Who woulda thunk it, the climate changes on its own without interference from man, what you mean like it has been doing since year 0? That cant be!!! Think of the children!!!
British and international boffins, having probed an Antarctic glacier which is thought to be a major cause of rising sea levels worldwide, report that increased polar ice melting may not be driven by climate change. The 'Autosub' battery-powered undersea research robot - Pic: BNOC Southampton The latest in scientific bottom- …
Who woulda thunk it, the climate changes on its own without interference from man, what you mean like it has been doing since year 0? That cant be!!! Think of the children!!!
What is said is that we have heightened the problem.
Is this the Sun newspaper? Should an article really loose all credibility in the first sentence with the author essentially admiring he is not versed in science and a regurgitating a press release.
Almost no journalists are qualified climate scientists, so we should report no climate science.
I can't imagine many are doctors, so obviously we should stop reporting health stories.
And so on.
And so on.
Judging by your reply one could suggest you've been reading the Sun far too much ...
Should a commentard really lose all credibility in the second sentence with the author essentially demonstrating he is not well versed in English?
Why, yes he should. Even a Yank knows the difference between "loose" (not rigidly fastened or securely latched) and "lose" (fail to keep or maintain). Away with thee!
Most of them aren't & often use the wrong word as do Australians. The words greivous & mischievous are 2 words commonly misread as greivious & mischievious but the second two are wrong. One more for the road is obstreporous as opposed to obstropoulous which doesn't exist.
Lose is to lose something whereas loose is something that is loose like a knot that isn't tight. Credibility is lost really quickly by poor grammar & spelling.
Rex, what are you on? Really, what goes on in your head?
I have never heard or read any of greivious, mischievious or obstropoulous in all my days. You can't just start making up misspelled or mispronounced words in order to support a nonexistent argument. What is your argument anyway?
Mankind has a tendency towards Drama. One can witness this in newspaper headlines the world over, and also in Scientists' reports. Scientists tend to grasp at the most dramatic potential outcome of their research, and they can cling to it in the face of other potentially less dramatic conclusions.
"World about to die due to CO2-based Warming!" sounds so much more satifsying than "Ice melting quicker due to natural ice/earth movements!"
We all do it.
In fact, "Mankind doomed to die due to universal tendency to be dramatic"
There you go.
In fact most scientists reports downplay the drama of their discoveries usually citing the need for more evidence of further studies. Unfortuantely politicians and the press like to go for unambiguous interpretations of results and push more dramtic conclusions.
elreg posts any and all articles that in any way at all cast doubt on global-warming, and none that are in the other direction (and there are very many stories they could pick). It's the worst type of confimation bias.....
...El Reg posts so many articles mocking climate change with very little substance that when they publish a decent report on a piece of proper science, everyone (both greenies and greenie-bashers) interprets it as greenie-bashing.
@DaWolf - Quite right. What we really need are MORE sources of news backing up the climate change theorem. There just aren't enough around these days.
This ain't the BBC chum...
MAY NOT. Which appear right at the front of the article. This implies a possibility that will require further investigation. Not a certainty. Seems a reasonable report of what the people were doing. Unless you know different.
Because the doom-sayers, scaremongers and profiteering thieves from this artificially induced mass hysteria don't have enough press coverage already?
Why should ElReg feel obliged to give voice to other opinions, when the opinions voiced from ElReg don't get one split second of consideration from the lobby of pseudo-scientists and their lackeys? Go back in your cave with your tinfoil hat, and wait for doom.
Sea levels rising... Yes, they do - just about every day, meters at a time.
It's called TIDE. And we dealt with it for millennia.
If we need to build more breakwater defences, we will.
What about using the money thrown away to fight the effects of "climate change" to - in fact - PREPARE for it, if it ever happens?
We didn't stop flying on the 1st January 2000 for fears to fall off the sky, we spent money to check the system were all Y2K compliant. Some were, some weren't and have been fixed. And we travelled safely on 1/1/2000.
Ancient far eastern philosophies teach to sum the strength of your enemy with yours to defeat him. It takes more than double the effort to counter his force *and* win with an overwhelming counterforce.
But hey, that would mean money diverted from the pseudo-scientist baccalaureates' lobby to burly builders and civil engineers, it would be a disgrace.
...well, that's the end of their funding then.
Oh, there is plenty of funding available for climate change deniers. Not that the truth matters to you guys, repeat a lie enough etc...
Who's showing bias here ?
Or fuck off.
The climate has been changing—as others have pointed out ad nauseam—SINCE THE EARTH FORMED.
Has humanity influenced the climate in recent years? Possibly. Maybe. Nobody's 100% certain, however, because NOBODY is 100% certain how the Earth's climate *works*. However, as pollution is also a result of *inefficient processes*, there are plenty of businesses and scientists working on how to make said processes more efficient. Because that sort of thing *saves businesses—and us—*money*. There are people on it already.
The real problem is that most of these scaremongers are primarily interested in "Climate STASIS"—maintaining our climate as-is, in perpetuity.
Got news for you: can't be done. At all. Not even close. We simply don't have anything like that level of understanding of all the climate processes involved, let alone how to change them. Fact. No, seriously: this is a FACT. Even the ecotastrophists admit it. (This article alone is proof that we're *still* discovering new stuff about the Earth's climate *right now*.)
Our species has survived full-on ice ages. We're famously adaptable. (Okay, some cities may need to be relocated, but these sea-level rises aren't going to happen overnight. We have *time*, people!)
BRAVO!!!! Have one on me!
If projected global warming was to result in a full 3 degree rise in temperatures in Antarctica, what would be the average temps there, and why would anyone be surprised that water still freezes at those temps, or that gosh, glaciers might actually still freeze at a summer sweltering -12C?
Global warming is, as the name implies, related to GLOBAL temperature rises. That's a GLOBAL average. Some areas, and the Poles certainly fall withing this category, experience greater than average warming (and conversely some areas experience less and may even cool realtively speaking).
So, just to belabour the point, a 3degree GLOBAL temperature rise does NOT imply that the temperature only rises by 3 degrees at the Pole.
This is why a clod winter in Europe does not disprove GLOBAL warming any more than a blistering summer proves it.
... if it isn't happening everywhere, then it isn't "global". Just a thought.
Not much of one. Do you understand the term 'average'?
The point is that there is much guff generated by the idea that the Antarctic glaciers may actually be growing despite claims of rising temperatures, something taken by many as a proof that such claims are false, without taking into account that the temps in Antartica have a long way to go while still remaining below freezing point. Easy sums indeed.
While I'm still open to being convinced either way on climate change, the bias of printing only anti-MMGW articles on El Reg is as bad as the BBC only printing pro-MMGW articles. Is is too much to ask for a bit of balance and both sides of the argument to be available on one site?
I am not a climate scientist (IANACS?) but ONE (and only one) of the things I find quite convincing in the 'pro' Global Warming camp is the fact that James Lovelock, who has never followed any crowd, is convinced and is concerned. That man knows his onions and although that would not in itself convince me (even bright people can be wrong, e.g. Einstein and Quantum Mechanics) it does dissuade me that this is just a conspiracy subscribed to by lazt people looking for easy funding.
Your mileage may vary.
The loon that came up with the semi-religious Gaia hypothesis? You trust him?? Okay - each to their own! (And yes, I have read his work in the original).
The Gaia hypothesis which is now largely accepted as a useful model for the inter-related nature of the biosphere? Yes, that's him.
There's nothing religious about the Gaia hypothesis; no god, no 'design', no 'higher power' - maybe you read but failed to understand?
That El Reg could show some balance? For each study saying "something not the fault of MMGW" a representative number of studies saying "something is the fault of MMGW". Scanning the pages of New Scientist or Nature shows the ratio is around 1:35, so where are the 35ish articles blaming MMGW?
I'm afraid that sort of lack of balance makes the coverage valueless - you can't argue that you're being skeptical by ignoring anything that disagrees with you. If you want to overcome the MMGW greeny brigade, you need to engage properly, show your evidence, share the theories, explain, talk and stop just cherry picking the odd article that goes against them (you'll note they all go "yep, scientific evidence, we're wrong on that", and then carry on working with the new information)
"you need to engage properly, show your evidence, share the theories, explain, talk and stop just cherry picking the odd article that goes against them"
<YAWN> If you don't like it mate...well...you know the rest.
Balance is every time the BBC talk to a doctor, having a homeopathy-fiend in the studio to say "that's all rubbish, what you need is some poison diluted 300,000,000 times". Balance is having a flat-earther on to argue with people from NASA. Balance is giving the same air-time to Nick Griffin that you give to an actual political party.
Where are you finding the one?
The OP was talking about New Scienctist and Nature, not the BBC. And although one could argue these are not the most hardcore scientific journals they are a damn site more scientific than "El Reg", whose predertimined bias is clear for anyone to see. Strangely you don't even realise that in your analogy the El Reg editorial policy is equivalent to only letting the homeopathy guy, flat earth guy and Nick Griffin speak.
And I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read so much "pseudo-science" baloney from posters who have absolutely no background in the area (or any scientific area it appears); yet are still determined to prove climate change is all untrue with some stupid analagy (tidal wave guy I'm looking at you). Kudus to the people who do try to argue clearly and succinctly, but you are fighting a battle that has already been lost.
If we knew all the facts we couldn't run around and panic like little kids or have polly trickans do it for us...more tax please nany state!
"The latest in scientific bottom-probing battery powered devices"
Drop the linux version drivel and keep up this sort of thing.
Once again, the Reg denial desk is in action. (I echo those who note that El Reg's climate stories are always on the denialist side — this isn't objective journalism, it's bias.) As I've said before, this is an incredibly complex system, of which our understanding is merely scratching the surface. In the current case, it might be useful to compare a similar outflow in Greenland, where it's been shown to be fed by a feedback loop — the more it melts, the more it melts and the faster the flow. Isn't it just possible that, even though geologic forces would have resulted in increased outflow sometime in the future, that event has been sped up human interaction with the environment?
...you dullard. Yes you, and all the other idiots in this thread screaming for BBC style balance.
Did you not read the article?? Or did you just wilfully ignore it because it didn't fit with AGW theories..??
In fact, don't answer, because I really don't care...
"t might be useful to compare a similar outflow in Greenland, where it's been shown to be fed by a feedback loop — the more it melts, the more it melts and the faster the flow."
Indeed, although it might not be useful because Greenland and the Antarctic are rather different in many ways. And, of course, while that is an interesting and worrying feedback loop, it says nothing as to root causes.
" Isn't it just possible that, even though geologic forces would have resulted in increased outflow sometime in the future, that event has been sped up human interaction with the environment?"
Of course it is. It is also possible that it has not been sped up by any appreciable or detectable amount by human interaction with the environment, or that is IS human interaction, but is not CO2 (the standout example is Kilimanjero, where the glacial retreat has been attributed to reduced precipitation due to the destruction of the rainforest at it's foot and on it's slopes).
It is more important to know what the hell is going on than to shout down anything that contradicts a theory (I think we can all agree that climate change is beyond a hypothesis now!)
Your theory is obviously that Global Warming is man-made.
This article highlights a study that has revealed one single case where IT MIGHT NOT be.
Emphasis on MIGHT.
And straight away, parrots like you are banging on about how it just might still be because of human interaction.
Who is showing bias ?
It would be hilarious to watch people like you accusing others of their own failings if the situation were not so potentially serious.
I don't think climate change has ever been rgarded as a hypothesis on these pages - most of us accept that climates change. They always have, and they always will. It changed in a big way about 12,000 years ago when the ice sheets retreated. There is no hypothesis about that. The issue is what - if anything - H.Sapiens has to do with it, and all the answers are definitely hypotheses. Personally, I look at the fact that climate change is something that has happened many times in the history of the Earth as a sign that it would happen anyway, H.sapiens may have made some difference, but it is likely to insignificant, and we should accept the fact that change is coming, and start adapting (which is what our species does very well). What climate change worriers want is a way to prevent any change whatsoever - and I cannot accept that sort of conservatism, and, it seems, neither can may of the people who comment here.
When I was at school, "scientific proof" involved rerunning the experiment from the same start point and getting the same results - ie heat water, get steam; put sodium in a water dish, get a mini fireworks display; burn magnesium, have bright spots dancing in front of your eyes for hours; sniff amonia, have a clear nose all day.
So how come "scientific proof" to the Climate Change lobby appears to mean "shout loudly, and rubbish anyone who dares disagree". When was the last time some CC "scientist" reran the last 25 years of RealLife(TM) instead of some computer model that has been written to give the results they want?
Maybe they should just ban reality which, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN DATA, consistently failed to be as bad they predicted.
Hell, the Weather Centre used their **climate change model** to predict the effects of the volcaninc ash on UK airspace and oops, guess what... reality failed to agree with them yet again.
Yes, we can make a difference, and if the ecosystem is close enough to the balance point then maybe we could drive it over the edge. But geological records "prove" the Eart has undergone changes since the mucky mass first showed some resemblance to the planet we live on today - and that was a L-O-N-G time before we came along to muck stuff up.
Science isn't democracy, it is cold hard facts. That in turn means it doesn't give a rat's ass about balance. The FACT being reported is that there is a very plausible, simpler explanation than "an incredibly complex system, of which our understanding is merely scratching the surface." That simplicity was how Einstein did away with the whole Ether theory that was then much beloved by scientists everywhere with a more than 35:1 ratio at the time.
Global warming isn't science, it's the religion of fascists intent on controlling what the rest of us do. Like the original fascism, it has a large number of allegedly unbiased idiots proclaiming adherence to it is the way forward to an improved human race.
Actually Michelson and Morley put paid to the ether theory with their interferometer experiment. (Although maxwell and Gauss put the boot in with their formulaton of electromagnetic equations).
Not. Going. To. happen.
And nor should it. We come here to argue about how apple is better/worse than microsoft, which linux distro is bestest and about how illegal downloading is actually my god given right. That and the amusing stories with funny tag lines. We certainly don't come here for fair and balanced news.
If only we had access to the internet, we could go to the BBC for real news.
Since when was this an AGW story? All the article states is that other things happen.
Science isn't cold hard facts.
Science is having a hypothesis and testing for it. However, the vast majority of testing is to find said hypothesis true, and it may well be disproved somewhere down the line. Science is essentially our best understanding at any particular moment in time.
While it has been generally acknowledged that we are coming out of an ice age, the change in climate may well have been altered by human influence to speed up the rate of change. The biggest concern is that an accelerated pace of change may outstrip humanity's ability to evolve to meet the changing conditions. Adaptation and genetic selection works too damn slowly to enable us to natively handle these conditions, and that is the real danger to our species.