Nasa Debunks Global Warming

[Tyrones own]

  Some interesting points that may rain on Mr. Gores expertise

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/14/nasa-debunks-part-global-warming-myth-will-media-report-it

[J70]

I'm reading it, but I cannot see anything that "debunks global warming". I see an alternative hypothesis regarding the current recession of Arctic sea ice which is certainly very interesting.

In the NASA piece, the author of the study still seems to be concerned about climate change though:

Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.

It always amuses me how the right wing jumps on the first piece of research to come along that fits in with their political agenda, while spending the vast bulk of their time howling about conspiracies and agendas in the world of science, whether it is to do with evolution or climate change or whatever.

[Tyrones own]

  I didn't title the article J70 but it is the result of long term studies taken by NASA that
in my estimation certainly do question the validity of Gores Hypothesis
I think the main fundamental difference here is that Gore's scaremongering whilst seeking
to get back into the spotlight again is just that, His Hypothesis
NASA's findings on the other hand may lean slightly more towards being Factual in nature.
The interesting part and probably the reason i started the topic is to merely bring attention
to the media's lack of coverage of such an important finding, i suppose you could almost say
that that's your answer right there.
Do i believe the planet is getting warmer, do i believe that something should be done about
our reckless use of the planets resources, absolutely, but to have a hypocrite like Gore flying
around the world in one of his two planes running his mouth then having his bile quoted as gospel
is laughable, isn't it common knowledge that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere
on take off than 100 SUV's would in a year!

[deiseach]

isn't it common knowledge that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere
on take off than 100 SUV's would in a year!

Is it? I honestly don't know. It might be an idea for you to find out though.

[J70]

While I think Gore is to be commended for raising awareness of this issue, its what the scientists say that count, not Gore's "hypothesis". Gore didn't just make up this stuff and decide to run with it, single-handedly.

And just how would you have Gore travel to do his lecturing? Conservatives always drag up that red herring because they don't want to hear the message that Gore is delivering. If Gore's travels result in increased environmental conscientiousness on the part of those who get to hear him, then the overall result will be a net gain.

And I hope your distaste for those who spew "bile" on this subject is equally felt for people like James Inhofe and many Republicans who flatly deny that there is any problem whatsoever.

[Tyrones own]

  The media's reasoning for lack of coverage of this important subject Finding lads? .......anyone?
  Remember that was the topic here

[deiseach]

  The media's reasoning for lack of coverage of this important subject lads? .......anyone?
  Remember that was the topic here

Report from Nasa boffin gets less attention than film from quasi-43rd President of the United States. What a shock!

There's plenty of coverage of global warming skeptics out there. Bjorn Lomberg has made a career out of it.

[J70]

  The media's reasoning for lack of coverage of this important subject lads? .......anyone?
  Remember that was the topic here

I thought the topic was NASA's supposed "debunking of global warming"?

The media were also pretty silent on the Bush administration's instructing government biologists that they weren't allowed to comment on the effects of receding ice on polar bear populations when they attended an international conference last year. I guess some stories are more "sexy" than others.

[J70]

  The media's reasoning for lack of coverage of this important subject lads? .......anyone?
  Remember that was the topic here

Report from Nasa boffin gets less attention than film from quasi-43rd President of the United States. What a shock!

There's plenty of coverage of global warming skeptics out there. Bjorn Lomberg has made a career out of it.

Lomborg isn't even a skeptic. He accepts that its happening, but thinks that the economic costs of something like Kyoto aren't worth the supposedly marginal benefit that would accrue (and he may be right, given how emasculated the final Kyoto agreement was). He reckons we'd be better off just dealing with what happens, rather than spending money in futile attempts to fix it.

[deiseach]

Lomborg isn't even a skeptic. He accepts that its happening, but thinks that the economic costs of something like Kyoto aren't worth the supposedly marginal benefit that would accrue (and he may be right, given how emasculated the final Kyoto agreement was). He reckons we'd be better off just dealing with what happens, rather than spending money in futile attempts to fix it.

So the name 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' doesn't imply, uh, skepticism?

I know what you are saying about Lomberg. I'm noting that there is plenty of robust debate in the meeja about climate change, Lomberg being the most prominent example.

[J70]

Lomborg isn't even a skeptic. He accepts that its happening, but thinks that the economic costs of something like Kyoto aren't worth the supposedly marginal benefit that would accrue (and he may be right, given how emasculated the final Kyoto agreement was). He reckons we'd be better off just dealing with what happens, rather than spending money in futile attempts to fix it.

So the name 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' doesn't imply, uh, skepticism?

I know what you are saying about Lomberg. I'm noting that there is plenty of robust debate in the meeja about climate change, Lomberg being the most prominent example.

You can be skeptical about plenty of stuff regarding environmentalism without denying that the underlying issues are real.

And yes, I understand your bringing up Lomborg. However, their use of him is just another example of right-wing hypocrisy to me - they (the Bush administration included) denied for years that global warming was even occurring. Now that they're reluctantly forced to accept that it is, they make heroes out of people like Lomborg, because he suits their current agenda i.e. "it may be warming (although we don't think its anthropogenic in origin!), but many scientists believe that the costs of combatting it outweigh the possible benefits".

They do the same shit with the so-called controversy over intelligent design - a group of people, a couple of whom have PhDs in biology, form a body called The Discovery Institute, who, instead of doing any actual research on the subject, conduct their "science" by press releases and attempts to get ID taught in schools. Their very existence gives the right wing a supposedly credible alternative to the alleged conspiracy abroad in all of biology to protect evolution and repress any alternative debate. Whenever evolution comes up, these clowns are wheeled out in the media or quoted as skeptical "authorities" on the subject. The vile, repugnant Ann Coulter (you may not have heard of her in Ireland) devoted a significant part of one of her screeds on the evils of Democrats to "debunking" evolution using The Discovery Institute's proclamations. It was one of the most inane, nonsensical pieces I've ever read on the subject (she has no scientific training whatsoever), but because it was Coulter feeding the prejudices of her considerable (and mostly ignorant) audience, it was lauded by the right wing and received huge media coverage.

BTW, it would not surprise me at all if this Dr. Morison comes out a few months down the line and says that the right wing has overstated or exaggerated the overall significance of his study. There have been quite a few government scientists who have quit in disgust during the Bush administrations term, mainly due to interference and massaging of conclusions by administration officials.

[Tyrones own]

  The media's reasoning for lack of coverage of this important subject finding lads? .......anyone?
  Remember that was the topic here

Report from Nasa boffin gets less attention than film from quasi-43rd President of the United States. What a shock!

There's plenty of coverage of global warming skeptics out there. Bjorn Lomberg has made a career out of it.

Maybe i should have been more specific so i made a change to it, I'm very aware of the wack jobs on
both sides out there and no, this is not at all a Democrat/Republican thing.
So let me see if i understand you point above Deiseach, just because Gore was a nearly man, it's Ok
with you that he should be given more creedance regardless of facts?

While I think Gore is to be commended for raising awareness of this issue, its what the scientists say that count, not Gore's "hypothesis". Gore didn't just make up this stuff and decide to run with it, single-handedly.

And just how would you have Gore travel to do his lecturing? Conservatives always drag up that red herring because they don't want to hear the message that Gore is delivering. If Gore's travels result in increased environmental conscientiousness on the part of those who get to hear him, then the overall result will be a net gain.

And I hope your distaste for those who spew "bile" on this subject is equally felt for people like James Inhofe and many Republicans who flatly deny that there is any problem whatsoever.





J70, how come the scientist views and findings that Gore hired to suit his agenda count
but yet the scientist facts from NASA dont seem to count and so doesn't warrant a mention in the media
 

[J70]

While I think Gore is to be commended for raising awareness of this issue, its what the scientists say that count, not Gore's "hypothesis". Gore didn't just make up this stuff and decide to run with it, single-handedly.

And just how would you have Gore travel to do his lecturing? Conservatives always drag up that red herring because they don't want to hear the message that Gore is delivering. If Gore's travels result in increased environmental conscientiousness on the part of those who get to hear him, then the overall result will be a net gain.

And I hope your distaste for those who spew "bile" on this subject is equally felt for people like James Inhofe and many Republicans who flatly deny that there is any problem whatsoever.

J70, how come the scientist views and findings that Gore hired to suit his agenda count
but yet the scientist facts from NASA dont seem to count and so doesn't warrant a mention in the media
 

Where did I say that some count and some don't?

Is every single study on global warming/Arctic ice mentioned in the media? Besides, a month or two ago, the NY Times Science supplement did a series on the subject, some of it dealing with the Arctic. I'm pretty sure NASA research was mentioned then, including attributing much of the loss of the ice to it being shifted out of the basin by currents.

[deiseach]

Is every single study on global warming/Arctic ice mentioned in the media? Besides, a month or two ago, the NY Times Science supplement did a series on the subject, some of it dealing with the Arctic.

Ah you don't expect honest folk to read the Jew York Times, do you?

[Tyrones own]

Is every single study on global warming/Arctic ice mentioned in the media? Besides, a month or two ago, the NY Times Science supplement did a series on the subject, some of it dealing with the Arctic.

Ah you don't expect honest folk to read the Jew York Times, do you?

Tut Tut...