Caveman wanted a reason why one should be cautious when using/comparing temperature records. I think you'll all find this site interesting reading http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport spring09.pdf
I find it funny when folks say the cooling scare of the '60s & 70s didn't happen. I lived thru that, was at the University of Michigan (66-69) where my professors preached it and they too blamed man...but for a different reason. Their theory (which made sense) stated the cooling was being caused by all the particulate matter being emitted out of industry smokestacks reflecting much of the Sun's incoming radiation. The Clean Air Act of 1970 began the clean up of that kind of pollution and remarkably, the less soot & smoke in the atmosphere, the warmer the temperatures got. Reading everyone's opinions has remind me what I said a while back...there is SOME truth to BOTH sides of the argument. It is not all black or white. What the AGW people can't prove is that CO2 is the DRIVER of the recent warming CYCLE. They are modelers, not chemists or physicists. They have fit a THEORY to the data...except the data is less than accurate & ,now we know, has been fudged. Regarding WMO, AMS and other organizations coming out supporting AGW, remember the National WEather Association was formed back in the 80s because the AMS was dominated by academia and OPERATIONAL meteorologists could not get their papers into the AMS' various peer-reviewed journals. That too has come out in the leaked e-mails.
P.S. More rain is coming by late PM Friday.
5 comments:
Yeah, but from my experience, anytime you try to talk to someone, they try to make you feel like an idiot for not just agreeing. I took a stance on Global Warming, and if anyone can say it's true and back it up as anyone can back up that stop light is red with no argument, I'll be fine paying taxes to support change. But nobody can prove anything. It's like discussing politics with an uneducated person, people are just repeating what others have said and have no foundation of back up.
You're very brave for posting your honest opinion on the subject, Bob. I agree, I believe there is truth to both sides of the story.
I agree with Bob in that there is some truth on both sides of the global warming issue. The problem that exists is that the extremes on both sides drive the issue. Let's face it, at this time we only derive around 2% of our energy from alternative sources, so it's not logical to think that we can discontinue fossil fuel use over night. By the same token, that's not to say that we can't do MORE to conserve and spend this useless energy on debate and direct it to things that both side agree on. We all agree that we should be more independent from foreign oil sources. We can move towards that by continuing to develop alternative sources AND tapping our domestic resources. A major problem is that we are prevented by left extremist environmentalists from doing this. California won't drill. Florida won't drill. They don't like harvesting oil and gas from shale sources. It's a never ending battle to tap our domestic sources. But, these same folks have no problem with getting it through Louisiana or destroying OUR environment. These are just some of the issues that prevent rational solutions.
If we could get past the extremists view that we should punish those exceeding carbon limits and the opposing view that we can't reduce much less eliminate fossil fuels some middle of the road solution can happen.
Here's the facts. We WON'T eliminate fossil fuels in 10, 20 or even 50 years because of the lack of development of alternative sources. And by instituting punishing and economically destroying taxes and policies won't solve the problem.
But, by giving INCENTIVES (tax incentives) to conserve and develop alternative sources, we would encourage this progress without crippling the existing system.
I always had this question, Bob is there a bed for those late nighters in the weather room
AP now reports that they have gone over all those "leaked and stolen emails" from England and while they don't like the fact that any info may have been withheld etc nothing in them changes anything and that the weather data overwhelmingly still supports global warming...
Post a Comment