What is OmniNerd?

Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.

Submit New Content

Voting Booth

Ever lie?

View Results, All Polls
16 votes, 1 comment
0
Nerd-Its
+ -

RE: Way out of proportion

Comment comment by scottb on 16 August 2007

It's not the only article. Realclimate.com has their own commentary with roughly the same conclusions.

The revised NASA data lives here and it links to a commentary by one of its authors. He, too, says that it's meaningless.

Here's a blogger who's tried to follow how this story's been covered. It's really popular among conservative global-warming deniers, who're claiming it's a Y2K bug (nope, it's not), that it completely undermines the global warming theory (nope, not at all), that NASA didn't acknowledge it until "forced" to do so (nope, they immediately sent an email thanking the guy who reported the anomaly and corrected the reports), and so on.

You are a viewing a subset of a larger discussion.
View Full Discussion
Star This to Save in Your Profile Favorite
Thread parent sort order:
Highest Voted : Lowest Voted : Oldest : Newest
Thread verbosity:
Expand All : Minimize Replies to Comments
0 Nerd-Its - +
RE: Way out of proportion by ldsudduth :: NR6

There are at least two schools of thought that the more 'radical' (for want of a better word) global warming proponents fail to address. Those are:

  1. Is the earth going through a warming cycle that accounts for some of the increases in temperature?
  2. Is the damage already done?

I'm no climatologist, but truthfully, I personally believe we may well be experiencing a combination of the two. However...does that mean we quit trying to fix it? Nope--I just question the wisdom of the methodologies address. For example, Ethanol production is far more distructive than the proponents of this alternative fuels want us to believe.

I'd rather see more strict requirments on the auto manufacturers. Doubling the fuel economy will reduce our oil dependency by 1/3, and reduce carbon emissions by just as much. We should also fast track development of alternative non-polluting fuel sources, decrease the average commute time---or conversely provide adequate mass-transit, and go back to using trains for long-haul freight. I'm certain there is much more than can be done, but those are the ones I stick to my guns about--especially the use of trains and Mass Transit.

Posted 16 August 2007, Hide, Parent, Reply