Flood plain news on Climate Change

My vacation is postponned on account of the end of the world.

It is sure easy to see how personal anecdotes can color one's view of reality.

There I was...I stood at the Amsterdam AMTRAK station/shed watching the Mohawk clean it shores and carry away loose remnants of human existence. The river was topping the canal gates, to give you some perspective.

In a few minutes, AMTRAK minutes being a quarter of an hour, a little shuttle came to scoop me up and take me to Syracuse, thereby avoiding the flood down the track. Of course, we never made it, but I did manage to share two hour sauna with former strangers. My advanced planing of having a thermos of hot coffee paid off.

So, if it rains alot, does that mean Al Gore is right?

Of course not, contrary to the upcoming ABC ANECODTAL EVIDENCE SHOW, as there are floods all the time. Memory trumps experience.

A few decades ago, Wilkes Barre even had its dead bodies rise to the occasion of a major flood. Hope they have that problem solved; folks there are being evacuated as we speak. They don't need marine helicopters, not being dopes. The actually pay attention to warnings in PA.

So, this is an unplanned blog entry, as I am jes bidin' my time. Let me just add a link to an article that addresses 25 alleged [of course, this term is just to be nice to those who are clearly wrong] errors in Mr. Gore's film.

Let me finish this entry with a quote from the article, which I threatened you with previously, that is on point regarding the theme of this blog. As an aside, the article quotes specialists in their fields who assure us we don't need to worry about the polar bears, Antarctica melting, coastal flooding, or Greenland living up to its name.

So, about the consensus position, here is their take on it:

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) [Ed - Gore's source for proof] did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here. [must be a link on the original article.]