This story is archived
Reports on Global Warming Lag Behind the Science »
Posted by: Neophile 2 years, 8 months agoThe newest UN-sponsored assessment left out research that suggests more dire climate change.
Read Full Story at csmonitor.com »
Submitted By:
Neophile
I'm a Propeller Scout so if you have any questions or concerns, send me a message and I'll be happy to help.
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 314
-
catstevensComment has been removed: User banned.
-
catstevensComment has been removed: User banned.
-
ind06
Feb. 11, 2007, 7:43 p.m.It may not be that long ago cosmologically but in terms of our scientific advancement it is a while back. It isn't really fair to compare the advance of man's knowledge of the universe and our planet with the time scale OF the universe and our planet.
After all, if you had a life threatening medical condition you wouldn't want your doctors to only have studied from 33 year old text books, you'd want them to be as up to date as possible.
-
-
elzorro2162
Feb. 11, 2007, 10:21 p.m.I guess that makes you a BS artist (expert)!!!! LOL
Oh Puhleeze, manorak take your Prozac!
Z
-
-
CovalentBond
Feb. 11, 2007, 11:21 p.m.I have to give it to you manorak, you keeping trying. The very the minute the un-proven man caused Global Warming theory became a theory, it had true believers. Those who want to believe were doing so right from the start. It's not science to them it's faith. Man is evil therefore anything man does is bad. They don't just believe it they want to believe it. And you'll never change their minds.
During warming periods man has flourished. During the Medieval Warming Period Vikings settled Greenland, they could grow grapes in England, England was known for it's wine exports. I could go on and on.
During cooling periods (Little Ice Age) the Greenland colony vanished shortly after 1410. In Europe it rained for three years. There was starvation do to the fact that crops could not be grown. The plague also hit during the little ice age. Here again I could go on and on.
When the Earth is warm man does well. When the Earth is cool man suffers. And that is an historical fact.
-
-
cantfoolme
Feb. 12, 2007, 6:08 a.m.And Manorak what is your useful contribution to this discussion apart from revealing yourself as a fool?.
-
IcCaRus
Feb. 11, 2007, 11:11 p.m.why is it that you take this ONE scientists view as opposed to the 2500 scientists worldwide that contributed to the IPCC report? or all the others who have contributed to numerous other reports released recently in agreement with IPCC?
-
-
Ratskii
Feb. 12, 2007, 12:11 a.m.With all respect this really doesn't sound like an objective opinion. I would say the person the wrote the op ed you've provided has little scientific background.
-
cantfoolme
Feb. 12, 2007, 6:10 a.m.Go on. Then please point out to me a valid point from this pretend scientist.
-
ybdogsct
Feb. 12, 2007, 11:25 a.m.MANORAK WROTE:
"He is one of hundreds I have posted. All more trustworthy and believable than anyone who agrees with Al Gore"
Al Gore doesn't conduct his own research. To disagree with him, therefore, is not to disagree with Gore, but rather with the thousands of climatologists from whom Gore borrows data.
Let's examine some of the "trustworthy" sources you've posted, shall we?
1. The Association of British Drivers is hardly a trustworthy, peer-reviewed source.
-
ybdogsct
Feb. 12, 2007, 11:26 a.m.2. Frederick Seitz appears to be easily influenced by money.
http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/02/06/gore
"the CEO of R.J. Reynolds, William Hobbs, concluded that 'Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.' Seitz was a paid permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company."
"Frederick Seitz is also on the Board of Directors of the Marshall institute, which receives most of it's funding from Exxon/Mobil"
"An Analysis of the Natural Resources Defense Council's "Heat Advisory" Report, co-authored by Joel Schwartz, Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and George Taylor were published by the Commonwealth Foundation, the John Locke Foundation, Pacific Research Institute, United for Jobs and The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions.
cont.
-
ybdogsct
Feb. 12, 2007, 11:30 a.m.3. Fred Singer is equally unreliable and easily bought. He (1) doesn't possess an advanced degree in climatology [only in electrical engineering and and physics] and (2) is funded by Exxon and Phillip Morris:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,148
"Singer cites 'A paper published in Science in 1989.' I went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures, throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat."
http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/effects-of-second
"The US EPA in 1993 issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the US were caused by passive smoking every year. Tobacco industry lobbyists, such as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, and industry-funded researchers, such as S. Fred Singer, aggressively attacked the EPA study as "junk science".
-
ybdogsct
Feb. 12, 2007, 11:36 a.m.4. MANORAK WROTE: "All of my posts have been 100% accurate especially the many that I have posted from Stanford University"
What does Stanford say?
from the Stanford Solar Center:
"According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues."
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob
"Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. AT MOST." [my emphasis]
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.
"From the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases."
-
capecoralM
Feb. 12, 2007, 9:24 a.m.15 January 2002
Global Cooling In Antarctica
Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years - despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.06 degrees Celsius during the 20th century - making it unique among the Earth's continental landmasses, according to a paper published today in the online version of Nature.
Researchers with the National Science Foundation (NSF) Longterm Ecological Research (LTER) site in Antarctica's Dry Valleys - a perpetually snow-free, mountainous area adjacent to McMurdo Sound - argue in the paper that long-term data from weather stations across the continent, coupled with a separate set of measurements from the Dry Valleys, confirm each other and corroborate the continental cooling trend.
Look at these charts for US stations. It was much warmer in the late 1950s and early 1960s it appears to me.
-
ind06
Feb. 11, 2007, 9:28 p.m.you're right manorak. the actions of man have never and will never have the slightest effect on this planet.
-
LABELDUDE
Feb. 11, 2007, 11:28 p.m.I still can't understand why Christians can't just PRAY us out of this mess.
ALL TOGETHER NOW.......
-
ETproductions
Feb. 11, 2007, 11:55 p.m.Most REAL scientists are are VERY conservative in their predictions. They will never push the worst case or less certain over what the data show is REALLY going to happen.
It is so depressing to read all the nay-sayers' who are mostly ignorant and often even antipathetic toward science. I even saw one the other day pooh-poohing peer review as a mutual admiration society. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most scientist pour over published papers in HOPES of finding a fatal flaw and pointing it out. It's like the old game of King of the Mountain. You make it to the top by either publishing a paper that survives peer review or debunking somebody else's paper.
-
Ratskii
Feb. 12, 2007, 12:13 a.m.The thing that worries me the most is that the scientists who have studied the ice cores out of antartica and the old tree rings say that they have never seen warming the has been accelerating this fast.
-
Ratskii
Feb. 12, 2007, 1:14 a.m.Your second link is most helpful. I encourage everyone to real it as well as the first.
-
pazuita
Feb. 12, 2007, 1:39 a.m.I'm not sure I understand your reason for posting these links.
The second one clearly states.
"Sponsors of the Heidelberg Appeal included the asbestos and tobacco industries. The latter continued sponsorship of the principal proponents of the Appeal, in research directed to discredit concerns over environmental tobacco smoke."
It seems to discredit it'self with it's own statements.
-
pazuita
Feb. 12, 2007, 1:14 a.m.Prett much up to date
And very much alone in his contentions.
At least Svensmark is a scientist, that is an improvement, but his colleagues claim that he developed his theories after "mishandling the physical data"
Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations" (J. Atmos. and Solar-Terr. Phy., 2003 p801-812) Peter Laut
The first 210 comments are shown. Show all 314 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
