Quote:
Originally Posted by Azred
I don't care about the Heartland Group or their political leanings whatsoever because they are not the ones who did the research. NASA did the research and I don't think any rational person could claim that that organization engages in "junk science".
|
Actually NASA collected the data. The part of research which involves analysis and interpretation was not done by NASA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azred
On this topic I have raised these points for the past several years:
1) alarmists overestimate our ability to impact global climate. According to the reports and predictions that were coming out 20 years ago, by now there should be no ice in the Arctic and the oceans should have risen at least a foot...neither of which has happened. Also, the predictions typically claimed 0.1 degree rise in average temperature each year...which also has not happened. Finally, when one large volcanic eruption can alter global temperatures by an average of 2 degrees then our importance is clearly minimized.
2) climate science does not follow the Scientific Method because a) there is no "control" Earth containing no human begins against which to measure experimental results, b) the studies begin with the same flawed premise of "human beings are disrupting global climate" rather than reaching conclusions afterwards--this is backwards.
3) alarmists want to enact legislation based on their faulty findings because they think the United States is the only country hurting the planet. I would like to see them try to go force carbon dioxide emissions on China--that would be funny.
|
It's easy to cherry pick and find where people have been wrong. Being wrong is good, it's part of the process of how we develop knowledge. It's doesn't change the fact human impact on the environment can be and is quite alarming, catastrophic, serious, pertinent, deadly...
We know this by the method of common sense. It is as it was. We can go look at it. For example April 2011 National Geographic article notes research into the acidification of the coral reef environments caused by Carbon Dioxide being absorbed in the ocean. It wasn't happening before and it's killing shit now. It's not the end of the world, but it is serious.
I guess pollution probably doesn't matter to people who ascribe to the belief that the Climate is divinely immune to Human endeavors and simply fixes itself. There really is no argument against such magical irrational thinking other than to point out it is. There is danger in such stupidity.
Extremists on one side scoring points against extremists on the other creates nothing but a bunch of useless noise.
Does using NASA data to write an article which can be summed up with a tongue in cheek as "repeatedly mocking a group of environmentalists referred to as alarmists in order to say we told you so and I'm right" help obscure or highlight the middle ground where we find correct analysis?