I have recently become aware of two camps of thought with regard to global warming/climate change, niether one relating to religion vs science. On one side is the internationally recognized theory of rapid devastating change and on the other a token uncertainty of the actual changes occuring in terms of what effects we may be facing and how quickly they will emerge.
As a "regular sort" I don't really know a lot of the science involved with our changing conditions and so I guess that puts me in between the two in this arguement. They both have very valid points and the answer to this riddle is important- so what do you all think?
Is there a local effect? I understand that Somalia has been uncomfortably warm for quite some time. Are the pirates there simply a sensible reaction to that? Has the weather on the Horn of Africa cooled substantially? I see that the chart only contains pirate data up to the year 2000. With the recent Somali piracy, there are far more than 17 pirates worldwide now, so we should be seeing some beneficial effect. Perhaps this is why the last ten years have leveled off a bit, instead of being due to El Nino variations.
Yes, with the fall of the Somalia govt, it has had an adverse effect on the weather, but the overall problem has overshadowed the smaller effects of the pirates. We should please his noodliness by promoting pirating.
Hmm. Do noodle scientists include intellectual property piracy in their climate models? That would really change things, I think. Or is the eye patch really key? Most people who steal MP3s probably don't bother to put on an eye patch. But what if they own a parrot? Certainly there should be some bird-loving data thieves. Or is it pretty much limited to scofflaw Jimmy Buffet fans?
I'm starting to think climate modeling is more complex than I thought.
Eh, at least the Mormons cut my grass and did some other yard work for me once in exchange for talking to me about their religion. I kinda felt guilty for taking advantage of them because I was a stubborn heathen. But hey, I did listen and give them a chance but they didn't sell me on the idea. It seems that this is a regular practice of theirs. Ever heard of it? They even offered to paint my house if I would listen to them more... I declined. Sorry to drag this thread far off topic.
Er yes this is exactly what people are arguing about, the trouble is with school kids being increasingly taught not to think for themselves anyone who says look at the evidence from the earths distant past rather then the past 50 years is a 'climate change denier, the good news is that there are more people willing to stand up and say its all a load of bollocks.Climatechayiologists cannot prove any of the claims they make about pollution being the main driver.
The main problem is there are a lot of people who would love to be able to point at naughty industry and say 'see I told you we should all be living in mud huts and subsistance farming.'
the reason they cannot prove their claims is that the models that they use are simply far too sensitive to your starting conditions, if you feed them the right starting conditions you can use them to prove anything such as global warming being directly linked to the deline in the number of pirates.