Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanPlunk
(Post 1651)
Clearly you don't understand the concept of global warming. Global warming is an upward trend over time. A year over year drop really means nothing. It's like looking at humans over the last hundred years and saying evolution doesn't occur. These things take a VERY long time, but it's important to look at the data over the long haul. I'll admit though, global warming is a tough thing to measure, the data is all over the place and I don't think we have a totally clear picture of what's happening yet. I DO believe we are causing a warming trend though and should act responsibly to try to reduce CO2 as much as possible.
|
Clearly you don't understand the assertion I was making.
At the risk of being called a Holocaust denier, the point is that the models used to back up the global warming hypothesis (because there is no statical equivalent of control data sets, like planets nearly identical to Earth but without human civilization, there is heavy dependence on computer models) predicted strong continuous trends, in no small part because CO2 RETAINS HEAT in the atmosphere. More importantly, the sudden comparatively massive shift downward in the last year is NOT explainable within the same models used as the basis of assertion,
which by definition means the models do not represent a complete and accurate understanding of the phenomena being modeled. Does this in and of itself mean that anthropogenic global warming is a total farce? No. But for the love of Christ it's relevant, and you want to talk about spin to downplay it. Emotional science is no science at all.
Basically, and this is where I get a bit offended, we are asked to put near complete faith in the models when they support desired outcomes, and intellectually (to be generous) assaulted with something more like religious fervor than rational discussion when daring to even raise suspicion based on rational observations.
I've said it once, I'll say it again. There is a crossing point most people can agree on. Clean power generation and use is an inherently good idea. After that, reducing CO2 production in economically viable ways is acceptable to me, even though I'm suspicious about how useful it is. However, going full-tilt nuts on reducing CO2 production seems catastrophically unwise. Finally, if for no other reason than China, India, to say nothing of South America and the likely future of Africa, even in extreme case scenarios man-made CO2 production will only increase for the foreseeable future. Note I said extreme case. Let's keep in mind that Japan, home of the supposedly modest Kyoto protocols, didn't come anywhere near their target reductions. And they try hard.
Oh, what do I think global warming is a lot about? This is
a reasonable overview from those right wing industrialist bastards at EcoWorld.