These scientists are not the ones saying that global warming is a scam . (another story about the weather channel founder) The scientists I am talking about are not the ones connecting the fires in California to global warming. Which has to be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.
I cannot believe that Bill McKibben has decided to take this route and connect global warming to the fires. Wasn't he one of the first to talk about global warming? He made himself out to be a genius until he does an interview like this and proves how retarded he really is. I found an article that articulates the response better than I could:
James M. Taylor says
"Attempts by activists to make the ongoing California wildfires a global warming issue are patently ridiculous. The modest warming of the twentieth century has resulted in moister soil conditions and reduced drought frequency and severity. Arguing that global warming is causing more drought and wildfires is like arguing that increasing crop yields is causing more starvation."
Yet the articles that get the most attention are the ones predicting gloom and doom and blaming man for it. These people are put on the news and get their articles published without any peer review of any kind. Any blog post that talks about cow farts adding to global warming or about planting trees, rises straight to the top of any social bookmarking service, no matter if they are true or not, no matter if they cite any references at all.
The actual science of global warming is quite a bit different than anything you see on the news. Everything matters! The global models that everyone talks about are horrible. There are so many thousands of variables to take into account and our biggest computers can only do a small percentage of them.
I recently talked to a modeler that works for FNMOC on the NOGAPS model. This is a global model that predicts the weather worldwide two weeks out twice a day. It is the best model for hurricanes, (which is what the navy cares about) but it is usually not the best on other variables. He was saying how they can get very good and accurate results for one atmospheric variable so, which one do you want? Of course I could not answer, if I choose precipitation then I could not have temperature or wind and so on. So, I asked about the equations of state. If you can get one then you can get the others right? NO! We often get the right results for the wrong reasons, because there are just too many variables and not enough computing power.
If that happens on a two week scale, then what happens on a 50 year scale?
I love science and I love that there is a debate on this issue because that means more grant money and better research. Why though is every scientist that is not emphatically on the "this is a man made problem" train, labeled as a denialist and their careers destroyed?
Science has to have debate in order to work, otherwise we would still be living on a flat earth. We have to have the other viewpoints in order to keep us from jumping off the deep end here. Desalinating the oceans or dropping tons of iron into the oceans -as Woods Hole scientist are discussing doing- has so many unseen consequences that would destroy earth.
I am all about polluting less and curbing our oil dependency -though I know a BP exec that would hate to hear me say so- and finding alternative energy sources. BUT, we have to be smart here and let the debate go for a little while.
Please quit labeling people as denialists! Hear them out. They may have the scientific evidence that saves us.
Blogroll
Hysteria List
View blog authority
⇦ Forecasts need to be more tactical | ⇨ Paper or plastic? Yes please |
copyright UpperWeather.com 2007-2008