Global warming news you don't hear about

[Quasar1011]

Such as this:
Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions

Or this:
Another Scientist Strikes at Global Warming Hysteria

Then there's this:
Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers

Which is backed up by this:
Experts question theory on global warming

Did you give your lover a Valentine's bouquet?
Valentine bouquets 'are bad for the planet'


I don't think the President of the Czech Republic did:
Czech President calls man-made global warming a myth

Or did you see this?
‘Blame cosmic rays for warming up the planet’

Needless to say, there is no scientific consensus that claims that man is causing global warming! It is, however, being reported in the media that way!
Why is this?

Maybe it's because of this:

News reports eagerly promote global warming, predict catastrophe and selectively silence climate experts.

 

[Narz]

Yeah, down with cut flowers (grow your own it's more challenging). And Hallmark cards too for that matter.

Can't be show their love thru their own efforts anymore?

As for that other stuff, the fact that ice is melting slightly less slowly than two years ago and a the opinions of an ill-informed president don't mean global warming is false.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Could it be that the ice is melting less slowly because people are becoming more aware of global climate change and the potential implications of it, and are effecting change on a greater level, both by personally altering their habits and by lobbying for change? That doesn't mean that climate change isn't largely man made.

 

[plarq]

Although there're always discussions and scientific modeling and re-modeling of global warming, I generally, from our everyday experience, judged that global warming has probably occurred. Better safe than sorry, guys.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Uh I only read the first two links.
while interesting lack a peer reviewing and detail data. Of course I still think that climatic science is comming out of its infancy is relatively new but when you have scientist saying that 3 Million year old ice is melting I would be at least very concerned.

 

[De Lorimier]

Needless to say, there is no scientific consensus that claims that man is causing global warming! It is, however, being reported in the media that way!
Why is this?

One part media sensationalism, one part harsh reality for the likes of you. Scientists, like any other people, can have different opinions, theories and hypothesis about global warming. The Himalayan glaciers are not the same as the ones in the Alps or Alaska, fine. It doesn't debunk the whole "man has an effect on this planet and the changes it goes through" theory, wich seems rather logical and is a general consensus amongst most scientific circles. It's rather easy to find articles by people like Timothy Ball who has a reputation of being an energy lobbyist's lapdog. On wich blog did you find those?

 

[bigfatron]

What De Lorimier said.

You've found a mix of well-know climate change deniers (the Ball article was debunked in detail a couple of weeks back) and some slightly more scientific reports which address very specific issues - so, for instance, the Indian scientist was saying Indian glaciers may not be eroding as fast as assumed, but are eroding slower than the better studied Alpine and Alaskan glaciers. Similarly for the Antarctic ice discussion.

The concensus certainly is that we are causing climate change, but scientists will - rightly - haggle over the details for a while yet, I am sure.

 

[Dragonlord]

Also, ' consensus' doesn't mean that every single scientist on Earth has to agree. The overwhelming majority do, that's enough for me and should be for you, too.

Of course, if you don't WANT to believe because you resist changing your lifestyle and don't want a guilty conscience... then you won't ever be convinced, no matter how many scientists offer proof. As long as there's one scientist out there who 'proves' global warming is a myth propagated by Radioactive Green Monkeys.... you're safe!

 

[Bast]

Needless to say, there is no scientific consensus that claims that man is causing global warming! It is, however, being reported in the media that way!
Why is this?

Let me ask you a question.

Say you have lung cancer. Are you going to care whether you got it from smoking or not?

You'd be thinking "who cares who or what caused it, it's a problem I need to fix".

There it is.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Of course most of the news we get on the subject is biased. If a scientists says there might be global warming, might not, maybe a little bit journalists aren't going to jump on it. But if you say the end of the world is near they are. Environmental science is a very biased field of science where it is very hard to prove stuff.

 

[storealex]

I didn't bother to read all the links, but I did read the one about Greenland, since half my family lives up there, and all they're saying that global warming is totally happening. Then I clicked the link, which basically says that recently, there has been changes in how much ice discharge there was from the glaciers.

How you, quasar, hope to use that as an argument against global warming, is beyond me. Of course there's variations from year to year. It's nature after all, but we can see how these glaciers has been in decline for decades now. And it's not just in Greenland. From the Alps, to Himalaya, to Kilemajaro we see the same thing. The ice is melting.

If the rest of your links are of the same quality, it says more about those trying really hard not to believe in global warming, than it says about global warming it self.

 

[Synobun]

As for that other stuff, the fact that ice is melting slightly less slowly than two years ago and a the opinions of an ill-informed president don't mean global warming is false.

That is utter bollocks! Have you seen the news last month? it was only -3 in the very north and ACRES of ice broke off the caps, all in one week.

 

[Masquerouge]

Needless to say, there is no scientific consensus that claims that man is causing global warming! It is, however, being reported in the media that way!
Why is this?

Maybe it's because of this:

News reports eagerly promote global warming, predict catastrophe and selectively silence climate experts.

So, what's your suggestion? That we keep on polluting and don't care about controlling it?

 

[Gothmog]

Quasar1011 - no good references here, just some crap.

To look for scientific consensus consult the scientific literature, or the consensus statements of scientific bodies such as the ACS, AUG, AAAS, APS, etc.

I couldn't get to your link about Antarctic Temperatures, but let me say that this is a well studied point. The ozone hole in the southern hemisphere as enhanced a dynamical situation (known as the polar vortex) that isolates it and reduces mixing of warmer, higher latitude, air. This is well known and can be included in Climate Models, though it is often left out for reasons of computational efficiency.

Most of the rest of what you list isn't even science, or has nothing to do with global warming.

The cosmic ray issue is science and I have read the paper that the link refers to (and misinterprets). If you were to read the actual paper you would see that.

I am actually involved reviewing the literature in this area for various reasons and I intend to post some relevant links, references, and discussion when I have a chance.

If you have any science you want to discuss, please do. Otherwise this post is little more than a troll.

 

[Masquerouge]

Needless to say, there is no scientific consensus that claims that man is causing global warming! It is, however, being reported in the media that way!
Why is this?

Maybe it's because of this:

News reports eagerly promote global warming, predict catastrophe and selectively silence climate experts.

Furthermore you got it the other way around. It's only in the media that you can hear/read journalists saying global warming is not a fact.

 

[Goa]

Breaking NEWS : Not all scientists agree on theory of relativity. It's just a big fraud of evil corrupt scientists to get a lot of research grant. But luckily there are some resistors who still withstand this evil conspiracy:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/03/relativity_fraud_the_complicit.html
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm

and there are even more, just look on all thes links on those websites...
You see, not all scientists agree on theory of relativity, though we have to be sceptical about all those physicists who want to tell us that there is a scientific consensus.

The point of my post? I hope you got it, if not just ask...

 

[JollyRoger]

Why stop at global warming? I've got links showing that prominent legislators in Texas and Georgia still don't believe the earth revolves around the sun:

http://www.capitolannex.com/IMAGES2/CHISUMMEMO.pdf//
The website referred to in the letter, believe it or not, is meant to be serious:
http://www.fixedearth.com/

 

[Atropos]

Could it be that the ice is melting less slowly because people are becoming more aware of global climate change and the potential implications of it, and are effecting change on a greater level, both by personally altering their habits and by lobbying for change? That doesn't mean that climate change isn't largely man made.

If that were the case, then it would show in reduced man-made carbon emissions. To the best of my knowledge, man-made carbon emissions continue to increase.

 

[Atropos]

Let me ask you a question.

Say you have lung cancer. Are you going to care whether you got it from smoking or not?

You'd be thinking "who cares who or what caused it, it's a problem I need to fix".

There it is.

But you would nonetheless be very interested as to whether it was necessary to stop smoking to fix it.

 

[Bast]

But you would nonetheless be very interested as to whether it was necessary to stop smoking to fix it.

If you have cancer, stopping smoking will not make it go away. You need to fix the problem.

This is actually the same with global warming. It doesn't matter if the warming is man-made, or from solar rays or the tilt of the earth's axis. We have to do something about it.

If it's caused by anything other than man-made we have to doubly make sure we reduce our carbon emissions because anyone with basic science will know CO2 traps heat.

So regardless of whether we're to blame for warming or not. WE HAVE TO REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS.