financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060206/43371626.html
'Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist'
'Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist'
nbcrusader said:Yes, please only cite science that keeps in line with traditional environmental dogma.
nbcrusader said:Ignoring some evidence to focus on select evidence doesn't lend credibility to the argument.
This is not the first time scientific evidence has been presented disputing the notion that man-made climate change is occurring.
nbcrusader said:Ignoring some evidence to focus on select evidence doesn't lend credibility to the argument.
This is not the first time scientific evidence has been presented disputing the notion that man-made climate change is occurring.
Irvine511 said:
you're incorrect on the 2nd part.
there's a general consensus that climate change is due to human activity. that's not a question.
the question is how much and to what extent.
Irvine511 said:look! a puppy!
nbcrusader said:
No, that is incorrect.
The general consensus is politically driven, selective highlighting of scientific data.
Last year, we had a thread about the political pressures placed on scientists who do not automatically accept the "general consensus".
DrTeeth said:However, I'd be curious to hear about this astronomer's motivation for taking such a strong stance on this.
indra said:
Got his name in the news? :shurg:
Irvine511 said:the consensus, as expressed in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Academy of Sciences, and recently confirmed by a joint statement of the G8 academies of science, is that nearly all the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities; most "evidence" to the contrary is usually politically influenced and designed to give certain people "ammunition" to help them ignore this overwhelming evidence so they continue to consume fossil fuels at current levels.
nbcrusader said:The political influence to maintain the "general consensus" is tremendous
DrTeeth said:
What exactly fo you base this assumption on?
nbcrusader said:
nbcrusader said:OMG!!!!!!
I said start here.
But I guess your ONE friend who will give a non-partisian view
DrTeeth said:One thing I at least would say is that the issue is very politically charged, but most of the political pressure I see seems to be aimed against Global Warming science, not supporting it.
DrTeeth said:One thing I at least would say is that the issue is very politically charged, but most of the political pressure I see seems to be aimed against Global Warming science, not supporting it.
nbcrusader said:
Between the UN and all the countries who signed up to the Kyoto Treaty, you think most of the political pressure is against global warming science??
Sorry but have you read the forcast for Europe with climate change? Predictions of glaciers covering Wales, extremely cold winters. The idea of global warming has been discredited because global climate is more complex than a 1:1 - CO2: Heating effect. That is why the terminology climate change has been introduced.Irvine511 said:
and whenever possible, confuse the issue and distract with shiny objects that distract from mountains of evidence.
source`They call me a global warming heretic," says David Bellamy, the conservationist who has dismissed the imminent demise of the planet under a tidal wave of melted polar ice caps as "poppycock". "I have assured them that they cannot burn me at the stake because of all the dioxins my body will give off." The bearded botanist emits a hoot at this scientific bon mot, but in truth he isn't finding his current predicament very funny at all.
Ever since he stuck his head above the undergrowth to question the view that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for climate change, Bellamy has found himself frozen out of the debate on global warming. Rather than blaming pollutants, he argues that the current change in climate is simply part of an eons-old global cycle; one that humans are as powerless to stop as they are blameless in starting. "Natural climate change has been happening for a long time," he says. "If you were sitting in London 10,000 years ago there would be woolly rhinos walking around because it would be the end of the ice age. Now we are in a pretty wobbly phase and some people are saying that this is caused by carbon dioxide pouring into the atmosphere and drowning us all. I just don't believe that."
The problem is that the thought police of the conservation community will brook no dissent and have contrived to silence his voice and that of his supporters. "I always thought that was what science was all about: arguing publicly and publishing both sides of the point, finding the answer," he says. "But we simply cannot get our stuff published. They don't tolerate dissent because they are not telling the truth. There is no consensus whatsoever on global warming; there are just as many people dissenting but they will not publish those papers in journals."
He believes the reason that non-believers are being silenced is fear: after all it is reassuring to think that whatever the cataclysm ahead we at least have the power to head it off. Much less comforting to believe that there is nothing we can do.
Bellamy, who endeared himself to a generation with his mangled pronunciations and saliva-soaked enthusiasm on television, might make an unlikely rebel, but that is what, reluctantly, he has become. He is no apologist for the car industry, he says, though his views are likely to be more acceptable around the water coolers of General Motors than Greenpeace. "If you believe that CO2 actually is causing man-made global warming then the car is bad news," he says. "But I think the car industry should be patted on the back. They are all doing their bit making more and more efficient cars, and increased fuel efficiency is a good thing because it will make the oil last longer."
A_Wanderer said:Is it even worth pointing out to you that the issue here is solar output and it's effect on climate? Just as Milankovitch cycles have periodic effects on how much solar energy reaches the earth and tempreture is altered correspondingly.
nbcrusader said:Ignoring some evidence to focus on select evidence doesn't lend credibility to the argument.