Global Warming - Very niiiice
Science Daily posted this article over the holiday - Level Of Important Greenhouse Gas Has Stopped Growing: Seven-year Stabilization Of Methane May Slow Global Warming.
It says that ...
Looks like we didn't need to sign the biased Kyoto Accord after all.
Here is what other sites had to offer over the holiday weekend:
CNN.com Global warming already killing species, analysis says
ABCnews.com Confronting 'Forces of Darkness' on Warming
Yahoo.com Scientists: Climate change clues in sky
Earthsky.com Ocean Cooling a global warming "speed bump"?
msnbc.com High court to hear pivotal global warming case
Does anyone else see a pattern here? The Science Daily story speaks of change now. In our lifetime. The others talk of "in 50 or 100 years", or "man is bad". Granted, human emergence as the dominant species and subsequent development of society has affeected many things. Need we blame ourselves for everything? Couldn't "global warming" be natural, cyclical fluctuations inherent to the lifecycle of this planet?
Obviously global warming science must be sound as we have so many other planetary climate systems to draw on for reference . How can we speak of weather, warming, and/or cooling at a global level when my weatherman here can't tell me if its going to rain in 2 days.
Weather is a complex system. A chaotic system. Couple that with the diversity of millions of animals, plants, microbes, etc. living in complex dependant ecosystems and we see that no one can come close to analyzing the entire climate of the Earth. It may never be possible (read will never be possible).
What scientists are doing now is guessing. Guessing large answers based on small data. Making claims about "global warming" that cannot be substatntiated in our lifetime ("No more fish in 50 years", "Artic meltdown in 100 Years", etc.). The are simply attempting to scare us and grab headlines. Most likely to continue receiving the grants and funding they have grown accustom to receiving. Grants they now feel entitled to.
While I cannot say I fully disagree with some of the claims made by global warming alarmists, I would rather they stop presenting their research with shocking headlines when the conclusions reached from said research is vague and ambiguous - a guess. For me the jury is still out on global warming. I am really not too concerned with a 1-2 degree fluctuation in the Earth's temperature. Large volcanic eruptions in the past have done far worse damage than my minivan.
I will, however, continue to due my part from a conservation point of view and will cheer loudest when we lose our dependance on fossil fuel and convert to greener energy sources sources.
Just in case.
It says that ...
levels of atmospheric methane have stayed nearly flat for the
past seven years, , which follows a rise that spanned at least two decades..
This finding indicates that methane may no longer be as large a global warming
threat as previously thought, and it provides evidence that methane levels can
be controlled.
Looks like we didn't need to sign the biased Kyoto Accord after all.
Here is what other sites had to offer over the holiday weekend:
CNN.com Global warming already killing species, analysis says
ABCnews.com Confronting 'Forces of Darkness' on Warming
Yahoo.com Scientists: Climate change clues in sky
Earthsky.com Ocean Cooling a global warming "speed bump"?
msnbc.com High court to hear pivotal global warming case
Does anyone else see a pattern here? The Science Daily story speaks of change now. In our lifetime. The others talk of "in 50 or 100 years", or "man is bad". Granted, human emergence as the dominant species and subsequent development of society has affeected many things. Need we blame ourselves for everything? Couldn't "global warming" be natural, cyclical fluctuations inherent to the lifecycle of this planet?
Obviously global warming science must be sound as we have so many other planetary climate systems to draw on for reference Weather is a complex system. A chaotic system. Couple that with the diversity of millions of animals, plants, microbes, etc. living in complex dependant ecosystems and we see that no one can come close to analyzing the entire climate of the Earth. It may never be possible (read will never be possible).
What scientists are doing now is guessing. Guessing large answers based on small data. Making claims about "global warming" that cannot be substatntiated in our lifetime ("No more fish in 50 years", "Artic meltdown in 100 Years", etc.). The are simply attempting to scare us and grab headlines. Most likely to continue receiving the grants and funding they have grown accustom to receiving. Grants they now feel entitled to.
While I cannot say I fully disagree with some of the claims made by global warming alarmists, I would rather they stop presenting their research with shocking headlines when the conclusions reached from said research is vague and ambiguous - a guess. For me the jury is still out on global warming. I am really not too concerned with a 1-2 degree fluctuation in the Earth's temperature. Large volcanic eruptions in the past have done far worse damage than my minivan.
I will, however, continue to due my part from a conservation point of view and will cheer loudest when we lose our dependance on fossil fuel and convert to greener energy sources sources.
Just in case.
So, when most of the world's scientists agree on something, agree that it is dangerous and probably man's fault, you're still not worried?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge believer in doubt and in the power of man to overcome his many challenges, including himself.
But to say that over 90% of the world's scientists are wrong, even after years and years during which they themselves were skeptical and slow to draw conclusions or predict disasters, seems like folly to me.
There is a time to sit and doubt and a time for drastic action. I'm glad you are pro-green, and I'm glad you doubt.
But please don't be so quick to doubt even the soundest of research that you help the ignorant among us choose the path of "eh, I'm not worried, I'm not going to change my lifestyle or go green, it's not a big deal."
Whether or not we caused global warming, in part or in majority, the world is changing for the worse, and millions could die, and I, for one, would rather that we did our damnedest to change that than to suffer for lack of wanting to give a few greedy scientists grants they do not deserve.
Peace to the god within,
S.'.A.'.
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:50 PM