[News] NOAA Research to Question Global Warming Theories

[DeeperBlue.com]

Washington, DC - A soon-to-be-published study by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) will report that the planetary oceans have been losing, rather than gaining heat in recent decades. The


A preview and discussion ...



This is an news discussion thread for discussing the following DeeperBlue.net News item: Click here for original DeeperBlue.net News Item

 

[trux]

I just want to put the message of the article straight - unlike the short article abstract of Paul Kotik suggests, the article in no way denies global warming, but rather just shows that it is a quite complex process. It speaks about scientists' speculations that deep ocean lost some heat because much more ice must be melting into the ocean than they normally assume.

Global Warming is certainly a topic that concerns us all, and is therefore also somehow related to diving and freediving, however with the last news alerts and suggestive comments of Paul Kotik, I begin to be under the impression that (thanks to his position of a DB editor) he is trying to push his personal agenda little bit too much.

Personally I have nothing against occasional news about climate changes here on DB, although they are not directly related to freediving, but it makes me wonder why Paul needs to post two articles and purposely comments them as if they denied Global Warming. There are also hundreds or thousands of other articles and scientist works with different views, but we do not see posted them here (thanks god). This is a diving forum, so the message about possible controversy and political bias in relation to Global Warming was well transmitted with the fist post and deeply discussed in its thread. I found it interesting. Posting this second news article, though, can be only considered as a biased provocation. I would much more prefer if Paul took part on the first discussion more actively and explained his arguments on the forum, then transforming DB into a politically biased platform.

Maybe it would be better to stop arguing about global warming and better let it for climate experts - they certainly know much more about it than we do. Trying to reduce our emissions and polluting, getting more ecology aware, and pushing more for alternative energies in the meantime will certainly not hurt us, regardless who is right about global warming.

 

[naiad]

I agree. While it may have some relevance to diving, it does seem like an attempt to push a politically biased opinion.

Trying to reduce our emissions and polluting, getting more ecology aware, and pushing more for alternative energies in the meantime will certainly not hurt us, regardless who is right about global warming.

True. I don't see how pollution can be a good thing, whether or not it is responsible for global warming.

Over the last few weeks I have noticed that the DB news is becoming biased towards an 'anti-environmentalist' position. While I don't know all the facts, I think this is unfair in a forum which is not meant to be politically biased.
http://deeperblue.net/newsfull.php/1360
http://deeperblue.net/newsfull.php/1363
http://deeperblue.net/newsfull.php/1369

Lucia

 

[Fondueset]

I concur.

It's worth noting that this article is substantially better written and less monochromatic than the talking point bullshit in the washington times. (frankly, I thought it took some cherries to post that on a board where most of the participants are accustomed to actually using their minds - but my mom taught me not to make fun of people)
While the times article consisted of well-worn political rhetoric written in a snide, authoritative, bullying style (an attempt, no doubt, to compensate for it's nearly complete lack of logical or informational merit); the article in the spectator shows (despite the somewhat scuffy rep of that publication) at least some willingness to tolerate open questions. I could not, however, find anything in it to support the title of this thread.

The Global Warming 'argument' - if there really is one - is just chaff anyway. It's become a loadstone for any environmental concerns and an easy way for parties opposed to environmental responsibility to argue against controls over pollution.

 

[roy_nexus_6]

Washington, DC - A soon-to-be-published study by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) will report that the planetary oceans have been losing, rather than gaining heat in recent decades. The


A preview and discussion ...



This is an news discussion thread for discussing the following DeeperBlue.net News item: Click here for original DeeperBlue.net News Item

BRAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

rofl rofl rofl rofl

 

[Fondueset]

All this begs the question: Why are the references cited in these threads self-proclaimed right wing publications?

I don't know - but here are some links to more scientific discussions. I'm sure there are others.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/ocean-heat-content-latest-numbers/


http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

 

[roy_nexus_6]

All this begs the question: Why are the references cited in these threads self-proclaimed right wing publications?

Now we are back to "Global Cooling" ? One thing doesn't change with Leftwing zealots. They still bleat about "evil corporations", "right-wing publications", neo-cons and the wonders of the now defunct Soviet Union.

If there was a way to blame the Earthquakes on Exxon-Mobil, that would be Left's dream come true.
Can we get a few more opinios from people who's jobs / grants depend on "human caused global warming", or was it "global cooling" ? Umm ... confusing .. isn't it ?

once again ..... BRAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!! rofl rofl rofl

 

[Fondueset]

Hi Roy, once again I'm not sure what you are talking about re the FSU, Exxon, earthquakes and so forth. But in any case the actual data and scientific discussion of this are pretty interesting. It seems the data is fairly tenative and noone in the scientific community appears to be drawing any conclusions just yet. I think you're pretty much on your own with that Global Cooling conclusion.

Both the the Times and Spectator have no problem declaring where they come from - those are their own labels; not mine. My point is why cite articles that are allready spun when the report and data are available?

Here's Rev Moon's Raison de tre' for the times:

Fifteen years ago, when the world was adrift on the stormy waves of the Cold War, I established The Washington Times to fulfill God's desperate desire to save this world. Since that time, I have devoted myself to raising up The Washington Times, hoping that this blessed land of America would fulfill its world-wide mission to build a Heavenly nation. Meanwhile, I waged a lonely struggle, facing enormous obstacles and scorn as I dedicated my whole heart and energy to enable The Washington Times to grow as a righteous and responsible journalistic institution.

 

[trux]

once again ..... BRAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!!rofl rofl rofl

Poor Roy, you've got fooled by Paul too Pity you did not actually read the article Paul cherry picked because of its title. The article actually tells that the deep ocean is getting cooler because the polar ice melts faster than expected. It means it is the consequence of global warning, and not any argument denying it rofl

 

[Fondueset]

http://www.nyx.net/~dcypser/induceq/pis.html

On a whim I did a search on Oil Earthquake. Go figure

Let us not judge PK too harshly - this evil gnome of the bourgeosie guise may be but an inciteful facade.

 

[roy_nexus_6]

Hi Roy, once again I'm not sure what you are talking about re the FSU, Exxon, earthquakes and so forth. But in any case the actual data and scientific discussion of this are pretty interesting.
Here's Rev Moon's Raison de tre' for the times:

You started with questioning the data sources. I say what's good for the goose is good for ... Fondueset.

So what is it ? "Warming" "Cooling", "Pollution", "Grants", or just your dislike of a newspaper that doesn't happen to peddle fringe leftwing propaganda ?

All that kicking on your part and all of it unfortunatly in the air. Watch that little toe of yours.

 

[roy_nexus_6]

Another good one from India Times

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.

The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless.

Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming as in the last three decades, and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms


Hmm .. I wonder, does Rev. Moon owns India Times ? rofl rofl rofl

 

[Fondueset]

I'm not quite tracking you there roy. I critiqued the first article because it cited no data sources - only other opinions based on other opinions. I never questioned data sources because there were none.

The second one does indeed cite a scientific article with datum - I just went out and found it.

I skimmed it but was not concerned whether it supports one position or another. My interest is in discussion based on real data - regardless of the conclusions drawn from it.

I could bore us all to death with counter-links (though scarcely a one would include so convincing a personage as Michael Crichton). But think most of us here are willing to do our own homework - rather than relying on journalists.

Here, by the way, is a link to an interesting speech by Crichton on the subject of inflammatory media coverage

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html

I solidly agree with him.

I do dislike the use of this particular issue to discount arguments that favor a more conservative approach to our exploitation of natural resources.

 

[roy_nexus_6]

So now it's not about "global warming", or "global cooling".
Now it's about "conservative approach to our exploitation of natural resources".
I guess it's really about good "catch phrases". Isn't it ?

rofl rofl rofl

 

[Fondueset]

okay - I think I've said this before.

Put somewhat simplistically: The Global Warming phenomenon is being exploited by two 'special interest groups'. One is the industrial groups that stand to lose by being required to function in a more ecologically sound way. The other is the Environmental lobby which has become an Industry unto itself. Both are served by the media which will simply publish anything in whatever way will make them the most money.

Both groups and the media have to some degree tied this phenomenon to environmental pollution and other issues at the expense of discussing those issues directly. The result is that many environmentalists have put all their eggs in the global warming basket and many on the other side of the argument use doubts about the validity of the global warming hypothesis to invalidate other environmental concerns.


In my opinion the preponderance of evidence does support the hypothesis of global warming - but an hypothesis it remains.


Conservative in government used to mean favoring small federal government and minimal federal interference in State Affairs. In the context of the environment it used to refer to a proactive and responsible approach to managing natural resources - as in 'Conservation Officer' and 'conserving natural resources'.

 

[roy_nexus_6]

Fondueset,
Read the "Skeptical Environmentalist - by Bjørn Lomborg".
A good analysis of the "Scientific data" and it's use by the 'special interest groups'.

 

[Bill]

Thanks for the speech by Michael Crichton
Aloha
Bill