Environmental Collapse: when and how bad?

Guybrush

Guybrush

Dittohead
nomadologist said:
Digression from what? I think discussing the relative merits of Gore's claims is as on-topic as it gets.
Click to expand...
The digression was the nationality discussion.

nomadologist said:
You actually claimed that no one but Americans made claims contra Gore's. You were wrong.
Click to expand...
No, I did not. Here is what I wrote:

Funnily enough, it is only the Americans [meaning ‘American media’, as elucidated later] who claim that there is anything even resembling two legitimate views on this issue. Over here, the sceptics are viewed as akin to the doctors supporting the tobacco lobby.
Click to expand...
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Funnily enough, it is only the Americans [meaning ‘American media’, as elucidated later] who claim that there is anything even resembling two legitimate views on this issue
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's what you said. And it's wrong, either way you look at it.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Do a quick google search, you'll find plenty of scientists and media outlets the world aroudn that present a variety of viewpoints on climate change.
 
Guybrush

Guybrush

Dittohead
I was commenting on how I think the debate is framed in the U.S. media: as a moot question, ‘the jury is still out’, ‘it’s a wash’. This is about assessing a mass of information. Googling for a, say, Latvian article presenting a dissenting scientist’s opinions does not change that assessment in the slightest.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
What debate? Huh? In the U.S., climate change is seen a very urgent subject of scientific study that needs more research, more funding, and basically more attention across the board. That is how it's framed. It is important in all of this to keep the science accurate, which is the point of the scientists who've spoken up to be quoted in the NY Times.
 
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
anyone see THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE?

from someone on another forum:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

Excerpts from the above link:

Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.

Greenpeace provides a fascinating online ’map’ detailing how Exxon funds these climate sceptics. Go to:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831
Click to expand...
 
B

bunnnnnn

Well-known member
God, that show was an abysmal and deliberately misleading hatchet job (produced, incidentally, by Martin Durkin, who's got very close links with the rest of those awful ex-RCP / Living Marxism far right arseholes)

Monbiot's riposte to the programme is worth reading

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html

even if the discussion afterwards is at the same level as most of the drivel that gets posted up on the comment is free boards.
 
Last edited:
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
cusl12_year0612.jpg
 
Guybrush

Guybrush

Dittohead
Scientists Back Off Theory of a Colder Europe in a Warming World

After consulting 23 climate models, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in February it was “very unlikely” that the crucial flow of warm water to Europe would stall in this century. The panel did say that the gradual melting of the Greenland ice sheet along with increased precipitation in the far north were likely to weaken the North Atlantic Current by 25 percent through 2100. But the panel added that any cooling effect in Europe would be overwhelmed by a general warming of the atmosphere, a warming that the panel said was under way as a result of rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

“The bottom line is that the atmosphere is warming up so much that a slowdown of the North Atlantic Current will never be able to cool Europe,” said Helge Drange, a professor at the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Bergen, Norway.

[...]

Richard Seager, a senior research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in Palisades, N.Y., said that Europeans should trust what they feel in the air. “Britain and western Europe have had one heat wave after another so far this century,” Dr. Seager said. “It’s phenomenal. The idea that anyone is worried about a new ice age I find rather odd.”
Click to expand...
 
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
Guybrush said:
Scientists Back Off Theory of a Colder Europe in a Warming World
Click to expand...

well that is good news. similar on this article

Modelling suggests that increase of fresh water flows large enough to shut down the thermohaline circulation would be an order of magnitude greater than currently estimated to be occurring, and such increases are unlikely to become critical within the next hundred years; this is hard to reconcile with the Bryden measurements.

The Bryden results could be caused by natural variation, or "noise", that is, coincidence.
If the results are correct, perhaps thermohaline circulation reductions will not have the drastic effects that have been predicted on European cooling.

While previous shutdowns (e.g. the Younger Dryas) have caused cooling, the current overall climate is different; in particular sea-ice formation is less because of overall global warming.

However, a thermohaline circulation shutdown could have other major consequences apart from cooling of Europe, such as an increase in major floods and storms, a collapse of plankton stocks, warming or rainfall changes in the tropics or Alaska and Antarctica (including those from intensified El Niño effect), more frequent and intense El Niño events, or an oceanic anoxic event (oxygen (O2) below surface levels of the stagnant oceans becomes completely depleted - a probable cause of past mass extinction events).
Click to expand...

so while an ice-age might be farther away than previously thought, wide spread flooding and london under water sometime soon are still possible scenarios.

and also, maybe even more cause for concern, my dredging up of old threads might continue as well.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
More on the Great Global Warming Swindle thing - censured by OFCOM although despite finding that it mislead in various ways they did not go so far as to say that the programme as a whole was created to mislead and/or offend.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/ofcom.channel4?gusrc=rss&feed=media

Also, George Monbiot on Channel 4 and their anti-environmentalist agenda. The way the amount of evidence stacks up against Durkin (changing graphs to support his views, inventing qualifications for his "experts" and so on and so forth) it's amazing that he's still allowed to work in tv at all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions1
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
'Heretics' is a bit OTT - although most of them seem to be charlatans and/or in the pay of big petrochem.
 
Last edited:
N

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
Maybe in some cases, but the language being used here is still very much that of an orthodoxy dismissing a 'heretical' viewpoint.
Robert Watson in The Guardian said:
Sceptics who disseminate misinformation and argue that there is no need to address this urgent issue
Click to expand...
Robert Watson in The Guardian said:
Attempts to undermine the strong scientific consensus on this issue detract from the urgent challenge that the world is facing
Click to expand...
Since when did being sceptical mean you were 'disseminating misinformation' or 'attempting to undermine a consensus'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top