Climate Change is Turning Antarctica Green, Say Researchers (theguardian.com) 150
Researchers in Antarctica have discovered rapidly growing banks of mosses on the ice continent's northern peninsula, providing striking evidence of climate change in the coldest and most remote parts of the planet. Amid the warming of the last 50 years, the scientists found two different species of mosses undergoing the equivalent of growth spurts, with mosses that once grew less than a millimeter per year now growing over 3 millimeters per year on average, (the link could be paywalled; alternative source below) the Washington Post reported on Thursday. From a report: "Antarctica is not going to become entirely green, but it will become more green than it currently is," said Matt Amesbury, co-author of the research from the University of Exeter. "This is linking into other processes that are happening on the Antarctic Peninsula at the moment, particularly things like glacier retreat which are freeing up new areas of ice-free land -- and the mosses particularly are very effective colonisers of those new areas," he added. In the second half of the 20th century, the Antarctic Peninsula experienced rapid temperature increases, warming by about half a degree per decade. Plant life on Antarctica is scarce, existing on only 0.3% of the continent, but moss, well preserved in chilly sediments, offers scientists a way of exploring how plants have responded to such changes.
One bunch should be happy... (Score:5, Funny)
The Greens Party should be happy, Antarctica is becoming Green, after all. Much better than that PC-incorrect all White!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More CO2 absorbing plant life!
Re:One bunch should be happy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
count me in! I guess it was too easy...
Re:One bunch should be happy... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've a feeling every peninsula of "the ice continent" is in the north of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just go west until you can't go west anymore, then you'll know which side is north.
Re: (Score:2)
There's gotta be a Kim and Kanye joke someone can make out of this, but I'm stumped.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno about Kim, but here's what happened when Kanye kept going until he couldn't anymore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh the nitpickery again ...
Every direction straight awya from the south pole is north, oki ... and how does that help you to navigate there? Not at all.
Hence if you look at a map of Antarctica it is usually displayed like on this site: http://wikitravel.org/en/Antar... [wikitravel.org]
And in their wisdom scientists, interpret that map just like any other ordinary map with north up, south down and west to the left and east to the right. Most notable: Antarctica is divided in east and west Antarctica and some names regions li
The Antarctic Peninsula (Score:2)
So the northern peninsula they talk about must be either Anvers Island (wich would be north west, obviously) or one of the very small peninsulas at the "upper edge of the map" which non nitpicking people call: north.
There is one place called "the Antarctic Peninsula [wikipedia.org]", which is the one referred to. It's clearly evident on any map of Antarctica. The journalist writing the article called it "north," which is correct.-- it is the northernmost extension of Antarctica.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and that place is called "Anvers Island" as I mentioned.
So what is your point?
If you want to nitpick then the most "northern" part of antarctica is in the south east ... ;D
On the link you gave it is below the "W" of the landmark "Wilkes Land"
But then again we can argue if the X in the middle is the geographic or magnetic south pole. Perhaps the tip of Anvers Island is indeed a bit more north than the small peninsula "below" Wilkes Lands.
On the other hand, perhaps the map on your link is not very preci
Re: (Score:2)
For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,
That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,
and it was colder [whatreallyhappened.com].
This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder. [wordpress.com]
We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" pe
MOSS??? (Score:2, Funny)
More BS from the AGW crowd. MOSS! Give me a break!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MOSS??? (Score:5, Funny)
Moss is a Chinese hoax.
Time to plant (Score:2)
I guess we need to get those wheat seeds in the ground.
less than 1mm versus 3mm per year (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with climate science, as always, is explaining the significance to the general voter, who might be unlikely to attach the same degree of concern for a +/- 2mm annual growth spurt... even if the millimeter is a measurement the voter understands.
Further complicating the dilemma is exaggerations like the click-bait title, as you have to read down a ways to discover that "Antarctica is not going to become entirely green, but it will become more green than it currently is." Stooping to the same level of deception as your adversaries backfires, more often than not.
Why is this alarming (Score:4, Insightful)
.Scientists would agree that this is an alarming trend.
"Scientists" might but I don't think real scientists would.
What is alarming about moss taking advantage of warmer weather for a rapid growth splurge? There are lots of examples in nature of things that grow very slowly with an incredibly rapid ramp-up when conditions are even a tiny bit more favorable.
Alternatte headline "warming expands zone of habitability for species". It's a headline that is equally true but one you will never see in the current climate of fear-mongering.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the crux of the article is the environment, not the moss.
Re: (Score:3)
The study was published Thursday in Current Biology, by Amesbury and colleagues with the University of Cambridge, the British Antarctic Survey and the University of Durham.
I don't know for certain that this team of research scientists are more qualified than you or I to expound on the meaning of the moss's exponential growth, but if I had to bet the light bill money one way or the other, I would at least carefully consider their opinion.
"exponential" (Score:2)
That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
An increase of 3x is not "exponential" and there is no sign the grown is turning so.
Re:Why is this alarming (Score:5, Insightful)
"Scientists" might but I don't think real scientists would.
What is alarming about moss taking advantage of warmer weather for a rapid growth splurge?
Because this is a global issue and green absorbs heat meaning the feedback loop is going to become increasingly stronger and thus harder to break.
There are lots of examples in nature of things that grow very slowly with an incredibly rapid ramp-up when conditions are even a tiny bit more favorable.
Alternatte headline "warming expands zone of habitability for species".
The problem here is that the increased warmth is destroying existing habitats. Normally these changes happen over thousands of years which results in species being able to adapt to change. However, with rapid change like this you are going to see mass extinctions happen in rapid succession because the fates of species within an ecosystem are interlinked.
It's a headline that is equally true but one you will never see in the current climate of fear-mongering.
The Earth's ecosystems are being destroyed and will being to collapse, so people should be afraid of what is happening. I do not believe you recognize the gravity of the situation. We are experiencing a mass extinction event in progress.
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth's ecosystems are being destroyed and will being to collapse, so people should be afraid of what is happening. I do not believe you recognize the gravity of the situation. We are experiencing a mass extinction event in progress.
This message has essentially been the same my entire life
Yes, you were warned before that it was going to happen and now it is happening. It's a process that is taking decades and will continue for decades more. This doesn't make it any less real because these processes are supposed to happen over the period of thousands of years. not tens of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you were warned before that it was going to happen and now it is happening. It's a process that is taking decades
Of course, in the rest of my sentence you disingenuously snipped from your quote, my entire point was that there hasn't been a unified "it" over the years -- there's actually been a succession of factions saying "bad things, man... bad things" but claiming completely different causes. So no, I wasn't warned back in the 70s that civilization as we know it would implode because of the reasons that are now being peddled today.
Re:Why is this alarming (Score:5, Informative)
"warming expands zone of habitability for species"
Not so much expand as shift the zone of habitability, towards the poles. There with be plenty of growth of uninhabitable desert near the equator.
Re: (Score:2)
There with be plenty of growth of uninhabitable desert near the equator.
look at elevations near the equator... there will be growth of something.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how is this supposed to happen? The water cycle on earth is closed and driven by evaporation of water, which in turn is a function of temperature. The warmer it gets, the more evaporation. First because of the higher vapor pressure at higher temperatures and second because of the higher absolute moisture capacity of air.
As a matter of fact, you can take any number of paleoclimatic studies and you will find that earth as a whole is either warm-and-moist or cold-and-dry. Of course, this is not true ev
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on what determines the zone of habitability. If its partly due to temperature and partly due to something else, like soil or day length, the change will reduce the zone of habitability.
Opposite is True (Score:2)
Nope, because in contradistinction to the near certainty of increasing desertification
As the Earth warms desertification lessens because there is a LOT more water vapor being put into the atmosphere and then dispersed.
If you want to pretend to support "science", you should at least try and know some of it.
Re: (Score:2)
The circumference of Antarctica is about 30,000km.
So a stripe of 1mm moss at the edge is covering "edge" covers 30,000m^2. If next year that stripe is 2mm wide it is obviously 60,000m^2. Of course that is only 3 square km and 6 square km.
Anyway, because we are talking here about mm it is not exactly a small number ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would be alarming is if Antarctica melted. That's something everyone can understand.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
um....it is melting.
It's something that everyone can understand, but some may remain willfully ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Melted and melting are two different things... one day you'll learn to read and life will get better for you...
Re: (Score:2)
Melted and melting are two different things... one day you'll learn to read and life will get better for you...
It is melting, which means it has melted. Oh, you wanted the meaning of that word to be "melted completely"? Well, sorry son, that's not how English works.
You might be able to fly helicopters, but your poor understanding of the language won't fly here.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a sign that Antarctica is melting. If we waited for the bad things to finish happening instead of tackling them while we still can we won't fix anything. This moss will only make Antarctica warmer, as it has a lower albedo than the ice that used to be there.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's a sign CO2 is making plant's grow
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g... [nasa.gov]
So plants only need CO2 to grow?
Re: (Score:2)
What would be alarming is if Antarctica melted. That's something everyone can understand.
I sense that you think the stable door being open isn't alarming until after all the horses have bolted [thefreedictionary.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
Millimeter!? I hear they use that new-fangled metric system in commie Europe. And them Japs use it, too! And the ruskies! And those weirdos what talk funny in Australia! And the entire black continent of Africa! And China, grrrrrrn, don't even get me started on China!
USA! USA!
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific experimentation is only valid if the results are repeatable in similar circumstances, by others; an admittedly higher standard.
But, a cautionary tale. Understanding how the greenhouse effect works, and what carbon sequestration is in the ecosystem... If you have to belie
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to believe in something, it is not out of the realm of probability to imagine that 7 billion people are plausibly having an effect on the world's ecosystem and their burning of fossil fuels, just maybe, might be, a factor influencing weather patterns.
How much has the composition of the atmosphere changed as a result? The atmosphere is really big. Surprisingly, it hasn't changed much.
Re: (Score:2)
I should say I do believe -- on a purely intuitive and logical level -- that 7 billion people burning fossil fuels are having a negative effect on the world's ecosystem. What I don't believe is that this effect can be quantified and made predictive in any way you can trust and verify, as the system is too complex. And without trust and verification you can't have a major policy decision that brings additional burden to the populace, you can just zigzag as with Obama and Trump.
What I would propose instead is
Re: (Score:2)
The bridge example is a very bad one. ...
After the engineers and their families slept under the bridge, you exactly know zero about how stable the bridge is. And can only judge the confidence of the engineer
Regarding climate scientists you are quite unfair. it is getting warmer. Reason is mankinds CO2 exhaust. As long as we increase the exhaust, or more precisely the concentration of CO2 it will get warmer. What more do you want predicted? At which exact date sea levels at New York will have risen exactly 1
Re: (Score:2)
... and that includes the climate scientists. I imagine it would be hard to find a climate scientist who would be willing to bet his house on a measurable and non-trivial prediction about the future -- one that he would make from his climate models in the span of a few years.
I don't think anyone has bet a house, but a scientist and economist did bet £1000 against some of the GWPF advisors [theguardian.com], (spoiler: the GWPF people lost)
Of course, Bill Nye offered to bet $20,000 against Marc Morano's predictions of cooling [iflscience.com] but Morano turned him down. He offered a similar bet to Joe Bastardi [desmogblog.com] who also turned him down.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course by the time that happens, it'll be too late to avoid some of the worst effects. Meaning that "plan ahead for likely disasters" should be part of any sensible climate change strategy. Regardless of political developments or 'greening' efforts already underway.
Ironically, climate change deniers would use the effectiveness of the preparations to argue that climate change isn't a thing. After all, if the predicted flooding didn't happen, then the scientists must have been wrong...
Re: (Score:2)
You have provided an excellent, if short, account of the Y2K problem.
Who's on first (Score:3)
The most surprising thing here is that Antarctica has a northern peninsula. How do you find it? Isn't the entire place 'north'?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't even think about the Southern Peninsula or you could create a black hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Antarctica is also known as the South Pole. The North Pole is also called the Arctic.
The Arctic region does not really have peninsulas or much of any kind of land. Most of it is ocean floor and a layer of floating ice. You, maybe could have called the northern part of Greenland part of it but as far as I know the ice sheet doesn't reach that far south anymore in summer, so it's at least separated part of the year.
Now, the Antarctic region actually is a whole group of islands, most of them connected by ice.
Maunder Minimum (Score:2)
https://www.ras.org.uk/news-an... [ras.org.uk]
About to go into a mini ice age... so get ready.
Settled Science.
Re: (Score:3)
So we're in for a cold famine followed by rapid return to global warming.
So... (Score:2)
Has it uncovered the petrified vegetation that Antarctica used to be covered with?
directions please . . . (Score:2)
from TFS: "on the ice continent's northern peninsula"
Antarctica is south. As far south as you can go. There is a tiny spot called the south pole. Stand on that spot and move in any direction and you are going north. Now this 'northern peninsula' ... isn't every peninsula in Antarctica a northern peninsula?
Likewise, there are "About 330,000" references to west Antarctica in my Google search results. Can someone please direct me to the spot on the globe that is 'west'?
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you look at a map, and lear to read a map.
The first poster mention this "north thing" was just nitpicking, but you behave rather dumb.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Antar... [wikitravel.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So Mr. Smartypants Illiterate, why don't you take your brain out of your ass and look at a globe. I hope you know what that is; it's not a map; it's a sphere. Spin that globe around until you find West. Have you got it? No you don't. You can travel west until you've circled the globe and still there is more west.
Now look at the bottom of the globe, at that big white area labelled Antarctica. Show me the part that is South (only one tiny spot), then show me the part that is North (the entire circumference of
Re: (Score:2)
You are an idiot aren't you?
People using the maps of antarctica simply agree to the obvious.
left is west, right is east. .what is so hard to grasp?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry you are so dim. Let's forget earth for a moment. Look at the south pole of any planet. Show me where left is, Show me west. Show me north. Our planet is not unique in having a south pole. Other than specific bodies of land, ice, water and various artificial political boundaries, pretty much every planet is the same.
I'm pretty sure a 4th grade student would understand the concept. Perhaps you are just trying to be annoying?
Re: (Score:2)
The one who is very dim is you.
In the absence of GPS you have not much ways to define where you are and where you want to go to.
So the "navigators" agreed on an international standard. I actually gave some links, why you are to dumb to read them is beyond me. So I give you a new one: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Do you wonder why those pictures all look the same? And are not randomly rotated? Hu?
I guess you don't. So I explain it to you. That are pictures, and maps look the same, where north is up, sout
Re: (Score:2)
Either your spell checker is broken or you are illiterate or both.
I don't see your mention of 'globe' which was in the original comment.
You keep talking of maps and artificial landmarks.
I'm talking about the earth, not about human scribbles on a map.
You have totally ignored the mention of other planets' geography.
You are deliberately changing the subject.
Please refer to the original comment before continuing.
Re: (Score:2)
I explained to you how to navigate at the poles.
At every planet you have to set up an agreed on system.
No idea what is so hard to grasp.
What else is in the ice (Score:2)
Gosh, I hope nothing unpredictable and horrible comes out of the ice with all these changes... like smallpox and anthrax that is coming out of the arctic.
https://news.vice.com/article/... [vice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I keep thinking about shoggoths and Old Ones and the thing from Campbell's "Who Goes There?" (the basis of the movie "The Thing", if I've got the title right).
I'm not saying it's aliens (Score:2)
I'm not saying it's aliens with knees that bend the wrong way which enables them to leap twenty feet into the air, but it's probably aliens with knees that bend the wrong way which enables them to leap twenty feet into the air.
Becuase climate change is bad... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a perspective that some people need to learn to accept. There are those that don't care and there are those that care too much, but too few that understand that climate change is normal and that our planet is capable of sustaining itself regardless of what we do. If you look at the last century of weather data, you get one perspective, but if you look at larger sample sizes, it goes up and down based on what is needed as a reaction to everything else going on. The only reason to fight climate change
Can a journalist replace you as well? (Score:4, Informative)
Outside of a TIME magazine article thrown together by a hack to provide "balance" you've got nothing. I'm a little disappointed that with that low an ID that you are not old enough to remember that the article was seen as utter bullshit at the time. I'm not quite old enough to get it first time but hit a huge pile of Scientific American back issues in my teens to make up for it, and there was no ice age bullshit in that, only TIME where a journalist out of his depth printed bullshit so that there would be the excitement of something opposing the mainstream view.
Re: (Score:2)
citation and link please for your claims.
may be you should avoid logical holes too by thinking rationally; fact that i have a low id number here does not mean i am old as you irrationally assume. but may be saying that and expecting reason and verifiable facts is "old".
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?
Wiki-fucking-pedia.
Re: (Score:2)
Any-fucking-where.
The above poster is in blatant denial of very recent history and anything that covers the issue mentioned will do. I think Snopes has a thing on the ice age claims and may be a good starting point for the incredibly lazy (as is wikipedia).
Good for Citations (Score:2)
Wikipedia is not a source of truth. Dear God, what has the world come to when people seriously refer to wiki as a source in a political debate and really don't see anything wrong with that.
It's not a "source of truth," but the nice thing about Wikipedia is that the articles are usually is backed up by citations.
It's a good place to start if you want to find links to the actual science, and then form your own opinions.
(I am going to make the phrase "citation needed" my motto. https://xkcd.com/285/ [xkcd.com])
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?
Wiki- anyone can say any fucking thing - pedia?
As opposed to one 40 year old pay-walled article?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?
Wiki- anyone can say any fucking thing - pedia?
Yes, there are 99 references on the Climate Change [wikipedia.org] page, and 293 references on the Global Warming page [wikipedia.org], so you don't have to trust a single "fucking thing" actually written on wikipedia, and you can actually read the source material yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
who said global warming wasn't "a thing"? read.
i have already addressed the problems with same exact article as your link (though from a different site) in a sibling thread.
-
now if you are the gp ac do provide "citation and link please for your claims."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not old enough to remember the 70s, but I am old enough to remember science books, articles, videos etc. referencing such science from the 70s.
There was absolutely a "new ice age" idea/theory that was given broad consideration and even acceptance. If the internet had existed and a shitty documentary had been made about it, you might even say there was a "consensus" or that "the science" was "settled".
Re:Zombie argument #11. Smarter zombies, plz. (Score:4, Informative)
There was a lot of talk about, but also a lot of talk about global warming. The GW crowd had a lot more evidence and a lot more solid theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not old enough to remember the 70s, but I am old enough to remember science books, articles, videos etc. referencing such science from the 70s.
There was absolutely a "new ice age" idea/theory that was given broad consideration and even acceptance. If the internet had existed and a shitty documentary had been made about it, you might even say there was a "consensus" or that "the science" was "settled".
If there was such a scientific consensus then where are the dozens of papers from the period endorsing the idea?
Reporters finding a good story in a speculative new theory does not make a scientific consensus make.
Of course it's kind of a pointless point to argue, so what if there had been a scientific consensus on cooling for a few years? It would just mean a particular field was wrong in its infancy, lots of ideas change when we study them in detail. Science isn't some random walk, scientific theories impr
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the fact that the Earth's climate depends a lot on what we do. At that time, we were seeing more crap in the atmosphere reflecting sunlight than we do now. There were nuclear winter theories based on having lots and lots of big firestorms caused by the bombs. There are current geoengineering proposals based on deliberately putting that sort of crap into the atmosphere.
Re:Zombie argument #11. Smarter zombies, plz. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not old enough to remember the 70s, but I am old enough to remember science books, articles, videos etc. referencing such science from the 70s.
There was absolutely a "new ice age" idea/theory that was given broad consideration and even acceptance. If the internet had existed and a shitty documentary had been made about it, you might even say there was a "consensus" or that "the science" was "settled".
I'm old enough to remember; I got my physics degree during early 1970's.
There was not a general acceptance in the scientific of an imminent ice age, and the scientists who first broached the possibility of an imminent ice age were saying things like "in ten to twenty thousand years at soonest". Scientists were concerned about a possible cooling trend, but that's not an ice age.
As for broad consideration, that consisted of scientists shooting holes in the idea of an imminent ice age, and among the scientists that did shoot it down were the ones who first broached the possibility. That's what climatologists do, give consideration to studies of the climate.
As for the popular press, there were probably as many articles about bigfoot as the imminent ice age, and they were equally scholarly.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that there was one scientific report that said an ice age might be coming. Maybe. Sometime.
Then some magazine picked up on it, put it through the usual distortion filter [phdcomics.com], the TV picked up on the magazine article and it snowballed (sorry) from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Old enough to remember (Score:2)
I'm not old enough to remember the 70s, but I am old enough to remember science books, articles, videos etc. referencing such science from the 70s.
I am old enough to remember the 70s. There was no controversy over the greenhouse effect then. It was well understood (having already been known for most of a century), and nobody doubted that if we added greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, the temperature would warm according to theory. This was most evident in astronomy classes, where the greenhouse effect was taught usually with a textbook that concluded with a paragraph saying "by burning fossil fuels we are adding carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmos
Sulfate aerosols (Score:2)
You are confused by the particulates from ash in industrial exhaust. They were and are a major problem able to cause global dimming, which THEN causes an ice age by blocking heat and light from reaching the surface. Same reason nuclear war does it - ash IS particulate matter.
Particulates, partly, but mostly this is sulfate aerosols. They're highly reflective. You can see the temperature effect by looking at global temperature after major volcanic eruptions (which can blast a large amount of sulfates into the stratosphere).
A side effect of the move to low-sulfur coal (to reduce pollution and acid rain) was a reduction in sulfate aerosols. The atmosphere really cleared up in the 70s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that is just the article on which the ac's link, an abstract, was based.
somebody linked to the same abstract on another site on a sibling thread.
there seems to be a limited number of irrelevant counter argument available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
all the major media in 1970s were predicting a new ice age.
You presented one article with a question mark in the headline [wikipedia.org], how is that "all the major media"?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
you seem confused. i said what i said, not what you assume i said. clear you mind. be rational! as i said to you in sibling thread where you also got irrational.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound upset. Would you like a hug?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how you could mistake my touchdown dance for being upset. The sweet, sweet tears of Trump supporters as they watch their beloved con man march inexorably toward removal from office are enough to sustain me through any hard times to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Touch down tears. Upset set tears. Who cares. Big hug for poperatzo. You look like you could use one.
*hug*
Re: (Score:2)
"are you really arguing the humans do not adapt, gain knowledge, and progress?"
no. where did you get that? lol
nor do i say "because someone was wrong early in the process" "forward looking predictions are all wrong or that even the fundamental basis is incorrect"
again why do you assume all that?
but i am properly placing "into context" one example of a widespread "wrong prediction from decades ago ".
and in the interest of "study and learning" i am merely drawing attention to validity of skepticism about new
Re: (Score:2)
Science (Score:2)
Thank you for noticing that the environmentalists are intelligent scientists, rather than partisan fools.
I don't know that "environmentalists" per se are always "intelligent scientists". But it does happen that in this particular phase of the political see-saw, the people embracing the "environmental movement" are the one quoting real science, and the anti-environmentalism movement the ones trying to muddy the waters to score political points.
Likely as not the see-saw will tip in another few decades.
(I'm assuming that the word "environmentalist" as you use it means the commonly used meaning, and not "biolog
Re: (Score:2)
Control group: Venus, Mars, Titan.... (Score:2)
Where's the control group of earths (and suns, and moons) they did the tests with?
Every body with an atmosphere in solar system.