The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Science by majority?

Those scientist who disagree with the global warming theory are not small in number either(although I wouldn't describe them as "loads")....are we to call them "ignorant" of their own field of study?

Not 30 years ago many of the very smartest scientist in the world said we were on the verge of an ice age. Publications such as the New York Times and Time magazine had article after article calling for more studies "before its too late". Those who dared to disagree were also called "ignorant". Those same publications and even some of the same scientists are now screaming the opposite....and of course those who don't panic along with them are called "ignorant".


A scientist who does not admit he might potentially be wrong is really a theologian.

I think anyone who doubts whether there is global warming needs to head to Alaska, where the glaciers are receding at an incredible rate. Greenland is another 'hot spot'- the fisherman can tell you how things have changed in the past few decades. I know our weather up here has totally changed since I was a kid.

I trust the views of a majority of scientists over the views of a minority, especially since so many of the nay-sayers have their heads up Bush's ass. Now, with Kempthorne in office, we're really screwed.

I realise the earth cycles out- warm periods alternating with ice ages- but usually it's catastrophic for the species that has adapted to the preceding age. We are that species this time around.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I think anyone who doubts whether there is global warming needs to head to Alaska, where the glaciers are receding at an incredible rate. Greenland is another 'hot spot'- the fisherman can tell you how things have changed in the past few decades. I know our weather up here has totally changed since I was a kid.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/21/D8H4KC1G9.html


The Harvard Glacier has been advancing since 1905, and possibly earlier. It has advanced at an average rate of nearly 20 m a-1 since 1931, while the adjacent Yale Glacier has retreated at a rate of approximately 50 m a-1 during the same time period. The striking contrast between the terminus behavior of the Yale and Harvard Glaciers, which parallel each other in the same fjord, and are derived from the same snowfield, supports the hypothesis that their terminus behavior is largely the result of dynamic controls rather than changes in climate. If climate were controlling the terminus behavior, more synchronous behavior between the two glaciers would be expected (Sturm et al., 1991).

[scaeagles]

Now, now, NA.....I can post many a link from respected scientists that not only say global warming is stopping or slowing or not nearly as catostrophic as one might be led to believe by those who put forth such catastrophic forecasts, but that man can do nothing to stop it or make it happen.

No increase in temps since 1998

This guy here is just an atmospheric scientist at MIT:

Climate of fear

While this next report doesn't discount manmade greenhouse gases, it talks about the history of natural warming and cooling the planetary cycle:

Is Global warming nature's work?

The sun is not a constant, and the energy (and therefore heat) output varies greatly. There have been periods of massive global cooling and warming that predate the industrial revolution (and even the presence of man on the planet).

While the global temperature is a degree or so warmer than 100 years ago, I am not anywhere near believing that this is man caused, particularly looking at the fact that the average global temperature has not increased since 1998 (see the first link).

We can, of course, continue to trade links on the subject. My point is simply that the scientific school of thought is not all in one corner on this.

[scaeagles]

Conservation is always smart. Panic is not.

There are also lots of really smart scientists who disagree with the whole global warming panic phenomenon.

[Not Afraid]

The sscientific community will keep discussing and disagreeing, but talk talk talking is great for them - they're supposed to do that. But, if we wait for them to come up with a difinitive conclusion we may be in too much trouble by then.

Of course, why do I care? I don't have kids and I will be dead by the time things progress to a point where it is too late for reversal. LALALALALALA

[scaeagles]

Hey uh, NA....the biggest doom and gloom speakers already say it is too late. Even the highly touted Kyoto protocal is not projected to do anything to stop what has been projected to happen (by those in that school of thought). Kyoto is projected to slow global warming by something like a tenth of a degree over the next 100 years.

[Not Afraid]

I know. It sucks. I see why people don't want to belive it.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I know. It sucks. I see why people don't want to belive it.

You're missing my point. It isn't that I don't want to believe it, it is that I think there is enough evidence that it is not man caused, but rather it is a natural cycle in plantary and stellar science that is causing the small increases we have seen.

[€uroMeinke]

From my 10 minute Harvard Degree, it seems clear that temps are rising (glacier melt and all that) Whether or not that's caused by man seems irrelevent. I wonder if there is anything we can do to mitigate it - that too might be beyond our control, but I think it foolish to not at least evaluate that possibility.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

From my 10 minute Harvard Degree, it seems clear that temps are rising (glacier melt and all that) Whether or not that's caused by man seems irrelevent. I wonder if there is anything we can do to mitigate it - that too might be beyond our control, but I think it foolish to not at least evaluate that possibility.

See, he's even smarter than I am!