Global Warming, or what both sides don't want you to know

This will be one of many posts on the global warming debate, and you will see that I believe both sides have valid and important points to make, but as with most arguments that have become politicized the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes.  Why do I believe this?

It is certainly not true that Greenland is going to melt this decade, or this century, but that doesn't stop people from saying it will:

Gore stated “a 75 per cent chance the entire polar ice cap will melt in summer within the next five to seven years”

This is nearly impossible to even contemplate, and the science, even the science from researchers strongly convinced of global warming does not support this view.  Here is a link to Cryosphere Today, a website that American tax dollars pay for and shows a drop in ice in the Arctic (but a gain in the Antarctic) in recent years.  I will post on sea ice in another post, but for now lets focus on how much ice their really is at the poles:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

On the other side we have people stating the carbon dioxide level is irrelevant to global warming, or that it may promote cooling:

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

This is also untrue as we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and will help trap heat in the atmosphere.

Thus, both sides take extreme positions that are not supported in science.  Where is the data we need to answer the question on global warming and it effect on the planet?  Unfortunately we do not have all the data, and the models are attempting to model a complexity and feedback mechanisms that we do not fully understand. 

So what is the point?  What can we do in this noise machine of both sides screaming they are correct, when the facts say they are either wrong, or taking grossly simplistic positions?

We need to look at the facts and attempt to figure out who is what side and whether their particular interpretation of the data can be trusted, based on their statements and positions.  This is my major problem with global warming science today, scientists are no longer simply analyzing the data and changing position as the data changes but in fact are advocating for policy positions.  This should not be acceptable, and thus we need to more fully question een our national labs as it realtes to this topic.  Why do I think this?

It is much more than Climategate that makes me question.  It is James Hansen, who runs the lab that determines the global average temperature for the U.S. government being ARRESTED outside the White House in an anti-global warming protest.  Does this man seem the dispassionate scientist who can remove his own personal biases and do the very hard work required to get to a correct number?  It is also not the Climategate emails that bother me, it is the fact that University of East Anglia DESTROYED the original data used to create their model, which means it can never be double checked by other scientists usinjg the same data set.  This should infuriate you as American taxpayers funded this English university to determine the correct numbers.

On the other side, clean energy is something we should advocate for many reasons beyond global warming and carbon dioxide.  Dependance on foreign il is causing movement of money to the Middle East in historic proportions.  The movement of oil comes at great cost, and even a few oil spills at the wellhead or from ships or piplines cause great environmental harm.  It should also infuriate you that oil companies actively advocate on the policy level AGAINST green energy.

So what is the point?  The point do not trust your news source and know the bias of the news source as well as the scientist/reseacher/talking head being interviewed or quoted.  Truth is hard to find, and we need to work to find it while always questioning and looking for as much primary data as we can find ourselves.  Luckily, we have the internet and it is a great resource if you use it for more than simply confirming your own biases.