The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[sleepyjeff]

^Exactly. I still think the jury is out. This isn't a 2 plus 2 = 4 observation. There are many, many very well respected climate experts out there who are not on board yet.

---Not all of them work for Exxon, Shell, or Cheney either

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

^Exactly. I still think the jury is out. This isn't a 2 plus 2 = 4 observation. There are many, many very well respected climate experts out there who are not on board yet.

Whereas others believe eventually has come and gone.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Whereas others believe eventually has come and gone.

So long as it's just "believe" and not "know"

[wendybeth]

Jeff, while I'm proud of you for finding one example of an advancing glacier, I don't suppose you could be troubled to explain the many receding ones. Or perhaps the ice fisherman in Greenland are just a bunch of big whiner babies, and the polar bears that are drowning just need to visit the local Y. (The rangers that came aboard during our cruise must be full of **** as well).

I really would like to borrow those rose-colored glasses of yours- I think you have a much more pleasant view of the world than I. (Future generations be damned, eh?)

Now, tell me how much better the people in Kiev and it's environs are these days and maybe I'll change my mind on nuclear energy as well.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Now, tell me how much better the people in Kiev and it's environs are these days and maybe I'll change my mind on nuclear energy as well.

You would honestly compare the nuclear technology employed at Chernobyl to current nuclear technology? Palo Verde here next to Phoenix was built in the late 1970s and is the largest nuke plant in the US. The tech there is old, and yet there hasn't been anything close to an incident. Modern nuclear tech is incredibly safe and building more plants is a necessity.

Not to be "snarky", but as someone who seems to be pretty sure on her scientific knowledge related to global warming, you are pretty uninformed about nuclear power and are making a pretty rash judgement.

I posted a link earlier in this thread about the intimidation many in the scientific community feel when they come out with evidence disputing the "common fact" of man caused (please note the "man caused") global warming. Not unlike Galileo and the whole round earth thing.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Jeff, while I'm proud of you for finding one example of an advancing glacier

Oh I could give you many examples of advancing glaciers; why I chose this particular one(other than the fact that it was called "Harvard") is that it is right next to a retreating one. Both share the same "enviroment"; both recieve the same amount of snow, rain, sleet and hail. If global warming was causing one to retreat then it would stand to reason.....

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I don't suppose you could be troubled to explain the many receding ones.

Many(especially the ones in Alaska) have long records of receding and then advancing sometimes changing directions as many as 4 times a century.

If they never receded the entire world would be covered in ice.

As for those Greenlandic fishermen; You're never going to get me to call these smart independent(they pulled themselves out of the European Union back in 85') hardy souls whiners. However there is plenty of precedence for what is happening now---

Climatic cooling compelled scientists to drill into the Greenland ice caps. The oxygen isotopes from the ice caps inferred that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a relatively milder climate in Greenland, which lasted roughly between 800 and 1200. However, in 1300 the climate began to gradually cool and eventually the last Ice Age reached intense levels in Greenland by 1420.----from Wikpedia

The colonies established in Greenland around 1000 thrived for hundreds years(same time as the MWP) but were completely and mysteriously lost by the 1400s(not long after the MWP was over)

[scaeagles]

WB - why then hasn't the average temperature increased since 1998?

Green house gas emissions have not fallen in that time frame, but have rather increased.

It isn't an issue of warming (at least to me), as there is data to show an increase of a degree or so in the last 100 years.

It is an indisputable fact that there have been periods of warming and cooling far before any such green house emissions by man came into play. These things happen naturally in the planetary (and more largely due to the solar) cycle. Therefore, no panic. We have no - zero, zip, none, nada - control over it.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

WB - why then hasn't the average temperature increased since 1998?

Green house gas emissions have not fallen in that time frame, but have rather increased.

It isn't an issue of warming (at least to me), as there is data to show an increase of a degree or so in the last 100 years.

It is an indisputable fact that there have been periods of warming and cooling far before any such green house emissions by man came into play. These things happen naturally in the planetary (and more largely due to the solar) cycle. Therefore, no panic. We have no - zero, zip, none, nada - control over it.

With all due respect, all of YOUR scientific analysis isn't going to trump what many scientists the world over believe, what respected new sources are treating with respect and what I can see as trends with my own un-educated eye. If we were talking about Basketball, I'd believe every word you said but, I'm afraid, in this case, I'm going to have to go with the thoughts of the majority of people who study this stuff and we'll just have to wait and see.....or our children will.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

With all due respect, all of YOUR scientific analysis isn't going to trump what many scientists the world over believe

It isn't MY scientific analysis. It is what I've read from respected scientists who disagree with the whole global warming panic. Like I asked WB - have you read the link to the piece from the scientist at MIT?

We can trade links all day on this evidence or that evidence. I just resent the implication that I am not particularly well read on it or I'm making up my own scientific analysis. It is not the case.

[wendybeth]

Of course it's not all man-made, but you're (and correct me if I am wrong) trying to excuse our government's anti-green stance by saying that all this science data is 'sky-is falling' nonsense. I suppose it doesn't really matter, because the fact remains that it is happening and we aren't doing **** about it anyway. By your logic, however, I never should have quit smoking. People got lung cancer long before cigs were invented, right? So why bother trying to do anything preventitive? Hell, we're all going to die someday- why try to fight it at all?