wwittman wrote on Sun, 28 January 2007 16:42 |
From the UN report do out this week:
"Next week's science report will say there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet,..."
I guess they are convinced because they are "not familiar with atmospheric science" in comparison to you.
right?
or they're all just "anti-business".
Some scientists are "convinced" smoking is bad for you either.
We call these "shills"
|
Please tell me you are not quoting the UN after reading Socrates post revealing the incredible amount of money driven science?
How many UN science reports would you like?
The entire global warming debate seems a bit like asking an entire orchestra to play different pieces all the while retuning and expect everyone to end up on the same note.
Ain't gonna happen.
A very important word never mentioned in Al's wonderful movie is "parameterization"...
Until science can come up with the equivalent of A 440 then I think the best course of action is for everyone to recycle, use as few petroleum products as necessary and stay away from tossing virgins into volcanoes (which happen to be the bigger culprit in aerosol manufacturing)..(volcanoes, produce more aerosols although virgins may add to the amount of aerosols purchased they do not make them)
Reality says to wait until Feb.
Why Feb.?
Because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will issue their report then.
Frankly the UN is no longer an unbiased source of anything, let alone science, its a bit like asking Congress if they should give themselves a raise.
Parameterization... look it up it is the key to this Pandora's box.
There is no way a scientist can determine which parameters to use without entering some sort of personal bias into the model.
Impossible.
And given that the effects of global warming are just as hard to predict as the evidence how are we certain that global warming is a bad thing?
What if global warming produces crops for starving Africans?
Is it such a bad thing?
What if the worst effect is we lose some real estate in Florida but millions of Ethiopians get to eat instead?
How do you quantify the results?
What if the hockey stick is a good thing?
Al Gore does a wonderful job creating alarm, but we still do not know if the outcome is good for the planet, it only seems bad to us because the alarm was meant to target a certain audience.
What if global warming could create a a climate in the Mideast that allowed huge crops of corn and wheat so that the current displaced young men could be working farms and saving the world by food production?
Wouldn't that be cool?
So until someone can define which parameterization we are judging this by perhaps the warning si a bit premature.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if global warming ended the wars in the middle-east?
And how can anyone prove that it won't?
Parameterization.
Lets see the equation before we judge the sum.