Inconvenient Glaciers

[Stoner]

Al Gore says the world's glaciers are melting because humanity has emitted too much CO2.

However, a new peer-reviewed study shows that in South America's Andes Mountains the glaciers' advances and retreats have not been governed by CO2, but by small variations in the sun's intensity.

The study, led by P.J. Polissar of the University of Massachusetts, found that Andean glaciers expanded only four times during the 600 years of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1250 AD to 1850. Each of those glacier advances occurred during a solar minimum, when the sun's lowered activity apparently dropped the mountain-top temperatures by 2-4 degrees C and increased precipitation by about 20 percent.

The Polissar team's report, "Solar Modulation of Little Ice Age Climate in the Tropical Andes," was recently published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The team studied the glaciers' moraines�piles of rocks, soil, tree trunks and other glacial debris left behind when the glaciers retreated. Then they matched the glacial debris with the sediment layers in nearby mountain lakes. The pronounced seasonality in the Andes precipitation allows the researchers to count years in the sediments and precisely date the glacial advances.

The Andes glacier study not only links glacial advances and retreats with the sun, but emphasizes that the earth's glaciers have often retreated�and even disappeared�during past centuries, long before humans built cars and smokestacks.

Most of the Andes glaciers must have disappeared during the Holocene Warming that ended just 5,000 years ago. Temperatures then were as much as 2 degrees C warmer than today's. So far, the Modern Warming has produced about only 0.8 degrees C of total temperature rise in its 150 years.

The sun has been linked to earth's climate changes for the past 400 years�by sunspot records. Early astronomers noted that the two coldest periods of the Little Ice Age occurred when there were virtually no sunspots on the sun. The Sporer Minimum lasted from 1420 to 1570, and the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1710.

The solar-earth linkage came to the fore again in the 1980s, when researchers brought up the first long ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. The 400,000 years of temperature history contained in the ice cores clearly showed a moderate, natural cycle that raised temperatures at the latitude of New York and Paris by about 2 degrees C, and then lowered them by a similar amount. The cycles averaged about 1500 years in length. Carbon 14 and beryllium 10 isotopes in the ice clearly linked this temperature cycle to the sun.

The question for Al Gore is not whether our temperatures are rising; the key question is why they're rising. Antarctic ice cores tell us that temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere have tracked closely together through recent Ice Ages, but the CO2 changes have lagged behind the temperature changes by about 800 years.

Higher temperatures have produced more atmospheric CO2, rather than CO2 producing higher temperatures! That's because most of the planet's CO2 is stored in the oceans, and as the seawater warms, it can't hold as much CO2.

If CO2 is the driving climate force, why did the earth begin warming in 1850, while human CO2 emissions didn't start to really expand until about 1940? Mr. Gore doesn't tell us the answer.

Why did the earth's temperatures decline from 1940 to 1975, even as CO2 emissions were soaring? Mr. Gore doesn't say.

How warm will New York get in the Modern Warming? Apparently Mr. Gore can't tell us, but a total of 2 degrees C seems likely based on the history in the ice cores.

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen6/InconGlac.html

[Sugar]

If CO2 is the driving climate force, why did the earth begin warming in 1850, while human CO2 emissions didn't start to really expand until about 1940? Mr. Gore doesn't tell us the answer.

Why did the earth's temperatures decline from 1940 to 1975, even as CO2 emissions were soaring? Mr. Gore doesn't say.



CO2 is not the only rerasons for glacier melt down, but has contributed significanly to the global warming which in totalilty has resulted in the meltdowm. You cannot just blame CO2 in isolation. There are so many other polluting gasses like carbon monoxide etc which has reduced the ozone layer, direcly affecting the sun's intensity and so may other factors which hade contributed to the glacier meltdown.

Glacier melt down has become a global phenomena and will be disastrous in the longrun for coastal areas.

[sbannon]

I love these narrow view arguments that come out over and over.

Let's follow the bouncing ball here... the Earth naturally goes through warming and cooling trends. There are natural causes of Greenhouse gases that exist, such as Volcanic eruptions.

However (pay attention now), never in the measurable history of our planet has the process been as rapid or drastic as it has in the past 100 years. Which, funny how this happens--coincides with the industrial revolution perfectly.

You simply can't look at isolated points, or single season weather patterns and think there's evidence to debunk Global Warming. It's big picture science that requires broad view evaluations.

[micfranklin]

Well of course human production of CO2 is a contributing factor to global warming and right now its partly our fault glaciers melt. But then, glaciers have been melting and refreezing since water first formed, remember the last Ice Age from 10,000 years ago.

But the thing is, humans weren't around to produce all that CO2 that long ago.

[bluchap]

Well number of humans have grown over the period and on the other thand there has been a reduction in number of trees on the planet which were the balancing factor. the increased CO2 does not have sufficient trees to nullify its effects.

[micfranklin]

Well number of humans have grown over the period and on the other thand there has been a reduction in number of trees on the planet which were the balancing factor. the increased CO2 does not have sufficient trees to nullify its effects.


Rainforest trees included.

[Mayberry]

Well I've got 6 big trees in my yard, so I can drive my Tahoe guilt free. :cool: Anybody ever hear of solar flares? Helloooo. The sun is a purty powerful thing, and I read (can't find the link dammit) that solar flare activity has been on the increase the last 100 years or so. Don't ever hear anyone talking about that little tidbit though. The fact is that we know this much . about how the atmosphere and the oceans work, and for people to believe that we are the cause of "global warming" is arrogant, ignorant, and downright foolish. When we can get tomorrow's weather right, come back and talk to me. :rolleyes:

[bobbylien]

about how the atmosphere and the oceans work, and for people to believe that we are the cause of "global warming" is arrogant, ignorant, and downright foolish. When we can get tomorrow's weather right, come back and talk to me. :rolleyes:

Pirate has showed proof that the sun hasn't changed enough to provoke such drastic changes. I think its pretty arrogant of you to just claim that these scientists don't know what they are talking about without any proof.
Weather and climatology are two completely different areas of science.

[Mayberry]

Weather and climatology are two completely different areas of science.
What!? Weather and climatology are inherently intertwined. Each effects the other. To say otherwise is ludicrous! I think its pretty arrogant of you to just claim that these scientists don't know what they are talking about without any proof.
These "scientists" don't agree with each other! There are two camps, one for, and one against. Neither has proved anything scientifically. What they have are theories, not scientific law. Proof? There isn't any concrete proof for either argument, just conjecture. Pirate has showed proof that the sun hasn't changed enough to provoke such drastic changes As I said, I've seen "proof" to the contrary. So who's right? All I can do is draw from my personal experience, and that experience tells me that nothing has changed much. It's still hot in the summer, cold in the winter, the sea level hasn't risen here. Sure it's warmer than 150 years ago, and in 50 years, it might cool off again. We just don't know.

[bobbylien]

As I said, I've seen "proof" to the contrary.

Then please show it to us so we can prove you wrong.

Climatology is the study of global climates, temperature averages, predicting temperature averages for the year and so forth. Weather is about predicting what will happen next week based on the current weather conditions. They are two entirely different areas of science. You don't have to understand what low pressure and cold fronts are to be a climatologist.

[Mayberry]

Then please show it to us so we can prove you wrong.
OK Bobby, I'll go digging, but just for you. :D

[Mayberry]

OK, here's one. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

And another http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html Even the climate changes of the 20th century may have a significant solar component. Figure 3 shows comparisons of globally averaged temperature and solar activity. Many scientists find that these correlations are convincing evidence that the sun has contributed to the global warming of the 20th century. And another http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html We're not saying that variations in solar activity account for all of the global rise in temperature that we are experiencing," cautions her CfA colleague, astrophysicist Willie Soon. "But we believe these variations are the major driving force. Heat-trapping gases emitted by smokestacks and vehicles -- the so-called greenhouse effect -- appear to be secondary."
I could go on, if you wish, I got 1,260,000 hits on "sun spots global warming" from google. Pardon me for saying solar flares earlier, my mistake. I learned something today! Thanks Bobby!

[bobbylien]

Climatology is the study of global climates, temperature averages, predicting temperature averages for the year and so forth. Weather is about predicting what will happen next week based on the current weather conditions. They are two entirely different areas of science. You don't have to understand what low pressure and cold fronts are to be a climatologist.

Sure it's warmer than 150 years ago, and in 50 years, it might cool off again. We just don't know.
I was a skeptic a few months ago too but when you go out there and really weigh the arguments and facts presented by both sides, I am convinced you will come to the same conclusion that I have. Reading whats posted on these forums won't help you. I don't think global warming is going to kill off the race of men or anything but it will cause some pretty serious consequences in the next 50 years or so. I'm not convinced that it can be stopped even if we were to drastically cut our emissions.
--damn 15 minute rule!

[Mayberry]

Reading whats posted on these forums won't help you. These forums are not my source of information. but when you go out there and really weigh the arguments and facts presented by both sides, I am convinced you will come to the same conclusion that I have. Uh.....no. I have weighed the arguments and facts presented, interjected my own observations, and drew my conclusion. Not that my conclusion can't be changed, but it can't be changed at this point in time. When somebody comes up with some concrete, absolutely irrefutable evidence that scientists cannot deny, then I will buy the global warming thing. We ain't there yet.

[bobbylien]

When somebody comes up with some concrete, absolutely irrefutable evidence that scientists cannot deny, then I will buy the global warming thing. We ain't there yet.

There are scientists who disagree with the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and think that evolution is a myth too.

[Mayberry]

There are scientists who disagree with the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and think that evolution is a myth too.

That's the best you can come up with? You asked for proof, I gave you proof, or at least what passes for proof around here. The fact is, that until there is general consensus, there is no proof. And the moon is made of cheese, you forgot that one.

[bobbylien]

That's the best you can come up with? You asked for proof, I gave you proof, or at least what passes for proof around here. The fact is, that until there is general consensus, there is no proof. And the moon is made of cheese, you forgot that one.

I thought there was a general consensus?
I wasn't posting that to reply to your sources and articles. I don't have time to read and rebut those right now, but I should later on tonight.

[Mayberry]

I thought there was a general consensus?
No, if there was, then there wouldn't be two sides to the issue, now would there?

[bobbylien]

I thought there was a general consensus?
No, if there was, then there wouldn't be two sides to the issue, now would there?

There can't be a general consensus unless everybody believes it to be true? So evolution isn't proven?

[Mayberry]

There can't be a general consensus unless everybody believes it to be true? Not everybody. The scientific community.

[Buck Laser]

There can't be a general consensus unless everybody believes it to be true? Not everybody. The scientific community.


Are you telling me with a straight face that the scientific community does not, for the most part, accept that the earth is heating up? I challenge you to produce ANY reliable figures to substantiate that.

[nmspl]

Well I've got 6 big trees in my yard, so I can drive my Tahoe guilt free. :cool:

Please Please don't do that. Try to plant more trees, encourae your neighbours, freinds and relatives to grow more trees in their backyard. Not only you will do the service to your self but also to the humanity in general and I am sure your neightbourhood and your children in time to come will be grateful to you for these trees.

Keep on carrying the good work.

[Mayberry]

Are you telling me with a straight face that the scientific community does not, for the most part, accept that the earth is heating up? No, I'm telling you with a straight face that scientists don't agree why.

[bobbylien]

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.
So you agree that MOST scientists agree that fossil fuels are contributing to global warming? I think its important to note that no scientists have suggested that global warming is caused by human factors alone but that we have contributed significantly to the natural process.

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.
All I needed to do was read the articles you provided as proof to support your claims. Your own 'proof' doesn't support your claims. Did you read these articles? I didn't even bother to read the Harvard one from 10 years ago, sorry. The quotes are all from the 2004 article at telegraph.co.uk.
Sorry it took me so long to respond. =)

No, I'm telling you with a straight face that scientists don't agree why.
They know why. Its still a somewhat lively debate when you start talking about which factors contribute the most. My views on global warming aren't set in stone, I just can't disagree with the overwhelming majority of scientists who devote their lives to this stuff.

[bobbylien]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
I would like to see you skeptics explain this... PLEASE. Carbon Dixoide levels almost twice as high as they were before any of the last several ice ages.

[Mayberry]

One cheesy chart from Wikipedia? OK, CO2 is going up. Doesn't prove anything.

[deepk]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
I would like to see you skeptics explain this... PLEASE. Carbon Dixoide levels almost twice as high as they were before any of the last several ice ages.


That is the major cause of Global warmings. Efforts must be made to bring it back to the original levels.

[bobbylien]

One cheesy chart from Wikipedia? OK, CO2 is going up. Doesn't prove anything.

Yes it does. The more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, the less heat is allowed to escape into the upper atmosphere. Does the term 'Greenhouse gases' mean something now?

That is the major cause of Global warmings. Efforts must be made to bring it back to the original levels.
I am not convinced that we will be able to bring the levels back to normal. All we can do is try to reduce our output to slow the natural cycle. Global warming is ultimately inevitable.

[Sugar]

The simple solution to all the global warming is plant more trees. Every person must plant 100 trees hin his life time. All GW problems will be solved.

[Mayberry]

The simple solution to all the global warming is plant more trees. Every person must plant 100 trees hin his life time. All GW problems will be solved.
OK. Please send me my 100 trees. I'll PM you my shipping address. Actually, since I already own 6 trees, I only need 94. Thanks.

[Labrocca]

There can't be a general consensus unless everybody believes it to be true? Not everybody. The scientific community.


Are you telling me with a straight face that the scientific community does not, for the most part, accept that the earth is heating up?Â*Â*I challenge you to produce ANY reliable figures to substantiate that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_asse ssment_of_global_warming

And the list grows too.

[piratemonkey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_asse ssment_of_global_warming

And the list grows too.


I call BS on this statement.

Show us one person on that list that didn't hold the same opinion 5 years ago.

Just one.

[Stoner]

I call BS on this statement.



Give it up, PM. Your manmade global warming theory has more holes in it than swiss cheese. It's over, dude. Science has debunked this myth over and over. Time to move on, son.

[bobbylien]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_asse ssment_of_global_warming

And the list grows too.

One person that disagrees on whether or not global warming is a happening? Hah!
Also, here are the 'credentials' of this scientist. Ooh how priceless Labrocca. You criticize the global warming scientists for getting grants from the government but rush to the aid of scientists who are funded by big oil and coal companies if their opinion matches yours. :rolleyes: Pathetic.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball

Abdusamatov has made statements that contradict basic principles of atmospheric physics that are widely accepted by other scientists, including those who are skeptical of global warming. He not only disputes the role of increased greenhouse gases in recent global warming but contends that even the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."[2] He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." The latter statement contradicts measurements of the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
Skeptic #1 - Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov

A few months afterward, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work.[9] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[10]

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[11][12] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[13]
Skeptic #2 - Sallie Baliunas

Robert M. "Bob" Carter is a research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia. He is a geologist and marine geologist with special interests in stratigraphy and, more recently, climate change. Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program.

Carter is a prominent global warming sceptic and has consistently opposed the consensus view on global warming [1]. A March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [2]
Skeptic #3 - Robert Carter

[quote]George V. Chilingarian (he uses both Chilingar and Chilingarian as his last name) is a Professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California (USC). He is one of the best-known petroleum geologists in the world and the founder of several prestigious journals in the oil and gas industry. Chilingar has published 61 books and hundreds of articles on geology, petroleum engineering and environmental engineering. He serves as president of the U.S. branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and 17 of his books have been translated into Russian. In recognition of these contributions, the Russian Academy of Sciences has honored him as a Knight of Arts and Sciences.

He received his bachelor

[piratemonkey]

Give it up, PM.Â*Â*Your manmade global warming theory has more holes in it than swiss cheese.Â*Â*It's over, dude.Â*Â*Science has debunked this myth over and over.Â*Â*Time to move on, son.



One word for you, Stoner:

Proof?

The day you post any kind of proof to support any of you claims will be the day people here will start to engage you in serious debate.

Until then.... :rolleyes:

[bobbylien]

What happened to like 60% of my post!? Son of a bitch, I seriously spent like a fucking hour writing that for only half of it to post? I guess its my own fault for posting something longer than two sentences, it was just a waste of time anyways. It wouldn't ever be debated, just followed up by a tiny post by stoner or Labrocca.

[Stoner]

it was just a waste of time anyways

Probably. I skip over 80% of your posts anyways.

[bobbylien]

it was just a waste of time anyways

Probably.Â*Â*I skip over 80% of your posts anyways.

Tell me something I don't know.

[piratemonkey]

it was just a waste of time anyways

Probably.Â*Â*I skip over 80% of your posts anyways.


Just the parts with evidence and documented facts?

Where's your evidence, Stoner?

[bluchap]

Mayberry you must not be joking on such serious issues. you comment is too sarcastic.

[Mayberry]

Mayberry you must not be joking on such serious issues. you comment is too sarcastic.
I wasn't joking. Please send me my trees.

[deepk]

You cannot call it a fault of the glaciers for being inconvenient, they are a result of human mistakes and we must face the music of our faults.

[Mayberry]

they are a result of human mistakes and we must face the music of our faults. So says you. What are your solutions then, I mean besides fusion reactors that are probably decades away? If man is causing the problem, then surely we can fix it, right? How do you propose we all change, all at once, right now, and fix this problem? And what about China? Are you going to change them as well? Please tell us how to save the world from ourselves. Maybe a global shield like in the "Highlander" movie? Yeah, now there's an idea. :rolleyes: Mother Nature is going to do as she pleases, there's nothing you can do but roll with the punches. Mother Nature controls the climate.

[piratemonkey]

Mother Nature is going to do as she pleases, there's nothing you can do but roll with the punches. Mother Nature controls the climate.



Climate Change myth #1: Human activities are too small to change the environment.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11638/dn11638-3_550.jpg

[sbannon]

Mother Nature is going to do as she pleases, there's nothing you can do but roll with the punches. Mother Nature controls the climate.
Come now... Mother Nature is going to do as she pleases?

Mother Nature, much like the Tooth Fairy, modern day Santa Clause or even Apollo, the Sun god is a fictional creation of man to explain away what isn't understood. If you're going to take a hard-line position against science I'd at-least expect reasoning slightly more grounded than this metaphorical equivalent to sticking our heads in the sand.

[Mayberry]

Mother Nature, much like the Tooth Fairy, modern day Santa Clause or even Apollo, the Sun god is a fictional creation of man to explain away what isn't understood. Mother Nature, as in the workings of the planet. Sheesh, don't take everything so literally! :P If you're going to take a hard-line position against science I'd at-least expect reasoning slightly more grounded than this metaphorical equivalent to sticking our heads in the sand. I'm only taking a hard line position against some science. I've provided links to other scientists findings. And I wish I could find that damn article by Dr. Gray from the National Hurricane center, he had some excellent points in it, and attributes much of global warming to changes in ocean currents. I'll see if I can find it again.

[sbannon]

Mayberry, so far the only links I've seen you provide here were to old reports that don't even really support your position; as our conservative friend bobbylien so kindly pointed out.

And if you're talking about the same Dr. Gray (William I believe) who doesn't trust the science of climatology because his local weather man can't get the weekend forecast right... you won't score any points with me citing this quack as a source.

He may be a Doctor, but real scientists don't make unfounded public predictions as he has, such as a couple of years ago when he predicted that within 4 years the planet would begin to cool off... yeah, not only a "scientist using a crystal ball", but apparently his crystal ball is as fuzzy as his "scientific" methods.

[piratemonkey]

Let's examine the premise that started this thread:
Even the climate changes of the 20th century may have a significant solar component. Figure 3 shows comparisons of globally averaged temperature and solar activity. Many scientists find that these correlations are convincing evidence that the sun has contributed to the global warming of the 20th century.

Climate Change Myth #2: It's all the sun's fault.

But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

and here's the study that shows this:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

[Mayberry]

OK fine, we're all gonna die. Manhattan will be a coral reef. In the mean time, I'm gonna drive my Jeep, my Tahoe, my boats, and enjoy life. If ya'll want to run around worrying about the global warming boogey man, be my guest. I'm not convinced we're at fault. You people will not convince me. I've read a lot on both sides of the subject, and neither one sounds definitive. I don't think we know enough yet to draw any concrete conclusions. And short of going back to living like cave men, what are we going to do about it right now? Buy economical cars, invent new pollution reduction technology, find new sources of energy. None of that will hurt anything, and I'm fine with it. I think man made global warming could just be a ruse to spark innovation. One never knows. Good things will eventually come out of it. But there is, as always, a "dark side". An element that wishes to use this situation to gain more control. And that is what I will fight against tooth and nail. We've given up enough liberty in this country. No more.

[piratemonkey]

You people will not convince me.


This shows that you aren't thinking rationally on this topic.

If NO evidence will EVER convince you, that's the definition of faith-based thinking.

Or is it just that WE aren't good enough to convince you? (A very valid premise.) ;)

[Mayberry]

Or is it just that WE aren't good enough to convince you? (A very valid premise.) Now you're catching on :D When science can all agree on this, and present some irrefutable evidence that man is playing a large role in global warming, then I'll buy it. Science hasn't convinced me yet. The idiot media crying death and destruction does not help bolster the case for me either. I generally ignore the mainstream media, because they overdramatize everything. They make mountains out of mole hills. They get better ratings that way. And I've never followed the herd either. Generally I'm the one guy fighting his way against the herd.

[piratemonkey]

Or is it just that WE aren't good enough to convince you? (A very valid premise.) Now you're catching on :D When science can all agree on this, and present some irrefutable evidence that man is playing a large role in global warming, then I'll buy it. Science hasn't convinced me yet. The idiot media crying death and destruction does not help bolster the case for me either. I generally ignore the mainstream media, because they overdramatize everything. They make mountains out of mole hills. They get better ratings that way. And I've never followed the herd either. Generally I'm the one guy fighting his way against the herd.


I hear your frustration with the media reporting on scientific topics.

All it takes is a few yahoo's and an ignorant reporter to make a nation-wide "scare" despite any actual evidence. In 2000, I felt exactly how you describe your position. The scientific evidence wasn't there to take the kind of extreme measures people were talking about.

The science has progressed markedly since then. Being a science geek myself, I've found the magazine Science News very helpful. It takes primary journal articles on several topics and summarizes them in a weekly magazine that's easy to read. Better yet, they don't "dumb down" the information. I recommend it highly to anyone who wants to stay up-to-date on the latest research across many scientific fields.