Comments on: Inuit Life Threatened By Climate Change

Sieberg: An Arctic Community Is Worried For Their Future As Ice Disappears

[jairod]

Bush and his scientific advisers are studying whether the Inuit are speking from recent experience, or relying on folklore. Yes, the pentegon is involved to determine if alkaida is the actual culprit behind the melting ice in the north. Rove is saying the clinton and others have distorted the sunlight; the republicans remian mute on the subject no wishing to undo any oil proffits they may gain from less ice in the north: and the beat goes on.

[random_radar]

"Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Posted by jimfinster at 06:04 PM : Aug 19, 2007"

No, not remarkable--typical. If you were a scientist, you would know that no one gets published who disagrees with the concensus position. Furthermore, if you publicly disagree, you lose your funding and your career is over.

Science is not a search for truth. Scientists are paid to support the agenda of those who have money and power. Either you do as you are told or you find another career.

This should be obvious from the fact that you are gleefully pointing out that no paper goes against the consensus. You mistakenly believe this proves the proposition when it actually proves that meaningful debate has been squelched instead. The fact that there is no questioning whatsoever is an ominous silence.

[jimfinster]

How did they ever survive in 1922 when a scientific journal posted an article about this very subject?? The polar ice caps were melting, etc.
Posted by Xlib at 09:44 PM : Aug 19, 2007

That is correct. Warming effects began that far back. I have geologic publications from the 1940''s that discuss receding glaciers...

[xlib]

How did they ever survive in 1922 when a scientific journal posted an article about this very subject?? The polar ice caps were melting, etc. Also, how did they survive the 1970''s when we were doomed by another ice age?
Our climate is constantly changing and that''s the fact.
Then again, perhaps they didn''t have a political party that wanted to inflict fear to take the public mind off of the real threat.

[jimfinster]

Posted by au_fait at 05:54 PM : Aug 19, 2007
Start with scientific journals, which if you do this you will see much data that supports both sides of the hypothesis for global climate change.

Not correct in the least.

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change".

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.

Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[jimfinster]

mythoughtsr:

You present one line of evidence (ice cores) to support your case. You must be a total idiot, because ice cores are the most reliable empirical evidence for anthropogenic-caused warming. Even the skeptics employed by Exxon-Mobile don''t try to dispute the data.

You should actually try reading some of those scientific journals you claim to read :)

[au_fait]

Why would anyone quote an article they found on a traditional news site. There is not a newsite out there that is not tainted one way or another. you have to do your own research and not rely on a news website. Start with scientific journals, which if you do this you will see much data that supports both sides of the hypothesis for global climate change. We have areas of temperatures decreasing and increasing, we have glaciers that are growing while some are decreasing, ect, some deserts expanding while others decrease in size.... Put that with our limited ability to forecast weather more than 5 days, we do not know *** about what is really happening. Everyone needs to do what they can to help take care of our environment. Yes buy things energy efficient, push for vehicles with higher mpg, look for sources for alternative energy, but do not destroy our global economy due to global warming (which cannot be proven).

[mythoughtsr]

"You give up because you are wrong and have been outed.


Posted by jimfinster"

No, I give up because I am right and the only people I know who are "outed" are not people I associated with. Actually, I got bored because you don''t know what you are talking about and you sound like every other drone who follows what they are told on the news and cite media references like the BBC. Yeah, THEY are better than Fox news. *yawn*

[jimfinster]

mythoughtsr:

You reference science publications and educational magazines. But your posts reflect a mind-numbed Fox News watcher :)

The ice cores DO NOT necessarily represent trends going back millions of years. They are what they are, a snapshot of data in time. There are no "ice core studies" that fit your original reference:

"I''m referring to the ice core studies that show massive climate change over millions of years."

You give up because you are wrong and have been outed.

[mythoughtsr]

Try reading this...


Posted by jimfinster"

Oh yeah I believe EVERYTHING the media publishes. wow LOL No they are never biased or wrong! I''ll stick with REAL news from scientific bodies, not the media''s interpretation of it!