Welcome to PatsFans.com

Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, May 1, 2008.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,840
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +316 / 4 / -2

    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/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
  2. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    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.
  3. MosiT

    MosiT Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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
    Last edited: May 1, 2008
  4. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    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.
  5. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    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.
  6. MosiT

    MosiT Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
  7. MosiT

    MosiT Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    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.
    Last edited: May 1, 2008
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,840
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +316 / 4 / -2

    It just goes to show you that the names may change, but the NEMster will always remain the same. :D
  9. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

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

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    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.
  11. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I can tell you that Nature (along with Cell and Science) is the absolute top level of peer reviewed scientific journal available to publish in.
  12. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,228
    Likes Received:
    72
    Ratings:
    +122 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    So, let's say that there is actual Global Warming or "Climate Change" as it's now called. And, lets say that we do everything that the advocates for changing human behavior want us to do. How much will effect the warming of the planet. 100%? 80%? 60%? 40%? 20%?

    I've never really heard or read anything that tells me what benefit's will come from altering human behavior and I'd really like to know.
    Last edited: May 1, 2008
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Well, the theory is that if global warming continues at it's present rate there will be major flooding, some low lying countries will lose thousands of square miles, there will be water shortages (for areas that are fed by glaciers), there will be more disease (because higher temperatures make it easier for bacteria to flourish), there will be more turbulent weather patterns (warm waters make for stronger hurricanes), etc. By stopping our contribution to global warming, many scientists believe we should be able to reverse these trends and let the world's natural regulation prevent drastic changes over a short period of time.

    Humans contribute only a very small percent to global warming--I think it's around 5%, but that's enough to upset the natural balance. Let's remember that natural global warming occurs over thousands of years, but the human contribution, in geologic terms, occurred very quickly (only since the Industrial Revolution), and that means that peoples, plants, animals, etc. do not have time to adapt.

    Also, fighting global warming will lead to the development of alternative energy sources and lead to a cleaner environment, both things which most of us want.
  14. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0


    5%?

    So tell me (I'm being serious, not snotty!) how it is that one good belch from a volcano can put more crap in the air than the total human production times whatever number you want to put on it--but you can't predict those (I'm being too simplistic, I realize they monitor these things now), they just happen whenever the pressure builds. There are active volcanoes now just sitting there simmering, tossing out all kinds of pollutants.

    So how can the human contribution actually be measured and quantified?

    (Full disclosure, I don't really believe in it, as the same scientists that were predicting a new ice age 30 years ago are predicting the end of times today, and the fossil record and geologic strata show us that areas that are now desert were green, and that the earth has warmed and cooled before. But I am interested in the thought process that decides it must be human activity. And I'm in favor of alternative energies too.)
  15. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    26,691
    Likes Received:
    393
    Ratings:
    +1,047 / 25 / -46

    No Jersey Selected

    Yeah, well I predict that my hemheroids may 'stop', but that doesn't mean they will.

    And I don't even have hemheroids.
  16. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Thanks for that insightful contribution.
  17. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    26,691
    Likes Received:
    393
    Ratings:
    +1,047 / 25 / -46

    No Jersey Selected

    It was my pleasure. :D
  18. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You just wanted everyone to think about your butt, didn't you?

    ;):D
  19. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    26,691
    Likes Received:
    393
    Ratings:
    +1,047 / 25 / -46

    No Jersey Selected

    Well, no need to talk about my hemheroids to do that. :cool:
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,840
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +316 / 4 / -2

    All people need to do is the math. The doomsdayers never tell you that the gas that comes out of the Earth's cows arses, puts out more CO2 than all the industry of man combined. This is a shirade of epic porportions. Read Kyoto. Some of the worlds worst pollutants, China, India, Bazil, etc. are all given a pass to it's regulations. Why? Well, so that the have's, will slow down, pay fines, and be penalized, so that the have nots can catch up. If this shirade made sense, as in the key principle point being the planets environment, then it'd be more believable. It's not though. It's instead about global taxes, penalties, and altering people's lifestyles. Why do you think so many get pissed when you try to talk about it objectively? It's cuz they know it's a shirade. It's a plan for global socialization.

    The best is this bit about a cooling period. This is interesting cuz everytime it's hot, people point and say "look, it's MMGW!". Now, if temps don't rise, or if they drop, they have an excuse. Even better is if it heats up. Then they can fire up the panic button. Remember, doomsdayers are never to be trusted.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>