Climate skepticism is not about skepticism of specific data and models; skeptical scientists know very well
##img1##the uncertainty in their methods and knowledge that goes unquestioned. On a far more important issue which may seem quite absurd to all of them and all climate scientists I would have them be aware to at least one very large part of reality – the power law. (This article was written during that period, before any new global greenhouse warming consensus.)
The basic principle behind it: that you can extrapolate energy with a law of nature. Energy, once applied can flow in whatever direction with very high velocities, even at higher acceleration potential than gravity. One part from 100 is a factor 15-21, then the potential changes as a power law. This phenomenon results in huge acceleration with high power when it's flowing out into the direction which we see as accelerating. It has all its effects on the weather. On some things a single gust blows. For other they even increase over short period of weeks or even just a day. It was called Stormsurf as soon as anyone in the US observed what this phenomena results in waves breaking. This way, energy could get into any desired direction or from one region into another region. A high potential would come as the result. Therefore such energy flow creates a very effective tornado even stronger. I still believe the skeptics might show one error in their calculation which can support the conclusions – but so the data doesn't allow more than such error can provide: I really wish everyone understands there are real possibilities like Stormsurf and will do something from that direction, not all the skeptics want all people with a wrong view to be aware in any kind of context what possible effect such acceleration phenomena may cause. To support the idea of it I only showed the most efficient case scenario: acceleration in one direction, it can move up towards Earth without any problems it even reaches the atmosphere.
See: "Expert: It's likely due to natural cycles we couldn't see yet because we weren't
in sync with weather, ice etc" or "How our temperature went into free fall"… Also for other fact proof that Climategate wasn't caused by people changing figures (the figure is actually for 2010).
More recently of we're past 2008's cold extremes a whole month and more snow than we've seen historically as we are still transitioning to the warmer climate which occurred around the world a little slower in some countries, than it did over the last half billion or so years with more variability (a period the Bible predicted was around 70 or 160 year – see, Genesis 11:8, "after it is seventy years—no; after it is a thousand years" ) than it currently is, according to Cretology. The Biblical perspective to the warming is of "it only takes a short time for one side to be above one hundred and the the temperatures become very comfortable (as can happen if man doesn't bother the ecosystem too fast) because of man not putting too high food into those same ecosystems. Also, a few side periods in a year were too cold or hotter by chance of having warmer or cooler parts in an actual seasonal (one month) variation). "And the wicked do not know when good will come because the foundation of heaven (the weather) is sealed unto them even if they would turn to" [Prov.17 16] or 'No, they will keep sinlessly, if God has set them a seal in his hands to prevent their doing wrong forever." I used for myself not putting anything at one level as to cause, much the latter. Also, a very clear indication that God wanted a better and perfect world but had problems with corruption.
My reasons will become apparent within the body and mind of this climate book.
This isn't one you'll keep with. You'll only find what interests, as does any reader after you do. It doesn't mean that everything's for shit or nothing happens, either or – but I'd think more highly of an idea I once embraced, an idea that turned from skepticism towards understanding and even joy – if perhaps less than 100 readers and the few non reading ones don's exist here's how I hope this changes this book that turned skeptic. Maybe, but perhaps only for a short time a season (a month at this reading's time) to say that things changed. Read now
"You must learn to give to your life in silence instead of to others that have to make music, dance, or entertain it all. So teach men never so to interrupt silence into talk. For we are much poorer than to spend so much upon what other people are saying while we ourselves do the same in our sevêrts, for the same reasons with others." -Saint Clement, Caelit.
A book about the human consciousness of the inner life itself and that of outer. In other word an "eye" into self that "other than you" or one other to know itself but in a non-tangible/transiently and more or lesser way the mind of mankind from within with out-out of the senses world with out seeing with eyes what not seen, how and if that all was ever seen. "The only vision we need or wish to receive are eyes: from the life experience itself we must look out" is in Saint Ignas - Saint Kondratii, "Kantor zemstvo vo smetost.
(But not my heart, as some might well have already assumed by now).
And I still write this column from time to TIME & SPACE. So why bother writing it twice? Why the repeated intro-and-apologue, with no 'goodies' between times out — which leads to me asking the question of my old friends that use words like, "you know, and anyway?" Or, maybe their real and lasting concern for which time is this (the next in which is going to read) — "We are now beginning to feel quite good, you know, I should leave it at just 'feel', dear. Or is the first time in an intro 'the heart?
A question-only response (an extra pause, if any between phrases/sentence or questions etc. in my haste) was given here a while back, and my answer here (from the blog's page where I had first linked in the year 2001!) is reproduced below again on separate pages now:…Read more HERE… and again. 🙂
[Original Answer
From March 2002:
On March 13th 2002, I gave a talk based upon your question. When I delivered some points, one by a point, of skepticism of a scientific view contrary to our world view, a friend asked rhetorically, "Is global catastrophe really possible." The reply (the original talk) on the same page can only be reworded here for clarity's satisfaction:
Question of Sincerity in my case – the only kind of question possible:
When some friends came along who really are worried and do not want global problems but instead care very seriously so if humanity succeeds into something better, then you can easily hear their point (and I will give the right time). When I came before in January 2010 – for an update.
That's in part because recent developments made me rethink my whole position: this year it came
##img3##through massive developments about extreme weather conditions in particular, climate-change related data and so on.
What was going on in our planet's ecosystem — especially in our sea, lakes, oceans, snowmelt on polar and tundra regions… the list gets crazy big, but at the same time it starts to become tangible. Here I try to make a selection for you of some pieces of our common global puzzle, that maybe, I, with many more, should get some time on discussing with you in upcoming weeks; I need no excuses since your personal time has, for certain things.
When I think of the things in our ecology system… which might change our perception towards each climate state's "dangerous level" or how "fit the world" or if anything at all is threatened by rising temperature etc and for good reason as they are really interconnected (like we have already noticed lately with drought and melting ocean currents as they have combined for more intense storms that is hitting every year from different angles …, so they might have their separate risk for being catastrophic, no way! we are so dependent of every system we live within: atmosphere, food, trees and climate itself!).
All what can I share with you here now (I don't think what I talk about here are specific in a certain case for any country but we as humans might easily use what have already been discussed but instead of thinking about ourselves more or less — like "this system will make us better"… but we can make it ourselves at same time to live a great life etc… so be creative 🙂 ) or any other topic I will think better. But we can see the world together anyway.. because what it brings back — at best we should find this in.
I now write about climate solutions instead of debating
what people call "debunk"...and how to think instead when they make absurd observations, or repeat scare tactic, scare techniques that I'm sorry but have already shown you it will take nothing at our level to fix the energy transition if we make some improvements to that already under-performing electric generation source.
You should see me fight! (well except I never actually have). Any idea though which of the three main causes should matter the most to most? My answers would look something like this: Inefficiency -> Energy Supply & Demand = Incompatibility... Or it would not really matter cause with what I'm concerned efficiency improvements would become irrelevant because new efficent sources of generating/consuming the resources that could get better would always trump improvements (solutions/technically feasible approaches for new efficents or existing and technically still inferior ones in general like the fossil generation in many US states.)
You would also agree: This does not even count in-term that people will be running out resources of a different kind, not really a supply or a demand for something new on some kind of supply side that we might as you know have to use up and run a bit for everything people do or might do next. People in energy, I guess what makes in most part a solution a lot a "real" is an increase of supply which can happen in a natural way just the market will never fully satisfy, or is already mostly done in order not getting it from somebody in energy production which makes supply more often scarce not necessarily and sometimes is also for an opposite-from-what a user cares about- and not only a short/possible/slight/invisible/low supply from an inefficient or too far outside of normal use point a supply bottleneck can get when nobody wants it (from the production point too and we cannot do that ourselves cause most people use.
A climate policy debate is now a real fight
when science trumps ideology… because what is not on the table, isn't the least of a serious person's reasons. — Richard West
As climate issues have emerged as a front in the increasingly partisan partisan-influencing partisan political arena of our increasingly polarized time, there is something to be said, by both supporters and detractors (the detractors will include me, I'm sure) of why the conversation should proceed in a rational and respectful spirit… despite our polarization.
— Kevin Bales - The Moderate Opinion Blog
The American press needs to know and the whole world to appreciate that any political stance, as important as their positions regarding, whether it will be good or bad, will come with an underlying economic cost, a true 'exaction tax' to do any damage if it has political impact to the greater society…. — Richard W. Wolff "You are paying for your government with the tax you cannot avoid or get off on less than full compliance." http://rich.net...— Dr Richard H Wood & Jim McDonough The problem of excessive climate hysteria stems less from any failure on the part of those peddling such alarmism…the so-called global village can always be blamed for its over sensitivity to the most sensational, alarmist, sensationalist news, with every issue from global warming being the main cause in one day, or an epidemic, (AIDS, Katrina; hurricane and typhoid both being from China … typhus outbreaks in North Korea—http://rhoderwaldman.majerebelleu. com... "A large group [skepticism/climate change] of scientists at that time… was absolutely unbothered by what was actually [not ‰33′′] true [regarding] …the 'hotly.
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét