Doonesbury comments on Republican 'Science'

You have to look at it this way.

Notice the Red States are not near Oceans, while the Blue States are usually next to Oceans. In order to increase property value, Globalwarming must occur to make those Red States Ocean property.

So... start buying Arizona properties.... as it is going to sky rocket into ocean front properties soon.

 

Its always there right or no they are....

I guess its who/ what you believe..

All I was trying to point out is this is something that happens naturally and per everything im reading points to global cooling....



mehrenst
Or if you can't challenge the concepts, TRASH the person delivering the information.

I agree there are alot of people here that use the same soap box...

EricGo: Again Im finding a trend here, It doesnt matter what a person posts here if its agenst your beliefs your going to try and find any way to discredit it. Who can say the scientists you claim to be a *very* distinguished group of active scientists in the field. Politics, ideology, and economics do not play there. Just scientific expert opinion written for laymen to be correct in their "predictions"?

Weather men do the same thing and tell you theres a 80% chance of rain today and it doesnt rain.. They to are trained professionals..


Yes I see the site your talking about seems like a very smart group of guys that are still making predictions based on thier studies, How do you know they are correct in thier findings? because they say so?

I think its another way to put money in their pockets via funding.. lol maybe its even conspiracy theory..

 

Or if you can't challenge the concepts, TRASH the person delivering the information.

 

there are scientists... and then there are "scientists"

most scientists are more than happy to show you their publications, their accomplishments, and other aspects of their life's work.

"scientists" don't have a life's work in science. they're good at using figures but not doing the research themselves. they're also not good at presenting both sides of the argument and critically analyzing each side.

based upon the two websites, i'd give more credibility to the one ericgo linked up to in the above post based solely upon the publication records.

and i am a scientist. i make judgement calls daily as to whether a publication is credible or not, my judgements affect my own research and hence my future career.

 

I guess that Monte would be similar to someone here in Deeeetroit who has a rant on why American cars are better <snicker>. I mean, it wouldn't be too difficult to find one considering how many people are in the industry. Monte's just another guy in the hometown's industry who confuses his opinion with fact. What the heck, we're all God's children. B)

 

ok, Mr Luther.

 

The media portrays a dramatic image of how the ice is melting in the polar regions as a consequence of global warming. We are warned that the North Pole might become icefree during the summer months at the end of this century and that the polar bears might become extinct due to this development.

But is this really a realistic image? Sure, there is research that indicates that the ice sheets are being reduced, but there are also studies that show the complete opposite. An example of this is a study in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letter where the Swedish researcher Peter Winsor compares data collected by submarines below the Arctic ice. His conclusions are that the thickness of the ice has been almost constant between 1986 and 1997.

If you look at the South Pole there are studies that show an increase in the mass of the ice. In a study published in the journal Nature a number of polar researchers showed that they had observed a net cooling of 0.7 degrees in the region between 1986 and 2000. Another study published in Science showed that the East-Antarctic ice sheet had grown with 45 million metric tones between 1992 and 2003.

Are the ices growing or melting? The simple answer is that there exist studies that point to both directions, perhaps indicating that scientists know relatively little about global climate. But what counts to most ordinary people is what media is reporting, and media is often highlighting the most alarming studies and seldom report of studies that go against the notion that human activity leads to global warming. To put it simply, the news is filtered through an environmentalist view of the world.


An interesting example of how media sometimes gets it wrong is how journalists reported that there had never been so little ice in the Arctic than in 2005. This claim was based on satellite images by NASA which showed that the geographic extent of the ice sheet had never been so small since measurement began in 1979. One must however keep in fact that about half of the ice in the Arctic melts each summer and that two months before this measurment the extent of the ice sheet was the same as the previous year. The problem is that satellite images show the surface of the ice but not the thickness.

Capten Ã…rnell at the summer expedition with the polar-ship Oden could tell that he had never seen so much ice in the Arctic than in 2005. It was with great difficulty that he had passed through the region. What had happened in 2005 seems to be that the ice had packed densely against the Canadian part of the Arctic. The geographical extent had been reduced but the ice was thicker.

As for polar bears, much points to that their numbers are increasing rather than diminishing. Mitch Taylor, a Canadian expert on animal populations, estimates that the number of polar bears in Canada has increased from 12 000 to 15 000 the past decade. Steven C Amstrup and his college have studied a population of polar bears in Alaska and reported that the number of females had increased from 600 to 900 between 1976 and 1992. Even a report from the WWF which is entitled "Polar bears at risk" and warns that the populations of the polar bears might become extinct due to global warming, supports that the number of polar bears is increasing. In the report the polar bears in the world are divided into 20 populations. It shows out that only 2 of these populations are decreasing, while 10 are stable, 5 are growing and 3 are not possible to comment about.

Global climate is an important issue to debate, but it is sad that what is communicated often has a clear shifting towards the worst-case scenarios and the doomsday theories. There is no reason to scare people by giving them only one side of the argument.

March 18, 2006

Nima Sanandaji [send him mail] is president of the Swedish think tank Captus and the editor of Captus Journal. He is a graduate student in biochemistry at the University of Cambridge. Fred Goldberg is associate professor at the Royal School of Technology in Stockholm and was on a Polar trip whilst writing this article.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

Yeah ok R.A. Hawkins was a little cooky so this is the re-edited version...

Basicly there is always going to be two sides to every story and some will lean left and some will lean right and some just wont care..... <_<

 

you know, you're not backing yourself up in any way by using an article that cites the one many of us have declared lacking in credibility in the first place.