Gee, wish I could cite chapter and verse, but I don't recall the news
source at the moment. These are the factoids someone dropped however:
This year, 2006, NOAA http://www.noaa.gov/ released some surprising
figures.
Considering that Global Warming enthusiasts excitedly point to polar
ice-cap melting and higher sea temperatures, and to the recent spat of
horrible hurricanes... (and all this seemingly in ignorance that there
have been more violent storm years in our nation's history and that
storm severity and ocean temp vary in cycles that are nearly
predictable)
a) The Atlantic Ocean is quite a bit cooler this year than in recent
times past (~10 degrees if I remember correctly).
b) NOAH has twice or thrice been forced to downgrade it's hurricane and
tropical storm forecasts for this storm season... They started
somewhere in the realm of Many (as in more than ever before) at
increased severity, and then downgraded that forecast to, "A bit more,
not as strong", to "par for the course most years in strength and
number", to "less than the average in frequency, and strength."
It appears that I cannot really trust whatever news source that was
because this is what's currently on their website:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2678.htm which either a) was
a change, or b) my source was incorrect.
They have lowered their predictions, but they still predict doom and
gloom. God forbid if it were a normal or sub-normal year.
Bryan Venable wrote:
I think global warming is real, and a threat. But a
report on 20/20
isn't why I think so. I think it's possible for them to be biased
*and* correct, and I think that's what happened here. Remember that
reports on these shows are driven by producers, and they're authored
works in that sense. They inevitably have a point of view. That
doesn't mean the point of view is wrong, or misinformed. But it's the
not the same thing as science.
I think the real question here is not about the reality of
global warming, it's whether global warming is the #1 threat to
humanity. And to me that seems like a subjective question. 20/20's
producers think so, and maybe their report will convince a few people
that it is, and/or affirm a few people's pre-existing belief that it
is. I happen to think that it is. But that doesn't objectively make
it so. If you could come up with strong evidence to support a
statistical analysis showing that global warming is the most likely
candidate for a threat that will cause the extinction of all humanity
sooner than any other threat, that might come close. But even the best
statistical analysis can't predict the future, even though it could
give us somewhere to start in determining how to allocate resources for
disaster prevention.
So I don't think the ABC report really helps the cause of
convincing people to support using more of our resources to prevent
further global warming, is what I guess I'm trying to say. It doesn't
help because it comes from the wrong place in the wrong way. That's
how I look at it anyway. I certainly hope I'm wrong.
On 9/6/06, Mike
Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED
> wrote:
On
Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> Mike Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2319986
>>>
>>>
>>>> Scientists they interviewed said that it is now
established that
>>>> global warming is happening and that it is caused by
human activity.
>>>> They also said that the dozen-or-so scientists who
persist in making
>>>> claims to the contrary are no more credible than
Holocaust deniers and
>>>> some of them are being paid to lie by the energy
industry.
>>>
>>> While I'm not wishing to dispute the content of these
statements,
>>> nevertheless I'm afraid that the argument "scientists
appearing on ABC
>>> said so" doesn't help convince me.
>>
>> Fine. Does "scientists said so" have no effect on you, or is
the
>> involvement of ABC what concerns you. Why in the world would
ABC want
>> to bias their report? I have no clue.
>
> Am I so predicatable that you can predict which of these two has no
> effect on me?
No. I was asking -- I forgot to put a question mark after "concerns
you."
My guess is that you think ABC can get scientist who will say whatever
they want to hear, but I think they are more honest than that.
>> Find one reputable scientist who says that human activity is
having no
>> effect on global temperature.
>
> What part of "not wishing to dispute the content of these
statements"
> don't you understand?
I don't know if you were referring to my statements or to the statements
of the scientists I was paraphrasing.
Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
|
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact