Originally Posted by
250 or point 65
So, when the media takes one bit of information, like a crash, and calls the entire aviation system unsafe, we get all up in arms because we know that LONG TERM data says it is safe.
ONE month of record cold temps is enough to make an entire decision on global warming? I'm not saying global warming is or is not happening. What I'm saying is that it is not smart to say "Well that's it, the science is settled..." based on one month, in one state.
This is my only argument in favor of attempting to reduce emissions (not supporting any specific means of doing that). We know that the smog that we put in the air is not good for the environment. It depletes the ozone, etc. I think we can agree that it is harmful, whether its causing global warming or not. That said, shouldn't we take steps to reduce the harm we are causing the environment? I didn't say, shouldn't we take steps to harm our environment at the cost of harming our economy, but shouldn't we look into steps that work for us and the economy? Wind and solar power, better insulation of homes, and other things that make us more efficient?
250 or .65:
Your crash metaphor is exactly on target--logically and in any practical sense. On science and meteorology websites there is a saying that "weather is not climate".
The problem is that this rule seems to work in only one direction. Record cold? That's the weather. Record heat? Global warming.
I'll give you an example. Last winter, in late Jan there was an exceptionally cold airmass over the northern US. A weather station showed the lowest temp EVER recorded (any day, any year) in the state of IL. This record was disallowed by NOAA because it was recorded by an ASOS. This spring, or early this summer, records were set in Honlulu for high temperatures. These records were crowed about in the local media as evidence of global warming. Of course you've already guessed that they were recorded by an ASOS. I will provide you links to these items should you be interested in reading for yourself.
As to the statement that "the science is settled". I was trying to be ironic by pointing out the ridiculousness of the concept of settled science. Physicists can make observations about electron energy states and confirm Planck's constant to 34 decimal places, yet Quantum Theory remains "just" a theory. Climate modelers fill a computer program with their own assumptions, jimmy it so that it agrees with what has already happened, then let it run and state with a straight face that the predictions of the computer program are somehow incontestable.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to reduce carbon emissions, we have been doing it for centuries. Think about it--up til 500 years ago in the west (and some places today) wood was the primary source of energy. This is the most carbon intensive choice available. Then the transition to coal, and to natural gas each having less carbon/hydrogen than the other. We have been transitioning from a carbon energy economy for a long time without the supervision of governmnet. It will happen as efficiently as our economy can do it.
There is nothing wrong with alternate energy sources except that they are not efficient enough to use, for now. Subsizing windmills, batteries, and solar power now retards their development into more efficient forms in the future.
One other thing. In the original post, I put the comments by the big girl up to demonstrate how biased the reporting is on this stuff. Imagine a different woman from the other end of the political spectrum (say the former GOV of AK) spouting some bilge about how her flights were smoother now that global warming had subsided. I think that would be 24/7 news coverage for a week.
WW