climate change

Paavo Siitam

Paavo Siitam

 Credentials

  • M.Sc., Agronomist and chemist. [1]

 Background

Paavo Siitam is a plant scientist and has been a teacher and chemist for the sugar industry. One profile lists him as a Marine Biology and Chemistry teacher in Cobourg, Ontario, Canada.

Organizations: 
Read more: Paavo Siitam

Douglas Leahey

Douglas Leahey

 Credentials

  • Ph.D., Air Pollution, Meteorology, New York University, New  York, NY, (1971).
  • MSc., Meteorology, McGill University, Montreal, PQ, (1966).
  • BSc., Physics (Honours), Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, (1963).

Source: [1]

Read more: Douglas Leahey

Al Pekarek

Alfred (Al) Pekarek

 Credentials

  • Ph.D., University of Wyoming (1974).
  • B.A. University of Minnesota-Twin (1965).

Source: [1]

 Background

Al Pekarek is a past associate professor of geology at St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn., and is a consulting geologist in the petroleum industry.

Read more: Al Pekarek

Hugh W. Ellsaesser

Hugh W. Ellsaesser

 Credentials

  • Ph.D., Meteorology. [1]

 Background

A meteorologist by training, Ellsaesser is a retired “guest scientist” at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and a widely-quoted global warming skeptic.

He is “CEO of HWE Atmospheric Consultant.” [1]

Fri, 2006-01-06 10:26Jim Hoggan
Jim Hoggan's picture

Climate Change: A Cycle Not a Trend?

Those who deny the reality of climate change like to point out that dramatic weather events have occurred in the past; they argue that we may be in the midst of a cycle we don't understand, rather than a trend caused by human activity.

New research from the U.S. National Science Foundation looks at a previous “cycle” – one that occurred 55 million years ago and that resulted in warming-induced changes in sea circulation that appear similar to what are currently occurring in the northern hemisphere.

For those who would take comfort in the cyclical argument, consider that on the earlier occasion, the “cycle” took 20,000 years to reverse itself – a little beyond our current planning horizon.

Wed, 2006-01-04 12:17Jim Hoggan
Jim Hoggan's picture

The Slippery Slope of Climate Change Denial

A great post at www.OpEdNews.com asks – and answers – the question of whether we dare ignore the debate on evolution.

The principal argument is that we should not allow habits of thought that invite or facilitate deception and manipulation. WriterAndrew Bard Schmookler says:

“It matters whether people follow their authorities blindly or they develop the critical capabilities to think for themselves. Perhaps it’s fine to give the Bible unquestioning credence, but unquestioning trust in the declarations of political authorities can be dangerous.”

Pages

Subscribe to climate change