No question about it. I think necessity is the mother of invention, as well. There's a silver lining behind change...behind forced innovation.
Interesting, but it seems as if there still needs to be a lot more research. It still seems that we don't know the total mass of the ice sheets and we don't have good techniques to measure it either. It sucks because that research doesn't have much immediate economic reward and it is very difficult research to carry out in those ****ty Antarctic conditions. Also, I didn't see the article say it was anomalously warm water. It said comparatively warm. I think that is an important distinction.
Oceans emit a lot of CO2, but they also absorb more than they produce. Humans and human activities are only net exporters of CO2.
Global warming is a farce.. the world is on 11 year cycles based on the sun. Ever hear of El Nino and why it pops up every decade or so? Nothing new. So before Al Gore went from inventing the internet to his global warming crusade.. we need to understand his motive.. to find yet another way to separate people from their money.
Skeptics gonna skepticate with skeptical info pushed at them by professional skeptics paid for by skeptics that profit off the current system while accusing non-skeptics of profiting. Meanwhile...
What's more likely Al Gore trying to separate people from their money or global corporatists? Coal Companies, Oil Companies, Electric Generation, Automobiles, plastic crap sellers? Their profit depends on the status quo.
Another person who is doubting science. I'll give you a hint. You can take it or continue to ignore it. Science is ahead of you and knows more about this than you do.
blind faith in science alone is not compelling logic. Science from only 100 years ago is laughed at today as being outdated...
blind faith in science alone is not compelling logic. Could you explain what you mean by this? I don't think anyone has "faith" in science, much less blind. Science is always a journey toward to truth but can never reach truth because there are always limits on perceptions and tools. The closest it ever gets is "the best information available at this time". It's almost always a description of how not why. That's why I don't understand conservatives as global warming deniers; shouldn't conservatives be FOR conservation. Spewing CO2 into the atmosphere promotes a unpredictable change. Isn't that what you are against?
All science is messy ...but as a whole, it marches forward. If charted, scientific advancements are not a straight line projecting upward. It's more of a jagged line ...but it does consistently project upward. To dismiss science because 100 years ago, it looked foolish is akin to saying all young children are useless members of society so lets just rid ourselves of children.
You don't know what science is. The fact that we develop ever more powerful means of observation and empirical measurement of phenomena does not weaken science; it strengthens it. The fact that later generations can derive ever more accurate descriptions of the universe doesn't mean that the previous generations were stupid, or that we should ignore conclusions drawn in the present day. The openness of the scientific community to changing it's views when presented with evidence is a feature of science. You use the word faith. Science is the opposite of faith. Faith is to believe something which cannot be empirically proven.
First and most importantly, I don't want to encourage your troll feeding there. Second, your point about previous generations is excellent. Steam engines still work, planets still orbit, and the electrical technology of 1900 still works very well, thank you very much, even though we have better understandings of that now than when those were new discoveries. Third, I could point you to some interesting essays (of great interest to me) that add a more nuanced view about science and faith. I would go on, but it would really risk further troll-feeding. The writing of Planck (and Einstein) is very interesting on that front though. Cheers.
But science is BAD. VERY VERY BAD. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/paul-warns-of-logan-s-run-type-future-in-va Paul Warns of Logan's Run Type Future in VA Flagging gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli brought in Tea Party demi-god Sen. Rand Paul for a campaign event today in Virginia. And Paul warned of a future, presumably helped along by Terry McAuliffe in which science would lead to the destruction of whole classes of non-perfect people ... Tea party hero Rand Paul warned scientific advancements could lead to eugenics during a Monday visit at Liberty University, looking to boost the political fortunes of fellow Republican Ken Cuccinelli's bid for governor. During a visit to the Christian school founded by Jerry Falwell, Paul looked to energize conservative supporters by warning that people who are short, overweight or less intelligent could be eliminated through abortion. With one week remaining, Cuccinelli is hoping the joint appearance with the U.S. senator from Kentucky will encourage the far-right flank of his party to abandon third-party libertarian spoiler Robert Sarvis. "In your lifetime, much of your potential -- or lack thereof -- can be known simply by swabbing the inside of your cheek," Paul said to a packed sporting arena on Liberty's campus. "Are we prepared to select out the imperfect among us?" Some states ran eugenics programs that sterilized those considered defective in the 1900s, though all were abandoned by the 1970s after scientists discredited the idea. (offtopic to global warming; on topic to the science discussion). Science should always be questioned - with facts. Not "I want to believe otherwise, so this science is bad."
Damn. That Rand Paul is always one step ahead of us! How did he figure out Eugenics 2.0 before we could even launch it? (We're having trouble with the web portal.)
Political science is a dirty word. The actual science tells us that global warming is not happening. That's the problem. There is so much pressure in the scientific community against any counter-arguments against global warming. If you come out against it, then your career is over, regardless of how reasoned your argument is. Data is manipulated to achieve pre-wired results as well -- check the East Anglia story and Michael Mann's past actions for confirmation of that. Global warming has become a political issue where people choose sides and do not change their view in the face of conflicting evidence. The evidence has spoken and the science has spoken -- and the answer is there is no global warming.
These conspiracy theories about speaking out against the scientific community are just talking points. If one particular person has evidence that refutes a particular claim, Scientists will completely abandon the wrong theory. What does Science have to gain/lose by saying there is a global warming? What does the oil, auto and other carbon based industries have to lose/gain? This is why it has been politicized. The party that wants to keep producing oil are the same folks denying global warming. Please site your sources that global warming is not true.
The reality is atmospheric CO2 levels have moved up rapidly and it is directly attributable to human activity. Disprove those 2 statements.
