest measured levels: based on ice core measurements.
I understand that geologists have little interest in climate change, on a geological time scale and cycling it's irrelevant, but most of us care more what happens in the next 1000 years than 1000,000 years. I could go more in depth as to why it doesn't matter to a geologist, but I'd rather not.
So you see, I am very interestested in what facts from what sources have convinced you that climate change is a big lie. I have access to all the major repudable journals through the University Library, so don't feel that you need limit yourself to internet references.
