Posted on 12/02/2004 10:33:15 AM PST by Marine_Uncle
Perhaps that is because I am forced to work with a lot of these nuts on a daily basis. I do see them (not necessarily my colleagues) as a serious threat, however I am still concerned with our environment. I do a lot of work with endangered species (which I am sure a lot of you would despise)and often run into the obstacle of trying to protect a particular species when the reason for its decline is multi-faceted. The global warming issue is similar to some degree, well possibly we just aren't sure but I am keeping an open mind.
For example I was working with an endangered rattlesnake. My research showed that the decline was due to habitat loss/degradation. In the park I work at, several wetlands (the hibernacula for this particular snake) were ditched prior to the park formation. While it would be irresponsible to say that the ditch itself is responsible for the decline, the subsequent loss of proper wetland habitat clearly is. The data shows the presence of the ditch is not related to this snakes presence or abundance, while the data does show that the presence or lack of ephemeral wetlands is related. The presence of ephemeral wetlands was shown not to be related to ditches, as some ditched areas still contain these wetlands due to other factor (mainly topography). That puts the researcher in a conundrum in that a simple logical extrapolation of my data makes it clear that the ditching of the wetland is a major cause of the decline, however I cannot attribute the actual ditch to it. As a scientist I can only report what I found, the interpretation of it is up to the reader. Hopefully that somewhat explains where I am coming from. It is very difficult to show direction causation in an open system, I think this holds true in the global warming issue as well as some of my work.
I fully believe there is no significant man-made global warming. There certainly is some but only on a butterfly effect scale. It's just not what the Godless liberals say. But, windpower is a good idea on it's own merrit.
Global Warming is caused by the Sun, it happens every year in the spring. It escalates in the summer and it goes away every Fall.
Global warming is reversed in the Winter, when we have Global cooling.
It is called Seasons and weather.
YW: "The article is correct based on the existing data.
http://www.iceagenow.com/"
Thanks. I for one intend to check the contents of the site out in detail. I have grossly avoided reading about global warming issues for a number of years. Call it being lazy.
Perhaps others will find some interesting things at this site.
Growing Glaciers anyone? See the article at this site titled:
Glaciers are growing around the world, including the United States (Mount Rainier, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Shasta, among others)
You may find it rather interesting.
cheers all.
BTTT!!!!!!
You can only make sweaters out of long haired dog fur. The short haired varieties have to be used to stuff pillows. Of course they have to be labeled as an animal product and then Peta would be all over you. Then there is the hypoallergenic coalition.
Thanks. I recommend you read the book, "Not by Fire, but by Ice." What we really are talking about is ocean warming, not global warming. It is part of the natural climate cycle of the Earth. Man has very little to do with it. We are due for another Ice Age, which occurs with almost clockwork reliability for millions of years. All the signs indicate that a new Ice Age is imminent.
I put lamb meat in my Peta.
"All the signs indicate that a new Ice Age is imminent."
Thanks. I buy the idea about ocean warming, it fits in with ocean climatolical changes we have seen on the west coast in recent times etc.. Of course we cannot expect shows on PBS such as Nova, whatever, to show us documentaries on the expanding glacier systems, increase on pack ice in Antartica, recent trends of colder winters in north/south America etc..
Must keep the masses stupid, so they think GWB is against saving the planet! I keep wondering about where McCains's brains are. Perhaps it is time to send him some emails on this issue with associated reference sites.
Again thanks for the nice site, I am reading articles from it as I pop back the freepers site.
The article presents no data from which it draws its headlines. The article may be true or false but it presents no arguments. Most of the argument is an "argument from consequences" against the Kyoto Treaty; the author doesn't like the treaty (nor do I) but this has no bearing on whether or not the climate is getting warmer. Articles like this are a great setback in fighting against Kyoto; they make it appear that there are no legitimate scientific arguments at all.
I was thinking Mt. K's glacier must be at least 12,000 years old but much older than that; 12,000 years ago was the end of the last ice age. But re-reading the Nat'l Geographic article I found on the web I learn that the oldest ice in the glacier is 12,000 years old. So maybe there wasn't a glacier at that time (there were wild temperature swings in the one or two thousand years following the last ice age). Or maybe the ice in the glacier is only that old because it's been melting from underneath (Mt. Kilimanjaro is a volcano).
At any rate, the next ice age is supposed to be coming in a few tens of thousand of years. One reckons that mountain will have a fresh glacier by then.
By the way, I live on the Ohio River. The terrain here is hilly -- glacial moraine; the Ohio River's course was determined by the ice. A science museum in Clarksville, Indiana, shows a picture of downtown Louisville, Kentucky, with the ice looming above the office towers.
"Perhaps that is because I am forced to work with a lot of these nuts on a daily basis. I do see them (not necessarily my colleagues) as a serious threat, however I am still concerned with our environment. I do a lot of work with endangered species (which I am sure a lot of you would despise)and often run into the obstacle of trying to protect a particular species when the reason for its decline is multi-faceted. The global warming issue is similar to some degree, well possibly we just aren't sure but I am keeping an open mind."
I respect all good science. I wonder how much emphasis is placed on "budding scientist" in all spheres of study as to how important it is to keep a balanced honest viewpoint as how they conduct themselves. Much like the issues revolving around lets say stem cell research, scientfic findings and opinions have such deep ramifications for all. We need a degree of neutrality in science that transends personal gain . How to accomplish this is another thing. To often scientist are given a free ticket to make pronouncments that effect the very lively hood of people world wide.
If it can be found that the spotted owl can live just as well in some human created structure ( I believe it was a Burger King Sign), and is not limited to living in a given species of fir/pine/hemlock, whatever, then is it not the duty of responsible scientist to announce that perhaps the given spotted owl will not perish if we "with wisdom and common sense controls", allow trees to be thinned from given areas of natural forest for a healthier forest floor, a paycheck for a lumberman/women etc..
It just seems like we need more balance in how our enviromental policies are governed. Perhaps with less taking sides, we can at least approach a point where we in America have a win win situation for both humans and our precious wildlife. As for people despising the poor little creatures that they do not understand. This has always been the case. It is tough to try to make someone undertand that a copperhead has every right to exist.
I for one, remember how terriblely screwed up the Delaware River became back in the 50/60s due to un-believable amounts of toxic chemicals poured into it due to the many petrochemical plants in Philly,Delaware, and New Jersey.
I have a older brother PHD staff of chemistry at Villinova University that has worked with some experts in salt marsh studies in Delaware etc.. So I am aware of how dangerouse it is to just let industry dump all kinds of stuff into estruary systems. PCB get eaten by mollusks and worms, flounder eats the worms, fish tissues absorb the PCB's, happy little fishermen catches flounder. Plops the fish in the the oven, hey some herbs, little butter anyone......
Eats these fish for twnenty years. Then wonders why he is dying from liver cancer.
We need honest, balanced, ane wherever possible fair governmental controls to protect both our environment and human beings.
While working at Bell Labs in Allentown PA, for a number of years I can say earlier on, AT&T dumped huge amounts of Cromium salts into the Lehigh River. The damn river turned green after a period of time. People fished this river and ate the fish. For all the good AT&T and Bell Labs has done for the world in the way of R&D over the years it in this case did noone good as it discharged various toxic metals and other chemical "byproducts" from our Integrated Circuit Fabrication operations into that river. AT&T did the responsible thing after being caught and stopped dumping stuff directly into the river. But the harm was already done. Those toxic heavy metals etc., are in the eco system for a long time.
But I tend to side with those that believe there are a number of organizations that take to much for granted in believing they can modify American Industry with findings that are often to one sided. And the issue of global warming is one of them. We need honest regulation based on a solid model in any given situation to balanced the needs of humans verse the environment. So I take sides neither with the far left nor the far right on issues at stake. I believe we need balance.
That is my two cents on this issue of global warming.
This is an EXTRAORDINARILY outdated statement. It was wrong in 1998 and it is wronger now. Four separate analyses of satellite data measuring lower tropospheric atmospheric temperatures shows a lower bound trend of 0.078 degrees C per decade (about 0.8 C per century) to an upper-bound of 0.22 degrees C per decade (about 2.2 degrees C per century). The global surface temperature increase since 1980 is approximately 0.4 degrees C, approximately 1.6 degrees C per century, or just a bit less than three times faster than the warming observed in the 20th century, approximately 0.6 degrees C.
Boris, while I respect you, you may not respect me. With that preamble, I will state with 100% absolute, total, and unrelenting certainty that "global warming" is not a hoax. I.e., the globe/planet is warming, hard data and less-hard enviromental/ecological observations show it beyond any reasonable doubt.
Lest you think that's a radical statement, before you attack with guns blazing: I will fully admit that predictions regarding the absolute magnitude of warming in the next century are highly uncertain; attribution of the amount of warming due to human cause vs. natural cause is also uncertain; and there should be no "scare" involved in the assessment of the issue. There is a radical environmental fringe that is trying to scare governments into unwise action.
But it's not a hoax. The introduction to this article is erroneous. And the implied impugnment of scientic knowledge and veracity that accompanies it almost sickens me.
Ping
To think that man the created can destroy what God the creator created is the highest arrogance.
Isn't it though. Course the ones saying we are destroying it do not believe in God.
Thanks for the ping.
I had a geology and astronomy teacher in college (who was definitely liberal, but very honest) who said something that has stuck with me.
With regard to human's ability to changes the forces of nature...
"Spitwads at a battleship."
End of story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.