POLAR CAPS MELTING Options

[UNDEAD 1]

THIS IS ALARMING!

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

[Druid]

I don't have any problem with conservationist or environmentalist in general, to me it's only common sense to not waste our limited resources or not try to limit unnecessary pollution.
I think that's why the whole global warming issue is such a pet peeve as it take focus off more important subjects.
This whole chicken little hysteria revolving around "global warming" to me is a farce.
Even the best projections of the alarmist puts the man-made portion of CO2 around 0.2%. This is less than their percentage of error the tempretures cited in their own predictions of global warming.
So if EVERY man-made source of C02 was stopped tomorrow, it would have less than 0.2% impact on the problem.

People need to keep this in perspective. The global warming theory ( that's what it is a theory ), is mostly based on mathematical models where they can't even backup many of their assumptions used in the model.
Even the UN IPCC Panel who is the biggest chicken hawk right now. List 12 causes of global warming, then later admits they have little scientific understanding of 6 of the 12 factors and only marginal understanding of another 4.
So we are suppose to go by their predictions when they admit, at best only understand 1/4 of the reason?
Don't forget right up to the mid 70's the overwhelming belief was we were heading into another mini ice-age.


As for the universe expanding that is 100% fact as proven by red shift.
This BTW is who the hubble telescope is named for.
The confusion comes from a difference of perspective.
GENERALLY speaking everything in the universe is moving a way from each other.
This is the basis for the big bang theory. It doesn't mean it's the only force acting on it.
The Milky Way And Andromeda galaxies are both Generally moving away from everything else but at the same time are on a collision course to take place in 3 billion years.
All a matter of perspective.
Same as you're sitting still as you read this but at the same time you are moving in at least 5 different vectors.
Spinning around on the earth axis
Rotating around the sun
The solar system is spinning inside the milky way galaxy
Our section of the milkway galaxy is spinning on an axis to it's center
While the whole time the galaxy is flying towards a collision with Andromeda in 3 billion years.

[Stickman]

There has been just as much scientific evidence against the idea of global warming as their has been for.

This is untrue. There are few peer reviewed scientific studies that refute global warming. Most research refuting global warming comes from sources that do not submit their findings to peer review.

I also don't put much emphasis on peer review. Just because someone can find other like minded people, doesn't make him right, which is exactly all peer review really is. I could do a little research and find 100's of failed scientific hypostases that passed peer review but were later proved to be completely wrong.

You misunderstand the nature and purpose of peer review.

From wikipedia:
A rationale for peer review is that it is rare for an individual author or research team to spot every mistake or flaw in a complicated piece of work. This is not because deficiencies represent needles in a haystack, but because in a new and perhaps eclectic intellectual product, an opportunity for improvement may stand out only to someone with special expertise or experience. Therefore showing work to others increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified, and with advice and encouragement, fixed. The anonymity and independence of reviewers is intended to foster unvarnished criticism and discourage cronyism in funding and publication decisions.

In addition, since the reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. Scholars reading the published articles can only be expert in a limited area; they rely to some degree on the peer-review process to provide reliable and credible research which they can build upon for subsequent or related research.





Peer review is a credibility check, and is an absolutely essential part of the scientific process. If an individual or organization is unwilling to submit their findings to such a credibility check, their findings are, quite rightly, considered suspect in the scientific community.

This whole chicken little hysteria revolving around "global warming" to me is a farce.
Even the best projections of the alarmist puts the man-made portion of CO2 around 0.2%. This is less than their percentage of error the tempretures cited in their own predictions of global warming.
So if EVERY man-made source of C02 was stopped tomorrow, it would have less than 0.2% impact on the problem.

Uh, what's your source for this info, Druid?

according to this, CO2 levels have risen 36% since the start of the industrial revolution, and continue to rise by about 0.5% per year. This rise is virtually all due to us.