Hi Charlie,
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoebeisis
. . .
The main problem with lone term climate prediction science is that it is extremely new,and that particular branch of science has no record of correct predictions. Now that isn't their fault, but it is the fault of any that overstate the certainty of their predictions.
The usual response to this is,"but can we afford to wait until their predictions are validated before we do something?" Well the obvious answer is we just don't know, what we just don't know!
|
I'm used to dealing with natural science where we acknowledge what we don't know yet still come to useful conclusions. Sure there is the occasional "opps" but they are notable because they are so rare.
I'm not in the "sky is falling" crowd but over time, the greenhouse gas hypothesis has been tested and retested and it looks more and more plausable. Even in Huntsville, one of the early detractors, Christie, was on TV happy about getting some of the prize money because he had corrected his earlier data and now acknowledges it is happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoebeisis
On the bright side, conservation and efficient use of resources is always a good idea,so we can push for that. In this country we could boost the economy by pushing for-more efficient houses,lighting,cars, transportation, manufacturing ,water use etc. . . .
|
Efficiency is what drove me to towards hybrids and remains a life-long goal. As for suggestions to use brown water, I'm reminded of a visit to Las Vegas and having to walk by a water stray and wondering . . . "Where did this water come from???"
I have no problem with 'drip' distribution of 'brown water' but I sure don't cotton anything that might make it airborne. <grins>
Bob Wilson