 n2sooners says: “In the last few months,” Mr. Gore said, “it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter.” But he was being too modest. Thanks to availability entrepreneurs like him, misinterpreting the weather is getting easier and easier. It should be noted that the author of this article, John Tierney, is a conservative libertarian. Thus it begs the question, is John Tierney's article a reflection of science or his politics? Some words left out of the clip "the next to hurricane season were relatively calm - BY SOME MEASURES" Mr. Tierney cites Professor Roger Pielke in his article to support his claim of alarmism but let's look at what Dr. Pielke has said about global warming as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am persona... Oh yeah, wanted to make a point about the misleading statement of year 2007 being "cooler" than 2001. So what, all the years since 2001 have been hotter than the 1961-1990 global average. Every year since 2001, including that year, has made it into the Top Ten warmest years, and 1998 was the hottest of all, whereas the last time that a year fell below the 1961-90 global temperature average was in 1985. 1998 was NOT the hottest year on record. And six of the top ten hottest years occurred in the 30s and 40s. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of the global warming agenda. Okay, let's not let facts get in the way that the scientific expert that the articles author cites firmly believes in man made global warming. The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting fromA few things came to my mind reading this quote. The IPCC has concluded eh? Allrighty then...now we can shut down the computer models and re-direct the research grants to other areas. Done deal right? "important driver"- how important? ALL other natural emissions and drivers have been accurately accounted for and fully (or even basically) understood then? "on this basis alone" - hmmm, I might think a scientist would... relatively calm - BY SOME MEASURES"Of course it's by SOME MEASURES! What the hell do you think the article is in response to?? The OTHER MEASURES. If it was by ALL measures then there wouldn't be this disagreement in the first place. It seems that habitually, B.R., your contentions are about things either irrelevant, or are so elemental, it's like preparing you to r-e-a-d first. Only THEN may you approach the question posed by the clip — Comment removed by clipper — Hey n2 - do me a favor and remove my last comment about the averages. My logic was flat wrong. It never said "85 was the only year below. My karma for the 'preparing bobR. to r-e-a-d comment, I guess.  I think I am one of the few people who actually reads the articles I am commenting on. What I recall was a bunch of people scoffing on the prediction of hurricane activity for this year and then stating how their points were proven because, nothing hit the U.S.. The commentary that I heard was that in totality this was a high activity year. So what I am pointing out is the selectivity of the authors arguments. Thank you for your concern Davboz. I still can't figure out why it has become a political issue. It's a science issue at core, but with effects on the money supply to big producers of greenhouse gases. Let technology solve it. Nevertheless, for those that think it's a sham of some sort, a conspiracy... take a look this short vid. entitled, The Most Terrifying Video. (It's not that terrifying but you'll get the logic..): |
View the Top Clips from January 1, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
