PLEASE NOTE:  This is the second version of this post.  I ended up being unhappy with the first because of a faux pas I made in linking to another article.  I left my correction up for a few days, but since I'm not widely read, I'm not considering it to be a cardinal blogging sin to redo this post.

Should I be embarrassed that I haven't worked myself into a lather about the impending doom of Global Warming?

Well, I'm not.

The MSM won't tell you this, but there are a lot of real live scientists who are skeptical, and a lot of good science shows that whatever global warming is happening, it may not be caused by humans. I was especially struck by a brief passage in ABC News’ recent special “Last Days on Earth,” a scare-mongering hit piece if there ever was one.

But specifically, William Gray is a well-respected hurricane scientist at Colorado State University who happens to be skeptical about the current thinking about global warming. What does he get for his trouble? ABC felt it was necessary to lump Dr. Gray in with a couple Fox News journalists who expressed their global warming doubt in inimitable Fox News style. But wait! Dr. Gray is a real live climatologist who is an oft-cited expert on hurricanes. How is his skepticism remotely similar to that of journalists and pundits who know little about the science behind climate change? Did ABC simply want to pigeon-hole Dr. Gray with the nutcases who don’t believe in Global Warming?

Of course they did!!

All skeptics of the current global warming scare must be marginalized; labeled as kooks or shills for Big Oil, or some other pernicious cabal. The case dare not be made on merits!

Look, is global warming happening? Sure, I'll stipulate. My feeling from reading the literature is that almost by definition, the climate must always be warming or cooling during any given epoch. Should we be concerned that humans may be causing current warming? Sure. Should we panic? Absolutely not. And, in the popular literature about global warming, panic is apparently what we are supposed to feel (right, Mr. Gore?)

Panic will never ever allow rational discussion of science, and will allow no disagreement. We are told with certainty that global warming is happening, and how much. Any uncertainty barely leaks into the global warming popular debate, and uncertainty can be key!

I make my living as a Quality Engineer (my degree is in electrical engineering). My career is built around testing hypotheses, on measurement error, error bars and confidence intervals. While I do not regularly read the most densely scientific of treatises, what gets out into the popular debate totally lacks discussion on the precision of measurements. Modern measurements of global temperatures at ground stations and by satellite are now quite accurate – the most accurate in human history – but even these measurements must have some measurement error to them, which doesn't leak out into the popular literature.

When someone tells me that global mean temperatures have risen by 0.8C in the past x number of years, I first ask, "Plus or minus how much?" In jest, I like to say that only God knows the true measurement of anything. For us humans, there is always some imprecision in measurement, so in correct statistical terms, you must provide your measurement, plus and minus some measurement error.   The "true" measurement will lie somewhere in that plus/minus interval, but we cannot know exactly where.  Because most members of the public are not well-schooled in statistics, that measurement error is often left out of discussions, so we are left in a lurch, not knowing how much precision there is in any given measurement. Unfortunately, a lot of people will assume “infinite precision,” that is, the measurement under discussion is absolutely accurate!

That of course, cannot be. And as we discuss temperatures in the distant past or the distant future, error of measurement becomes very, very important. Surely, the measurement error on a system where a scientist is reading ancient or medieval global temperatures based on tree rings and ice cores and such must be relatively large compared to modern satellite measurements.  It cannot be any other way.  Similarly, predictions of future global temperatures have huge "confidence intervals."

This lack of discussion of measurement error leads us to shenanigans like the famous "hockey stick" chart of global temperatures which assure us that tremendous warming is happening now and in the very recent past.  But, then the purveyors of such charts balk when asked for an independent analysis of their raw data and methodology.  How can I not be skeptical when such things happen?  How can I not be skeptical when activists let slip that exaggeration of data to the public is a good thing, in that it will spur the masses to action?  How can I not be skeptical when fingers are pointed at the United States as the main villian in the global warming crisis, when I believe this nation has done more than almost any other to reduce pollution and help the environment?

At any rate, my philosophy on the thing is basically agnostic. The climate appears to be warming.  Is this an on-going trend, or a "localized" phenomenon sure to reverse in the near or distant future?  Is it really "anthropogenic," as the fancy people are fond of describing it, or is it a natural trend?  I think it is very possible that the human factor (CO2 to be specific) is not the only contributor to warming, and maybe not even the most significant factor.  

But, on the other hand, I believe there is good reason - well, many good reasons - to drive more fuel-efficient and less polluting cars. In my lay opinion, CO2 emissions may not be at the very top of that list of reasons. CO2, of course, occurs naturally in the atmosphere, and is great for plant life.  Pollutants like particulates, ozone and CO emissions are surely more immediate killers.

Perhaps the best reason of all:  well, I don't have to go into depth about our dependence on fuel oils from politically unstable parts of the world.

Heck, my house has been populated, at least in part, with compact flourescent light bulbs for years... before it got trendy!  And if I wasn't concerned about the initial cash outlay, I'd go solar at my house in a heartbeat. In Colorado, sunshine is one thing we have in abundance!

I'm a westerner - raised in Colorado.  Although I live in the 'burbs, I like to consider myself an outdoorsman and a hunter ("Weekend Warrior" may be more appropriate).  I'm a Life Member of the NRA, and I believe very, very strongly that the Second Amendment to our Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

I think that over the past decade and a half, my side has basically won the battle over the right to keep and bear arms.  We were fortunate, in a rather ironic fashion, to have a president like Bill Clinton during the '90s, who was so beholden to the anti-gunners that he overplayed his hand, resulting in record membership in the NRA and a highly motivated opposition to those who would steal our guns and our rights.

That said, if the 2008 presidential election was held today (love that phrase!), my pick would be Rudy Giuliani.  He is the only person thought to be in the race who can be counted on to stand strong in the battle we face overseas and at home against Islamic terrorists, Islamic fascists, if you will.  He's a guy I can like and respect, and his performance as mayor of New York in the days after 9/11 speaks for itself.

I do say this with some reservation, of course.  Although he has come out for more restrictive gun laws as mayor, as he gets to the national stage, I think (or hope) that at worst, he will maintain the status quo with regard to national gun laws.  The momentum that has built with regard to gun rights won't be turned back, as long as we stand strong against the government.  After all, if Bill Clinton couldn't win the battle against the Second Amendment, we will always have a fighting chance.

Many conservatives will have trouble with Giuliani, I have no doubt, but he is a member of the Party, and as a member of that Republican coalition, Giuliani must listen to us as the party platform is created in the lead-up to 2008.  He is strongest on the most important issue of our day, and these other issues, while important, pale in comparison.

The primaries will provide us with the chance to hold Rudy's feet to the fire, ensuring that he understands how deeply we feel about conservative issues.  We should keep that in mind before we toss him overboard.

And besides, by 2007, I hope to be heading the "Anyone but McCain" effort!!

This is my first post, and I'm just testing the waters.  I don't know exactly what I will be doing here, except for the occasional post about the issues of the day.  And about the Denver Broncos!

My specific interests of a more serious note are the Second Amendment, the War on Islamic terrorists, and keeping taxes under control (go check out http://www.fairtax.org/).

Looking forward to a fun election season!