For science to truly be credible, you have to be able to recreate your findings all the way back including your baseline.
For example. If I am measuring temperatures in the suburbs of a large city starting in 1950 when the station was created, then use the temperature rise to today as a baseline, what obvious changes would I have to account for in my baseline?
What is the impact of the city itself on the temperature readings over time? Obvious answer is the urban sprawl around the sensor would have an impact on the localized weather
. Concrete holds heat longer than soil, farming, sprinklers and reservoirs are examples of ways to localize environmental changes. Even wind
farms are being proven to disrupt natural wind
patterns and effect the weather
downwind of the farms. What other impacts such as cloud seeding, etc. and do the connected timelines build a natural variation?
All through society, we have become too politically correct
in what we do and say and if you question something based on absolute logic that goes against PC, you are ostracized. This goes back to when the world was flat, and instead of proving what was accepted as the politically correct idea, others had to prove it was not true. Why? Because so many people in rank accepted it as fact and it would tarnish their image if proven otherwise, so the best way to hold onto that was to attack anyone with an opposing view.
We are so heavily invested in Global Warming that we can't allow further study or opposing views or facts to get in the way as it could damage reputations and livelihoods.
We are also leaning too far on the mitigation side, where almost all true science agrees that we can do little if anything to change the course based upon the model and theory of the cause. Granted, no one will argue that cleaning
up the environment
is a good thing that we should be doing anyway, so what is the harm in sending out Chicken Little?
We have also lost site in science of true root cause analysis and mitigation.
The biggest issue is the people who are getting rich off of the idea and how government
is trying to turn the whole idea into the next industrial revolution hoping to spur an economy based off of things people don't feel they need right now as they are just trying to pay their bills and make it month to month. But how ironical that those playing the game
are becoming rich and hypocritical in what they are doing.
I have a problem with how groups like Greenpeace work, but I also have more respect for them then I do Al Gore as they are living in the trenches for what they believe in, not getting paid hundreds of thousands to fly around private jets and sound the alarm
on something that we just don't have all the data yet to make drastic changes other than knowing the root cause has always been population growth and individually doing what we can for each other right now while concentrating on renewing resources and cleaning up the environment.
Those in power who believe in something should be living what they believe otherwise:
“Isn’t it often the way? You fight your way from the trenches to the throne, overthrow the corrupt regime and set about remaking the world in your own image, only to realize that you have become the thing you most despised.” Katie Welsh
True science should embrace opposing ideas, share the data that was used to not only create the baseline, but also the theory as that is how we evolve ideas past the belief the world is flat. Once proven, science is the way to mitigate in all respects as taxing has never solved
a problem that could not otherwise be solved
when needed. Just ask the Dutch, or the Army Corp of Engineers.
The quote above from Katie is spot on, even though I don't agree with her on many things, I respect her point of view.