backtop


Print 191 comment(s) - last by lucasb.. on Nov 30 at 1:58 PM


30 years of sea ice data. The red line indicates deviation from the seasonally-adjusted mean.  (Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)
Rapid Rebound Brings Ice Back to Levels from the 1980s.

An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels.  In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.

The actual amount of ice area varies seasonally from about 16 to 23 million square kilometers. However, the mean anomaly-- defined as the difference between the current area and the seasonally-adjusted average-- changes much slower, and generally varies by only 2-3 million square kilometers.

That anomaly had been negative, indicating ice loss, for most of the current decade and reached a historic low in 2007. The current value is again zero, indicating an amount of ice exactly equal to the global average from 1979-2000.

Bill Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Center at the University of Illinois, says the rapid increase is "no big deal". He says that, while the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, the long-term decrease is still ongoing. Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon stop growing, sees nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global warming.

Others aren't quite so sure. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very odd" things occurring in recent years. Michaels, who is also a Senior Fellow with the Cato Institute, tells DailyTech that, while the behavior of the Arctic seems to agree with climate models predictions, the Southern Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory. "The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?" Michaels adds that large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate model.

On average, ice covers roughly 7% of the ocean surface of the planet. Sea ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice anchored on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has indicated that the Antarctic continent -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also been gaining ice in recent years.

The primary instrument for measuring sea ice today is the AMSR-E microwave radiometer, an instrument package aboard NASA's AQUA satellite. AQUA was launched in 2002, as part of NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS).



Comments     Threshold


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

Pace vs. Quantity
By Zurtex on 11/7/2008 8:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well it's nice to see your willing to bring us every tiny bit of information, even when it's abstract differential information that may amount to no more than a minor blip in environmental conditions (think chaos theory, it doesn't always average out one way or the other over short period of time even if there is a long term trend).

Anyway, at least this article is pretty well written with more than a 1 sided view on things, better than the other odd articles written on this site with an obvious agenda :-). Plus better than ones which have no research, can never critise you for the amount of research you put in to articles :-).




RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Moklar on 11/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By napalmjack on 11/7/2008 9:19:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
...this isn't the place for politics.


Ok, so don't bring any in here.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Moklar on 11/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By masher2 (blog) on 11/7/2008 10:44:41 PM , Rating: 5
> "the whole subject is political and has no place on a tech site."

With respect, sir, you are confused. The extent and causes of climate change are science. The discussion of if and/or how we should react to those changes is politics.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Moklar on 11/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By eetnoyer on 11/8/2008 9:23:34 AM , Rating: 5
Dumbass, he is the article poster. M ichael Asher .


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By elgueroloco on 11/8/2008 12:31:02 PM , Rating: 5
hahaha OMG Moklar is retarded!

See, this is the problem with stupid people these days, especially left-wingers. They want to make everything political.

Global warming data is science. Science should not be politicized. Politicizing scientific data and conclusions is the same as banning evolution from schools.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By JS on 11/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By mezman on 11/10/2008 3:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm afraid you are incorrect.

While the two issues you mentioned are politicized by the Right, there is simply no more egregious case of the politicization of science than the AGW debate by the Left.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 3:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
See, this is the problem with stupid people these days, especially left-wingers. They want to make everything political.

I hope you were joking. I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and say I chuckled to myself when I read that line - so reminiscent of Epimenides' Paradox.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By SiliconDoc on 11/13/2008 1:31:53 AM , Rating: 2
The bigger chuckle was this is no place for politics, when the hope of the O crowd is a new world order of energy - as long as the old world is first destroyed.
If this isn't a political topic, you never passed sea urchin and made it to ostrich with head in sand.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By teldar on 11/8/2008 5:54:48 PM , Rating: 5
I rather think that the tracking and projection of ice caps ARE science. It's the study of the earth. Something along the lines of CLIMATOLOGY, not politics.
And I fear that there is little journalism that does not have spin.

If you truly believe that Fox is the only network with spin, you need to get your head out of your @ss. Fox is simply the only news network with a republican spin rather than the outrageously liberal spin of nearly ALL other news outlets....

And if you want to talk about global warming and who is making it a political statement....
Al Gore has made around $700M giving talks about global warming. Do you really think he cares whether it is real or not?


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Myg on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By elgueroloco on 11/8/2008 12:33:40 PM , Rating: 3
This isn't just a tech site. It's a science site. Global climate data is (or at least should be) science.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By SiliconDoc on 11/13/2008 1:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
Except we all insinctively understand at this point it is not science, it is grant money, politics, and power and control. Exhale freely, co2 polluter. :)


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By randomly on 11/7/2008 10:06:45 PM , Rating: 5
If they get rid of M. Asher I'd lose all respect for DT. His viewpoint is essential for maintaining a balanced news outlook. As arrogant and irritating as his blogs can sometimes be, he very often adds that essential dose of realism that puts a reality check on the rampant enthusiastic fanboyism of the left-wing idealists.

Very often the real world works the way it works, not they way we wish it did. We need to be constantly reminded of that. Idealism can sometimes push a nobler goal, but you need enough realism to make it actually happen.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By monoape on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Pavelyoung on 11/9/2008 7:00:05 AM , Rating: 3
"Why? Because they would then stop publishing denial propaganda that allows you to cling on to the notion that global warming is just a scam created by those nasty lefty socialists?"

To date, you guys still haven't provided any data that backs up the theory that "global warming" is more than a cyclic event.

"Yeah, in the same way that the Discovery Institute is needed to maintain a balanced outlook on evolution."

You dont believe in evolution? How can you possibly deny what has been proven beyond a doubt?

"No, he distorts, cherry picks, misrepresents and lies. 'Realism' is not just what you want to be true."

Oh please! If anyone is misrepresenting and telling lies its you zealots that keep screaming about how man is the cause of everything.

"You are exposing, as most commenters do on this blog, that your thinking is informed by political ideology first, science second. That way of thinking is the road to perpetual ignorance"

And you have proven once again that when confronted by data that you don't like, the left wing climate change loons always change the subject.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By monoape on 11/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By porkpie on 11/9/2008 3:21:58 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity.
In 1975, The US National Academy of Science confirmed global cooling was a serious problem also. And that's hardly the first thing they've been wrong about.

And by the way, the NAS does NOT "confirm climate change is due to human activity". They simply agree with the IPCC conclusion, which says humans are "probably" the cause, simply because they can't find a better explanation.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By RnR on 11/9/2008 5:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In 1975, The US National Academy of Science confirmed global cooling was a serious problem also. And that's hardly the first thing they've been wrong about.


All they said was - "We do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate". And then called for more research. Its a long way from claiming NAS admitting to global cooling being a serious problem.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By masher2 (blog) on 11/9/2008 6:45:54 PM , Rating: 5
> "All they said was - "We do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine"

They said a great deal more than that. From Science Magazine, Mar 1, 1975:
quote:
According to the Academy [the NAS] report on climate, we may be approaching the the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 100-year long ice age a real possibility...with ice packs building up relatively quickly from local snowfall that fails to melt form winter to winter"
Many books and research papers were also published on the topic. Nigel Calder, then-editor of New Scientist, wrote, "the threat of a new Ice Age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a lifely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind". Scientist Lowell Ponte wrote The Cooling, which said that global cooling was *already* causing famine in major parts of the world.

In fact, the esteemed Hadley Center, today one of the shrillest voices in support of AGW, was originally founded to study global cooling, not warming. Scientist Reid Bryson-- the most cited research meteorologist in the world-- blamed the rapid cooling on "increased air pollution".

The media was awash with stories on global cooling. National Geographic run a full series, Newsweek said,
quote:
"there are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth

Time Magazine's "Another Ice Age" story was on the cover of the June edition in 1974. It was full of quotes from scientists, and left little room for doubt.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/10/2008 8:51:59 AM , Rating: 4
Given the actual data, as near we can can get it (remember, our ability to provide data is constantly improving, but we have only been keeping this sort of data since 1979, as the article points out) we are still just approaching the planetary temperature that we had in the year 1700. Since then the temperature went way down, and we are just nearing the 1700 mark again, according to our best data.

Also note that Venus, the Earth, Mars and Jupiter are all showing increased temperatures to the same degree, so the cause is not certain.

No need to engage in ad hominem arguments if you want to discuss science. And please don't reason from your conclusions. That is also a logical fallacy (rational consctructionism - e.g. creationism, and arguing science based on political conclusions.) Are either of you a scientist anyway?


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By dever on 11/10/2008 2:43:00 PM , Rating: 1
First you criticize for using ad hominem arguments, then suggest using the fallacy of appealing to authority instead?


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By OoklaTheMok on 11/10/2008 10:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
But I think we need to remind ourselves that the projected "cooling period" from the 70's was due to atmospheric particulates, largely from coal plants without any form of emission controls. The particulates increased the reflective properties of our atmosphere, which in turn resulted in lower temperatures and the projected "cooling period". Now we find ourselves in a warming period, and again pollution is the culprit. I find it ignorant to question if human actions could possibly have an effect on our ecosystem, because it has already been shown that we can and have had such an impact.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By hlper on 11/10/2008 1:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that polution and global warming are threats. However, this is why Mr. Asher's posts are so important to a complete diologue.

In both cases you said that polution was the cause. However, the truth is that although there may be scientific evidence to support these points of view, neither case can be completly validated. These conclusions are from models, and it is impossible to demonstrate in an actual system that removal of these polutants would change anything. We would need another Earth for that.

At any rate, can it be a bad idea to control the rate at which we change the composition of our atmosphere? I vote no.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 3:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
You act as if these two scientific concepts couldn't possibly both be right. Now, I'm not saying they are both right, but here's a narrative that fits both ideas:

The planet was naturally cooling (as the NAS report on climate suggested), but as human-released greenhouse gases began to build up in the atmosphere, these vectors have actually created overall warming. Since the natural baseline for climate would be a cooler planet, the effects of human activity would actually be greater than represented from the data alone.

Of course, I'm not suggesting this is what's actually going on, only that there is an explanation that allows both statements to be true.

But when you took that narrative and applied it to this story, it would indicate that our baseline average for Arctic ice cap size, based on data from the 70's to 2000, would be, historically speaking, high, and that at this point we are actually above the trend line for a longer-term average. Unfortunately, we don't have accurate regular data for all of the Arctic every year before the satellite age.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By monoape on 11/10/2008 3:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, the tired, old 1970s ice age story... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643

Also, you are aware that the USA is not the only country with a functioning scientific community?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

Provide evidence that they are all lying in a massive global conspiracy or that they are all wrong. Just a tiny scrap of *real* evidence that thousands of scientists in dozens of countries are all colluding in the biggest con trick in human history. Evidence that they've all been manufacturing data for decades to fool the rest of the planet - just so they can get funding to do the salaried job they were employed for anyway.

Come on - you must have *something*....


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Expunge on 11/12/2008 9:46:56 AM , Rating: 2
Your source is wikipedia??? And a opinon poll at that.. Talk about being lazy to try and prove your point.

You want to argue about global pollution.. okay I will agree that man is screwing up the planet. But that it affects the temperature of the planet I disagree strongly.

We can't make it rain, we can't predict the number of hurricane's that will impact the United States with any degree of accuracy year after year. What makes you think these same scientists can predict what the temperature will be like in 30 years when they can't even predict the temperature next week?

You want to know why these people agree.. because that is where the money is. Plain and simple. If they say no, they get no money and are out of a job.

It's all about the Benjamin's.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By SiliconDoc on 11/13/2008 1:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
Only a fool fails to realize they've made the conclusion that draws power unto them, and ignored everything else, including the evidence.
If you check into it, political scientists wrote the IPCC conclusion, over the objections of many of it's real scientists who collated the data.
If your mind is closed, you will follow the faithful into the required slavery, while the useful idiots immediately consider you their best friend, not because they know any better, because they don't have to, they believe on faith - faith that predicts the future - with such a flawed and malleable regimen, that only hyperactive emotional brainwashing and lots and lots of money can explain it.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By StillPimpin on 11/10/2008 9:50:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Idealism can sometimes push a nobler goal, but you need enough realism to make it actually happen.


Someone please give this man a 6 and golden star. And that's exactly why no one party should dominate politics either.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Regs on 11/12/2008 10:09:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Very often the real world works the way it works, not they way we wish it did. We need to be constantly reminded of that.


God damnit, I agree 100%. I read that line and I was like "thank the lord, someone with sense"


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By thepalinator on 11/7/2008 10:28:56 PM , Rating: 5
There's nothing "right wing" about presenting the facts straight up.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Moklar on 11/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By wookie1 on 11/10/2008 2:33:15 PM , Rating: 3
"Nothing provided there is a consensus that they are in fact facts."

What? I can't make sense of this statement, I can only guess that you're saying that nothing is a fact without consensus. Kind of like it not being a fact that the earth and planets revolve around the sun since the consensus (at one time) was that everything revolved around the earth. You must be one of those "flat earthers" I keep hearing about.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Fusible on 11/10/2008 3:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
Look I find it fascinating that when a person writes something contrary to somebodies beliefs it's not true. You can't at the same time discredit him either for providing information he has learned about. Most don't follow it religiously, but when it comes up and you see it; You will read it. There's politics in everything in the way it's governed even in DT. While you may disagree, I appreciate the information that is given by the editors and bloggers on this site.

We may agree to disagree, but this is why these forums are made for to discuss and express your opinions and thoughts. But not everybody will agree with what you have to say.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By johnsonx on 11/7/2008 11:37:48 PM , Rating: 5
If the left is afraid of the facts, then facts are clearly right-wing.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By lucasb on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By masher2 (blog) on 11/8/2008 1:38:58 PM , Rating: 5
Wikipedia articles on GW are controlled by a tight cabal, led by Admins such as William Connelley, Raymond Arrit, or a few others. There isn't a single Wiki article on the subject they haven't extensively edited, as well as taking actions to ban anyone who posts disputing material.

In any case, this particular Wiki article is easy to discredit. Countless research indicates Antarctica doesn't agree with model predictions. Here's a small sampling:

quote:
Computer analyses of global climate have consistently overstated warming in Antarctica, concludes new research by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Ohio State University
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica....

quote:
A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu...

While it is true that today, climate models tend to predict Antarctic cooling, that "prediction" was not made until long after experimental data showed Antarctic to be contradicting the warming predictions of models.

In short, is is an 'after the fact" correction to the models, to get them to align with reality. If you doubt this, look back at any of the older IPCC reports, such as AR3 (2001):

quote:
Climate models generally predict amplified warming in the polar regions...In the Antarctic, over the past half-century there has been a marked warming trend in the Antarctic Peninsula.**** Elsewhere there is a general but not unambiguous warming trend
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/593.htm#1

The IPCC was, of course, flat out wrong...and there exists a concerted effort to rewrite history, and pretend those predictions and claims of Antarctic warming were never made, and that cooling was expected all along. Don't fall for it.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By lucasb on 11/8/2008 2:42:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Antarctica doesn't agree with model predictions.

Why should it have to agree with models? The Antartic continent is a special beast, as demostrated by the uniqueness of the ozone depletion dynamics. Models are imperfect and are being refined periodically. Expecting the Antartic climate to adjust flawlessly to models is naive at best.
There are countless explanations for the milder warming (or even mild cooling) of the climate and the (disputed)* growth of the ice sheet:
- The circumpolar current acting as a sort of "buffer" preventing the arriving of warmer water from the tropics.
- It seems logical to observe a milder change in the south, where sea (a moderating fore in weather) is much more abundant than land (I live in Argentina so I know what I'm talking about)
- A warmer climate means more precipitation (rain or snow). So, if temperatures go from -30 ºC to -15 ºC, you're still well below the freezing point (no ice melting expected) but you may expect more snowfall and rainfall which can become new ice.
- The reduction in ozone, which is a greenhouse gas in itself.
*http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008...

Still, some people believe than mankind doesn't have the means to transform the environment on a worldwide scale.

quote:
The term Anthropocene, proposed and increasingly employed to denote the current interval of anthropogenic global environmental change, may be discussed on stratigraphic grounds. A case can be made for its consideration as a formal epoch in that, since the start of the Industrial Revolution, Earth has endured changes sufficient to leave a global stratigraphic signature distinct from that of the Holocene or of previous Pleistocene interglacial phases, encompassing novel biotic, sedimentary, and geochemical change. These changes, although likely only in their initial phases, are sufficiently distinct and robustly established for suggestions of a Holocene–Anthropocene boundary in the recent historical past to be geologically reasonable. The boundary may be defined either via Global Stratigraphic Section and Point (“golden spike”) locations or by adopting a numerical date. Formal adoption of this term in the near future will largely depend on its utility, particularly to earth scientists working on late Holocene successions

http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-a...


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By teldar on 11/8/2008 6:00:05 PM , Rating: 5
So....
You want to completely throw out predictions which said that Antarctica was warming and accept all the portions of them that say the entire earth is warming?

I would think this is an all or nothing scenario.... Either the predictions are right or they are not.
I don't think you can just take out an entire continent's predictions. otherwise you'd have to throw out all the other continent's predictions as well....
There was a comment earlier about 'cherry picking' and I believe this conforms to that comment.

T


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By lucasb on 11/8/2008 9:36:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I would think this is an all or nothing scenario.... Either the predictions are right or they are not.

Amazing. Everything has to be black or white, right or left, with us or against us. What a wonderful mindset.
quote:
You want to completely throw out predictions which said that Antarctica was warming and accept all the portions of them that say the entire earth is warming?

quote:
There was a comment earlier about 'cherry picking' and I believe this conforms to that comment.

Interesting. I say that inconsistencies between the models and the dynamics of the Antartic climate aren't that surprising. I even recognize that this is a weak point in the theoretical framework of climate change. Yet you talk about 'cherry picking' evidence, when that's the behaviour commonly associated with climate change deniers (note that I'm saying deniers not skeptics).
Why not talk about the Antarctic Peninsula?
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk//bas_research/our_rese...
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003100/a0031...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/08061...
Why not talk about the correct predictions and general achievements of the climate change theory?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/ab...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4....
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo...
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0811/full/clima...
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_n...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/163423.stm
http://scholar.google.com.ar/scholar?hl=es&lr=&q=p...


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Suntan on 11/10/2008 1:23:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Amazing. Everything has to be black or white, right or left, with us or against us. What a wonderful mindset.


Ahh, yeah. That's called the scientific method. Your theory is either right or it is wrong. Shades of grey are a concept left for political and social topics. Not science.

I could see it being argued back then, "Ok, Ok. So the *whole* world is not flat. Surely vast portions of it still are! People, people come on, most of the world is still flat. yes, if you go in that direction you will be ok, but if you go over in that direction, surely you will fall off the edge!"

-Suntan


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 4:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, not quite. The terms 'right' and 'wrong' don't really perfectly apply to the scientific method. Your model either agrees with or does not agree with current data, given a certain margin of error. It either explains or does not explain phenomena. It predicts the results of further experimentation or it is refuted by further experimentation. But it's not black and white.

Newton was 'right' for three hundred years. Einstein's special and general theories of relativity still aren't 'right' in the strictest sense - they can't explain quantum phenomena. Evolution is not seen the same way Darwin pictured it exactly, but that doesn't make him 'wrong', per se. (Although so far, evolution has been mostly an explanative theory, not so much predictive, outside of microevolutionary lab experiments.)

Quantum mechanics is a great example of an evolving theory, which has gotten better and better as more and more precise and varied data points were made available. It also has enormous predictive powers.

Unfortunately, climate theories still are in their infancy. No one would deny that modeling is evolving, and most would agree that it will never be perfect - there are just too many interacting variables. But there is good reason to believe we could get it 'close enough', like Newton's theory of universal gravitation was 'close enough' for hundreds of years, and had enormous predictive powers.

I think anybody with an open mind would acknowledge that it is possible for human pollution to do enormous damage to the environment (by which I mean make it a poor environment for humans, specifically). The exact risk is uncertain, but the risk of damage should be enough to compel us to make massive investments in improving the 'greenness' of our technology. After all, the threat of attack from foreign governments and non-state actors is enough for us to spend billions every year on our military and military technology.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By lucasb on 11/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By wookie1 on 11/10/2008 2:40:19 PM , Rating: 5
I encourage anyone interested to go to www.climateaudit.org, where they attempt to reproduce the work submitted to the journals, and especially www.rankexploits.com/musings, where they apply statistical tests of actual temperature data vs. the model predictions to determine their skill. Right now, the climate models have been falsified with 95% confidence interval.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By monoape on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By greenchasch on 11/8/2008 5:26:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Anyone can edit any article
No they can't. People have written stories about the GW zealots on Wikipedia, and how they shout down and supress any dissent. Here's a link to just one case, where a newspaper reporter (who had spoken directly to the scientist in question) was trying to correct an article's erroneous interpretation of that scientists views. His changes were continally removed by a group of people that paint every GW skeptic in the worst possible light.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment...

I gave up a long time ago trying to correct Wiki GW articles. Put in anything that hints of dissent, no matter how well-sourced and a dozen people instantly revert your changes. Keep it up and they'll have you banned from editing.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By monoape on 11/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Ringold on 11/9/2008 5:05:00 AM , Rating: 3
Cato? Neocon? Cato is libertarian. Read your own beloved wiki entry on neoconservatism, and you'll find many deal-breaking issues with libertarian views.

From Cato's website:

quote:
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.


Not that I fully expect a liberal to have a deep understanding of the opposite side of the track, but you got that one as wrong as you could have.

I also find it interesting that people can debate what "well-sourced" means. One university is superior to another? Some scientist has a better reputation or agrees with some viewpoint and must therefore be superior to others?

Back to attacking think-tanks, I don't know about science but on economics they often have widely respected economists -- I know Cato and Heritage both do. Ignoring their input on economic issues, for example, when they have legitimate specialists in the field would be willfully donning blinders.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By monoape on 11/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Ringold on 11/9/2008 3:19:26 PM , Rating: 4
I try speak about what I know, where as you flung out an ill-founded accusation about an organization that, apparently, somehow you have developed a knee-jerk reaction to. It's also not an obsession, it's being an informed citizen. I question your competence to vote if you don't understand the difference between a big-government loving "neocon" and a limited-government libertarian.

Also, while climate change may be real, "dangerous" is an open debate. Dangerous for.. certain species? Certainly. Dangerous for humanity? In that case, you've left the realm of climate science and entered economics, and the economic work done to date suggests something more along the lines of "rather annoying" than "dangerous." More so for poor countries. Perversely, the best way for them to leave poverty, asides from political stability, happens to be building cheap, easy to build coal and natural-gas fired power plants to attract heavy industry and walk up the same ladder China has.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By MamiyaOtaru on 11/9/2008 11:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Great idea! If every country was like China (or the US) the oil crash would come that much faster.

Try not to dismiss me as an environut. I love our modern lifestyle. I'm just going to be sad to seee it go (or more likely, dead)


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By monoape on 11/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By wookie1 on 11/10/2008 2:43:56 PM , Rating: 3
What is the correct temperature for the planet?


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By mezman on 11/10/2008 4:11:02 PM , Rating: 1
Just because you say something is doesn't make it so.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Klober on 11/10/2008 9:20:28 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If only you knew how *stupid* you look to those of us with a working intellect....

Says the lonely gorilla... :P


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By teldar on 11/8/2008 6:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
Facts have a liberal bias.

That is perhaps the weakest statement I have ever heard. The facts are facts. They may be disputed, however.

And there are times that the 'facts' make one group happier than another group and are then touted by that faction. That faction may indeed be referred to as 'left' or 'right', but I don't believe the facts themselves are biased.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By jhb116 on 11/7/2008 11:01:48 PM , Rating: 3
If you don't like Masher - then why read his article?

Why the rant - your party won the election? You should be happy - or won't you be happy until we are all assimilated by your left wing borg?


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By bpurkapi on 11/8/2008 12:00:43 PM , Rating: 3
Its good to read folks who you don't always agree with! A bunch of republicans voted for Obama this year because they had enough. I would also say that the left is far from a borg it often implodes on itself because they cannot agree, while the right generally(not this election) is very disciplined about staying on point and sticking together. Political talk aside, this article is interesting as it shows science is not blind and continues to explore effects and causes of climate change rather than close the book and call it 'man made global warming.'


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By elgueroloco on 11/8/2008 12:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
No, they won't stop until then. A brief world history of the far left will show you that. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Minh, Pot, Castro. Not exactly guys I would call "open-minded" or "accepting of others' viewpoints."


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Hlafordlaes on 11/8/2008 5:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
You equate American progressives with far left dictators in outlook and agenda, wtf? Want a lollipop and a political science book, if I can find one with pictures, to help you feel better?


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By straycat74 on 11/8/2008 9:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
They all brought change, didn't they?

All of the people who voted for Obama can not tell you what he will do. He will change things. He will make the world a better place. Everyone will come together, not be so divisive. No specifics though, although we do know how the family dog situation is going.

Let me ask you something, if two people have two different ideas, how do they agree? Someone has to change their opinion. Calling a America divided because they don't all agree with your side is a bit arrogant. If the democrats all agreed with the Republicans, we would be united. So stop fighting and follow us.

Remember, the larger the government, the less the freedom. (see Obama's agenda for Americans to "volunteer")


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 5:01:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They all brought change, didn't they?
Sure, that's one definition of 'progressive' - as in, conservatives want to 'conserve' the status quo, and the liberals want to change it. Unfortunately, that would make almost everybody in history - revered or reviled - a liberal. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Martin Luther, Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Moses, Muhammad, Churchill, Bolivar, Abd al-Wahhab, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Alexander, Caesar, The Earl of Sandwich (what?!? food between two pieces of bread?!?!?).... The list goes on.

The idea that American liberals are equatable with Communist dictators (who weren't even interested in Communism or Socialism, or whatever you want to call the politico-economic system of those countries) is really laughable. As is equating the American right with Totalitarian dictators.

quote:
if two people have two different ideas, how do they agree? Someone has to change their opinion.

Or both can change their opinion. It's called compromise. Or they can agree to disagree, and both go do their own thing. But I don't want the South to secede again - or the North. Or they can agree to disagree, hold it to a vote, and agree to go with the majority.

quote:
Remember, the larger the government, the less the freedom.

Or, put another way, the larger the government, the less the anarchy. Seriously. Freedom is wonderful. It's a great thing, and maximizing freedom is a noble goal. But it must be balanced against other valuable goals. To be pedantic, I don't want you to be free to murder me. But more practically, I think all except the most ardent libertarians would agree that a certain reduction in liberty is required for security - another principle that should be promoted by society. (Yes, I'm familiar with the Franklin quote, and I threw it around against the USAPATRIOT Act - I'm a hypocrite.) A certain level of taxation is required to support the necessary roles of government. A certain level of regulation is necessary to ensure a fair market which will give real opportunity to all who try hard. Certain public services are necessary to ensure America's continuing competitiveness in the world, and to prevent instability that could threaten the Union. The things we as Americans disagree on are the exact size of these government programs. We agree on far more than we disagree on, I'm sure. But we define ourselves and each other by our differences.

And partially unrelated, I'll give a few quotes from FDR, because I think this juncture in history, it's good to be reminded:
quote:
I am neither bitter nor cynical but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.

Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off.

Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.

There are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still.

True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By straycat74 on 11/10/2008 7:21:14 PM , Rating: 1
If you agree the government should feed you, care for your health, supply food for you, supply your shelter, what is it you do for yourself? If you say I go too far, see section 8 housing, food stamps, school breakfast, lunch, after-school care, Obama's universal pre-school initiative.

quote:
I am neither bitter nor cynical but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking.
A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.


Putting these quotes together speak for themselves.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 4:57:43 PM , Rating: 3
You've confused principle and practice. While certain programs may or may not function correctly, that doesn't invalidate the principle that these are activities the government should be involved in. For instance, you mention school breakfast, lunch, after-school, and pre-school. You talk all around basic K-12 education, but never say we should stop giving it out for free. You don't seem to disagree with the principle that public education is a valid role for government (whether it's run effectively is another matter).

I don't think everybody should be fed, clothed, and sheltered by the government. And I never said that. Neither did any of the quotes from FDR I used. I said a certain amount of social welfare is a legitimate and necessary role of the State. What size the safety net should be is an area for debate. When done correctly, these programs encourage a certain amount of entrepreneurship and inventiveness, with people confident that they won't have to live in a cardboard box and die of rabies if their idea fails. However, when done wrong, these programs can lead to (or reinforce) lethargy and a lack of motivation.

The debate over these programs should be about how, not whether.

It's ridiculous, on this Veterans' Day, that we all cheer for those who sacrifice their time and their lives for a better country and a better world, but many are not willing to pay higher taxes or donate their time to make America a better place for all.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By omnicronx on 11/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Ringold on 11/9/2008 5:19:03 AM , Rating: 5
Worse than Harding? Grant? Carter? Hoover? How about Lincoln, who used the army to suppress riots and shut down the free press if it had a hint of a "copperhead" agenda? What about Johnson -- or for that matter Kennedy, who first really committed us to Vietnam? Forget about all those guys?

We do have a history prior to 1999. From 2001-2008, we recovered from one recession, had a few good years, and now have entered the next one due to bipartisan corrupt support for an industry and an ideal (home ownership). Greenspan played a roll, too. We did get in to one unnecessary war, Iraq, but a relatively small portion of the population is involved and the vast majority of us go about our lives the same as we would without Iraq (and I say that despite having friends who are deployed; I'm not vulnerable to a draft, so life, sadly, goes on). Could say that Bush caused immense psychological trauma, but other Presidents have done far worse then hurting feelings.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By adiposity on 11/10/2008 12:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
That "one unnecessary war" has cost an awful lot of money. I'm sure that has affected the economy, just a tad.

-Dan


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 5:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and what about Harrison - Benjamin, not William Henry. I mean, that guy did nothing. Nothing!

I agree that it may be hyperbole to call Bush the worst President ever (we need more historical perspective before we can really put him in his right place). But it seems evident that he'll be in the lower half of the list.

Really? What about Johnson? The man who pushed through two major civil rights bills? Granted, his foreign policy may have been poor. But I'm not used to people who give Bush a break being against the containment principle. It's funny, he's like the reverse of Nixon, who had a really good foreign policy, and fell short domestically. Bush has fallen short domestically for sure - No Child Left Behind is a good idea poorly implemented, the Medicare prescription drug plan was something, but nowhere near what needs to be done in modernizing the 'social contract' departments of the federal government. He's gutted the EPA, FDA, and made the IRS focus on people getting the EITC instead of wealthy people using overseas tax havens. Oh, yeah, and the economy isn't doing too hot. He's expanded clandestine service activity beyond its legal limits, especially by spying on U.S. persons (although this is now legal, I understand). His foreign policy agenda seems mixed. It is possible that Iraq will turn out okay, but since the war was 'unnecessary' to begin with, that's something of a Pyrrhic victory. Al-Qaeda has been weakened, but the War on Terrorism has resulted in nearly 5000 dead U.S. service members between Iraq and Afghanistan, and hundreds of billions spent. The U.S. committed human rights violations (i.e., torture) during his watch (whether he specifically authorized it or not, the blame falls on him). Our hard power is entangled, our soft power has waned to unheard-of post-WWII levels. But it's possible that this is something of a nadir, and these policies will result in a safer, more peaceful, more democratic world in the long run.

As for the causes of this recession, it was not just bipartisan support for the housing industry and home ownership. There was also the bipartisan support for free-market capitalism. (I'm not ragging on capitalism in general; there are more stable, more equitable flavors of capitalism that I prefer to any other economic system.)

By the way, I'm not vulnerable to the draft either (too old), but I served in the Army (including a tour in Iraq) for most of my eligible years. And I have no hurt feelings, but many of my fellow service members do have some immense psychological trauma. You're right, though, that this doesn't effect enough people to really carry weight in evaluating Bush's legacy.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Moklar on 11/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By mezman on 11/10/2008 4:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
The Democratic Socialist Party of America did win. So while it may not be a party that you are registered to, it's still your party.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Moklar on 11/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Suntan on 11/10/2008 1:30:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why the rant - your party won the election? You should be happy


Nope. Liberals only know what they don't like.

-Suntan


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By hlper on 11/10/2008 1:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
I know that Mr. Asher has some views that I don't agree with, but the man is very well informed. This article is no different, I cannot find anything to argue with in his presentation of the story.

Personally, I think climate change just a very complex issue to study, and there are bound to be plenty of surprises. I think Mr. Asher would agree with that, and we both are just tossing our bets to different corners as to which way it will turn out.

You cannot make truly intelligent decisions by just ignoring all evidence that runs contrary to your point of view. Please keep up the good work Michael Asher.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By monoape on 11/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Expunge on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By rcc on 11/12/2008 1:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, the typical reaction to any article.

If you you agree, it's God's word.

If you don't, it's spin or junk science.

If you have opposing information, evidence, research, etc. Cough it up.

Otherwise you are just someone else dumping personal opinion in here.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By ggordonliddy on 11/9/2008 2:44:10 PM , Rating: 3
> Well it's nice to see your willing to

What does "your willing to" mean?


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By Regs on 11/9/2008 5:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. Though all I really care about is waking up dry and not drowning next to a penguin.

Global warming reminds me of the effects of second hand smoke. No proof that wasn't at controversy, but we all accepted it was bad because it is disrespectful to blow smoke at some one and to stink like sh**.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By SiliconDoc on 11/13/2008 1:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
That's interesting - think chaos THEORY - and of course, think Svengali, Cleo, and Jhonny Carson PREDICTIONS...
I guess some people will never learn. First a theory, piled on some mismanaged data, poured into 100 times "do-over" number crunching till you get what you want, then hide the process and announce the crisis. LOL
WOW!!!
I feel sorry for this generation of Americans, stupidity knows no bounds in their minds - I guess the Soviets did really spend 85% of their espionage budget on brainwashing, not spying.
Just remember, you exhale CO2, and now, since so many have jumped on the hayseed filled with lies wagon, you will soon be taxed for BREATHING. Oh maybe not directly, but you will pay - they are counting your breath, and that means less room for other co2 emissions, and more money from your pocket to theirs.
I think it's HILARIOUS how many people cannot separate science from politics, and most of those people get paid to do so.
LOL
Only the dimmest, or the most twisted, still believe. I haven't evne begun to include the evidence that lays waste to the chaotic predictive morphing theory of future weather. LOL
Just WOW.


RE: Pace vs. Quantity
By jrnuclearfusionow on 11/15/2008 9:42:13 AM , Rating: 2
Well it's nice to see your willing to bring us every tiny bit of information, even when it's abstract differential information that may amount to no more than a minor blip in environmental conditions (think chaos theory, it doesn't always average out one way or the other over short period of time even if there is a long term trend).

GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP, BECAUSE SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THAT MAN-MADE CARBON EMISSIONS ARE ALSO A MINOR BLIP AS YOU SAY. AND CHAOS THEORY- JUST A THEORY, PAL. NOT A FACT. CHAOS THEORY IS LIKE A COMPUTER MODEL. IT'S NOT EVEN APTLY NAMED.
New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story:
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/...

World's Top Scientists 'Manmade Warming' Is A Dangerous Lie:
http://www.rense.com/general79/d3m.htm

Two Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Debunk CO2 Myth:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-peer-reviewed-scie...

JR


RUN!
By Fronzbot on 11/7/2008 7:52:49 PM , Rating: 3
DENNIS QUAID WARNED YOU!! THE EARTH WILL END THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW!!




RE: RUN!
By Lord 666 on 11/7/2008 8:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We found something extraordinary... extraordinary and disturbing, that is. You remember saying in New Delhi about how melting of the polar ice can disrupt the North Atlantic current?


RE: RUN!
By napalmjack on 11/7/2008 9:16:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Rapid Rebound Brings Ice Back to Levels from the 1980s.


"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."


RE: RUN!
By FITCamaro on 11/7/2008 10:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was ending two days before the day after tomorrow?


RE: RUN!
By napalmjack on 11/7/2008 11:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
"That's today!"


RE: RUN!
By Clauzii on 11/7/2008 11:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
How to avoid economics crisis:

"We only give credit tomorrow."


RE: RUN!
By abzillah on 11/8/2008 12:21:58 AM , Rating: 2
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, because the global economy is down and so spending is down and so manufacturers are not producing as much CO2, thus causing global cooling. Now we just need to force all first world countries into third world countries so we can go back to the ice age!

....Sarcasm....


Why bother?
By Griswold on 11/9/2008 6:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
Your party lost, Asher. You can stop the propaganda machine now and quit responding to every report that says the exact opposite of what you've been claiming here since day one they made the mistake of letting you abuse this site for your agenda.




RE: Why bother?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/9/2008 4:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "Your party lost, Asher"

My party loses every election. I'm a Libertarian, rather than a Republican or Democrat.


RE: Why bother?
By lucasb on 11/9/2008 9:31:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm a Libertarian

Thanks for showing your political and ideological biases. From now, everyone will know what kind of spin may be expected from your articles.
I'd ask what's your flavor of libertarianism (left-libertarianism, libertarian conservatism/right-libertarianism, libertarian socialism, anarco-capitalist)
Libertarianism is a nice philosophy, like marxism. Both don't seem to work in the real world.


RE: Why bother?
By Jim28 on 11/12/2008 1:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
Also thanks for revealing your own bias and ideology. (As if they already weren't clear enough.) BTW modern democrats have much more in common with marxism than any other ideology but you are too dumb to see it. What part of "spreading the wealth" from a few rich to a large amount of poor people is not marxism? Did you even bother to look up what it means? You also revealed your own ignorance/stupidity as well.


RE: Why bother?
By lucasb on 11/30/2008 1:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also thanks for revealing your own bias and ideology. (As if they already weren't clear enough.)

Let me introduce the facts and stop your baseless conjetures.
I'm described as a radical centrist by my friends (one of them has a degree in political science) and as a moderate liberal by my parents, whom are conservative. My grandparents are either conservative or independent and one great-grandfather was an anarchist who flee away from the fascist Italy and came to Argentina (he was a master with the lathe)
quote:
BTW modern democrats have much more in common with marxism than any other ideology but you are too dumb to see it.

What a load of nonsense, but that's something expected here in DailyTech.
- I'm not a Democrat. First and foremost, I don't (and won't) live in the US. Second, I wouldn't join a party with weak and ambiguous ideas, such as "spreading the wealth".
- You must be blind, ignorant or deeply biased to compare a center-left party (i.e., a party holding moderate liberal values such as egalitarianism) to an ideology like Marxism. But after 30 years of neoconservatism (yup, that includes the "moderate" but insipid administration of Clinton) people with zero knowledge of politics and utterly brainwashed use words like socialist to describe someone who would be simply labeled as a typical democrat 40 years ago. Even Carter, a conservative Democrat, is sometimes accused of being "too liberal".
- Supposing that someday I become an US citizen I would gladly join the Republican party when neoconservatives, the religious right and the false libertarians (those who only are a proxy to corporate interests and radical ideologies such as white supremacy) no longer exist.
quote:
What part of "spreading the wealth" from a few rich to a large amount of poor people is not marxism? Did you even bother to look up what it means?

Thanks for showing your ignorance of political philosophy. Yes, I bothered to look up what's Marxism. I have a nice copy of "Das Capital" and other 40 books closely or loosely related to left-wing ideas. "Das Capital" is one of my favourites books.
If you hadn't made such a lousy connection between "spreading the wealth", marxism and the Democrat party, I would be happy to initiate a political discussion about values, cognitive biases, economics, historical frameworks, etc. Since I'm almost sure that such discussion will be an exercise in futility, I will take the easy way which consists of linking Wikipedia's article on Marxism as a nice, almost dumbed-down introduction to the topic. It's a fine read for someone who obviously hasn't touched a voluminous work like Das Capital. Good luck:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist


RE: Why bother?
By Bill2001 on 11/10/2008 10:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
The "Your party lost" opening shows that you are a party hack, and that you will say anything for your agenda.


RE: Why bother?
By Bill2001 on 11/10/2008 10:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
Chris, What is your View?


Quality research or...?
By McDragon on 11/8/2008 7:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is you can always find someone that will claim whatever you want.

If you read NOAA's reports, they contradict this one completely.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/index.html
I would rather have seen a link to an article in a peer-reviewed magazine, than a DT interview.
I can't say I have first hand experience with the antarctic, but living in Denmark, I regularily meet people from Greenland...They sure tell a different tale than what you would think from reading articles like this on DT.




RE: Quality research or...?
By mmatis on 11/9/2008 8:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
If you regularly meet people from Greenland, then you damn well ought to know that, as the glaciers melt, they're revealing farmsteads from before the Maunder Minimum. That means there were farms there actually growing stuff, instead of freezing their asses off. And guess what? The Maunder Minimum was also a time of low sunspot activity. But that's just too much of a coinkydink for you, eh? You'd rather pay attention to the maggot leeches like Hansen as he spews his nonsense. All Hail the One True Mick!


RE: Quality research or...?
By monoape on 11/9/2008 3:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like you swallowed one of the denier whoppers: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/22437/...


RE: Quality research or...?
By McDragon on 11/9/2008 5:14:30 PM , Rating: 1
Might I suggest a few deep breaths?

..And then say that by your logic, we should have seen ice growth in 2008 as we are presently at the low point in the 11-year sunspot cycle...?
I'm not saying that the generally higher sunspot levels of modern times are not related to the arctic melting, its possible for all I know.

All I'm saying is: There is arctic melting. Quite a lot, in fact.

The original poster denied this.


RE: Quality research or...?
By grenableu on 11/9/2008 5:30:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
by your logic, we should have seen ice growth in 2008
We did. 2007 was the lowest year on record. 2008 has come back from that all the way to normal. That's a lot of ice growth for only one year.


RE: Quality research or...?
By monoape on 11/10/2008 4:30:23 PM , Rating: 1
> 2008 has come back from that all the way to normal.

Regardless of what you mean by "normal", that's scientifically illiterate bullshit.

"Consistent with the diminishing trends in the extent and thickness of the cover is a significant loss of the older, thicker perennial ice in the Arctic." - http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html


RE: Quality research or...?
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 6:54:39 PM , Rating: 3
Critical reading skills, please. This is about total sea ice amounts. The 2007 low was Arctic sea ice. Then there's Antarctic sea ice. Currently, the total (i.e., Arctic + Antarctic) is equal to the average. That says nothing about the health of one or the other by itself. However, when you add in the fact (stated in the article) that Antarctic ice has been on the increase in historical terms, it becomes clear than Arctic sea ice is still below the mean.

Indeed, from the graph, it looks like total sea ice hit its record low during the Antarctic melt of 2006 (Jan-Feb time frame). Not only that, but global sea ice levels were above average only 6 months ago or so. And before that, they were above average around September of 2006. Between those times, the anomaly numbers went to a record low (and this year approached that record low anomaly). Despite the fact that levels have 'normalized' several times in the past few years, there is still an obvious downward trend in the past 4 years. But as a voice of moderation, that's only 4 years, and is too small a window to draw long-term conclusions from alone.


It's warming...
By cscpianoman on 11/7/2008 9:52:12 PM , Rating: 3
No, it's cooling
There's global warming
No, it's climate change
Climate change is bad
No, Climate change is good

Hmmm, I think it is very appropriate to conclude that based on current data and models that we don't know what the heck is going on.

I think we will be doing this until the earth either turns into an ice cube or plummets into the sun in a fiery ball of death. In the meantime, let's spend more money on proving each other wrong:)




RE: It's warming...
By AnnihilatorX on 11/8/2008 10:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
I believe global warming is a misleading term. Warming (whatever its causes are) is an average outcome of climate change in near future, and is the cause of climate change. Yet it doesn't mean every part of the world get warmer. Climate change is a more suitable term because warming is the cause of it and is not true in some parts of the world.

All models points to temperatures being more extreme, hotter places get hotter, cooler places get cooler. Wetter places get wetter, and drier places get drier. In some places this is not a yearly average but a seasonal thing.


RE: It's warming...
RE: It's warming...
By wookie1 on 11/10/2008 3:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
If cooling is caused by warming, is warming caused by cooling? The models have been completely wrong on everything else, why would I believe them that cooling is a result of warming?


Oh how I missed thee...
By Hieyeck on 11/7/2008 8:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
...articles of straight up fact, letting readers judge for themselves.




RE: Oh how I missed thee...
By psychobriggsy on 11/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Oh how I missed thee...
By Clauzii on 11/7/2008 9:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe there are?!


RE: Oh how I missed thee...
By teldar on 11/8/2008 6:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
How do you know that it isn't? According to all global warming models, the hurricane season this year should have been the worst ever. Didn't see it. There were a couple, but other than the one that hit Galveston, I havn't seen a whole lot.
And continental US should be getting a whole lot more rain than we are. Not seeing it either.....
Are you a climate expert? Or do you simply read the liberalist propaganda typically spewed by the major media outlets in the US?
You DID know that they are, in general, extraordinarily liberal, I hope.


RE: Oh how I missed thee...
By ziggo on 11/8/2008 2:48:28 AM , Rating: 2
Hear Hear!

Why can't all news be like this. Relevant previous facts surrounding the new facts (news) simply presented to the reader for their interpretation. If you are relying on a reporter to give you an opinion on something then you shouldn't have an opinion in the first place.


I don't know why anybody's surprised...
By Indianapolis on 11/7/2008 10:39:08 PM , Rating: 4
I don't know why anybody's surprised...Obama said that once he was elected, the sea levels would start dropping. He's just making good on his campaign promise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbbIQFcEhcQ




By Clauzii on 11/7/2008 11:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL! Brilliant. Both President AND Prophet :)


By MrBungle123 on 11/10/2008 11:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, The messiah Lord Barack Obama the most merciful.


Cool
By highlandsun on 11/7/2008 8:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
Nice to see my work is still running up in orbit. I wrote the communication/control software EOS uses...




RE: Cool
By randomly on 11/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Cool
By Clauzii on 11/7/2008 9:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
EOS?? That's the OS my EMU Ultra 5000 is using.

Well, at least it can SOUND like a rocket :D


RE: Cool
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 6:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and that's my Canon camera brand. Are they using Canon cameras on these satellites?!?!? </joke>


hello? Sunspots?
By goku on 11/8/2008 3:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
Sun spot activity is now non existent and will be for sometime, it's completely cyclical. Reduced/no sunspot activity equals mini ice ages which will mean that global warming is still very much so a problem, it's just that its symptoms are being masked by diminished activity from the sun. This is the equivalent of an obese person with type II diabetes whose symptoms have diminished simply because there is a famine in their area...Soon as the famine is over, he is going to notice his diabetes once again. Want another analogy? How about this:

When gas prices reached $4.00 a gallon nation wide, people cut back on wasteful driving and frivolous trips, wanted to conserve, buy more efficient vehicles, etc. etc. But this was very short lived and no conservation habits were formed and now that gas is around $2.00 a gallon and still dropping, people are quickly going back to their old ways.

They think everything is fine and dandy once again but soon as the economy recovers or the market *thinks it's going to recover, gas is going straight back to where it was and then some. It will be no surprise that you'll hear people complain from all over because they didn't learn their lesson from when it happened to them the first time.




RE: hello? Sunspots?
By wookie1 on 11/10/2008 4:02:09 PM , Rating: 4
No analgies are needed. I don't think that the earth has diabetes. How would we know if it acted similarly to a person. If the earth doesn't behave as the models suggest, is something wrong with the earth (or the universe), or the models? How would we know that warming is being masked vs not being the correct hypothesis for the earth's behavior? What if sunspots are by far the primary driver of climate? I don't know if this is true, but clearly the predictions and models haven't found the right answer either. So now we should go back to the mode where we admit that we really don't know what's next for the climate and try to solve real problems facing humanity. Maybe we can feed or shelter some people that are in dire need now, rather than try to stop something that may or may not happen over the next century that we may or may not be able to stop anyway. Why is saving a life today worth so much less than possibly saving a life in 100 years?


Anyone heard of the Northwest Passage?
By McDragon on 11/8/2008 5:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
The Northwest Passage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
Now open for business for the first time since recordings began in 1972.

Another Wiki article quotes numerous experts on arctic shrinkage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage

I'm all for serious science, but I see way too many serious scientists that talk of arctic warming to believe it's a hoax.




RE: Anyone heard of the Northwest Passage?
By theendofallsongs on 11/8/2008 10:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the Northwest Passage was first navigated in 1903. It was probably open before that during the Medieval Warm Period also, but we didn't have ships that could sail it back then.

Arctic warming certainly isn't "a hoax". But its been happening since the end of the last ice age. It doesn't mean we're the cause of it.


By McDragon on 11/9/2008 8:06:50 AM , Rating: 2
True, Amundsen did cross in 1903, but that was in a steel-clad, gas powered ship that was able to break the ice.

As for the arctic warming, that's what the original post was about - Whether there is arctic warming or not. The OP says no, I say yes. Whether it is man-made or not or partly is a different discussion.


By straycat74 on 11/8/2008 12:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
I could go on and on, but take some time to watch this speech from Michael Crichton. Or read the transcript.

Remember ALL things alarming must be taken with a deep breath and a large grain of salt.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/video-speeches-inde...




By degeester on 11/9/2008 10:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
May he rest in peace. Also read his speech at CalTech, "Aliens cause Global Warming" http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html


Easy to Test That One
By onelittleindian on 11/9/2008 3:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon stop growing...
Well that seems pretty easy to test. I hope you'll run a followup article on this next year, just so we can see how well his "prediction" stood up to reality.




RE: Easy to Test That One
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 7:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have to wait until next year - we can wait a couple of months at most.

I'm sure sea ice will soon stop growing - the Antarctic summer is generally the minimum in total sea ice amount (at least, it has been for decades). Now, whether the anomaly numbers will stop growing is another matter - that depends on how low things go during the Antarctic summer. But sea ice extent peaks roughly in November - now-ish - and drops precipitously for three months or so during the Antarctic melt. Chapman was predicting that the Antarctic ice will begin melting faster than Arctic ice grows soon, as it does every year about this time.

But again, the exact rate of change in both the Arctic and Antarctic will determine if the seasonal anomaly will be above or below average in the near future. It's just that Chapman wasn't talking about that.


What the ...
By GeorgeBeans on 11/9/2008 9:37:35 PM , Rating: 4
I have been a longtime lurker here. This article, and its subsequent responses, have made me decide to create an account.

So with that, I ask this: What is wrong with some of you?

The election for the president of the USA .. is that what this is about?

The global warming theory?

Lets start out with the election, since many of you wish to discuss it...

In the election for the President of the United states, 2008, our president was chosen by the media. Now, I am not a far right zealot or in anyway a "hater" of the left. The fact remains, the media fawned over Obama, its moderators fawned over Obama, and the electorate elected him, largely in part of the unabashadley pro-Obama attitude of our liberal media... and by the way, there is no arguement.. the media here in the good old USA is liberal.

No one asked Obama a tough question... no one in the media, at least. Hell, even McCain didn't ask the dude a tough question. So, once again, we have proven that we, the people of the United States, will do whatever the hell we are told to do. This time, the majority of us were led by the media to embrace an inexperienced guy -- who by the way chose the biggest loud mouth leftie of all as his VP -- to lead us.

So now Obama will be in charge. Great. I wish the guy well, being he is my president, albeit I did not vote for him. I am no dissident.

That being said, we move on to global warming.

Are you kidding me? Does not the Earth go through phases, cycles and what not? To have a THEORY that global warming MAY exist is one thing, but to outright expunge it as FACT and we all need to stop it NOW is ludicrous. There is no hard evidence of global warming that I have read. All the "global warming" tirade has produced is an ex-Vice President making 100's of millions of dollars preaching to his own choir of far left treehugging sheep.

Let's stop trying to blame ONE person for the mess the USA is in. Its certainly a very great number of jerks that got us into this. George W. Bush is not responsible, Al Gore is not responsible, Sarah Palin is not responsible, and so the list goes. Its a huge number of people responsible for the mess we are in.

The biggest contributor, however, is the exceedingly liberal media.




Typical
By fibreoptik on 11/11/2008 9:12:06 AM , Rating: 1
$10 says masher watches FOX as his primary source of "fair and balanced 'news'"




RE: Typical
By Jim28 on 11/12/2008 1:19:27 PM , Rating: 3
10 bucks says you watch msnbc. I watch bbca


Right Wing Hack
By Babrbarossa on 11/8/2008 11:42:04 AM , Rating: 1
Where do they get this guy and why doesn't he work at Fox News or Anne Coulter's website instead




RE: Right Wing Hack
By mmatis on 11/11/2008 7:06:35 AM , Rating: 2
Where do you left-wing wackos all come from? Is this another ACORN deal where one guy registers 500 times to do a typical Chicago election? Try some NOAA data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008...

But then they're all on the Exxon payroll, aren't they? And you maggots aren't getting a dime from Soros or the rest of that swill...


Thanks for the article
By wgbutler on 11/13/2008 1:53:31 PM , Rating: 3
Masher,

Thanks for posting the article. I found it interesting and informative. Of course, the various responses from the leftists make me wonder about many things.

Such as WHY do the people on the left want man-made global warming to be true so much? There is clearly an agenda here, and its not just allegiance to science. What do they have to gain? What changes are they hoping will happen as a result of a consensus that man is causing global warming? I'd REALLY like to know, but I know I will never get an honest answer from any of them.

Keep up the good work, and don't let the ad hominem attacks dissuade you. This is the price everyone has to pay for not towing the liberal line. It has always been this way and will always be so. Don't let them intimidate you. Be brave and continue to speak the truth. Thanks again!

wgbutler




And so it continues
By KaiserCSS on 11/7/2008 7:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose I could say many things regarding global warming alarmists, climatologists, cyclic environmental change, how correlation does not equal causation, and so and so forth.

But for now, I am content with watching Michael and Jason silently battle it out between articles.




Back from a long vacation...
By Fnoob on 11/7/2008 9:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Masher returns to stir the puddin.




By greenfyre on 11/10/2008 12:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
"Deniers claim earth is cooling despite the "the most dramatic climate change since the onset of human civilization 5,000 years ago" Antarctica could burst into flame and the climate change / global warming Deniers would claim it was cooling."

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/global-c...




Antartica
By Andy35W on 11/10/2008 1:48:08 AM , Rating: 2
I read with interest the quoted claim :-

"The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?""

But there wasn't more ice this year compared to last,

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...

Currently the artic, as mentioned, has had a good recovery this year, and the Antartic has not really started it's melt as of yet, hence the combined graphs anomaly is about zero, but I think we need to wait to the respective maxima and minima this year to get a better feeling for it.




Think ahead to 2020
By jiminmpls on 11/10/2008 7:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
We are nearing the coldest point in a very pronounced 11/22 year solar cycle. The cycle last peaked in 1998, the hottest year on record. Global temps *should be* .33-.4 C below normal, but are in fact .7C above the 20th C mean.

Why is that? What will happen in 2020 when we are at the hottest point in the cycle again?




Computer Models
By Bill2001 on 11/10/2008 10:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
Come on. The modles can't do anything othrt thsn show computer results. Witch printout would you like to see? I have two versions.




Global warming is passe
By groweg on 11/12/2008 4:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
This article is in line with other reports indicating that anthropogenic global warming is not hapenning. The most accurate temperature indicator, satellite monitored temperatures, stopped rising about a decade ago and have decreased over the last year. Solar scientists believe the sun's changing activity levels drive climate changes, including the warming trends of the 20th century. Many solar scientists believe we are heading into a period of global cooling.

Newer ice core studies show that CO2 levels increased following climate warming, indicating increased CO2 levels have been an effect, and are not a cause of global warming. When the earth warmed CO2 was released from the oceans into the atmosphere just as it fizzes out of soda as it warms. The major "proof" that CO2 is linked with past warming episodes has been debunked.

As someone who hates hot weather, I am glad that the earth is getting colder - more opportunities for x-c skiing!! But on the serious side, a cooler earth may mean serious problems for agriculture.




Global Warming is a fraud
By Reader11722 on 11/15/2008 12:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming and environmentalism are distractions. As the mass media creates climate illusions, Big Brother clamps down by opening our mail, suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting wars based on blatant lies. Prevent our loss of rights then handle the 'environment' crisis.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx...




By occamsnorelco on 11/15/2008 8:50:12 AM , Rating: 2
Science can be a racket, too, don't accept this stuff as verbatim gospel truth, fact-checking and independent cross-checking, please...




Consider this
By hunterpaw on 11/15/2008 11:27:00 AM , Rating: 2
Think about it. How can we have confidence in any long-term weather or climate forecast when they can not even accurately tell me whether or not it is going to rain 3 days from now?




Arctic Ice and Climate Change
By Ralph Kirkland on 11/15/2008 3:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
I appreciate the arguments on boths sides of the "man-made global warming issue". Sadly, this is a subject well beyond the comprehension of layman like me. However, the politics involved are all too familiar.

Since, based on our still limited knowledge and data, there are sound arguments on both sides. It seems only logical to defer $trillion solutions to a problem that may or may not exist.

If we are in fact entering a severe cooling period, that money would be better spent figuring out how to feed billions of people during a period of shorter growing seasons.




The Power of Al Gore
By Briandmar7 on 11/15/2008 5:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore has only recently been suggested as the Global Warming Czar and the Arctic is already freezing over.

The power of this guy!!!!




The Power of Al Gore
By Briandmar7 on 11/15/2008 5:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore has only recently been suggested as the Global Warming Czar and the Arctic is already freezing over.

The power of this guy!!!!




Total blithering nonsense
By greenfyre on 11/8/2008 12:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
See "Drinking the iced Kool-aid" for how this is total nonsense http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/drinking...




RE: Total blithering nonsense
By ipay on 11/8/08, Rating: -1
No. Way.
By ipay on 11/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: No. Way.
By masher2 (blog) on 11/8/2008 12:04:00 AM , Rating: 3
> "If you had read the literature, you would have noticed that sea ice coverage is at a record low for this time of year"

Nothing could be further from the truth. Antarctic sea ice is well above the 30-year mean, and even in the Arctic, sea ice is substantially above what it was in 2007 or 2006:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_S...

> "...and an Exxon-financed whackjob at Cato."

Your claim is without merit. Michaels is, in addition to being a highly published and cited climatologist, also an expert reviewer for the IPCC. He's been interviewed many times by the NYT, NPR, PBS, the BBC, and every major US broadcast news network. He's also been a past president of the American Association of Climatologists, and a department chair of the American Meteorological Society.


RE: No. Way.
By ipay on 11/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: No. Way.
By ipay on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: No. Way.
By masher2 (blog) on 11/8/2008 11:36:31 AM , Rating: 2
> "Highly published - where? "

By Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Climate Research, and every other major research journal in the field.

> "Cited by who? "

Hundreds of researchers around the world. See Google Scholar:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=patrick+michae...

> "Harvard’s John Holdren...told the Senate Republican Policy Committee"

Holdren is also president of the Woods Hole Center, an advocacy group focused on "building a climate regime", and one which receives the entirety of its funding from alarmist claims over global warming. Do you honestly expect him to say anything nice about a critic?

Holdren has also worked closely (and authored papers) with the kooky Paul Ehrlich, of "population bomb" fame...a man who, in the 1960s, told us we'd all be starving to death long before now.


RE: No. Way.
By ipay on 11/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: No. Way.
By greenchasch on 11/8/2008 5:32:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
John P. Holdren is the Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University.
And Patrick Michaels is the Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia. Tie game.

quote:
I'll pay attention to what he says
I'll pay attention to the person who makes sense. From what I see here, Michaels is stating facts and Holdren is just making personal attacks.

quote:
Asher, you're a weasel of a human who lies and distorts Whatever. You're scum.
Just like Holdren. People make personal attacks when they don't have anything intelligent to say.


RE: No. Way.
By monoape on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: No. Way.
By JediJeb on 11/9/2008 1:46:10 PM , Rating: 3
You're a know nothing on the internet - you're not qualified to assess any complex scientific discipline. All you need to know is that every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet all confirm recent climate change is due to human activity. If you can't produce evidence that they're all lying or all wrong, then you're a delusional denier

So I guess Galileo and Copernicus were wrong about the Earth not being the center of the Solar System because every other scientist of the time disagreed with them.

And no it wasn't just the Church that disagreed with them, it was all their fellow scientist because they knew it was just how it had to be and would not even look at the data presented by Copernicus because it contradicted what they believed to be true.


RE: No. Way.
By monoape on 11/9/2008 2:56:09 PM , Rating: 1
> "...every other scientist of the time disagreed with them."

You have evidence for that? No, you don't. Suggest you spend a little time educating yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric

Galileo and Copernicus used science to demonstrate heliocentrism - just as climate scientists today have demonstrated anthropogenic climate change.


RE: No. Way.
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 5:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So I guess Galileo and Copernicus were wrong about the Earth not being the center of the Solar System because every other scientist of the time disagreed with them.

They wouldn't look at the data because it contradicted the Bible and was banned by the Church. But it was generally accepted by scientists outside of the Holy Roman Empire, where it could be circulated. There were also many scientists within the Empire that tacitly agreed with Copernicus and Galileo, although they couldn't publicly agree.

I understand you're arguing that AGW is like a new religion, and you must conform to it as a scientist. But how about this - stop complaining about the theory. It's there. It does more good than harm - like religion. Polluting less is good. If, in 10, 20, or 100 years, it turns out we were wrong, it'll be okay. If there's an inquisition, then you can take up arms.


RE: No. Way.
By ipay on 11/8/2008 11:34:00 AM , Rating: 1
More on Michael's credibility, or lack of: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Mic...

And yet Asher will continue to cite him along with any of the other denial propaganda zombies.


RE: No. Way.
By ChronoReverse on 11/8/2008 12:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
Wow your sources are so credible. A wordpress article. A wiki style "watch site". An article written in 2006 by "An environmental journalist" which basically goes "A politician doesn't agree so he doesn't want to him to speak for him anymore".


RE: No. Way.
By ipay on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: No. Way.
By ChronoReverse on 11/8/2008 6:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
ExxonSecrets, accessed January 2005.
Harpers Magazine, December 1995.
Social Epistemology, 2000, Vol. 14. Nos. 2/3, 181-186.
"Capital Gang", CNN , August 19, 2002.
The Star Press, November 18, 2003.
Washington Post contributor, Media Matters for America, May 20, 2004.
Singer and Michaels, Deltoid ( weblog ), August 17, 2004.
Business Week , August 16, 2004.
The Washington Post Magazine , May 28, 2006.

That's just the first few from your own link. Try a little harder.


RE: No. Way.
By monoape on 11/8/2008 8:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
And your point is?

When you've found factual errors in the material referenced, come back and tell us.


RE: No. Way.
By ChronoReverse on 11/8/2008 8:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
So let me get this straight.

You're telling me to bring up factual error instead of questioning the sources at the same time attacking masher's sources instead of bringing up factual error? Does one graph against masher's graph constitute as full refutation?

Assuming masher's information was wrong, does that warrant calling him a baldface liar?


RE: No. Way.
By monoape on 11/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: No. Way.
By theendofallsongs on 11/8/2008 10:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
Masher's information seems to come directly from the Arctic Research Center at UIUC. At least, I found the identical graph at their site:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/glo...

So it seems to be factually correct. Why not argue facts, instead of just calling people names?


RE: No. Way.
By monoape on 11/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: No. Way.
By tookablighty on 11/9/2008 10:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Asher provides a quote in the story that undermines his own agenda
It's called good journalism, mate. Reporters are supposed to report both sides of the story, and go out of their way to find alternative views. Thats why this article quotes a believer and a skeptic. It's a shame some other reporters have forgotten their journalistic ethics.

quote:
why does Asher only interpret and report data points that suggest the opposite?
Since he's posted the entire 30-year record for the Arctic, it looks like he's reported every data point that exists. He even goes out of his way to point out that 2007 was a historic low. So what do you believe he's hiding?

I don't know why you have such a rod up your bum, but you're shooting blanks here.


RE: No. Way.
By monoape on 11/10/2008 4:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
Really subtle cherry pick, there - missing out "unusually" in reference to Asher providing a quote that undermines his own agenda.

Quoting both sides of a 'story' is not necessarily good journalism, because often both sides are not of equal merit. Evolution and creationism do not deserve equal time. Flat earth theory does not deserve equal time. And the denial of anthropogenic climate change and the blatantly dishonest agenda that Asher has do not deserve equal time.

> ...it looks like he's reported every data point that exists.

I'm going to take a wild guess here: you're not a scientist.

Here, I'll help.

Asher's title and sub-title: "Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Pace on Record - Rapid Rebound Brings Ice Back to Levels from the 1980s."

Here's what the real scientists have to say about their own data: "Consistent with the diminishing trends in the extent and thickness of the cover is a significant loss of the older, thicker perennial ice in the Arctic." - http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

Spot the difference?


RE: No. Way.
By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2008 6:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, he went out of his way to point out 2007 was a historic low. And he also posted an article about 2008 that predicted the melt was over (when it wasn't) and that the total extent of Arctic sea ice was significantly more than the final numbers, which hadn't been released yet. However, when the final numbers were released, and indicated that 2008 was the second worst year on record, he didn't bother posting that news. Then, when sea ice levels rise - which could be promising, though it's only a single data point - he jumps back into reporting sea ice levels. That's not unbiased journalism.

Also, note that the scientist who urges us not to make too much of this data is from the University which released this report, but that's not made explicit. That would add weight to his statement, as the primary source for the data. Can't have that.

Additionally, Mr. Michaels, who he quotes as seeing some strange things in the recent data, isn't made a global warming skeptic by recent data (as I would have thought just reading the article). He's been a skeptic for 15 years. He was also a skeptic on the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer, arguing against their ban through 2001. He has belonged to several industry-financed research groups - for big oil and big tobacco, for instance. And yet he either personally contacted DT or was contacted by DT for comment.

I would be curious how this article came into being. Was masher tipped off on this data by Dr. Patrick Michaels, or did masher decide to contact him after discovering this report?

However it breaks out, I don't mind. I have no illusions that journalism can ever be totally unbiased. The comments generally debate both sides of an issue so the interested reader can get other sides of the argument. And everybody is entitled to their opinion based on weighing the information and the credibility of the sources of that information, based on their own criteria. Which isn't to say I won't try to give people my own opinion, and contribute any information I've found to be helpful in making a decision.


RE: No. Way.
By wookie1 on 11/10/2008 2:54:03 PM , Rating: 3
This is the first stage of grieving: anger. The real earth doesn't seem to be behaving the same as model earth. Perhaps humans can't control the climate. That's probably a good thing, because how would we know how to set the controls?


RE: No. Way.
By wookie1 on 11/10/2008 2:55:59 PM , Rating: 3
Oh geez, look I messed up. The first stage is denial, the second stage is anger. Anyway, I hope we can fast-forward to acceptance (that the universe will carry on despite humans).


RE: No. Way.
By Farfignewton on 11/8/2008 12:01:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, can you provide any evidence that you have not accepted money from similar lobbies in the past?


Now there is a keen scientific mind at work.


Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By monoape on 11/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By straycat74 on 11/8/2008 4:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
Answer. #1 Correct.
#2 Al Gore, not oil industry, but he learned to sell guilt for quite a large sum of money. No problem here. Eskimos need ice, and lefties need doom, gloom, and a lot of self-hate.

And Occam's Razor test is that the Earth is ginormous place, and does not remain constantly anything. I think some people like to think of themselves as a bit too important.

Remember the Earths slogan "CHANGE YOU CAN COUNT ON!"


RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By monoape on 11/8/2008 4:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
Someone wrote on one of Asher's propaganda distortion pieces a while back that he is single-handedly turning DT in to a site for morons.

Your comment stands as testimony to that.


RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By straycat74 on 11/8/2008 8:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
Are you inferring that our Earth has not been in a constant state of change since forever?

You remind me of a stand-up routine by Bobcat Golthwait where, when he was a child, used to think that when he masturbated, he made it rain. Difference is, he grew out of it.


RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By monoape on 11/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By diefeuerfront on 11/9/2008 1:50:40 AM , Rating: 3
I read these articles all the time, but have never commented... never, that is, until now.

You are - without a shadow of a doubt - the snottiest cunt I have ever seen. Anyone who shows even the slightest disagreement with your view is labelled a moron and is automatically beneath you. You know what's funny? I actually AGREE with you that the author's view is slanted, and no, I'm not on his side of the climate argument either. Your constant personal attacks on others, however, just make you look like an asshole.

quote:
You remind me of a clueless pissant.


I can certainly see the point of this article:

http://www.dailytech.com/Users+Flood+the+Internet+...

You seriously need to relax, douche bag. You're not doing anyone's argument any favors by treating others the way you do.


RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By monoape on 11/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By porkpie on 11/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By monoape on 11/10/2008 4:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'll guess that you didn't read the comment I was responding to? Nothing unusual - the reading comprehension and attention span of the morons who inhabit this blog are apparent for all to see. So many of you just skim, pick out a couple of words and think you're an expert - it's known as Dunning-Kruger effect.

> Got anything substantive to say about this article?

"Consistent with the diminishing trends in the extent and thickness of the cover is a significant loss of the older, thicker perennial ice in the Arctic." - http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

It clearly demonstrates Asher is talking shit, and given familiarity with his other work, it's clear that that is what he always does. He lies. He misrepresents. He distorts.

> thousands of scientists who don't agree that man is causing global warming.

That'll be the debunked bullshit Oregon Petition. Try harder, scooter, or try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...


RE: Michael Asher: genius or moronic liar?
By nycromes on 11/11/2008 11:16:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It clearly demonstrates Asher is talking shit, and given familiarity with his other work, it's clear that that is what he always does. He lies. He misrepresents. He distorts.


No, it clearly demonstrates that there are multiple sides to this issue nothing more. You have a very closed mind, to look at only one side and ignore the other side is at best very stupid.

Global Warming, Climate Change, and many other things are theories, neither proved nor disproved. Since we don't have a control case for this type of study, we can't be prove or disprove this theory. Try opening your mind and maybe you can learn something rather than being close minded and spewing one sided arguments that take us no where in the long run. Much evidence supports your view, and much contradicts it. Pose all the links you want to discrediting sites, as I said above the theory can be neither proved or disproved so for something to draw a finite conclusion on incomplete data only proves it is trying to persuade and not actually research.

Also, please note that Wikipedia is widely regarded as a bad source for information due to its ability to be changed by anyone. Even at a middle school level, students are instructed to not use Wikipedia as a source as the information is volatile.


By Jim28 on 11/12/2008 9:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes it makes you wonder if the pro-AGW crowd even cares if they are correct as long as the succeed in pushing this brand of enviro-socialism/poverty one everyone else while turning a blind eye to themselves and their own actions. (For example, see Al Gore and almost any promenint University Professor. Think they live green. Nope.)


By mkrech on 11/12/2008 5:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
Wow! Uncool!

Monoape, you really should get some help. I appreciate that you are passionate about your views but please try to be open and objective for once.

Understand that your views may not be the right ones. They may be, but, if they are not, showing such disrespect only hurts your side.

Honestly, I think you are a troll working to drum up support for the AGW movement.

If not, seek help... or at the least, see if you can get laid. I really hope you can work your issues out. I hate to see anyone with so much pent up stress.

Best Wishes.


Atmospheric CO2
By tshaughn on 11/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Atmospheric CO2
By wookie1 on 11/10/2008 4:11:57 PM , Rating: 5
"We need to reduce emissions regardless of exactly what is happening with global temperatures."

This makes no sense to me. Why should we starve plants of their food for no good reason? Pretty much all of the life on earth evolved during times where CO2 concentrations were 10X or more what they are now. CO2 != smoke, it is a colorless, odorless gas that most of the life on the planet needs to survive. Your lungs even need a little CO2 in them to function properly. Please provide supporting information that CO2 causes problems for asthmatics.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














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