I was amused to read the editorial in Friday's paper that equated flaws in the predictability of short-term weather patterns with the perceived flaws in the theories of mainstream climatology.
It should be noted that meteorologists study the conditions of the atmosphere over a short period of time and that climatologists study chemical changes in the atmosphere over the course of centuries. Climatologists work with averages and measure the rate at which naturally occurring chemical compounds are present in the atmosphere. Meteorologists stare at clouds and make guesses.
Another big difference between the two areas is one of learning; most meteorologists merely have B.S. degrees while most climatologists have PhDs in the areas of physics, geology, mathematics, and/or ecology.
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere can be objectively measured. The course a rain cloud takes in a span of 24 hours cannot be predicted with any mathematical certainty.
The author of the editorial opined that perhaps centuries from now our society will look back and consider the threat of manmade climate change to have been an example of the "arrogance of man." A better example of such arrogance would be of an uneducated reactionary dismissing the objective findings of 98 percent of the international scientific community - you know, those idiots with the PhDs.
Ask yourself, who has more to lose, BP or a tenured professor at Murray State University? There's always going to be something for a professor to study. Coal on the other hand, well ... let's just say it doesn't exactly grow on trees, at least not without millions of years of decomposition in between.