coldcat

And here is the source. It's an interesting piece of reading so I hope you enjoy it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

The explanation Professor Gray gives is that ocean circulation changes do occur naturally and have been occurring naturally for long before Global Warming. The climate is by definition a changing phenomenon, regulated by cycles. We know little about the past of our planet but we do know that we've had ice ages and warmer periods than now long before human-induced global warming was around. Even in the past 50 years we've had cycles, until pretty much the 50's the earth started to warm, then from the 50's until the 70's it started to cool-down and hence all the Global Cooling hype, and fr

Professor Gray is a scientist of integrity and recognised world-wide as on of the most knowledgeable expert in hurricanes and climate sciences... at least he was until he started to oppose the current view on GW. Professor Richard Siegmund Lindzen who is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology is also a scientist of integrity. He has been a strong critic of anthropogenic global warming theories and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush adminis

What is your locale? US english or another one? There is /etc/scim configuration file which tells the scim program which locales are allowed to access to it, if you are using an Australian locale, or a british, you may have to add it to that file. Usually by default US locales are enabled, but you'll be able to read in the file which are enabled. Also for best result make sure your locale is UTF, although about this one you shouldn't have any problems if you are using a recent version of ubuntu since they come already by default with the installation.

"Terrorism is funding lots of science. An uncle of mine is getting lots of funding for preparing responses to bio-terror. Lots of money is being spent on robot warfare and other science-based nonsense." Are we speaking the same language? Of course, terrorism will fund that type of science, but that's not the point. The point here is not bio-terror,or robo-soldiers... The point here is that climatologists and scientists in general whose field is not related to the war on terrorism or whatever you want to call it, have to find reasons to get funded. And terrorism is not one of them. If clim

Lastly, I just said it's important to respect other people's opinions. Nothing to do with Stalin or whatever you are linking it with.

First, I'll start with the antarctic what you say about winds is still just an hypothesis, something that scientist have had to come up with to explain something they still can't understand. Ocean11, climate model software cannot exactly model the weather, the models are just at best an approximation and that's acknowledged by those who use them anyway. I know this because I have been involved in work with climate model software in order to predict Global Warming. If you research just a little you will know that they still have many shortcomings. In April of this year, it was discovered

Hey, I didn't say I don't want you to debate,it's your freedom. I just said that when I started this topic it was not my intention to start a debate about global warming. Ocean11, honestly, I do read my sources before I post them. About the Antarctic, sincerely, I just don't see why your argument proves me wrong. Temperature is variable and is definitely not constant across the surface of the earth. The fact, that there are some parts of the antarctic (in the edges) that are indeed getting warm doesn't prove anything, since the vast majority of the antarctic is actually cooling down. And

Thanks a lot guys. Lots of useful info.

I agree. This is exactly what I wanted to avoid when I said I didn't want to turn this into a debate. I just wanted to show the SJ community that there are other points of view on global warming within the scientific community. But even more important than the truth is to respect other points of view, even if we don't understand them or share them. Anyway, as mooloney said we are all snow lovers so if anyone is planning to be in Niseko round Xmas email me,I'd love to ski or ride together.

Maybe you'll get confused with the opinions the journalist who writes the article about him inserts here and there in the article. Remember I told you let Professor William M. Gray answer you, not the person who wrote the article about him. But anyway if you want it more clear here is an interview with the professor: http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/departments/discover-dialogue/

Ocean11, first I'll ask you to be a little more humble when you post or otherwise the debate becomes uncomfortable, and is not fun anymore. Second I won't answer your post, let Professor William M. Gray, famous for predicting the number of hurricanes that are going to happen every season in the Atlantic, answer you: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.co...arming+skeptics I wonder how much expertise you hold to speak with such confidence. As Mooloney pointed out earlier is important to know that we could be wrong.

Thanks Bushpig and quattro.

Ocean11, I wonder what big holes are you speaking about? The antarctic cooling down? The satellites stating the earth is cooling down? You know, 30 years ago it was the opposite. Cooling of the earth was the big thing, and although it didn't achieve the momentum that GW is achieving it did achieve considerable credibility in the media. Now, however nobody remembers about it. And those who remember it state that it wasn't serious. Mmm... I wonder what they will say about GW if it turns out to be as true as it was the Global Cooling they were talking about 30 years ago.

1. Nobody disputes that C02 warms the atmosphere, if it wasn't for the warming effect of C02 and other green houses present in the atmosphere, life would not be possible on earth, it would be too cold. But how can humans double the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere when our emissions account for such a small percentage of the total C02 in the atmosphere? 2. That's because they only considered those voices that supported their own view. There are and there were voices within the scientific community who contradict their view; they just ignored them. That way they can say there's conse

kumapix, I've followed your post in the past, and it looks like you know your stuff about snowboarding gear,so sorry if I ask too much but... when I store my board at home is it best to leave it always inside the bag, or it doesn't make any difference? And also I recently bought a new snowboard and I don't think I will be able to ride it until mid-december, with some luck maybe 1st december, do you think I should wax the edges/paint them with a marker to protect them from getting rusty or it doesn't make a difference such a short time? Thanks

kumapix, do you mean wax them with normal base wax? can you easily get rid of the wax on the edges when the season starts?

Bushpig, I didn't feel like you are attacking me personally. As somebody else said in this post the discussion is being very civic and I appreciate it. But it is true that I didn't want this to evolve into a debate. Even though debates are healthy, I think there's already enough debate about Global Warming. But anyway, it has evolved into it, and maybe it is a good thing after all. My feeling is that anybody who opposes Global Warming is quickly discredited. I don't think that because the author of the original article is wrong about HIV, it means that he is also wrong about everything e

Once the season finishes I heard one of the ways to avoid getting your edges rusty is paint them with a "magic pen" (marker). Anyone tried? Somebody at a snowboard shop told me. Haven't tried it.

I'm sorry but it seems not to be working anymore. Still you can try though.

Sorry, I made a mistake. It isn't called msat, but mtsat.

Molooney, I'm really glad to hear that you started to use as little energy as possible. There are many reasons to do it, many well understood, agreed upon reasons to do it. We humans ARE polluting the environment, but I am not so sure we are changing the climate of the earth significantly. As I said the C02 emitted by humans is only a very small fraction (0.something) of the total C02 in the atmosphere. By the way, the weather satellites don't belong to the US. The US has some, other countries have others. Japan has m-sat for example. And here is your information on the south pole g

I almost crashed my car against a police car who was stopped in the middle of the road last year. Here we didn't expect snow until January so when it started dumping in December I still hadn't change my tires.

I find it interesting that most of the "pro-GW" arguments I am seeing in this post are just discrediting of the voices against. It is much more convincing if you can link to an article explaining why the antarctic is cooling down or why the satellites which is the more accurate way of measuring temperature than the ground station show a cooling trend.

Bushpig, I don't know why you are turning this into a debate. I don't want to convince you. And I did check my sources, I can also read like you. I just thought for those who don't have a scientific background it may be easier to understand since it is a summary of some of the current theories.The scientific sources that the paper quote are at the bottom of the page and embedded in the figures. If you still want to discredit anyone who doesn't share your opinion, you are still going to do it, and this is not going to stop you but anyway here you have the wikipedia article on the controver