Posted by: "Wild Sanctuary"
> Walt, and please note the the draft also included apriori hand-on
> experience reports of many living in different areas throughout the
> world. Greenland, for instance. The Antarctic, for instance. Sites
> all along the northernmost edge Beaufort Sea, for instance. Those
> aren't "computer models." Those are feet-on-the-ground experiences
> and measurements. The computer models are extrapolations of what has
> been seen/measured/weighed. The issues of CO2 are addressed in the
> draft, and in much more detail than what you're addressing. I'll
> stick with the conculsions in the report, thank you. And I'm not a
> very religious person (at least not the institutional type).
Note very carefully, I'm not saying the earth has not been getting
warmer, that's very clear from the ice core work and will happen even if
there is not a single human on earth. Or just observing the ice melting
is a clue. Actually some of that info looks like we may be at or very
close to the peak of this cycle and the gradual cooldown will be what
happens from here, wait a few tens of thousands of years and it will be
clear. What I'm questioning is the idea that humans alone can do this.
They cannot, no matter how big a ego they have about their importance.
No, I've not read the draft. But I'm pretty sure that the ordinary
person will be who get's hurt by what's done, not the wealthy or
powerful. They will just impose these things on us. I don't get the
feeling that it will be worth it.
The problem with the computer models is that they have so far as I've
been able to find out been only normed on a very short current time
period. Try extrapolating over the entire history of the earth and you
will find the problems. I used to make my living writing programs for
modeling air pollution and climate. I saw plenty of pitfalls. I also saw
base data being fudged and hidden in the computer code to meet the
conclusions of people with a agenda.
I'm not talking about organized religion. I'm talking about taking
things on faith rather than well done science. Ignoring parts of science
when they don't agree with our ideas. Science does not allow that,
religion does.
For that matter, global warming scare tactics dovetail right in with the
Armageddon of the bible. And I recently heard a statistic that 55% of
the people in the US believe the Bible is the only thing that's
perfectly correct. They want Armageddon, so, by extension want global
warming. Religion very much enters into this discussion.
Right now I'm involved in a national frog survey which has a protocol
designed to not find frogs. To prove that frogs are vanishing. Frogs do
have problems but not to the extent this will "prove" with lots of
people on the ground. I'm awfully tired of studies like this. Too tired
to try and counteract it with a study of my own, so I'll do what I can
to improve the data a tiny bit from within. (and that get's us back to
where this started, about a frog killing fungus)
Walt
|