HanKFranK
User
Reged:
Posts: 1841
Loc: Graniteville, SC
|
Re: Bill Gray
Sat Jun 03 2006 02:08 AM
|
|
|
i didn't take the achenbach piece the same way. he presented some of the ideas fronted by gray and his like as disheveled, or as sound bytes that don't stand up to scrutiny, or just as five cent answers to ten dollar questions. then again, the tack taken by opposing scientist and government entities that fund them, their contributions to the debate.. are just as shallow. what achenbach got to that rarely is presented are legitimate grievances with how the scientific community works--grant money=research=prescribed results. the results of climate change research are almost preordained. if they're less than stunning and groundbreaking (read: fodder for alarmism), then what is the point? when you take a method that is both highly proprietary, complex, and by nature erroneous as modeling the earth's climate system... and it gets sold as cause for massive economic and political changes, you're going to ruffle a few feathers. not that i'm quite as down on modelers. some sharp folks in that community.
of course, the results of the modeling are always different, just like modeling a few days worth of weather. but some scientists say it, the media likes alarming stories (and is usually quite cozy with the sociopolitical and economic agendas that go along with them)... so what's not to believe?
when you get down to it, track the money and political will on either side.. and you've got corporate interests on one side, and green socialism on the other. it wears down to a tiresome political debate; both sides have their minds concluded. nothing out of the ordinary.
i'm probably just as guilty. to me global warming is just something that is happening. human influence is inevitable, but i doubt we'll change the world more than it has changed in the past. and it is true.. a warmer world is a wetter world is a greener world. ice ages suck.
as for hurricanes getting stronger.. their strength and distribution may change some. but the historic record used in all that recent research is too short to mean squat. way too many biases and inconsistencies. just like climate models... too many missing/malfunctioning parts. pick a trend, pick a wiggle... extrapolate anything you want.
my mind is concluded thus far. nothing has been proven or disproven that can't be discredited. global warming is real, but is it something to wet yourself over? a lot of people may claim to know...
HF 0708z03june
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Edit
Reply
Quote
