"When you look at all of the glaciers and all of the snowpack and all of the birds laying eggs earlier and all of the plants having spring earlier across a continent, then we see we can detect anthropogenic signals," said Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
I don't see it. Weather is warmer (maybe). So the local flora and fauna adapt, in order to exploit the favorable conditions. Nothing anthropogenic so far. Among the quoted changes due to global warming we find the following:
-- SOUTH AMERICA: Glacier wastage in Peru; melting Patagonia ice fields contributing to sea-level rise.
If all of Patagonia melted down the combined sea level rise would be negligible. If the whole of Antarctica did, that'd be a problem. The report merely uses notions we have been pre-programmed to be alarmed by to convey a very weak argument.
Climate is changing, we don't know for sure why. Scaring us with weak or inexistent correlations is not contributing to reducing the so-called global warming. Hiding this weakness under veils of vastity, inclusiveness, data pool breadth and confusing language (read the quotes in the report, they're insane) does the cause of climatologist advocacy no good.
1 comment:
Yes, you are absolutely right. Change doesn't automatically imply human cause. But try telling that to a scientifically illiterate, uncritical journalist. The problem with the press is that in most cases they have the last word. With crap like this is it any wonder fewer and fewer readers take them seriously?
Post a Comment