NationStates Jolt Archive

The next edition of Time magazine goes into depth on how global warming is happening much much faster than optimists claim it is.

The April 3, 2006 edition of Time.

It talks about how the optimists who claimed that global warming would have no impact until a hundred years from now at the earliest got it wrong.

The next edition of Time magazine goes into depth on how global warming is happening much much faster than optimists claim it is.

The April 3, 2006 edition of Time.

It talks about how the optimists who claimed that global warming would have no impact until a hundred years from now at the earliest got it wrong.
Not too surprising to me. I suspect we're all in for a rather rough ride. :(

I'm wondering if any one has read it yet. I'm copypasting it to word so I can read it offline.

It sounds interesting. Kind of like I've been telling my friends on my and here in Iraq.

Not too surprising to me. I suspect we're all in for a rather rough ride.
But, dude, it will be so extreme!

The next edition of Time magazine goes into depth on how global warming is happening much much faster than optimists claim it is.

The April 3, 2006 edition of Time.

It talks about how the optimists who claimed that global warming would have no impact until a hundred years from now at the earliest got it wrong.
Why is it TIME headlines are starting to remind me of those on supermarket tabloids? Maybe to shock people into buying the rag?

Why is it TIME headlines are starting to remind me of those on supermarket tabloids? Maybe to shock people into buying the rag?
from what i've been in the news, NASA is actually backing up claims of a much faster global climate change shift.

Hang on a moment, Socialist Whittier?

But, dude, it will be so extreme!
Yes, most llikely. And your point?

Yes, most llikely. And your point?
You give me far too much credit.

Hang on a moment, Socialist Whittier?I was wondering too..

You give me far too much credit.
LOL! Ooops! Sorry about that! :D

from what i've been in the news, NASA is actually backing up claims of a much faster global climate change shift.
I'm not commenting on the validity of the claim, only the fact that large, bold font type, laced with hyperbole is a way to attract less intelligent readers. That seems to be the way TIME wants to attract readers.

some might say we are running out of TIME ............

others cry because a bad pun is like watching your dad riding a camel naked

others cry because of a bad analagy

but hey i never claimed to be edmund blackadder

Okay, I'm afraid. Now what? :confused:

Okay, I'm afraid. Now what? :confused:
See that rock? Hide under it and I'll hide under the one to my right...

I'm not commenting on the validity of the claim, only the fact that large, bold font type, laced with hyperbole is a way to attract less intelligent readers. That seems to be the way TIME wants to attract readers.


Maybe it's because only the less intelligent readers are the ones who are unaware that global warming is real, influenced by man and a threat?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0007FA05-10BC-1423-90BC83414B7F0000

Tell me about it.

At college at the moment, they're teaching us this in three different lessons. You walk from one class to the next, and every teacher tells you how we have x many years before we all freeze, or burn, or drown, or suffocate, or...

And they wonder why we're all depressed...

I was wondering too..
Socialist Whittier is one of the two original Whittier's pretty much. It was a puppet I created back in April of 03to rp a civil war in my nation in the NS rp forum. I used it to rp the rebel forces.
Whittier-- was deleted a couple of weeks back cause of some rule I was not aware of that another puppet violated. The main nation got deleted too cause of a final warning from stuff that happened awhile back.
Since I could not get it back, I asked for SW which has no black marks. I've been using it to post, but I want to start using Whittier--- or Whittier -. Not that it really matters.
For some reason, this incarnation of whittier was popular back on the old forums. I don't know why people preferred SW over the other version.

Well, it isn't as though Gymoor II:the Return, Desperate Measures, and myself haven't gone into great detail about this issue, so i'll suffice with a *bump*

Socialist Whittier is one of the two original Whittier's pretty much. It was a puppet I created back in April of 03to rp a civil war in my nation in the NS rp forum. I used it to rp the rebel forces.
Whittier-- was deleted a couple of weeks back cause of some rule I was not aware of that another puppet violated. The main nation got deleted too cause of a final warning from stuff that happened awhile back.
Since I could not get it back, I asked for SW which has no black marks. I've been using it to post, but I want to start using Whittier--- or Whittier -. Not that it really matters.
For some reason, this incarnation of whittier was popular back on the old forums. I don't know why people preferred SW over the other version.

Well as I recall he was something of an abrasive sod...

I guess the socialist version was more friendly.

Well, it isn't as though Gymoor II:the Return, Desperate Measures, and myself haven't gone into great detail about this issue, so i'll suffice with a *bump*
yes, I recall. Though I have to admit I didn't read your threads in depth.

Well as I recall he was something of an abrasive sod...

I guess the socialist version was more friendly.
what do you mean by that? It's the same person.

So yeah, who else thought this thread was going to be about how whittier had had an about turn and gone socialist?

Always be cautious with scientific results; scientists are humans too. Recently, a popular global warming graph based on climate data of the past few centuries had to be revoked because of a wrong statistical analysis.
In this case "higher exposure to solar radiation" doesn't mean the same to me as "higher temperature due to greenhouse effects". If I understand that article on Scientific American correctly, they have a model that predicts sea water rising as a result of global warming. While that model may be correct, it doesn't say anything about the amount of global warming. Furtehr, models are always an approximation of reality, working under certain assumptions and within certain boundary conditions. The global climate is a complex system with a gazillion factors that need to be taken into account, making it a rather easy to neglect one factor too many.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about the climate changes we create and undertake action, there are plenty of reasons to reduce exhaust gases. But such a study is certainly not a reason to panic or to get depressed, either.

Always be cautious with scientific results; scientists are humans too. Recently, a popular global warming graph based on climate data of the past few centuries had to be revoked because of a wrong statistical analysis.
In this case "higher exposure to solar radiation" doesn't mean the same to me as "higher temperature due to greenhouse effects". If I understand that article on Scientific American correctly, they have a model that predicts sea water rising as a result of global warming. While that model may be correct, it doesn't say anything about the amount of global warming. Furtehr, models are always an approximation of reality, working under certain assumptions and within certain boundary conditions. The global climate is a complex system with a gazillion factors that need to be taken into account, making it a rather easy to neglect one factor too many.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about the climate changes we create and undertake action, there are plenty of reasons to reduce exhaust gases. But such a study is certainly not a reason to panic or to get depressed, either.

however it is worth noting that the situation around the world is currently mirroring the results they are getting in their most recent climate models.

yes, I recall. Though I have to admit I didn't read your threads in depth.
Well, if the scuttlebutt has anything to it, my posts tend to be a bit long-winded and verbose, so i don't consider that a fault on your part.

It’s not very surprising when the White House is editing out anything in scientific reports that might point to Global Warming. We have the same problem in Canada, with political regimes using industry approved scientists (see hacks) to use argue against any scientific proof of global warming. When you have ice glaciers that haven’t been affected in ten thousand years melting in a matter of years, you know we’re all screwed.

Cool. I always wanted to be in a Kevin Costner movie.

Cool. I always wanted to be in a Kevin Costner movie.
Yeah, but, come on, does it have to be Waterworld? Maybe we can start campaigning our leaders to unleash a nuclear holocaust (though just a wee little one, nothing to big a deal). It isn't too late to change our fate, my fellows, we may yet be able to change our fates toward a better made (and better recognized) direction.

Yeah, but, come on, does it have to be Waterworld? Maybe we can start campaigning our leaders to unleash a nuclear holocaust (though just a wee little one, nothing to big a deal). It isn't too late to change our fate, my fellows, we may yet be able to change our fates toward a better made (and better recognized) direction.

I liked Waterworld, though. Everyone was like, "blech! it's just Mad Max on water!" and I was like, "Sweet! It's Mad Max on water!".

Cool. I always wanted to be in a Kevin Costner movie.
If i felt like it, i could be ...
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7568355p-7479644c.html