Re: OT: NASA quietly corrects GW data

In article <lo5cc3hsdtbehu44m72b3h2c6igi2u4f7p@xxxxxxx>,
Calgary <actual.rider_remove_the_obvious_@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:26:08 -0700, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


As I stated in an earlier post, the debate is not over. It never will
be.

Well, let me ask you a question. Could you, in principle, be made to
change your mind, given the right evidence? Given that you could, what
would that convincing evidence be? (Never mind arguments such as that Al
Gore is a fat-assed limousine liberal; we all know that's beside the
point.)

Although you may not agree, I'd like to think I have an open mind on
most issues. I am a stubborn cus though and do not adapt to change
very well. See our earlier discussions on Gay Marriages for proof. :-)

I do support reducing consumption, looking for alternate forms of
energy, recycling etc. I practice recycling all the time and try to
reduce consuming non recyclable products as much as I can.

All that said it would take a very compelling argument to tip me off
the fence and into the "Sky is Falling" camp. The kind of drama being
sold by Al Gore and others just doesn't sell to me.

What would convince me? I am not sure. Maybe someone who could lay out
definitive evidence, in laymans terms, about what is happening and
predict all of the effects both negative and positive.

Please visit http://www.realclimate.org
I am trying to find another site that just lays out the bare facts; this
one is somewhat reactionary to current news about the subject, but if
you dig, you can find the basic facts.

In short, scientists have noticed recent changes in the weather that are
parts of alarming trends. They have identified specific ways in which
human industry has either caused or added to those trends. They have
duplicated in laboratories and computer simulations every step of the
physical processes that lead to these changes in the climate. "They" are
actually lots of independent labs with different ideas on what's
happening, with different hypothesis about this and that, and different
experiments and simulations ... yet they keep coming up with the same
overall results.

Wait. I still don't believe in gravity. You haven't proven to me that it
works on a Craftsman 16" 2lb hammer. Ouch! Well, I guess it does work on
that, but I'm still not convinced. Where does it say in your "theory" of
gravity that it will work on a 30" Sony HDTV? Ouch!! Oh. Well. Um. I
still don't believe it. What about that lawn mower over the-


Then they would
have to recommend a remedy based on logic and common sense that is
actually achievable. That remedy could not include any kind of a cap
and trade system. It would include actual reductions of intensities,
not a massive movement of money.

"The solution" is going to be tough, both to figure out and to get
everyone to agree. I'll give Al Gore credit: he does say that "the
solution" is going to be many things.

For me TW it is as much a matter of credibility as factual science. I
can't fairly judge the science. It's not my field of expertise. I have
to rely on how credible the source is. There are so many flaws in the
Kyoto Protocol's recommendations it just doesn't pass the giggle test.
Countries and industries could meet their targets without actually
reducing production of greenhouse gasses. Hell they could actually go
up and still receive the gold star from the Kyoto group. Right there
Kyoto lost me. If their remedies are not credible why should I accept
their science without question and all of their contributing
scientists get tarred by the same brush.

The reason is that while the problem was revealed by scientists, the
solution was proposed by politicians from a lot of countries.

Further the remedies should not target specific industries with the
intent of crippling them.

Well, that's not the intent. Look, the whole horse industry got crippled
when they realized that horse*** was clogging the streets. When people
said we have to motorize, the intent was to get rid of the horse***.
Farriers and stableboys were not targeted to be made unemployed. Maybe
there were some wackos who hated farriers and stableboys and saw the new
oil and automobile industry as a way to ruin every last one of those
hose lovers. But somehow I doubt that was the overall intent.

Clearly reducing production of greenhouse
gasses is a consumption issue. For instance, let's shut down all the
refineries in North America. Right there we have reduced our
greenhouse gas production.

Well, that's an insane proposition, and I'd be entertained to learn who
seriously promotes it.

No where near enough to meet Kyoto but it
is a reduction, but if we just import the same amount of refined
product those greenhouse gasses are still being produced, just not
here. The result is tens of thousands of lost jobs, massive loss of
revenue without addressing the problem.

Well the way climatologists look at it, the changes in climate will
accomplish similar economic disasters.

Example number two. Cattle are the largest producer of greenhouse
gasses in Canada. Say we slaughter all the cattle including dairy
cows. That would get us much closer to our Kyoto target, but would not
reduce greenhouse gasses one iota if we just imported the same amount
of meat and dairy product from the US.

Again, an ill-thought-out solution presented as an argument to, what,
discourage any solution?

If the fear mongerers predictions are true it is a global problem and
no country should be excluded from the remedy.

You are absolutely completely totally unequivocally right about that. I
like to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and eat food untainted by
chemicals and pollutants, so in some people's books that makes me a
treehugging environmental wacko, but this portrait of "hate America
first" that people keep painting over the environmentalists is just
plain silly.

The problem is that Bush's policies have pretty much excluded the US
from the remedy, and the US is one of the biggest causes of the problem.
Per capita, Americans consume more energy than anyone else on the
planet, but the US is nowhere near the lead in finding ways to reduce
that consumption while maintaining reasonable standards of living.

OK enough of my ramble. As I said earlier it is as much a matter of
credibility as science to me.

Best I can do TW.

Fair enough.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.

Loading