Environment & Energy

Demeter (73,480 posts) Wed Jul 3, 2013, 05:24 AM
1. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the hype any more

When I go to investigate the databases they are using to make such claims, I find that they have maybe 30 years' worth of measurements, in random locations.

People didn't used to have a good way to micro-measure the weather...there wasn't the technology nor the training nor the interest. People didn't obsess about the weather--they coped. They made contingency plans; they worked to survive by building community.

And even today there's uneven data recording, as weather satellites drop out of the sky, wars ravage significantly large areas, funding gets cut... and even now, the data collection process is still quite spotty.

When you want to track climate, 200 years is a good start, 2000 years might show a trend. We don't have that kind of data for the planet. We don't have that kind of data for even specific locations. Much of the historical data is uncorroborated and suspect when it is not incomplete or totally missing.

If we want to influence the weather, reforestation is a proven technique on all continents over thousands of years. But that basic conservation technique goes against High Finance and Big Corporate Plundering.


End the tyranny of Profit Uber Alles, and you will find that Climate is not the crisis that they want you to believe it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=48391

Demeter (73,480 posts) Wed Jul 3, 2013, 05:24 AM


...

I am referring to the fact that the science of climate is still not well-defined, and there may be unknown actors and agents in the world's climate system that

a) make mitigation unnecessary
b) make mitigation impossible
c) completely obscure cause and effect

And I say the science is not well defined because it cannot create an experiment, let alone a repeatable and verifiable experiment. The data that they are working with is anything but complete, as well, so they could be jumping to premature or totally off-track conclusions.

Archeology and climate science have a lot in common...they use as scientific a method as possible to collect their information, but they are history, not science.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=68069