Weather Acting Funny in Your Neighbourhood?

[EPelle]

Didn:t the USA president just give a directive to researchers who travel outside of the USA to not have public discussions related to this issue?

[figo]

new zealand coldest december on record
http://www.stuff.co.nz/search/3917599a6000.html

new zealand very cool summer.
http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NationalNe...rticleID=22292

coldest christmas ever in melbourne
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art48364.asp

western australia warmer than usual
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/curren....summary.shtml

tasmania a little warmer than average
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/curren.../summary.shtml

new zealand overall weather for the year
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/cs/aclimsum_06

conclusion is that new zealand is probably getting colder over the past 20-30 years, australia's not warming up much.

[figo]

ever look at the jet stream?

a thousand gifs on weather here.
http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/

[SQUACKEE]

Buried under a foot of snow and loving it. 3/16/07

[figo]

Consensus My Eye: Global Warming Skeptics Win NYC Debate With Believers

http://newsbusters.org/node/11461

You probably didn’t hear about a rather topical debate concerning man’s role in global warming that took place in New York City Wednesday night.

Want to know why the media will likely ignore this fascinating event? Well, because the panel of skeptics beat the believers.

How large was the victory?

Well, before the debate took place, the tough New York crowd was polled, and the results showed that they believed global warming was a crisis by a margin of 57 percent to 30 percent. However, after the debate, this changed to the crowd feeling it wasn’t a crisis, with skeptics topping believers 46 to 42 percent.


Scientific American chimes in on the debate...
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?p=46...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Debate Skills? Advantage: Climate Contrarians

Last night at the Asia Society and Museum, a panel of notables debated the merits of the proposition "global warming is not a crisis." Arguing for the motion were the folksy (and tall) Michael Crichton, the soft-spoken Richard Lindzen and the passionate Philip Stott. Arrayed against were the moderate Brenda Ekwurzel, the skeptical Gavin Schmidt and the perplexed (by the inanity of the contrarians' arguments) Richard Somerville. (Note: all the adjectives are mine.)

[lonewolf]

Thank you, figo.. I was not aware of that particular confrontation. It is comforting to learn that a significant percentage of presumably intelligent (by virtue of their attendance) people were swayed by reason.
I do know increasing numbers of qualified global warming skeptics have been speaking up debunking the hysteria.
I do not deny there has been inconsequential short term warming if you pick the right starting point.; most of it early this century before earthlings approached levels of carbon dioxide emissions that the Gorites claim is responsible for an impending climatic holocaust.
I agree that man should be as environmentally sensitive as practical. I just dispute that man is responsible for or can do anything to delay or prevent inevitable climate changes.

[SQUACKEE]

Its human nature to want to believe in impending doom. Its deep and it goes way back. How many people would want to go see a film that suggests "every things gonna be ok". We love our disaster movies and documentaries. Asteroids, floods, landslides, ,earthquakes, 200 ft. waves, Earth ending diseases, Aliens attacking, global warming, ice age, starvation, drought, nuclear war, giant volcano eruption, Nuc. power plant explosion, over population, computers turn on man, black hole eats our solar system, zombies and lastly Republicans

Now here's the cool part. You can find a popular movie to enjoy with your popcorn that features one or more of the above disasters featuring human misery and death.. My fav. END OF DAYS. :twisted:

[Mennisco]

Thank you, figo.. I was not aware of that particular confrontation. It is comforting to learn that a significant percentage of presumably intelligent (by virtue of their attendance) people were swayed by reason.
I do know increasing numbers of qualified global warming skeptics have been speaking up debunking the hysteria.

One might reasonably deduce from your comments that you probably think that the vast majority of top world experts, viz., scientists, do fail to meet your criteria for "intelligent", or are intelligent but somewhat deluded, or are intelligent with a penchant for stirring up shit?

[Pego]

Consensus My Eye: Global Warming Skeptics Win NYC Debate With Believers

http://newsbusters.org/node/11461

You probably didn’t hear about a rather topical debate concerning man’s role in global warming that took place in New York City Wednesday night.

Want to know why the media will likely ignore this fascinating event? Well, because the panel of skeptics beat the believers.

How large was the victory?

Well, before the debate took place, the tough New York crowd was polled, and the results showed that they believed global warming was a crisis by a margin of 57 percent to 30 percent. However, after the debate, this changed to the crowd feeling it wasn’t a crisis, with skeptics topping believers 46 to 42 percent.


Scientific American chimes in on the debate...
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?p=46...&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Debate Skills? Advantage: Climate Contrarians

Last night at the Asia Society and Museum, a panel of notables debated the merits of the proposition "global warming is not a crisis." Arguing for the motion were the folksy (and tall) Michael Crichton, the soft-spoken Richard Lindzen and the passionate Philip Stott. Arrayed against were the moderate Brenda Ekwurzel, the skeptical Gavin Schmidt and the perplexed (by the inanity of the contrarians' arguments) Richard Somerville. (Note: all the adjectives are mine.)

Winning a debate is a totally unreliable method of a hypothesis testing and you know it.

[SQUACKEE]

Your right Pego. Im just glad there's a debate going on somewhere. I think debate is healthy. Let the listener decide.

[tandfman]

Just a reminder that when science becomes political, it may cease to be good science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washi ... 8yJME5YGBQ

[Pego]

This is what I just received from the American Association for Advancement os Science.

Message to Members
ADDRESSING CRITICAL CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES

Dear AAAS Member,

Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, extreme weather is increasing--scientific evidence is clear and scientific leadership is critical to dealing with global energy and climate problems.

The AAAS Board released a strong statement on 18 February saying, "We are already experiencing global climate change--and the pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years." The Board urges aggressive R&D to transform the world’s existing and future energy systems away from technologies that emit greenhouse gases.

The new AAAS Board Chair and former AAAS President John P. Holdren spoke out during the Annual Meeting in February saying, "Global risks require the scientific community to join with political and business leaders in a concerted search for solutions." Dr. Holdren drew a standing ovation when he called for scientists and engineers to "tithe" 10 percent of their time "working to increase the benefits of S&T for the human condition."

AAAS is addressing these critical issues with a broad range of initiatives including the recent Global Climate Change Town Hall, which attracted 1,200 people, and public access to online information resources.

The time to act is now. We urge our members to join us in this effort. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS

[tafnut]

Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, extreme weather is increasing--scientific evidence is clear and scientific leadership is critical to dealing with global energy and climate problems.

Coincidently, I just realized that for the first time in my 14 years in sunny FLA, I did not once have ice on my car in the morning this past winter.

[figo]

Just a reminder that when science becomes political, it may cease to be good science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washi ... 8yJME5YGBQ

good science is largely a myth.
we're barely out of the dark ages.
but hey, we're doing pretty good for a bunch of hunter gatherers.
one of these days we might actually have competent scientists, decent gentlemen and classy ladies.
i for one am working on it, but it's tough, you know, being a hunter gatherer with an advanced chimp brain.
i still like monkey business.

[bambam]

Just a reminder that when science becomes political, it may cease to be good science.

Which was virtually proven true in the late 19th century when the Indiana state legislature came within one vote of declaring it a law that, henceforth, the value of pi in Indiana would be 3. Just 3. Not 3 anything.