Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 21-01-2008

A feast for both brains and eyes.

Thanks, Rick.

Quote of the Day:

The women’s movement of the 19th century grew out of a huge thrust for social change that gripped America like a fever between about 1830 and 1880. Scores of new ideas seized the popular consciousness and found huge, fanatical followings: utopianism, spiritualism, populism, vegetarianism, socialism, women’s suffrage, black emancipation, tax reform, mysticism, occultism, second adventism, temperance, transcendentalism. People dipped into these social possibilities as if pulling sweets from a bag. One group, styling itself the Nothingarians, rallied behind the cry ‘No God, no government, no marriage, no money, no meat, no tobacco, no sabbath, no skirts, no church, no war and no slaves!”

Never before or since, in short, has there been a more confused and bewildering age. To read on one hand the New York Times castigating women for saying ‘what a cunning hat’ and on the other hand to read Angela Heywood publicly arguing for the right to say ‘fuck’, it is all but impossible to believe that we are dealing with the same people in the same country in the same century.

Bill Bryson, in Sex and Other Distractions

  1. Ice Melts. ‘Magine that.
    Another perspective below. You know, cause getting all sides is really important.

    Manmade Antarctic Melting, Indeed
    Thursday, January 17, 2008
    By Steven Milloy

    A new study, much hyped by the media, blames humans for escalating ice loss in Antarctica. The media, however, seems to have no idea as to how truly manmade the supposed ice loss may be.

    “Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica; Sheets Melting in an Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming” was the Washington Post’s front-page, above-the-fold headline last Monday (Jan. 14). The headline for the continuation of the article was “Antarctic Ice Loss Could Speed Rise in Ocean Levels.”

    If true, it would be quite a worrisome situation given that Antarctica contains enough ice to raise ocean levels by about 60 meters, a deluge that would put every major coastal city in the world deep under water and uproot hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.

    NASA scientist Eric Rignot reported in Nature Geoscience (Jan. 13) that increased melting had been detected in the ice sheets of western Antarctica, an area where surface temperatures have remained unchanged.

    As warming surface temperatures could not be blamed for the ice loss, Rignot hypothesized that the cause may be the flow of warmer waters from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that circles much of the continent. “Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes,” Rignot told the Post. “We believe it is related to [manmade global warming]”, he added.

    Rignot may indeed “believe” that humans are the cause – he is, after all, part of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization founded on the belief that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. But the facts belie such beliefs.

    First, standard climate alarmism claims that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are warming surface temperatures. But not only is such warming not being observed in Antarctica, it’s actually getting cooler in western Antarctica, according to surface temperature analysis from each of eight NASA stations located there.

    Rignot, of course, admits that standard climate alarmism can’t possibly explain the western Antarctic melting; that’s why he shifted to blaming man for the warmer Antarctic Circumpolar Current. But is this true?

    In an effort to support Rignot’s hypothesis, Columbia University’s Douglas Martinson told The Washington Post that “the [Antarctic Circumpolar Current”, which flows about 200 yards below the frigid surface water, began to warm significantly in the 1980s, and that warming in turn caused wind patterns to change in ways that ultimately brought more warm water to shore.”

    But Martinson also admitted to the Post that there is not enough data to say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming. Truth be told, there is good reason to question Martinson’s assertion about the temperature trend, let alone its hypothetical cause.

    According to World Climate Report, a 2007 study by University of Washington researchers reported that, although there is much interest among scientists in ocean temperature, “below-surface ocean temperature data are sparse, and the existing data sets involve substantial ‘interpolation, extrapolation, and averaging’ that may compromise the integrity of results from such data sets.”

    Adding to the mix is the most recent IPCC report, which says that the upper ocean adjacent to west Antarctica warmed by 1 degree Celsius from 1951 to 1994. But global surface temperatures actually declined from 1940 to 1976, even as manmade emissions of carbon dioxide dramatically increased.
    The bottom line is there is no established linkage between manmade emissions of greenhouse gases and any melting in the western Antarctic.

    But then, is there even any net ice loss in the western Antarctic to begin with?

    While Rignot did use satellite observations of Antarctica’s coastline to estimate melting, he compared this real-life data to computer model estimates of Antarctic interior snow accumulation. So the western Antarctic appears to losing mass only when compared to computer models that, when it comes to global climate, are of questionable relevance to the real world.

    At JunkScience.com, we label these sorts of computer modeling exercises as “PlayStation® climatology.”

    Even if you put faith in climate models, Rignot’s don’t seem to agree with those of the IPCC, which stated in its most recent assessment, “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”

    Finally, according to NOAA data presented on the web site of Bill Chapman of the Polar Research Group at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign), the global level of sea ice has reached about the same level as it was at in 2003. The current change in global sea ice coverage is a positive 1 million square kilometers — that is, a gain of 1.8 million square kilometers in the Southern Hemisphere netted against a loss of 800,000 square kilometers in the Northern Hemisphere.

    It’s quite possible that the reported Antarctic melting is manmade — but the “man” may be Eric Rignot, as opposed to the term’s broader connotation.

    – JunkScience.com

      1. We knew that
        Rick put a link to that story some weeks ago, Anon. Kat has done it too today… in case you didn’t notice.

        What’s interesting here is, if the ice caps are not really melting, then why is Canada, Norway, Russia and the US so desperate to control the northern passages that are opening in the Arctic pole and that are now feasible to exploit as maritime trade routes? Seems everyone wants a piece of the Pole, in a race the likes of which the world hadn’t seen since the end of colonialism.

        Of course, that’s the Arctic, while what you’ve been commenting on is the Antarctic. I agree more research is needed.

        —–
        It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
        It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

        Red Pill Junkie

        1. Maybe
          [quote]if the ice caps are not really melting[/quote]

          They melt all the time. To one degree or another. The issue is about people taking advantage of natural cycles and processes, attributing human fault to them, and trying to impose politcal agendas based on that.

          Humans taking advantage of availabe resources? Just like all animals, it’s the natural thing to do.

          1. Ok, we agree then
            The ice caps are melting in the Arctic, probably because of a natural cycle. Although we shouldn’t discard the possibility that something anomalous and out of the ordinary natural processes could be the cause -including a new unobserved natural phenomenon… or even an anthropogenic contribution.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          2. Or even a NON-anthropogenic contribution
            [quote=red pill junkie]The ice caps are melting in the Arctic, probably because of a natural cycle. Although we shouldn’t discard the possibility that something anomalous and out of the ordinary natural processes could be the cause -including a new unobserved natural phenomenon… or even an anthropogenic contribution.
            [/quote]

            Of course not. We should just prove things before declaring them as unassailable fact. I know that’s an unreasonable standard for many people though.

          3. Of course
            the problem is that we live in an age when people don’t agree on what exactly considers valid proof of something. People see what they want to see, and objectivity seems unattainable.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          4. Standards
            That’s because the people driving the bus are not objective scientists. They are politicians, activists and well-intentioned but useful idiots. Proof, as seen in the eyes of scientific standards, has a pretty consistent definition.

          5. Oh?
            But I thought we weren’t talking about common folks, but about scientists. You have a batch of scientists on one side who side with the man-made cause of GW, and on the other you have scientists who reject it. How do we reconcile that? (leaving behind the conspiratory idea that the scientists are being paid by a secret group following a definite agenda)

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          6. Who?
            I’d love to talk about scientists. Unfortunately, the waters have been clouded by a bunch of political non-scientists. Who is the biggest individual proponent of GW? Al Gore. A man so incredibly stupid he didn’t recognize the busts of his own country’s founding fathers as he toured the home of one of them! Last I checked, Al Gore is not a PhD in any discipline. Who’s the next largest proponent? The U.N. and the IPCC. The former is a political organization more concerned with redistributing wealth (especially to it’s own high rankinig officials) than stopping genocide. The latter is a hand-picked group of political activists, who in turn picked the actual scientists, research and studies that fit the already established goal of the group – pushing the concept of man-caused global warming (since changed to “global climate change”, since that better describes what happens every minute of every day anyway, thus can’t really be argued against).

            Here’s some quick reading about the wonderful and highly credible IPCC:
            http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=0ea8dc23-ad1a-440f-a8dd-1e3ff42df34f&p=2

          7. thanks for the link.
            But once again we have covered these topics before. The last time I checked some of the scientists members of the IPCC (the mexican ones) their credentials were pretty irrefutable. I even gave some of their e-mail accounts to our friend earthling, who wanted to ask if they could send him the actual computer model and/or data in which they made their conclusions. I do not know if he ever tried to make contact with any of them.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          8. Appearances
            Even a broken clock may have a gear or two still spinning.

            BTW, replying with “well, they have a couple of good Mexican scientists” isn’t the strongest counter-arguement I’ve ever heard. LOL 🙂

          9. Now now…
            It wasn’t a counter-argument, my dear Anon. Not everybody sees discussions as intellectual battles like you do 🙂

            It was a mere attempt to point out that, from what I investigated, SOME of these scientists are very well respected in their fields, they make serious research, and they don’t follow an agenda (if they were that interested in making money, they would work in the private sector instead of the National University, you should see the classrooms they have over there!) It was a mere sampling I did of the kind of people that formed the IPCC. Scientists also do that sort of thing when analysing a population: they focus on samples instead of spending years studying every single one of them.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          10. Agreement
            I was agreeing with you. But at the same time pointing out that “some” scientists don’t mean squat in the final analysis. The point was that, on the whole, the IPCC is a group of political hacks. Jumping through hoops to find a couple of exceptions is avoiding that point. Your examples of the mexican scientists are not a “sample”. They were selections.

          11. Let’s try this
            Before this colums becomes to narrow 🙂

            All right, let’s say that we agree that the ice caps are indeed melting. Could be a natural cycle, could be man-made, could be a contribution of both factors, like the last drop that spills a glass that was slowly filling on its own. We just don’t know and more studies and studies on top of those studies should be conducted.

            But those are interpretations over a fact that remains: the ice is melting, and the sea leves should rise as a consequence.

            What do we do, then?

            On a side note, I detect that you keep coming back to a certain… let’s say resentment for lack of a better word, against the UN, for being a political organization that (some say) have the clear agenda of putting in effect a re-distribution of the wealth of the rich nations among the poorer developing countries. Now personally I do not see this, although I agree that right now the UN is more of a diplomatic ring-circus than a true tool that could bring real change to the lives of millions of human beings world-wide; regardless, I think we could agree that, instead of a re-distribution of wealth, what the world definitely needs is a re-distribution of OPPORTUNITIES.

            What I mean by this is that, people in these countries (like me for example) should have the right to the same opportunities of education and job based on my personal skills and willingness to develop my true potential, without the need to leave my own country to become an immigrant where people might resent me and feel I’m taking money from their pockets or jobs deserved by their children.

            Can we agree on that? Not re-distribution of wealth, but a re-distribution of opportunities, therefore the wealth shall be more homogeneously distributed in a gradual progress all on its own, without the need of enforcements, donations or sanctions.
            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          12. Yikes!
            I do agree with that. But you better be careful….someone’s going to accuse you of being *gasp a conservative!

          13. no sweat
            I’ve been called worse 🙂

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          14. IPCC Fraud
            Hi RPJ,

            We’ve been led to believe that 1500 scientists endorsed the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. From Inhofe Debunks So-Called ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee stated …..

            According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported:
            “Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species.”
            Many of the so-called “hundreds” of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as “expert reviewers” are in fact climate skeptics. Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC “expert reviewers” but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers.

            Perhaps you should email your Mexican IPCC representatives to see if they were misrepresented. Let us know what they say.

            Bill

            ************

            Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world.
            Thomas Carlyle

          15. Hi Bill
            This news you are including is of course troubling, and I admit that in this topic I, like Anthony try to remain as open to both sides of the argument as possible. Nevertheless I still think we are witnessing the beginning of worrysome climatic processes that will affect several aspects of our society in ways we can scarcely imagine now.

            Let me see if I can send an e-mail to some of those mexican scientists I mentioned once. It may take me a couple of days so you guys be patient ok?

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          16. Lipstick on a Pig
            Hi RPJ,

            Sure, I’ll wait. The answer is for your peace of mind, not mine. But any way you cut it, 52-scientists certainly isn’t 1500-scientists. The UN has an agenda; they knew the answer before they started. These are the same folks that brought us the Sadam Food-for-Oil Scam. Put lipstick on a pig – it’s still a pig.

            This should cheer you up. Follow the cycle.

            June, 1974 – Another Ice Age?

            March, 2006 – Global Warming Heats Up

            March, 2007 – On the Front Lines of Climate Change

            January 2008: Global Cooling Soon to Replace Global Warming

            Bill

            ************

            Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world.
            Thomas Carlyle

          17. Change
            Regardless if we are seeing climate change that will be catostrophic or not, if it’s a natural process, which it is (in my humble opinion) there is NOTHING we can do about it. Only human arrogance assumes it can control planetary (and solar) forces.

          18. measurement and control
            There are some simple principles here, if we are trying to optimize any system:

            (1) you have to measure what is going on, accurately enough
            (2) you have to control what changes the system, accurately enough,
            (3) you have to do the controlling fast enough, compared to your measurements.

            I say that in the climate change area, we have none of these.
            Certainly we do not have (2) or (3).

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          19. principles
            Not even (1)?

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          20. perhaps
            perhaps we have (1), but i’m not so sure. (1) for me includes why this is happening, not just that it is happening.

            That things are melting is obvious, we can measure that. That the sea level is rising in some other places is also measurable, but we are talking about millimeters. That can have many reasons.

            But hey, suppose we have (1). Than what, we don’t have (2), nor do we have (3). So a strategy to fix things at this point is basically panic.

            Not that I have another solution, I just don’t recommend panic.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          21. Not good enough
            People panic when you announce that a big change is coming and you don’t have the means to stop it. That’s what some people think is behind the UFO secrecy by the establishment BTW.

            I think the first think we need to do is begin to appreciate drinking water as what it really is: a non-renewable valuable commodity. We have to take the necessary measures to use our drinking water more efficiently and conserve what reseres we still have. We also need to develop cost-effective methods to convert sea water into drinking water, or at least good enough for irrigation. These technologies should be portable enough to export to all developing countries.

            Second would be to try to see what are the coastal areas at more risk because of the rising sea levels and either relocate those populations, or take the possible steps to protect those areas with our available technology.

            Third would be to develop new farming techniques and enginner crops able to adapt to the new climatic conditions.

            Something like that should be done. And i should be done FAST

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          22. harmless things shoud be done
            There are many things that can only help,and cannot hurt.

            Yes we should do these things.

            BUT this does not mean that we know what to do.

            We do not know what to do. We do not know how to fix the problem.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          23. It’s kinda like
            It’s kinda like a shrinking column. You gotta act quick. Ask, if something could be happening, what can we do to negate the effects? But in such a way that we don’t disrupt the world if it isn’t.
            It requires both sides working in unison instead of arguing, and finding courses of action. It isn’t rocket science.
            I don’t think I’ve room for a by-line.

            I don’t think I’ve room for a by-line

            Anthony North

          24. Exactly
            We don’t have the time (or space) to tarry. The longer we wait the more difficult it will become to minimize the outcomes (I’m not talking about fixing the problem eithr earthling, we cannot fix or preven earthquakes, but that’s no reason not to be ready in case you live in a seismic area)

            The clock is ticking.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          25. Fixed, sort of
            I have reduced the indent margin back to virtually nothing, so that the nesting does not travel to the right. I tried to implement a minimum width, but Internet Explorer (as is usual) doesn’t conform to standards and so makes it unworkable. The moral of the story is: if you own IE, delete that abomination and help web developers by running a real browser.

            You should be able to just see the indenting, to help see the threading. I don’t think it will cause any major problems as is. Of course, if it starts getting thin, it might be worth just starting a new thread for the conversation? Didn’t think that was an overly difficult thing to do.

            *crawling back to my sick bed*

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          26. Agreed
            We cannot control our planet yet. But I was referring to the possible measures we could take to diminish the impact of said changes on the social groups likely to be more affected by them.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

  2. Bigfoot Hunt
    I find it fascinating that his inspiration comes from the cheesy film “The Legend of Boggy Creek”. I remember seeing that film when I was about the same age, and I remember being afraid to go to the bathroom. This despite the fact that the bathroom was on the second floor in the middle of a urban centre! Young minds are so impressionable!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal