Big, Big Time Poster
Originally Posted by Bill R.
Well, novels are (by definition) fictional, so no argument there. As novels go, Crichton's "State of Fear" wasn't that great. That said, my reference to it was actually to his plentiful footnotes and cites, rather than his writing, per se.
In such footnotes and cites, he incorporates (among other things) historic temperature measurements from various places around the globe. I recall that US Military Academy at West Point being one of them, using the same thermometer for ~150 years. In other words, there are accurate data points from reliable sources on daily temps, and these could be verified independently of Michael Crichton, or whoever. Anyway, one of the popular global warming claims is that modern cities are generating "heat islands" or hotspots on the planet due to too much concrete, asphalt, reflectivity, heating & airconditioning, etc.. These urban hotspots reportedly are heating the planet. This notion sounded pretty reasonable to me, until Crichton et al pointed out that actual daily temperature measurements in various cities did not show the daily temperature to be going up significantly. Some of them actually dropped a bit. WTF? How could these be big hotspots if the daily temps are not going up?
And regarding "the most current available science who's statements and claims are for the most part in complete agreement with 99% of the reputable climatology experts out there" consider the following: "Reputable climatology experts" including the National Weather Service, local and regional weathermen on TV and radio, the University of Washington, and others were just 6 weeks ago telling us here in the Pacific Northwest that El Nino was back, and that the normally cold and wet months of November, December, January, and February were gonna be warmer and drier than normal. So, how much warmer and drier did November turn out to be, right after the "reputable experts" made their predictions? Well, as of mid-November, it was already the wettest November on record. By the end of the month, it was the wettest month ever recorded here, with a blizzard and frozen traffic into the bargain. Not the wettest November, the wettest of ANY of the 12 months since since records were ever kept. So, if the "reputable experts" could not predict the month-long November 2006 monsoon/blizzard just 3 days before it happened, exactly how much faith should I place in their judgement?
And, further consider the following: 2005 was a horrendous year for hurricanes, culminating with Katrina. At the time, the experts attributed this to global warming, which mean higher sea temperatures. 2006 was supposed to be even worse, given the thermal trend line. So, if there were ~15 hurricanes in 2005 and the sea temps. going up, exactly how many hurricanes did we have in even hotter 2006? 16? 18? 20? Nope. Not one big storm hit the US. So, what happened to the prognostications of the climate experts?
Ever hear of Paul Ehrlich? He was the big expert on climate when I was in college a few decades back. At the time, he was predicting either global cooling and a new Ice Age, or overheating of the planet such as to melt iron, due to overpopulation. No ****. This was all supposed to happen by ~1995 to ~2000. Well, the big expert turned out to be flat wrong.
I'm no expert and don't play one on TV. In an earlier life, however, I did fly r&d missions on EC135 aircraft, carrying scientific crews in the back end from NASA and Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. We looked at solar eclipses and other phenomenon. We also worked on developing a post-apocolypse communication system using meteor showers to bounce radio waves, in case the Russkies nuked our telecommunications systems. Anyway, on these missions I had a chance to talk with various PhD types in the back-end crew. The LASL guys were gathering data on sunspots, which run in 11 year cycles, with consequences for world agriculture. In those days we were selling grain to the USSR, which could not feed itself. China was a basket case. So, global ag. was geo-strategically vital, hence the government funding for the LASL solar eclipse data. Bottom line: The PhD types from NASA and LASL (one from Harvard) were all scratching their heads on the effects of sunspots, meteor showers, etc.. and frankly did not know what to make of any of it. To this brew, add volcanic eruptions, etc..
My personal but unschooled layman's suspicion is that human interference via industry, tailpipe emissions, clear cutting, and general overpopulation is making a big dent on the environment. This, coupled with natural and completely unpredicable and uncontrollable natural phenomenon such as volcanic eruptions, sunspots, asteroids, meteor showers, forest fires, etc. may be making things worse for our climate. OTOH, it could be that our pollution is actually attenuating what nature may have been making even worse all by itself.
My personal but unschooled layman's suspicion also has it that we may in fact have serious climatological issues to deal with, and should not be passive on our search for the truth and for viable attempts at remedy. That said, I'm also skeptical of the so-called "experts," whose track record is not as hot as their weather predictions.
If I had my druthers, I'd reduce the world population by ~2/3, go to high tech but clean industry for the remaining ~1/3 of the population, and treat nature a lot more nicely. But, I'm not the emperor and don't have any suggestions on who should be.
Last edited by Dash01; 12-12-2006 at 03:53 PM.
Well I certainly hope you all are right about this because I don't want to live in a world that is anymore messed up than it already is. But for now you know where I stand. Also, if you indeed did do your research you know where the large majority (98%) of climate scientologist stand. We think you are wrong, but we hope you are right. I guess we will see. I never directly attempted to insult your intelligence, I just questioned it. Lay off. Good day.
Grand Master
As the misguided soul who introduced Michael Crighton's book into the debate, may I say that I was not referring to the novel's plot - the concept of the great unwashed being kept in a state of fear by governments is hardly new, no matter how accurate it might be.
My reasons for using it as an example was, as Dash01 has said, the climate data to which he refers in the text and gives footnotes to, appears to somewhat muddy the water as to what is absolute fact and what is, however well intentioned, hypothesis, on both sides.
What I was suggesting is that this debate is far from cut and dried, and anyone, from whichever side of the argument, that thinks they have all the answers to support their case is delusional.
My limited research on the subject has led me to more unanswered questions than any absolutes.
That said, whatever the motivation, decreasing use of fossil fuels can only be good for our planet. My concern is how we can achieve this in the developing world. It should, however, be readily achievable in the developed world, if governments just have some guts.
What I don't inderstand is this thought that if global warming is not occurring (and I am not saying that it isn't) then it should be business as usual.
Why can't we reduce CO2 emissions, reduce fossil fuel dependence, plant more trees......etc etc, anyway.
Surely "cleaner" energy should be embraced for itself, not just seen as a begrudging necessity to be adopted in the face of an environmental armageddon.
This is my biggest gripe with countries like Australia that have become massive importers of all sorts of manufactured products from the third world without a moment's thought to anything other than its ability to produce these items at a cheaper price. Certainly not cheap in environmental terms.
Perhaps we were already doomed the moment we invented the wheel !
"I'm not the village idiot.
But when he retires I'm next on the list."
Grand Master
I don't know where you got the idea that I agree or diagree with you.
Just a thought.
EuroLux:. Private Detail
E34 1/'89 ///M20 2.5i: Lachsilber
I may be inferring too much information. So what is it then? In my mind there is only one rational option... But we all already knew that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote