Atlas Shrugged

[woodchip]

Ah, you should know me by now my titles are not what they seem. In this case no love to Ayn Rand, rather a look at the latest Monty Pythonesque mapping of Greenland by Times Warner. Seems the good folks at TW are a bit too choked up over global warming and the blood flow to their brains is diminished...as is their drawing of Greenland's boarders. :

"Leading UK polar scientists say the Times Atlas of the World was wrong to assert that it has had to re-draw its map of Greenland due to climate change."

"Publicity for the latest edition of the atlas, launched last week, said warming had turned 15% of Greenland's former ice-covered land "green and ice-free"."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399

So read up and feel free to defend TW if you care to but I just see another attempt by the warmers to further their cause.

[Duper]

lmao...

yeah.. lookin at google earth right now... I'm not buying it.

[Will Robinson]

Didn't you learn anything from Dan Rather? If the documents are fake it doesn't matter as long as you believe in the story.

[Tunnelcat]

Well, what about the arctic ice? It has been shrinking.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... inice.html

Deep ocean ice is a far more reliable predictor of ocean temperature changes over time. Don't go shrugging things off so quickly. Keep an open mind.

[Top Gun]

I'm gonna have to ask how an incorrect assertion by an atlas publisher affects the science of global warming in any discernible way.

[flip]

I'd feel a lot better about the facts of global warming if it was kept within the scientific community and not a political bargaining chip.

[woodchip]

I'm gonna have to ask how an incorrect assertion by an atlas publisher affects the science of global warming in any discernible way.

Ummmm...because Time Warner based their map on what the global warming crowd said? So if the Map is wrong, then what can we surmise about the information the map was based on?

[woodchip]

Well, what about the arctic ice? It has been shrinking.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... inice.html

Deep ocean ice is a far more reliable predictor of ocean temperature changes over time. Don't go shrugging things off so quickly. Keep an open mind.

TC, we're talking about Greenland, not the Arctic ice.

[Top Gun]

I'm gonna have to ask how an incorrect assertion by an atlas publisher affects the science of global warming in any discernible way.

Ummmm...because Time Warner based their map on what the global warming crowd said? So if the Map is wrong, then what can we surmise about the information the map was based on?

Ummm...if the scientists who looked at the map said that it was wrong, then it's on the people who drew the map, not said scientists.

[Will Robinson]

I'm gonna have to ask how an incorrect assertion by an atlas publisher affects the science of global warming in any discernible way.

Ummmm...because Time Warner based their map on what the global warming crowd said? So if the Map is wrong, then what can we surmise about the information the map was based on?

Ummm...if the scientists who looked at the map said that it was wrong, then it's on the people who drew the map, not said scientists.

Two things to consider, if the map was drawn to the specs of some scientists then it isn't just on the media outlet that published it... and I'd bet that most of what most people know about global warming they "learned" solely from media outlets, so how much of what they know is true. How much of what you and I know comes from first hand experience in the scientific study of data compared to how much of what we know depends on the publication and production of media outlets?

[Top Gun]

Considering that I've studied and performed research that involved examining data, and am currently looking for work along the same lines, I'd like to think that I'm able to take a look at some numbers and see what's going on with them.

Also, as the article displayed right at the top, even a quick look at a satellite photo would show anyone exactly how much of Greenland is covered in ice. It baffles me how the error was allowed to occur and perpetuate like that, considering that the atlas apparently correctly displays other legitimate warming-related effects. It's also rather infuriating, as this sort of misinformation clouds public perception of the reality of the situation.

[Duper]

Real simple Top, Politics and agenda. That's really all it is.

After digging into this whole topic on my own, I have very little respect for the illusion of the "Scientific community". That pedestal ranks right up there with the Cleaver reality.

What I thought I would find reasonable and heated discussion over data. What I ACTUALLY found was a juvenile monkey ★■◆● fight.

So where this is concerned, I think the lowest common human behavioral denominator comes into play. Someone wants their idea to be important.

Do I have proof of this? No. But assuming the article is even 50% accurate, I don't think that atlas cares and they continue to think they are right. That would be "proof" enough.

mtb.

[Top Gun]

I don't see how this issue would undermine anything regarding the "scientific community," considering that they're the people decrying the map and stating that it undermines the legitimate goal of combating global warming. I'd be really pissed if I was a climate scientist and saw that map, because it's perfect fuel for the "hurr this doesn't exist" idiots out there, and that's the last thing I'd want to see. If anything, I think this was something the atlas pulled off just to get a catchy headline, but it's wound up doing legitimate harm.

[Duper]

ya got the wrong end of it.

It's climate scientists that ARE pushing this kinda thing. (some of them anyways) ans pseudo-scientists like Mr. Gore.

But I DO agree with you.

[Top Gun]

What, pushing the reality of what's going on? Of course...that's kind of your job when you're engaged in scientific research. You look at the data, figure out what's going on, and publish it. Unless you're going to assert that the vast majority of climate scientists are backing a completely-falsified agenda, a claim which I find absurd.

[Tunnelcat]

TC, we're talking about Greenland, not the Arctic ice.

I realize that. Greenland is a solid landmass with shallow bays that will freeze over during the winter, making it look like the land mass gets larger or smaller with the seasons. Arctic ice is more indicative of long term ocean temps, a better way to see if the climate is changing. I assume you posted this whole discussion just to blast those pesky climate change worrywarts using of all things, the atlas, to promote their global warming agenda.

[Ferno]

dammit!

I thought this was about the Atlas rocket...

[flip]

I dont know Top. Not long ago I remember there being a dispute over this very data. Story went that some of the data had been "manipulated" or left out. Maybe somebody else remembers the specifics. As far as it being absurd, I'd want to follow the money back to see exactly how these scientists get financed. I agree with you, most scientists are as honest as they come, pure truth seekers. They feed on figuring out stuff they don't understand, the problem comes in because they have no money . It's the financiers that put the pressure on not the other way around.

[Top Gun]

I dont know Top. Not long ago I remember there being a dispute over this very data. Story went that some of the data had been "manipulated" or left out. Maybe somebody else remembers the specifics. As far as it being absurd, I'd want to follow the money back to see exactly how these scientists get financed. I agree with you, most scientists are as honest as they come, pure truth seekers. They feed on figuring out stuff they don't understand, the problem comes in because they have no money . It's the financiers that put the pressure on not the other way around.

The "manipulation" of that specific climate data was hardly what it was made out to be in the mass-media sphere (lol "climategate"), although some of the attitudes of the scientists in question were rather inappropriate. The whole affair was essentially making mountains out of molehills.

And as far as finances go, it's rather eye-opening to take a look at the most prominent detractors of global warming out there. If you look at the research groups they work for, they're pretty much all funded by oil/energy companies. I don't think wind turbine makers have nearly as much cash to throw around in that matter.

[flip]

Then it goes all the way to the top then.