canndo
Well-Known Member
When Mother Earth is done with us humans, she'll shake us off like the little fleas we are.........
No one cares about "mother earth", we care about our ability to live here, a completely different situation.
When Mother Earth is done with us humans, she'll shake us off like the little fleas we are.........
so what? i live in canada and its fucking cold in the winter, so bring it on global warming
You know, that's an interesting point. Because, if it is warming, there will be regiions that will certainly benefit. Canada would gain
profit from a year round Northern Passage.
There is a contingent of anti's who are claiming that the warming trend halted in the late 90's - they, quite simply, are misinformed. 2010 tied for the hotest year on record.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/
The next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009 now that would handily make this the warmest decade.
Well, the BEST study found some serious problems with available datasets in general. They also found 1/3 of the stations reported cooling during the study period.
And obviously the author of this article knows on which side his bread is buttered. The problem is GW is supposed to be a runaway negative feedback in the Cloud Effect. And closed loop feedback was discounted early, on very little evidence. It was inconvienent. The political banner was taken up and the march was on.
But, Cloud Effect studies continued, data gathered. Later satalite data was added. When satalite data was added, the models didn't line up. More research into the Effect have shown mixed results. The more data and modeling, the more new effectors are uncovered. Now, even gravity waves have been shown to possibly affect global albedo. The CLOUD study at CERN showed even more effectors, such as the concentration of suphuric acid mist.
Now try as they might, there is only a weak negative feedback that can data corralate in some models. No one can show a corralated model of runaway negative feedback. That's hardly proof of GW, much less AGW.
No one is talking about WHY it is warmer, cloud effect, changes in albedo, sunspots or whatever. I can't see where NASA would really care "which side of it's bread is buttered".
As to the author of the article, NASA staff or not, he has deliver to what NASA will accept and get paid for the butter for his bread. Most of us do that.
.
Doer, I don't publicly lie for my employer. I wonder sometimes at those who dismiss articles or studies they don't agree with as lying in order to be paid. If that is truely the case then we can not believe anything any reporter, scientist or writer claims as they are all paid to expound on some aspect of reality. Moreover, those who so easily accuse others of lying for financial gain are often those who would indeed do it themselves. The world is not made up of the truth and those who lie about it, it is a much more complicated mix. I have stated that if we weigh lies by how much money is behind the lie the GW naysayers will lose every single time as there is far more money vested in the status quo than in any opposing viewpoint.
Doer, I perceived canndo's response as to the point. When you say "turn in work acceptable to one's employer", the immediate/obvious way for me to interpret that is: when there is a conflict between an emerging apparent fact and established doctrine in alignment with the employer's policies, whatever they may be ... the requirement is to go with policy and not truth. No conflict? No issue. If you mean something otherwise ... imo it becomes incumbent on you to be quite clear about what you mean. Instead you chose to lambaste canndo for what I see as a completely honest interpretation of your post. So ... before I give in to the temptation to disagree with you on how I am reading your posts, why don't you tell us ... what do you really mean? cn
Wow, how the bias flies. I said nothing about lying. I, therefore never implied that world is made up of the truth and those who lie about it. Nor do I then deserve the condecension of, "it is a much more complicated mix." Bias compounds bias. But, you do think we are suppose to turn in work acceptable to our
employers, right?
My bad for bringing in a discussion on bias. There are a lot of sublties regarding editorial policy in action. Stance projection is an arcane art that has nothiing to do with truth or lies. It's stance.
But, let's stick to the point about Cloud Effect and WHY the atmosphere behaves as it does. In other words, we don't know, right?
We are still calmly studying it.
lol its a logical false hood to take the agnostic stance?
choosing to say we dont know is actually a better choice then just agreeing wildley to the bilion of theory's out there
\