Where's The Data?

[Choada_Boy]

Then the archaea can eat the buried carbon...

 

...and convert it into methane, which is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, not to mention the vast amount of water vapor created in your proposed process. We made the mistake of liberating the sequestered mega-flora carbon for the past 1.5 centuries, now we have to find a way to get it back into the ground or wait for nature to do it....or wait for the End Times so that God and His Legions can wash the filth out of the gutters and I can get my diamond-encrusted chariot/SUV in Heaven, were the roads are paved and they have buses. Which means you could die and spend eternity in Heaven driving a bus.

[Hugh Conway]

what we need is a real rain to wash all the scum off the streets

 

a flood? is it the end of days?

[G-spotter]

Then the archaea can eat the buried carbon...

 

...and convert it into methane, which is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide,

 

don't be stupid, they'd convert it into hi-test

[johndavidjr]

Beating one of my many dead horses...

 

Dyson the well-known and ancient genius skeptic, (whose son had ultra-lux kayak shop in Bellingham) thinks large plantations of genetically altered trees can suck up the vast Co2 quantities that Fairweather's Pentacostal Church farts and breaths out in Tacoma.

 

Dyson (citizen of Socialist England) says this will solve any problems caused by contrarians who enjoy attention for wacky views.

[G-spotter]

Makin those trees into more walMarts for you to buy tents at ?

[johndavidjr]

so true

[Bug]

I thought we established that real climbers don't use tents.

[johndavidjr]

Fairweather would probably die.

[Fairweather]

i might very well ask again out of genuine confusion - so, if i translate your passage proper, you ascribe to the notion that the earth is warming, that mankind might be part of the problem, but that largely its a natural phenomena that shouldn't concern us?

 

you gonna miss the glaciers?

 

 

You should take a look at Easterbrook's Mount Baker studies. But yes, I would miss our local glaciers terribly--not that this is relevant at all. As for soot/darkening vs CO2: The solutions are quite a bit different. Are you the least bit concerned that a scientist who feeds his data directly to the IPCC is admitting that there is a problem with the data--and has been trying to hide it?

 

 

Ivan claimed he wanted a "conversation", but has yet to respond in-kind. At this point, I'll settle for an answer to the question in my last sentence.

[Fairweather]

Meanwhile, here's a pretty good editorial:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm

[Bug]

Dang.

I'll bet the Ross Ice shelf collapse was staged too.

These modern scientists are just so far from perfect.

We might as well elect 'c' students to manage our environmental policies and tell us what to think.

[Fairweather]

No piece of any ice shelf has ever broken off.

 

The Earth and its climate remain static. Forever.

 

What was your grade in U.S. history?

[olyclimber]

i don't think it is out of line to think that humans may be negatively impacting our environment on a global scale. its far more believable than vampires or werewolves.

[Pete_H]

The world's only 3000 years old too.

[Bug]

It is God's plan.

 

[Bug]

No piece of any ice shelf has ever broken off.

 

The Earth and its climate remain static. Forever.

 

What was your grade in U.S. history?

I got an 'A' both times.

[Bug]

It was "getting along with others" that held me back.

[Fairweather]

It was "getting along with others" that held me back.

 

That's a plus.

[ivan]

what we need is a real rain to wash all the scum off the streets

dude, jodie foster doesn't want to bang you - she digs on chix - give it up!

[ivan]

i might very well ask again out of genuine confusion - so, if i translate your passage proper, you ascribe to the notion that the earth is warming, that mankind might be part of the problem, but that largely its a natural phenomena that shouldn't concern us?

 

you gonna miss the glaciers?

 

 

You should take a look at Easterbrook's Mount Baker studies. But yes, I would miss our local glaciers terribly--not that this is relevant at all. As for soot/darkening vs CO2: The solutions are quite a bit different. Are you the least bit concerned that a scientist who feeds his data directly to the IPCC is admitting that there is a problem with the data--and has been trying to hide it?

 

 

Ivan claimed he wanted a "conversation", but has yet to respond in-kind. At this point, I'll settle for an answer to the question in my last sentence.

i'm not certain i asked for that - i always figured taking any "conversation" here seriously tantamount to end-stage insanity, a precept no small # of you dimwits would do well to adopt

 

anyhow, as to your question about my concern on some scientists letting down the side and fudging their data, i thought i'd answered that w/ my snide piltdown observation earlier - it's hardly a new thing for pointy-headed geek fucks to do something like that - i haven't read the articles on this latest example, but i doubt it impugnes every sceintist ever - the whole science thing is based on multiple testings of an idea, no? it seems hardly a days goes by that another organization or science group releases a new study revealing the depth of the problem - i don't think they're all in league w/ each other - that some may have done so, especially in an environment where the slightest degree of uncertainity is translated as proof of the unviability of a theory, doesn't suprise me in the least - of course i wouldn't support it, but i could understand it - the piltdown example is a fine one - sure, those dimwits were lying, but that didn't mean evolution was a bogus theory, right?

 

good?

[tvashtarkatena]

When it all comes crashing down, just remember: I love you guys.

[Fairweather]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

[j_b]

A Nature editorial answers the latest deniers' farce:

 

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

 

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

 

[..]

 

 

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.

 

[..]

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

 

lol we get our news from the same source

[ivan]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

yup, sure sounds like jon's on your side