Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't think the objectors to anthropogenic warming have stated objections as strong as they could. All of this kind of science is very shaky. As my illustration, I would like to go back 20 years, when neither freezing nor warming was forecast. Instead the forecast was the end of the ozone, and the problem of UV exposure. Plants would die. Radio would cease.
They wanted to say pretty much anything to stop the West from thriving. "They" being the West's enemies. I don't know of any results anywhere close to what they said.
Locally, I am reminded of a microcosm of this. An ITT Rayonier plant was stopped because of the fallout of a photographic paper process. There were people in the immediate area who were reporting respiratory problems, however, the scientists were more interested in the national park mountains nearby and how plant life would be decimated if the factory continued.
I was hiking in the downwind of the removed plant a few years ago and came across a sample station where you could look down 5 miles to the low elevation and see where the plant was. I assumed someone was still measuring the impact on plantlife from that factory. The station, just a pole with several devices on it, had a phone number in case of trouble.
I called. I asked the Ph.D. candidate what I would be looking for since I had hiked the area over the past 40 years. She was a bit surprised at the question. "I've been there several times and never noticed a thing. Nothing about photographic paper process acids or anything. Are you sure you are referring to my monitor?" When that was squared away, she explained: "We aren't looking into that at all. We are using that monitor to measure the fallout of nitrogen used in farming fertilizer in the upper atmosphere. That location is a virtual clean slate, some of the purest air and conditions in the world, and no farming upwind. So we wanted that for comparing with sites in eastern Washington wheatfields."
So with that cleared up, I then tried to find out the answer about acids. "So you've been here several times?" "Oh yes" she said. "What would I be looking for as far as damage from the ITT operation--something anyone could recognize?" "I have no idea." I told her I expected to see oranges and browns on dead vegetation all over the place like an Agent Orange site. "I have no idea" she said.
That to me was a microcosm of how science is done these days and how climate science comes across. This is why we have the government-funded geographic magazine cover this month on the 'plight' of transgender children, which is neither science nor national nor geographic. Another science making sweeping guesses in hysteria.
It reminds me of a quote about Lyell that very few people have absorbed. 'Geology was in its infancy, but Lyell made declarations as though he was god.' That mentality seems to have been why Darwin sat in the Beagle in Vera Cruz bay reading Lyell's theories written 8000 miles away, instead of looking up at what the glacier did not so long ago. We are governed by worthless theory.
They wanted to say pretty much anything to stop the West from thriving. "They" being the West's enemies. I don't know of any results anywhere close to what they said.
Locally, I am reminded of a microcosm of this. An ITT Rayonier plant was stopped because of the fallout of a photographic paper process. There were people in the immediate area who were reporting respiratory problems, however, the scientists were more interested in the national park mountains nearby and how plant life would be decimated if the factory continued.
I was hiking in the downwind of the removed plant a few years ago and came across a sample station where you could look down 5 miles to the low elevation and see where the plant was. I assumed someone was still measuring the impact on plantlife from that factory. The station, just a pole with several devices on it, had a phone number in case of trouble.
I called. I asked the Ph.D. candidate what I would be looking for since I had hiked the area over the past 40 years. She was a bit surprised at the question. "I've been there several times and never noticed a thing. Nothing about photographic paper process acids or anything. Are you sure you are referring to my monitor?" When that was squared away, she explained: "We aren't looking into that at all. We are using that monitor to measure the fallout of nitrogen used in farming fertilizer in the upper atmosphere. That location is a virtual clean slate, some of the purest air and conditions in the world, and no farming upwind. So we wanted that for comparing with sites in eastern Washington wheatfields."
So with that cleared up, I then tried to find out the answer about acids. "So you've been here several times?" "Oh yes" she said. "What would I be looking for as far as damage from the ITT operation--something anyone could recognize?" "I have no idea." I told her I expected to see oranges and browns on dead vegetation all over the place like an Agent Orange site. "I have no idea" she said.
That to me was a microcosm of how science is done these days and how climate science comes across. This is why we have the government-funded geographic magazine cover this month on the 'plight' of transgender children, which is neither science nor national nor geographic. Another science making sweeping guesses in hysteria.
It reminds me of a quote about Lyell that very few people have absorbed. 'Geology was in its infancy, but Lyell made declarations as though he was god.' That mentality seems to have been why Darwin sat in the Beagle in Vera Cruz bay reading Lyell's theories written 8000 miles away, instead of looking up at what the glacier did not so long ago. We are governed by worthless theory.