How's that global warming thing coming?

When glaciers start growing at anything even remotely approaching the rate at which they've been shrinking in recent decades you might have a point. But the fact that a glacier in one place grew this one year establishes nothing.

 

Are you sure you know how scientists define theory? One definition gives it as "a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable."

That you would consider the idea of objective scientists to be "a joke" simply shows how biased you actually are.

 

Actually, G, the CO2 persists, for years. That's a big part of the trouble.

http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html

On the basis of such analyses, it is now generally believed that a substantial fraction of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, and about 15-30% will remain for thousands of years.

 

I just wanted to use "rip ass" in a science discussion.

Outofplace and Genco, I think you're reading into much of what I say. Science is theory-based. Evidence, whether empirical or qualitative, is based on a fixed set of questions. That set is fixed by the researcher. His objectivity is lost as soon as he decides what he's studying. You think I'm saying it as if it's a bad thing. I'm not. It's just the way it is.

 

When you dismiss the scienticts findings, you are saying it is a bad thing.

 

I am not dismissing the findings. I am saying they are biased. Because they are. Research is biased by nature. I don't know why this is so hard for you.

 

This thread reminded me of this story from the NY Times. It's a blog post from their science writer about the frustrations he feels from having to cover the latest claim that climate change doesn't exist.

It's titled: The never-ending story.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/the-never-ending-story/


"One of the unavoidable realities attending global warming — a reality that makes it the perfect problem — is that there is plenty of remaining uncertainty, even as the basics have grown ever firmer (my litany: more CO2 = warmer world = less ice = rising seas and lots of climate shifts).

Some skeptics have long tried to use the uncertainty as an excuse for maintaining the status quo. Campaigners for carbon dioxide curbs seem reluctant to acknowledge the gaps for fear that society will tune out. So the story migrates back to the edges: catastrophe, hoax. No doubt."

 

You said you would not accept an answer from a scientist because he would be biased. That means you are dismissing the scientist's findings. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you.

 

I will not accept it until it goes beyond the theoretical stage. Global warming is far from that. It may be real, but it may only be a climate shift.

 

Great. Let's just wait a few more decades until even the most stubborn among us can't deny the damage being done before we do anything. Because sticking our heads in the sand while things get worse is a tremendous solution.

 

What were your feelings on terrorism on Sept. 12, 2001? Was it a real terrorist attack or was it a freak happening involving two planes crashing into the WTC at the same time?

How do you feel about this current economic climate? Is it a shift in the economy or is it real? You know, people in 1829 didn't know about sub-prime lending and deriviatives. Let's study it a little bit longer before we try a $700 billion bailout which may be rash.

 

Yes it does. It means that glacier is trying harder than the rest, and thus deserves more coverage.