Real World

Protect the environment? Yes. MMGW with carbon credit cards, 2,000 calorie a day restrictions, and a couple of squares per bathroom break? I'm not so sure. Doomsdayers are never to be trusted.


Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor

Last Updated: 6:01pm BST 30/04/2008

Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged.

This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...climate130.xml

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

STFarmy

How dare a scientist present contrary evidence to the current doom-and-gloom fad. I have no problem with exploring ways for us to be more harmonious with nature and not continually batter the planet, but I do find it suspicious that every scientist who even questions the immediacy of the impact of global warming (not to mention those who question it at all) are labelled as crackpots. What's even more telling is the current fad of "being green." If it was honest, I wouldn't care, but it's not. When you have NBC making their logo green for a day and Yahoo news presenting an article about how video gamers can be more "green," you know that something is afoot. The green thing is now being exploited for money, and that's pretty sad no matter what you believe. People are gong to make as much money of it as possible, capitalizing on the concern that doomsayers have brought, and then move on.

Stop and think people. Whether you think it's all fake, partially fake, or all true, this current fad of making money of it certainly doens't perpetuate progress in any way.

MosiT

What else would you expect from the most right wing leaning publication in Britain.

The editorial board endorsed the Conservative party in the 2005 general election.

An early coup for the site was the publication of articles by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on Bill Clinton and the Whitewater controversy. The availability of the articles online brought a large American audience to the site. In 1997, the Clinton administration issued a 331-page report that accused Evans-Pritchard of peddling "right-wing inventions".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Telegraph

otis p. driftwood

Be careful, NEMosi, you'll wind up invalidating every single possible source for news.

Even more disturbing is how you completely overlook that the article was based on a paper published in Nature, which is a very respected journal.

__________________
Questions are a burden
and answers a prison
for oneself.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

STFarmy

This is what I mean. Why automatically discount it? Sure, you should take into consideration the source of the info, but that doesn't mean it should totally be thrown out. If science is about proving or disproving then let it be disproven. It's kind of like when people criticize other for not being patriotic because they question the actions of government - sometimes they might be valid questions. And if the proposed question is struck down, it makes the existing theory look that much stronger.

MosiT

Sir, I was merely pointing out that the publication that the thread starter chose to use for this thread is an ultra conservative publication and that they would come out with an article that has the opinion that would reflect the general conservative view on Global Warming.

I am sure that if they had the opportunity of publishing an article that has a totally different opinion that they would choose not to publish it.

And as the spokesperson for "the legend" I found it my duty to point out the nature of the publication in which this article appeared.

As to it's validity or non validity, I am sure that all of the individual readers can make their own determination and that the information I provided will be a help towards making their conclusions.

Always nice to discuss these matters with you.

MosiT

I did not discount it. I merely pointed out that the source and the writer are right wing ultra conservative.

Readers can then make their own determination. However, it is always helpful to understand the nature of the publisher.

BTW, if there was an article with a totally different view and it was published in a hard left publication, the same would hold true.

Quite frankly regarding this subject I doubt if there is any middle of the road publication that would publish anything that takes both sides into consideration on this issue.

Real World

It just goes to show you that the names may change, but the NEMster will always remain the same.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

otis p. driftwood

NEMosi...the newspaper who picked up the story might have a rightward tilt, but the original article was published in Nature.

__________________
Questions are a burden
and answers a prison
for oneself.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Patters

There are a handful of prominent scientists who question global warming, and their views have certainly appeared in scientific publications. But, they are up against two things: (1) there are many more scientists whose research supports global warming and (2) even the skeptics don't outright reject global warming; they reject one part of the theory, namely the part that they researched. The media naturally covering the preponderant point of view. For instance, there are a number of scientists who believe that AIDS came from sources other than African monkeys -- some believe it was the result of biological experiments gone wrong, some believe in has something to do with the polio vaccine, etc., but the preponderance of scientific thought supports that it came killing and eating chimpanzees.