Another day, Another Scientific Conclusion About Midwestern Climate Change
More data and analysis indicates heavier rainfall and other negative consequences for our region.
I've lost count of the number of similar items I've posted on this subject, having first heard this warning at a 2003 US EPA conference in Chicago.
2 comments:
I believe we are harming the environment and should take wise steps to curb our impact. But I have trouble buying into the Global Warming THEORY.
Yes, there are current measures that "substantiate" warming theories. But our 100+ years of measures are statistically small. Are the observed weather changes statistically significant due to a special cause (i.e. Global Warming theorists claim humans are the source), or merely common cause (i.e. noise, which is variation inherently part of the earth's weather)?
Yes, we have predictive models. But, I have trouble believing 1-100 year climate forecasts when the same technologies cannot accurately predict the current week's weather.
A few decades ago, researchers claimed we were headed for global cooling. Today, it is global warming. Predictions are only as good as the extremely complicated inputs and the corresponding software. What is the certainty that the inputs or software itself is correct?
The only thing the article's opinion demonstrates is that when an opinion is expressed often enough, it is perceived as fact by those who want to beleive it.
to TWW:
One reason that there is so much agreement about human-caused global warming is that greenhouse gas emissions are so high today - - not just measured as you say against 100+ years of scientific data, but also using data obtained from polar ice and ocean core samples dating back 90,000 years.
Post a Comment