what happened to global warming pun intended

[silkiechicken]

Ok everyone.

I've cleaned up this thread. I do not want to see it back for a scrubbing.

Play nice.

If you KNOW a mod is going to give you a slap down. DO NOT POST!!!! That puts you on the naughty list.

If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it. If you report something, give us a bit of time to see it and clean it up.

Do's
* Be friendly and courteous to all members at all times.
* Respect that people may have a different political, religious, philosophical and cultural background than you.

AND

3. No Flaming (verbally attacking people or groups of people - e.g. a profession, an organization, a company.)
4. No Trolling (posting to provoke others, luring them to flame or rant). Trolling is sometimes done involuntary, so please be considerate when posting.
5. No teasing, mocking, ridiculing, or otherwise making fun at other member's expense.
7. No Fighting. Taking a personal conflict to the forum is unacceptable. "I'm right, you're wrong" threads and posts will be edited or deleted.​

 

[1acrefarm]

With all this global warming going on I am glad I have plenty of firewood.

 

[djackjr]

Just a quick note we set two records for snow fall the last two days.... It's just plain crazy around here.

I will post pics tommorow cus looks like I will miss work again

 

[Rosalind]

A quick guide to climate change science. Includes explanations and refutations of the many myths I see being repeated in this thread. Literally every single, "oh yeah, Mr. Smarty-pants Scientist? Well what about THIS" you'll ever hear or read, discussed at this link.

And let me take up bandwidth once again to deplore the hideous state of science journalism today. It often does seem to the scientific community that the current mode of news publication (who, what, when, why, how, showing "the opposition's point of view," in less than seven column inches with a snappy headline, all in little words a TV news anchor can pronounce easily) is specifically designed to screw up the communication of any actual science. I can really see quite easily how non-scientists would get confused by the apparent weirdness of science reporting--believe me, many scientists have completely refused to talk to mainstream media journalists because the information they provided to the reporter was not recognizable in the resulting article.

I mean, imagine you're a reporter with no science education, tasked by your editor to fill a not-very-big column space with a story about a local college professor's discovery. If the local college professor's discovery, which was a Very Big Deal and published in Cell/Nature/Science, is on the molecular mechanism of, oh, let's say divergent initiation in promoter sequences. First you've got to get the professor to give you a short lecture in basic genetics, and then he's got to explain why a single promoter might produce differential transcription, and then he's got to explain how he proved that actually happens and why it's important to human biology. Since this is a new discovery, there are still lots of points we don't know--how this affects models of systems biology, how the current generation of genomics analysis techniques are going to be affected, what diseases are affected by alternate regulatory mechanisms--lots of unknowns. And there will be several colleagues in the field saying, "Well, clearly much more work needs to be done, as we don't know whether these transcripts are even relevant; they may be quickly destroyed, as they are very unstable."

And then, as the reporter is walking back to the office, he runs into some dude wearing his underpants on his head and proclaiming that the eyebrow fairy told him that all of genetics is a lie made by the Killer Robots From Outer Space.

Your story can be:
a. "Local Professor Discovers New Gene Regulation"
b. "Extra Genes Found! Scientists Baffled!"
c. "Local Professor Controversy: Are Our Genes Under Fire?"
d. "Local Professor's Discovery Risks Killer Robot Wrath"

There is a 75% chance here of picking the headline that usually runs. And when someone questions the wisdom of taking seriously a guy who wears his underpants on his head and believes in Eyebrow Fairies and Killer Robots and whatnot, the response is, "Well, we have to tell both sides of the story and report on the controversy. That's Ethical Reporting!"

What scientists are starting to think, in the sort of consensus-building we do, is that many of the manufactroversy "debaters" are not intellectually honestly debating. We often run into "debate points" that are so absurd that we don't think ANYONE, even 12th-century mendicants living in mud huts, could possibly say such a thing for anything more than entertainment value. Put this in any other context: If you were debating the relative merits of, say, Wyandotte vs. Orpington, and someone pointed out that "Oh yeah, well, Orpingtons have those giant man-eating fangs!" and after you explained, very patiently that no, no chickens of any kind have fangs, no that's a picture of a crossbeak, sorry, not a fang, they replied, "OK, mister smarty-pants, what about all those people they've killed?" And then you're stuck explaining for an hour that Salmonella killed those people through improper hygiene, and that just because a rooster boxed them once does not mean they were in mortal danger. And then they dismiss the entire concept of Germ Theory as nonsense, because whoever heard of invisible animals, and anyway they got away from that vicious rooster just in time and surely had a near death experience... After a while, it's like a four-year-old who keeps asking, "Why" until you're ready to give 'em a smack. It's not honest inquiry or desire for knowledge.

 

[seminolewind]

Quote:
You know I took a course by that name years ago. I guess about 1980's. The prof. was at SCCC, on LI NY, and was an astronomy nut. Can't remember his name, tho.

 

[seminolewind]

IF we are having global warming, my theory is that it's caused by all the de-forestation AND all the parking lots, roads etc.

 

[jvls1942]

Quote:
Ya know, way back in the 1950's a radio announcer/comedian by the name of Arthur Godfrey used to say that the weather was being screwed up by all the big cities with their brick buildings and all the ground being paved and holding the heat far into the night instead of releasing the heat normally like bare ground does..
Anybody remember this??

 

[wishin4chicken]

Global warming? Not if you looked outside my window right now. We've had at least five feet of snow in the last week with a low temp of -1.1 and a high (today) of 28 degrees. We're just about worn out.

 

[Mahonri]

Makes more sense than the CO2 emissions and "climate change"... (they use that now because a lot of folk don't buy the 'global warming' rhetoric anymore)

Hey silkie, was that nice enough?

 

[jvls1942]

Have you wondered why the polar caps are there in the first place?
It has been over 50 years since I was in the 4th grade.. that is when they told us that the polar caps were there because that part of the earth never got hit with direct sunlight.. so If the earth would suddenly tilt 90 degrees, the solar caps would form where our equator is now.. and all the energy man could muster could not prevent it..

Mankind is so vain.. we think we have so much power.. we are like the mouse in the story about the mouse and elephant.. as they walked side by side over a small bridge.. when they got to the other side the mouse said to the elephant, man we really shook that bridge, didn't we??