BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Wizard of Woodstock

On Thu, 21 May 2009 07:00:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 21, 8:01*am, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
'It doesn't matter if the planet is cooling and plants need it to
live. We still have to ban carbon dioxide.'"

It amazes me that allegedly intelligent people just can't understand
the concept of balance.
The far right wing seems to think that hey, plants NEED CO2, so more
is better......
Kind of like humans need water to live, so if the world's ice melts
and the world turns to one big ocean with no land, we'll be good to go.

But that's just the point - the science isn't settled, nobody knows
what is or isn't happening.The highly vaunted MIT Global Model, out of
400 possible results, shows exactly 20 possibilities that end in the
drastic scenarios being promulgated - 20 out of 400 and the
assumptions made in the model are so outrageous that it defies
description.

James Hanson (Hockey Stick Theory) has been completely discredited,
proponents of doomsday scenarios can't even settle on a way to
describe this proported phenomenon and solar science is being
completely ignored as part of the equation.

Let's take your example as a "for instance". The Artic melts and the
waters rise a minimum of six inches to over two feet inundating the
worlds cities. Ok, but hasn't anybody heard of water vapor? There are
sound models that suggest that if anything, the world will become a
more soggy place from rain assuming, and that's a big assume, that the
entire ice sheet melts - which is impossible.

And let's take "temperature" creep. The core data samples used in a
lot of these models are taken from areas that are largely urban in
nature and mostly in industrialized areas of the world. The weather
station over at the Thompson Dam is a great example. It used to be
located in a woods - it's now sitting in the middle of a parking lot.
Bradley Field's (Hartford) weather system is located right next to a
building on the tarmac and surrounded by black top - it reads
consistently 3 degrees higher than any other reporting station in the
state, but it's the "official" reporting station and it's data counts.

And let's not forget that a large part of the world isn't sampled at
all.

Want to discuss the recent ASOS findings?

Let's be reasonable - yes, man does affect the environment - can't
argue that. Is it a good idea reduce air pollution, clean our waters
and try to act as responsible as possible? Certainly. Recycle, etc.,
good things and socially responsible. Got it - agree completely. I'm
all for gas milage - it only makes sense to reduce consumption
reasonably and responsiblity.

Demonizing an opposing point of view that is based on science and
takes a different approach to the problems isn't science - it's a
political approach and doesn't help any.