Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' (city, research, Texas)

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Well I'm not going to argue about whether that statement is true or not but I'd venture to guess much of the arctic cap is in fact over water. You only have to look at a map to see that.

Well of course it is. I was referring to the ice cap areas I specifically mentioned by name.

[TexasHorseLady]

"Publish or die" comes to mind. (Just something I ran across while googling. There's lots more where that came from.)

[vec101]

Originally Posted by fatchance2005

It makes a big difference who is saying something, and who they work for. ...................
Huge Antarctic ice shelf disintegrating - World - theage.com.au

Very well written and thought out. Sounds like this may be your field.

What seems interesting in the little bit of research I have done, it seems (I could be completely wrong), but it seems that a scientist's field of study or major interest in such field is one of the things which offers conflicting thoughts on whether there is global-warming, not warming, the cause, etc. I found one article quite interesting which suggested the cooling of the earth and the global warming factors counteracted one another.

I think increasing conservation, research into cleaner coal & gas along with alternative energy procedures, etc is great. What I don't agree with is the panic mode of the global warming hype. I can't see taking knee-jerk reactions.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by vec101

I think increasing conservation, research into cleaner coal & gas along with alternative energy procedures, etc is great. What I don't agree with is the panic mode of the global warming hype. I can't see taking knee-jerk reactions.

Agreed. Panic almost inevitably leads to making the WRONG decisions.

When things are put out there that are clearly intended to incite panic, one always has to ask, who benefits? Because there's always someone (a company, a political stance, a cause) who does.

[fatchance2005]

Regarding these scientists who dispute the IPCC findings. Dealing with climate change was an international effort that was producing results up until 2000. The Bush Administration essentially withdrew USA participation and declared "the jury is still out" on climate change.

This stunned the other countries who tend to look to the USA for leadership. While data accumulated, action languished.

In 2007, Bush appointed his own panel to issue their own report which was to say that "the jury is still out". This they did. A few months later Bush abruptly flip-flopped and declared climate change an important problem and sent Condeleeza Rice to the UN to talk about what a danger it was and how we needed to act fast.

No one knows why Bush did the sudden about face. If you're cynical you could say he did not want to leave Obama in a position to point the finger of blame in his direction. My own opinion is that he just did not want his "legacy" to include the fact that he was an imbecile. Whatever the reason, the damage was done, and the gaffes and howlers in that report by Bush's selected crew of rejects were loosed to roam the blogosphere forever, a little environmental Frankenstein.

So when someone cites these people as their "reference", they might want to keep that in mind. The paid lobbyists from the petrodollar industries saturate the internet with posts citing these guys every morning.

[vec101]

On the flip side, you are not saying that those who agree with global warming have nothing to gain, correct?

Those people may be used as reference but there is a lot more out there if you wander around the web. I just think are too much into picking and choosing and not considering all aspects.

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by vec101

On the flip side, you are not saying that those who agree with global warming have nothing to gain, correct?

Those people may be used as reference but there is a lot more out there if you wander around the web. I just think are too much into picking and choosing and not considering all aspects.

I have my survival to gain, for what that's worth. Global Warming was described in my textbooks when I was in High School (1960's). The main reason I remain convinced the fundamental concept itself is correct is that the physical laws of the universe (to the extent we understand them) prohibit anything else being true. Percival Lowell writing in the 1800's tried to make that point in his lecture series. I don't know how many people he convinced back then, but he did provide some ideas H.G. Wells enjoyed. I think the main issue then, in the '60's, and up until quite recently wasn't the question of whether or not it was true, but the maistaken assumption that we had far more time than has turned out to be the case. I wouldn't go by what you find on the internet. You can find any and every form of tomfoolery that way.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Agreed. Panic almost inevitably leads to making the WRONG decisions.

When things are put out there that are clearly intended to incite panic, one always has to ask, who benefits? Because there's always someone (a company, a political stance, a cause) who does.

I don't see anyone in panic. We're talking about undertaking a series of steps which will take 30+ years to complete. I don't see any compelling reason not to start the process.

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

I don't see anyone in panic. We're talking about undertaking a series of steps which will take 30+ years to complete. I don't see any compelling reason not to start the process.

I think the statements like "panic mode of the global warming hype...taking knee-jerk reactions" certainly don't describe me, or most of the people I know of who are informed and concerned. In fact they are insults, and examples of bad manners. Frankly, I don't care much about what is said on television or the internet. I am not paniced; the problem has been acknowledged by science since before I was born. If somebody encounters hype they should probably ignore it. I do. If a person is thinking about it, they aren't having a "knee jerk reaction". A knee jerk reaction is an example of a reflex arc. Reflex arcs bypass the brain entirely. If that is what is being said intentionally, someone simply wasn't spanked enough when they were small.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by fatchance2005

I think the statements like "panic mode of the global warming hype...taking knee-jerk reactions" certainly don't describe me, or most of the people I know of who are informed and concerned. In fact they are insults, and examples of bad manners. Frankly, I don't care much about what is said on television or the internet. I am not paniced; the problem has been acknowledged by science since before I was born. If somebody encounters hype they should probably ignore it. I do. If a person is thinking about it, they aren't having a "knee jerk reaction". A knee jerk reaction is an example of a reflex arc. Reflex arcs bypass the brain entirely. If that is what is being said intentionally, someone simply wasn't spanked enough when they were small.

Texas horse lady's panic is undoubtedly the decline in the Texas oil industry.