A Credible Global warming Scientist!

[dave1949]

This would be funny, if it was not maddening:

In the video on the bottom of the page they show sea ice shrinking from January to September 2008 - ice more often than not melts in summer, Einstein

Why do you find it maddening? It's is a animated composite built from satellite data. I think it is educational. We talk about the Arctic but, being it is remote and expensive to get to, besides too cold (except for your explorer), folks don't have much insight into what goes on there. Any time people's understanding is improved, I call that a positive thing.

The video is a representation of what occured Jan-Sep, 2008. What's stupid about that? I'll bet there are many people who could watch that, including me, and gain some insight.

What would be really interesting, to me, would be a series of these videos built from data taken from successive years.
Dave.

 

[rekees4300]

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[kevindsingleton]

To address the idea that there is indeed a substantial consensus of opinion amongst climate scientists, you might want to read this:

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science -- Gleick et al. 328 (5979): 689 -- Science

and other comments at the National Academy of Science site:

Climate Change at the National Academies

Unanimous? No, but pretty strongly on the "yes" side.

Chuck

Any of them not accepting funding from leftists in government and academia?

 

[SPYDERLK]

About my position on global warming? No.

About public policy matters? No.

To the press? No.

How about you?

To be direct, yes. I couldnt tell what your answer was.
larry

 

[Loren49]

Quote kevindsingleton:
Any of them not accepting funding from leftists in government and academia?

I would assume there may be funding from the environmentally conscious and educated. These conclusions are also from international scientific organizations. It is government's function to search for the truth -they're far from perfect but I'll go with them before I'll trust BP or Exxon, etc.

Loren

 

[dave1949]

My point exactly. It is misleading, it looks like they are melting away very fast - better video would be year after year the same period of time. And because I know a thing or two about propaganda - red religion and green religion is the same in my book - I believe it is presented this way on purpose.

Prokop, Sure it has a purpose. Please consider that there are many, many people who, if asked to describe seasonal Arctic Sea ice melt, would be hard put to give a decent description of that process. If nothing else, the video does a fair job of illustrating that.

From a scientist's perspective, it represents something interesting that hasn't been experienced in their professional lifetime's. It is the equivalent of a new tractor attachment for them.

If the video sequence were fake, it would be propaganda. Otherwise, it is a factoid of interest and inquiring minds want to know more about it and it's effects on Arctic Sea life. Hard to see the harm or agenda in that. Do most of the people on the research vessel believe in AGW?, probably they do.

What would be harmful, is if such information were to be restricted to the general public. In a free society we are bombarded with information, some good some bad, some true some lies. People do their best to sort it out and draw their own conclusions.
Dave.

 

[rekees4300]

We can argue about human imaginations like "propaganda", "misleading", "religion" and a zillion other topics concocted in the human mind but irrelevant in Mother Earth's bigger scheme. What is important is the fact that the poles, glaciers, and Greenland are melting. That's tangible reality no matter how much some don't want to believe it.

 

[tallyho8]

Here's a theoretical question. IF the poles, glaciers, and Greenland are melting, and it was NOT man's fault, would mankind be able to do anything to prevent it?

 

[Chuck52]

Here's a theoretical question. IF the poles, glaciers, and Greenland are melting, and it was NOT man's fault, would mankind be able to do anything to prevent it?

Now there's a good question! If they would work at all, some of the more out-there schemes people have come up with could presumably work against natural causes. Some fella suggested we spread quadrillions of pieces of reflecting film in geosynchronous orbit that would reflect sunlight away from the atmosphere. You think that might have a few side effects? I also think I recall someone suggesting deliberately interfering with the gulf stream as a way to change the way increasing temperatures would affect parts of the north Atlantic....I don't recall how that was to be attempted, but it might lead to a nice limited ice age in Ireland, perhaps. If you assume that greenhouse gases are increasing due to natural cycles and that they are contributing to GW, I suppose the CO2 sequestering schemes might make sense, if any of them are practicable. Plant lots of trees?

Chuck

 

[Chuck52]

Any of them not accepting funding from leftists in government and academia?

I would imagine some of them, probably the majority, have been funded by NSF and other government agencies for years, that is through several administrations. DOE probably funds some climate research and I wouldn't be surprised if DOD does, too. DOD also funds some neat research on explosives. Two stories up from where I am sitting there's a group of theoreticians doing some of that research. Who would you suggest fund basic research? I'm not sure what you mean by accepting funding from leftists in academia, because most of us leftists in academia have to compete for funding with the right-leaning researchers in academia. Come to think of it, I can't recall ever having to report my political views on a grant application.

Did you bother to go read some of the original research I pointed to? The title alone can give you a headache.

Chuck

 

[kevindsingleton]

To be direct, yes. I couldnt tell what your answer was.
larry

Not surprising, Spydie.

 

[kevindsingleton]

I would assume there may be funding from the environmentally conscious and educated. These conclusions are also from international scientific organizations. It is government's function to search for the truth -they're far from perfect but I'll go with them before I'll trust BP or Exxon, etc.

Loren

So, the answer, then, is "no", but that's based, like most of your contributions, on assumptions.

I don't see "truth searching" in my copy of the Constitution.

 

[kevindsingleton]

If the video sequence were fake, it would be propaganda.

Dave.

Propaganda doesn't have to be fake, or even false, to remain propaganda.

 

[kevindsingleton]

We can argue about human imaginations like "propaganda", "misleading", "religion" and a zillion other topics concocted in the human mind but irrelevant in Mother Earth's bigger scheme. What is important is the fact that the poles, glaciers, and Greenland are melting. That's tangible reality no matter how much some don't want to believe it.

And, there's that hole in the ozone layer, and the coming solar storms, and the ice age, and the sky is falling! OMG! We're all gonna die!

I think I'll take the long way home.

 

[kevindsingleton]

Here's a theoretical question. IF the poles, glaciers, and Greenland are melting, and it was NOT man's fault, would mankind be able to do anything to prevent it?

And, would we even really want to?

 

[brin]

I don't see this as politics, maybe I'm wrong but I think we have reached a point in the United States where we may just go the way of the former Soviet Union. There is such a disparity of views, culture and morals existing and growing exponentially between the states that I see a time in the not to distant future where the country may break apart into several regions with no more federal government. States rights have been so diminished so as to make a joke out of the intent of the constituion and its framers. We well may end up being 50 seperate states who all just sign treaties with each other and share the expense of a joint defense force while each maintaining our own State controlled Armed Forces...Just a thought..

 

[kevindsingleton]

I would imagine some of them, probably the majority, have been funded by NSF and other government agencies for years, that is through several administrations. DOE probably funds some climate research and I wouldn't be surprised if DOD does, too. DOD also funds some neat research on explosives. Two stories up from where I am sitting there's a group of theoreticians doing some of that research. Who would you suggest fund basic research? I'm not sure what you mean by accepting funding from leftists in academia, because most of us leftists in academia have to compete for funding with the right-leaning researchers in academia. Come to think of it, I can't recall ever having to report my political views on a grant application.

Did you bother to go read some of the original research I pointed to? The title alone can give you a headache.

Chuck

So, the answer is, "no". I didn't suggest that anyone should fund basic research. I asked who funded the research you cited.

 

[kevindsingleton]

I don't see this as politics, maybe I'm wrong but I think we have reached a point in the United States where we may just go the way of the former Soviet Union. There is such a disparity of views, culture and morals existing and growing exponentially between the states that I see a time in the not to distant future where the country may break apart into several regions with no more federal government. States rights have been so diminished so as to make a joke out of the intent of the constituion and its framers. We well may end up being 50 seperate states who all just sign treaties with each other and share the expense of a joint defense force while each maintaining our own State controlled Armed Forces...Just a thought..

How would a state like Pennsylvania join up with Texas, if the states in between remained in the Union? I think it's going to be very difficult to split it up, again.