Numerous cretins have pushed a bunch of screed of Al Gore.

You have all read it here and on various right-wing-nut-hole blogs and web sites.

What do REAL scientists think?

Here is an interview with a couple:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20060706_goremoviefaq.html

"Quotes like this are helpful if the context of time is included! "

Two weeks ago (~ August 1, 2008) while touring Alaska's Arctic shores with homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff.

I'm not sure you understand what the term "theory" means in science. As pointed out there is a theory of gravity also, yet we know gravity is very real. A scientific theory is a comprehensive set of tested hypotheses that have explanatory power with respect to observed phenomena. Generally, we want our theories to be mechanistic as well.

The common use of the word theory is more like what a scientist would call a "notion" or " mere speculation." There is nothing wrong with it, but it is not science - and it isn't publishable either. You can toss it out to a bunch of grad. students and that is about the only use.

Second: The span of time that we have been tracking temperatures extends back (via ice cores and other types of data) for many many thousands of years. That is still just a blink in Earth history (unless you don't believe in another theory, Evolution, and instead believe the crazy man who said Earth was only 6,000 years old).

The real question is whether the span of time that we have been tracking temperatures is adequate to test our theories of climate change and what is motivating the extraordinarily rapid, and apparently very dangerous, warming we see today. The answer appears to be yes.

Now, one wouldn't dare suggest that there is money to be made by not adjusting to global warming conditions........?
That would imply corruption and dishonesty I'd guess.

The NSIDC is the University of Colorado Boulder. Home of Ward Churchill. Left-wing nut hole.

the real money being made is by those oil/coal/etc. companies who are supplying our demand for fossil fuels, the very likely cause of the warming we see.

it would be much better if they were to begin making solar cells -- and a couple have moved in that direction.

I think that is a very charitable assessment of Prof. Churchill. However, your comment is completely irrelevant. Liberal Arts faculty - particularly disgraced ones - have nothing to do with the work of scientists.

Indeed, most liberal arts faculty stay far away from teh "science side of campus"

You are also mistaken about NSIDC. It is not the Univ. of Colo., which I assume was just a typo. It is not even an academic dept. there. It is part of NOAA and NASA and is lodged on the CU campus, where a plentiful supply of worker bees (graduate students and post-docs) can be found.

Now, lets try and stay on on topic.

I was simply showing you how much fun it is to play discredit the message by attacking the messenger.

Academic research depends on getting grants. I imagine that it's easier to obtain a grant that supports "global warming" than it is to obtain one that challenges it. Which is why skeptics depend on funding from the private sector. And that research is discredited here because it's "paid for by big oil".

"I imagine that it's easier to obtain a grant that supports "global warming" than it is to obtain one that challenges it."


Do you have any experience with any of the peer reviewed grant processes?

what he asked

at lot of people spout off about "science" and have no real experience as to what is truly involved.

yeh guys - I'll triple that.

Besides, as an agency, there will be a mix of 'hard' funding and internal, competitive grants. At least that is how things work for the folks I know in various agency positions.

Yes. DARPA, DOE, SBC.

When going for a grant, you'll be more successful if you follow the fashion trends.

As opposed to a left wing, stick our heads up our asses and chant the mantra of Algore approach.

Just curious Mule. If the data you're presenting is factual why is it the Coast Guard is going to Congress with a request for funds to build a base near Barrow? Is it possible it just might have something to do with shipping north of the north slope. Of course not...I didn't think so. Opps, did you hear that? Must be those black helicopters again. Gotta run...see ya later fool.

Yep. If we'd just go back to living in huts & cooking with a buffalo dung fire, life would be grand!.

Notice the link says Algore movie? That means lie.

Oops guys, looks like Rearden just shut ya'll down.

Dude, I'm just a dumb ass who cuts & pastes. I would expect you big brain lefties to answer hard questions like that, as opposed to imagining your own answer and posting like it's real.

Back on topic!

Here's a graph from the Aug. 11, 2008 report from the NSIDC site RWebb posted previously:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1219039936.jpg

According to this, the extent of Arctic sea ice is greater than last year, but still less than the average of '79 through '00.

Here's an excerpt from this link: http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

So, the melt this year might be greater than last year, but it appears there is and will be more ice this year . . . so far.

As someone stated previously, there's just not enough data to get enough resolution to make any conclusive statements and still far from enough data to pin these "cycles" on humans . . . and still no consensus.

FWIW, according to the NSIDC, Antarctic sea ice is actually trending towards expansion by a small amount:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1219040680.jpg

Looks like "we" have an excellent picture of what is happening, a fairly poor picture of what has happened over long periods of time and just extrapolation and "trends" to see what may happen in the future. Then, on top of this, "we" are left with an array of possible causes for what is happening.

The scientific community remains divided with the "faithful" at both extremes.

FWIW.

2¢ worth from a non-climatologist!

Best,

The arrogant tone of your post would seem to indicate you assume I don't have any scientific training or education...interesting. I won't bite at that for now.

I'll simply ask - did you learn at some point what an unproven theory or hypothesis about future events means compared to a theory set pertaining to current, demonstrable, simple physical properties of matter? If you possess the knowledge that your tone would seem to suggest, I imagine that you do, and also why using gravitational theory as an objection is rather silly.

Global climate change is an eons-long process. The data sets needed to truly evaluate what constitutes a blip versus a true, long-term trend cannot be obtained because our cocky species just hasn't been around long enough to directly assess it. We can draw, at best, indirect and shaky information from core samples and the like.

Could we be experiencing global warming, in terms of a multi-millennia process? Sure, maybe. Or could we be experiencing global cooling, or a relatively stable trend? We truly don't know.

But, given the scientific knowledge that the tone of your response to me indicates you have, I think you are aware of these things. Assuming the global warming theory (unproven, and currently unprovable) doesn't help support other agendas you possess.