Registered: Oct 2006
08-15-08 08:22 PM
Quote from Thunderdog:
You have residences on two shorelines? Damn.
I think your observation, while interesting, is anecdotal and hardly conclusive. As for your reference to Knutson, I don't think it's as simple as all that:
And then, of course:
As for Gray, well...
Knutson's findings are important because if one proves negligible effect of a given then cause becomes legitimately in dispute. Warming theorists argue heating trends portend more frequent and more severe storms. Of course that view makes sense. Disruptive weather is warm air colliding with cooler. No one credible though sees higher incidences of “great storms”, flooding, erosion ect. Am I going to believe stories of melting glaciers to be true (tales I've been hearing for over a decade) when hard evidence from more verifiable locations shows a benign, if anything uneventful, environment? If auto emissions were actually heating up the polars would it not be logical questioning why at least the car happy, polluted San Fernando Valley isn't at least a few degrees warmer? Do carbon pollutants as they are released from an automobiles broiling hot emission system say to themselves “forget warming the city we were born in, let's boogie up the the North Poll and kill off some bears!” ?
The world trends warmer-it trends cooler. It's junk science and it makes formally unemployable meteorologists and researchers wealthy guys. For instance Gore's IPO's are worth well over $100,000,000. Great scam. Instead of focusing on the global importance of disaster preparedness we're chasing the unproven myth that suburban SUV's and Chinese factories are causing great floods and hurricanes. Whatever. It's a fad that “topped” around 18 months ago........