The New Global Warming Thread

[Pompa]

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite.

Warning for language:
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2007/wp-co...c%20PWNAGE.jpg

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

Oh come on, Al and his golden statue told me they can predict the future!

[LuckyStrike]

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

LOL The global warming chicken littles will say anything. More hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, warmer temperature or colder temperature. They crack me up.

[xTYBALTx]

Originally Posted by Atwood

"But one of the things we see with the climate is unpredictability."

Fixed.

[War.mongeR1]

Wait...so it's global warming that causes the earth to be colder? Then if it got colder, then wouldn't we be right back at normal? I'm confused. :/

A person getting frostbite on global warming expedition? Classic. I'm actually surprised she wasn't wearing a thong bikini at the time to try and make a statement. She'd be in front of the camera with her teeth chattering and her body blue like, "See everyone! Global warming's made such an impact that I can wear a swimsuit at the North Pole." Maybe that's why she got frostbite. I can't wait for the tape to be released to prove my theory. Not that I'd want to see HER in a bikini. Eww, gross.

[Steeler]

Well, this thread has certainly stopped being productive.

[Pompa]

IMO it never was.

[tau_neutrino]

Discussing science on the web when most people are not scientists and generally don't have the knowledge and/or training required to interpret the relevant data is usually not very productive

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by tau_neutrino

Discussing science on the web when most people are not scientists and generally don't have the knowledge and/or training required to interpret the relevant data is usually not very productive

But it is very entertaining, engaging and sometimes even educational!

[tau_neutrino]

Originally Posted by AMosely

But it is very entertaining, engaging and sometimes even educational!

Unfortunately it's also the way a lot of disinformation is spread!

[xTYBALTx]

Originally Posted by tau_neutrino

Unfortunately it's also the way a lot of disinformation is spread!

What isn't a conduit for lots of disinformation?

Clearly you think that bad information has passed through this thread. I would agree. But it's our duty as voters to educate ourselves on the issues confronting this nation, and I would submit that this thread has been far more educational for its participants than would be any of the alternatives. Threads such as this one are excellent mechanisms for laypeople to increase their knowledge. If you have better methods, perhaps you should share them with us.

[tau_neutrino]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

What isn't a conduit for lots of disinformation?

Clearly you think that bad information has passed through this thread. I would agree. But it's our duty as voters to educate ourselves on the issues confronting this nation, and I would submit that this thread has been far more educational for its participants than would be any of the alternatives. Threads such as this one are excellent mechanisms for laypeople to increase their knowledge. If you have better methods, perhaps you should share them with us.

Actually, I don't know if bad information has passed through this thread since I haven't really followed it. My point is that while facts and accepted hypotheses/ideas are passed around and explained (and this is a good thing), disinformation is also especially easy to pass around in a medium such as this -- and when the issue(s) is politically charged.

The best method from the standpoint of wanting to understand the intricacies of any scientific issue is to read scientific journals where scientists publish their hypotheses, data, and models. E.g. scholar.google.com, search for global warning, climate change, etc. The articles may give conflicting viewpoints, but they will also explain why. The downside of this is that the reader will have to have sufficient background knowledge in statistics, ecology, and relevant sciences to fully grasp the concepts.

[xTYBALTx]

The question I posed to you specifically queried information for "laypeople."

Additionally, virtually every person's research showcased in the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' video should be found within the link you provided. I suspect the same for many of the people showcased in Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth.' Many of the articles and concepts referenced in this thread should be able to be found through your link as well - albeit possibly in a less distilled and layman friendly version.

[tau_neutrino]

One problem is that when science translated into layman's terms is often misinterpreted and loses essential details (e.g. evolution/speciation). This is why laypeople -- politicians in particular, since they make the decisions -- need to brush up on their science knowledge IMO.

[AMosely]

About time for an update here because once again I am finding serious incongruity between science and policy. It appears as though concept of global warming as a function of greenhouse gas emissions is gaining strength by the day, which is good, because its real. You may be able to add George W. Bush to the list of believers, but that doesn't mean he'll be doing anything about it.

Bush: "The United States takes this issue seriously, my proposal is this: By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases."
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...23701020070601

The man can launch a multi-national invasion force in a matter of months, but clean air standards? Those require years of debate, and, he's only got two years left in office. You just can't expect him to get anything substantial done in that amount of time, right?

Meanwhile, NASA has gotten some serious results from a 15+ year study of Greenland's ice sheet. Some areas are melting at a rate of 65-100 feet per year of lost vertical height. With roughly 9" of loss = .12 inches of sea rise, do the math.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...greenland.html
and
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env..._glaciers.html

Not much time, either:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...ger_point.html

[Lucky Shot]

Nasa has also reported that Mars, the moon Titan and many other planetary bodies in the galaxy are warming, none of which has been tied into carbon dioxide. They are discovering tea houses and mines in the alps that were covered up by glaciers years ago that are now being uncovered as the glaciers melt back to previous points and Vikings ruins in Greenland.

But what did one Nasa official say about global warming on NPR?

Originally Posted by http://agw-heretic.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-06%3A00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-06%3A00&max-results=10

MR. GRIFFIN: I have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Lucky Shot