Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Global Warming

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Global Warming

    2 Feet of Snow Falls on Western N.Y.

    Oct 13, 7:43 AM (ET)

    By CAROLYN THOMPSON




    BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) - A rare early October snowstorm left parts of the Great Lakes and Midwest blanketed with 2 feet of snow Friday morning, prompting widespread blackouts, closing schools and halting traffic.

    The snow downed scores of tree limbs and toppled power lines, leaving more than 220,000 customers without electricity in western New York.

    By early Friday, 14 inches of snow had been recorded at the Buffalo Niagara International Airport, with reports of 2 feet elsewhere, said Tom Paone, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service. The snowfall was expected to continue throughout the morning, he said.

    On Thursday, 8.3 inches of heavy snow set the record for the "snowiest" October day in Buffalo in the 137-year history of the weather service, said meteorologist Tom Niziol. The previous record of 6 inches was set Oct. 31, 1917.

    "This is an extremely rare event for this early in the season," Niziol said.

    Detroit also set a record, its for the earliest measured snow. On Thursday, the city broke by one day the mark set on Oct. 13, 1909.

    The weather, among other factors, prompted Major League Baseball to move up the start time of Game 3 of the AL championship from 8:19 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Only a few players practiced outdoors at Comerica Park on Thursday. The infield was covered with a tarp, so most of them hit in indoor cages.

    "It's definitely not going to be baseball weather tomorrow," said Dave Gurney of the National Weather Service in Michigan. "Around 45 degrees, wind gusts up to 35 mph and some snow showers."

    Meanwhile, a 105-mile stretch of the New York State Thruway from Rochester to Dunkirk, southwest of Buffalo, was closed Friday morning because of the snow.

    The Buffalo Police Department received more than 3,000 calls late Thursday and about two-thirds were related to the weather, Lt. James Watkins said.

    "There are power lines going down all over the place," he said.

    Crews worked into the night to restore power, but many customers were expected to remain in the dark through the weekend and into next week, National Grid energy company spokesman Steve Brady said.

    "This is extremely heavy snow and most of the trees still have most of their leaves, he said. "We can't do a complete damage assessment until the snow stops falling."

    Dozens of schools were closed and states of emergency were declared in the City of Tonawanda, and towns of Cheektowaga, Elma, Lancaster, Akron, and Depew.

    Unnecessary driving was banned in Buffalo and suburbs Amherst, Blasdell, Orchard Park and Hamburg.

    "We have a condition where 80 percent of the roads are impassable," said Lt. Stephen McGonagle of the Amherst Police Department.

    Officials said the snowstorm caused flight delays and cancellations at Buffalo's airport, which was shut down for almost two hours late Thursday.

    Meanwhile, tree branches were strewn across the roads around the region. A large box maple tree split in half, falling on Joan Casey's home in Buffalo.

    "The whole house shook," Casey said. "We were very afraid. Originally I thought it was just the thunder, and then I came outside and I couldn't believe it."

    ---

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061013/D8KNNNOO1.html
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  • #2
    Re: Global Warming

    I'm going to get in my car right now and just drive around all day so global warming gets here quicker. What is taking so long.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Global Warming

      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Global Warming

        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
        My God!!! It's already happening where you live! That's awful. I promise you I'll do everything I can to stop the onslaught of Global Warming. I'll enlist the help of kids... the elderly... anyone with a pulse. I'll make them listen. It might already be too late for you, but with God as my witness, if we can bring some cold air to that desolate burning Hell of your's we'll get it done! And I hope we can stop it from ever putting anyone else in that position.

        -Bball
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Global Warming

          I'm not smart enough to properly assess the correctness of the claims made by either side about global warming, but I do know pointing to two-feet of snow fall in Buffalo this week as proof there is no global warming is a severe stretch in logic.

          When it turns near 80 in November, am I then supposed to cower in fear as proponents of global warming make their claims based on the weather of the week?

          I think this is the truth: Even if there were no global warming, polluting the air can't be a good thing and we need to pressure manufacturers and government into doing the right thing regarding the environment.

          Years ago we made our rivers and streams filthy and unfit for humans. Sometimes the air has not been fit to breathe. Now taxpayers are paying billions across the country to undo the excesses of previous generations.

          Pollution of our air and water by anyone doesn't deserve defending.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Global Warming

            Originally posted by sixthman View Post
            I'm not smart enough to properly assess the correctness of the claims made by either side about global warming, but I do know pointing to two-feet of snow fall in Buffalo this week as proof there is no global warming is a severe stretch in logic.

            When it turns near 80 in November, am I then supposed to cower in fear as proponents of global warming make their claims based on the weather of the week?

            I think this is the truth: Even if there were no global warming, polluting the air can't be a good thing and we need to pressure manufacturers and government into doing the right thing regarding the environment.

            Years ago we made our rivers and streams filthy and unfit for humans. Sometimes the air has not been fit to breathe. Now taxpayers are paying billions across the country to undo the excesses of previous generations.

            Pollution of our air and water by anyone doesn't deserve defending.


            Global Warming hysteria has reached the point that its proponents hang the moniker on any weather that seems out of the norm. Whether it is cold and snow or drought and heat it doesn't matter any longer.

            Basically we've reached the point where Global Cooling is caused by Global Warming... or something like that.

            In any case where there's money to be made and power to be had you'll find people getting in line with their hand out or running out in front of the masses to 'lead'. Also, due to the fact 'Global Warming' advocates have some problems lining up converts when their predictions don't come to pass or things seem counter to their original claims it now would seem they are trying to slowly move the goalpost and call it "Climate Change".

            Of course changing the name doesn't mean they have a better handle about what is actually happening and what we could possibly do about it to make a real difference (if anything).

            OTOH, clean air for the sake of clean air is a fine idea. It is something we can measure and understand. I could never support mega money being spent on Global Warming initiatives because it is based on junk science (and hysteria) and there'd be no light at the end of the tunnel because we'd be groping in the dark. I could support sane clean air initiatives because that is something tangible. It is not a giant unknown with little more than theories and panic driving it. We'd know what we are doing and what to expect.

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Global Warming

              Oh, surely they weren't saying that this is an argument against global warming! I thought that they were pointing out that extreme weather is EXACTLY what we should expect!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Global Warming

                Originally posted by sixthman View Post

                When it turns near 80 in November, am I then supposed to cower in fear as proponents of global warming make their claims based on the weather of the week?
                Of course not, but I've seen hundreds of media reports over the last 10 years about how it is "so hot this summer", or "so mild this winter" and how this is caused by global warming and the warmer temps are proof that global warming is getting really bad.

                And of course we don't need to rehash the hundreds of media reports over the last 15 months about how bad hurricanes are and will be in the future due to global warming.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Global Warming

                  The term global warming is an overly simplistic way to define what is happening to our environment. It is a hugely compicated system. I see your unusually large snow fall and raise it with a Australia's least rainfall in October in 30 years.

                  Where do we go from here? I agree with sixthman that there is too much stuff going into our air. Since i've been living in the inner city and walking to work, I wonder how much filthy stuff I breathe in from the nearby cars every day.

                  How much longer can we as a civilisation continue in the manner that we are accustomed to without severely damaging our environment and/or running out of fossil fuels? Whether it is 5 years, 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years can everyone agree that what we are doing is unsustainable? We cant keep doing this forever, so why not work on changing it now while we still have a chance of limiting the damage.

                  The best side-effect of being energy independant would be that we could force the "war on terror" to be on our terms.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Global Warming

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    I'm going to get in my car right now and just drive around all day so global warming gets here quicker. What is taking so long.
                    or you could buy a DVD titled "An Inconvenient Truth". out in a few days.. not that I care too much, - simply saw it on MTV's Making the Movie.. pretty convincing, I must say.
                    http://www.climatecrisis.net/

                    on the second thought.. if I remember correctly, you vote for the republicans coz they're antiabortion. sorry to suggest you the movie with Al Gore in it, forget it

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Global Warming

                      Silly Bball.

                      All of that snow couldn't have fallen on Buffalo if the ambient air temperature in the upper atmosphere hadn't risen high enough to allow it to contain excess moisture which was dropped on Buffalo in the form of snow.

                      Why - if air temperatures get high enough we'll have so much moisture that we'll have clouds all the time - and everyone knows that it's hotter on cloudy days and that reflecting sunlight away from the Earth by increasing the albedo makes the world warmer - somehow!
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Global Warming

                        Originally posted by 3Ball View Post
                        Oh, surely they weren't saying that this is an argument against global warming! I thought that they were pointing out that extreme weather is EXACTLY what we should expect!
                        Not sure if you're being serious or not but if Human-induced Global Warming theory is actually true, the long-term result should be less extreme weather.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Global Warming

                          According to the EPA:
                          (http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUN59/$File/gw_faq.pdf)

                          Q. Can you say the recent extreme weather is a manifestation of climate change?
                          A. Given our knowledge of global warming and our changing climate,
                          we can expect more extreme weather, including more frequent hot days
                          and droughts, less frequent cold days, and more precipitation (including
                          more snowfall in cold areas). But attributing any particular extreme
                          weather event to global warming remains beyond the current limits of
                          scientific capability.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Global Warming

                            Originally posted by sixthman View Post
                            I think this is the truth: Even if there were no global warming, polluting the air can't be a good thing and we need to pressure manufacturers and government into doing the right thing regarding the environment.
                            But "the right thing" is going to vary. "Fixing the environment" is a big broad nothing; cutting down on particulate matter is different than cutting down carbon dioxide. Personally I don't care how much carbon dioxide is emitted, as long as it's clean.

                            The noise that GW (global warming, not the president) proponents make obscures the more immediate and easily-measurable issue: our air should be clean. I don't care how much CO2 is in the air as long as it's clean.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Global Warming

                              I know its for FOX News, which probably makes it a bogus point of view for some for tha r eason alone. interesting none the less.



                              New Research Adds Twist to Global Warming Debate

                              Thursday , October 12, 2006

                              By Steven Milloy


                              A new study provides experimental evidence that cosmic rays may be a major factor in causing the Earth’s climate to change.

                              Given the stakes in the current debate over global warming, the research may very well turn out to be one of the most important climate experiments of our time – if only the media would report the story.

                              Ten years ago, Danish researchers Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen first hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earth’s climate by effecting cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic radiation and cloud cover – that is, the greater the cosmic radiation, the greater the cloud cover. Clouds cool the Earth’s climate by reflecting about 20 percent of incoming solar radiation back into space.

                              The hypothesis was potentially significant because during the 20th century, the influx of cosmic rays was reduced by a doubling of the sun’s magnetic field which shields the Earth from cosmic rays. According to the hypothesis, then, less cosmic radiation would mean less cloud formation and, ultimately, warmer temperatures – precisely what was observed during the 20th century.

                              If correct, the Svensmark hypothesis poses a serious challenge to the current global warming alarmism that attributes the 20th century’s warmer temperatures to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.

                              Just last week, Svensmark and other researchers from the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Centre published a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A – the mathematical, physical sciences and engineering journal of the venerable Royal Society of London – announcing that they had experimentally verified the physical mechanism by which cosmic rays affect cloud cover.

                              In the experiment, cosmic radiation was passed through a large reaction chamber containing a mixture of lower atmospheric gases at realistic concentrations that was exposed to ultraviolet radiation from lamps that mimic the action of the sun’s rays. Instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber.[Click here for more details about Svensmark’s hypothesis and experiment, including high-quality animation].

                              The data collected indicate that the electrons released by the cosmic rays acted as catalysts to accelerate the formation of stable clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules – the building blocks for clouds.

                              “Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds as unproven,” said Friis-Christensen who is the director of the Danish National Space Centre. “Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. [This] experiment now shows they do so, and should help to put the cosmic ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research,” he added.

                              But given the potential significance of Svensmark’s experimentally validated hypothesis, it merits more than just a place on the agenda of international climate research – it should be at the very top of that agenda.

                              Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth’s surface and exert a strong cooling effect. Observational data indicate that low-cloud cover can vary as much as 2 percent in 5 years which, in turn, varies the heating at the Earth’s surface by as much as 1.2 watts per square meter during that same period.

                              “That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watts per square meter estimated by the [United Nations’] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution,” says Svensmark.

                              That is, cloud cover changes over a 5-year period can have 85 percent of the temperature effect on the Earth that has been claimed to have been caused by nearly 200 years of manmade carbon dioxide emissions. The temperature effects of cloud cover during the 20th century could be as much as 7 times greater than the alleged temperature effect of 200 years worth of additional carbon dioxide and several times greater than that of all additional greenhouse gases combined.

                              So although it has been taken for granted by global warming alarmists that human activity has caused the climate to warm, Svensmark’s study strongly challenges this assumption.

                              Given that the cosmic ray effect described by Svensmark would be more than sufficient to account for the net estimated temperature change since the Industrial Revolution, the key question becomes: Has human activity actually warmed, cooled or had no net impact on the planet?

                              Between manmade greenhouse gas emissions, land use patterns and air pollution, humans may have had a net impact on global temperature. But if so, no one yet knows the net sign (that is, plus/minus) of that impact.

                              Not surprisingly, Svensmark’s potentially myth-shattering study has so far been largely ignored by the media. Though published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, it’s only been reported – and briefly at that – in The New Scientist (Oct. 7), Space Daily (Oct. 6) and the Daily Express (U.K., Oct. 6).

                              The media’s lack of interest hardly reflects upon the importance of Svensmark’s experiment so much as it reflects upon the media’s and global warming lobby’s excessive investment in greenhouse gas hysteria.


                              Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert , an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute .

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X