Why is it good for the goose, but not okay for the gander?
I used local weather to make a point and got reamed, but the GW folks have used the same local weather to ‘prove’ their point on a global stage. Why can they get away with using local evidence while I get ridiculed for doing much the same, ‘cept my info is much better than theirs?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o> </o>
I’ve taken some hard hits on using ‘localized’ weather trends to show GW is bunk. The point I was unable to make was that this tactic is used most infamously by the supporters of GW. So do I get a nice hearty guffaw when these folks who used the same weather get their GW hats handed to them publicly and globally? Yeah.
<o> </o>
So there were unusual snow storms in Vegas this winter, so what? Yeah, it did get to 108 this year, but that’s a whole lot better than115. The truth is that we did have a much colder winter than usual, and we had a much cooler summer than usual. Heck, I had to heat our pool for our annual 4<SUP>th</SUP> of July party this year. I haven’t been able to take the solar cover off all summer because it gets too cold. Last year we took it off in May and didn’t put it back on until September. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1lace><st1laceType>Mt.</st1laceType> <st1laceName>Charleston</st1laceName></st1lace> still had snow on it mid-June. Hey, another couple months of cold weather and we’ll have a whole new glacier in Vegas.
This is all a result of much colder overnight lows than normal, not daytime highs.
<o> </o>
However, when I note this sort of observation, I get slammed and mocked. Why is it that folks on the left of an issue get to decide what gets included in the debate?
<o> </o>
My turn. GW ‘scientists’ at Scripps Institute have egg on their face. What’s even better, it’s the same local area as my observations, <st1lace>Southern Nevada</st1lace>.
<o> </o>
Here’s the study, which made the front pages of many newspapers and had a world-wide circulation as evidence of GW:
<o> </o>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html
<o> </o>
(Give me a second because I’m laughing my ass off that this linky is the NYT.)
<o> </o>
Let’s take a fast gander a fact which, somehow, the study completely missed while insisting that the water level at <st1lace>Lake Mead</st1lace> was absolute proof of GW and caused a bit of a panic in the <st1:City><st1lace>Las Vegas</st1lace></st1:City> valley, <st1:State><st1lace>Arizona</st1lace></st1:State>, and <st1:State><st1lace>California</st1lace></st1:State>.
<o> </o>
They didn’t acknowledge any of the ‘emergency drought measures’ which were in place at the time. Those measures made a huge difference in <st1lace>Lake Mead</st1lace> water levels fast. Now why is that important, you ask? Here’s a linky, for the linky addicted:
<o> </o>
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=10513103<o></o>
></o>
<o> </o>
Now that’s embarrassing. Seems it’s not AGW after all, but a politically mandated pecking order. Now there’s something the scientists who did this GW study should have known about.
<o> </o>
Why is it important is that the upstream reservoirs are filled first, <st1lace>Lake Mead</st1lace> last? Now we get to the rub:
<o> </o>
Seems all upstream reservoirs are full to more than 85%, and <st1lace><st1laceType>Lake</st1laceType> <st1laceName>Powell</st1laceName></st1lace> saw a 32 foot rise. It will overflow in 28 more feet.
<o> </o>
http://waterdb.lakepowell.water-data.com/LP_WaterDB_printable.php<o></o>
<o> </o>
What’s really telling, and hilarious in my opinion, is that the snowcap didn’t even melt this year. Look at the linky, the snowpack in September in 4,900%, that’s percent, folks, above normal. FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED PERCENT OF <st1:City><st1lace>NORMAL</st1lace></st1:City>. Hey, looky, a new glacier.
<o> </o>
Too bad that snowcap didn’t melt this year or <st1lace><st1laceType>Lake</st1laceType> <st1laceName>Powell</st1laceName></st1lace> would be overflowing. That snowcap, however, shows that next winter will be colder than this year. More snow, more melt, more water, more unmelted snowcap, and keep up the cycle until things heat up in a hundred years from now.
<o> </o>
Now that’s just one widely circulated GW supporting piece which used the same local weather I referred to which was so ridiculed. The <st1lace><st1laceType>Mt.</st1laceType> <st1laceName>Killamunjaro</st1laceName></st1lace> stuff got wrecked long ago.
<o> </o>
At least my local observations were just here at AW, and not put out in newspapers and magazines world wide as proof of something absolutely untrue, and extremely poorly done in the first place.
<o> </o>
Bottom line, if I can’t use local weather to disprove GW, then GW preachers can’t use it either, anywhere. Even more on the bottom of the line, I used them in a forum, not publishing them across the planet in an effort to make GW seem valid.
<o> </o>
Those ‘scientists’ and their agenda is clear. It’s hilarious that they have been proven so absolutely wrong in such a short time.
<o> </o>
<o> </o>
I used local weather to make a point and got reamed, but the GW folks have used the same local weather to ‘prove’ their point on a global stage. Why can they get away with using local evidence while I get ridiculed for doing much the same, ‘cept my info is much better than theirs?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o> </o>I’ve taken some hard hits on using ‘localized’ weather trends to show GW is bunk. The point I was unable to make was that this tactic is used most infamously by the supporters of GW. So do I get a nice hearty guffaw when these folks who used the same weather get their GW hats handed to them publicly and globally? Yeah.
<o
> </o>So there were unusual snow storms in Vegas this winter, so what? Yeah, it did get to 108 this year, but that’s a whole lot better than115. The truth is that we did have a much colder winter than usual, and we had a much cooler summer than usual. Heck, I had to heat our pool for our annual 4<SUP>th</SUP> of July party this year. I haven’t been able to take the solar cover off all summer because it gets too cold. Last year we took it off in May and didn’t put it back on until September. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ffice:smarttags" /><st1lace><st1laceType>Mt.</st1laceType> <st1laceName>Charleston</st1laceName></st1lace> still had snow on it mid-June. Hey, another couple months of cold weather and we’ll have a whole new glacier in Vegas.This is all a result of much colder overnight lows than normal, not daytime highs.
<o
> </o>However, when I note this sort of observation, I get slammed and mocked. Why is it that folks on the left of an issue get to decide what gets included in the debate?
<o
> </o>My turn. GW ‘scientists’ at Scripps Institute have egg on their face. What’s even better, it’s the same local area as my observations, <st1
lace>Southern Nevada</st1lace>.<o
> </o>Here’s the study, which made the front pages of many newspapers and had a world-wide circulation as evidence of GW:
<o
> </o>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html
<o
> </o>(Give me a second because I’m laughing my ass off that this linky is the NYT.)
<o
> </o>Let’s take a fast gander a fact which, somehow, the study completely missed while insisting that the water level at <st1
lace>Lake Mead</st1lace> was absolute proof of GW and caused a bit of a panic in the <st1:City><st1lace>Las Vegas</st1lace></st1:City> valley, <st1:State><st1lace>Arizona</st1lace></st1:State>, and <st1:State><st1lace>California</st1lace></st1:State>.<o
> </o>They didn’t acknowledge any of the ‘emergency drought measures’ which were in place at the time. Those measures made a huge difference in <st1
lace>Lake Mead</st1lace> water levels fast. Now why is that important, you ask? Here’s a linky, for the linky addicted:<o
> </o>http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=10513103<o
></o><st1
<o"Originally they were going to bring Powell up 15 and take us down 15. We could live with that. Then they changed it to take Powell up 30 and bring us down more. That's creating havoc," said Price.<o
The agreement, signed by seven states on the <st1:State><st1
The result is that Powell has risen by more than 30 feet in recent weeks while <st1
></o><o
> </o>Now that’s embarrassing. Seems it’s not AGW after all, but a politically mandated pecking order. Now there’s something the scientists who did this GW study should have known about.
<o
> </o>Why is it important is that the upstream reservoirs are filled first, <st1
lace>Lake Mead</st1lace> last? Now we get to the rub:<o
> </o>Seems all upstream reservoirs are full to more than 85%, and <st1
lace><st1laceType>Lake</st1laceType> <st1laceName>Powell</st1laceName></st1lace> saw a 32 foot rise. It will overflow in 28 more feet.<o
> </o>http://waterdb.lakepowell.water-data.com/LP_WaterDB_printable.php<o
></o><o
> </o>What’s really telling, and hilarious in my opinion, is that the snowcap didn’t even melt this year. Look at the linky, the snowpack in September in 4,900%, that’s percent, folks, above normal. FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED PERCENT OF <st1:City><st1
lace>NORMAL</st1lace></st1:City>. Hey, looky, a new glacier.<o
> </o>Too bad that snowcap didn’t melt this year or <st1
lace><st1laceType>Lake</st1laceType> <st1laceName>Powell</st1laceName></st1lace> would be overflowing. That snowcap, however, shows that next winter will be colder than this year. More snow, more melt, more water, more unmelted snowcap, and keep up the cycle until things heat up in a hundred years from now.<o
> </o>Now that’s just one widely circulated GW supporting piece which used the same local weather I referred to which was so ridiculed. The <st1
lace><st1laceType>Mt.</st1laceType> <st1laceName>Killamunjaro</st1laceName></st1lace> stuff got wrecked long ago.<o
> </o>At least my local observations were just here at AW, and not put out in newspapers and magazines world wide as proof of something absolutely untrue, and extremely poorly done in the first place.
<o
> </o>Bottom line, if I can’t use local weather to disprove GW, then GW preachers can’t use it either, anywhere. Even more on the bottom of the line, I used them in a forum, not publishing them across the planet in an effort to make GW seem valid.
<o
> </o>Those ‘scientists’ and their agenda is clear. It’s hilarious that they have been proven so absolutely wrong in such a short time.
<o
> </o><o
> </o>