backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by acejj26.. on Jan 9 at 3:18 PM


There is abundant data supporting the theory that our world is warming, such as the increase in melts in the glaciers of Greenland, such as the one shown here. However, when considering this data, and studies which support or oppose the view that man is causing warming it is desirable to examine dissenting opinions and avoid overreaching conclusions and sensationalism.
Two of DailyTech's most active writers offer up differing views on the state of global warming research and press

When I first started writing on global warming here at DailyTech, I wrote much in the style I saw at rival news sites like CNN.com and BBCNews.com.  However, in the days since my articles on global warming have grown scarcer and, in my opinion, more considered.

You see, there is an alarming trend in the coverage of global warming which I have witnessed -- one that goes both ways.  Perhaps proponents that global warming is increasing and is anthropogenic (manmade) are indeed who launched this trend.  Regardless, there are many articles which litter the news citing doomsday observations about global warming from sea level rises, to storms and droughts.

A lot of the problem, as I see it, is not so much the material behind these articles itself, which certainly has scientific merit, but rather the context that it's provided in.  Global warming commercial press is overwhelming extremist -- whether for or against.  For proponents, this means drawing sweeping conclusions from select climatological events and writing dire doomsday predictions.

For skeptics, writing has come to an equal extreme.  I've seen articles, including from my fellow debate partner Michael Asher, suggesting global cooling could be the next big problem.  Headlines in particular tend to be equally sensational, indicating that hoards of major scientists are forsaking global warming and that trends are sharply reversing.  Again, these studies cite data, but place it in an extremist context -- in this case denialist.

In the end, though, I can only be my own worst critic.  I promised Mike Asher a piece if the North Pole ice cap did not melt, as some news sites suggested and I blogged on.  It didn't melt -- which really doesn't say much about whether global warming is occurring or not.  However, it did help me to see the sadly extremist and unscientific state of climate writing on both sides of the aisle.

The truth of the matter, which any honest climatologist would tell you, is that we just don't know yet.  Many believe there is solid data that a great deal of the Earth has been warming slightly over the last couple decades, but the exact reason why is still unknown.  There's an abundance of theory about what might be causing it, but much research remains to be done.  There also have been telltale signs that there has been some cooling this year, but again, this needs to be viewed in a broader context.

In the end, what people need to realize is just because it isn't the end of the world doesn't mean that global warming might not be happening.  And whether it is or isn't; understanding and analytically examining our planet's climate is an endeavor worth devoting time, money, and some of the world's brightest brains to.  Likewise, "environmental" initiatives like species conservation, land protection, fuel efficient vehicles, and alternative energy are good ideas with or without AGW beliefs. 

It’s been an interesting year, and it the coming year to follow, I suggest that readers following the warming debate take into consideration both sides of the issue, even if you agree more with one.  I am encouraged to see a trend here at DailyTech to provide a more balanced perspective, citing diverging opinions and putting things in a more scientific and less sensational context.  I feel that I have seen this in both some of my recent pieces, and in some of Michael's, such as his excellent article on the decrease in sea level rise this year.  I hope we both strive to continue this trend and continue to provide the best diverse coverage for our readers, and that the readership continues to provide both of us the feedback we find so valuable.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The problem as I see it
By mdogs444 on 12/30/2008 9:39:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I promised Mike Asher a piece if the North Pole ice cap did not melt, as some news sites suggested and I blogged on. It didn't melt -- which really doesn't say much about whether global warming is occurring or not.


In the article that you blogged on, Jason, you also state:
quote:
All of these events are merely part of a larger trend according to researchers. Says Serreze, "What we've seen through the past few decades is the Arctic sea ice cover is becoming thinner and thinner as the system warms up."


How can you sit back and claim that even though the ice didn't melt, it does not disprove Global Warming? In the article of yours, that you link to, you cite that events such as the ice melting at the North Pole cap are part of a larger trend which shows global warming. I mean, lets be serious here...these people cannot even get the "right now" trends to back their claims, so how can we honestly accept their long term hypothesis?

That's the problem as I see it with this whole Global Warming thing. The theories are not taking place as all these climate scientists are predicting - which show that they have no clue what they are talking about. Yet, they refuse to acknowledge that they are wrong. No matter what happens, its "global warming"...when that doesn't happen, its "climate change"...and regardless, you keep changing your theory to encompass EVERYTHING so no one can try to say your wrong.

Throughout the last 40 or so years of recent history, liberals and the far left have been making claim after claim on various subjects, only to have them debunked time after time - the next ice age of the 70's anyone? perhaps, the "theory" that we had already reached peak oil back in the 70's, much less the early 1900's?

Only problem, is that this time, the liberals have gotten smarter...by coming up with a bunk theory to alter everyone's behavior into doing what the liberal agenda wants them to do...and its going to take 1000 years to prove them wrong - thanks to an ever changing agenda and theory.




RE: The problem as I see it
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/30/2008 10:35:08 AM , Rating: 3
Polar ice melt really does NOT prove or disprove warming.

What I tried to say here, something you seemed to miss, is that this is an individual climatological event, just like the increased melting in Greenland of a few years back. While newsworthy from a science perspective, they do not have the ability to instantly prove or disprove global warming as critics or proponents of the theory would have you believe.

Only broad trends and analysis of these trends will reveal what's actually happening.

I think your argument that "all GW theory is bad, yada yada..." is inherently wrong because there are countless diverse theories to explain GW. Its hard to lump these all together and state that they are all patently wrong. Such a claim is especially ironic as even Michael Asher supports some warming theories which seek to dispel an anthropogenic face of warming.

Like I said, I think critics (like yourself) are being just as sensational as "the liberal media" as you would likely dub it.


RE: The problem as I see it
By TomZ on 12/30/2008 10:46:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Like I said, I think critics (like yourself) are being just as sensational as "the liberal media" as you would likely dub it.

The difference - and it is a key difference - is that the "critics" have no voice in mainstream (liberal) media - no voice whatsoever.

After all, there is no financial benefit to news organizations to reporting that side of the story. Alarmism sells page clicks, saying that everything is okay makes for boring copy. The truth - and being fair and balanced - there is no place for that in modern news media.


RE: The problem as I see it
By reader1 on 12/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: The problem as I see it
By mcturkey on 1/6/2009 1:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a couple of simple facts:

We as a people do not know if the planet is actually heating or warming due to our own actions or because of something natural.

We do know that we have created an awful lot of pollution (and continue to), and that it is within the realm of possibility that it is causing it (but we don't know it for sure). That pollution also negatively affects the health of people and wildlife exposed to it.

We have only one planet to live on, and we all must share it.

The overconsumption of limited natural resources (oil, forests, etc) is going to result in our running out of or very very low on these things within the next century.

We can reduce our consumption of these limited resources and reduce pollution at the same time.

Given these things, it really doesn't matter if there is truth to global warming. There are plenty of practical, fact-based reasons to reduce our ecological footprint. Yes, it just so happens that this would also eliminate the possibility (real or imagined) that we are causing global climate changes. From a future-of-humanity perspective, we can't remain dependent on resources that are non-renewable. We can't continue to take something useful and, after extracting all the energy from it, produce a whole lot of something that harms us. It's a no-win situation there.

The debate over global warming ticks me off because it's irrelevant and ignores the other countless practical reasons to get moving on renewable, clean energy.


RE: The problem as I see it
By svenkesd on 12/30/2008 11:28:19 AM , Rating: 5
Jason,

This article has given me a whole new level of respect for you and your writing.

It is rare to see a AGW advocate criticize sensationalism when it is for his/her own cause.

quote:
Polar ice melt really does NOT prove or disprove warming.


Correct. Unfortunately major news outlets won't hesitate to report it as proof of AGW. Then when the polar ice does not melt, there is no hint of any retraction or reanalysis of theories, or stories of trend reversals.


RE: The problem as I see it
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2008 2:21:12 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It is rare to see a AGW advocate criticize sensationalism when it is for his/her own cause.


He's only doing this because the other side is gaining momentum. Where was this article 3 or 4 years ago when EVERYONE was convinced global warming was real ?

Suddenly NOW we have Mick, the great compromiser ? Hardly. This is so transparent its offensive.


RE: The problem as I see it
By mdogs444 on 12/30/2008 11:32:26 AM , Rating: 3
As another posted responded to you with:
quote:
Correct. Unfortunately major news outlets won't hesitate to report it as proof of AGW. Then when the polar ice does not melt, there is no hint of any retraction or reanalysis of theories, or stories of trend reversals.


That's pretty much what I was trying to get at - it wasn't a personal attack against you, or any individual who believes in GW. The problem is that GW fanatacs and scientists throw out these theories of what is going to happen because of global warming...then when it doesnt happen, they somehow get to alter their theory and make something else up to take its place.

Never do you see the media or the scientist saying "ok, our models dont come true, our theories haven't happened the way we thought. perhaps there really isnt anything to fear and that we're going overboard".


RE: The problem as I see it
By FITCamaro on 12/30/2008 4:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. They never admit they were wrong. They just change their wording to match what did happen and say it still being caused by global warming. Or don't say anything at all.

Now its "climate change" instead of "global warming" so they can still push their agenda regardless of what happens. World freezes into a giant ice ball? "It was climate change so keep being ok with us spending billions of dollars on technology that will fight it."

Nevermind that there's other far better alternatives. Or that certain decisions hurt the economy and put people out of work. Or that the high taxes involved in fighting this "problem" also hurt businesses and put people out of work.


RE: The problem as I see it
By omnicronx on 1/1/2009 6:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
Non Global warming believers do exactly the same thing.. Its not exactly an even playing field either, without long term trends its much easier to say GW does not exist, as its much easier to turn a blind eye and say 'if I can't see it, it must not be true'. And GW non believers also change their 'proofs' all the time too, you are turning a blind eye if you think this is a one sided event.

For the record, I don't believe in GW.


RE: The problem as I see it
By just4U on 12/31/2008 11:54:24 AM , Rating: 3
"I think your argument that "all GW theory is bad, yada yada..." is inherently wrong because.."

Jason, One thing to remember is alot of people that were going against the grain didn't neccessarily believe that the theories were wrong. What got them going is people were taking it all on blind faith as if it was a absolute GIVEN FACT. When almost none of it is.

Oportunism by politicians, and the doomsday predictions by alarmists fueled that frustration by people who believed we should be going about all this in a much more reasoned approach, you know?


RE: The problem as I see it
By meepstone on 1/2/2009 1:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
lets get real here. if the polar ice did melt you would of made and article with a scientist article proving: LOOK IT MELTED GLOBAL WARMING!


Question
By Apprentice777 on 12/30/2008 11:04:26 AM , Rating: 5
Can one of you smart guys help me understand the NASA report from 2007? The way I understand the story NASA (GISS) had been using bad data in one of their reports. After learning of it and correcting the numbers it showed the warmest year in the US not to be 1998 as preciously thought, but 1934 followed by 1998, then 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939. http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_l...

As someone who’s trying to figure this out it’s seems momentous to the discussion but I see it being tossed out (by some) as meaningless. I understand its US numbers, but wouldn’t it be wise to put more stock in these numbers than “world” ranking numbers. As I’m learning about this I find I’m dubious (skeptical) of measurements gathered from other countries. I presume there are hundreds if not thousands of locations across the globe being monitored. Who knows who’s doing the monitoring? Is it a sheep herder in some third world country? Are they competent? Are they accurate? Is the equipment up to date? Is it located properly away from equipment? Are they TRUTHFUL? How many well meaning UN appointed dirt farmers would it take to skew the numbers up just enough to show a warming trend?




RE: Question
By Screwballl on 12/30/2008 1:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
It all depends on who is "cherry picking" the data and conveniently forgetting to include certain key data structures that could prove/disprove the very point they are paid to make, that GW is manmade.

From a real and honest perspective, I understand a good chunk of pollution is manmade, but not global warming. The earth goes through normal heating and cooling cycles and can balance itself out if man increases the CO2 cycling around in our atmosphere. It would do the same if we increase Nitrogen or Oxygen or any other naturally forming compound. Even manmade waste is handled by nature as it was designed, spread it out enough so that over distance and time, the waste product is minimal and no longer dangerous, even at the source.

We do not have enough data to predict ANY long term changes to this planet. Hell even with todays technology, the high tech weather channels can barely predict any weather a few hours later, they still rely on "chance of precipitation percentage", and "chance of winter weather" and the watch/warning systems.

Only one thing is for certain:

THERE IS ENOUGH DATA TO PROVE BOTH SIDES ARE FULL OF IT


RE: Question
By Apprentice777 on 12/30/2008 1:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the response!! I guess a person has to use their best judgment when taking a position. The “man made global warming side” looses me when they chide people for “thinking” that the science is flawed. I don’t like being told what to think. On the other hand I don’t believe that the “man made global warming” side is perpetrating a hoax either. I believe they mean well but are so entrenched in their argument they come up with arguments and data to prove their point. Even though I find it quite plausible that people being funded to study Global Warming would be influenced to see warming in order to continue their financial support.

Either way it seems to me the debate is heating up. This can only help the “Skeptics”. The investigation that was once thought “solved” has been re-opened.


RE: Question
By FITCamaro on 12/30/2008 4:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
It rained here yesterday. The weather channel said it wouldn't on Sunday.

But people trust politicians with no scientific background when they say in 50 years its going to be hotter than it is today.

Shows how stupid people really are.


RE: Question
By Apprentice777 on 12/30/2008 5:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
Hey interesting side note; I think it was Dec 26th or 27th, I saw on the Weather Channel we had broken a record high. According to the Weather Channel the previous high was 74 degrees but we got to 76 degrees. They made a big deal out of it with some special screen announcing the new record. Later that same day I’m watching our local weather on a local station and the guy say’s “We didn’t break the previous record of 86 degrees. We were 10 degrees below the record.” I couldn’t believe it. Either the Weather Channel had their facts mixed up, or they were trying to pull a fast one. Either way I couldn’t help but wonder if some of the record highs that are announced broken on the Weather Channel are actually happening or they’re making mistakes or they’re just fudging the numbers to make it sound like records are being broken.


RE: Question
By Murphant on 1/5/2009 3:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you Jason for writing this article, I was getting quite tired of DailyTech's one-sidedness with Asher's blog posts. I consider I am an AGW believer myself (I'l explain the "believer" part later) but I value truth more than being right, which I why I bother to read other opinions. I agree with Apprentice's post that said that parts of data tend to be handpicked to support one opinion or another. For example, in the previously posted link http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_l... it was reasoned that since 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record and there was a bug in the programming, which I indeed believe there was, many arguments in favor of the existence of global warming are no longer valid. Although I found the article generally to favor denial of AGW, I pause here to applaud how mild that bias was in the article. Had the the author been a supporter of AGW however, assuming that he would have reported that data, he also would have pointed out that a quick look at the data http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt shows a pretty clear trend towards warming, which would be much clearer if both the temperature and the 5 year mean were plotted on a graph. That bring me to my point: I find it is always a better indicative of truth to look directly at all of the data (measurements) from a particular source, assuming that the source isn't particularly biased. I believe that for most subjects, taking only a subset of the available measures and interpreting them (eg the hottest years, the coldest years, etc.) is not sufficient to answer the global question.

It is often quite easy to take a subset of data and make it say what you want. For example, my roommate was reading Dawkin's The God Delusion and gave me this quote that actually comes from Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation "Of the twenty-five cities with the lowest rate of violent crime, 62 percent are "blue" [Democrat] states, and 38 percent are in "red" [Republican] states. Of the twenty five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, 24 percent are in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the U.S. are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rate of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red." Dawkins uses these (partial) statistics without linking to the original ones or the source of the study to argue that religious people are more violent and commit more crimes. There are however too many flaws in that reasoning for me to count on my hands and I firmly believe that I could construct a set of data with all the aforementioned proprieties that could clearly indicate that "blue" states commit more crimes. My point here is not to start a debate on religion but just to show how far taking partial results and interpreting them can be misleading. I believe NASA to be a reasonably objective source and by reading their data, I would argue that it weakly supports GW, although not as extremely as its skewed version did.

I said earlier that I would clarify what I meant by "believe" and that is that I'm afraid my education and upbringing did not only consist of reading scientific papers and interpreting data, and I have parents and friends and teachers that for the most part support AGW and so I grew up to believe indeed just that. Even if it had not been the case and I was brought up on scientific papers, I would have had to make a certain interpretation of this data, and some factors (such as the neutrality of a source) are just not exactly quantifiable. Beliefs, however, are not immovable and the reason I seek various sources and try to read all the data is to move that belief as close as possible to the truth.

Oh, and I found the quote at the bottom of the page quite funny. I wonder what percentage of his public actually went and checked the source.


RE: Question
By geochem1st on 1/5/2009 2:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
People have a large misconception when it comes to modeling. Modeling daily weather events is far more complex than modeling climate scenarios. For daily events a great amount of detail needs to be known about the starting conditions of a weather system, which is why we the results are hit or miss. Climate by definition is the average weather for a large region. The constraints on the starting conditions are far less stringent as you are dealing with averages. Therefore the models will tend to be far more accurate in their predictions than daily weather models.


Bait and Switch
By TomZ on 12/30/2008 10:43:04 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
And whether it is or isn't; understanding and analytically examining our planet's climate is an endeavor worth devoting time, money, and some of the world's brightest brains to. Likewise, "environmental" initiatives like species conservation, land protection, fuel efficient vehicles, and alternative energy are good ideas with or without AGW beliefs.
Ah yes, the great "bait and switch" argument. In other words, even if the science doesn't support it, our view of how everyone should live their lives is right anyway. Never mind the logical argument supporting that which just melted away.

Here's an idea - since there is already an economic benefit to conservation, let that be people's incentive, and then let them be free to live their lives without condemnation if their consumption patterns don't exactly follow your ideals.




RE: Bait and Switch
By reader1 on 12/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Bait and Switch
By Screwballl on 12/30/2008 1:13:42 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Which is what the intelligence agencies under the Clinton nominated leaders did with Iraq and WMDs.


There, made the correction so it is honest and truthful.


RE: Bait and Switch
By Etsp on 12/30/2008 7:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't most of the uproar about there not being and WMD's, the fact that Bush told congress and the media, uh, "exaggerations" about the reports from those agencies? That he went against the Clinton nominated leader's recommendations?


RE: Bait and Switch
By mdogs444 on 12/30/2008 7:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
Clinton was on record, himself, at the time of the Bush address stating that Iraq did indeed have those items and that it was urgent that we go in to get them.


RE: Bait and Switch
By reader1 on 12/30/2008 8:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

mdogs444 on 12/19/2008

Its typical liberal posturing. When at fault blame someone else....


http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13738...

LOL


RE: Bait and Switch
By mdogs444 on 12/30/2008 8:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
How clever. But heres Billy in 98...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsJmHtgpebo


With or with
By homerdog on 12/30/2008 9:17:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Likewise, "environmental" initiatives like species conservation, land protection, fuel efficient vehicles, and alternative energy are good ideas with or with AGW beliefs.


Best typo ever.




RE: With or with
By therealnickdanger on 12/30/2008 10:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
Freudian slip, Mr. Mick? ;-) j/k

All joking aside, thanks for typing this up. I enjoy reading both of your articles very much. My opinions typically match those of Mr. Asher, but I am no less appreciative of your efforts.

Just remember that you and masher2 don't ever need to be sensational - leave that to the comments section. Every boundary known to mankind is crossed there... :P


RE: With or with
By ThePooBurner on 12/30/2008 11:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every boundary known to mankind is crossed there... :P


Only if PLAYSTATION THREE is posting on that artical. ;)


RE: With or with
By therealnickdanger on 12/30/2008 2:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
The Power of Cell™ allows for hyper-intelligence that we mere mortals are unable to comprehend.


RE: With or with
By FITCamaro on 12/30/2008 5:19:35 PM , Rating: 4
OMG dude. You figured it out. PLAYSTATION THREE is actually Skynet running on a PS3 in the developmental stage of a 12 year old.


we just don't know yet
By arazok on 12/30/2008 12:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The truth of the matter, which any honest climatologist would tell you, is that we just don't know yet.

Thanks Jason, as a AGW believer, for admitting that.

quote:
"environmental" initiatives like species conservation, land protection, fuel efficient vehicles, and alternative energy are good ideas with or without AGW beliefs.

Now you need to admit that it’s silly to spend money on solving a problem you only suspect exists. Is it worth spending billions on solar and wind, when all it will do is provide more expensive energy? Shouldn’t we limit the money we throw at a suspected problems?




RE: we just don't know yet
By dlapine on 12/30/2008 1:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a matter of belief to recognize a potential danger and consider actions to avert it. The critical part is to determine the likelihood of occurrence and the level of danger.

One would not speak of "belief" when discussing the dangers of a large asteroid impact, as the event has already occurred in the past, and conditions prevail that make another impact probable in the future.

The same for a change in climate. There's no belief involved- just calculations of the probabilities of an event that would effect all of the earth. You then must weigh those probabilities against the amount of damage to determine the degree of effort we (the human race) needs to forth to prevent such an occurrence.

Belief enters into it only for the religious fundamentalists, as none of their religions specify the destruction of the human race via a change in climate, so obviously the probability of such an event is zero. Any supporter of a occurring climate change theory is not a religious fundamentalist.

You can have a rational discussion about the probability of a climate event (Global Warming, for instance) or the specifics of what the effects would be, and you can certainly argue about the level of efforts or specific actions needed to prevent such an event.

I'm not aware of any position in this discussion that doesn't note that the Earth's climate varies, and that it does so to extremes so as to make human life on the earth impossible, save for those who believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

If you're not a believer in the young earth theory, you must accept the fact that the earth's climate may change. It certainly has in the past. The argument lies in whether it's happening now, and can the human race do anything about it.

Please note that I'm not making a personal claim about this one way or another at this time.


RE: we just don't know yet
By acejj26 on 1/9/2009 3:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
It can be agreed upon that a fair share of liberals believe in AGW (though not all) and those same liberals decry Bush for going to war in Iraq. They look at AGW as a problem that may have potential dangerous results, and as a consequence, they look to fight it. Bush, in going to war in Iraq, looked at a potentially dangerous situation and he fought it. Exact same ideology, but liberals choose to support one but bash the other. Hilarious.


Rivals?
By amanojaku on 12/30/2008 2:13:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
When I first started writing on global warming here at DailyTech, I wrote much in the style I saw at rival news sites like CNN.com and BBCNews.com.
I like DailyTech, but I'm not sure it's a rival for CNN or the BBC, yet.




RE: Rivals?
By Diesel Donkey on 1/4/2009 10:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
Victory goes to the bold :)


not quite
By yacoub on 1/8/2009 3:15:53 PM , Rating: 3
"I wrote much in the style I saw at rival news sites like CNN.com and BBCNews.com."

LOL "rivals". Among geeks, perhaps. I certainly visit DT as often as those other sites but your average news seeker does not.




By toyotabedzrock on 1/1/2009 11:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think there is to many unknowns to tell which way the earth is going, and even more unknowns as to weather humans are actually affecting the climate or if we are just in a natural cycle.

But what i do know is that there is no rapid change in either direction right now. I also know that a global cooling period, little ice age, contributed to the death of most of the human race. But i don't see any indication that we are headed either way at a pace that is of immediate concern.




A bit disingenuous?
By SoCalBoomer on 1/3/2009 8:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The truth of the matter, which any honest climatologist would tell you, is that we just don't know yet. Many believe there is solid data that a great deal of the Earth has been warming slightly over the last couple decades, but the exact reason why is still unknown. There's an abundance of theory about what might be causing it, but much research remains to be done. There also have been telltale signs that there has been some cooling this year, but again, this needs to be viewed in a broader context.


Jason, while I find it admirable to publish a mea culpa, I find it a bit . . . well, disingenuous of you to do so with this statement since for the past year at least you have been preaching exactly what you claim that honest climatologists don't or should not.

You have been claiming that we ARE provably warming and that it is conclusively anthropocentric (other elements involved, but we are tipping the scales). You have said it both in your main blogs and in your replies both to yours and to Michael's.

Just say you were wrong and that you were off base - don't try to claim that you are just being honest.




Good Article Jason
By SilthDraeth on 1/3/2009 9:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
It would seem you are perhaps having a more open mind that you MAY be wrong on the entire Global Warming issue?

I believe no one is arguing with being environmentally conservative, and protecting natural resources. But we have to also look at what we live with, and ask ourselves how much are we personally willing to give up to make the world a better place?

You do not see multi millionaire politicians that support global warming walking to work and living in a small super insulated home that is very energy efficient. No. They go and "purchase carbon credits" which is pretty much the same concept of "buying your way into heaven through your church"

Anyways. I welcome fair and balanced coverage on this site. Sensationalism on a tech site will only lose you viewers. Not gain them.




By androticus on 1/5/2009 3:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"environmental" initiatives like species conservation, land protection, fuel efficient vehicles, and alternative energy are good ideas...


This is intrinsicism--the moral idea that something can be a value in and of itself, apart from any valuers or context. Why is "species conservation" good? Just because. (And all the justifications you hear about things like "diversity" and finding cancer cures in the jungle and so on are just rationalizations.) Likewise, why is climate change of any kind bad? Because it is man made, and not what would allegedly have happened without man. So nature per se becomes a god to be worshipped without any context or consideration of value to any particular people. Global warming alarmists cannot possibly claim to know the net benefit or detriment to everyone of a warming climate (if it even is warming, and if that is even caused by man or is merely part of a natural cycle like the many that are seen in the record.) Yet they cherry-pick doomsday and alarmist scenarios (New York City submerged! Killer Hurricanes! 20% of humanity dies in mourning over polar bears! etc.) What about the longer growing seasons? Possibly greater arable land? Expanded temperate regions? etc. No, to them, the issue is not the objective benefits or hazards, it is merely that MAN is causing the change.




We DO KNOW Some things
By Gary Right On on 1/8/2009 1:25:18 AM , Rating: 2
Jason

"In the end, though, I can only be my own worst critic. I promised Mike Asher a piece if the North Pole ice cap did not melt, as some news sites suggested and I blogged on. It didn't melt -- which really doesn't say much about whether global warming is occurring or not. "

What we do know is that all the hysterical things that MMGW terrorists predict are not happening. After Katrina when they said there would be massive hurricanes it was a myth. When they said that all the Artic ice would melt it was a myth. If you study the temperature predictions and compare them to the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and global Earth temperatures, we see that temperature changes do NOT correlate statistically.

The facts, as they are coming to light consistently have thrown cold water on this theory. It never has had any physical science standing, e.g. water vapor is 20 times more reactive in regard to surface heating than atmospheric CO2. Early models have consistently shown completely different answers and simulations have never come close to validatable predictions.

I'm glad to see a MMGW enthusiast starting to let reality seep in to the gray matter. As more time passes science will enventually overwhelm hysteria and we will discover all over again that the world isn't flat. Unfortunately it will take longer for the media to catch on!





"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki