Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] [Way OT] Why the recent northeast blizzard was not, due to glob

Subject: Re: [OM] [Way OT] Why the recent northeast blizzard was not, due to global warming
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:01:51 +1100
Step sideways everyone. The arguments are all rather irrelevant.
Do a Pascal on the problem.

If it's caused by us and we do nothing, it gets worse.
If it's not caused by us and we do nothing life gets worse.
If it's caused by us and we do something, it may get better.
If it's not caused by us and we do something, there's a faint chance it may get 
better.

Doing nothing benefits those who are complacent about change, in the short term.
Reducing pollution is 'something better' even if it has no effect on climate 
change.
Pollution sees no geopolitical boundaries.


So what the hell are we arguing about? Let the credulous blame storms on some 
poorly understood 'global warming' concept. They needs someone/thing to blame. 
It's simple answers for simple minds. We're a community of reasonably 
intelligent people (I suspect that's the glue that holds the list together). I 
can remember when arguing in favour of climate change (which I was) was like 
yelling in a thunderstorm - it felt good but no-one was listening. Now it's 
taken on the mantle of Holy Writ. Doesn't make it any less real, just because 
it's become COWDUNG (the Conventional Wisdom of the Dominant Group).
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.soultheft.com
Author/Publisher: The SLR Compendium - http://www.blurb.com/books/3732813



On 21/02/2013, at 8:29 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:

> I have never said or even implied that climate change is not occurring. 
>  That's because I believe it is occurring.  This was not an attempt to 
> dispute that the earth is warming, it clearly is.  It is rather to 
> dispute claims which are made in the popular press about increasing 
> frequency and severity of storms (due to climate change) that have no 
> basis in scientific evidence.  In fact, the actual data show the opposite.
> 
> The only thing that could be considered a straw-man in my message is the 
> treatment of Sandy (a single storm).  All of the other data I supplied 
> covered either all tropical cyclones around the world or all hurricanes 
> in the US.
> 
> If I've given you world-wide data since 1978 or all US hurricanes since 
> 1900 how is that a straw-man?

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz