That's a difference between you and me. You view global warming as the Enemy to be taken down. Your motive isn't to find out what's happening so much as to bloody the noses of the opponents. I otoh am seeing which facts I can trust, and to build from there.
not quite, i can see some logic in the reports, and reasonable measures are warranted, i despise the fearmongering, absolute declarations and lies of the global warming/climate change hucksters, just as i despise the keyensian economics hucksters and fools who claim the coming rapture will usher in a paradise for the faithful. hating liars doesnt mean i hate science or reject a hypothesis because i dont want to see the truth. i reject the claims from the hucksters because they lied, many times.
Can you provide links demonstrating this? Links of a higher quality than the ones regarding Himalayan glaciers; Ginja has already filleted those.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...148647_1_climate-change-glaciers-r-k-pachauri
http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/24/glacier-scare
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/ice/page/2/
and the reports which take the iaapc's position throw around words like "arrogance", "deniers", and "controversial" like they are going out of style. india is pissed.
What I would look for is any sign that the volcano's activity is upsetting the data. There should be spikes when the volcano is being more or very active. I see none in the data and accept that as prima facie evidence of the suitability of gathering data at the site.
Mauna Loa has much to recommend it. It's far away from industry and the exuberant give&take of large forested areas. It's at altitude and above most weather. being not far from the equator, it experiences good mixing of air from other latitudes.
after much bothersome digging (done because YOU said i should) i can accept that the controls on the data at mauna loa are good, and their data is accurate enough for getting on with, but noaa's not selling global warming, the shysters at the iaapc are. even their own website defers to the iaapc when it comes down to the question of global warming, and they are far more cautious about the claims than the reckless global warming enthusiasts like al gore. the best noaa is willing to say about global warming is:
"Separating out the impact of human activity from natural climate variation is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, the IPCC concluded there is a 'discernible human influence' on climate. This means the observed global warming is unlikely to be the result of natural variability alone and that human activities are at least partially responsible." which is far different from the doomsday scenarios being foisted by the proponents of man caused global climate change. when noaa say aww fuck, we're screwed, ill listen, since they dont try to "hide the decline" or offer up nightmare level worst case scenarios to try and foist their agenda on the mush brains in washington.
Note that the pulsing and slope of the rise on CO2 from the four reporting stations ... the others of which provide a good control for the goodness of the Mauna Loa site and data, match. So I accept the data as sound. The other element of this is that CO2 can be monitored and recorded using universally available tech. Don't believe the numbers? For not much money you can have your own instrument. You'll have to demonstrate to me that that is a problem. The key to demonstrating it is to show that it not only occurs, but routinely, for a significant percentage of submissions. If you can't, I have every privilege to counter your claim of BS with a claim that you're subscribing to a colossal conspiracy concept. (I won't sully the word "theory" here, even if the popularizers have misused it for decades now.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
i would value your opinion on this websites claims. it looks pretty fucked up to me.
I consider that a catchy idea, a typical "wedge" for rumor, but I implore you: substantiate, or retract. Stop feeding the hype machine that I see operating in the denier camp. cn
again, im not a denier.
i remember when acid rain was a concern, and REASONED measured and successful programs were instituted to stop the problem.
back in the 80's LA's smog was a nightmare, now it's a lot better, some days you cant even see the "air", but fixing that problem did not require a massive new tax on every exhalation, they never got around to fitting methane traps on the asses of cattle (yes. that was one of the proposals) or eliminating 2/3 of the earth's population.
after Silent Spring, The Population Bomb, Earth in the Balance, and the "garbage crisis" were all proven to be nothying more than hoaxes and fearmongering i have little trust left in me for the jackasses who sell their agenda based on fear, unreasoning terror and bullshit hollwood movies designed to cause panic at the expense of reason. too many reputable scientists have too many doubts for me to jump on board with al gore, and go all H D Throeau, and live in a cabin on the shores of walden pond.
ginja THINKS he has this shit all figured out, but he also thinks theres no forests left in britain and western europe, and stone age man engaged in wholesale forest clearances for farmland. some dingbats are even claiming the little ice age was caused by the black plague. cuz europe's pandemic was GLOBAL in it's reach.
it's that kind of hyperbole that drives doubt deeper into my mind.
So, practical, viable, usable space? The main thing is labor. The deeper it is, the farther out, the higher the winds, etc, all mean labor. Not just to build them. But, to keep them going.
