Warm Weather is Bad for You
I have been reading a good deal about global warming over the past few years, particularly skeptic sites, and deep down I do believe that the increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere (due to burning fossil fuels) is causing the earth to warm up. The data - at least up to now - seems rather clear on that, and the quality of the arguments on the global-warming-advocacy side seems much higher generally than that on the skeptic* side.
When they're talking about the climate, that is. But it's news reports like this that keep my skeptic blood flowing. Can you imagine - a 2 degree increase in temperatures is supposed to cause a significant health hazard - in the United States? Right - that's why all the old codgers move to Florida and South Carolina and Arizona - so they can get sicker and die earlier. What a crock.
*Skeptics tend to be snarky, polemical, and use rather crude analytics**. Most climate scientists expressing skepticism seem to be retired or have the title "emeritus". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they're likely to be uninformed regarding the power of computer modeling or other newer techniques.
**"Snarky, Polemical and Crude" - sounds like a good blog motto.
When they're talking about the climate, that is. But it's news reports like this that keep my skeptic blood flowing. Can you imagine - a 2 degree increase in temperatures is supposed to cause a significant health hazard - in the United States? Right - that's why all the old codgers move to Florida and South Carolina and Arizona - so they can get sicker and die earlier. What a crock.
*Skeptics tend to be snarky, polemical, and use rather crude analytics**. Most climate scientists expressing skepticism seem to be retired or have the title "emeritus". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they're likely to be uninformed regarding the power of computer modeling or other newer techniques.
**"Snarky, Polemical and Crude" - sounds like a good blog motto.
posted by ziel | 4/10/2008 10:47:00 PM
13 Comments:
I've got one very good question for the global warming crowd: If global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, then why was western Europe warmer a thousand years ago than it is now? Before the Mini Ice Age from the 14th to 19th centuries, it was so hot in NW Europe that the Vikings were able to settle Greenland. It was so balmy that there were lemon groves in Normandy and vinyards in Yorkshire - neither of which would be possible today, because its too friggin cold.
I think the earth is very likely entering a cooling period. In any event, global warming and global cooling have been around long before people and will be around long after. Mankind has got nothing to do with it.
Arizona and Florida are sort of exceptional places. One is in the desert, and the other (at least where the old folks go) is largely coastline. These areas are not congenial to disease incubation and spread.
However, in other areas, an average two-degree increase (and that's averaged over time and space, so some areas will get warmer for longer) will increase the likelihood spreading diseases that might have been inhibited by colder temperatures. Think of the septic conditions of places like Lousiana, Mississippi and Alabama swampland moving north.
Yeah, the power of computer modelling - garbage in, garbage out. Show me a climate change model from the late 1990s which forecast the last decade's arrested development of GW.
Even the Daily Telegraph which reported this fact last week assured us that the current global average temp was still well above the 1961-1990. Guess how much is well above? Wait for it..... 0.4 centigrade!
I've got one very good question for the global warming crowd: If global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, then why was western Europe warmer a thousand years ago than it is now?
This is one of the crude arguments that YLE is complaining about. AGW adherents don't deny there are other factors which effect climate change.
Stepney Green said...
" factors which effect climate change."
Is it effect or affect, Ziel?
James F published the comment above- not anonymous.
AGW adherents don't deny there are other factors which effect climate change.
'Effect' or 'affect'? It could be either in this sentence, but the context suggests 'affect' - i.e., have an influence on. 'Effect' is possible, also, as in "other factors which bring about or create climate change."
Stepney Green:
Well Ziel wasn't talking about "other" reasons for global warming. He specifically mentioned fossil fuel burning.
But I am willing to accept there could be other sources of, as you would wonkishly call it, anthropogenic global warming. Such as the mass of hot air that emanates from wind bags like Al Gore and his army of tiresome, whining, Chicken Little admirers. But I guess that theory would be too "crude" for you, huh?
BTW Ziel,
How can you have sympathy for the arguments of environmentalists AND be a supporter of larger family size, as you suggested in a recent post? Greenies don't like discussing this nowadays, but human population growth is the obvious root cause of environmental problems, to the extent they exist.
except, not "accept" in my second post
Nevermind. Its too late at night to be doing this...
Well Ziel wasn't talking about "other" reasons for global warming. He specifically mentioned fossil fuel burning.
Ummmm, that was my point. If not fossil fuels then what caused global warming? Other reasons....
Alles klaar?
Post a Comment
<< Home