Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by MtnBiker, Nov 21, 2006.
I can understand equilibrium between east/west. But a gain overall? I dont get that one.
I don't want to hijack the thread, but I have to tell you what happened to me the other day.
Our local paper's website now allows people to post comments on letters to the editor and news stories. Much like we do here on USMB.
So someone wrote in about global warming. I replied, not about global warming itself but more about the Kyoto treaty. I made the comment that whether global warming is caused by Man or not is still hotly debated...
So, a professor from the local university replies and gives all sorts of counter arguments, etc etc. Then, he'd sign his posts with "Professor R, Professor Emeritus, Binghamton University"....
So I assumed that he was a climatologist and studies this extensively. In fact the local paper seems to have asked him to write on the subject of global warming...
What would you assume?
Anyway, someone eventually posted that Professor R is a professor of SOCIOLOGY! I did a Google search on his name and sure enough, he's a professor of sociology, and as far as I can tell does not study climatology, doesn't participate in any meetings with climatologists. He is part of the school of business or public relations...
Now, I don't want to say that Professor R's counterarguments were not well thought out and presented, they were.
But, I do think that it was dishonest of him to throw his title around as if he were an expert on the subject, when his area of study isn't even remotely similar to climatology.
To paraphrase the old line "I'm not a climatologist, but I try to pass myself off as one at the Press & Sun Bulletin's website"
P.S. He did mention a recent study that stated that the "cost of action" to stop global warming would "only" cost 1 to 2 percent of global GDP (Gross Domestic Product), I assume per year.
Then I did a little research
a. Global GDP is over 60 trillion dollars - 1 to 2 percent of 60 trillion dollars is 600 billion to 1.2 trillion dollars a year.
b. The study was funded by an organization that contained "friends of Earth" in its title.... which causes me to suspect just how objective the research is (not very).
c. Since "b" is true, my guess is that the cost of action was severely underestimated, so the real cost of action is probably at least 2 times or more per year (1.2 to 2.4 trillion dollars per year or more).
d. That means, if we try to stop global warming, we are probably going to bankrupt the world economy, cause a global depression and cause millions of deaths in the process....
Nice find. Thanks.
From my post on a similar thread about Global Warming:
That makes sense. Thanks.
Yes antarctica is cooling in the central region and may overall be gaining ice mass. In any case it is not significantly melting.
But sidetracking from that question for a second, compare the above co2science article with the one I have linked to below, which is also about a study involving antarctica satellite mass measurements, but this study concludes a decrease in ice mass:
Now compare the reporting style that co2science uses between both articles. The difference in words they italicize between the two articles is especially revealing.
Here is the abstract of the paper the 1st article discusses to make it clear there were problems found in that study too.
Notice the word estimate? I tried not to italicize it.
Ok, I'll admit I"m tried, but what is the importance of this
This happens when the ice melts......Oh, I think I figured it out.
True or not, global sea levels are still rising http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
A gain in mass over 72% of Antartica does not imply a net gain globally.
Separate names with a comma.