Posted on 09/01/2004 11:22:16 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
And then there are all those darned oscillations in ocean currents,with some of the harmonics having periods of millions of years. Oh, and let us not forget the fact that there is no such thing as a truly stable orbit (in the sense of there be no oscillations) or a truly stable axis spin. I think what we need is to fire all the climatologists and outsource their work to astrophysicists and geophysicists.
Also, compare the conditions of even many rural sites between 50 years ago and today. At most rural measurements sites, the population density (and hence, dissipation from homes) has gone up. Also, at such sites, dissipation from increased numbers of power lines and increased units of outdoor mounted electronics, lighting and even excitation of the water vapor in the air by greater and greater densities of RF and microwave energy (got cell phone?) have to increase average surface and near surface temperatures. The weather services of the US and other countries simply could not afford, under any circumstances, to maintain a vast array of weather stations miles and miles from the nearest roads, homes, utility poles and cell phone base stations.
It's full of fallacy.
They can't predict the weather for the next 48 hrs, why should I believe they can stabilize the climate?
"It's full of fallacy"
Hmm, a direct challenge with no explanation. You've clearly been around long enough to know I will now ask you to back up your statement.
Go for it.
BTT!!!!!!
LOL - yeah no kidding. Great point.
Several years ago the late John Daly did an extensive review of the errors in the surface record and he concluded that the weather stations that had been best maintained show little or no warming at all. The satellite record, which is confirmed by balloon soundings, bears this out.
such as the United Nations, dictator protector and kick back receiver?
Birth control is an extremely good technology to limit future carbon emissions and must be included, though deadly to socialism. Ocean seeding is a technology for massive carbon absorption. Plant nutrition is a two way street.
Okay, but let's just say, for the sake of argument that there is truly a global problem.
First, it is important to differentiate between a global problem and a universal problem. A universal problem is one that can affect anyone anywhere, but must be dealt with locally or regionally - such as water contamination, depletion of fish stocks, air pollution, etc.
Most of these problems have market-based technological solutions that can be adapted from location to location as soon as the population decides (when they can choose) that the costs are worth the benefits.
A global problem, on the other hand effects everyone at the same time and requires coordinated action - CFC's and the ozone issues, for instance.
How does one coordinate action on a global level without at least international agreements? And what good are agreements if there is no enforcement mechanism?
Obviously the carbon debate is very much on-going. But I do not see that statement as a bias because it advocates only what is necessary if nations were to choose to address the issue.
Unless of course you have a better suggestion for dealing with a given global problem?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.