...But the request (click here) for information sent out by the Department of Agriculture on Monday defined cyclical climate change to mean "a change in the state of climate due to natural internal processes and only natural external forcings such as volcanic eruptions and solar variations."...
I realize the study as written by the Department of Agriculture sounds meaningless, but, I never consider any study meaningless. The map to the left is the current drought map for Nebraska.
Basically, the study as set forth is a standard study, it puts forward a PREMISE. There is either enough information to validate the study or deny it, either way the study has to contain facts. I realize the hideous nature of the politics dictating an employee of the state to write the study in the words it has in order to keep their job, but, the study is a valid statement.
There is an element within the community of men and women that believe this is a cyclical event. It is not. Any self-respecting scientist knows this is a unique event on Earth. Every extinction event on Earth is unique. The timeline of the planet and the development of life on Earth puts forward a different dynamic with every extinction event. So, we know we are entering the six extinction and it is a unique event. So, unique that there was only one other warming event causing an extinction which wiped out 96 percent of all marine life.
But, to the study dictated by the Department of Agriculture in Nebraska, it REQUIRES competent and proven competent scientists with peer reviewed material to take hold of it and find the facts to either validate the premise or deny it.
We already know the evidence to support this as a cyclical event, as if this will go away within a reasonable period of time, doesn't exist. There is nothing that points to the climate of Earth in the condition it is today. The climate events on a daily basis have never occurred all at once, but, usually only as an occasion as a phenomena we recognize. There is nothing recognizable to this climate. We can find names and characteristics for every diagnostic method and we relate to the events as phenomena, but, the occurrence and frequency is not at all what might be called normal.
There are high levels of greenhouse gases in the troposphere, the water vapor is moving up in altitude, the storms more intense and the droughts profound. There is a lot of information across the state of Nebraska that are pieces to a global puzzle. It is there, but, scientists have to look for it. When looking for cyclical events the facts will disprove the premise and in that the reality of Nebraska's future. When the NULL HYPOTHESIS finds the premise wrong an alarm can go out to the people as to what everyone found and how important it is to act on the facts available.
Nebraska scientists are important people, we all want to hear from you. Nebraska is an important state and we all worry about the future of the people and economy there. Nebraska scientists should go forward bravely with their studies and fear no one in what they find. The facts will prove the truth and that is what science is based in. Science is trustworthy and it's conclusions can be damning. I suggest the study proceed and let the truth to the null hypothesis go forward. Peers will not think less of any Nebraska scientist as long as the facts are true, the methods sound and the conclusions based in scientific assessment. We all trust them to do the job asked of them and report the findings in a peer reviewed journal. The study can't go wrong, it can only reflect truthful findings and I am confident the people of Nebraska would find disdain if the study was anything less than the truth.
I'll write to peers tomorrow and reflect the distress the Nebraska scientists face and ask to advocate for a different and more open study, but, I wouldn't worry about conducting it. It will reveal the facts and a truthful conclusion. Cherry picking the facts is not allowed. That is not truthful methodology.
