Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
Precipitation. I disagree. If one area that is highly polluted has a strong trend of acid rain which has affected the environment, that is a change in
the climate of that region.
I believe the point which "Hastobemoretolife" is attempting to convey, is that "Acid Rain" is a localized issue. This means that it can be handled
in a fairly simplified and well established manner, whereas the Global Climate by-in-large is a massively complex and wide ranging system composed of
thousands if not millions of localized patterns and micro-systems (Even though the main drivers are themselves massive).
I agree wholeheartedly that "Acid Rain" is one of the few true issues which we need to, and CAN in fact bring forth a solution towards. "Climate
Change" however is an incorrect term to begin with, as the Climate ALWAYS changes, whereas MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming)/AGW (Anthropogenic Global
Warming (The same thing) ) is the actual issue being debated right now at Copenhagen. "Climate Change" simply sounds fancier as a catchphrase, and
it began with an attempt by politicians to cover their tracks when they discovered that the warming had ceased by around the year 2000 AD.
Science is always ongoing in nature, and I am 100% for continuing Climate studies. The issue with the AGW theory as it stands however, is that many of
the current observations have completely contradicted the projected models. Therefore common sense will dictate that we must investigate why this
happened, and we need to work very hard to re-understand the original theory. Until those who still believe in AGW are willing to admit that much
though, there will never be a cessation to all of this alarmist and activist filled void of bickering politicians, and subsequently manipulated
The bottom line, is that I am simply saying that you and others concerned with AGW should be willing to push for the other side of the debate to be
heard in as strong and fervent a manner. I myself, having worked closely with the subject for years, have come across so much data and information
which runs contrary to the as of now established AGW theory, that I cannot help the frustration which arises everytime I hear someone in the MSM state
either something which I have opposing evidence towards, or state something which I actually know is an outright lie. I lack the voice that these
individuals have, and therefore I am left shouting into the dark (Aside from possibly here on ATS, and some other forums). Now take the extremely
hardworking scientists who I happen to know, and imagine how magnified such feelings are when emanating from them, especially after they spent much
(if not most) of their lives trudging the world in their gathering of this data? I dare say that they absolutely deserve to be heard loud and clear,
and most certainly so when they know full well of certain falsehood claims which continue to be propagated in the MSM.
I, along with many of them, completely care about the environment and the many ecosystems which compose it, but taking money away from good and well
founded causes (Such as fighting AIDS, Cancer, any number of diseases, taking care of our National Security, etc.) in order to support drastic
measures for an ill-proven theory, simply goes beyond logic and fairness. There is no doubt that AIDS kills people, nor that Cancer tears families
apart. There is no doubt that we have major Security concerns with Terrorism, along with certain foreign States. These are certainties. AGW however is
very uncertain, and it is FULL of speculation at this point. Thus, funding research for AGW is perfectly fine, but passing policy and placing major
burdens upon the shoulders of people due to it, is a complete abuse of trust and power.