This is Chris McCormick's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Chris McCormick's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Chris McCormick
Recent Activity
Maybe Pennslyvania wouldn't mind paying for neighboring states health bills, lost of work, and costs of early death due to lung and other ailments....
Mr. Goracle- Seems you are only concern of what you would call taxation. Would you assume any environmental regulation bad, if not proved; maybe you were against lead in gasoline, though I do not want to change the subject. I think your information/quote on Dr. Trenberth would be out of context, in that he was referring more to lack of data, and lack of local precisions. The rest of the quote below is below... ***************** "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." ******************** He is not stating that Global warming is not happening, he is looking at a particular CERES data set that he is not content with.
Stan- It is just that people have been claiming that the 'results' are not scientifically based, nor vetted or peer reviewed. I take exception to that; as I am involved in this data/information/knowledge first hand (see for one. I am amazed at the lack of information coming from naysayers with respect to global warming, especially when it is specifically anthropogenic based studies. They often spout some conspiracy, or one world political motivation, or taxes or ...just nonsensical debate style(s). On your comments on 'peer reviewed' vs. scientific facts; it is well understood that science progresses, and, on rare occasions have scientific findings been overturned.
It is a bit odd that Mr. Turpen or Eii, and stating different casses on lack of information/scientific methods etc. There are plenty of peer reviewed science investigations. From satellites (A-train, GRACE, COSMIC, ....) as well as the standard ocean and land and weather balloon data..... If any one of us want to only pick on one summation of one report, then the challenge is neither appropriate nor helpful. It would be better if you read the report, I would contend (hope) that all the peer reviewed/scientific method was followed. Read almost anything, or preferred most of the studies from NCAR and UCAR.
The problem with Mr. Frankbank's argument, is that he tries to state this as a Left/Right argument, when it is a knowledge/ignorant argument. Either we look for the facts, and where the facts lead, or we suppose what we would like to suppose based on our opinionated makeup. The facts of anthropogenic caused atmospheric pollutants (whether the older CFC's from refrigerants & their destruction of Ozone...CFC's are not produced in nature...and the world's banning of these after the cause/effect was shown) ...or newer CO2's CO's NOx's and the methanes and methanes out of the not so perma, permafrost...anyway; Mr. Frankbank proves a point when he tries to tie a political bent to a scientific investigation. The scientific process is useful in order to produce choices that our political leaders (or are they followers?) can at least attempt to have policies of informed solutions. Chris McCormick
For what we deem to be current scientific knowledge, vs. population's opinion is often not to be a problem except for when it impacts real choices about the future. What should have been part of the educational process in the survey, would be that - for it not for anthropogenic warming, we would be in a natural cooling cycle. (Earth's orbital parameters, Earth's nutation, lack of Sun Spots, ...). Anyway, I think we have not educated the population enough for the population to arrive at an informed decision. But, that is often the case in the questioners as well. Wish we could get more people to read the scientific journals, and then have a poll Chris McCormick