Global Warming?
Yessir folks, it is here to stay. And we are going to spend $1 trillion and put millions out of work to "defend" against it. But let's have another brief look at "warming" that is "settled" scientific fact....
What is settled fact is that there has been no "warming" of the Earth in the past 10 years -- by anyone's measure. Even the IPCC's. At all. Yes, there has been glacier retreat -- demonstrable retreat and less arctic (as opposed to Antarctic) summer pack ice. That may be evidence of "change" but is not necessarily indicative of ANYTHING else. As previously stated, Greenland was not named such by Vikings with a delicious sense of irony -- and the population of the planet at that time was less than that of say, England today -- and what CO2 emissions?
In "fact," a reputable scientific institute has just come out and published a study that warns of a "temporary cooling" of the U.S. and Europe due to shifting oceanic currents that might last another 10 years or so. So let me see ... 10 years of cooling following 10 years of no increase to slight cooling would equate, on average, to 20 years of cooling.... OK, I got it. We are in grave risk of further global warming because of the CO2 and other emissions, while we (unfortunately?) enjoy a temporary cooling.
In "fact," The Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, stated that the temperature of the entire globe might stabilize for a while during the next decade. But only temporarily. The UK Met Office's Richard Wood is similarly keen to warn us of being too quick to dismiss the threat of global warming:``[t]hose natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'' Wood said in an interview. ``Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there's no global warming going on.'' You're right Mr. Wood. I just might erroneously think that. Thank you for reminding me.
Noel Keenlyside, a Leibniz associate, warns that cyclical or temporary fluctuations or variences may mask the warming trend in the short term. Wood agrees, saying, ``[n]atural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction,'' Wood said. ``If you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win.'' The only trouble with this I have is the notion of "model." Whose model? What are the parameters of this model? What data was used in the creation of this model? A model should relate to actual statistics ... and as Mark Twain (also attributed to Benjamin Disraeli) said, there are "lies, damn lies and statistics."
With that in mind (obviously), Leibniz almost declined to publish the study ... it was a little too "inconvenient" (pun intended). ``We thought a lot about the way to present this because we don't want it to be turned around in the wrong way,'' Keenlyside said. ``I hope it doesn't become a message of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics.'' The trouble here for Leibniz is that there is simply no other way to present the data, except for what it is and warn everyone that you don't believe the obvious conclusions, and you (and we should) choose to believe your model. And statistics.
Sort of like believing Hil-liar.
What is settled fact is that there has been no "warming" of the Earth in the past 10 years -- by anyone's measure. Even the IPCC's. At all. Yes, there has been glacier retreat -- demonstrable retreat and less arctic (as opposed to Antarctic) summer pack ice. That may be evidence of "change" but is not necessarily indicative of ANYTHING else. As previously stated, Greenland was not named such by Vikings with a delicious sense of irony -- and the population of the planet at that time was less than that of say, England today -- and what CO2 emissions?
In "fact," a reputable scientific institute has just come out and published a study that warns of a "temporary cooling" of the U.S. and Europe due to shifting oceanic currents that might last another 10 years or so. So let me see ... 10 years of cooling following 10 years of no increase to slight cooling would equate, on average, to 20 years of cooling.... OK, I got it. We are in grave risk of further global warming because of the CO2 and other emissions, while we (unfortunately?) enjoy a temporary cooling.
In "fact," The Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany, stated that the temperature of the entire globe might stabilize for a while during the next decade. But only temporarily. The UK Met Office's Richard Wood is similarly keen to warn us of being too quick to dismiss the threat of global warming:``[t]hose natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'' Wood said in an interview. ``Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there's no global warming going on.'' You're right Mr. Wood. I just might erroneously think that. Thank you for reminding me.
Noel Keenlyside, a Leibniz associate, warns that cyclical or temporary fluctuations or variences may mask the warming trend in the short term. Wood agrees, saying, ``[n]atural variations over the next 10 years might be heading in the cold direction,'' Wood said. ``If you run the model long enough, eventually global warming will win.'' The only trouble with this I have is the notion of "model." Whose model? What are the parameters of this model? What data was used in the creation of this model? A model should relate to actual statistics ... and as Mark Twain (also attributed to Benjamin Disraeli) said, there are "lies, damn lies and statistics."
With that in mind (obviously), Leibniz almost declined to publish the study ... it was a little too "inconvenient" (pun intended). ``We thought a lot about the way to present this because we don't want it to be turned around in the wrong way,'' Keenlyside said. ``I hope it doesn't become a message of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics.'' The trouble here for Leibniz is that there is simply no other way to present the data, except for what it is and warn everyone that you don't believe the obvious conclusions, and you (and we should) choose to believe your model. And statistics.
Sort of like believing Hil-liar.
Labels: Al Gore, global warming, Hillary, statistics
posted by Zaphod at Friday, May 02, 2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home