By now, you probably perceive me as a 'one trick pony'; when it comes to my views on global warming.  As I am not a scientist, I try to read with an open mind the different viewpoints on this 'hot button' topic.

Daniel Boykin is a Ph.D. ecologist who has spent the past 39 years studying various aspects of our environment.  In my view, he has written an excellent article that closely approximates my view on the subject of global warming.

I found Boykin's observations about the role computer modeling have played in this debate to be compelling.  These computer models have become a major focal point in this debate, and there is clearly a margin of error in these models that is not discussed.  These computer models are not sacrosanct!    

How accurate were the computer models predicting the amount of hurricanes this season?  How accurately can computer models predict the actual path of a given hurricane? (The cone is often 100's of miles wide.)

Obviously, computer models are only as good as the information created for the model.  I'm not anti-science, just anti-'bad' science.  Here's the article:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010763

A little something to read on Global Warming.

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/history_health.html

Feel free to post link on Lib Blogs. I'm sure that they'll discredit it as it doesn't fit their world view.

It opens with this little tid-bit.

History demonstrates that warmer is healthier. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the earth has enjoyed two periods that were warmer than the twentieth century. Archaeological evidence shows that people lived longer, enjoyed better nutrition, and multiplied more rapidly than during epochs of cold.