![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
climate change
Dec. 11th, 2016 07:18 amI do not think that anyone refuses the climate change. The question is whether the change is caused by human impact or not. An interesting input from NASA for thinking and doubt is below:
I perfectly remember the forecasts of 1970th about a global freezing. Now, we have global warming. A highly influencing group of scientists claims that the current global warming is due to human activities. However, I remember the opposite claims of 1970th and do not think that the human activity is so essential that we should hurry up too much to reduce our traditional energy sources (oil, coal, nuclear) for, often, more expensive solar and wind energy. The governmental support of solar and wind energy makes sense but must be reasonable.
The research below proves the increase of antarctic ice. How about the Nobel price of Mr Gore who, as far as I remember, predicted in 2004 that ice caps will melt by 2014?
By the way, I would like to add a bit about oil pollution. When I was a boy, my father drew my attention to the plants getting through asphalt (oil-based material). We planted two identical flowers in the same pots and treated evenly except for several pieces (even powder) of asphalt. The flower with asphalt grew up better. Why do I tell abut that? Because when I hear about an oil spill (say, the recent one in the gulf of Mexico), I think about the example given by my dad. In addition, I remember several huge catastrophes of oil tanks in 1980th and about the nice Spain beaches heavily damaged by the leaked oil. Please try to find those beaches now. They are in the nice condition with active wild life (especially plants) nearby. Definitely, we should try to protect birds, fish and animals at the time of catastrophes, but in the long-term run such oil spills are useful for the environment.
These examples show that we are still too young and cannot be fully confident in our conclusions and prognoses.
Again, the results of the NASA research below prove that many global predictions are either ideological when scientists follow their [political ?] ideas and reject other evidences or just are the results of lobbyism and corruption directed against oil and coal industries.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
The research below proves the increase of antarctic ice. How about the Nobel price of Mr Gore who, as far as I remember, predicted in 2004 that ice caps will melt by 2014?
By the way, I would like to add a bit about oil pollution. When I was a boy, my father drew my attention to the plants getting through asphalt (oil-based material). We planted two identical flowers in the same pots and treated evenly except for several pieces (even powder) of asphalt. The flower with asphalt grew up better. Why do I tell abut that? Because when I hear about an oil spill (say, the recent one in the gulf of Mexico), I think about the example given by my dad. In addition, I remember several huge catastrophes of oil tanks in 1980th and about the nice Spain beaches heavily damaged by the leaked oil. Please try to find those beaches now. They are in the nice condition with active wild life (especially plants) nearby. Definitely, we should try to protect birds, fish and animals at the time of catastrophes, but in the long-term run such oil spills are useful for the environment.
These examples show that we are still too young and cannot be fully confident in our conclusions and prognoses.
Again, the results of the NASA research below prove that many global predictions are either ideological when scientists follow their [political ?] ideas and reject other evidences or just are the results of lobbyism and corruption directed against oil and coal industries.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
(no subject)
Oct. 19th, 2016 01:54 pmI perfectly remember the forecasts of 1970th about a global freezing. Now, we have global warming. A highly influencing group of scientists claims that the current global warming is due to human activities. However, I remember the opposite claims of 1970th and do not think that the human activity is so essential that we should hurry up too much to reduce our traditional energy sources (oil, coal, nuclear) for, often, more expensive solar and wind energy. The governmental support of solar and wind energy makes sense but must be reasonable.
The research below proves the increase of antarctic ice. How about the Nobel price of Mr Gore who, as far as I remember, predicted in 2004 that ice caps will melt by 2014?
By the way, I would like to add a bit about oil pollution. When I was a boy, my father drew my attention to the plants getting through asphalt (oil-based material). We planted two identical flowers in the same pots and treated evenly except for several pieces (even powder) of asphalt. The flower with asphalt grew up better. Why do I tell abut that? Because when I hear about an oil spill (say, the recent one in the gulf of Mexico), I think about the example given by my dad. In addition, I remember several huge catastrophes of oil tanks in 1980th and about the nice Spain beaches heavily damaged by the leaked oil. Please try to find those beaches now. They are in the nice condition with active wild life (especially plants) nearby. Definitely, we should try to protect birds, fish and animals at the time of catastrophes, but in the long-term run such oil spills are useful for the environment.
These examples show that we are still too young and cannot be fully confident in our conclusions and prognoses.
Again, the results of the NASA research below prove that many global predictions are either ideological when scientists follow their [political ?] ideas and reject other evidences or just are the results of lobbyism and corruption directed against oil and coal industries.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
The research below proves the increase of antarctic ice. How about the Nobel price of Mr Gore who, as far as I remember, predicted in 2004 that ice caps will melt by 2014?
By the way, I would like to add a bit about oil pollution. When I was a boy, my father drew my attention to the plants getting through asphalt (oil-based material). We planted two identical flowers in the same pots and treated evenly except for several pieces (even powder) of asphalt. The flower with asphalt grew up better. Why do I tell abut that? Because when I hear about an oil spill (say, the recent one in the gulf of Mexico), I think about the example given by my dad. In addition, I remember several huge catastrophes of oil tanks in 1980th and about the nice Spain beaches heavily damaged by the leaked oil. Please try to find those beaches now. They are in the nice condition with active wild life (especially plants) nearby. Definitely, we should try to protect birds, fish and animals at the time of catastrophes, but in the long-term run such oil spills are useful for the environment.
These examples show that we are still too young and cannot be fully confident in our conclusions and prognoses.
Again, the results of the NASA research below prove that many global predictions are either ideological when scientists follow their [political ?] ideas and reject other evidences or just are the results of lobbyism and corruption directed against oil and coal industries.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
