Every Time I see

[bamabake]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&u=/nm/environment_climate_dc&printer=1


Yahoos like these. I thank God in heaven that gore and kerry are not in charge.

 

[Queasy1]

What disturbs me is when you see statements like these:

preliminary results of one study said temperatures could rise by up to 11 degrees centigrade.

This 'study' was the result of one of 2,000 computer simulations where humans were plugging in variables. Oddly enough, you have to go to a British paper to get some balance on the subject.

“It is not hard to see what Maddox means. While all work questioning the extent of global warming tends to be dismissed by the global warming lobby as propaganda on behalf of the oil industry, wild theoretical predictions of global warming are allowed to stand without challenge. Last week, Nature carried the results of a project called climateprediction.net, which has harnessed the spare capacity of 90,000 personal computers to run and re-run simulations of climate change. An accompanying news story in Nature was headlined "Biggest-ever climate simulation warns temperatures may rise by 11 degrees C". Inevitably, the story was widely reported in these alarmist terms. Yet when read in detail, the Nature paper told a different story.

“The climate change simulations were run 2,000 times, each time with slightly different assumptions. Only the very highest estimate predicted a rise of 11C. Most simulations suggested a rise of around 3.4C, while several actually predicted a fall in global temperatures (though these were discarded by the researchers on "technical grounds"). Moreover, the simulations proposed no timescale for the predicted changes.”

One might reasonably conclude, given the wide variation in results, that the computer simulations so far devised to predict global warming are of little use and should not be relied upon in order to make decisions affecting the global economy. All the research team would say is "there's lots and lots more to do".

So why are the "researchers" discarding the simulations that showed a fall in global temperature? And why are various pundits, leaders, and journalists ignoring the actual data and going with scare headlines about Global Warming?

 

[blackumbrella]

i don't know alot about global warming, so i'd appreciate anyone who does posting some research findings.

 

[Bamaro]

Global warming is for real. What causes it and how long or whether it will continue are still unknown for sure. Climate is so complex the Tidefans servers couldn't handle posting more than a fraction of what is known or theorized.

 

[It's On A Slab]

What explains the continuing melt of some of the world's

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&u=/nm/environment_climate_dc&printer=1


Yahoos like these. I thank God in heaven that gore and kerry are not in charge.

largest glaciers?

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7033

In east Africa, the storied snows of Mount Kilimanjaro are vanishing. In the icebound Alps and Himalayas of Europe and Asia, the change has been stunning. From South America to south Asia, new glacial lakes threaten to overflow and drown villages below.

In the past few years, space satellites have helped measure the global trend, but scientists such as Rajendra K. Pachauri, a native of north India, have long seen what was happening on the ground.

"I know from observation," Pachauri told a reporter at an international climate conference in Argentina. "If you go to the Himalayan peaks, the rate at which the glaciers are retreating is alarming. And this is not an isolated example. I've seen photographs of Mount Kilimanjaro 50 years ago and now. The evidence is visible."

"Ample" evidence indicates that global warming is causing glaciers to retreat worldwide, reports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-sponsored network of climate scientists led by Pachauri.

Global temperatures rose about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the 20th century. French glaciologists working with Ramirez and other scientists at La Paz's San Andres University estimate that the Bolivian Andes are warming even faster, currently at a half-degree Fahrenheit per decade.

 

[ValuJet]

...

 

[It's On A Slab]

Does marijuana smoke contribute to global warming?

I dunno...I'm just asking.

It's probably a good thing The Grateful Dead aren't touring any more. They had a constant haze of smoke following them around from city to city.

Only if it's smoked outdoors.

If it's smoked indoors, there's a good chance that Panama City Beach hotel rooms would be filled with smoke during Spring rumbas and twisters.

 

[Piglet]

On issues like this, I believe the scientists. They know what they're talking about, and the stakes are pretty high.

Also, it's easy to see how corporations who want to keep doing what they're doing would have an interest in lying about global warming not being a problem. It's hard to see anyone having a stake in making the problem look worse than it is. What would be in it for someone, to do that?

One thing I don't get is, how come this global warming news always comes out in the middle of winter? You'd think people would be more in tune with recognizing it as a bad thing if they announced it in August.

 

[It's On A Slab]

One thing I don't get is, how come this global warming news always comes out in the middle of winter? You'd think people would be more in tune with recognizing it as a bad thing if they announced it in August.

It's actually Summer in the Southern Hemisphere(Bolivia, etc.).

Their seasons are opposite ours.

 

[BamaTodd]

Does this have anything to do with El Nino or Elian Gonzales?

 

[Queasy1]

On issues like this, I believe the scientists. They know what they're talking about, and the stakes are pretty high.

The problem is, it is not necessarily the scientist (though sometimes it is), that cause the problem. It is the activist, the pundit, the journalist, and/or the politician who twist the scientists findings and don't report/comment on the entire findings.

Look at the example I posted above. The scientists said that there is a lot more work needed to be done but the politicians, activists, and press grabbed ahold of one result of a 2,000 experiment study and pretty much said that a "Climate Catastrophe" is inevitable.

 

[bamabake]

The problem is, it is not necessarily the scientist (though sometimes it is), that cause the problem. It is the activist, the pundit, the journalist, and/or the politician who twist the scientists findings and don't report/comment on the entire findings.

Look at the example I posted above. The scientists said that there is a lot more work needed to be done but the politicians, activists, and press grabbed ahold of one result of a 2,000 experiment study and pretty much said that a "Climate Catastrophe" is inevitable.

Well said. Also this issue is like the DEBATE over evolution. There are scientists on many sides of both issues. The pop culture media always chooses disaster over anything else it seems. When I was a younger man global cooling was the rage. Where some people miss the boat on this and many issues is they only expose themselves to one side.
Bamaro is dead right, speaking just on the climate. There are more variables we dont know than ones we do.
Where I get sideways is when a topic, the cliamte, becomes a political issue. I am telling you that all Kyoto is about is politics. Anyone here that thinks that treaty is about the environment is a sucker. In the end it is about wealth redistribution, ours to someone elses.
The earth may be getting warmer. So what. I know it isnt pop culture to say it but I cant see how lil ole man can have as much effect in 20 years a single volcano can have in 1 day, or hour for all I know. Besides, maybe a warmer earth wil be a better place for us?

 

[blackumbrella]

The problem is, it is not necessarily the scientist (though sometimes it is), that cause the problem. It is the activist, the pundit, the journalist, and/or the politician who twist the scientists findings and don't report/comment on the entire findings.

Look at the example I posted above. The scientists said that there is a lot more work needed to be done but the politicians, activists, and press grabbed ahold of one result of a 2,000 experiment study and pretty much said that a "Climate Catastrophe" is inevitable.

i agree that it's easy to get attention by saying 'the sky is falling,' but it's also wise to look up when someone says it. the bold phrase in the article you posted seems to suggest that by excluding the temp drop situations, the SCIENTISTS were manipulating the data. truth be told, it's extremely common in many applications of statistical methods to exclude extreme outliers. piglet makes a great point (bake too)--you can follow the money on this one, which is why it's no surprise dubya's masters keep him on a short chain about kyoto. and you're right, it's certainly very important how we allow this issue to be framed for us by media. for instance, to argue that bc we can't be certain what's causing the global warming, industry or natural processes, is beside the point. the point is how screwed we are if trends continue--so we need to learn more and be proactive.

 

[NYBamaFan]

There is a great deal of evidence that the Earth has gone through many different episodes of global warming before man was even brought into the picture. Scientists have no idea how, if at all, man is involved in the current changes.

Should we destroy economies around the globe to put measures in place to stop something when we have no idea whether those measures will help? That is the type of question being asked by the Bush administration...

 

[blackumbrella]

There is a great deal of evidence that the Earth has gone through many different episodes of global warming before man was even brought into the picture. Scientists have no idea how, if at all, man is involved in the current changes.

Should we destroy economies around the globe to put measures in place to stop something when we have no idea whether those measures will help? That is the type of question being asked by the Bush administration...

it's not enough to ask questions--the bush admin needs to look for some answers. they could cut the pork and use those funds to look into it.

 

[bamabake]

There is a great deal of evidence that the Earth has gone through many different episodes of global warming before man was even brought into the picture. Scientists have no idea how, if at all, man is involved in the current changes.

Should we destroy economies around the globe to put measures in place to stop something when we have no idea whether those measures will help? That is the type of question being asked by the Bush administration...

Well I am all for reason. I mean if we could produce electric or hydrogen cars people wanted then lets do it. Why not conserve? Remember the polution issue in the 70s all of those PSAs? That was good policy. It is stupid to throw trash out your window. If McDonalds wants to use biodegradable paper instead of styrofoam, well good!
When I read some of the things I read that "environmentalist" say, their motives seem political. I tend to think that whatever changes are occurring, are due to natural things like the sun and the oceans, which we know squat about. I also believe that so along as we can suppress communisim, expand freedom and allow more NEW humans to be born, we will find ways to flourish in the world in spite of the changes. After all it is what separates us from the real animals