The ugly, racist thugs (AND the pathetic, gullible dupes!) at s.d.a. (http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006792.html) are crowing about some "report" by two climate-change deniers who have taken some pictures of weather monitoring stations to prove the uncontested charge that a number of these stations are in urban areas where they are subjected to building heat vents, air conditioners, and what-not. This reality means that global warming is a myth. (You can go to the link if you want to hear how this latest explosion of a smidgen of factoids supposedly demolishes the entire edifice of an influential scientific theory, I can't be bothered to translate it.)
I've said that I'm not sure if global warming is real or not and I mean it. It just seems that there's a lot of evidence that it might be real, and if it is real, then it means something really, really big. Much bigger than bush II's "WMDs in Iraq" that was known to be a myth by anyone with a functioning brain-cell at the time the myth was being propagated.
Also, given the intellectual and moral calibre of the climate-change deniers (bush II himself, the oil industry, the mouth-breathing cretins at sda, etc.,), I (personally) am going to lean in the opposite direction just to be on the safe side.
So, upon hearing about this latest offering, some "facts" that demonstrably prove the anti-global warming case (as opposed to "facts" that supposedly support global warming but which, to the keen, skeptical eye of KKKate McMillan and her ilk, don't prove anything at all) I went to the comprehensive repository of global warming science: www.realclimate.org. There I found http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/transparency-of-the-ipcc-process-2/index.php?p=454 ("No Man in as Urban Heat Island") which writes that the issue has already been acknowledged, dealt with, and incorporated.
It's clear, coherent, and most importantly (to the "skeptics" and "contrarians" who oddly believe the most laughable shit so long as it came from Dick Cheney or Stephen Harper) it has links to references that back up the arguments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I read the SDA post you refer to, and followed the links it provided (and the links within those) where I came upon a story about NASA revising its data due to a Y2K bug. When added to reading the links you provided, it all only served to reinforce my earlier statement that skepticism is the natural default position for the unbiased observer, in my opinion. If we look at this as the "court of public opinion", the lawyers for both sides appear to be unready for trial.
As an aside, by "unbiased" I mean someone with no previous position or affiliation to either camp.
Here's a fav of Kate and her minions:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/contributing-to.html
You can just feel the love for breathable air over there, and the genuine concern they have that experiments be conducted properly.
Even IF global warming is based on faulty temperature readings in some locations, it still doesn't remove the need humans have to reduce the non-greenhouse gas pollution we put into the air. While we're doing that, we'll reduce greenhouse gasses anyway. So all this global warming denying essentially comes down to people arguing for more/same pollution, which makes no sense from an unbiased observer [who likes to breathe and for the next generation to be healthy].
Post a Comment