Kate is down in the States for a show till Monday. Guest bloggers . . . please feel free to make use of the SDA machine.
Good luck Kate . . . and Lucy who is looking to finish her American Championship.
Cheers,
lance
Kate is down in the States for a show till Monday. Guest bloggers . . . please feel free to make use of the SDA machine.
Good luck Kate . . . and Lucy who is looking to finish her American Championship.
Cheers,
lance
Kate is away in the USA! What’s the name of the mental institution!!
It’s called Reality.
kate has a pup called lucy. does the w-person know about this. LOL
anyway good luck at the showing. bring hold the gold.
arggggh…
that should read bring home the gold.
Can i be a guest blogger?
The following is an email reply to a few AGWers’ standard comments in a thread about the subject. The author is a highly experienced engineer writing in a technical forum that doesn’t discuss politics.
Having read the referenced articles, I find them less than satisfying to a
questioning mind, but rather condescending I started out as a general
believer in AGW, but skeptical of the projected results (I find the global
system way to complex and large, and I have generally found large, complex
systems to be way too big a “fly wheel” to be subject to relatively minor
disturbances. So, I studied the root data, how they were taken, looked at
the modeling. I came away convinced that there did, indeed, appear to be
a small anthropomorphic impact on the average northern hemisphere data
(data were way to spotty form the southern hemisphere to convince me).
Then, with the minor “correction” issued last year on the mathematical
means used to correlate and trend the data since somewhere around 1998 to
2000 through 2007, the anthropomorphic contribution suddenly became so
small that it is hard to claim. The data on CO2 concentrations and
average temperatures could be reasonably argued either way: CO2 rise
leading, or temperature rise leading. There have been the statisticians
arguing that it is indefensible to claim an average global temperature
(and that is indeed a challenge), and the data used have been greatly
skewed by N. American data. It has been interesting to see the increasing
number of “skeptics”, and many with substantial credentials, and not
funded by Exxon or any other energy company. It has been disconcerting to
me to hear that “there is consensus among the scientific community” and
“the science is closed” (either way), because that is NOT the scientific
method. I can supply names of very well respected scientists who are
“skeptics”, and many became such by looking into the record and data. And
they are not generally social scientists as in the UCS, but rather
meteorologists, climatologists, physicists, statisticians, and the like (I
might not qualify, as I graduated from University one to two classes short
of degrees in chemistry, physics, and mathematics; I just got tired of it
all!).
I am open to accept that someone willing to review the data supports AGW.
The data are not all that definitive. I challenge the models that have
been used to project temperatures or consequences, as they have been way
off for the last 10 years. So far, no observable or reportable
consequences have been outside of documented human experience of the past
(that I have been made aware of). i.e., the glaciers of the Alps have
retreated 3 times since the Roman Empire began to grow into the area of
Switzerland (see the displays in the Zurich Canton Museum, Zurich, for
instance).
I am, however, concerned about the things NOT being done. The earth is
probably in an overall warming period (ignoring the next 3 to 30 years of
general cooling). The respective governments should be spending money and
effort shoring up dikes and levees in Holland, New York City, NOT
rebuilding the damaged part of New Orleans (that part is not crucial to
the Mississippi river trade nor the transoceanic vessels, but is rather,
too low), not allowing any further development of low-lying coastal areas
anywhere (or allowing it, but not insuring it against floods),
discouraging further growth in Phoenix, Las Vegas (Nevada), the UAE,
Qatar, or other very dry and hot cities that do not have enough water
available to sustain the population without Herculean efforts (and I am a
native of Arizona and lover of deserts). The pH of the oceans is dropping
due to near saturation with CO2, possibly leading to significant die-off
of the coral reefs (there are theories and evidence that this happens
periodically), and the resultant havoc it might play on the oceans and
seas, and the repercussions on the earth.
A review of the more reasonable “pro-AGW” scientists’ work suggests that
we probably can’t do much about it anyway…. if we cut emissions back to
1990 levels of CO2, it will delay the onset of the highest temperatures by
10 to 50 years, and perhaps reduce the highest average global temperatures
by as much as 0.2-0.3°C. So, even rather draconian efforts with huge
costs to the people of the world (with a lot of people starving as we work
to get there), may be economic and social break-even. So, why not put
time, money and effort into working to adapt? I am, BTW, all for doing
what makes sense to make processes, equipment, and life in general more
energy and cost efficient, do what we can to minimize entropy and maintain
order, without being mandated such. I consider myself a true
conservative: make changes only after a good review of the situation, be
open to any new data, do not be wasteful, and let people take their own
actions and live with the consequences. I do not believe that government
has the right to tell me what to do; I do believe that government should
guide and oversee roads and transportation infrastructure, reasonably
assure interstate commerce, spend money on major research initiatives (the
nuclear and space programs are great examples). Those who like big
government tend to see the data the opposite way. There are no unbiased
reports. We all see things through polarized lenses, even when we try not
to. Just allow me to used my reasoned judgment to differ and don’t
consider me closed minded or stupid or uninformed.
Sustainability is whatever we decide we want to sustain. A brief review
of the laws of thermodynamics should demonstrate that. The closest things
I can see to “sustainable” and base-load reliable energy sources are 1)
hydro-electric, and 2) breeder-type nuclear. I am all for wind to help
out where it is reliable (the US/Canadian plains, the Alaskan coast – but
the line losses are so great that it doesn’t make sense to load up the
areas with turbines), and solar electric, again where it makes sense (some
residential and light commercial as secondary, limited heavy utility).
Making solar cells is still a dangerous process with the silica dust and
all!
Sorry for going on for so long, but the “deniers” need to be heard from.
We might be a minority, but we are not a trivial, uneducated, group of
rubes, and we can see the data!
*arggggh*…spike, are you also a dog? Be honest now. Speak.
Wishing you luck makes me feel like we’re friends!
PiperPaul: could you possibly give some references for the article? What technical forum is the writer commenting in? What are the writers credentials? Or better still, who is he?
Without these how can anyone refer to this very good discussion the author makes when debating with friends?
Gunney99: This is from a private forum. I’ll see if I can find and convince the author to release more information.
As we’ve heard, dissenting views on “certain topics” can ruin peoples’ lives.
When the experts quit getting tomorrows weather wrong, I’ll at least listen to their climate change guesses.
When the experts quit getting tomorrows weather wrong, I’ll at least listen to their climate change guesses.
PiperPaul, there was also a letter to the editor printed in the recent Engineering Dimensions magazine published by Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO), who displayed some calculations indicating that water vapour is many times the greenhouse gas that CO2 is.
Since John Cross claims to be an Engineer, I’d encourage him to write his own letter to the editor, with his credentials showing, refuting those calculations. I won’t corroborate the calculations ’cause I ain’t a Chemical Engineer (neither is JC).
http://www.peo.on.ca, Publications, Engineering Dimensions for July/August, Letters, Page 7, bottom right-hand side…you can access the PDF via the above instructions.
Good Luck to my friends Lucy and Kate!
I guess Kate is down south trying to help out the “Seven Year American Recession Watch Remains On High Alert”, because you know with a GDP frowth of 1.9% last month you just have to know the world is at an end.
Texas Canuck: “…because you know with a GDP frowth of 1.9% last month you just have to know the world is at an end.”
Not at an end, but not rosey either.
I could point out that:
– most economists are attributing the increase to the one-time $168 billion economic stimulus package and the continued weak dollar, neither of which are particularly good news; or that
– the 1.9% growth was still below market expectations; or that
– GDP is a horribly limited way to measure a nation’s overall health.
But you’ll just dismiss me as a leftard brainwashed by the liberal MSM.
So I will just point out instead that the almighty free market, which to some is the ultimate indicator of the prevailing economic winds, has responded less than enthusiastically to the latest GDP figures:
– forbes.com/markets/2008/07/31/briefing-midday-exxon-markets-econ-cx_ss_0731markets20.html
QE
“”””But you’ll just dismiss me as a leftard brainwashed by the liberal MSM. “”””
wouldn’t ewe have to grow a brain before it can be washed
PS; that would probably be a FIRST, a leftard with a brain:-))))
QE, I didn’t say it was all rosy but a growth is still a growth. It is more of the half full or half empty glass thing. They predicted more growth but didn’t get all they wanted: Is it a good thing or bad? I want a 7% wage increase but only get 3%. Is this a bad thing or not as good as I wished it would have been?
There are many ways to measure an economy and GDP is just one. When they refer to a recession that is one of the indicators they use, not just my definitions.
Besides, with all the MSM crying about the impending economic doom (for the past seven years) how can the average investor not be hesitant with their capital. This fact also slows the economy.
btw, I never thought about you being a “a leftard brainwashed by the liberal MSM” but if you want to wear it as a badge of honour then by all means do so but I didn’t call you that.