No. I would say that ANY time you read an article you should consider the source. I happen to agree with most (but not all) of what Cato publishes. That doesn't change the fact that I keep in mind their political and philosophical leanings when I read it.
And, believe me, I do the same thing when I read the Washington Post and New York Times. ZDNet also gets a big dose of a reality check.
At least with an organization like Cato, they explicitly state their goals.
As a participant in the 1998 and 1999 SCICEX's (Science Ice Expeditions) of the USS Hawkbill (SSN 666), I've had a chance to look at these questions pretty closely:
We do know that the arctic has warmed in the last 40 years. However, this does not necessarily mean that global warming is a fact. The arctic climate is very complex and involves the interaction of the atlantic and pacific waters (which are of different temperatures and salinity) and many atmospheric condiditions.
So, we don't have any good evidence confirming that the loss of arctic ice is representitive of global warming. It could be a cyclical condition of which we became aware only recently (when we gained the ability to collect data in the arctic).
This is why the US Navy and the scientific community has invested large amounts of time, personnel and equipment to arctic expeditions.
For more information on the SCICEX expeditions, take a look at the official SCICEX web site:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/SCICEX/
For some great pictures of the USS Hawkbill at the pole (and if you don't mind a relatively slow connection), take a look at the USS Hawkbill Commemorative CDROM:
http://www.walkeonline.com/hawkbill/index.html
(look under the photo album for SCICEX '99 or SCICEX '98)
Slashdot Mirror
No. I would say that ANY time you read an article you should consider the source. I happen to agree with most (but not all) of what Cato publishes. That doesn't change the fact that I keep in mind their political and philosophical leanings when I read it.
And, believe me, I do the same thing when I read the Washington Post and New York Times. ZDNet also gets a big dose of a reality check.
At least with an organization like Cato, they explicitly state their goals.
Same basic story: I volunteered to edit the America's Cup section (which is hopelessly out of date). - rejected with no explanation.
If they really want people to contribute they need to work on their relations. After all, we are "volunteers."
As a participant in the 1998 and 1999 SCICEX's (Science Ice Expeditions) of the USS Hawkbill (SSN 666), I've had a chance to look at these questions pretty closely:
We do know that the arctic has warmed in the last 40 years. However, this does not necessarily mean that global warming is a fact. The arctic climate is very complex and involves the interaction of the atlantic and pacific waters (which are of different temperatures and salinity) and many atmospheric condiditions.
So, we don't have any good evidence confirming that the loss of arctic ice is representitive of global warming. It could be a cyclical condition of which we became aware only recently (when we gained the ability to collect data in the arctic).
This is why the US Navy and the scientific community has invested large amounts of time, personnel and equipment to arctic expeditions.
For more information on the SCICEX expeditions, take a look at the official SCICEX web site:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/SCICEX/
For some great pictures of the USS Hawkbill at the pole (and if you don't mind a relatively slow connection), take a look at the USS Hawkbill Commemorative CDROM:
http://www.walkeonline.com/hawkbill/index.html (look under the photo album for SCICEX '99 or SCICEX '98)
Vann Walke LT, USN
What does this mean for ALSA support? Will the drivers released by Aureal give use the information we need to develop our own?