I am sure the good Rev. Al Gore and his Church of Global Warming is working on a homily to make that situation fit into their worldview, apocalyptic scenario. And have a nice day.
u know the devil's advocates are going to say "so what if one glacier is growing. the writer said himself 'unlike most glaciers'. so, shasta might have a different weather pattern....but (like the writer said) a majority of all other glaciers are still receeding."
in other words, the scientific evidence that shasta is expanding can be considered irrelivant because its just on glacier expanding compared to all other glaciers...which is like 0.001%. so...can shasta's expansion REALLY be used to disprove the myth of global warming when probably 90% of all other glaciers prove it true?
There's a pretty good reason we get bombarded with a dizzying array of "disaster indicators". Because the science isn't up to the job of supporting the prejudices of the greenie-weenies.
Some have come and gone. Anyone remember the "heat pulse" nonsense that had the enviros all excited for about two weeks? The theory is that heat is absorbed by the earth and by carefully measuring the temperature profile as you descend you get a worthwhile means of determining past temperatures. Turns out it didn't work quite as well as was originally thought. Sic transit gloria.
Then there was the temperature-driven expansion of the world's oceans which was going to inundate all coastal areas even if the ice caps didn't melt. Turns out that when applied to the overall climate, including the deep ocean, things are nearly as simple as the coefficient of expansion turning Miami into a fish farm.
Kilimanjaro's disappearing snow pack is a result of reduced precipitation not increased temperature. Is the reduction in precipitation a result of global warming? Who knows?
The only thing we know for sure about the Earth's climate is that we don't know much.
3 comments:
I am sure the good Rev. Al Gore and his Church of Global Warming is working on a homily to make that situation fit into their worldview, apocalyptic scenario. And have a nice day.
u know the devil's advocates are going to say "so what if one glacier is growing. the writer said himself 'unlike most glaciers'. so, shasta might have a different weather pattern....but (like the writer said) a majority of all other glaciers are still receeding."
in other words, the scientific evidence that shasta is expanding can be considered irrelivant because its just on glacier expanding compared to all other glaciers...which is like 0.001%. so...can shasta's expansion REALLY be used to disprove the myth of global warming when probably 90% of all other glaciers prove it true?
There's a pretty good reason we get bombarded with a dizzying array of "disaster indicators". Because the science isn't up to the job of supporting the prejudices of the greenie-weenies.
Some have come and gone. Anyone remember the "heat pulse" nonsense that had the enviros all excited for about two weeks? The theory is that heat is absorbed by the earth and by carefully measuring the temperature profile as you descend you get a worthwhile means of determining past temperatures. Turns out it didn't work quite as well as was originally thought. Sic transit gloria.
Then there was the temperature-driven expansion of the world's oceans which was going to inundate all coastal areas even if the ice caps didn't melt. Turns out that when applied to the overall climate, including the deep ocean, things are nearly as simple as the coefficient of expansion turning Miami into a fish farm.
Kilimanjaro's disappearing snow pack is a result of reduced precipitation not increased temperature. Is the reduction in precipitation a result of global warming? Who knows?
The only thing we know for sure about the Earth's climate is that we don't know much.
Post a Comment