One of the most respected news sources in Sweden has recently published an article dealing with some of the questions readers raise in the global warming debate. DN relies on the following sources: Nature, Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – all filtered through IPCC. I thought that it would be interesting to do a quick rundown of the latest Q&As related to global warming and environmental issues. I am going to provide very short answers because I am not in the mood to elaborate, if you want the full answers I suggest you go and look through some of the sources mentioned above. Although I have short answers I try and give you the overall notion of the answers.
Why do you just let one side state their opinion? There are researchers who do not believe that mankind affects the climate.
All published sources that DN relies on are sources that almost all share the same view and has passed through IPCC. One of IPCCs functions is to collect and present the paradigm-like views and research.
Have you seen “The Great Climate Swindle” documentary?
Apparently one of the sources in the film; Carl Wunsch is extremely misquoted and has in an open letter declared that he was tricked by the producers of the documentary. So from DNs point of view it is not a decent form of documentary partly because of this and what it supports.
The results from satellites and weather balloons do not support the climate researchers arguments supporting today’s leading perspective on global warming.
The results used to bug the researchers but it was because of the analyses. The problem has been dealt with.
The planet has been warm before if we look throughout its history.
Yes of course. Researcher Milutin Milankovic both believes and shows that earth’s motion around its axis have three different cycles. These variations affect the temperature on our Earth. Then you have other contributing aspects such as the amounts of snow and ice, the oceans' temperatures and sediments that contain a lot of ‘stuff’ which when released into the atmosphere contribute to raising the temperature on our planet.
Today’s global warming is due to variations in the sun’s radiation.
No, the sun’s radiation can only explain a small part of the global warming.
I do not have the energy to deal with the last question in the article; I suggest that if you understand Swedish you should read it yourselves instead. When I look back on what I have written and the overall mood and the way I declare what the news source has published then I can see a lack of inspiration from my part. This is due to several things.
My concern is that the different ‘perspectives’ seem to leave out the good stuff from their oppositional point of views. Surely all data on anything ‘environmental’ should be a part of the explanation on why the planet is becoming warmer. Shutting down some views and supporting others can make us miss essential stuff or give us an attitude that we should brush aside everything that has not been allowed by the IPCC. This attitude which is gained by choosing sides and make us force it upon other people is dangerous. It becomes environmental bullying - science and religious aspects merge into a ready made package. Science has to rid these elements out of its nucleus structure, otherwise we will yet again see science diminish and we will face The Crisis of the European Sciences.
Bitcoin vs. Political Power: The Cryptocurrency Revolution – Stefan Molyneux at TNW Conference - ”Historically, politicians have always fought for the power to create money out of thin air, so they can increase their spending without having to directly...
4 years ago