"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
Then why would you believe the warming skeptics, Wes? They're
hypothesizing
one set of outcomes, and the proponents are hypothesizing another. Neither
one has stopped the earth to set up a controlled experiment.
It seems to me that you've thrown your hat in with some "scientists" who
have no experimental data to support their conclusions.
Neither one can prove their point.
I don't think you've accurately identified the two sides. The scientists say
that there is global warming caused by human activity, and they have
overwhelming evidence to back it up. They hypothesize what result may come
from that, and there is a wide range of predictions.
The deniers say none of it is true. They have nothing substantial to back up
their claims, except selective bits and pieces of data from which they've
concocted some stories.
Or is it not the scientists versus the deniers that you're talking about?
Which two "sides" do you see?
Over time, it seems like we are warming based on receding glaciers.
Now, let us consider that man is causing an increase in the trend. The
environmental regulator types want to put all sorts of caps on CO2 emissions
and basically destroy the economy of the western world.
The emerging world, including China and India, are not going to honor caps
on CO2. You likely have better numbers but I have a feeling that relative
to GNP, the emerging world pollutes much more than the US, Canada, and EU.
The skeptics seem to be able to find
weather monitoring stations that are compromised.
Ho-ho. Yes, seek, and ye shall find. Almost anything. d8-)
Well, if you are collecting data and the data collection point has issues,
isn't it valid to point that out?
If a data collection point is in an area where there is an inversion zone
that locks a high density populations emissions in place how should we
weight their data points? I do believe in local global warming caused by
man.
Some degree of warming is
natural. I live where there used to be glaciers. A bit further north
than
the following link.
Long term, I bet the weather is warming.
http://igs.indiana.edu/geology/ancie...thaw/index.cfm
Well, then, with whom are you disagreeing? It appears now that it's not the
scientists.
BTW, that link has virtually nothing to do with any of this discussion. The
issue is not the Hypsithermal or its effects on evaporation of Lake
Michigan. g
Glaciers receding in near history isn't relevant to this? I think the last
20,000 years or so is relevant to any discussion of climate.
Now, is it us? Or is it something bigger than our affects on the
environment? How about some damn big rock hit us from space in the past
and
we are recovering from it? Volcanic action?
How about it? Do you have some reason to believe it? Likewise, do you have
some reason to disbelieve nearly all of the legitimate climatologists in the
world about the subject of climate? I sure don't. I don't know how you
possibly would.
Legitimate by what standard? I'd like to know for every researcher where
the funding source is coming from. Who controls the money.
It isn't just energy companies that fund research in global warming. Other
organizations with their interests fund research. To get money, one has to
propose a line of research to a funding body. How that is presented likely
has a big impact on funding. I'd love to read some funding proposals to see
what the sales pitch is. Call me a skeptic but from watching the legal
system, I can say with some certainty, you can buy any opinion you desire.
I've heard a few say no matter what we do, the temperature is going to
rise.
Yeah, many of the real climatologists say that, too. They say it's too late
to stop it completely. Some say it's too late to even change it very much.
Well should we spend money on sequestering or start building dikes? Seems
the environmental crowd wants sequestering, I say build dikes since we don't
rule the world as far as emissions.
I sat in my car dumbfounded one night, I was listening to NPR and they had a
global warming believer talking about how we might have to bite the bullet
and build nuclear plants.
I thought, cool, as long as you are thinking this way to get rid of coal,
I'll pretend to agree with you. So far it hasn't gone anywhere.
Let us say the ones that say no matter what we do the temperature is going
to rise are right. Should we now stop letting anyone build on ocean
making
waterfront property basically worthless?
First of all, you've hit one of my hot buttons, because my father and mother
lived on a barrier island before his death and it was a constant source of
friction between us. His house was insured in a pool that drove *my*
insurance rates up, and I was ****ed. g
Well we are simpatico on that one. It seems like some of our government
backed insurance programs are encouraging expensive to repair/replace
development in risky areas.
I live in a place where other than snow, not much of anything exciting
happens. I don't think I should be in a risk pool with people that are 5%
certain to lose their homes. Just a number I picked out of my head.
As for which ones are right about whether coming temperatures are going to
rise to the same degree no matter what we do, I don't know which ones are
right. To me, the question is overridden by the question about whether we
*can* change rates of greenhouse emmissions in the first place. That's an
economic question, and I suspect not, so it's not an issue I bother with.
Why do you care if we can if it isn't certain it would help?
There are other reasons not to allow homes to be built on risky oceanfront
property. I'd be for it if they were insured strictly in their own pool, and
if all emergency services that serve them apply only to them and are funded
strictly by their own taxes. I'm not in favor of supporting the Coast Guard
and state marine police to rescue fools who live on barrier islands in
hurricane territory. IMO, the property is worthless to begin with. It only
has value because there are fools among us who want to build on it.
Agree.
I mean, if it is coming, might as well set up no build zones so we won't
have to deal with flood insurance and such. Too bad your property is
suddenly worthless. I guess we can squeeze that one in by saying soon
your
property is going to be navigable waters. Sorta how wet lands (mud
puddles)
got squeezed in.
My property is 117 feet above sea level, even though it's only six miles
from Raritan Bay, so I only joke about having a dock in my backyard. I would
not build or buy on a flood plain. That's for people who have been
shortchanged in the common-sense department, IMO.
I'm ~400 feet above Lake Michigan. Nice place other than cold. There was a
small tornado a few miles away though last year that took out a few
buildings. Fairly rare near the 45th longitude.
Btw, I looked at a graph of the last 2 1/2 years of my local temperature
readings from my weather station. The highs, don't look higher but the lows
are getting lower. May not mean a lot but my local experience is that
winters have been getting worse for me.
Wes