How Much Should You Worry About an Arctic Methane Bomb?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Much Should You Worry About an Arctic Methane Bomb?

Posted by Soulskill on Friday August 9, 2013 @05:01AM from the TSA-now-banning-all-carbon-based-gases-on-airplanes dept.

barlevg sends this excerpt from an article at MotherJones: "It was a stunning figure: $60 trillion. Such could be the cost, according to a recent commentary in Nature, of 'the release of methane from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea, off northern Russia... a figure comparable to the size of the world economy in 2012.' More specifically, the paper described a scenario in which rapid Arctic warming and sea ice retreat lead to a pulse of undersea methane being released into the atmosphere. How much methane? The paper modeled a release of 50 gigatons of this hard-hitting greenhouse gas (a gigaton is equal to a billion metric tons) between 2015 and 2025. This, in turn, would trigger still more warming and gargantuan damage and adaptation costs. ... According to the Nature commentary, that methane 'is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly.' Such are the scientific assumptions behind the paper's economic analysis. But are those assumptions realistic—and could that much methane really be released suddenly from the Arctic? A number of prominent scientists and methane experts interviewed for this article voiced strong skepticism about the Nature paper.'"

54 of 416 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by BillCable · 2013-08-09 05:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

I supposed the 15-year pause in global warming has prompted alarmists to come up with even more extreme catastrophes.
Control by amiga3D · 2013-08-09 05:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

I worry about things about as much as I have control over them. Things like this I have Zero control so I have Zero worries. About the same I worry about a comet impacting the planet. It might happen and there is nothing I can do. Why worry?
1. Re:Control by ackthpt · 2013-08-09 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I worry about things about as much as I have control over them. Things like this I have Zero control so I have Zero worries. About the same I worry about a comet impacting the planet. It might happen and there is nothing I can do. Why worry?
  According to some studies we've already crossed the tipping point and it's going to happen. So even if every government and every state and every person suddenly did everything they could to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we're going to get that methane anyway.
  Where we'll see it is where it affects the flora and fauna directly (altering availability of species in the food chain) and weather - more greenhouse gasses mean more disruption to weather patterns. Some places will get hotter, some will actually get cooler, some will get more precipitation and others will get less, over time this will shape the world we live in and our own food sources.
  Time to put REM - End of the World on the iPod and look at housing on higher ground.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:Control by Danathar · 2013-08-09 05:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "Some places will get hotter, some will actually get cooler, some will get more precipitation and others will get less, over time this will shape the world we live in and our own food sources."
  Isn't that the way it's always been?
3. Re:Control by Time_Ngler · 2013-08-09 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  Having a better idea of what the future will bring regardless of your control still should be something you think about. What if your doctor told you had incurable cancer and will die within 6 months? Would you continue to go to work as normal, because you have no control over it, or would you party like there is no tomorrow?
  What if were studying advanced basket weaving in college and the job market soured in basket weaving? Would you not worry about it because have no control over the job market, or would you switch majors to something more potentially profitable?
  So, then if there is a good chance that the environment will be get extremely fucked up (not sure of this, but just for argument's sake), would you put off that trip around the world 10 more years like you were planning to, or would you take it now? Would you have a family and curse your children to live in a dystopian future, or would you take the humanitarian route and have no kids?
4. Re:Control by ackthpt · 2013-08-09 06:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Some places will get hotter, some will actually get cooler, some will get more precipitation and others will get less, over time this will shape the world we live in and our own food sources."
  Isn't that the way it's always been?
  Yes, but generally these changes have been gradual. We're seeing significant changes in the start of seasons, insect life cycles, migration of birds, etc. over a short time span.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
5. Re:Control by clarkkent09 · 2013-08-09 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  The only long term solution for human race is colonizing other planets. Having all our eggs in one basket is a bad idea regardless of who is right about the severity of the impact of global warming.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
6. Re:Control by tnk1 · 2013-08-09 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  Global warming or not, you're absolutely correct. The longest we've got is about 400 million years or so before the Sun starts making it impossible to live on the planet. And an incoming rock or some other unexpected, catastrophic occurrence is likely to show up much sooner than that. We'll need to leave eventually, one way or another, or perish. That is simply a fact.
7. Re:Control by rolfwind · 2013-08-09 06:44 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, about that, there's no habitable planets close by, like within even a generation or two of constant travel, and seeing as my weatherman has problems predicting 5 days out, I think terraforming the moon or Mars or whatever is a pipe dream right now.
  OTOH, humanity can change it's tactics, if forced to. The only question will that force going to be strong leadership or nature herself? I think strong leadership will be much more forgiving in the long haul.
  What we have to do is put real money into fusion, build more plants, and battery tech for cars. Keep this planet alive for a few more thousand years.... so, Idk, our species will survive to the point we're ready to colonize (if ever).
8. Re:Control by tnk1 · 2013-08-09 07:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  To be fair, all he was trying to say is that "global warming" will have unpredictable local results due to the heterogeneous make-up of the atmosphere as well as other features. For instance, Great Britain is on the same latitude as Labrador and Newfoundland, but has considerably more temperate weather. That's because of the circulation of the air in the atmosphere. Things like the Gulf Stream (but not necessarily the Gulf Stream itself) could cause the extra heat to be distributed unevenly.
  We need to remember that heat in these cases is energy that powers the "engines" that produce our weather. Much like electricity can be used to heat and cool, if it is pumped through the right engine, there are natural processes that could cool the planet locally if they receive more energy.
  Of course, eventually steadily increasing heat in the system will simply overwhelm any cooling features, and you'll get Venus out of it. However, that's not going to happen overnight and not without some unusual effects. It may not even happen at all if there are some special cases of equilibrium for the Earth, but those points may still be at a very uncomfortable place for humans.
  So, the guy who is blaming the unusually hot weather this summer directly on global warming is just as misguided as the guy who is suggesting that since this is the coldest year on record, global warming is a joke. Determining cause and effect in weather in the long term is still not as much of a complete science as we'd like.
  None of this is meant to suggest that I know the truth of whether a global warming disaster is going to come to pass, but I know enough about climate and weather to know that changes to the former can have interesting, sometimes counter-intuitive effects on the latter.
"Methane Bomb"? by Andrio · 2013-08-09 05:05 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh god, here come the jokes.

--
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
1. Re:"Methane Bomb"? by MarkRose · 2013-08-09 07:51 · Score: 2
  
  Hey man, it's funny if you look on the lighter side.
  
  --
  Be relentless!
How much? by no-body · 2013-08-09 05:09 · Score: 2

Very - like 1000 %. The ignoring of all the environmental issues by the people able to change track will surely lead to a runaway situation in earth climate.

There seems to be a large part of the US population thinking global climate change is a non-issue. Good luck with all of that!
1. Re:How much? by jellomizer · 2013-08-09 05:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So I should be in a pure panic right now because of everything.
  There are a lot of issues in the world to worry about. I choose not to worry about global warming, not because I don't think it is a problem, but because I have my own sets of things I worry about and feel like spending my time advocating.
  I find that it is a big deal on how American Education puts such little focus on Math and Science, and passes it off as something that is OK not to know.
  As far as I am concerned, if my cause got priority, the next generation would be better at math and science, be able to accept the findings about climate change. Then be able to put more pressure on our leaders to do something about it. There are too many people right now who threw lack of scientific knowledge fall pray to pseudoscience from say supporters of Oil industries, without seeing the major flaws in their reasoning, because they stated their "facts" so elegantly, and with authority.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
2. Re:How much? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-09 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Wait, what? You sound like you believe climate change is problematic, but you're going to leave it for the next generation of people to do something about it. Time is a bit of a factor when it comes to what we can do about climate change, and I don't think even if education instantly became the biggest priority of everyone in the country that it'd still do that much good in, say, the two years till 2015.
3. Re:How much? by tnk1 · 2013-08-09 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  No, no, it really isn't. Remember that all of that carbon was in the atmosphere before. Therefore, Earth had a functioning biosphere even under much worse circumstances than the current state of affairs.
  That carbon may have been in the atmosphere before, but it may not have been the atmosphere *at the same time* at these levels. And more to the point, if it ever was at those levels, the climate might not have been quite as calm as we might like it to be.
  Plants and other lifeforms have been working for hundreds of millions of years to sequester large amounts of carbon in the crust. We are putting that back into the system in just a few centuries. It is possible that a rate of change like that could cause more extreme changes.
4. Re:How much? by IanCal · 2013-08-09 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  . The assumption that the greenhouse effect will "run away" and kill all life is preposterous. If it were going to do so, it would have happened billions of years ago, and we wouldn't be here having this discussion.
  It can kill all of *us* though. I don't see it as OK if we all die but some bacteria survive.
  Or even, you know, *lots of people*. The Earth has been incredibly inhospitable for long periods of time
  
  So at some point, things will get bad enough that people will decide to commit resources to it. At that point, we'll pull ourselves up out of the hole.
  Awesome, so the plan is to wait until lots of people are dying and everythings pretty fucked up, *then* start solving the problems. Sounds perfect, can't see a flaw there.
Catastrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-09 05:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why does it seem that around every corner there is a new totally natural and cyclical process that the news is going to kill us? I am tired of all this. The Earth is a very complex system and we and it will adapt. I think we should actually understand the natural cycles and integrate ourselves so we are not fighting against it all the time.
Permaculture is the future.
1. Re:Catastrophe? by UnknowingFool · 2013-08-09 05:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think we should actually understand the natural cycles and integrate ourselves so we are not fighting against it all the time.
  The whole point of climate change is that it is not natural that we put large quantities of CO2 into the air.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
2. Re:Catastrophe? by riverat1 · 2013-08-09 05:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The most likely candidate for the last seabed warming of this potential magnitude was about 55 million years ago during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. That period did coincide with a lot of extinctions.
3. Re:Catastrophe? by Black+Parrot · 2013-08-09 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly.
  When was the last seabed warming, and how devastating to life on earth was it?
  Over the history of earth, there were much warmer periods with far smaller ice caps.
  Do those periods correspond with huge species die off?
  Or was it exactly to opposite?
  How many mega-cities were right by the seashore during those previous times?
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
4. Re:Catastrophe? by dcw3 · 2013-08-09 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  For the same reason that the media loves to use the word pandemic at every opportunity. How many people actually died from SARs or Bird Flu? Compare that to how many die on the highway every single day. Scare people, and they'll always come back to hear more.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
5. Re:Catastrophe? by JTsyo · 2013-08-09 06:58 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Just Atlantis
Sounds like a lot of methane. by mrjb · 2013-08-09 05:10 · Score: 3, Funny

Anyone got a match?

--
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Seems like a resource, not a threat by Old+VMS+Junkie · 2013-08-09 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seems to me we should be figuring out how to tap into this stuff and use it for fuel.
1. Re:Seems like a resource, not a threat by baKanale · 2013-08-09 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  From what I understand methane is a more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so if one believes that the methane is going to enter the atmosphere anyway then it would make sense to convert as much of it it to carbon dioxide first, with the obvious benefit of energy extraction.
2. Re:Seems like a resource, not a threat by GameboyRMH · 2013-08-09 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  True. If it can replace other forms of fossil fuel that have no chance of causing sudden uncontrollable climate catastrophes (like super-filthy coal, ideally), it might be a good idea to burn it even if we're not too sure about the odds of a "methane bomb." No chance of methane bomb + energy that's the same or less dirty = win-win.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Thinking outside the box by Provocateur · 2013-08-09 05:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Instead of the Arctic, let's work with the Antarctic, to get opposite results. Less methane, and more good news all round., leaving the cows to rejoice at still being Number One methane producer.

--
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Not a crisis! by sjames · 2013-08-09 05:21 · Score: 2

This is no crisis, it's an opportunity! I vote we send the entire TSA to the arctic right now with orders to pat the polar bears down for arctic methane bombs! We'll get those terrorists this time!
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by mcgrew · 2013-08-09 05:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Could you give a citation for that "lowered solar output?" Because wikipedia disagrees with you. Do you work for an oil company or have you just succumbed to their propaganda?
As to should we worry, no. Worrying never solved anything. Worry isn't needed, planning is.
You can worry about global cooling in five or ten thousand years.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by camperdave · 2013-08-09 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Earth *IS* the center of the universe, just like everywhere else is.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Economic Bonanza by sunsurfandsand · 2013-08-09 05:42 · Score: 2

Suppose the $60T estimate is right. Isn't that good? In a closed economy, income equals expenditure. Earth, for now, is a closed economy. Therefore, if we spend $60T on goods and services to deal with methane, then we will have $60T in income.
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by Anon-Admin · 2013-08-09 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nasa http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
(And just so you dont have to read that long complicated article here is a link to a nice picture)
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
But don't let real science get in the way of your research via Wikipedia.
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by BillCable · 2013-08-09 05:46 · Score: 2

But if it's on the Internet it has to be true.
the answer is Bean-O by ClassicASP · 2013-08-09 05:52 · Score: 2

beano prevents gas. we're gonna need a lot of it
Re:More hoax maskerading as "science" by Black+Parrot · 2013-08-09 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Global warming my ass. It's fucking cold and raining here in Wyoming.
If a cool spell disproves global warming, does a warm spell prove it? Or do you prefer to focus on the details that you think support your beliefs?
Ask people who spent June in Phoenix or Las Vegas how they liked the weather this year.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by Black+Parrot · 2013-08-09 06:00 · Score: 2

You may be interested in this.
After enjoying the review of the creationist tactic of combating science by means of a letter signed by mostly non-experts, scroll down to the plot and consider it carefully. Notice anything?
OTOH, the link contains facts, which may cause you irreparable harm if you click it.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:More hoax maskerading as "science" by I'm+just+joshin · 2013-08-09 06:12 · Score: 2

So far this summer has been nice. We had a few really hot days, but fewer than normal. We didn't get enough rain from our "monsoon," but that's what I say almost every year. It's going to be somewhere between 103F and 107F today which is on the low side of normal.
And looking at our electrical use for the summer, it's about 15% lower than last year which means our A/C units haven't been running as hard.
But go ahead and hype how hot it has been here, especially to anyone in California. We like that, it helps keep more Californians from moving here.
-J
What's DHS doing about this? by qwijibo · 2013-08-09 06:12 · Score: 2

Why haven't we heard about this from the Department of Homeland Security? What are they hiding?
It's just a matter of time before al queda gets its hand on this methane bomb. $60 trillion is just the kind of impact they'd like to unleash on us heathens and infidels.
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by GameboyRMH · 2013-08-09 06:21 · Score: 2

The "15-year pause" in global warming is bunk:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-09 06:21 · Score: 3, Funny

I've heard of confirmation bias and I STRONGLY AGREE with it.
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by drfred79 · 2013-08-09 06:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Count me in as a Randian zealot. I pray to Adam Smith to smite my socialist foes. Anyway, appeal to authority arguments have been debunked. Its 99% of respondent scientists in a ten year old survey. Global Cooling first. Then Peak Oil. Then it was Global Warming. Then it was Anthropomorphic Climate Change. Carbon PPM Quantity Tipping points. Fracking Earthquakes. Methane Bombs. It'd be a lot easier to believe all these sounding of alarms if they ever led to different conclusions. They usually end up with the same prognosis: More government oversight over personal freedom, reduced economic output, central planning, Al Gore. I categorically disagree with all the solutions. The fact is that the climate changes and there is no optimal global temperature or level of Co2 or ice percentage. These are arbitrary measurements and a lot more characteristic of Flat Earthers (KEEP THE EARTH THE SAME TEMPERATURE AS THE PAST!) than people who are Global Warming Skeptics.
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by drfred79 · 2013-08-09 06:29 · Score: 2

In 2006 the United Nations projected that the Midway and other low elevation islands would be completely under water. Since you say that we are seeing the effects of a fire (not sure which one you allude to?) could you tell me the humanitarian efforts being put into place to rescue all these Global warming refugees.
Irrelevant data by Geoffrey.landis · 2013-08-09 06:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Could you give a citation for that "lowered solar output?" Because wikipedia disagrees with you.
Nasa http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
(And just so you dont have to read that long complicated article here is a link to a nice picture)
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

That is a graph of sunspot number. The question was about "lowered solar output."
This is amazingly typical of internet arguments, especially by the greenhouse-effect denying community. When asked to show data supporting their assertion, they show something else entirely, but since it's a graph with numbers and such, it looks scientific. It's a win-win argument for the deniers: readers who aren't familar with the field say "oh, they have data: they must be right." And for people who do understand that the data is irrelevant, in the worst case, it sidetracks the argument onto a completely irrelevant discussion of what the connection between sunspot number is to solar output.
This data addresses your argument.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
1. Re:Irrelevant data by milkmage · 2013-08-09 07:03 · Score: 2
  
  so the piece doesn't explicitly state that there is a relationship, but it suggests there is one.
  curiously, an inverse relationship (fewer sunspots = cooler earth)
  Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
Re:don't worry about it by B1oodAnge1 · 2013-08-09 06:43 · Score: 2

This. Apart from the totalitarian world government you mention (and there's honestly no guarantee even that would work), there is no way to significantly alter the rate of consumption of fossil fuels, let alone stop it.
If you truly believe that catastrophic warming is going to happen then the only rational response is preparation, not prevention.

--
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by JTsyo · 2013-08-09 06:44 · Score: 2

Wait does this mean the lack of sunspots in 2008 lead to the market crash? Quick someone overlay the business cycles and sunspots. Think I found a way to beat the market.
Re:But there is one because YOU say so, eh? by drfred79 · 2013-08-09 06:46 · Score: 2

Ah, there is your problem. You believe everything you learn in school. How are those sophomore feminist basket weaving classes going for you? Pretty hard? Math is hard. Sometimes data and trends are interrupted or reversed by events outside of models. Then you create a new model to try and predict the new normal. You don't keep trying to force the new round peg into the old square hole.
Re:Something will have to give by rrohbeck · 2013-08-09 06:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Efficiency improvements have never been able to compensate for growth. They aren't even today in the US. All reduction in energy consumption was due to the recession, as the recent record numbers for oil consumption show.
Malthus was only delayed by the fossil fuel bonanza which is coming to an end.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" by Gumpu · 2013-08-09 06:57 · Score: 2

I'm 45 now, and since I started watching the news around 10 or so, I've heard news stories about the world about to come to end it for various reasons: nuclear bombs, acid rain, over population, full shortage, pollution,.... so far it is still spinning.
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by drfred79 · 2013-08-09 07:16 · Score: 2

I just want to state how awesome you are. Since you've read all of Ayn Rand's books which one would you say is your favorite? Atlas Shrugged is the trendy choice over the Fountainhead but I can't help but to enjoy it more. Did you prefer Adam Smith's "Of Moral Sentiments" or the classic "Wealth of Nations" more? Even though Smith's opus was Wealth of Nations and outlined his general thesis of economics I prefer Of Moral Sentiments because it better juxtaposed the irrationality of the market through behavioral economics. Just because the current Administration is trying to stifle the production of fossil fuels does not mean we have peaked. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=A Dependent on the whims of the government we could surpass peak oil. New technologies have allowed us to incentivize the mining of prior cost prohibitive oil fields. So my argument is if we have reached peak oil its because of our own constraints not because its physically not there. I'm not even going to argue Ayn Rand not liking Adam Smith. That is trollbait.
Sunspots [Re:Irrelevant data] by Geoffrey.landis · 2013-08-09 07:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

so the piece doesn't explicitly state that there is a relationship, but it suggests there is one.
Correct. The data given as a putative "response" is irrelevant to the question on so many levels it hurts. It doesn't state what the connection between sunspots and solar activity is; it shows the normal 11-year sunspot cycle, not anything different or unusual, and it shows only about one and a half cycles, not enough of a long term time series to even judge whether sunspot number (much less solar output) is going up or down.
So, with respect to the request, "Could you give a citation for that 'lowered solar output?' "-- fail.
But-- as you go on to demonstrate-- it does serve excellently to completely change the subject, and thus does its job of distracting people from noticing that there is no evidence whatsoever for the original assertion by changing the topic to a discussion of the relationship between sunspots and climate.
On that subject, the best data at the moment seems to show that the onset of the "little ice age" cooling was correlated with volcanic eruptions, and hid little or nothing to do with sunspots.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/02/eruptions-not-quiet-sun-may-have-triggered-little-ice-age/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=volcanoes-may-have-sparked

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-08-09 07:48 · Score: 2

Then I am a french model.
Do you happen to be dating a ditzy blonde woman who doesn't believe insurance companies have apps for cell phones?

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Dog and cats! Living together! Mass hysteria!!! by Belial6 · 2013-08-09 16:47 · Score: 2

I still have never heard a reasonable explanation on how the 'climategate' wasn't a case of fraud. The explanation I heard was that the researchers didn't do anything unethical, they just hide the data that contradicted the outcome they wanted. As I understand it, the tree ring data was used up until direct measurements started being taken. They 'hide' the tree ring data after that because the tree ring data didn't match up with the actual temperatures. The tree ring data was shown to be invalid, yet the continued to use it anyway when it produced the outcome they were looking for.

Did I miss some announcement where they removed tree ring data completely, or are they still using known bad data?