Arctic Warming Drying Up Lakes 377
kingofalaska writes "An accelerating Arctic warming trend over the past quarter of a century has dramatically dried up more than a thousand large lakes in Siberia probably because the permafrost beneath them has begun to thaw, according to a paper to be published the journal Science." From the article at the LA Times: "About 125 of the 1,170 shrunken lakes disappeared altogether, and most are now considerably smaller than the study's baseline of 40 hectares, or about 99 acres, the researchers found. If Arctic temperatures continue to rise, the scientists said, many of the lakes in high northern latitudes, where they are ubiquitous, could eventually disappear."
Mebbe... (Score:3, Funny)
Tropical (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tropical (Score:2, Insightful)
I for one welcome global warming (Score:2)
The Africa problem BTW has bugger all to do with global warming. US/EU agricultural subsidies and trade tariffs are the cause and at least the EU is changing it's agricultural policies so that farmers are paid for doing nothing instead of being paid for producing. It has also pretty much zero rated African imports.
Re:I for one welcome global warming (Score:2, Informative)
global warming and farming (Score:3, Informative)
The Africa problem BTW has bugger all to do with global warming. US/EU agricultural subsidies and trade tariffs are the cause and at least the EU is changing it's agricultural policies so that farmers are paid for doing nothing instead of being paid for producing. It has also pretty much zero rated African imports.
Some of Africa's problems of growing enough food is due to climate changes though not all. Ethiopia for instance used to be a breadbasket producing more than enough food to feed the populatio
Re:Tropical (Score:3, Insightful)
*Temperatures rise
*Wilderness starts to die
*Crops become harder to grow
*"No worries! Just chuck a bit of this on it! We think it's safe, and you'll improve your productivity and hence income by 500%. You'll need to renew your patent license again next year."
Re:Tropical (Score:5, Interesting)
Evidence? Where I live, warmer weather increases the length of the growing season. Crops are easier to grow.
Re:Tropical (Score:2)
Which area is better for agriculture?
Re:Tropical (Score:2)
Re:Tropical (Score:2)
Re:Tropical (Score:3, Informative)
"Crops become harder to grow"
Evidence? Where I live, warmer weather increases the length of the growing season. Crops are easier to grow.
Warmer weather can also mean reduced rainfall and draught in some areas thus causing desertification:
Falcon
Re:Tropical (Score:4, Insightful)
There are crops capable of growing in all the warmer lattitudes. So long as wild strains of the various cash crops are preserved, new seeds can be developed for the new climate.
Rising temperatures and unstable climate can cause problems, yes. But increased pesticide usage? Increased requirements for fertilizer? Um... no.
No worries! Just chuck a bit of this on it! We think it's safe, and you'll improve your productivity and hence income by 500%. You'll need to renew your patent license again next year
Care to elaborate what "this" is? What is the precise chemical that will be used more often if global warming occurs?
Farmers don't 'renew their patent license' on anything. There are people producing seeds who patent them. Is that what you're going for? Corporate ownership of these cultivars is a problem. Hybridization can work as a type of patent and so can patents, with the result being that farmers have to buy more seeds each year, forcing dependance.
If we really wanted to stretch things to reach your conclusion, maybe we could paint this scenario;
"the change in climate would destroy local crops forcing native farmers to use corporate sponsored monoculture which, because of its homogeneity will require more pesticide usage.
That's the closest I can get to what you're trying to say.
But it seems that you're not articulating particular issues in this post so much as regurgitating causes and effects of random environmental problems without knowing which connects to which and by what mechanism.
Re:Tropical (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tropical (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tropical (Score:2, Informative)
don't forget that most of the meat industry is not interested in this proper grazing, they want maximum throughput and use cheap grain as food - otherwise there is no possible way at all to maintain cheap meat to massive countries.
people want it, I want it and no one i
Re:Tropical (Score:2)
Fight Nature (Score:2)
If my sun is trying to kill me, I'd like to do anything I can to survive.
We can do it, have a little more faith in the species. Look at all the other things we've done.
Re:Tropical (Score:2)
Do you read alot of Rush Limbaugh? He wrote something similiar in one of his books.
As I understand it the flaw in that argument is that the chlorine spewed from volcanic eruptions is water soluble, and washes harmlessly out of the atmosphere. Man made 'chlorofluorocarbons' do not.
A
Re:Tropical (Score:2)
While it is true that volcanic eruptions release huge amounts of greenhouse gases, that is all part of the natural cycle. Us directly adding to the amount breaks the cycle out of its normal boundaries.
Think about this analogy. Every year the sun directly delivers a hundred trillion watts of energy to Earth (I'm making numbers up because the numb
Re:Tropical (Score:3, Informative)
For an informed history of this piece of misinformation, see:
http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/search.php?d i splay_article=vn504ozoneed [sustainer.org]
You seem to intelligent to be repeating such an obvious canard. In the future please double check EVERYTHING you hear a certain oxycontin addict tell you.
Also glaciers (Score:5, Interesting)
Glacier wrapped in foil to stop melting [www.cbc.ca]
Re:Also glaciers (Score:2)
"Environmentalists from WWF International, Greenpeace and other groups protested as the glacier was covered.
They dismissed the foil as a short-term solution. The worldwide problem of melting glaciers can only be addressed by cracking down on greenhouse gases and other things that contribute to climate change, the environmentalists said."
seems like those environmentalists are protesting the wrong thing there.
even tho giving a glacier a nice shiny coat isn't gone sol
Re:Also glaciers (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the whole idea is stupid and indicative of the developed world's approach to climate change: spend money so that rich people can still ski in Switzerland.
Enviromentalists can't sort out the real problem. Every single person on the planet has to take responsibility for it. But we won't. And we'll vote out any government that tries to make us change.
Re:Also glaciers (Score:3, Insightful)
Bravo! I'd really like to see some responsibility in this whole mess, but it's not going to happen. Too many people feel too strongly, and at best you'll get tin-foil-hat responses like lowering CO2 emmissions (when we know darned well that CO2 is one of the least effective greenhouse gasses, and most plans to c
Re:Also glaciers (Score:4, Insightful)
If I have bone cancer and my legs hurt, I can take an aspirin and feel better today. But it allows me to ignore the pain that is indicative of a much more serious problem that if not taken care of will negatively impact me months or years down the road.
Similarly, some people view local mitigation efforts this way. To the extent that they remove the immediate problem they allow people to ignore the bigger picture and delay the actions that need to be taken (often expensive and effortful, just like chemotherapy) that are needed to resolve the problem long term and avoid the big nasty consequences later on.
If the person was seeing a doctor and had a serious treatment plan scheduled, there'd be no problem at all taking an aspirin. But if you see the person not taking any of those steps, can you understand why a bystander might consider taking the aspirin a bad thing?
Re:Also glaciers (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem that I see
Lakes drying up (Score:4, Funny)
Increasing? (Score:4, Informative)
By contrast, the scientists found that in Siberian areas where the ground below is still permanently frozen, the number of lakes actually increased by about 4% and total lake area grew by about 12% over the last three decades.
Interestingly they neglected to indicate how many hectares this 12% represented.
I guess that wasn't as dramatic a headline.
Arctic Warming Is Drying Up Lakes, Study Finds, but some lakes actually growing
Re:Increasing? (Score:2)
Re:Increasing? (Score:2)
This isn't about preserving lakes, this is about figuring out what the global warming caused by us will mean for our common future. The early signs appear most dramatically in the artic regions [bbc.co.uk], glaciars in mountain areas in Asia [abc.net.au], Africa [bbc.co.uk] and on the water level influence on islands in the pacific [southpacific.org]. But if the melting accelerates, which it probably
Re:Increasing? (Score:2)
Both the warming and the wettening of the Arctic have been anticipated for about twenty years; the abrupt decline in lake area is new and unexpected.
Yes, your headline is less dramatic, but it also is less descriptive of the main new information.
The purpose of a headline is to summarize, not to tell the whole story. That's
Re:Increasing? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Increasing? (Score:2)
Residents of Arctic region already feeling effects (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Residents of Arctic region already feeling effe (Score:2)
http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/5438282.ht
They planned a trip for more than 2.5 years to highlight global warming, and
I know where Permafrost is! (Score:2)
Don't worry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This != Global warming (Score:2, Informative)
Except, you know, to the extent that Archimedes Principle says that they won't. Oh, and the fact that in the last ten years we've watched some of the largest ones in existence disintegrate.
[Off to Norway tomorrow for a conference on Ice Shelf Processes]
Re:This != Global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This != Global warming (Score:3, Informative)
While those atmospheric temperature changes (which are believed to be anthropogenic) tend to be localised, the effect of them need not be. The earth's climate is probably the most complicated non-linear system ever studied in any depth and any argument discussion of it based on global averages of anything is extremely unlikely to be very rewarding.
It does.
Re:This != Global warming (Score:4, Informative)
i) Climate is not weather
ii) The climate is exceedingly complex, and global warming does not mean a uniform temperature increase across the globe.
Re:This != Global warming (Score:3, Informative)
Gosh, he even said we were observing some of the largest floating ice formations disintegrate. What do you think made them do so? Ice drilling polar bears?
Re:This != Global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
What you are missing is that the effects of the small global rise in temperature are not evenly distributed! There are, in fact, even regions that get *colder* as a result of this worldwide increase in temperature. Global climatic conditions are complex and unified, but they are NOT uniform. Hence what *looks* like a local phenom can actually be a direct result of global conditions. Think El Nino, for example.
Re:This != Global warming (Score:2)
Re:This != Global warming (Score:3, Informative)
This is the worst argument I've ever heard, and opponents of global warming just keep citing it, over and over, often associated with the Vostok ice core data [koshland-s...museum.org]
The resolution on that graph is a little over a thousand years. The most dramatic change on the graph is 20 degrees over 10,000 years. The arctic and antarctic have changed 5-7 degrees in the past *200 years*, and the rate seems to be accelerating. Of this 5-7 degrees, about half of it has occurr
Re:This != Global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, if you've been reading scientific literature and science news sources, rather than political news sourcs, you'd know climate scientists are quite aware of this. They aren't concerned about melting ice shelves raising sea level, it's Anarctica's terrestial glaciers they're concerned with.
Oh, and the fact that in the last ten years we've watched some of the largest ones in existence disintegrate.
100% of the ice shelves could disintegrate and according to the physics of bouyancy sea level wouldn't rise one mm. While the retreat of the antarctic ice shelves may be evidence of global warming, they are not linked directly with other expected results of climate change, which, if they happen, will unfold in their own time. So you can't logically use the fact that sea level is not rising proportionally faster as the ice shelves disintegrate faster as evidence that global warming is not happening.
Sometimes I think it would be better to represent our models of this sort of thing by a Bayesian belief network. They are intrinsically honest when weighing evidence, whereas human beings tend to be dishonest with themselves. We all start with our ideas of a priori possiblity, which appriopriately affects our interpretation of evidence strongly at the initial stages. People who are convinced of global warming would need very little evidence to make them completely certain, whereas skeptics are just made a bit less certain at the outset. The thing is, as evidence mounts one way or the other, humans seldom revise their beliefs even to the point of becoming uncertain, unless there is social pressure to do so.
Re:This != Global warming (Score:2)
Re:This != Global warming (Score:2)
Re:This != Global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
More important is the temperature anomaly (which is global and indisputable), the effects it is causing, such as El Nino and the slowing of the Gulf Stream (not to mention the increasingly weird weather here in Britain), and the likely effects if it continues, such as total distruption
perfect from Bush's point of view (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, for US global warming deniers, that solves two big problems: sea levels won't rise because the ice sheets will just move from the antarctic to Europe, and "old Europe" will be too busy shoveling snow to still interfere in US world domination.
Maybe that's Bush's secret master plan after all...
Re:perfect from Bush's point of view (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This != Global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
That's like saying you were a lean child and can't figure out why your fat now.
the earth is constantly changing. slowly over time. What happened when the asteroid took out the dinosaurs? The earth recovered from that. It will reco
Re:This != Global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
In the same vein, if a climate change that would kill us is "natural" I really don't care for natural. Better learn and figure out how to get a more unnatural but more friendly result if we at all can.
Re:This != Global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
If it has to kill us to do so then so be it.
If you want to die, fine!
I am just pissed about you killing me at the same time. It is amazing that there are people who still believe nothing is wrong.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feat
Re:This != Global warming (Score:2)
Re:This != Global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
ENSO -- the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, is probably a natural, long term feature of the current climate equillibrium and has been for probably hundreds of
Re:Global warming & the sea rising (Score:2)
The floating ice shelves off Antarctica and the floating Arctic ice shelf melting wouldn't raise sea levels at all. If the ice on the Antarctic land mass and Greenland were to all melt, sea levels would rise 500 feet.
Such drastic melting is a long ways away, and I think the problem will be solved long before things become critical, either by man's ingenuity if civili
Re:This != Global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This != Global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
So all that means the Earth was never constant. There were forests in Saudia, a great desert where forests are currently, a lush ecosystem in the middle of the Antarctica. Surely humans didnt change that
It goes in cylces... (Score:5, Funny)
I find that every August it feels several degrees hotter than in January. I think this merits further data analysis to find the exact cycle of this global warming thing...
Re:It goes in cylces... (Score:2)
How strange.
you don't know what you are talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the rise in sea levels, so far, the main consequence of global warming seems to have been increased thawing of ice around the north pole, which will not raise sea levels. A second consequence has been thawing of glaciers, with already serious consequences.
Sea levels will rise significantly when the antarctic ice sheets thaw. We have been lucky so far that increased thawing around the edges has been balanced by increased precipitation in the interior, but that won't last forever.
People like you are about as fringe and ill-informed as the people who deny that HIV exists or that HIV causes AIDS. Unfortunately, in this case, you endanger not only your own miserable life with your hostility towards science and reason, you endanger everybody's.
Re:you don't know what you are talking about (Score:2)
I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again: How can Europe freeze with massive glacier growth, when Asia and North America at the same latitudes are experiencing melting of permafrost? How can it be globally so warm that glaciers are disappearing, yet it will be so cold that European glaciers will not only stop shrinking, but will start growing back?
And if it's all because of the Gulf Stream shutting down the warm air, how is it that major land m
Re:you don't know what you are talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
No. These were not global effects. There have been local variations in climate over the past few millennia, but overall the planet has been warming over that period; fastest of all during the past century.
When people - few of whom seem to be "experts" at all but rather people with a political agenda and little knowledge of science or history - claim that we are absolutely and definitely sleepwalking into global disaster the likes of which the world has never sen before and omg it is all the fault of Mankind, it is time to get sceptical and call bullshit.
No. Sceptical does not mean calling 'bullshit'. Sceptical means saying 'I don't believe this so I will get myself educated in climatology and review the information myself'.
Re:you don't know what you are talking about (Score:3, Interesting)
Peer reviewed journals have printed article after article, written by people actually in the Polar Regions, taking measurements, that say that it's quite likely that the ice caps are melting fast enough. Few climate scientists express it in the Manichean language of Greenpeace, but most people who've studied the data believe it to be a definite possibility.
Re:you don't know what you are talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
We fully agree on that point: nobody knows "absolutely and definitely" whether there is global warming or, if it exists, whether it is due to human activity. That is just the most plausible explanation of what we are observing right now, and given the scope and magnitude of the consequence, that is enough to act decisively.
The irrational bullshit comes from people like you who demand absolute proof before acting. You prefer sticking your head in the sand until it's too late. Because, by the time we have "absolute and definite" proof, it will be too late.
Re:you don't know what you are talking about (Score:5, Informative)
Actually I think it's not at all in dispute as to whether we're experiencing any global warming. I believe that's been conclusively established. What some still heavily debate are the causes of said warming.
There's a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and warming and well understood atmospheric interactions of CO2, but some try to point the finger elsewhere or back to natural patterns.
What's truly astounding is the massively increasing level of outright propaganda on the subject. The scientists appear to be being left behind and the propagandists (sponsored by private industry) are taking over the show. Do a google for "CO2" -- it's a real eye opener.
Re:you don't know what you are talking about (Score:2)
Which is ludicrous in light of the fact that global warming is happening.
There is a grwing number of scientist who already say that there isn't much we can do to stop it anymore. It's already too late. They're advocating preparation.
~X~
Skepticism is called for (Score:3, Insightful)
Before you assert categorically that global warming is anthropogenic, you have to explain why the data that shows it's a natural phenomenon do not apply. There are ample oxygen isotope data that indicate the interglacials have had a 100,000 year cycle for at least the past million years. We weren't around in any signific
Re:Skepticism is called for (Score:3, Interesting)
That's easy: the rate of change. It may be the same or similar cycle but it's not the same rate of change. It's accelerated change (I believe without precedent) that directly correlates with the CO2 build up in the atmosphere.
Re:Skepticism is called for (Score:2)
He did not assert that "categorically". Neither do the scientists who study these things.
What they are saying is that the most reasonable explanation of what we are observing is that the warming is anthropogenic and that other attempts at explaining the current patterns are less plausible.
You might counter "isn't it better to act than to wait until we're sure?" The answer is "it depends on the cost of acting and being right vs. the c
Re:you don't know what you are talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because there is insufficient data, and insufficient understanding of the forces at work to make the claim (absolutely and utterly) that global warming is the basis of climactic changes in Siberia and the Arctic as a whole, common sense should be a factor.
When the Dubya regime rejects the science behind global warming in order to justify rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, it is rejecting both civilian and US military studies that trend changing regional weather patterns on a global scale. This stubborn anti-science position does preserve the "status quo" for some short term political advantage, in exchange for increased liability for future generations to deal with. (Not unlike the USAs' going from a $500 Billion USD surplus in 2000 to a $2.5 Trillion USD debt in 2004.) Both the Canadian and US Navy are projecting forward the need for men and ships to patrol the open Artic seas in 10 years where there was only pack ice 10 years ago -- what's wrong with this picture?
Slightly OT, but this very same attitude has been used to justify the ramp-up in construction of nuclear power plants in the USA, as part of Dubya's "energy plan". Nuclear energy (fission) is cheap, just so long as you don't factor in the total manpower and environmental costs for the duration of the created radioactive hazards out 50,000 years. Simple math and simple minds and simple solutions -- if the total costs projected out 50,000 years cannot be calculated for dealing with highly radioactive waste, then it is (at least politically) not a factor and can be safely ignored.
Of course, many of the same politicians believe that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, which makes any projections out 50,000 years far outside their conceivable universe. IMHO, politicians that go out of their way to ignore science are far more dangerous than any "martyr strapped with explosives". Their narrowminded viewpoint effects millions of people for thousands of generations, truly walking, talking WMD.
Re:you don't know what you are talking about (Score:2)
Re:you don't know what you are talking about (Score:2)
Just how in hell would you provide a proof? Please be specific if you can.
Re:you don't know what you are talking about (Score:2)
Some listen to Greenpeace et.al., those who suspect the screechers don't. That would be me. Whenever anyone demands that I listen to their side and ignores me, I suspect their motives and goals.
The reason to withdraw (as Russia, Italy, Canada, and others have, are, or are contemplating doing) would be the foll
Re:you don't know what you are talking about (Score:2)
That'd rock!
Re:This != Global warming (Score:2)
The lakes are being absorbed by thawing soil and evaporation. The article does not say anything about sea-levels.
And for clarification, a 1cm rise in sea-level is billions of gallons of water.
~X~
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, I deny it.
I'm George W. Bush, and I approved of this message.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:4, Interesting)
We have a similarly inspired great thinker here in Britain by the name of David Bellamy. He was a sort cuddly beardy bloke who used be on tv a lot in the 70s and 80s hiding in bushes and getting excited about birds.
Up until last year he was a well respected environmentalist having set up half a dozen environmental organisations and been invited to the board of half a dozen others. But he has a weakness.
He likes birds.
A lot.
His logic when it comes to global warming seems to be.
Global warming = must use less fossil fuel
less fossil fuel = more renewable energy
more renewable energy = more wind farms
more wind farms = more birds killed by turbines
dead birds = bad thing
Therefore global warming does not exist. QED.
So figuring that his credentials as a ornithologist made him fully qualified to dismiss any arguments put forward to the contrary by people who'd merely studied climatology he wrote piece denying global warming for the Daily Mail that was based on a load of psuedo science he'd found on random web sites.
George Monbiot did quite a nice job of demolishing him here
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-s
If you manage to find a copy of the debate that Channel 4 news ran between George and David it's well worth seeing.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:4, Informative)
Without a doubt, the climate of the Earth is rapidly changing. Records show this very clearly. This is not a point for debate.
Also there is no doubt that the composition of the atmosphere is changing. Once again, records of this show the change very clearly. This is not up for debate.
The problem comes up when showing a link between the two and establishing causation. It is impossible to deny that human activities change the atmosphere and have some effect on the weather and climate. The actual amount of effect, however, is unknown. There are many cycles which naturally occur in the weather and in the climate. While some of these cycles last only a few months or a few years, such as ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation), some cycles may last decades or longer. We are aware of cycles such as ENSO because it only takes a few years for an El Nino to transition to a La Nina (which actually lasts longer than the El Nino phase) and back into an El Nino. There are probably many other cycles in the climate that we are not even aware of. Keeping this in mind, it is entirely possible that we are merely in one phase of a naturally occurring cycle which will reverse itself at some point.
Many factors play a role in the climate around the Earth. These include the atmospheric composition, albedo, ocean circulation, solar output, and many other things. While changes in the atmosphere can cause climate change, changes in these other factors may enhance or oppose the changes. One of the most famous climate changes of the recent past was the little ice age. This period of cooling wasn't caused by human activity. Instead, it is believed that solar output decreased and had a very significant effect on the Earth's climate.
During much of the Earth's past, the Earth has been dominated by either tropical or polar climates. The period of balance we are in right now is actually somewhat unusual. Given the history of the Earth, it is hardly unreasonable to expect the climate would once again trend toward one of the two extremes. This has occurred for many millions of years without any influence of humans. There is no reason to expect that this behavior would cease because humans now inhabit the Earth.
Global warming is a very misleading term. There are many questions about how global climate change, if caused by humans, would actually occur. People have even speculated about possible global cooling. One theory, which some evidence seems to dispute, suggests that "global warming" will cause an increase in clouds. The increased albedo from the clouds will counteract the warming and might even cause cooling. This theory is disputed, but is one of many theories about how climate change, if caused by humans, might play out.
None of these arguments are meant to say we shouldn't scale back emissions. While we don't know if human activities are a major player in global climate change, we also don't know that they aren't playing a huge role in it. Furthermore, it is in our interests to minimize our changes to the environment and to the atmosphere because the theory of humans causing global climate change is plausible. It is in everyone's interest to reduse emissions, anyways, because many of the chemicals entering our atmosphere and hydosphere are toxic. I'm all for finding cleaner sources of energy and for cutting back on human activities such as clearing forested areas.
There are plenty of good reasons to reduce emissions and protect our environment without resorting to scare tactics. While you may have found an example of a "climatologist" making fallacious arguments, many of the climatologists disputing "global warming" caused by human activities aren't all that crazy.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:2)
With the notable exception that not very many climatologists think global warming is detached from human activities.
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a lot of possible effects of global climate change due to an increased greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect works because carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation and radiates i
Re:It's dead Jim! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MSM HYPE (Score:4, Interesting)
From this link [junkscience.com]:
What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.
Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.
Hardly seems a considered scientific opinion to me. You may, of course, think differently.
And considering this link [ourcivilisation.com]:
Try reading something about the person who wrote it, in his own words, on the same site, here [ourcivilisation.com]:
My esteem for my peers became replaced by contempt, and planted the seed of suspicion in my mind that my whole community was of the same calibre foolish cowards. A notion that experience rarely confounded but often confirmed, so insensibly I became a social exile. This was just as well, for in a declining community any citizen who retains respect for the truth must become alienated from the majority of his fellow citizens because they hate the truth.
Is this really the sort of considered scientific opinion you consider valuable ?
Re:MSM HYPE (Score:2, Insightful)
" There are no solid conclusions among all scientist"
Uh-huh. This is how the wacko right pulls this off: they get a few of their idiot minions with online Ph.D.s (or some isolated rejects from the tenure pool) to call themselves scientists. Then they completely ignore scientific method and start polluting the scientific pool with untestable hypotheses. Soon, it's difficult to get a consensus "among all scientist" because a percentage of them are not even legit scientists.
Re:MSM HYPE (Score:2)
Re:MSM HYPE (Score:2)
And all those glaciers that are melting in the Andes mountains, the Himalayas, and Alaska are just a coincedence.
And the rise in ocean temperatures across the globe. Guess it mus be faulty equipment.
Environmental scientist take samples from all over the globe and try to get an accurate picture of what's happening.
And the data they use go back a lot farther than 100 years.
~X~
In other news... (Score:2, Interesting)
The claims of a round earth are nothing more that a main stream media hype of one guys opinion to try to invoke fear in the general population.
Anyone can single out and focus on one area of the planet and come to a conclusion that would sound devastating if it really did apply to the whole planet.
Re:MSM HYPE (Score:2)
But your linkage indicates you trust "Junkscience.com" creator Steve Milloy. Tobacco lobbyist Steve Milloy [google.com].
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MSM HYPE (Score:2)
The point of this argument is that we know diddly squat about what actually goes on climatewise on this great orb of a world. Over the course of even the last few hundred years the world has been both substantially hotter and drier and substantially
Re:MSM HYPE (Score:3, Insightful)
And even if this was only about global warming, I think that the most prudent course of action would be to assume a worst case scenario and work based on that. There's nothing wrong with working on such assumptions
Re:Oh Please. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh Please. (Score:2)
~X~
For anyone who is planning on reading ahead... (Score:2, Insightful)
You are about to read several assinine comments made by geeks who did not get their degrees in environmental science, geology, oceanography, or evolutionary studies.
Please forgive them for their pretentiousness and understand that the various contradicting figures they offer as evidence for their claims are probably read from dirty pages left in the cache of their brain.
Re:Fuck global warming! (Score:2)
Re:what am i missing? (Score:2)
> cause flooding?
> It's a giant chunk of ice floating in water.
Ever hear of Greenland? Its icecap is not floating on water.
(The "green" part may be old Viking propaganda, but the "land" part is true enough.)
Re:what am i missing? (Score:2)
Re:what am i missing? (Score:2)