Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by Lilguy1456, Oct 27, 2012.
Dr. William Gray of Colorado State.
That is one . You stated there were more. An 's' at the end of the word indicates plural.
BTW , in what way did the fellow become prominent ?
Can someone design a study, come up with a cloud of data points, and then fit a line or a plane or whatever through the cloud, to make their point? Or does the bickering and name-calling outweigh any potential value of a more rigorous approach?
I think the work of the largest scientific undertaking in human history has and is doing that.
Indepentent studies and observations amount to the knowledge on which we can determine what is happening and is probable outcomes .
The rigor of peer reviewed science is whats being used and thats needed on seriuos issues that have implications for all of us.
Its key to understand the difference between opinon, view and science.
Agreed and when there are still a decent amount of experts who think this is a natural heating cycle, you should not just throw that away based on your inherent bias. I'm not saying you are wrong, just saying all things need to be considered.
There's not a decent amount of experts, there are some experts, and some of these experts are financed by the fossil fuel industry.
The overwhelming majority of experts support AGW and if it not a single dollar depended on this consensus no one would dispute it.
The only good thing that the controversy has brought into view is the extent to which science, scientific disputes and social and economic forces are intertwined.
Its quite a long way from the heroic image of the scientist working away in quiet isolation for the noble benefit of humanity.
Does anyone think that any of those scientific charlatans who scrounge millions out of the public for cancer research really think that a cure will happen?
But minor improvements will be made and global warming will occur, but miraculous breakthroughs or global catastrophe - probably not.
The good news now is geo-engineering; the solution to global warming through shooting suitably-loaded rockets into space.
Humanity is certainly not going to do much about it except for some quick technological fix.
And many experts on the other side are financed by "green" organizations.
All powerful, all monied green groups as opposed to a trillon dollar economy based on fossil fuels?
Your comparison is laughable. The scientific consensus is overwhelming, but if you don't think the risk of global warming justifies too early an investment, or too great an investment, then that's a reasonable position.
To start off with an anti-science position because it doesn't fit your right wing ideology is a blinkered position, to say the least.
The hacked emails of prominent global warming scientists is particularly damning.
That so called scandal was hoax.
The scientists were rendered innocent.
Who hacked the emails actually?
My guess is the Swordfish version of Hugh Jackman. That guy was good!
The Russian mafia, presumably on assignment, obtained the emails:
'On 19 November an archive file containing the data was uploaded to a server in Tomsk, Russia, and then copied to numerous locations across the Internet. An anonymous post from a Saudi Arabian IP address to the climate-sceptic blog The Air Vent described the material as "a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents", adding that climate science is "too important to be kept under wraps". That same day, Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit was forwarded an internal email sent to UEA staff warning that "climate change sceptics" had obtained a "large volume of files and emails". Charles Rotter, moderator of the climate-sceptic blog Watts Up With That, which had been the first to get a link and download the files, gave a copy to his flatmate Steve Mosher. Mosher received a posting from the hacker complaining that nothing was happening and replied: "A lot is happening behind the scenes. It is not being ignored. Much is being coordinated among major players and the media. Thank you very much. You will notice the beginnings of activity on other sites now. Here soon to follow." Shortly afterwards, the emails began to be widely publicised on climate-sceptic blogs and subsequently in the mainstream media.'
Notice in particular the statement of Steve Mosher
"A lot is happening behind the scenes. It is not being ignored. Much is being coordinated among major players and the media. Thank you very much. You will notice the beginnings of activity on other sites now. Here soon to follow."
Qualifications of Steve Mosher:
'Steven Mosher is co-author of “Climategate: The Crutape Letters” and works as an independent consultant in the San Francisco area. He attended Northwestern University where he graduated with honors and BA’s in both English Literature and Philosophy. He left the Phd. program in Literature at UCLA to take a position in Threat Analysis at Northrop Aircraft where he advanced to Director of Operational Analysis for flight simulation.'
And Murdoch and FoxNews that basically engages in propaganda were involved:
'... Fox News pundits, and radio talk show hosts who have called them liars and vilified them as frauds". According to Chris Mooney & Sheril Kirshenbaum in their book Unscientific America (2010), the accusations originated in right wing media and blogs, "especially on outlets like Fox News." Journalist Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian reported that according to an analysis by Media Matters, "Fox had tried to delegitimise the work of climate scientists in its coverage of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia" and had "displayed a pattern of trying to skew coverage in favour of the fringe minority which doubts the existence of climate change".
The intense media coverage of the documents stolen from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia created public confusion about the scientific consensus on climate change, leading several publications to comment on the propagation of the controversy in the media in the wake of a series of investigations that cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing. In an editorial, the New York Times described the coverage as a "manufactured controversy," and expressed hope that the investigations clearing the scientists "will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies". Writing for Newsweek, journalist Sharon Begley called the controversy a "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal", noting that the public was unlikely to change their mind.'
The anti-science campaign against AGW is running along the same lines as the campaign against the linkage between smoking and cancer.
That seems to be the case.
Do you guys trust the Navy and the Pentagon ?
IT IS smaller, patchier and thinner than ever - and rotten in parts. The extent of the Arctic ice cap has hit a record low, and the consequences of what is arguably the greatest environmental change in human history will extend far beyond the North Pole.
For at least 3 million years, and most likely 13 million, says Louis Fortier of the University of Laval in Quebec City, Canada, the Arctic Ocean has been covered by a thick, floating ice cap, the breadth of which fluctuates with the seasons and currents. Each summer, the cap shrinks to an annual minimum in mid-September before growing out again, fuelled by plummeting winter temperatures and long nights.
Climate change has had more of an impact here than anywhere else on Earth.
In a small patch of the Southern Ocean, the shells of sea snails are dissolving. The finding is the first evidence that marine life is already suffering as a result of man-made ocean acidification.
"This is actually happening now," says Geraint Tarling of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK. He and colleagues captured free-swimming sea snails called pteropods from the Southern Ocean in early 2008 and found under an electron microscope that the outer layers of their hard shells bore signs of unusual corrosion.
As well as warming the planet, the carbon dioxide we emit is changing the chemistry of the ocean. CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, making the water less alkaline. The pH is currently dropping at about 0.1 per century, faster than any time in the last 300 million years.
Lab experiments have shown that organisms with hard shells, such as corals and molluscs, will suffer as a result. To build their shells, corals and molluscs need to take up calcium carbonate from the water, but more carbonic acid means more hydrogen ions in the water. These react with carbonate ions, making them unavailable to form calcium carbonate.
Who's ready for Sandy?
Here is what the Pentagon and the Navy stand on climate change.
Separate names with a comma.