No ice at the North Pole
Article: http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...xclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
Article: http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...xclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance'
- Thread starter Friday on my mind
- Start date
Then ...
Blind political alignments is what have caused this issue.
Again, I will cite any candidate being against nuclear fission power generation as a major reason for myself to label them as favoring politics over reality on the environment.
Furthermore, the north Atlantic is affected, extremely, by the Gulf of Mexico current.
To cancel those affects out, you have to show that there was not a repeat of '79-'08 back in '49-'68.
Unfortunately, the statistics back then, and through the '70s, made them think "global cooling" was upon us.
Yes, most of those regularly cited the US eastern seaboard up through Greenland and the pole too.
I still believe global warming is occurring and we need to address it.
I just think the "doomstay" stuff is based on ignoring regionalized systems and their cycles of change.
I also despise the people that prevented real environmental change but only now curse that gas prices are high.
Then you're chosen not to see it.
Blind political alignments is what have caused this issue.
Again, I will cite any candidate being against nuclear fission power generation as a major reason for myself to label them as favoring politics over reality on the environment.
Yawn. Yet more "no more than 30 year" statistics.
Furthermore, the north Atlantic is affected, extremely, by the Gulf of Mexico current.
To cancel those affects out, you have to show that there was not a repeat of '79-'08 back in '49-'68.
Unfortunately, the statistics back then, and through the '70s, made them think "global cooling" was upon us.
Yes, most of those regularly cited the US eastern seaboard up through Greenland and the pole too.
I still believe global warming is occurring and we need to address it.
I just think the "doomstay" stuff is based on ignoring regionalized systems and their cycles of change.
I also despise the people that prevented real environmental change but only now curse that gas prices are high.
Any word on the fate of Santa Claus?
^OK. Two people who didn't read the article. It didn't say anything about a "doomsday" scenario. It talks about how for the first time in human history people will be able to take a boat to the north pole. Amongst other things. Not a "scare you into believing global warming" article.
But go ahead and just read the header and make your "santa claus" comments. Way to contribute to the thread.:thumbsup:
But go ahead and just read the header and make your "santa claus" comments. Way to contribute to the thread.:thumbsup:
I rest my case ...
"first time in human history"
That's exactly the straight-faced "doomsday" non-sense I'm talking about. It just feeds it.
Just like the fact that "New Orleans has only been flooded once." Ha! It happens every 40 years!
Regular, major cycles occur. Studies that cover 100 years show it. Those that only cover the last 30 years, much less the north Atlantic, do not.
Again, I believe global warming is occurring. I've long been a proponent of renovating the US power grid, so we can renovate our US transportation grid a quarter century later.
I really have no interest in this stuff now. It's all that "awareness" crap that never solves anything.
^So your saying the author of this article, Steve Connor (Science Editor of The Independent and Independent on Sunday who has also worked for The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph and New Scientist), Is just outright lying? Your telling me that you know better than him whether or not the ice at the north pole has ever completely melted away in human history?
If this is, in fact, what you are saying then you'll have to forgive me for being a little skeptical.
If this is, in fact, what you are saying then you'll have to forgive me for being a little skeptical.
Simple
It's a very, very direct statement, but you go ahead and rephrase it however I didn't say, but you want to assume.
It's still not what I said, an important difference.
That's the problem, you should make that too, but you did not.
You, on the other hand, want to believe him over myself.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong.
I'm pointing out the obviousness of the truth.
That people reach outside the bounds of their statistics and make grand statements that are not often factual.
Anyone who knows anything about the Earth's magnetic field and angle on its axis over history knows that there are issues with his statements.
Human history has seen far, far greater changes than what he is talking about here, even in recent, past centuries.
The problem continues to be that we have not had the sensory capability to monitor these events "in real time" until just the last few years, and any, rather limited space-based sensory in the last 30.
That causes people to trip over themselves.
Being that I live in Florida and deal with hurricanes, I see this regularly.
The analysis from even well respected researchers causes them to trip on their own facts when they go outside the bounds and grasp to a political alignment.
Sometimes it's not even their doing, but an editor's.
I've been a victim of that first hand in my publications.
Understand what I said, not what you want to assume.
I'm saying that the presentation of statistics do not match the statements made.
It's a very, very direct statement, but you go ahead and rephrase it however I didn't say, but you want to assume.
It's still not what I said, an important difference.
I'm pointing out a basic reality difference between his statistics and statements.
That's the problem, you should make that too, but you did not.
The problem here is that you don't realize I'm skeptical based on his own statistics, not that I don't want to believe it.
You, on the other hand, want to believe him over myself.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong.
I'm pointing out the obviousness of the truth.
That people reach outside the bounds of their statistics and make grand statements that are not often factual.
Anyone who knows anything about the Earth's magnetic field and angle on its axis over history knows that there are issues with his statements.
Human history has seen far, far greater changes than what he is talking about here, even in recent, past centuries.
The problem continues to be that we have not had the sensory capability to monitor these events "in real time" until just the last few years, and any, rather limited space-based sensory in the last 30.
That causes people to trip over themselves.
Being that I live in Florida and deal with hurricanes, I see this regularly.
The analysis from even well respected researchers causes them to trip on their own facts when they go outside the bounds and grasp to a political alignment.
Sometimes it's not even their doing, but an editor's.
I've been a victim of that first hand in my publications.
Understand what I said, not what you want to assume.
Saw this on the news this morning.Funny how some here just based on their so called expertise(no links) seem to think they know what the truth of it is better than the cited experts.How difficult is it to accept that we are seeing things we have not seen before,very apparently.Then again the planet never had almost 7 billion people in it's history eithier so we should not be surprised with anything new as a result of that.
Good moral (or, rather, advice). I'm not sure if you were taking a jab at me there or what, but still, where were your suspicions when 2 of the 4 links you gave earlier were of the .com and .org variety?
Wiki should be approached with great caution, that's true of course, but I think it depends on what the topic is and how well the subject is sourced and footnoted and such...
Sadly, the word "reliable" has changed in meaning recently. Some think that worldnetdaily and FoxNews are "reliable". Well, that's true, but the question is, what are they reliable for?
[Vader voice]You underestimate the power of jackasses with an agenda, or idiots who have nothing else to do but mess things up for other people.[/Vader voice]
youwanttoshagme
Closed Account
No jab intended, just raising the point. Yes I do use .coms and .orgs, but only certain sites and carefully selection. For example, one reference was for the World Bank summary, something which is a whole different sphere to the tabloid papers and Fox news. The sciencedirect.com link is a universily renowned search engine in academia, parallel to PubMed and NPG archives. I would never reference an opinion (unless primary, relevant and accredited), comment, secondary source or blog entry.
Government websites (gov.com, gov.us or gov.uk) are all good sources for what the governments propose to do, but I prefer to look at their references to which they have based their claims on rather than the claims made in the reports. A fantastic example of this is the Biofuels report (Another Inconvenient Truth) that Oxfam released yesterday. Something that myself and my collauges have pulled to pieces already and strongly opposing.
youwanttoshagme
Closed Account
(Something that I was going to add to the previous post but editing time ran out)
The construction of the [Oxfam] report is written in a way to condemn biofuels and rally against them, however the references that they have selected are only appropriate for their argument, and do not show the whole picture. Even the references that they have used, only certain sections are selected and often contra to the focus of the original reports argument. A lot of reports are written in this way, so I always use the academic search engines to source the original journal reports written by the research scientist rather than trusting the cited reference.
The construction of the [Oxfam] report is written in a way to condemn biofuels and rally against them, however the references that they have selected are only appropriate for their argument, and do not show the whole picture. Even the references that they have used, only certain sections are selected and often contra to the focus of the original reports argument. A lot of reports are written in this way, so I always use the academic search engines to source the original journal reports written by the research scientist rather than trusting the cited reference.
Your pickiness in sources is surely well-founded.
....but don't tell me that you're in favor of biofuels?
youwanttoshagme
Closed Account
Your pickiness in sources is surely well-founded.
....but don't tell me that you're in favor of biofuels?
I prefer to keep an open mind and ambiguity on a lot of subjects. I have a lot of involvement in a lot of different projects at the moment, therefore can not reveal everything I know, work with or get involved in.
Biofuels is a complex area, and a lot more detailed than what the general public precieve it to be.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
"The Sky is falling"! Chicken Little
What ever happen to the new ice age they were telling everyone about in the 70's?
What ever happen to the new ice age they were telling everyone about in the 70's?
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Similar threads
