Quote:
Originally Posted by jyl
Can we agree that anyone who offers an opinion about global climate change based on whether it is or isn't, warmer or cooler, or drier or wetter, where he happens to be standing at that particular time - is an evident idiot?
|
Unsolicited advice - take it or leave it - I'd recommend calling it a poor argument if you don't like it rather than insulting the person. When you call people idiots you come off as an evident jerk.
You're right that one man's experience may not be an effective measure of global climate change. However, it does reflect the climate of an entire region. My experience has been that 2010 was an abnormally cool year. That doesn't reflect on just me, but all of Southern California because those living around me experienced the same weather and temps.
I've seen plenty of Pelicans from various areas describing a cold year. I've seen news of record low temps and snow storms. Granted, most of this is US, but not all. How many people have you heard comment that they had an unusually warm 2010? I can't think of a single one that I've heard.
I suspect the day will come when some type of inaccurate process and/or fraud will reveal that these reports are crap. Maybe not. But it seems that "truths" are often retracted with an "oops" a few years later.
Most recent example: the study that reported the alleged autism/vaccination link. How many parents declined vaccination for their kids because of this fraud? How many kids died? (I have no idea, so maybe the answer is "none". But my gut tells me otherwise.)
Global warming example: the study the California Air Resources Board used to justify their regulation had falsified data regarding diesel particulates in the air. The head of CARB (I'm blanking on her name) presented the study to the board even though she new the man behind it was a fraud because she believed in the cause, regardless of the evidence.
So, when some people release a report that 2010 tied for the warmest year on record I just roll my eyes. They might be right. But I believe they start these studies knowing what they want their conclusions to be, and throw out erroneous data that doesn't agree with the conclusions they've already formed. No better than a high school chem lab.
I realize what I'm writing isn't evidence against the report, and I'm not trying to pretend that it is. It's my explanatin of why I don't believe them. I also realize there's actually a chance they might be right. But I don't trust them, so I won't just take their word for it.