Scientists now worry about a new ice age
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=173378
Printed Date: 02 February 2026 at 3:57am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Scientists now worry about a new ice age
Posted By: WGP guy2
Subject: Scientists now worry about a new ice age
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 10:29am
Odd source yes, but interesting nonetheless. |
The Sun Also SetsReplies:
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 10:55am
|
They're wrong of course, we're completely responsible for a warming of the planet that will completely drown all the polar bears if we don't all start switching to bio-fuels or start biking to work every day. Come on you nay-sayer, you're blind to the facts that an upstanding scientist like Al Gore makes so clear in his ground breaking documentary. |
Posted By: obnoxious
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 11:06am
Calling Susan_Storm, calling Susan Storm! ------------- 
|
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 11:10am
|
does this mean they will stop forcing me to use crappy gas? ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: xXK1CK1NVV1NGXx
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 12:40pm
|
Meh, I am not to worried about it, I figure I will be dead before anything bad actually happens.
------------- <Sig violation, Section 1> |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 12:48pm
|
Global warming isn't "warming". It's the extremes of both spectrums of temperature; extreme weather.  ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 1:25pm
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: ¤ Råp¡Ð F¡rè ¤
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 1:45pm
I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty exciting. I'm kinda pumped up for it. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 1:51pm
Actually, close, but no cigar. The term global warming was actually originally coined to coincide with the original thoughts of dramatic and un-controlled warming brought on by the greenhouse effect. Regardless of whether it still gets 'cold' each year, the constant factor that is needed to truly back up the scientifically accepted theory of global warming is that the average temperature per year rises. An even extreme in temperatures wouldn't allow that to happen as they would continue to cancel each other out through averaging. Hence the fact that the scientific community has started using the word "Climate Change" as we are seeing not a simple increase in temperatures world-wide, but complete pattern changes that are wreaking havoc on other areas. It's snowing in the low-lands of the middle east which is amazing due to not only the temperature change, but the fact that there is precipitation in the freaking desert! Meanwhile the mid-Atlantic is having one of the mildest winters in years and the South East is seeing thunderstorms in February. The results of this change are far more in line with the pole-shift theories that scientists have had for over 150 years, way more so than with the original greenhouse effect / global warming predictions. However, the poles aren't shifting as the magnetic declination is still in it's proper alignment. If you look at the scientific community they can't agree that "Global Warming" is happening, but even the nay-sayers can agree that "Climate Change" is taking effect right before our eyes. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 2:14pm
|
There is a much higher chance of us killing ourselves than bad weather doing the deed. Execpt for TKD. ------------- 
|
Posted By: .357 Magnum
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 2:49pm
|
Bout damn time I get some good weather for ice fishing...
------------- 
|
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 3:03pm
|
Biofuels suck and are worse than gasoline apparently: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004171188_ethanol08.html - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004171188 _ethanol08.html
------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 3:09pm
Got to that word, stopped reading. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mehs
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 3:11pm
I stopped at WGP guy2. ------------- [IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg"> Squeeze Box ☣ |
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 3:37pm
Ah, I get it. If someone isn't reaffirming your belief, then you don't care enough to listen to them. |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 3:51pm
The insertion of an author's or media company's bias is poor journalism, and does not deserve to be taken with anything more than a grain of salt. ------------- 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 4:53pm
|
Proven marketing techniques, "The Sky is Falling" works a lot better than the "we have to research and solve a problem" approach. Gore screams "global warming" but is in the "carbon credit" market, raises a question. Scientists to justify thier grants (and lifestyle) must follow the money over true science. "Martian Warming" and a melting of the Martian icecaps is a scientific fact also, now without humans and SUV's on Mars, how is that happening? Martian atmosphere is @90% CO2 yet no appreciable "greenhouse effect". So think there is a natural relationship between "Martian Warming" and that great heat tab in the sky?
I remmember the 70's and the "New Ice Age" as well as the beginnings of the "Earthday" movement, now a total reversal. Follow the money...Follow the money.... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 5:13pm
Isn't that when scientists were proposing that we spread the ashes from factories onto the icecaps to attract heat and help melt some of the ice? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 5:17pm
|
Yep, the therory was that we needed to heat up the planet to maintain the balance, and keep the ice caps from expanding. Expanding icecaps would speed up the "New Ice Age". -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 5:42pm
|
Damn scientists never get anything right...
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 6:18pm
I don't read news from biased sources. Sorry. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 6:21pm
Wait, no WaPo? no NYT? Wow man.... ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 6:26pm
I don't subscribe to the tin-foil hat theory that every major paper is a biased spin machine. What WGP posted was an editorial disguised as a news story. I will pass. -------------
|
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 6:38pm
| So you would consider the Wallstreet Journal just as good of a source as the NYT? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 6:39pm
|
So we are to understand all your information sources have or show no bias? Isn't journalism, reporting facts from the point of view of the reporter, hense for all intents and purposes, biased?
The New York Times and the Washington Times will report on the same story, and if differant reporters for each paper cover the story, there will more than likely be a bias of some sort. We are to dependant on the major wire services and single, yes, dare I say it, bias. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 7:05pm
Yes. Granted the WSJ is more business oriented, topic wise. Murdoch has not tightened his evil little fingers on the throats of their editors quite yet. Give it some time though... -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 7:10pm
Depends on what you are considering the point of view. If you mean ideological views, then absolutely not. The only sin worse than fabrication is injecting bias, in my world.
Not the best example. The Washington Times was created to be a biased source. -------------
|
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 7:11pm
So then this statement from the WSJ is valid?
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 7:20pm
I am pretty sure that is an opinion piece, not a news article. I do not have an online subscription so I cannot check it, but correct me if I am wrong. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 7:29pm
|
Isn't reporting today more of an ideologocal exercise more than reporting events. I do believe the Edward R Murrow days and pre-68 Cronkite days are long over. The infotainment format over pure news is the norm rather than the exception, infotainment requires an emotional content for it's appeal.
No matter what major newspaper and even our local rag has a very decernable bias on many social issue stories. Hard news, world events etc not so much, but the LJS here in Lincoln is well known for its bias slant, and they can not understand why its subscription numbers are tanking. USA Today, MSNBC, CBS, FOX, NYT, LAT, WP, WT, all have some form of a bias, nature of the beast, humans are writing them. -------------
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 7:42pm
|
MBD what's an unbiased news source?
Is there a secret journalist decoder ring that points to the only few Unspoiled ones? Since newspaper is a business. And reporters, editors, photograpers and the like all get paid. How do you choose wich article gets on the paper? You dont go by "sales" Is your college paper even sold or handed out at the library and cafeteria? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 7:49pm
1) Not at all. 2) You are not alone. However, there are many people out there working hard to reverse that mindset. 3) Agreed. 4) If you are highly ideologisized (I made that word up), you are going to go into any source of news that covers something you might find unfavorable thinking that they have a bias. 5) Subscription numbers are dropping for many, many other reasons. Trust me on this one, as an insider. 6) Not really. A well trained journalist can write without a bias, believe it or not. While I share the same disdain over TV News Networks as you do, I think that people who claim bias from the major national newspapers don't actually read them. That, or they are simply repeating what they hear from others without actually looking into it on their own. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 7:56pm
1) Most are, sadly. This is not a good thing, and there are a few who get by without it. Good examples are the New York Times and The Saint Petersburg Times. They are owned by the Poynter Institute, a non-profit resource organization. They don't have to worry about profit margins, which helps them make more ethical decisions. 2) I can only speak for the paper I work for, but we have a meeting and decide what is most important. 3) We have about 150 news stands, both on campus and in the east Orlando area. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 8:05pm
|
I am thinking of taking Intro to Journalism as an elective here next quarter. Just to get some inside information from the instruction given. You can not believe the difference between the Lincoln and Omaha papers, and I just shake my head and read the NYT for my primary breakfast reading. -------------
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 8:15pm
1) It will probably be a very dirt basic reporting class, which is good. The fundamentals: how the write an inverted triangle, how to find sources, different kinds of news-worthiness. 2) When it comes down to it, even through all the accusations of bias, the NYT is still considered the most trustworthy news source in America. Part of it is the genetics of the paper itself. It has been around for 157 years. That is a lot of reputation to live up to. -------------
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 8:26pm
|
Back on point - The sun affects climate? Shocking. Who would ever have thought such a thing? I am sure that NONE of the other climatologists in the world have considered the effects of the sun when researching climate change. Clearly we are now going to have to throw out all existing research, now that we have discovered that the sun impacts the climate on Earth. I am sure glad somebody brought this to our attention. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 8:52pm
No problem Hippy. Now you can go back to saving the whales ;) -------------
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 9:01pm
Actually, the Al Gore crowd has notoriously avoided the sun in predicting climate change. In fact when everyone was predicting a normal winter last year, scientists at institutes such as the Max Planck Institute for Solar System research were predicting a warm winter with a sharp drop in temperatures near the end of the season using the Sun, which was what happened. But by and large, the doomsday climate models aren't factoring the sun in on their assessments of climate change. I never heard a single utterance of the Sun's role in climate in Gore's movie. Everyone has been focusing on CO2 and, to a lesser extent, Methane and SO2. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 9:21pm
|
Huh? Listen - Al Gore =/= the science consensus. Just because it didn't make Al's movie doesn't mean that the scientists aren't looking at it. I don't have my IPCC report handy, but I am pretty sure solar cycles are specifically mentioned. But a quick visit to Google gave me this study from 1992, published in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6402/abs/360328a0.html - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6402/abs/360328a0 .html I only read the abstract, but it appears to address the relationship between solar cycles and greenhouse gasses in connection with climate change. And there are others. If you honestly think that "Al Gore's crowd" doesn't know about solar cycles, then you haven't been paying attention. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 9:22pm
|
Whales? Screw the whales. Stupid Greenpeace with their whales and baby seals. Kill'em all, I say. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 10:15pm
Helps if you actually read my post before responding to it. :) No where did I mention climatologists, I was talking about the crowd who politicize climate change and turn it from science to drama, hence the label "Al Gore Crowd". Although, I'll grant you unless you were considering my previous history of posting, it would be easy to miss that my criticisms are directed at those who misuse the science to back their own agendas. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 10:25pm
So, if you'd been a bit older in the mid 80's during the "Save the Whales" and "No more nukes" campaigns, you'd have just said "Nuke the whales?" 
MBD, have you read Drew Curtis' book? It's worth picking up. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 10:45pm
|
They were talking about a new ice age back in the 70's.... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Man Bites Dog
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 10:49pm
We have covered this already. Scientists are constantly finding and updating their ideas due to constant testings and readings of data. -------------
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 11:02pm
Yeah, sorry. I just got done reading the whole thread, didn't figure OS would be here to mention that. If there's a new ice age, it'll be sweet. Snowboarding all year long = win. It was -30 windchill at the hill today though, sucked working. -------------
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 10 February 2008 at 11:38pm
|
Ah. My bad. Kind of. But you are assuming there IS some other agenda. I'm sure some people have personal motivations, but most people in the climatology business are ... climatologists. The criticisms of climate change generally goes far beyond "the Gore crowd" to attack the scientists directly, mostly with ignorant attacks like this article. This was not an attack on Gore, but an attack on the underlying science. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 11 February 2008 at 12:45am
The ones that agree with his personal opinions. Edited Note; He's wrong of course; the truly unbiased sources agree with me. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 11 February 2008 at 11:16am
|
Ok - My quick review of the IPCC report does not show specific mention of solar CYCLES, but it does reference natural solar radiation generally. Found in http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_topic2.pdf - Topic 2 . There is even a nifty chart showing relative contributions.
------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 11 February 2008 at 11:22am
|
Sounds like an engine block heater might be a good idea anyway. If the world starts going crazy and Florida gets cold, I shall be prepared! ------------- 
|
Posted By: FlimFlam
Date Posted: 11 February 2008 at 1:28pm
And the Hippo's too... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 11 February 2008 at 7:00pm
Yes, they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell! ... -------------
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 11 February 2008 at 9:56pm
|
Hippo vs. Whale deathmatch is in order, I believe. Survival of the fittest! ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 11 February 2008 at 11:26pm
|
Whale does taste like chicken, KFC could make a fortune with Popcorn Whale Nuggets, Extra Crispy. -------------
|
Posted By: Susan Storm
Date Posted: 11 February 2008 at 11:48pm
|
Whale doesn't taste like chicken... Chicken tastes boring. Whale does not taste boring. ------------- "No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 11 February 2008 at 11:50pm
While I despice the kind of Hippies that Protect Wales. I really have a dislike for Hippos so i'd have to side with the Whale. Ask ShortyBP about my Marine Corps Achievement Medal. -------------
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 12 February 2008 at 12:48am
|
mmmmmMMMMMmmmmmm... whale flank... All we need now is to find a fifty foot long grill and enough coal to light it all. -------------
|
Posted By: benttwig33
Date Posted: 12 February 2008 at 12:52am
Second ------------- Sig is WAY too big. |
Posted By: PaiNTbALLfReNzY
Date Posted: 12 February 2008 at 8:30am
| Earth has a fever |