Climate Change | Energy | Sustainability | Environment | Transportation | Policy | Buildings

Meeting the Energy Challenge

More videos from this partner:

9
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
Advertisement
There are 16 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
tobyjoyce Avatar
tobyjoyce
Posted: 04.01.10, 12:15 PM
Oh, come on! You are insulting people who suffered under the REAL Nazis. You jump from not complying with the FOIA to burning at the stake. Do you not realise how far over the top you are? Schneider is impatient with the obscurantism and ignorance of those who are opposing the science of global warming. And who can blame him?
4TimesAYear Avatar
4TimesAYear
Posted: 04.01.10, 01:02 AM
You will never get a model that predicts climate change - there are too many variables
4TimesAYear Avatar
4TimesAYear
Posted: 04.01.10, 12:59 AM
It wasn't the warmest January here in Iowa - proving there's no such thing as "global" warming - it's all regional. The average means nothing and certainly didn't melt ice and snow here.
Fora2 Avatar
Fora2
Posted: 03.31.10, 08:47 PM
NEWS: Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated NSF, National Science Foundation - March 4, 2010. Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming. As Martin Heimann writes in Science: Wetlands and permafrost soils, including the sub-sea permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, contain at least twice the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Release of a sizable fraction of this carbon as carbon dioxide and/or methane would lead to warmer atmospheric temperatures, causing yet more methane to be released. It would thus create a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming.
deweaver Avatar
deweaver
Posted: 03.31.10, 11:50 AM
Understanding the science on issues like global warming and greenhouse gases does take a lot of work and heavy duty math skills. Lacking these skills, we get comments like those from seanoque referring to Nazi's and attacking the scientific community. Pure hot air with no useful information content. Scientists are human, but science as a process of finding the truth is the most valid method known. Until the critics come up with a model that better predicts the changes in world climate than the existing scientific models -- ie. something closer to the truth -- the critics are just flapping their gums and a waste of bandwidth.
seanogue Avatar
seanogue
Posted: 03.31.10, 04:46 AM
Steve Schneider is the perfect example of intolerance personified who does not except opposing points of view in a graceful manner and advocates the "off with their heads" solution to all those that would dare to disagree with him. A typical Nazi. He takes the view that the news media should refuse to report on their findings. There are many scientific points of view that contradict his supposed higher knowledge but he would not even begin to debate them due to an inherent intransigence that permeates the whole of the scientific community that aligns themselves with the IPCC. Jones has been exonerated by his peers at the IPCC claiming that the language referring to his deliberate fudging or down right lying about the data, was science speak, in house slang and not remotely incriminating. Also that his refusal to release his date under the freedom of information act in the UK was because he didn't want it to be used to discredit him by those heretical non believing sceptics or deniers, as they have become. What next, burning at the stake, duckng stools. The fact that Schneider has a grant to protect would have nothing to do with his take on the science now would it. How will he defend the melting glaciers or the re-icing of the Antarctic or the satellite data that contradicts his supposed increase in warming. Common sense is sadly lacking in this argument and empirical knowledge trumps all that he says.
Advertisement

Advertisement