[quote=dippin;2765809]No, what has happened is that a few scientists, of the thousands around the globe working on it, were caught doing unethical but largely irrelevant stuff.
Sorry but I disagree with this statement vehemently. What may appear to be insignificant is in my opinion critical. There used to be over 400 temperature stations in Canada with more than 20% in high altitude, cold evirons, has been reduced to less than half that total with less than 10 left in those same cold evirons, with saignificant effect on the overall numbers. Similar data site reductions were done with Russia Territories as well.
It is like taking the temperature data from Texas and saying that data is representative of the entire US. It simply is untrue. Particularly if you are comparing to data from years past that included data from North Dakota and Montana. I hope this makes clear my concern.
That isn't the biggest problem. The UK Climategate and NOAA datasets are the main data sets that are distributed to Universities and Scientific outlets world wide. If that data is tainted (or even isn't apples to apples) and I believe it is, then the studies done out of these institutions of higher learning are slanted thru no fault of their own. The conclusions drawn are true based on the data they have been supplied, unfortunately it was agendized. Much of this is born out by the actual documents from the emails from the UK. These documents allude to the burying of data, and the repression of papers and conclusions that don't agree with their point of view.
I don't dispute there is some effect of man's contribution, however, I believe we are being led to believe the effect is much greater than it really is, from a climate perspective. . That doesn't say to me we should ignore it. As I said before I am much more concerned about what we are doing chemically to the oceans which lead directly to the food chain.
To ASU2003...... sorry we have once again thread jacked the question originally posed.
---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
-For some reason lots of oil companies think that the north pole will be void of snow and ice during the summer.
-There may have been lots of volcanoes or a super volcano 1600 years ago. Or maybe the Sun's radiation level flucuates with the amount of sun spots.
-CO2 absorbs more solar energy and makes the radiant cooling at night less effective at ground level.
-The number of humans near earthquake/tsunami zones and near sea level is huge. These people are in trouble if we do nothing and are wrong about this. I thought we only had to be worried about beaches getting washed away and some land getting flooded. But, if there are a lot of earthquakes from water getting into a limestone geologic layer or two, the level of these disasters could become a large problem.
-If the food system has any problems (over fishing/fish can't live in warmer water/farm runoff poisoning), that won't be good.
|
I have to ask where the first statement comes from. Oil Companies and the rest of the those that work and live in these environments are pretty solid on the conditions they work in. It is truly a matter of life and death. My suspicion is you have seen the presentation of ANWAR that shows what it looks like in the summer time. In the winter it is a frozen tundra and during short parts of the summer it is a mud flat, but that is NOT the north pole. Did I guess right?