Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

[Iain]

Pravda? I'm supposed to take an "article" from Pravda seriously?

Well no, but this Gregory F. Fegel is the credible sort:

We need a Nuremberg-style trial for Treason and Mass Murder for all of the members of the US government, the US military, the US intelligence agencies, and their civilian accomplices in the airline industry and the news media who participated in the murderous crimes of 9/11. The death penalty should be applied to all of the principals and their accomplices, even if that means executing several hundred or even several thousand people, because crimes of this magnitude against the American people and the US Republic cannot go unpunished, and the punishment must be extreme to send a message that the American people will not tolerate such Treason -- not now or in the future. If allowed to remain unpunished and at liberty, these individuals represent a grave threat to the safety and security of all Americans. If convicted of the heinous crimes of 9/11, the death penalty is the only way to ensure that they or their allies will not somehow manage to attack America and Americans again.

- http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106172-2/

Sorry, I mean credulous, like so many are. Anything from anywhere as long as it doesn't say that there might be consequences for consumption.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Sorry, I mean credulous, like so many are. Anything from anywhere as long as it doesn't say that there might be consequences for consumption.

Is that what it's all about, we wealthy Americans don't feel sufficiently guilty for being wealthy Americans?

[MicroBalrog]

Is that what it's all about, we wealthy Americans don't feel sufficiently guilty for being wealthy Americans?

Basically, yes. Whatever the science behind Global Warming, its appeal for most people isn't the science. It's a guilt/ascetism cult.

[Regolith]

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

More at the link.


Just thought I'd throw that in there...

[Nematocyst]

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

I've got $10 that says that ice is thinner than it's been in 290 years or longer, and will melt off to near record levels in summer.

Any takers?

[Nematocyst]

It's a guilt/ascetism cult.

Just for the record, I hold no guilt.

I've often found that assertions about "guilt" are often projections.

Ascetism:

describes a life-style characterized by abstinence from various sorts of worldly pleasures (especially sexual ...)

You're joking, right?

[MicroBalrog]

Obviously I didn't mean environmentalists want us to have less sex.

But the essence of my claim is twofold:

1. There is a difference, in my mind, between preserving nature so our descendants may enjoy its resources, or for reasons of out own safety - and between preserving nature for nature's sake. One of these things I find an excellent and wise proposition, and the other - deeply creepy. Unfortunately, the conservation/environmentalist movement these days seems to be more and more dominated by the latter.

2. While there are in theory many solutions to global warming, the main way to reduce our carbon emissions - and probably the only viable one if we want to reduce them by a major fraction at the current technology level - is to consume less.

Coincidentally, a lot of people who take a ride on this are people who, for previous ideological or cultural reasons, dislike Western consumerism. Leftists, for example, have attacked Western consumerism since at least Thorstein Weblen.

Therefore an equilibrium has been forged wherein the theory global warming is attacked (or defended) not based on its actual science (which is too arcane for most nonspecialists to comprehend), but based on the debaters' opinion on Western capitalism and the consumerism that drives it.

On both sides, too.

[Nematocyst]

Therefore an equilibrium has been forged wherein the theory [of] global warming is attacked (or defended) not based on its actual science (which is too arcane for most nonspecialists to comprehend), but based on the debaters' opinion on Western capitalism and the consumerism that drives it.

Two points.

1) The theory is NOT too arcane for nonspecialists to comprehend. People with zero science background can understand it.
The keys are effective, patient teachers; the right kind of science; and people who really want to understand it.

2) Your response explains why I totally refuse to be involved with politics.
Science alone = good = advances our understanding of things.
Science + politics = the stupidest bucket of crap in the universe.