Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

Randonnee: I think you are missing the essence of the guideline you cite. First, in his original post Phil appears to be doing just what is asked by the guidelines - challenging the (changing) viewpoint. Second, Pat Robertson has made himself a public persona and, like all public personae and officials, is in a different class for having his viewpoints and motivations challenged. Third, in Phil's first post - the one you originally question - Phil did not insult Roberston or resort to name calling. He was prompted to do so in a mild way by YOUR response - sound familiar? You also provoked another inappropriate response from a different poster, and that one has been deleted.

To my thinking, picking on Pat Robertson (or Al Gore for that matter - insert your political nemesis here) is entirely within the TAY posting guidelines. The reason is that Pat Robertson is not a TAY contributor! The guideline, "challenge the viewpoint, not the person" applies only to TAY contributors, in my opinion. If Pat Robertson logs into TAY, then I promise I won't call him a horse's ass. 

The post was about some temperature records. I did not draw a conclusion to support any argument, it is of interest me to consider how this all fits. Now seriously, the temps are of interest and I am interested in GW and the various theories.

I am dissappointed since I thought Lowell may discuss some temp data but that did not happen.

I cannot really disagree with any of the responses, including criticism of Pat Robertson, except that I understand the posting guideline....but thanks for the humor.

Does anyone there trout fish in the high lakes? In late August at Lower Snow Lake, the trout are in such a frenzy that even a bare hook will land a fish, time after time. Even a poor presentation will result in catching a fish. Fish on, baby...

The last paragraph was about responses here at times. Some responses and respondents are fully preloaded with such personal prejudice that predictable sharp and even spiteful words come immediately from some (assumed) enlightened, brilliant, well-educated, politically-correct and tolerant multicultural-celebrating 206ers.

It seems to me to be of value to learning and understanding to understand or study that which opposes one's own view.

I am dissappointed since I thought Lowell may discuss some temp data but that did not happen.

I don't have extensive temperature data. Amar has more of that sort of information than me. I don't have time to become a climate expert. The best I can do is read what the experts are saying and try to judge what it means to me.

The literature I've read suggests that isolated temperature records are not a good way to model climate trends. Using records of extreme temperature events to either prove or disprove global warming is problematic. You have to look at averages across the whole globe. My understanding is that the real climate experts are doing that.

An interesting artifact:  Without providing cites, I have read that as surface temperatures have increased, that upper atmosphere temperatures have lowered.  This has allowed the formation of ice crystals in the upper atomsphere that create spectactular sun reflecting displays over Antarctica.

The story I read mentioned that the computer models have captured this mechanism of heat being withheld from the upper layers. 

Perhaps we are just getting better at measuring and observing this stuff.

So, global warming means more snow for us?   Bring it on!   

In regard to the temperature records:

The obvious question is, why not new records of warmer extreme temps (...or are there- "according to Dennis Feltgen, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who told NBC News that about 50 all-time high-temperature records were broken during the month of July..." is 50 significant)?

It appears that extreme weather events have occurred throughout history.

In regard to the sad evidence of glacial recedivism- what of total snowfall correlated to shrinking glaciers? Some very cold weather periods or cold climates result in less snowfall. Obviously, cold temps did not create glaciers without snowfall. So is the converse possible- that is, lack of renewing snowfall results in shrinking glaciers. Yes, cold temps are required for snowfall but obviously are not the only determinant.


In regard to this discussion, I would restate that it is important. Even though some are not convinced one way or the other, having an attitude of a closed mind obviously does not advance understanding. Similarly, artificiallly limiting discussion is a hinderance.