Remember some of these people that build the sites presented in the original links are not web designers they are people trained in the mathematical sciences.
On the first link:
It appears to me that the John Casey is an independent consultant and not a web site designer. He is using Trellix Site Builder which they say in their ads “you can use to Build a professional-grade Web site in less than an hour”.
More important to me is that Mr. Casey's BS degree is in Physics and Mathematics, this tells me a lot more about his capabilities as a person.
My feeling here is that John Casey is taking some of the public data available from NASA and analyzing it to come up with his view of the global warming controversy.
On the second link:
First off, in case you have not read the url, the site is in Russia. The website is more professional, after looking at the mata tags in the page source I would say that they may be using some high end page generation software.
The author, Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, is a Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute, has been around for a while and is slightly biased, however, he presents some very convincing information that should be taken very seriously.
Think of climate science in the sense of an entry to this forum from a person that is new to coal heating. He/she starts off with a post titled “ My coal stove won't stay going”. Well the experienced users of coal know right away that there is not a single answer to this problem.
Climate science is 1,000 time more complicated than this example and anyone that comes up with a single factor that they say causes climate change is full of anal material. Even those people that say they have computer models of the climate are full of the same stuff. I have done a lot of model writing myself and know that I can make the outcome say anything I want it to be.
I do suggest that you pay attention to anybody that comes up with anything on the “global warming /climate change” subject because usually there is some truth to the every claim. The best place I have found that is unbiased and scientific at the same time is
http://www.climateaudit.org/
This site is highly technical and can be difficult to understand by those without a degree or experience in the climate and mathematical sciences, it is also the winner of the “Best Science Blog for 2007”.
In a passing note for those that may be curious, I have been a consultant to manufacturing companies for 18 years and specialize in mathematical analysis of industrial processes. For the past two years all of my time has been taken up by a single client that has not liked the results of some of my research but they keep calling me back on additional projects because of the results of the work that I present to them. Unlike the political arena, if I presented them with what they would like to hear then I would not be called back by them because sooner or later the truth would catch up to my conclusions.
I now leave this thread with one of my favorite quotes:
“The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however,
it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one — even the staunchest supporters of science and technology — had ever thought to assert very much
confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them, is forecast the weather! — for the next one hundred years...” ~ George Reisman
