Al Gore apparently won the Nobel Peace Prize. This is the point in history at which the Nobel Peace prize begins to mean absolutely nothing. His winning this award should be considered a slap in the face for all previous and future winners of this award. All he won it for was running around like Chicken Little clucking about some theory that has no scientific basis. As a scientist this disgusts me.
Give credit to Al Gore for picking a topic in which many people are uneducated and thus easy to convince, but seriously who ever would have thought it would go this far? First an oscar and now this. Disgusting. Beyond disgusting.
Apparently the fact that the surface of Mars is also getting warmer got lost on the judges. Or maybe they think all those industrial emissions up there are to blame as well!
And the earth's Southern Hemisphere shows no signs of warming. This is a ridiculous joke.
Gore has done an amazing thing - has brought global warming to the forefront of conversations. Not one credible scientist can doubt his findings. Even W has admitted that Man is a root cause for global warming.
Millions of people have been impacted by his message. Stop being so hateful and recognize the man.
Global warming isn't the issue------we all know that earth is in a warming trend----but so is Mars. The issue is -----is this trend man made or one of the countless number of global weather fluctuations/trends since mankind originated.
Since there is no proof that this warming trend is manmade-----and that Mars is getting warmer as well----Al Gore has built an audience of gullible left wing listeners who are against industrialization in the first place in the name of extreme environmentalism!
Global warming is a term that wasnt even thought up by scientists. It was politicians who introduced this term and idea to people. And those who can't think for themselves start believing this propaganda. Meanwhile, scientists looking to get funding (ie plant scientists) include the term global warming in their research proposals because guess what? All research money comes from the government. Thus, to get funding, you basically have to be working in a hot area....cancer scientists have a much easier time getting grants than a plant scientist would. It's no coincidence that my research area is Obesity and Diabetes as these are two huge problems in today's society.
Listen, we all can agree that pollution is bad and that there needs to be ways to minimize pollution either through science or technology or even moderation of waste, but there is no relation at all between pollution and global warming for the simple fact that global warming does not exist. If you believe there is such a plethora of scientific research confirming the existance of global warming, please show me articles from journals like Science or Nature. The truth is there is plenty of research on weather patterns and the fact that throughout the history of the world the weather has fluctuated. Personally when I see snow in Cleveland in the middle of April, I begin to seriously doubt "global warming." The liberal politicians, being the sly dogs they are, also noted this and just last spring we were introduced to the term "global climate change."
Pollution is bad, but to suggest that humans can somehow control the weather is ridiculous and somewhat egotistical. We can create shelters from extreme heat, rain, cold, etc. but we have no control over the average temperature dropping 1 or 10 degrees.
So while Gore's bringing this discussion to the forefront of conversation will undoubtedly result in the brainwashing of many people, Mr. Tree-hugging Environmentalist Gore continues to win award after award. What a joke. The fact that Al Gore won the same award as Mother Theresa is a joke. It was less of a joke when Jimmy Carter won it but even then it was a joke. This award will forever be tarnished. Sorta like a Barry Bonds homerun. Next year, the Nobel Committee will no doubt honor the President of the Flat Earth Society for providing sound scientific information to the children of our planet.
Egads...the Nobel is now "tarnished" by a certain "should have been president" Al Gore. I should look upon Einstein's Nobel as a tarnished award now, as a result.
People judge who receives the award, leave it be.
What award we should really be upset about is how Bowling for Columbine was selected for the Oscar over Winged Migration.
THAT'S an OUTRAGE!!! ;)
Honestly I think this is a case of Europeans trying to have an influence over the elections. I think they assume that by winning the award Gore will run for president. Right now, he's the only shot the dems have at winning the election.
Obviously - you are tainted by your partisanship and cannot see past it.
Quote from: mviale on October 12, 2007, 10:56:25 PM
Gore has done an amazing thing - has brought global warming to the forefront of conversations. Not one credible scientist can doubt his findings. Even W has admitted that Man is a root cause for global warming.
Millions of people have been impacted by his message. Stop being so hateful and recognize the man.
Actually there are plenty of credible scientists that doubt his findings and those of the IPCC. There you go with hyperbole again.
MIT, UCLA, Wisconsin, Harvard, Oxford, NASA, etc...scientists from all of those institutions have many questions about man's role with global warming/cooling, etc. Yeah, it's warmer today globally then it was 30 years ago which followed about 25 years of cooling which followed decades of warming which followed decades of cooling.
Quote from: mviale on October 14, 2007, 01:21:43 AM
Obviously - you are tainted by your partisanship and cannot see past it.
No, I'm not. I've just been trained to think critically and therefore I don't buy into a theory that wasn't even proposed by scientists. Sorry to disappoint you but if Ronald Reagan had made that movie I still would hate it, the idea it perpetuates, and would be disgusted if he won an Oscar or Nobel Peace Prize for it.
Despite being an environmentalist, Al Gore is one of the biggest hypocrites by the way.
Chico;s - do these scientists come from San Diego State? Have they ever be been published? Please name one, I would like to follow up on this.
Thank you
I'm preety sure it was a makeup award for not awarding Gore a Nobel for inventing the Internet
Quote from: mviale on October 14, 2007, 06:55:43 PM
Chico;s - do these scientists come from San Diego State? Have they ever be been published? Please name one, I would like to follow up on this.
Thank you
Sigh. No, that's why I listed MIT, Harvard, Nasa, etc. For the record, I don't know who's right, but I do question us getting our panties in a wad when we've been keeping weather data for 175 years on a planet that is billions of years old. Talk about a small data set. My dad was a Geologist / Geophysicist so I grew up in a scientist's house and he used to always say that we (people) knew about .0000000000001% of any real answers out there on these types of things. He also said when science crossed over into politics then you better run for cover. That's what's happening here in my opinion. It has become a political issue and not one of science...that is scary.
Factor in that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto and other bodies in our own Solar System are warming at the same time from this thing called the Sun, well I think I'm not quite ready to take the plunge on this. Especially when it means spending trillions of dollars on something that likely we can't effect a damn bit.
Here's just a small sampling of some of the scientists from various highly regarded institutions. I realize there are many that believe this is human caused, they are also rewarded HANDSOMELY with grants, etc to keep studying that belief.
--------------------
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air's increased greenhouse gas content."
Willie Soon, astrophysicist,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed"
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,
University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--
and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the
University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth's climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."
George Kukla, retired
Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the
National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities"
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the
University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."
Below is a link to former global warming activists who now are skeptics.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9469 (http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9469)
Who's right, who's wrong...I don't know. Today Dr. Gray of Colorado State said we will look back in 15 to 20 years and see what a complete fool Gore was on this. Who knows if he's (Gray) is right.
But rest assured, your statement that there is not one credible scientist that is against what Gore says is pure crap.
Thanks Chicos - willie and sallie are funded by the American Petroleum Institute and has been widely criticized by scientific journals for their lack of peer review of findings.
Reid Bryson doesnt deny global warming - however he believes spitting causes global warming. He is 86 yrs old and very open minded.
Quote from: jutaw22mu on October 13, 2007, 10:40:57 AM
there is no relation at all between pollution and global warming for the simple fact that global warming does not exist.
If it were that simple, and that much of a fact, then it wouldn't be a debate. Nobody really knows the answer, and if you've proven this somewhere and not turned over your findings, then I suggest you report them immediately! ;D
Quote from: jutaw22mu on October 13, 2007, 10:40:57 AM
Listen, we all can agree that pollution is bad and that there needs to be ways to minimize pollution either through science or technology or even moderation of waste
Honestly, thats the key. Take all the money and effort used in proving or disproving global warming, put it towards commercializing products that reduce human impact on our fragile ecosystems, and I'd be a happy man.
Unfortunately few people, and even fewer politicians seem to be able to grasp that concept.
There is absolutely no question as to if there is global warming (there is)----- the real question is -----what is causing it? Is it a normal fluctuation in temperatue within historical averages----or is it something that is far different----like a trend to oblivion?
I'd be a lot more sympathtic to the oblivion theroy brought on by global pollution, if it were not for the fact that the climate of Mars is warming as well!
I agree Murf. The root evil is fossil fuels-primarily coal. I have opened my eyes to nuclear energy as a viable solution. In the meantime, we should all drive less.
giving gore the nobel peace prize is no more a 'stain' than giving one to ...,oh, say, carter,...or, worse, arafat.
Carter has done alot for peace since leaving office - so I would call that a compliment for Gore.
Yes mviale, and many on the "humans are causing it" are paid by George Soros groups, etc. We can argue this until the cows come home.
If in 10 years, 15 years it begins to cool again, much like it did several times of warming and cooling in the 1900's, then what?
I find it remarkable that a planet that is billions of years old we're running around screaming the sky is falling based on a warming trend that is almost inconsequential....a data point about .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% in the life of this planet.
But hey, if gives politicians a chance to raise taxes all in the name of "saving the planet". So I ask you, if temperatures cool in a few years, will they rescind those taxes to save the planet?
We all know that answer.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on October 16, 2007, 06:24:14 PM
Quote from: jutaw22mu on October 13, 2007, 10:40:57 AM
there is no relation at all between pollution and global warming for the simple fact that global warming does not exist.
If it were that simple, and that much of a fact, then it wouldn't be a debate. Nobody really knows the answer, and if you've proven this somewhere and not turned over your findings, then I suggest you report them immediately! ;D
Quote from: jutaw22mu on October 13, 2007, 10:40:57 AM
Listen, we all can agree that pollution is bad and that there needs to be ways to minimize pollution either through science or technology or even moderation of waste
Rocky, there will be plenty of people that become billionaires and millionaires all in the name of ecofriendly industries. The question will be, how many of them really do what they say? The chances for fraud in this area are TREMENDOUS. How do they really prove that they are reducing X amount of carbon footprint, etc? It's ripe for all kinds of problems, but people are so bought into this thing that they'll throw their money at it because they feel like they are doing something good. The amount of money will be obscene.
Honestly, thats the key. Take all the money and effort used in proving or disproving global warming, put it towards commercializing products that reduce human impact on our fragile ecosystems, and I'd be a happy man.
Unfortunately few people, and even fewer politicians seem to be able to grasp that concept.
Quote from: Murffieus on October 16, 2007, 07:21:41 PM
There is absolutely no question as to if there is global warming (there is)----- the real question is -----what is causing it? Is it a normal fluctuation in temperatue within historical averages----or is it something that is far different----like a trend to oblivion?
I'd be a lot more sympathtic to the oblivion theroy brought on by global pollution, if it were not for the fact that the climate of Mars is warming as well!
Actually Murff, there is a lot of questions whether it's happening. I provided links to many well reputed scientists from many well respected institutions. Personally, yeah I think it's warmer but that it happens all the time in ebbs and flows. It's why other planets are warming at the same time we are....afterall we all share one primary heating source...the sun (yes, there are other heating elements....clouds, atmosphere, etc...I realize that).
Meanwhile the southern ice caps are GROWING, the nothern caps are shrinking, parts of Africa are cooler than ever, parts or Europe warmer, Mars warming, etc. Similar trends in the 1940's, 1960's, late 1800's, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 16, 2007, 09:50:18 PM
Rocky, there will be plenty of people that become billionaires and millionaires all in the name of ecofriendly industries. The question will be, how many of them really do what they say? The chances for fraud in this area are TREMENDOUS. How do they really prove that they are reducing X amount of carbon footprint, etc? It's ripe for all kinds of problems, but people are so bought into this thing that they'll throw their money at it because they feel like they are doing something good. The amount of money will be obscene.
Somehow, I don't see a difference between making money in the eco-friendly industry, rather than say, the defense industry, or automotive industry, or telecommunications industry.
Just like anything else in a capitalist society, those that deliver will get rich.
I'll agree that when it comes to "alternative fuels" for autos, there is a lot of work to do. But as for infrastructure, we could and should be doing a lot more with wind, solar, hydro, and maybe even (gasp) nuclear. That would be a good start as opposed to burning coal for electricity.
I don't disagree with you on that front Rocky.
Which is why I keep asking why Ted Kennedy and the libs in Massachusetts shot down the windfarm off the cape.
Do as we say, not as we do seems to live larger than ever.
I'm all for nuclear power. It's cleaner and more efficient than burning coal. If only we would start recycling our spent fuel rods we wouldnt have to store them underground in the desert and we would save even more energy. That's about the only thing the French have right is their nuclear power infrastructure which the US should adopt. The problem is that people dont want nuclear power plants in their back yard which I can't blame them for because they cant get images of Chernobyl out of their minds. I grew up near an nuclear power plant, it was no problem at all.
chicos - are you disagreeing only because Gore lead this? Get out of your partisan bickering and lets do something good for our kids.
mviale-----we don't have any control over weather patterns----world temperatures have fluctuated since the beginning of man (probably before)-----Gore just latched onto an issue that environmentalists have championed.
I ask you-----why is Mars heatiing up as well?
Quote from: Murffieus on October 17, 2007, 04:50:50 PM
mviale-----we don't have any control over weather patterns----world temperatures have fluctuated since the beginning of man (probably before)-----Gore just latched onto an issue that environmentalists have championed.
I ask you-----why is Mars heatiing up as well?
<whisper> Not to stir up the old gender debate but I think you meant Venus </whisper>
No, I mean Mars----but quite possibly Venus as well!
Quote from: mviale on October 17, 2007, 03:20:17 PM
chicos - are you disagreeing only because Gore lead this? Get out of your partisan bickering and lets do something good for our kids.
Sigh again.
Yeah mviale. That's it...you nailed it. I love the "good for our kids". Good grief, why didn't you bring out grandma in this post...it's equally effective.
It has nothing to do with patrisianship at all. It has to do with spending trillions of dollars on something that we can't control. It has to do with getting into agreements that don't include India and China.
It has nothing to do with my kids, your kids or anyone's kids. It has to do with policy and whether spending trillions of dollars is wise. I think it's rather magnanimous to believe we can control the global climate when we don't even know what's causing the global climate to act the way it does in the first place.
They will have a different take on it...yes, it's Stossell the dreaded conservative.
Is he right...I don't know. I don't think anyone knows and that's the point.
-----------------
"20/20" co-anchor John Stossel is going on the attack against "experts" who warn about manmade global warming – along the way berating Al Gore for saying the debate over climate change is over.
In a release from ABC previewing Stossel's report on Friday's "20/20," the veteran newsman who won 19 Emmys exposing scammers and con artists – says:
"This week on '20/20' (in our new 8 p.m. Eastern time slot) I say 'Give Me a Break!' to our Nobel Prize-winning Vice President.
"Mr. Gore says 'The debate is over,' and those who disagree with his take on global warming have been 'purchased' in order to create 'the illusion of a debate.' Nonsense. It's as if the Vice President and his allies in the environmental movement plan to win the debate through intimidation. I interview some scientists who won't be intimidated, even though one has had his life threatened for speaking up.
"The Vice President's much-applauded movie, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' claims warming is man's fault and a coming crisis! While the earth has certainly warmed over the last century, plenty of independent scientists say scientists cannot be sure that man caused the warming or that warming will be a crisis.
"They say the computer models that are used to predict the disasters don't include important variables because scientists don't fully understand them. For example, warming may cause cloud formations that reflect sun and cool the earth. The computer models cannot know. These scientists call global warming activism more of a religious movement than science."
Gore's film is filled with "misleading messages," says Stossel.
"It suggests polar bears are disappearing and that 'sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet.' I interview children who are scared. They believe the polar bears are already going extinct and that the oceans will soon rise even higher than 20 feet, drowning them and their parents.
"But polar bear populations appear to be steady or increasing, and a 20-foot rise is a theoretical possibility that wouldn't happen for millennia. The IPCC, the group that shared last week's Nobel Prize with the Vice President, says in 100 years the oceans might rise 7 to 24 inches, not 20 feet. Now a British judge has ruled that British schools must disclose to students nine inaccuracies in 'An Inconvenient Truth' if they play the movie in class."
Stossel said it's "nonsense" for Gore to suggest that we can stop global warming by doing things like changing light bulbs and driving less.
"The only practical thing we can do today that would make a difference in CO2 output is to launch a major shift toward nuclear energy. But the environmental movement rarely utters the word nuclear.
"I suspect that next year's government boondoggle will be massive spending on carbon-reducing technology.
"It reminds me of George Mason University Economics Department Chairman Don Boudreax's suggestion that such schemes really mean 'government seizing enormous amounts of additional power in order to embark upon schemes of social engineering - schemes whose pursuit gratifies the abstract fantasies of the theory class and, simultaneously, lines the very real pockets of politically powerful corporations, organizations, and "experts."'
"He is so right. The abstract fantasies of the theory class will soon send huge chunks of your money to politicians, friends, activist scientists, and politically savvy corporations.
"The debate is over? That makes me say GIVE ME A BREAK!"
chicos - you can keep your partisan rant and keep hating. I will take BART tomorrow and it wont cost a trillion dollars for me to do that.
I don't see any "hate"-----just common sense. I keep asking you and you can't answer-----if global earth's warming is due to gas emissions, why is the climate on Mars warming as well?
Quote from: mviale on October 18, 2007, 10:25:07 PM
chicos - you can keep your partisan rant and keep hating. I will take BART tomorrow and it wont cost a trillion dollars for me to do that.
Ah yes, now the hate charge. Well I'll take the carpool lane tomorrow and it doesn't cost trillions either. I don't recall me saying I'm against any of those things.
You haven't answered why Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, etc are warming at the same time. That would help me a lot in getting on board that spending trillions makes sense.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 19, 2007, 10:17:07 AM
You haven't answered why Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, etc are warming at the same time. That would help me a lot in getting on board that spending trillions makes sense.
Here's why:
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html
For an astrophysicist's view, see here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
For the record, I don't buy everything Al is selling about global warming, but the Mars thing appears to be a bit of a red herring. As Murff likes to say ... apples and oranges!
That said, the bottom line is that whether global warming is caused by human factors, natural factors or a combination of both, we know greenhouse gasses are bad. And that being the case, why not seek reasonable measures to see them reduced? Wouldn't that be a more productive use of our time and resources than bickering over the accuracy of every detail in an Al Gore flick?
Pakuni----doesn't the SAME sun warm Mars as well as the earth-------why would Mars be warming at the same time as earth? The answer would have to be a hotter sun-----bigger explosions on the sun-----I mean it's far fetcehed to think that the sun will generate the same amount of heat ad infinitum----it doesn't have a thermostat does it?
Nice response Pakuni, though the one from several NASA scientist is quite different and doesn't blame the wobble at all, but puts the blame squarely on this large gaseous ball called the Sun. Proving once again that NO ONE REALLY KNOWS.
In fact, some scientists have claimed that earth is in a WOBBLE now as well, also explaining why we are warming NOW and then cooling and then warming and then cooling.
As for greenhouses being bad....that's not a truism either. In fact many scientists argue greenhouse gases will lead to better crop yields, more production, etc. No one knows.
Tune into 20/20 tonight, your favorite conservative is on.
By the way, in that SAME article on National Geographic you didn't note the following...how come?
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
Strange that you left that out. ::)
Quote from: Murffieus on October 19, 2007, 04:07:58 PM
Pakuni----doesn't the SAME sun warm Mars as well as the earth-------why would Mars be warming at the same time as earth? The answer would have to be a hotter sun-----bigger explosions on the sun-----I mean it's far fetcehed to think that the sun will generate the same amount of heat ad infinitum----it doesn't have a thermostat does it?
Perhaps just a fluke...seriously. No one knows and that's the underlying point that so many don't want to accept. Could, possible, perhaps...all these are the key words being used by scientists today and yet politicians and activists take "could" and translate that into "DEFINITE" or a truism. That is my problem with it.
---------------
Other warming worlds
Others have pointed out anomalous warming on other worlds in our solar system.
Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who monitors studies and news reports of asteroids, global warming and other potentially apocalyptic topics, recently quoted in his daily electronic newsletter the following from a blog called Strata-Sphere:
"Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what
could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?"
Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.
"I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system," Peiser said in an email interview.
"Perhaps this is just a fluke."In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.
The warming on Triton, for example,
could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun's heat.
Researchers credited Pluto's warming to
possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.
And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant's interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 19, 2007, 06:01:06 PM
Nice response Pakuni, though the one from several NASA scientist is quite different and doesn't blame the wobble at all, but puts the blame squarely on this large gaseous ball called the Sun. Proving once again that NO ONE REALLY KNOWS.
In fact, some scientists have claimed that earth is in a WOBBLE now as well, also explaining why we are warming NOW and then cooling and then warming and then cooling.
As for greenhouses being bad....that's not a truism either. In fact many scientists argue greenhouse gases will lead to better crop yields, more production, etc. No one knows.
Tune into 20/20 tonight, your favorite conservative is on.
By the way, in that SAME article on National Geographic you didn't note the following...how come?
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
Strange that you left that out. ::)
Sigh.
I didn't leave it out. I provided the entire link. Please don't suggest I was trying to hide something when, quite obviously, that's not the case.
Now, please explan why we should take the theory of this one Russian scientist over those of the great majority of experts in the field?
I know you provided the link, I just found it funny that you skipped over to the very next paragraph.
As for this notion that it's "one Russian scientist"...you're starting to sound like Marc Mviale when he says things like NO ONE DISPUTES this. It's hyperbole. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. Was there a time when the experts in the world said the world was flat or leaching was the best way to cure a patient...were they right?
If you read just the subject of Mars alone you find all kinds of reasons. The Sun, dust, wobble, melting of ice caps, etc etc....each one of these theories goes to show that no one knows, they're just theories. Just like here on earth. Then you go and read about Triton or Pluto or Jupiter and there are many theories there as well. Just as there are many theories here on earth, some which say man is the cause, some which say its cyclical, some which say man is partial cause, etc. NO ONE KNOWS.
I ask this one, simple common sense question which will get a reactive "you hate" from Marc. Has the earth and the solar system (the universe for that matter) not changed for BILLIONS of years? Long before humans were here and certain since humans are here? Has it not changed for warmer, cooler and everthing in between over recorded history, even when there weren't even a billion people on this planet, let alone the industrial age?
A quick search which I don't want to spend a lot of time on reveals many more that hold that same viewpoint
Different theories on Mars
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece (NASA scientist says it might be dust)
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0 (NASA scientist says it might be MARS coming out of an ice age)
Then we have a NASA scientist saying it's the wobble. Three NASA scientists saying 3 different things. But wait, there is more as others associated with NASA and JPL have theories it's the Sun much like our Russian friend.
Now, since Al Gore and mviale say the science is SETTLED, I ask you why isn't it settled just at NASA let alone around the world with other agencies? I don't think that's a hate question...do you?
Here are other articles on other planets and bodies in the Solar System warming....who's right...who's wrong? I don't know, but there sure seem to be a lot of different theories from a lot of smart people....one thing is for sure, the science sure as hell isn't settled.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20060419/Feature1.asp
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
etc, etc, etc No one knows.
Just like a neo con - most people are concerned about terrorism, neo-cons concerned about iraq.
Most people concerned about global warming, neo-cons concerned about Mars.
True to form
Quote from: mviale on October 20, 2007, 03:07:46 PM
Just like a neo con - most people are concerned about terrorism, neo-cons concerned about iraq.
Most people concerned about global warming, neo-cons concerned about Mars.
True to form
True to form, when you have nothing to say....you say nothing.
By the way...MOST CONCERNED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING? Better check your polls.
"Looking ahead 50 years from today, do you think global warming will be a major threat to human life on earth, a minor threat, or not a threat?"
Major Threat 46%
Minor Threat 27%
Not a threat 18%
Unsure 9%
Poll on 8-2-2007 Newsweek
Mviale, the hyperbole king.