POLAR CAPS MELTING Options

[UNDEAD 1]

THIS IS ALARMING!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060915/sc_nm/...ent_arctic_dc_1

[Druid]

My point on peer review stands true as most ( not all ) of the predictions are based not on true scientific facts or methods. In stead are based on using completely unsupported and improvable variables when they compute their global climate change models.
The "Hocky Stick Graph" that was used for years as proof not only of global warming but man's impact on it passed peer review, is now seen not only as flawed but biased to support the scientist hypothesis.
Or another example, the "Drake equation" which mathematically proves the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, has passed peer review on numerous occasions. It passed peer review not because the scientists believed in it but accepted several unsupported variables used in the equation, variables no one could possibly no such as the percentage of planets/stat that should be capable off supporting life.


Actually I'm not dismissing the possibility of global warming, I am only dismissing the fanatical environmentalist and alarmists view it's caused by man and the sky is falling. That is an incredibly simplified view but is what's accepted by the general population. Which was my point in mentioning Mt. St. Helens in one day created more green house gases than Man has in our whole history.

[Bargod]

My point on peer review stands true as most ( not all ) of the predictions are based not on true scientific facts or methods. In stead are based on using completely unsupported and improvable variables when they compute their global climate change models.
The "Hocky Stick Graph" that was used for years as proof not only of global warming but man's impact on it passed peer review, is now seen not only as flawed but biased to support the scientist hypothesis.
Or another example, the "Drake equation" which mathematically proves the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, has passed peer review on numerous occasions. It passed peer review not because the scientists believed in it but accepted several unsupported variables used in the equation, variables no one could possibly no such as the percentage of planets/stat that should be capable off supporting life.


Actually I'm not dismissing the possibility of global warming, I am only dismissing the fanatical environmentalist and alarmists view it's caused by man and the sky is falling. That is an incredibly simplified view but is what's accepted by the general population. Which was my point in mentioning Mt. St. Helens in one day created more green house gases than Man has in our whole history.

Off topic, but in college I took some Astronomy classes. In astonomy 2 we talked about how everything in the universe (galaxies and larger) is moving away from each other because of the big bang. The further things move from each other, the faster the are moving away from each other. Now, I pointed out to the professor that if that was true, eventually things would reach the speed of light, which is supposedly impossible. That is when the professor pointed out a variable in the equation. He explained how this variable was in the equation to make sure that it didn't break the rules of physics.
Which just makes me wonder how the equation has any validity at all. If it is a fact that the further two things are away from each other, that are always moving away from each other, and the farther away they get, the faster they are moving away from each other, than you can not just ADD a variable to make it not break laws of physics. Either it's true or it's not. Don't throw in an extra "x" because it may break a rule.

I debated for 45 minutes after class with the teacher and never came close to getting a satisfactory answer. I doesn't mean I'm smarter than him, but it has always made me feel that even he thought that it was a bs equation.