Sunday, October 04, 2009

The sky is dry! The sky is dry!

Remember for two years here in Georgia when everyone was screaming that global warming had caused the sky to dry up and the reservoirs to get to "dangerous levels"? Even the American socialists jumped into the fray on their web site making allusions to global warming and the southeastern "drought." (it is a humorous piece, though not intended to be, blaming the "profit motive" as well for the lack of water)

And remember that rational folks like moi were saying that it had nothing to do with global warming (and, as side note, you could hardly call 42 inches of rain, instead of 54, a "drought").

Well, some actually OBJECTIVE scientists from Columbia University studied tree rings in our area of the country, did computer modeling, studied data from weather instruments, and concluded that (drum roll, please) "this drought was pretty normal and pretty typical by standards of what has happened in the region over the century."

Gosh, who'd a thunk? The scientists also said that similar patterns have occurred over the last century and can be expected again.

Now, I hope you're sitting down, because I can hardly believe what came next. The scientists said that climate models suggest that the Southeast will actually probably be wetter in a warming world!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry, my finger got stuck)

Now, it just so happens that that last statement concurs with the data and conclusions of Australian climatologist Ian Plimer, who stated in his anti-global-warming book "Heaven and Earth" the same thing about the whole world getting wetter when the Earth is warmer -- consistently over millions of years.

Hey, these little objective victories don't come along often (and their getting printed in a fascist newspaper come along even more rarely), so please excuse my enthusiasm.

So, altogether now: CO2! CO2! CO2! CO2! ...


Daniel said...

I just finished reading Heaven and Earth--and will be reviewing it in the not too distant future.

David Elmore said...

I'll look forward to your review, Daniel. My own take on it is that it is filled with terrific facts from many areas of science, but that its presentation is often convoluted. Some of the factual presentations also don't have immediate support but are sometimes backed up in later arguments, making reading the book an exercise in patience and diligence -- overtaxing.
My friend Aquinas Heard told me that HBL had a long discussion thread on it, too.
BTW, I enjoyed your book reviews in the most recent Objective Standard. Great job! Glad you're taking the extensive experience you had on to the Objectivism arena.
Congrats again on your marriage. Now, if I can just find the right partner!!!! ;)

Daniel said...

Actually, I won't be reviewing it any more--as there was a bit of a mix-up and someone else has been working on the review for some time.

I will have two reviews in the next issue though--and two reviews plus my first article in the one after that.

Very glad that you liked them--but you ain't read nothing yet! I'm getting better, and one of my reviews for the next issue is on a book you're sure to love. (It's about runners.)

David Elmore said...

Wow, that's great, Daniel. Two reviews and an article soon after. I really look forward to seeing what you have to say!