Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?


<fredfighter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1180891339.265189.315000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Then he should be able to provide verifiable data to that effect.

I would prefer a sound theoretical basis for predicting the future.

That doesn't seem to be necessary for the global warming True Believers.


This would
require temperature data taken from hundreds of places over thousands of
years.

I disagree. Gathering data on climate change from periods of time
when conditions on the earth were much different from today is
useful,
but not so useful and one cannot so without it.

How can you calibrate the models without data?


There is no known analog to today's situation in the known geological
past.

Ol' Pat seems to think that ice cores are teh answer to everything.


Just *try* to get a grant
to show that humans *aren't* the cause.

I should hope that if you try to get a grant to show that humans ARE
the cause you will also be rebuked. Any grant proposal that
predicts,
its conclusion in advance of actually doing the work should be
rejected.

Should be, yes, but isn't. Even if some wants to do it right, if they don't
get the "right" conclusions, they don't get another grant. Global warming
isn't the only issue to be treated this way.


...

Here are the 4 important questions again: Is it real? Is it a problem?
Can
we do anything? Should we do anything? We don't have enough data to
answer
those questions.

Some people disagree with you. Mike Griffin disagrees with you on
#1.

In what way, since he doesn't know what I think about it?

Oh, my apologies, I was inferrring from scant data.

You were drawing conclusions. Learn the difference.



I disagree with you on 1, 2, and 3.

In what way? How can you disagree with me without knowing what I think
about
those questions?

Regarding 4, I am not clear

that
we have adequate theory to predict the long-term effects of our
actions.

Hence, the reasonable, rational, scientific person would not rush into
changing things.

However, we can and should change those things where the long-term
effects are understood. Slowing deforestation is one. Reducing
Carbon
emissions is another.

I think we should do a lot of things because we can and because they are
good ideas. I think we should reduce CO2 emissions- by we, I mean *the
entire planet, including the developing nations*, not merely the United
States- or find some way to use them, not because of global warming, but any
waste is inefficient. It's time to build more nuclear plants, *as well as*
increase the use of wind (even if it's in sight of Ted Kennedy's patio) and
solar *as well as* put more oil wells off the coast of Florida. We need to
find ways to make vehicles more fuel efficient *without* making them less
safe by reducing their weight. We need to build desalinisation plants *as
well as* develop more efficient plumbing and better ways of processing
waste. We need to greatly increase recycling, even if it costs us a bit
more-if we already paid to get stuff out of the ground or to make stuff, it
doesn't make sense to throw it away if we can use it again in a new way. We
also need to build transmissions lines and pipelines to make better use of
what we have so we don't have to build more plants simply because we can't
get what we have to where we want it- that is a lot of the problem
California has. Mostly, we need to find a way to show that "green"- *real*
"green", not simply "fashionable green"- is commercially viable. We need to
do these things, not because of global warming or other environmental
reasons, but because they are good ideas and the way we do a lot of things
now are wasteful and, damnit, where it's practical to make something more
efficient, we *ought* to do it- even if it *doesn't* fix global warming.

What do you infer from that?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NASAs Griffin smoking crack?
    ... That doesn't seem to be necessary for the global warming True Believers. ... waste is inefficient. ... It's time to build more nuclear plants, ... find ways to make vehicles more fuel efficient *without* making them less ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: more gw stuff
    ... our fossil-fuel-burning is causing global warming are being paid to do ... Finding a link to 'global warming' for your pet project is ... an academic publication. ... And no - I've never applied for a research grant myself. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Ice age?
    ... warming college professors and global warming will cure itself overnight. ... Global warming is caused by the SUN, just like the rest of life on earth. ... Magnetic Anomoly keeps getting bigger and bigger, ... all rang the alarms and grant applications poured into scientific grant ...
    (rec.boats.cruising)
  • Re: Sunspots hit new highs
    ... > You've applied for a grant to study links between sunspot activity ... Canada put up $70,000,000 in grant money to study global warming. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Sunspots hit new highs
    ... > You've applied for a grant to study links between sunspot activity ... Canada put up $70,000,000 in grant money to study global warming. ...
    (sci.physics)