Natural weather patterns, not man-made global warming, are causing the historic drought parching California, says a study out Monday from federal scientists.
"It's important to note that California's drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state," said Richard Seager, the report's lead author and professor with Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. The report was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The report did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal but was reviewed by other NOAA scientists.
"In fact, multiyear droughts appear regularly in the state's climate record, and it's a safe bet that a similar event will happen again," he said.
Monday, December 08, 2014
The Science Is Settled!
California's drought is not caused by climate change; rather, recurring natural weather patterns are to blame, according to NOAA:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Typical denier propaganda! A group of industry "scientists"... What's that? Federal scientists?
Well I bet the study was sponsored by the Koch Brothers. Oh, NOAA.
He's probably just some hack at a community college in the Bible belt. Columbia... really?
See, this just proves it! They're racists!
I hate this debate so much. Scientists claim to know they're right, and they might be. Disbelievers claim the scientists are wrong. Neither of you are demonstrably right, over long periods of time)so please, I beg you… Can both sides come to a compromise where we agree theta a) less pollution is better than more, b) no solution that is not cost effective will ever work, c) it is important to involve the whole world, not just the U.S. and d) just like we don't use whale to light our lamps anymore, it might be a good idea to try to develop alternative sources of energy? and yes, I know Solyndra was a failure. But if you try things the one that works is a game changer.
There's plenty of market for *good* alternative sources of energy. I just don't want the govt trying to pick winners and losers. Yes, this is a change from positions I held a decade ago, but I'm older and wiser now :-)
Darren got there ahead of me so I'll just expand a trifle.
The reason we don't use whale oil is because petroleum was validated as an alternate due to it's lower cost/profitability. When wind/solar meet that tough standard we won't need subsidies to build the silly things and until they do meet that standard no amount of subsidies will be enough although that fact won't deter the proponents. They want what they want and they don't care how they get it.
Post a Comment