|
New Scientist: "26 Common Climate Myths"....  |  |
| 16-05-2007 22:23 | New Scientist: "26 Common Climate Myths".... |
rick_uk
(1069)
|
"Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.
Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.
Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.
With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.
So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.
There is also a guide to assessing the evidence. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.
"Climate change: A guide for the perplexed": (16/5-07) -
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
Beklager den er på engelsk... 
Vh rick
Vi har hørt varslerne. Klokken tikker....Informerede valg.
| | 16-05-2007 22:59 | |
Kosmos
(2403)
|
hmm...efter at have taget en stikprøve på artiklen "It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?" er jeg umiddelbart ret enig med 'blogger bjelkeman' ["The defense of models is cavalier and superficial..."]
Derudover vil jeg anbefale link1 og link2!
Redigeret d. 16-05-2007 23:17
| | 17-05-2007 00:14 | |
Filosoffen
(198)
|
Her til aften har jeg brugt et par timer på at 'skimme' ca. halvdelen af de 26 punkter.
Antallet af may's (altså "måske'er") er foruroligene stort.
Dog er der enkelte "guldkorn" fx
...the coming and going of the ice ages that have gripped the planet in the past two million years were probably triggered by fractional changes in solar heating ...
The chaotic nature of weather makes it impossible to prove that any single event is due to global warming.
Min foreløbige opfattelse er, at punkterne er samlet af en gruppe mennesker, der er ægte skræmt, og som gerne vil skræmme (os) andre.
Der er blot den overhængende fare, at skræmte mennesker handler ikke rationelt, der er stor risiko for at de over-reagerer, det er netop det vi IKKE har brug for.
Redigeret d. 17-05-2007 00:15
| | 01-06-2007 20:54 | |
Bjelkeman
(2)
|
Kosmos skrev:hmm...efter at have taget en stikprøve på artiklen "It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?" er jeg umiddelbart ret enig med 'blogger bjelkeman' ["The defense of models is cavalier and superficial..."] Derudover vil jeg anbefale link1 og link2!
In fact, I did not say that. The person who posted after me said that.  If you look carefully then you will see that I did say:
Thank you New Scientist. That list of articles is a tool which is very useful.
If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. from this entry in NS.
By bjelkeman on May 16, 2007 9:16 PM
| | 01-06-2007 20:55 | |
Bjelkeman
(2)
|
Double post.
Redigeret d. 01-06-2007 20:55
| | 01-06-2007 23:41 | |
Kosmos
(2403)
|
My sincere apologies, Mr. Bjelkeman:
In that case I amend my statement to concurrence with the commentator after you!
|
Har du en holdning til dét, du lige har læst? Vi er altid på udkig efter flere aktive debattører og ser frem til, at du også bliver en del af debatten! Selv små indspark bidrager til en levende diskussion ... |
|
| |  | |
|
Til forsiden
Debatforum
En lille fjer blev
