I want to know what a “nimrodic debutant” is. My best guess is “a mighty hunter making his first appearance”.
Cow god, how foolish of you to believe in a self-regulating system! All minute changes of temperature need overwhelmingly oppressive legislation enacted immediately!
There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men.
–Edmund Burke
Back off, I was only trying to ruffle some scientific feathers ( there are way too serious). I made it all up for shits and giggles.
be glad, I’m not an biology major, or English major. (I can’t type either)
yea ignorance!
I knew Shits and Giggles in college–Shitter and Gig, we called 'em. They got married and had three children–Shits Junior, Titter, and Snort.
I lost track of them when they moved to New Jersey, but I heard they got divorced. Shits Junior went with his father; Titter stayed with her mother. Neither parent wanted Snort, so he ended up in foster care. Life can be sad like that, sometimes.
Rich Barr
massivemaple@hotmail.com
AOL Instant Messenger: Hrttannl
“NIMRODIC?” - Is that a reference to my grandfather, Jasper Nimrod?
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
- Ambrose Bierce
A couple of years ago, I researched the topic of global warming extensively for a term paper. It was a grad school class in scientific ethics, and I approached the topic from a viewpoint of how politics and the press can get all mixed up with actual science, leading to much compromise and bias.
I learned a whole heck of a lot, some of which has alrady been mentioned on this thread:
- Most of the warming attributed to this century came before 1938.
- Satellite measurements do not support the predictions of the computer models.
- Computer models were invented as research and teaching tools, not to be used as prediction machines. I mean, a meteoroligist can’t even predict what the weather will be like 5 days from now, much less years or decades down the road.
- Computer models are often jimmied and altered in order to get readings that match current conditions. The theory is that if the model can’t reflect actual present conditions, then change the parameters until it does. This is okay as long as research is the aim; but not okay when the models use these parameters (admittingly inaccurate) as predictors.
- The press reports what sells, and doom and gloom sells.
- There are so many more factors involved that I can’t go into right now: heat capacity of the ocean; CO2 absorbtion by ocean and vegetation; El Nino; solar sunspot cycle; cloud cover; volcanic ash; sulfur conpounds; natural climate cycles over geologic time, etc…
Most environmentalists do not want good news about extreme scenarios to be spread; it doesn’t make for good press, fundraising, or policy changes.
Here is a quote from the July 6, 1992 issue of the New Republic:
“Lately, Al Gore and the distinguished biologist Paul Ehrlich have ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because in such reports, in Gore’s words ‘undermine the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take.’”
Attempting to silence opposing viewpoints is usually the first clue that one’s position is about to be discredited.
Gore is one of the most prominent political figures in the country; is it too much of a stretch to think that there is no way scientists can be affected by bias, especially if the government is providing the funding for the research? Who will get the money, scientists who agree with the Gore position, or those who oppose it? Doesn’t this scare anyone who thinks scientists should be objective and not have to worry if they will lose funding because of “wrong” or politically incorrect answers?
Many scientists do not agree with the apocalyptic scenario being peddled by the current administration and reported in the media. Of course there are those who only see what they want to see. Chris Folland of the United Kingdom Meteorologist Office was asked during a meeting about past temperature trends. “The data don’t matter,” Folland said, “we’re not basing our recommendations upon the data; we’re basing them upon the climate models.”
There’s something very wrong with this.