- Joined
- 20 May 2011
- Posts
- 1,544
- Reactions
- 1
This part I find highly suspicious:
Given that most oil in Russia is produced by state-owned companies, who have no qualms about building oil infrastructure in Siberia, it makes little sense to me.
The scientific method is important here. Every claim should be tested.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html
"Unscrupulous scientists are exaggerating and peddling fears about permafrost thawing and swamp methane becoming aggressive," said Professor Nikolai Alexeyevsky, Doctor of Geography and head of the land hydrology department at Moscow State University. "Siberia has vast natural resources, oil and gas above all. The article aims to set public opinion against Western Siberia and discourage investment in its industry, oil and gas. They are saying, 'Swamp methane poses a global threat, so don't touch Siberia.' They are deliberately trying to cause panic." Alexeyevsky says that permafrost has a natural cycle of change, and that it advanced and retreated in the pre-industrial era as well.
That is beside the point in this discussion with Grasshopper.
Yes probably beside the point, but I suspect SCM is less grasshoppery than everyone reckons.
Yes.
The original Grasshopper was a likable young lad and had an open mind.
That supposed to be an insult? I'd expect nothing less from a science sceptic
When things don't go your way....ad hominem!
The chief characteristic which distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.
And science should always be sceptical, that is how the scientific method works:
I do not understand how you can point to the scientific method; yet ignore the vast majority of all scientists worldwide who all agree about climate change.
This includes Russian scientists.
http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/minor-myth-russian-scientists-dont.html
No scientist actually denies climate change, or human influence on it. The debate resides in the details. What sceptical scientists are sceptical of, is the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
The debate resides in the details. What sceptical scientists are sceptical of, is the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
First time for everything sails!
I don't take one side or the other because I just haven't studied it nearly enough. All I've done is read a few newspaper articles. It's not a big issue for me.
But I do have a question for the anti side: How is it that all the world governments have agreed that global warming is a man made phenomenon? For me it's hard to imagine that they have all been led astray by the available reseach. Considering the cost and upheaval it causes, surely they would have done some investigating of their own? They can hire all the renowned scientists they need to analyze this objectively, and yet they have all come to the same conclusion?
The scientific method is important here. Every claim should be tested.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050822/41201605.html
When asked if methane might erupt from the swamps and seriously pollute the atmosphere, Melnikov said, "The swamps are accumulating tremendous amounts of methane. This is an energy reserve for future generations,
In the 20th century, the temperature in Siberia rose by one degree Celsius, which was only 0.4 degrees more than in the Mediterranean (which rose by 0.6 degrees Celsius). But even if, as predicted, by the end of the 21st century temperatures have risen by three degrees, this will not be a catastrophe.
" He pointed out that the greatest man-made menace is not methane, but CO2, which is the principal greenhouse gas.
dailymail.co.uk said:The Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted a survey of 10,000 square miles of sea off the coast of eastern Siberia.They made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed. 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,'
Uh yes. That's why it's there? It's been accumulating for millennia.That's not a test...its one guys opinion.
And did you actually read it..ill quote.
Oh so the "The swamps are accumulating tremendous amounts of methane"
And Global temps are rising.
Methane has a 56 times higher green house gas rating than CO2..in GHG terms 1 unit of Methane = 56 units of CO2...Methane is a big deal.
A couple and their insurer have been ordered to pay their elderly relative 55 thousand dollars ... after she slipped on a gumnut while visiting their house.
Lets see if GG denies this ???
My fight may be hopeless, but it is as necessary as ever
On trial beside Mladic in The Hague is a disturbing case of infectious idiocy and denial which the left can no longer ignore
Monbiot's despair is the world's hope. We know his form. Warmist attack dog, with the credentials of...journalist (surprise!). Don't hold your breath waiting for Monbiot to endorse cold fusion research.Denialism is everywhere.. The despair of George Monbiot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/21/ratko-mladic-genocide-denial
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?