Remember the global warming debate?

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
I remember it very well. :) But i dont get it..

"The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism."

So this means it's nothing to worry about? GW is all bs? AL Gore?? LOL

The eskimos had no word for "robbin" untill a few years ago, they had never seen one before.
 
Last edited:

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
Second to the last paragraph is interesting and recent.
March 31, 2006
Global warming means more earth tremors in polar regions
JANE GEORGE

Puvirnituq residents were terrified by a small earthquake that struck their community last Wednesday at about 5 p.m., creating an explosive noise that sent people running outside their homes.

There were no reports of injuries or serious damage.

Four or five quakes of similar intensity strike eastern Canada each year, although scientists now say earthquakes are on the rise in some areas of the Arctic, and that some of these may be associated with global warming.

The recent increase in the number of “glacial earthquakes” supports the idea that Greenland’s glaciers and its ice sheet are melting.

Glacial earthquakes occur as enormous ice-sheets melt away, so that the weight on the land is removed and the ground rises. When certain areas rise faster than others, the difference causes tearing and grinding deep in the ground, triggering earthquakes.

The annual number of glacial earthquakes recorded in Greenland is rising, says a study, published March 24 in the journal Science.

From 1993 to 2002, there were between six and 15 a year, but in 2003, earthquake scientists — or seismologists — recorded 20 glacial earthquakes. In 2004, they recorded 24; and, for the first 10 months of 2005, they recorded 32.

The seismologists also found that glacial earthquakes occurred mainly in summer months, which suggests these movements are associated with rapidly melting ice. Normal earthquakes occur at all times of the year.

source: http://inuitnativeart.blogspot.com/
 

GrimJack

Administrator
Dec 31, 1969
12,377
3
38
57
Richmond, BC, Canada
idriders.com
Although this scientist is on the other side of the fence, this article really isn't about global warming - it's about the methods used to try to quash scientific evidence that doesn't support conventional theories.

Whether global warming is real or not, and if real, whether it is caused by mankind or not, is an entirely different issue.
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
I can see that I guess, and I still don't know what is causing it? I do know I hate political crap.. I do not have any political agendas or any motivation to scare people. I just like to read the facts and I try to draw my own conclusions from the data I have seen. Not to mention just looking out the window and seeing changes in my own back yard..

There was a show on the science channel a while back that said that we were all preparing for heat waves. When in reality, it is going to get really cold and really fast, once the ocean conveyer belt stops moving the heat around. BRRRR...
 

GrimJack

Administrator
Dec 31, 1969
12,377
3
38
57
Richmond, BC, Canada
idriders.com
I'm the same way - I like to read the evidence and come to my own conclusions. Anyone who is trying to prevent any evidence, for or against, on the subject gets a good swift kick in the ass from me.
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
Totally agreed there bud! 100% One problem I see is that it's a global problem, so different things are going to happen in different areas. The poles for example may get warmer and the tropics may get colder.

So if your only looking at the tropics, you may conclude it's getting colder then if you look at multiple areas you may conclude something completely different.

Sorry I am being an ot post whore here, but I love this topic. :evil2:
 

Joel W.

Just A Jedi
Nov 7, 2005
1,561
0
0
Washington
Yeah I knew they did not count, slut is a better term and works fine with me..

Sorry I am a slut.. I did some research into the author of your first post. From what I can decipher, his argument is that humans are not the cause of GW and not GW itself? But I am still reading.. :)


One is Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. He accepts the view that temperatures, and the carbon dioxide gas presence in the atmosphere, have risen. But he argues that correlation is not causation, and in a paper delivered at Yale last fall, he made the case that most climatologists ''fail to note that there are many sources of climate change, and that profound climate change occurred many times both before and after man appeared on the earth." The ''signal to noise" ratio is too low for us to know how big a role human-driven change plays in the recent warming trend, he thinks, and he finds no cause for alarm.