Friday, October 16, 2009

Global Warming: Political Alarmism or Scientific Certainty?

Dr.s William Gray (pic. @ bottom), Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, and Kevin Trenberth (pic. @ top), head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, recently participated in an in-paper debate on climate change. The author Ray Harvey, "Leave Us Alone," is responsible for bringing together these two for the debate, and should be thanked for it; I hope this debate's being bespeaks of more like it to come.

Dr. Gray is a Global Warming (GW) skeptic for many reasons. For one, he says:
"It must be pointed out that most climate research is supported by the federal government. All federally sponsored researchers need positive peer-reviews on their published papers and grant proposals. This can be difficult for many of the “closet” warming skeptics who receive federal grant support. Many are reluctant to give full expression of their views, primarily because of worries over continuing grant support. It is difficult to receive federal grant support if one’s views differ from the majority of their peers who receive support to find evidence of the warming threat. The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.
On the other side of GW is Dr. Trenberth. Dr. Trenberth argues that climate change is real, is unwelcome and is our fault. He rebukes Dr. Gray:
"I have found that the only scientists who disagree with the IPCC report [which said, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and it is “very likely” due to human activities] are those who have not read it and are poorly informed...[The IPCC's] mandate is to provide policy makers with an objective assessment of the scientific and technical information available about climate change, its environmental and socio-economic impacts, and possible response options...The strength of the IPCC report is that it is a consensus report. Far from being a “gross exaggeration” as claimed by Gray, the IPCC report is really solid and conservative. It is not [as Gray claims] the latest “trendy scientific idea"..."
Without quesiton, the issue of man-made climate change is one that elicits some of the strongest emotions when offered for discussion. Often, it is muddled with agendas of politics and philosophy. This debate gives much-needed clarification to the litany of talking points profusely spouted by both sides.

Here's my question: Even if GW theory is false, are there still good reasons to pursue Vertical Farms?

What do you think?

Read the wh
ole debate here.

1 comment:

  1. I think we need to pursue Vertical Farms just as a diversification issue. Right now there are a lot of horizontal farms, but no vertical ones. This unbalance is geometrically and intellectually unappealing, and it's just killing me.