Alps Could Be Ice Free by 2100

Notbaigh Innit wrote in
:

Bunch of leftist liberal crap.

Yea Science, it sucks. Might as well just let politics guide us?
Well, it's cross posted so who knows where Notbaigh Innit is posting from?

Sea levels are slowly rising...

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html


Like to Ski? wrote:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...iers-alps.html

Alps Could Be Ice Free by 2100, Study Warns
James Owen
for National Geographic News

July 11, 2006
Glaciers in the European Alps are melting so fast that the mountains
could be virtually ice free by the end of this century, a new global
warming study warns.

Kurt Knisely wrote:
Notbaigh Innit

Bunch of leftist liberal crap.

Yea Science, it sucks. Might as well just let politics guide us?
Well, it's cross posted so who knows where Notbaigh Innit is posting from?

I think he's a regular on alt.ostrich.sand

//Walt

July 11, 2006
Glaciers in the European Alps are melting so fast that
the mountains could be virtually ice free by the end of
this century, a new global warming study warns.

Ask yourself exactly who is screaming the loudest about global
warming, and are these same individuals allowing all sides of the
debate to be heard. If not, then this cause is being used to serve a
political objective. If a political organization wants to gain more
control over a population, what better excuse is there than the
environment?

Postman's Holiday wrote:

July 11, 2006
Glaciers in the European Alps are melting so fast that
the mountains could be virtually ice free by the end of
this century, a new global warming study warns.

Ask yourself exactly who is screaming the loudest about global
warming, and are these same individuals allowing all sides of the
debate to be heard.

All sides are allowed to be heard. On one side we have the scientists
making measuements, applying models based on scientific principles, and
publishing in peer reviewed journals. And on the other side we have
kooks on the internets and paid shills for the petroleum companies.

I can hear both quite audibly. Who do you think has more credibility?


If not, then this cause is being used to serve a
political objective. If a political organization wants to gain more
control over a population, what better excuse is there than the
environment?

Um ... fear of terrorism? Seems to have worked pretty well the last 5
years....

//Walt

Postman's Holiday wrote:

Ask yourself exactly who is screaming the loudest about global
warming, and are these same individuals allowing all sides of the
debate to be heard. If not, then this cause is being used to serve a
political objective. If a political organization wants to gain more
control over a population, what better excuse is there than the
environment?

Dam, Postman; you've hit it right on the head, cut though the BS to the
core. Excellent. Now, let's answer your questions.

Which side screams loudest? Clearly the anti-climate change folks.

The data supported side uses the quieter communication mode of
publishing scientific evidence in refereed science journals where
anything can be published provided you supply hard data. Where what a
scientist wants more than anything is to publish something new and
different and make a name for herself? Where a journal wants more than
anything to publish something new and different and well supported and
make itself front and center in science? Where the journals publish
parallel "Letters" journals so that even the less well supported claims
can get a hearing.

OK.

And which side suppresses official government science publications that
don't fit preconceived policy in order to prevent all sides of the
debate to be heard? Which side orders changes in government scientist's
reports to fit preconceived policy?

Ah! I begin to see a pattern.

The scientific side publishes data supported reports;
the anti-climate change side screams fraud, but publishes no new data
supported reports, and actively seeks to prevent reports from being
published when they have control.

Postman, thanks for bringing this to our attention - You have done us a
great service. I suspect we all would never have noticed that the
anti-climate change folks were hiding their lack of data behind wave
after wave of loud screaming.

Postman's Holiday wrote:
If a political organization wants to gain more
control over a population, what better excuse is there than the
environment?


Terrorism. HTH

-klaus

Dam, Postman; you've hit it right on the head, cut though the
BS to the core. Excellent. Now, let's answer your questions. ...

Better yet, let's respond to your indoctrination.

Why does the media treat a political hack as a climate expert? An
individual with no background in any hard science - yet somehow this
person is the world's most knowledgable expert on climate change.
Although if such were the case, we might expect that alternate opinions
would be heard.

In fact, why does the major media decide to ignore alternate opinions.
Such as,

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ic...#anchor2150539


During the last winter (northern hemisphere) did you read any of the
following?

"Poland is experiencing its coldest winter in several decades and like
other parts of Europe, temperatures have fallen to as low as minus 30
Celsius. The cold has killed nearly 200 in Poland, disrupted transport
and highlighted gas supply problems."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3555678a10,00.html

"The UK Meteorological Office said that icy winds from the east would
trigger the coldest winter in a decade for Britain especially in
southern regions. The Office's latest predictions models indicate a
colder than average winter for much of the European continent as well
following a milder trend over the past few years. Experts said that
such predictions could be made with an accuracy of two-thirds. The UK
Met Office has been working with the country's Department of Health,
discovering a dramatic increase in mortality and hospital admissions
during cold weather."
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/researc...forecasts/head...


Or reports from the past several months from the southern hemisphe

"New Zealanders have never seen snow like this - 23 Jun 06 - Napier
police are advising motorists not to expect the Napier-Taupo Highway
to open on Friday, with snow continuing to fall on the road. A
spokesperson says a large number of vehicles are lining up at Eskdale
in the hope the road may open. Police and the army are currently trying
to clear the road so stranded vehicles can be returned to their
owners."
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/763217

"Record cold in Australia - 18 Jun 06 - The city of Perth recorded its
coldest night on record Friday night, as temperatures dropped below
zero. The average daily low in June in Perth is 10.1C (50.2F), and the
average high is 18.3C (64.9F). Not since records began has the mercury
dropped below zero during any month of the year. But it dipped to minus
0.6C (30.9F) Friday night, giving Perth its first official freeze. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/n...2006news.shtml

"Record cold in Australia - 16 Jun 06 - Records toppled in many parts
of Australia yesterday. NE VIC, Benalla, Rutherglen and Wangaratta all
registered their coldest temperatures on record for any month.
Rutherglen's -7.5 knocked 0.9 off the previous
all-time record. Just over the border in NSW, Corowa's -5.0 was also
its coldest temperature in 34 years, while at minus 3.0, Parkes
recorded its coldest June reading in half a century In SA, Elliston
dropped to -0.8, its first sub-zero June temperature in 45 years, while
Kingscote's -2.0 set a new all-time low. "
http://www.australianweathernews.com...6/060614.SHTML


What if Dr. Gray and Dr. Pielke, the climate researchers in Colorado,
are correct?

Should we follow the lead of a political hack who turned weather
expert? And ignore or seek to discredit those views which do not
support our own?

"Postman's Holiday" wrote in
ups.com:


Should we follow the lead of a political hack who turned weather
expert? And ignore or seek to discredit those views which do not
support our own?

Ahh, I know what's bugging you now, it was that flick, by that Gore guy? I
haven't seen it yet. Is that what got your underware all in a bunch? I
really couldn't give a rip what he has to say and if it bugs you, you
shouldn't either.

Re-read what Walt wrote. Otherwise this is fairly concise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

(dang liberals and their science)

From what I've read about Global Warming is that weather will be chaotic.
That might explain some of your previous links. Colder than **** here last
winter and slightly above average snowpack.

As skiers, the warming up of our favorite playgrounds tends to hit home.

-K

Postman's Holiday wrote:

In fact, why does the major media decide to ignore alternate opinions.
Such as,

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

This stuff almost writes itself. From the above article:
"Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science."

Why ignore the opinons of people who have no expertise in science?
Maybe because they have no expertise in science? Is that really so
hard to grasp?

Might I direct you to Science Magazine and this article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686


Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United
States, frequently assert that climate science is highly
uncertain. ...[They] suggest that there might be substantive
disagreementin the scientific community about the reality of
anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American
Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements
in recent years concluding that the evidence for human
modification of climate is compelling (8).

[They analyzed] 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database
with the keywords "climate change"... Of all the papers, 75%...
either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view;
25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on
current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the
papers disagreed with the consensus position.

So, the reason why your side is losing the argument is that THERE ISN'T
ANY ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH THAT SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION. None. Zip.
Nada.

You might as well be advocating for a flat earth theory.

//Walt

On 18 Jul 2006 13:22:11 -0700, "Postman's Holiday"
wrote:

Dam, Postman; you've hit it right on the head, cut though the
BS to the core. Excellent. Now, let's answer your questions. ...

Better yet, let's respond to your indoctrination.

Why does the media treat a political hack as a climate expert? An
individual with no background in any hard science - yet somehow this
person is the world's most knowledgable expert on climate change.
Although if such were the case, we might expect that alternate opinions
would be heard.

In fact, why does the major media decide to ignore alternate opinions.
Such as,

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ic...#anchor2150539


During the last winter (northern hemisphere) did you read any of the
following?

snip

2 quick points just 'cuz

#1 anecdotes ain't data.

#2 the things that you cite actually SUPPORT the notion of global
climate change. Global warming aint all there is too it, it is global
climate change with some plcaes like Europe being in a deep frezze
that more closely approximates their latitude once the great ocean
currents are altered (the Gulf Stream e.g.)

Sheesh.

Dave M.