Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: fredfighter@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:28:28 -0700
On Jun 4, 1:49 am, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<fredfigh...@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 youcalibratethe models without data?
You cannot.
Nor can you calibrate a model with data from outside the
range of applicability of the model.
We have good data going back for about a century and
fair data for a century before that. Farther back, conditions
become considerably less certain, and what is known
indicates that there were pretty different.
....
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?
You've been thinking.
--
FF
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Scott Hedrick
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- References:
- NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Stan Marsh
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Scott Hedrick
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: fredfighter
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Scott Hedrick
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: fredfighter
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Scott Hedrick
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: fredfighter
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Scott Hedrick
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: fredfighter
- Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- From: Scott Hedrick
- NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- Prev by Date: Re: ATSP Launch Abort Mode
- Next by Date: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- Previous by thread: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- Next by thread: Re: NASA's Griffin smoking crack?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
