Snow fell on Nepal's capital, Kathmandu, for the first time in 63 years on Wednesday, stirring excitement and curiosity among residents and their children.
You joke, but it seems like every twitch in the weather these days is attributed to global warming. Unsually hot, cold, dry, wet or even completely normal average everyday weather is proof positive that Chicken Little is right. What happened to the good ol' days when weather was just plain unpredictable and quirky without some crackpot "theory" being to blame? Weren't there droughts and famines and floods and stuff before industrial development? Can't we just accept that nature is unpredictable and sometimes extremely violent and just learn to cope? We'll never be able to control the weather, no matter how many scientists get rich studying it.
Banduar, they aren't getting rich, they are getting grants regarding global warning, then they are pocketing most of the money and getting rich. There has been such an inundation of global warming news lately, you have to wade through loads of the crap (chest waders recommended) just to get to the more interesting archeological stories under the Science news. As if global warming is about science rather than corporate profits, communists neutering America's economy, political power, etc. They need to shovel that manure into the political news where it belongs. To suggest that the pollution being produced by mankind on the miniscule percentage of the earths surface area that he both inhabits and actually generates supposedly global warming pollutants from is ludicrous. At the same time I continue to see the article here and there talking about warming after the last ice age. Lets also not forget that some of the measurements they compare to go back to the early 1900's and maybe earlier, which they then indicate minimal temperature change (warming of course at this juncture of "we're the government and academia and we're here to help")from then to now, ranging in the 2 to 5 degree range, but I cannot be convinced that the measurement methods or instruments from that time period can be considered to be as accurate or consistent with how and where we measure global temperatures over the past 10 or 20, which is the time period when "scientists" with their hands out started trying to prove man made global warming. According to wikipedia, approximately 71% of the earths surface is covered by salt water oceans leaving 29% covered by land and fresh water lakes. Further, only 1.5% of the 29% is urbanized, while 43.84% of the 29% is pasture, crops, and arable land, and 32% of the 29% is forests/woodlands, which leaves 30% of the 29% described as "other". This "other" would then include deserts, lakes, mountains, and probably some geographic things I don't remember, plus and lastly some small additional percentage of industrial areas that are not considered urban, which I would expect to be around a similar 1.5% of the 29% as urban areas represented. So it goes, that somewhere around 3% to even 5% of the 29% surface area is generating so much global warming gases that it is causing the earths temperature to change in such a way as to cause global calamity. Lest we not forget, the gases are not causing this impact to the surface area of earth, but are rising into the air where the volume grows, probably exponentially as it rises miles into the air (I don't have time to do the math), a whole bunch. Yeah, that's the ticket. Check please!
2 Comments:
You joke, but it seems like every twitch in the weather these days is attributed to global warming. Unsually hot, cold, dry, wet or even completely normal average everyday weather is proof positive that Chicken Little is right. What happened to the good ol' days when weather was just plain unpredictable and quirky without some crackpot "theory" being to blame? Weren't there droughts and famines and floods and stuff before industrial development? Can't we just accept that nature is unpredictable and sometimes extremely violent and just learn to cope? We'll never be able to control the weather, no matter how many scientists get rich studying it.
Banduar, they aren't getting rich, they are getting grants regarding global warning, then they are pocketing most of the money and getting rich. There has been such an inundation of global warming news lately, you have to wade through loads of the crap (chest waders recommended) just to get to the more interesting archeological stories under the Science news. As if global warming is about science rather than corporate profits, communists neutering America's economy, political power, etc. They need to shovel that manure into the political news where it belongs. To suggest that the pollution being produced by mankind on the miniscule percentage of the earths surface area that he both inhabits and actually generates supposedly global warming pollutants from is ludicrous. At the same time I continue to see the article here and there talking about warming after the last ice age. Lets also not forget that some of the measurements they compare to go back to the early 1900's and maybe earlier, which they then indicate minimal temperature change (warming of course at this juncture of "we're the government and academia and we're here to help")from then to now, ranging in the 2 to 5 degree range, but I cannot be convinced that the measurement methods or instruments from that time period can be considered to be as accurate or consistent with how and where we measure global temperatures over the past 10 or 20, which is the time period when "scientists" with their hands out started trying to prove man made global warming. According to wikipedia, approximately 71% of the earths surface is covered by salt water oceans leaving 29% covered by land and fresh water lakes. Further, only 1.5% of the 29% is urbanized, while 43.84% of the 29% is pasture, crops, and arable land, and 32% of the 29% is forests/woodlands, which leaves 30% of the 29% described as "other". This "other" would then include deserts, lakes, mountains, and probably some geographic things I don't remember, plus and lastly some small additional percentage of industrial areas that are not considered urban, which I would expect to be around a similar 1.5% of the 29% as urban areas represented. So it goes, that somewhere around 3% to even 5% of the 29% surface area is generating so much global warming gases that it is causing the earths temperature to change in such a way as to cause global calamity. Lest we not forget, the gases are not causing this impact to the surface area of earth, but are rising into the air where the volume grows, probably exponentially as it rises miles into the air (I don't have time to do the math), a whole bunch. Yeah, that's the ticket. Check please!
Post a Comment
<< Home