Arctic sea ice returning to normal

[klonk]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... _your_eyes

This story is not getting much play in the press. I would think it should, after they made the public endure endless hand-wringing articles, composed mostly of fiction, about the arctic 'problem.' In fact ice levels have fluctuated since time out of mind. But did they tell us that, a fact even rudimentary research would have uncovered? They did not. Instead, it was "The polar bears are melting and we're all gonna die!"

Thumbs up to the Herald Sun for breaking the story. Where are our Yankee newspapers on this?

[Kato]

April Fools?

[klonk]

April fact. Google News is your friend. It's alarming that something that goes against the chattering press is thought to be a joke. I tend to think the press is the joke. (And I used to work for a daily.)

Already there are some warm alarmist who are saying the return of the sea ice is a fluke, but its shrinkage was proof positive the polar bears are melting, and we're all gonna die.

Of course a theory that stands up to any evidence is no theory at all, ice departs, returns, either way it's global warming, and so what if history tells us that has been happening all along, never mind, history's not science!

[bailewen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nruCRcb ... re=related


All your arguments can be debunked here: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-v ... -the-week/

[Walter Joyce]

Denial, its not just a river in Egypt.

[Ian]

I've always wondered whether people are involved in this debate because they're concerned about the possibility of irreversible damage to nature and humanity, or because they can't stand not being right.

[Fu Mei]

I've always wondered whether people are involved in this debate because they're concerned about the possibility of irreversible damage to nature and humanity, or because they can't stand not being right.

My concern is about the irreversible damage that is done when the information is proven to be false or innacurrate, yet the media will not report on such corrections or if they do it will not be to the extent of the intial "scare" of the original story. Therefore, because the masses of people fail to receive "the rest of the story", such information then permeates society and becomes mainstream.

[Chris Fleming]

One of the funniest things about Milton Freidman's Hot Flat and Crowded (other than his CONSTANT use of his title in his book, it's like on every page, probably in order to get you to keep repeating the idea) was how he would say that little efforts that people make to "go green" like changing your light bulbs do nothing in the grand scheme of things, while then saying that we as a people need a "green revolution" and make little changes in our lives. Now which one is it? And the part about how shutting down every car in the world wouldn't even reduce C02 by 16% but then going on to quote someone calling for this or that tax "which would be like removing 50 million cars off the streets!". LOL. Utter contradictions.

There may be something wrong with the environment. There may NOT be something wrong with the environment. Either way from what I've read no one here really knows what they are talking about with absolute certainty (while they certainly DO try LOL). Most of it is "i'm on the 'right' bandwagon therefore I'm a good person" mentality. But either way, there are some very powerful people using this "cause" to make themselves richer and a lot of people poorer. Is that right? I say no.

[NoSword]

One of the funniest things about Milton Freidman's Hot Flat and Crowded

Uh, I believe you're referring to Thomas Friedman?

[Alexander]

Who wrote it? I didn't look hard, but whAt are his or her credentials. I rarely use blogs as methods of factual information gathering.

[Chris Fleming]

One of the funniest things about Milton Freidman's Hot Flat and Crowded

Uh, I believe you're referring to Thomas Friedman?

Ah that's right. I've got economics on the brain much more than this "climate change" BS.

[Kato]

I've always wondered whether people are involved in this debate because they're concerned about the possibility of irreversible damage to nature and humanity, or because they can't stand not being right.

not being right. thats funny.

And then we have the question of why the other side is in this debate at all. If you are a conservative why do you care at all about this?

If you are a conservative what do you have to gain from this argument?

Why are the kids at Jesus Camps being taught that this is just cyclical?

Why are Christian home schoolers learning climate change denial (as one of the few scientific principals they learn).

Why does everyone from Rush to Glenn Beck to Anne coulture care so much about this topic?






Right.


The Fuel

[Chris Fleming]

Wow. I really do wish everyone was required to take a logic class at least once.

[Ian]

I understand climate change is a highly contentious issue in N. America, battle lines are being drawn etc.

But I've never understood why people would choose this particular issue to politicize.

Even if there were only a slight chance that the "pro-climate change" camp is correct (and I don't mean highly politicized groups of pundits, politicians, financial institutions etc. but the various governmental scientific bodies and the raw data they produce), wouldn't it make sense to exercise the precautionary principle, seeing as how climate change models predict that damages to nature would be irreversible and have disastrous consequences for humanity?

It would be something to pay serious attention to. Instead, we've got this weird situation where deniers pounce at any chance to prove the opposition wrong.

Which is why I asked the original question - do people care more about our home, or about being right? Are we perhaps too caught up in the partisan bickering to at least consider the bigger picture? (I'm not saying deniers are flat-out wrong because obviously they have society's best interests in mind).

"Scientific uncertainty" is a common objection, but uncertainty works both ways. If deniers believe the current state of knowledge is inconclusive, they've nevertheless admitted there's a chance for irreversible changes to the environment. Again, the precautionary principle would be the logical course of action until we're all satisfied with the state of knowledge.

Don't forget that climate change mitigation would have ancillary benefits such as decreasing morbidity and mortality from air pollution (a more immediate killer), decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels sourced from unstable or failed states, precipitating the research and development of new technologies etc.

[Kato]

Wow. I really do wish everyone was required to take a logic class at least once.

Done.

didn't see you there.