Predicting the climate

As a photographer for The Planet (Western's environmental journalism publication), i get the rare privilege of sitting in on a humorous discussion now and then. Some of the most interesting are the ones that cover how global warming should be reported objectively. The common argument I hear over and over is "since it's so hard to find scientists who question global warming and human causes, it's unobjective to include them at all cost in an article--especially since global warming is a scientific consensus."

Well, it's a consensus in the classroom no doubt where the hot air certainly seems to increase exponentially every time the topic comes up.

The latest news on the issue is hardly promising for these assumptions. While LiveScience.com is not what I would call a scientific journal, it's also plain to see they don't have a conflict of interest. The article states that scientist are "baffled" that less sunlight is reaching the earth, likely because of increased cloud cover. A few other articles bemoan the fact that clouds are so hard to predict. You've got to love the headline on this one in particular: Scientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on Earth.

I don't know, but I thought simple physics said that if you heat water it not only melts from a solid, but evaporates into gas,...ehem...clouds. Someone can now put this lowly ignorant journalist in his place.