Discussion Board

What should the people in Greenland and Iceland be doing right now?



On edit: It's very hard to make out the way Photobucket resized the images, but in the southwest corner of that map where the southern tip of Greenland is, we have two weather stations reporting 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and another nearby showing 35. Bear in mind those weather stations are very close to the Arctic Circle.

Or, say, the fine folks in Longyearben, Svalbard (at latitude 74 degrees north), or along the northern tip of Norway?



Seven degrees above zero, up there, in January? Intriguing.

Only two weather station between both of those images have a current temperature colder than any major city in the continental US, and those are both in northeastern Russia where one would expect temperatures well below zero in January.

Do you really think this current climate pattern is Al Gore's fault? There's probably something else going on which explains just why it's so cold in most of the US right now, and which has quite a number of actual scientists highly alarmed. Would you happen to know exactly what that is by any chance?

Of course, if this winter was exceptionally WARM, the same denialists who say the current cold weather is evidence against global warming, would say instead that it was just a natural fluctuation in temperatures. They get to spout any nonsense they want with no accountability to facts or reality.

People who still insist there is no global warming by now fall into one of three categories:
1) ignorant. Someone who doesn't read and doesn't care to follow what's really going on; is influenced by whatever faddish loudmouth media figure says things they enjoy repeating.
2) poorly educated and/or really stupid. Unable to comprehend the difference between data and opinions. Unable to understand the type of critical thinking (ie, looking at facts) that has made modern civilization possible.
3) none of the above, but eagerly latching onto arguments against the reality of global warming in order to score "political" points. This type of person could care less what happens to any of our grandchildren but just wants the advantage now. In other words, ignorant on purpose.

I find this type of arguer to be very much like SAD eaters. SAD eaters also fall into these categories:
1) ignorant--Don't have any idea that there is anything bad about the SAD diet at all. Probably flip the channel if anything about heart health comes on. Has never read a book or an article.
2) poorly educated--Incapable of understanding how 50 years of nutrition data means anything. Even if you show it to them with clearly made graphics. Doesn't ring a bell.
3) ignorant on purpose--this is probably the majority. "You can take my pork ribs out of my cold, dead hands...I love meat." You see these people everywhere, joking about their arteries. They don't care to be responsible about their health or that of their children. They assume a surgeon will save their lives and they don't have to change anything.

actually, it seems the # of proponents of global warming theory are decreasing, but look at this...

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3401.html

entertaining, if nothing else!

Right on Anna, I couldn't agree more


Carol in frigid Toronto

1) What is your source for "the # of proponents of global warming theory are decreasing"?

2) I'm sorry, but I don't find a display of willful ignorance such as the essay in the link you gave to be in any way "entertaining", when it is the future of the planet at stake.

3) The "report" which your linked essay was based on has been debunked here quite nicely. Small sample sets and cherry-picked data and total lack of sources or references, oh my!

Next....

really, no one is going to win a debate on global warming on this forum... there isn't (again, we repeat this...) an historical, empirical source of data regarding the temperature of the earth...

my link wasn't intended to provide scholarly evidence.... i thought it rather silly. sorry you missed that!

and please, assuming that people who disagree with you are stupid or undereducated is ridiculous.

"global warming theory" is theory.

this first article is particularly interesting:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... cb00b51a12


kindly note the following as well:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... eptic.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02781.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten- ... ics-2009-7

I owe you a manner of apology. I was referring to that article you posted as "willful ignorance", not you. I just phrased it really badly.

On the other hand, if you wish to insist that global warming -- better referred to as Global Climate Change -- is merely "theory", then there's little I can do about that.

overpopulation is the greatest threat to the planet, (and is a good part of "global warming" ) yet not even the global warming people are calling for population control. Until we get the pop under control, the global warmers are just spitting in the wind.

when a country industrializes, its pollution increases substantially, the people in China and India are trading in their bicycles for motorcycles, and their motorcycles for cars. If the standard of living in third world countries were suddenly raised to america's it would be a disaster pollution wise.

Welcome to Fun with Logical Disconnect.

In this edition, we examine the recent work of former Vice President Al Gore, who has dedicated his life after politics to advocating for the claims of a broad consensus of research scientists in several related disciplines who believe -- with few exceptions -- that humanity is in the midst of a growing phase of anthropogenic climate destabilization. In the interest of full disclosure, we note that Mr. Gore is not himself an expert in any climate-related field. Rather, he is a charismatic spokesperson who uses the findings of experts and laureates, whose careers are rich in peer-reviewed publication and are considered at the apex of their chosen fields, to make the case to the public about climate change in terms which are easy to understand. For his efforts, Mr. Gore has received numerous honors, including the Nobel Prize for his work in helping the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) disseminate its findings to people worldwide. The most widely recognized method of achieving this goal was his work on the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which went on to win the 2007 Academy Award in the category of Best Documentary.

We next examine the work of one John Coleman. Mr. Coleman received a degree in Journalism in 1957. He then went on to become a TV weatherman. A weatherman no more needs to be an actual scientist to perform his job than a seamstress needs to be an ASE certified auto mechanic, much like Al Gore need not possess degrees in one or more scientific disciplines in order to be able to render the mountains of data generated by the world's climate scientists into a format which the general public can easily understand. John Coleman has also had tremendous success as an entrepreneur. He helped develop the Eyewitness News format, then a few years later he launched The Weather Channel on cable television. All of this without any further education in climatology, atmospheric science, oceanic science, etc.... More recently, Mr. Coleman has gone on public record as a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change. To help his cause, he has enlisted the help of a handful of fellow journalists and a few non-peer reviewed (presumed) scientists -- not to mention a fellow by the name of Lord Christopher Monckton; yet another journalist from the UK with strong ties to conservative think tanks, and a very interesting theory for dealing with those who test positive for AIDS -- to produce a documentary which recently aired on a local television station out of San Diego entitled Global Warming: The Other Side. In this documentary, Mr. Coleman promises to reveal the "the truth as [he knows] it to be". Evidence to support "the truth" as Mr. Coleman "knows it to be" includes presentations of charts and diagrams, usually depicting such data sets as ice core measurements at a single location or other clearly cherry picked or proven unreliable -- or outright false -- assumptions or claims. But all of this is "the truth". Mr. Coleman "knows it to be" so, therefore sound references to peer reviewed works and specific data sets, such as those used in Mr. Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth are presumed to be mere trifles; or, as Mr. Coleman is quite fond of saying, "bad science".

I don't believe that I would in any way be off base if I were to speculate here that the conclusion intended to be derived from this compare/contrast session is that if one chooses to enter politics as a center-leftist, while devoting a great deal of his life to fighting for environmental causes in ways including assuming a spokesman's role, helping to disseminate research conducted by noted scientists from all over the planet, then this person is clearly a fraud. However, if one were to become a journalist and take jobs reading weather statistics from a prepared script, then later were to start a cable television weather channel as a money-making endeavor, and finally were to use that background as a form of implied expert status granting him the ability to deny anthropogenic climate change completely, declaring it to be "the truth as he knows it to be", then this person is to be trusted implicitly.

Come back next time for more Fun with Logical Disconnect, when we prove that Bizarro World isn't just some alternate dimension in the Superman milieu. In fact, as those old liquid dish detergent ads used to say, "you're soaking in it!"

Al Gore charismatic? LOL that is entertaining commentary! continue with your comedy monologue.

However, if one were to become a vice president and invest money in "green" projects then later make a movie about global warming as a moneymaking endeavor, and finally were to use that background as a form of implied expert status granting him the ability to claim anthropogenic climate change , declaring it to be "the truth as he knows it to be", then this person is to be trusted implicitly.

Wow, you sure showed me.

wasn't hard either!