|
Termyn8or -> RE: Bastardi: Shift to Colder Climate Predicted Next 20-30 Years... (2/2/2011 2:11:02 PM)
|
FR
"MM hasnt had a sensible response to his points, he may go with herb, the advil proffered or all three (cold beer)"
Well here I am. I don't believe what the respected scientists say offhand, nor do I dismiss it. They claim to have global data which proves their point. Well they have had that many times and been proven wrong. So everything comes with the proverbial grain of salt.
The first thing to understand is the difference between weather and climate. I have difficulty finding the exact words. Climate is more an average, weather is temporary chnges in the climate. They occur seasonally. They also occur randomly. Climate does not even mean the whole planet, there is another word for that. It's not hard to see why people misunderstand it.
Now a climatologist and a meteorologist will be looking at some different data, but they will be interpreting that data differently. One's job is different than the other's. Alex Jones is neither, in fact many people are neither.
Now I have stated in a prior thread that the trend of "global warming" has been happening naturally for some time because of celestial changes. Because the topography of the Earth does differ in the southern and northern hemispheres the overall energy absorbed by the Earth from the sun probably differs due to the phase difference between the Earth year and the sidereal year. My conclusion may not be precise, but it does make some sense. Having seen the computer baed projections I say that we have been on a natural warming cycle for some time now, and are at the end of it. This is my theory and it may or may not be correct, but I have never heard any of these so called "experts" even attempt to address it. If I could email them perhaps I could put a bug in their ear and they might give it some thought. More likely they would consider it spam, as opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one.
In my opinion, when there is doubt, try to make a buck. Whatever can result in profit is the more desirable theory. This is why I digress from most "popular" theory. But that in and of itself does not make me right. Or wrong.
In my opinion, sufficient data are not available to be sure. For one, I haven't seen the actual figures on CO2 levels produced by Man in the industrial persuit. Sure figures do exist, but there is no comparison. It is possible that our contribution to this is negligible. It is possible that volcanic activity in the past was actually worse than anything we can do to the ecosystem in compare.
But on the other hand, we do burn a hell of alot of fossil fuel. This is converting matter to energy, but then the energy was stored in the matter in the past. Are we converting too much of it for our own good ? That is the root question here.
Now I will stipulate that the "experts" are competent enough to see that there is a trend here. But like anyone else, I will not accept their conclusions summarily, as if the are some sort of oracle because they have a crown of laurels. New discoveries disprove old theories all the time in human history.
So what is the truth ?
NOBODY KNOWS. Them, me, you, anyone. We have to see what is most likely, and for that we need details, and we aren't getting the right details. Everything is digested for us by the likes of laureates, crackpots and ogliarchs.
Now do you see the problem ?
T^T
|
|
|
|
