Evidence for God from Science

The Following is a link to the main page of an article posted by the founder of the web-site, Rich Deem.

It deals with an article run in the LA Times regarding global warming.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ption.html

If you choose to send an e-mail as encouraged by Rich, please do so from the link above.

Bart

_________________________________________________________

Global Warming: Deceptive Article in Los Angeles Times
by Rich Deem

Introduction

Proposed L.A. Times Rebuttal

Mr. Robert Hotz's recent article on the Greenland ice sheets is one of the most deceptive that I have ever read in the L.A. Times. Contrary to the implications of the article ("If the ice thaws entirely, sea level would rise 21 feet."), the most recently published scientific article by Dr. Zwally shows net accumulation of ice on Greenland. The December, 2005 Journal of Glaciology article indicates thawing along the coasts in the amount of —42 Gt a—1, although the increase inland of +53 Gt a—1 more than makes up for that loss. So, overall, ice is actually accumulating on Greenland at +11 Gt a—1 and not contributing to the global sea level rise at all! One would never come away with that conclusion based upon the deceptive title and writing of the L.A. Times article.

Rich Deem

On Sunday, June 25, 2006, the Los Angeles Times published an article entitled "Greenland's Ice Sheet Is Slip-Sliding Away."1 The subtitle said, "The massive glaciers are deteriorating twice as fast as they were five years ago. If the ice thaws entirely, sea level would rise 21 feet." It is true that sea levels would rise a lot if all the ice melted. However, what the article does not tell you is that overall, ice on Greenland is accumulating - not melting! I couldn't believe that the L.A. Times would published such a deceptive article, so I wrote the editor (and the author, Mr. Robert Hotz), but received no reply. Maybe if they got a few hundred e-mails they would think about responding? See below how you can help make them admit the truth.

What's the problem?The really surprising thing about the Times article is that it is centered around researcher Dr. Jay Zwally, who published the study showing that ice is accumulating on Greenland. The study2 examined the amount of ice on Greenland and Antarctica over the last ten years, using satellite radar altimetry. The Greenland data showed extensive melting of the edges of Greenland's ice sheet (confirming visual observations), but increased ice inland (due to increased precipitation). The net change was snow accumulation of +11 Gt a—1 for Greenland. I have news for the Times - accumulation of snow does not result in sea level rise! This doesn't mean that global warming is untrue or that the sea is not rising. Antarctica is melting at a rate three times faster than snow is accumulating on Greenland. However, the Times should be able to get the data right, since Mr. Hotz interviewed the guy who did the study. Duh!

What can you do?If the L.A. Times gets enough complaints from enough people, maybe they will publish one of them. So, enter your name and e-mail address below. You also need to add your name and address below the text, since they won't publish any article without a real name and address. However, they do not publish your address, but want it for some reason. Submitting this form will send one e-mail to the letters department at the L.A. Times and a second e-mail to the author, Mr. Robert Hotz. Go for it! Maybe you will get published.

Here's another example of the media trying to get attention.

It is true that if all the ice melted that the sea levels would rise dramically, but the climate models don't show this. The majority of any rise in ocean level would be due to those sections of Antarctica which rest on water as opposed to land. It would take a more dramatic rise in global temperatures to completely melt the ice caps.

So, an inconvenient truth is that Gore was only telling half the truth in his documentary?

By definition from the media, Global Warming is human induced catastophe. There is no scientific facts regarding this, more facts against.

godslanguage wrote:By definition from the media, Global Warming is human induced catastophe. There is no scientific facts regarding this, more facts against.

Are you certain?

godslanguage wrote:By definition from the media, Global Warming is human induced catastophe. There is no scientific facts regarding this, more facts against.

I'm not completely sure on that.

I suspect from my limited reading and knowledge that warming and cooling in terms of average temperature takes place naturally apart from any human contribution to the cycle. But, I do think that there is good reason to examine and understand to what extent greenhouse gases do contribute.

To what extent is debatable.

Further, there does appear to be an agenda among some factions to utilize fear of this for political and socio-economic purposes.

While that is a problem, it should not hamper reasonable people from examining the data, seeking to understand the issue and where possible and practical to modify behavior where warranted.

Yes, I am sure, however Canukster makes a very good unbiased point.

godslanguage wrote:By definition from the media, Global Warming is human induced catastophe. There is no scientific facts regarding this, more facts against.

Not to be too harsh, but a statement such as this borders on ridiculous. A simple search in your local library's journal collection will lead you to a significant numbers of studies providing support for anthropogenic origins of global warming. While there are also many studies out there that attempt to discredit the link between human activity and global warming, it's interesting to see how many of these studies were originally funded by fossil fuel interests.

sarcasm wrote:Isn't it kind of ridiculous of a worldview of material naturalism to be concerned about this? Isn't this just the course of evolutionary time, and once we change the environment enough, we will grow wings and become so much more evolutionarily advanced?

These Global warming people are holding us back from our evolutionary destiny.

Seriously though isn't this the same crewt hat was crying about the coming ice age back in the 60's? What's next the sky is falling?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So, an inconvenient truth is that Gore was only telling half the truth in his documentary?

What statements did the documentary make?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So, an inconvenient truth is that Gore was only telling half the truth in his documentary?

What statements did the documentary make?

The one that prompted me to make this quip was obviously inspired by the article. Gore said that Greenland was losing icemass. My statements are, at times, germane to the topic.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So, an inconvenient truth is that Gore was only telling half the truth in his documentary?

What statements did the documentary make?

The one that prompted me to make this quip was obviously inspired by the article. Gore said that Greenland was losing icemass. My statements are, at times, germane to the topic.

While it is true that the ice is accumulating on the interior of the icemass, overall there is a loss of icemass.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/

The overall result is a net loss of approximately 50 cubic kilometers of ice annually. This results in a rise in ocean levels of 0.005 inches per year or 7% of the observed rise in ocean levels. So the initial statement that the greatest concern is in the antarctic remains.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... news_rss20

The article above seems to indicate that ice mass loss is indeed taking place in Greenland at 3 times the rate previously indicated.

It's subtle, and maybe not a completely fair observation, but the end of the article seems to indicate that this should be a basis for more funding for research and gravity data sattelites.

Note as well at the end that a primary source of this is Hansen who has been very public and very vocal politically in criticizing the current administration for their policies and funding levels.

Science or hype?

Canuckster1127 wrote:http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... news_rss20

The article above seems to indicate that ice mass loss is indeed taking place in Greenland at 3 times the rate previously indicated.

It's subtle, and maybe not a completely fair observation, but the end of the article seems to indicate that this should be a basis for more funding for research and gravity data sattelites.

Note as well at the end that a primary source of this is Hansen who has been very public and very vocal politically in criticizing the current administration for their policies and funding levels.

Science or hype?

Hansen was not part of the research team.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... news_rss20

The article above seems to indicate that ice mass loss is indeed taking place in Greenland at 3 times the rate previously indicated.

It's subtle, and maybe not a completely fair observation, but the end of the article seems to indicate that this should be a basis for more funding for research and gravity data sattelites.

Note as well at the end that a primary source of this is Hansen who has been very public and very vocal politically in criticizing the current administration for their policies and funding levels.

Science or hype?

Hansen was not part of the research team.

I didn't say Hansen was a part of the team. He was quoted however at the end of the article which indicates something to me in terms of the objectivity, perhaps of the author of the article.

What's your take on the content? Have you observed any stronger data coming out indicating an acceleration of polar ice cap melting other than this source?