Comments on: Contentious fact in Polar debate bears scrutiny http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/ Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:16:01 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Da Captian http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/#comment-2404 Da Captian Wed, 21 May 2008 15:29:42 +0000 http://cnnscitech.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-2404 Robert... We have had no where near the stoms that beat the gulf coasts in the 20's and 30's.... easy enough to look up on almost any hurricane website. Chance... If I had to guess what the end of humans might be it would be a "12 Monkeys" type thing as opposed to a "Day after Tomorrow" outcome. Robert...
We have had no where near the stoms that beat the gulf coasts in the 20's and 30's.... easy enough to look up on almost any hurricane website.

Chance...
If I had to guess what the end of humans might be it would be a "12 Monkeys" type thing as opposed to a "Day after Tomorrow" outcome.

]]> By: Darren http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/#comment-2400 Darren Wed, 21 May 2008 13:47:09 +0000 http://cnnscitech.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-2400 It's interesting to see how everyone believes that there viewpoint is most important to the point of outright ignoring what others are trying to get across. To indict you for defending so-called 'junk' science, is silly; when discussing things like animal populations, projected impact and climate change, all we can really do is use the best science and modelling available while remaining OPEN to new and relevant data. Of course it's going to be a political issue, because people strive to make policy based on the information available to them (though just as often the funding waved their way). However, it remains clear that we don't accomplish anything by simply assuming we have the right of it, and that is really what the point of this is. Mr. Dykstra doesn't just defend, but provides a new perspective on dissenting views and pays it the same respect he would to a view he more implicitly believes (he even provides a convenient source and timeline), which is much more than his detractors do in their comments. Surely, the Polar Bears are the new poster animal for the global warming movement, but it doesn't make sense to allow firvolous suspicion to override careful discernment of the issues. What matters, truly, is that global warming is occurring and it isn't the first time in our planet's history, but that doesn't mean humanity will come out of it smelling like a rose. "Prepare for the worst, hope for the best." "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." At best, we're all taking a gamble on the outcome. It's interesting to see how everyone believes that there viewpoint is most important to the point of outright ignoring what others are trying to get across.

To indict you for defending so-called 'junk' science, is silly; when discussing things like animal populations, projected impact and climate change, all we can really do is use the best science and modelling available while remaining OPEN to new and relevant data.

Of course it's going to be a political issue, because people strive to make policy based on the information available to them (though just as often the funding waved their way).

However, it remains clear that we don't accomplish anything by simply assuming we have the right of it, and that is really what the point of this is. Mr. Dykstra doesn't just defend, but provides a new perspective on dissenting views and pays it the same respect he would to a view he more implicitly believes (he even provides a convenient source and timeline), which is much more than his detractors do in their comments.

Surely, the Polar Bears are the new poster animal for the global warming movement, but it doesn't make sense to allow firvolous suspicion to override careful discernment of the issues.

What matters, truly, is that global warming is occurring and it isn't the first time in our planet's history, but that doesn't mean humanity will come out of it smelling like a rose.

"Prepare for the worst, hope for the best."
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

At best, we're all taking a gamble on the outcome.

]]> By: Chance http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/#comment-2383 Chance Wed, 21 May 2008 07:21:01 +0000 http://cnnscitech.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-2383 Im sure when global warming starts killing people in masses all you guys will still be arguing over non-sense. Mankind is in charge of this planet and how well we take care of ourselfs and life on this planet in general will state what kind of race we are....barbarians or an intelligent advanced society, take ur pick. Im sure when global warming starts killing people in masses all you guys will still be arguing over non-sense. Mankind is in charge of this planet and how well we take care of ourselfs and life on this planet in general will state what kind of race we are....barbarians or an intelligent advanced society, take ur pick.

]]> By: Franko http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/#comment-2381 Franko Wed, 21 May 2008 06:48:43 +0000 http://cnnscitech.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-2381 "DNA that could be useful a few decades down the road for our grandkids." Al Goracle has this already figured out: Google for the ManBearPig "ocean levels growing ever so slowly but the growth is both there and accelerating" A few weeks ago I looked at this chart on ocean levels. It showed 5 months down, now it is revised up. It is seasonally adjusted (so the actual numbers, you would have to download, and chart it) http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/ The red line is the Lancosz ideal low pass filter. Another source says oceans cooling. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025 Slight cooling only. The oceans are like a flywheel, a phase lagging low pass filter, with a memory. "guess what fuels those storms." Convection and radiation are proportional to fourth power of temperature. So a localized hotspot could have exaggerated effect, and not the globally averaged ? "DNA that could be useful a few decades down the road for our grandkids."

Al Goracle has this already figured out:
Google for the ManBearPig

"ocean levels growing ever so slowly but the growth is both there and accelerating"
A few weeks ago I looked at this chart on ocean levels. It showed 5 months down, now it is revised up. It is seasonally adjusted (so the actual numbers, you would have to download, and chart it) http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/
The red line is the Lancosz ideal low pass filter.

Another source says oceans cooling.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Slight cooling only. The oceans are like a flywheel, a phase lagging low pass filter, with a memory.

"guess what fuels those storms."
Convection and radiation are proportional to fourth power of temperature. So a localized hotspot could have exaggerated effect, and not the globally averaged ?

]]> By: Augustas http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/#comment-2378 Augustas Wed, 21 May 2008 04:23:51 +0000 http://cnnscitech.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-2378 We are getting off the beaten path. Are polar bears in danger? NO! I read a story today about the usual crew now demanding action be taken on global warming because the polar bear is labeled as endangered! This is a scam for a group of people to get money. It was transparent when they were lobbying and suing to get the polar bears listed and now its even more so as they try to get that money now that they are listed. Gene at the top of this posting is right, this should be in the political blogs or the fleecing of america show. This has nothing to do with science or protecting animals. Kosif I do not need to be face to face with a polar bear to know some scammer is ripping the american people off. We are getting off the beaten path. Are polar bears in danger? NO!
I read a story today about the usual crew now demanding action be taken on global warming because the polar bear is labeled as endangered!
This is a scam for a group of people to get money. It was transparent when they were lobbying and suing to get the polar bears listed and now its even more so as they try to get that money now that they are listed.
Gene at the top of this posting is right, this should be in the political blogs or the fleecing of america show. This has nothing to do with science or protecting animals.
Kosif I do not need to be face to face with a polar bear to know some scammer is ripping the american people off.

]]> By: Robert http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/#comment-2373 Robert Wed, 21 May 2008 02:52:56 +0000 http://cnnscitech.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-2373 Well Franko considering overall world temperature is on the rise and ocean levels growing ever so slowly but the growth is both there and accelerating. Take a look at the rise in storm activity in and around gulf cost states for example and guess what fuels those storms. Well Franko considering overall world temperature is on the rise and ocean levels growing ever so slowly but the growth is both there and accelerating. Take a look at the rise in storm activity in and around gulf cost states for example and guess what fuels those storms.

]]> By: kosif http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/#comment-2371 kosif Wed, 21 May 2008 01:53:12 +0000 http://cnnscitech.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-2371 So whats the problem with having the polar bear declared as endangered? Do you really want to take the chance that the world will lose them? After all, how often do you see - hunt - feed - watch them? Not on TV, but face to face? Its not going to change your life, now, but may just save some DNA that could be useful a few decades down the road for our grandkids. So whats the problem with having the polar bear declared as endangered? Do you really want to take the chance that the world will lose them? After all, how often do you see – hunt – feed – watch them? Not on TV, but face to face? Its not going to change your life, now, but may just save some DNA that could be useful a few decades down the road for our grandkids.

]]> By: DrToxic http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/#comment-2366 DrToxic Tue, 20 May 2008 23:04:31 +0000 http://cnnscitech.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-2366 To all you right wingers that would rather think with your wallet or your rifle rather than with the 3 pounds of neurons and glia that God gave you, Al Gore did not invent global warming as you like to always imply. Rather, global warming is a consequence of the greenhouse phenomenon which is dictated by physics (which Al Gore did not invent either). So the real question is not if global warming is real, because it is. The real question is if we as a species are contributing to global warming. The best science we as humans can produce says yes we are contributing to it (read the IPCC's report). If you can read that report (the entire report and not just the Fox News, or Heartland Institute or American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research spin...ooops I mean summaries) and then come back and in good conscience and with good scientific evidence to refute the report, then we should continue this discussion. But in the meantime, the best science says we should do something about it. So lets do something and stop sitting around and politicizing this issue. To all you right wingers that would rather think with your wallet or your rifle rather than with the 3 pounds of neurons and glia that God gave you, Al Gore did not invent global warming as you like to always imply.
Rather, global warming is a consequence of the greenhouse phenomenon which is dictated by physics (which Al Gore did not invent either). So the real question is not if global warming is real, because it is. The real question is if we as a species are contributing to global warming. The best science we as humans can produce says yes we are contributing to it (read the IPCC's report). If you can read that report (the entire report and not just the Fox News, or Heartland Institute or American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research spin...ooops I mean summaries) and then come back and in good conscience and with good scientific evidence to refute the report, then we should continue this discussion. But in the meantime, the best science says we should do something about it. So lets do something and stop sitting around and politicizing this issue.

]]> By: Brent http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/#comment-2359 Brent Tue, 20 May 2008 18:00:37 +0000 http://cnnscitech.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-2359 Peter, I have to applaud you for being the first person to ever write a science related article that actually addressed sources of information. Hopefully you will wrangle in all the other writers at CNN and set an example for the science writing/journalism sector and do this in the future. But please be consistent and do this for the global warming advocates and dissidents alike. There are plenty of hysterical statements that argue for immediate action on global warming, although well intentioned, that do not have citations. Peter, I have to applaud you for being the first person to ever write a science related article that actually addressed sources of information. Hopefully you will wrangle in all the other writers at CNN and set an example for the science writing/journalism sector and do this in the future. But please be consistent and do this for the global warming advocates and dissidents alike. There are plenty of hysterical statements that argue for immediate action on global warming, although well intentioned, that do not have citations.

]]> By: Chris from Alaska http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/contentious-fact-in-polar-debate-bears-scrutiny/#comment-2357 Chris from Alaska Tue, 20 May 2008 17:47:45 +0000 http://cnnscitech.wordpress.com/?p=156#comment-2357 What I find odd about this entire debate is how scientists have ignored the damage they themselves are causing to the Arctic ice pack north of Siberia and Alaska. Do any of you readers know that 2007 was a record summer for exploration of the Arctic Ocean? Between icebreaker working for Russia's oil and gas industry, Canadian, and work performed by the USGS on the icebreaker USS Healy, a record number of nautical miles of the Arctic Ice pack were smashed. The polar bear's major enemy is not natural ice melt but the work of exploration crews smashing the ice and opening huge channels behind the ships. The scientists are causing this disaster due to their incessant need to sail back and for studying the ocean floor, atmosphere, and seas ice. If you want to save the polar bear and the ice back, ban the use of ice breakers throughout the Arctic for a couple of years and then once the pack ice thick again, tightly regulate the amount of ice broken up by the scientific ice breakers. If you want some proof, take a look at the 2007 logs of the ice breakers supporting Russian, US, and Canada scientists and the photos of the breakup of the ice pack. You will notice incredible relationships that can no longer be ignored. It’s not global warming destroying the Arctic, just scientists displaying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on a global scale. What I find odd about this entire debate is how scientists have ignored the damage they themselves are causing to the Arctic ice pack north of Siberia and Alaska. Do any of you readers know that 2007 was a record summer for exploration of the Arctic Ocean?
Between icebreaker working for Russia's oil and gas industry, Canadian, and work performed by the USGS on the icebreaker USS Healy, a record number of nautical miles of the Arctic Ice pack were smashed. The polar bear's major enemy is not natural ice melt but the work of exploration crews smashing the ice and opening huge channels behind the ships. The scientists are causing this disaster due to their incessant need to sail back and for studying the ocean floor, atmosphere, and seas ice. If you want to save the polar bear and the ice back, ban the use of ice breakers throughout the Arctic for a couple of years and then once the pack ice thick again, tightly regulate the amount of ice broken up by the scientific ice breakers.
If you want some proof, take a look at the 2007 logs of the ice breakers supporting Russian, US, and Canada scientists and the photos of the breakup of the ice pack. You will notice incredible relationships that can no longer be ignored.
It’s not global warming destroying the Arctic, just scientists displaying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on a global scale.

]]>