Access World Forums

Access World Forums (https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/index.php)
-   Politics & Current Events (https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=70)
-   -   NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=282773)

Steve R. 11-28-2018 06:10 AM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Doc_Man (Post 1600706)

The video touched on how facts are being contorted to support "global warming" (or to be politically correct "climate change"). In my particular case, a professional journal that I subscribe to had an article that made the statement (paraphrased): "that Norfolk has experienced 14 inches of relative sea rise so no one can question the impact of climate change". (The article did casually include the word "subsidence" without any follow-up.)

Note that I emphasized the word "relative". I pointed out to the editor that seven (7) inches of that relative sea rise was the result of the land subsiding due to a meteor impact approximately 35 million years ago and that this fact should be made clear to the readership. The editor responded that no clarification was necessary since the focus of the article concerned how Norfolk was/will be adapting to sea level rise.

Consequently, without being transparent and disclosing the full truth, the readership of this journal has been be left with an exaggerated impression of sea level rise and with the misleading implication that Norfolk can be "saved" by simply "solving" global warming. The reality, Norfolk will continue to sink into the ocean.

An obvious question arises from this one example. How many articles written for the general population twist facts to imply the validity of "global warming"?

isladogs 11-28-2018 06:21 AM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve R. (Post 1600859)
An obvious question arises from this one example. How many articles written for the general population twist facts to imply the validity of "global warming"?

I would say proportionately far fewer than those that distort the facts to refute the evidence for global warming (no quotes needed).

AccessBlaster 11-28-2018 07:00 AM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
Quote:

Patrick J. Michaels is the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He was a research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for 30 years. Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007
You might not like this climatologists point of view but it's hardly "rubbish". If you support an opposing view the condemnations are swift and your grants dry up.

isladogs 11-28-2018 09:30 AM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
AB:
I'm not denying any of his history that you quoted but its only one side of the story.
Partly to redress the balance, this is from wikpedia
Quote:

Patrick J. Michaels (1942- ), also known as Pat Michaels, is a largely oil-funded global warming skeptic who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases.
Strange that the Fox network didn't mention his full background
Of course I'm sure that the funding he receives from industry has absolutely no impact on his views!

AccessBlaster 11-28-2018 10:15 AM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
The term "rubbish" originally came from Post#30.

isladogs 11-28-2018 11:15 AM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
It did indeed - I didn't mention that word though I do have some sympathy with that viewpoint.

My take on the video was that it was at best a selective interpretation of the evidence available from someone whose working life has mainly been paid for by the fossil fuel industry. In other words it was little more than propaganda dressed up as objectivity. There was no attempt made by the interviewer to challenge the views expressed or to provide an alternative narrative for debate

For years, the tobacco giants employed scientists who were paid to deny the health issues associated with their industry. As with the Cato Institute (which Patrick Michaels directs) and which is funded by the Koch brothers, the payment was indirect but the links are undeniable.

Of course some models are wrong or inaccurate - they are models of a future.
Some predictions will be too large and others too small.
Nevertheless, the quality/detail of those models have improved significantly over time and will be further refined in the future.

The evidence is clear that there is significant warming globally and that the rate of increase is not declining. Fossil fuel use is a massive contributor to that rise. There are of course feedback loops and the complexity of the data means that at times there may appear to be conflicting evidence. That doesn't negate the overall evidence about global warming.

AccessBlaster 11-28-2018 12:58 PM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
Quote:

For years, the tobacco giants employed scientists who were paid to deny the health issues associated with their industry.
That is the crux of the matter isn't it? A scientist can be influenced by the Koch brothers or by George Soros correct?

I would love to see a third party in this country. Until then we have that Hatfield's and McCoy's running the joint.

isladogs 11-28-2018 01:22 PM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AccessBlaster (Post 1600925)
That is the crux of the matter isn't it? A scientist can be influenced by the Koch brothers or by George Soros correct?

I would love to see a third party in this country. Until then we have that Hatfield's and McCoy's running the joint.

Yes of course they can, particularly those who work for partisan organisations.
However there a very large number of scientists who remain objective and whose conclusions can be trusted

Frothingslosh 11-28-2018 01:40 PM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
On a side note, as long as the Presidency is determined by majority vote, precisely two political parties will have power. It really can't happen any other way, as a third party would by its very nature split votes off largely from one party existing party rather than both, thereby providing the party that WASN'T splitting its votes an insurmountable advantage.

A four-party system would result in either no one winning the presidency or else in two parties merging into one, with the results I mentioned above.

If you want more than two major parties, then we need to change how the President is elected.

AccessBlaster 11-28-2018 01:52 PM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by isladogs (Post 1600930)
However there a very large number of scientists who remain objective and whose conclusions can be trusted

A wise man once said::D
Quote:

Science is not decided by consensus.

Steve R. 11-28-2018 02:00 PM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Frothingslosh (Post 1600933)
On a side note, as long as the Presidency is determined by majority vote, ...

The President is elected by the Electoral College, not by the majority of the popular vote cast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frothingslosh (Post 1600933)
If you want more than two major parties, then we need to change how the President is elected.

To achieve that objective we could consider a Parliamentary form of government where the President is elected by the Congress.

Of course, there may then be complaints that the President no longer reflects the "will of the people" since the person who would be elected President by the Congress would be a compromise agreeable to each political party.

Frothingslosh 11-28-2018 02:06 PM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve R. (Post 1600937)
The President is elected by the Electoral College, not by the majority of the popular vote cast.

Please show me where I referred to popular vote. Hint: I didn't. I operated under the expectation that anyone choosing to reply to my comment would have at least a basic understanding of the American electoral system, as otherwise theirs would be a completely pointless reply.

Quote:

To achieve that objective we could consider a Parliamentary form of government where the President is elected by the Congress.

Of course, there may then be complaints that the President no longer reflects the "will of the people" since the person who would be elected President by the Congress would be a compromise agreeable to each political party.
That would be why I didn't suggest that in my post, despite my personal belief that a parliamentary system actually works better than the American system.

The_Doc_Man 11-28-2018 03:30 PM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
Personally, on the little side trip taken here, I would do away with ALL political parties. Outlaw them. Sadly, that would force people to actually think about the candidates and what they represent. If they didn't have the little party-name cubbyholes, they would not be able to decide among so many marginally qualified candidates and would probably not vote. Or they would be swayed by whatever advertising tickles their fancy the fanciest. Which means that technically NO candidate would ever actually be elected by a majority of the people, only by a plurality.

On the other topic, global whatever-we-are-calling-it (I'm flexible in that nomenclature), the issue is that bad science is bad science. Trying to say that a consensus exists says that a LOT of people have been either duped by skewed data or compromised by more grant money if only they go the way of the persons holding the grant money.

Here's another article regarding flawed data used to support a global warming study.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpLVRPJnL4M

I do not deny that our climate is changing. But so what? It has been changing one way or another since time immemorial. There are two questions that matter here.

First question: Do we know why? I believe that it is a matter of overlapping natural cycles that reinforce or counteract each other. We don't understand the cycles well enough to be able to prove this so no, we DON'T know why. But man-made greenhouse gases don't hold up their end of the bargain mechanistically.

Second question: What can/should we do about it? I don't know WHAT we can do about the weather. We can try to improve flood protection in vulnerable areas, but that won't stop the weather effects. That would be palliative rather than curative.

Given the implied inertia of the trends involved, I'm not sure that we could if we wanted to anyway. And NO, I do not mean "social inertia" in this case. I mean the physics-type inertia, the kind involving huge masses in motion to be affected by whatever we were going to do. Huge masses - like "planetary atmosphere sized masses" of non-homogeneous air.

Vassago 11-28-2018 04:35 PM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
Even if we don't agree on why the climate is changing, is there really any argument that the world is becoming too polluted? Do we want to have a planet for generations that our families can enjoy? Can anyone really doubt that air pollution is a problem just as much as garbage pollution and landfill excess? We are destroying our planet, climate change or no.

What do we do about it?

Galaxiom 11-28-2018 04:39 PM

Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Doc_Man (Post 1600955)
I do not deny that our climate is changing. But so what? It has been changing one way or another since time immemorial. There are two questions that matter here.

First question: Do we know why? I believe that it is a matter of overlapping natural cycles that reinforce or counteract each other. We don't understand the cycles well enough to be able to prove this so no, we DON'T know why.

So you guess that it is due to some kind of unknown natural cycle despite having nothing whatsoever to support your guess.

Quote:

But man-made greenhouse gases don't hold up their end of the bargain mechanistically.
While the models that indicate that it is cause by manmade greenhouse gasses may not precisely replicate the observed changes they do correctly indicate the direction. The evidence is clearly on the side that climate is changing to due to human activity. Until the deniers can show some evidence, they are indulging in unsubstantiated speculation and should be ignored.

Quote:

Second question: What can/should we do about it? I don't know WHAT we can do about the weather.
We cannot change the weather but there are certainly things that can and should be done to stop the change of the climate.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) copyright 2017 Access World