# Global Warming, Public Health, and Fox News



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/28/from_snowstorms_to_heat_waves_how

Excellent discussion by a Harvard Prof who breaks down how the
increased ocean temps are causing these major snow events ("must
viewing" for all you that think it cant be warming and snowing at 
the same time). Particularly interesting is the way Fox news is directing
all their "coverage" of the issue. Also, interesting about how the increased
warming of winters is leading to massive increases in Lyme disease and
such. Soon as the book is available at my library I think I will check it
out. Let the trashing of this thread begin!
jim


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

pcwerk said:


> http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/28/from_snowstorms_to_heat_waves_how
> 
> Excellent discussion by a Harvard Prof who breaks down how the
> increased ocean temps are causing these major snow events ("must
> ...


How many of these threads must we endure.....its all hogwash...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You got that right.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Sorry dude,not a believer in your weirdo cult....have a brain....want to buy some tulip bulbs?I hear they will be worth millions


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

The AGW believers fit into one or more of these categories:

Socialist
Gullible
Dumb


----------



## barelahh (Apr 13, 2007)

The Washington Post
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
____________________________________________________

Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 88 years ago!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes The Washington Post.., They don't call it The Washington _Compost_ for nothing. LOL


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

barelahh said:


> Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 88 years ago!


LOL.....and we're still here, still inhabiting coastal cities. 

What I have yet to see, from any report, is that any of the current proposals will reverse the rise in temperatures.....that cap and trade will lower the temperatures.

When the science community can prove _that_, then they just might get my attention. Until then, I choose to believe it's nothing more than a money-making scheme. Y'all really should hear some of the things Van Jones is saying lately about 'economic opportunities' related to cap and trade.

Methinks it's more about the 'economic opportunities' than about protecting the environment.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

Step away from the kool-aid


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

If there is some kind of natural global change happening man can not reverse it. Plain ands Simple, the earth is way more dynamic then what man can even think he can reverse some kind of natural global change, which BTW earth has been doing the past 4.5 Billion Years.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Pretty sure my Lyme disease came from a tick bite.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

beccachow said:


> Pretty sure my Lyme disease came from a tick bite.


Yeah, but the warmer weather is gonna make the ticks multiply more, therefore more Lyme's disease. See how easy that was to make the transition? You just have to know the liberal mindset to understand these things.:smiley-laughing013:

.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Ed Norman said:


> The AGW believers fit into one or more of these categories:
> 
> Socialist
> Gullible
> Dumb


 You just called 95% of the worlds climate scientists 'dumb gullible socialists'. Hey enjoy that internet access, brought to you by those dumb gullible socialist scientist types. You know the internet is just a scheme to make money and control the masses right???


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

greg273 said:


> You just called 95% of the worlds climate scientists 'dumb gullible socialists'. Hey enjoy that internet access, brought to you by those dumb gullible socialist scientist types. You know the internet is just a scheme to make money and control the masses right???


Climate scientists have nothing to do with making the internet.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Jena said:


> Climate scientists have nothing to do with making the internet.


You got that right. It was initially a DOD project fueled by the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik. Not an environmentalist wacko in sight.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

greg273 said:


> You just called 95% of the worlds climate scientists 'dumb gullible socialists'. Hey enjoy that internet access, brought to you by those dumb gullible socialist scientist types. You know the internet is just a scheme to make money and control the masses right???


No. I think he called them dumb OR gullible OR socialist.


----------



## Farmerwilly2 (Oct 14, 2006)

Look at the bright side. Now that global warming has set new records for cold in Great Britian and multiple cities in this country (oh, how's that global warming working for ya'll in Ga. and Fl.----new record in Vegas anyone?) I think the average number of ticks carrying Lyme on the melting icebergs will be offset by the frozen ticks in the souther orange groves.

I myself am a firm believer that it's all of the alar folks quit spraying their apples with years ago that is causing the warming. 

I put global warming talk in the same category with 'don't worry, I'll pull out' or 'the checks in the mail'.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

So I take it no one bothered to see the interview? Sorry, I'm just trying
to lessen the level of ignorance on this issue. Heck, its worth seeing 
just to see how Fox manipulates its "news" to keep you all in the dark!


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

pcwerk said:


> Excellent discussion by a Harvard Prof who breaks down how the
> increased ocean temps are causing these major snow events ("must
> viewing" for all you that think it cant be warming and snowing at
> the same time).


The great grandfather of the climate change movement was Stephen Foster. He even wrote their theme song:

I come from Alabama with a banjo on my knee,
I'm going to Louisiana, my true love for to see
It rained all night the day I left, the weather it was dry
The sun so hot I froze to death; Susanna, don't you cry.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

pcwerk said:


> So I take it no one bothered to see the interview? Sorry, I'm just trying to lessen the level of ignorance on this issue. Heck, its worth seeing just to see how Fox manipulates its "news" to keep you all in the dark!


Don't worry about whether or not people looked at the interview. People who are interested will read the interview - I read it, but I'm still not going to comment on the interview. I will read anything you post on the subject and I'm sure that others will too, but don't be disappointed if the only responses you get are derisive comments from the nay-sayers who don't bother to look at it.

You know, for some people ignorance is bliss and they and their families will go blissfully to their untimely deaths because they were happiest while ignorant. 

Reminds me of all those people who still went out driving in the blizzard in spite of warnings, saying to themselves "Blizzard? What blizzard, I don't see any snow. I don't want to believe it therefore it isn't happening." And then they got stuck in the snow.

People who are aware and seeing the climate changes themselves will be willing to learn more about it and heed the necessary precautions to "weather out" the storm so they survive. People who choose to remain ignorant and unaware will meet an untimely demise. That will just leave more for the survivors.

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

My demise will be exactly on schedule. And I don't set the schedule, either.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

pcwerk said:


> So I take it no one bothered to see the interview? Sorry, I'm just trying
> to lessen the level of ignorance on this issue. Heck, its worth seeing
> just to see how Fox manipulates its "news" to keep you all in the dark!


I didn't watch the video but I did read the text. And, it does make some good points. I don't agree with all of them but, just because some people don't agree with you on this issue doesn't make them ignorant.

As far as FOX manipulating us to keep us all in the dark, you can believe whatever you like but that doesn't make it true. In the FOX interview that your article quoted, Joe Bastardi makes a good argument that the climate issues we're seeing are cyclical. He's not the only one who thinks that. I suspect though that you're referring to the leaked memo from the FOX director that your article mentioned. He reportedly orders correspondents to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question". What is so wrong with that? It's the truth. All it is doing is saying that there is more than one point of view on the subject. Again, true. Mr. Sammon did not direct FOX correspondents to manipulate anyone or try to keep anyone in the dark. Just to present both sides of the issue. The last time I checked, showing that there is more than one side to an issue isn't trying to keep anyone in the dark.

If you think about it logically, the argument could easily be made that the media that only shows your side of the issue are, in fact, the ones manipulating the news to keep people in the dark.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Excellent discussion by a Harvard Prof who breaks down how the
> *increased ocean temps are causing these major snow events *


*Cold weather* causes snow events.

It it were* really *a lot warmer, it would rain


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> People who are aware and seeing the climate changes themselves will be willing to learn more about it and heed the necessary precautions to "weather out" the storm so they survive. People who choose to remain ignorant and unaware will meet an untimely demise. That will just leave more for the survivors.


LOL

You think "knowing" something will make a difference in *survival*?

We already KNOW the climate changes.
No one has disputed that fact.

The CAUSE is the issue, and whether or not anything can be done about it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Jena said:


> Climate scientists have nothing to do with making the internet.


 The majority of climate scientists believe we are influencing the climate. Study after study that comes to that conclusion. Perhaps you think they all have some leftist wacko agenda, but that would be a pretty large conspiracy. Guess we all pick which conspiracy theories we choose to believe. As I've said, the debate has become over politics. The posts Ed Norman wrote are a clear example of that.


ps, thanks but I already knew climate scientist did not create the internet.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> The CAUSE is the issue, and whether or not anything can be done about it.


And also that a gazillion dollars is to be made if they can convince enough people, and tax our way out of it. DESPITE the admissions that the data is flawed. It is a money making scheme.

I have no doubt that man is hurting the planet, in OTHER ways. And she will have her revenge.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm waiting for the sun spots to kick up again and things to cool off so we can start hearing about the coming ice age again.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

> * There is a mini ice age coming*





> Since 90,000 out of every 100,000 years of human history have been Ice Ages and it's been 12,000 years since the last one, logically we have been overdue.


 http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/piers_corbyn_theres_mini_ice_age_coming


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

In my life time I can see it is getting warmer. When My grandfather drove a wagon across the Arkansas river at Little Rock now it rarely get ice on it. When I was 4 or 5 years old a lake froze over enough to support my father. Now days it rarely get enough ice at all.We are coming out of a mini Ice age that started during the early 1700's. We have been getting a little warmer since then. You can't just look at the last decade and get a true picture. You need to look at a couple of centuries at least to find out the truth. Has it been cause by man? NO. It has been going on for over 4 or 5 million years. It is foolish to think that man can stop it. Are we contributing to it yes but not that much. Man could vanish today and it will go on.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Farmerwilly2 said:


> Look at the bright side. Now that global warming has set new records for cold in Great Britian and multiple cities in this country (oh, how's that global warming working for ya'll in Ga. and Fl.----new record in Vegas anyone?) I think the average number of ticks carrying Lyme on the melting icebergs will be offset by the frozen ticks in the souther orange groves.
> 
> I myself am a firm believer that it's all of the alar folks quit spraying their apples with years ago that is causing the warming.
> 
> I put global warming talk in the same category with 'don't worry, I'll pull out' or 'the checks in the mail'.


And don't forget Alabama in your states. They got hit with Christmas snow in Birmingham this year. My inlaws are having fits about how cold it was in Florida, although I guess it's warmed up since Christmas. Here in Ga we actually had snowfall BEFORE Christmas. It didn't stick, but it snowed. Yep, global warming. :umno:


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Don't worry about whether or not people looked at the interview. People who are interested will read the interview - I read it, but I'm still not going to comment on the interview. I will read anything you post on the subject and I'm sure that others will too, but don't be disappointed if the only responses you get are derisive comments from the nay-sayers who don't bother to look at it.
> 
> You know, for some people ignorance is bliss and they and their families will go blissfully to their untimely deaths because they were happiest while ignorant.
> 
> ...


Maybe the folks who went out driving in a blizzard didn't believe it since we're suppose to have global warming. How does a blizzard fit in with that rationale?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Old Vet said:


> In my life time I can see it is getting warmer. When My grandfather drove a wagon across the Arkansas river at Little Rock now it rarely get ice on it. When I was 4 or 5 years old a lake froze over enough to support my father. Now days it rarely get enough ice at all.We are coming out of a mini Ice age that started during the early 1700's. We have been getting a little warmer since then. You can't just look at the last decade and get a true picture. You need to look at a couple of centuries at least to find out the truth. Has it been cause by man? NO. It has been going on for over 4 or 5 million years. It is foolish to think that man can stop it. Are we contributing to it yes but not that much. Man could vanish today and it will go on.


Exactly. These things goes in cycles, but I guess I'm just an ignorant, blind follower of Fox news, so what do I know.


----------



## donewithcity (Sep 9, 2010)

You know a little information is good on this topic. I regularly visit these sites. Admittedly, some tend to be on the "denier" side of things, while most actually try to be scientific and unbiased. But coming from a family of engineers and scientists, I have been taught to try to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Climate Debate Daily
Watts up with that?
Climate Audit
SPPI
ICECAP
Planet Gore
The Air Vent
Tom Nelson


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> You just called 95% of the worlds climate scientists 'dumb gullible socialists'.


 95% eh?

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.co...bal-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-al-gore/

Reasonable people and scientists in particular should be willing to debate, defend, and challenege their theories but what some of you do is act like AGW is a religion. All debate is stifled, skeptics are labeled "deniers", and scientists with contrary research or opinions are villified. 

All of us "deniers" believe in climate change and few think polluting the atmosphere is a great idea but your so called settled science does indeed sound like a cult. Just a post ago we were told how Inuits think its not getting dark as much in the arctic as a proof of global warming but now it seems that observations about how we are experiencing record cold winters is just ignorant denier talk because everyone knows that global warming will mean harsher and colder winters....even though the AGW crowd predicted just the opposite as recently as a year ago..but then only a denier would think thats significant because 95% of all climate scientists believe in AGW...except those thousands that dont..because they dont count.

I know I missed how AGW is causing cancer, ticks, lyme disease, the unexplanied success of Justin Bieber etc but you get the drift.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

salmonslayer said:


> I know I missed how AGW is causing cancer, ticks, lyme disease, the unexplanied success of Justin Bieber etc but you get the drift.


Check here, they had Lyme disease in 2009.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

salmonslayer said:


> I know I missed how AGW is causing cancer, ticks, lyme disease, *the unexplanied success of Justin Bieber* etc but you get the drift.


That one's easy. It's the Beatles hairstyle, the twinkle toes and that sweetly infectious Canadian smile. 

.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Check here, they had Lyme disease in 2009.
> 
> http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


 Ya got me Ed!!!



> That one's easy. It's the Beatles hairstyle, the twinkle toes and that sweetly infectious Canadian smile.


 Ha, good one NL. :gaptooth: One of the managers of a local WalMart around here has the "Beiber Do" and just looks so ridiculous (he is in his late 20s I would guess) I cant help but laugh when I see the poor guy. But then I was looking at some old photos of me in HS the other day and I looked like Ringo...except uglier!! But my side zipper Beattle boots were stylish...HAHAHAH


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

"I suspect though that you're referring to the leaked memo from the FOX director that your article mentioned. He reportedly orders correspondents to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question". What is so wrong with that? It's the truth. All it is doing is saying that there is more than one point of view on the subject."

No it was not true. The Fox reporter correctly stated that the last decade
was the warmest decade on record. This is a fact and no credible scientist
disputes that. And then the next day they get the memo to always point out everything is supposedly always in question. Its just manufacturing doubt!
False doubt at that...
Just like another email I read about where the head of Fox news got onto a
reporter for using the term "public option" in the healthcare debate. He said
to always say "government option". Its all an attempt to manipulate how the viewer gets the information. Pravda had nothing on Fox!


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

It's encouraging to read that most business groups are beginning to take climate change seriously. That will eventually eliminate the manufactured "controversy" that Exxon/Mobil has created and we can get on with the business of trying to keep this planet habitable for future generations.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> Maybe the folks who went out driving in a blizzard didn't believe it since we're suppose to have global warming. How does a blizzard fit in with that rationale?


This is a perfect example, Sonshine if you truly would like to educate
yourself about HOW we can have global warming and increased blizzards
then LOOK AT THE INTERVIEW I POSTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS 
THREAD! Or if you would like to remain clueless about this point then
by all means, carry on...


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

fishhead said:


> It's encouraging to read that most business groups are beginning to take climate change seriously. That will eventually eliminate the manufactured "controversy" that Exxon/Mobil has created and we can get on with the business of trying to keep this planet habitable for future generations.


I hope so. I put it on a level with trying to bring about democracy to ALL
the peoples of the world (particularly the US) and wresting power from the
Corporate Elite/Military Industrial Complex. If we ignore both of these issues we are doomed. One by "natural causes" and the other by Global Thermonuclear War!


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

fishhead said:


> It's encouraging to read that most business groups are beginning to take climate change seriously. That will eventually eliminate the manufactured "controversy" that Exxon/Mobil has created and we can get on with the business of trying to keep this planet habitable for future generations.


Businesses exist to do business. They see an opportunity to sell all sorts of green technology products and services to the gullible and dumb. Here is a recent example of the caring businesses and governments doing what is best for the present and future generations:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/freezing_brits_steamed_over_ne.html



> December 30, 2010
> Freezing Brits steamed over new green boilers
> 
> Five years ago the global warming crowd and their comrades in the Labour Party mandated the use of new green technology boilers in Great Britain. Government and environmental experts said that the âcondensing boilersâ would not only greatly reduce the consumerâs carbon footprint, but would also lower their heating bills. Saving money and saving the planet, what could be better?
> ...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Study after study that comes to that conclusion. Perhaps you think they all have some leftist wacko agenda, but that would be a pretty large conspiracy.


Yes, an extremely large conspiracy of such enormity it would be simply impossible to commence without hundreds of whistle blowers.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ed Norman said:


> Businesses exist to do business. They see an opportunity to sell all sorts of green technology products and services to the gullible and dumb.


Exactly, that is why it is up to the consumer to choose healthful products that will not harm themselves or the environment. Because business are always going to manipulative and deceptive, it is up to the consumer to see past the lies and thievery that goes on.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I'll believe the world has tipped on it's axis before I'll trust a lib. on Gorebull Warning.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Here's a bit on how much AG was going to make.http://www.sunlituplands.org/2010/12/al-gore-set-to-become-first-carbon.html


----------



## DENALI (Mar 25, 2008)

Ed Norman said:


> The AGW believers fit into one or more of these categories:
> 
> Socialist
> Gullible
> Dumb


You forgot sheep.....


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Why does it always end with the denialists calling others who trust science childish names?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

fishhead said:


> Why does it always end with the denialists calling others who trust science childish names?


Something to do with wanting the Mommy Goverment to run their lives?


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

fishhead said:


> Why does it always end with the denialists calling others who trust science childish names?


And "denialist" isn't a silly childish name? 

And who's to say the version of science you trust is accurate - especially given all the reports of falsified data? There are thousands of scientist that say the version you believe in is total bunk. :fussin:


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> No it was not true. The Fox reporter correctly stated that the last decade
> was the warmest decade on record. This is a fact and no credible scientist
> disputes that.


Is it a fact?...your credible science comment speaks volumes about how little you actually understand science at all. There is hardly a concensus and by most measurements there has been no increase in global temps since 1998...its even mentioned in the IPCC report you think is infallible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-facts-to-warm-to/story-e6frg7ko-1111115855185
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/01/what’s-happened-to-global-warming/
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq
http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2010/01/twelve-year-satellite-temperature.html
http://www.ecoworld.com/atmosphere/atmospheric-science/global-warming-facts.html

You will note that most of these sites actually support the global warming theory and take steps to try and explain the plateau of temperature increases that has occurred since 1998. And while it seems to be true that the period from 1998 to present is statistically higher in temp than the similar period occurring prior to 1998 its also seems to be true that the period since 1998 has seen no statistical increase in overall global temperature.

Does any of this prove or disprove AGW? Absolutely not, it mearly points out the danger of extremism and anyone who adheres to absolutes when it refers to scientific theory is a believer in a religion not science.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

7thswan said:


> Something to do with wanting the Mommy Goverment to run their lives?


Source please.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

> So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.
> 
> The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.
> 
> Itâs really much to do about nothing.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010—where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

fishhead said:


> Why does it always end with the denialists calling others who trust science childish names?


Because they're frightened that they could be wrong and powerless to do anything about it, and that's what frightened, powerless people do, they resort to name calling and sarcastic commentary.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Because they're *frightened that they could be wrong *and powerless to do anything about it, and that's what frightened, powerless people do, they resort to name calling and sarcastic commentary.


Nope.

We aren't wrong, so you'll have to guess again


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Wags said:


> And who's to say the version of science you trust is accurate - especially given all the reports of falsified data? There are thousands of scientist that say the version you believe in is total bunk. :fussin:


My point exactly. The only time a scientist is WRONG is if they speak out against man made global warming.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Because they're frightened that they could be wrong and powerless to do anything about it, and that's what frightened, powerless people do, they resort to name calling and sarcastic commentary.
> 
> .


This actually branches to all parties, both sides of the line, all disagreements here on GC, and is not exclusive to the GW debate lol. :viking:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> Source please.


Ask a Lib.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Because they're frightened that they could be wrong and powerless to do anything about it, and that's what frightened, powerless people do, they resort to name calling and sarcastic commentary.
> 
> .


no ,that's called Projection. See we are not afraid, that's why we won't fall for it.(GW)


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

7thswan said:


> Ask a Lib.


I am a conservative FYI, although I do not like throwing myself with either group.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

salmonslayer said:


> Is it a fact?
> 
> Yes, a fact.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/met-office-warmest-decade


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

pcwerk said:


> No it was not true. The Fox reporter correctly stated that the last decade
> was the warmest decade on record. This is a fact and no credible scientist
> disputes that. And then the next day they get the memo to always point out everything is supposedly always in question. Its just manufacturing doubt!
> False doubt at that...
> ...


Whether you like it or not, there are credible critics of global warming. Whether you believe the criticism is up to you. Just because FOX points out that there is another side to the issue does not mean they are manufacturing doubt, misleading people, or trying to keep people in the dark. Please explain to me how telling viewers that there is another side to an issue is manipulating how viewers get information. If anything, they are providing more information and allowing the viewer to make up their own mind. Which is exactly what a news service is supposed to do.

What does "another email I read about where the head of Fox news got onto a reporter for using the term "public option" in the healthcare debate. He said
to always say "government option" have to do with global warming? You talk about how this thread is a way for us ignorant people to educate ourselves but posts like the one I quoted make it seem more like this thread is more about bashing FOX News. That and calling folks who disagree with you ignorant.


----------



## Murray in ME (May 10, 2002)

fishhead said:


> Why does it always end with the denialists calling others who trust science childish names?


And denialist is such a nice term. And calling those who disagree with you on this issue ignorant could also be called childish. Maybe arrogant would be a better term.

The point is, there is more than one side on the global warming issue. Both sides have credible scientists on their sides. You're approaching this as if your side is the only one that can possible be right. And anyone who disagrees with you is always wrong, no matter what evidence they provide to prove their point. Both sides have produced credible data to prove that they are correct in their assesment. As with almost everything, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

back to the lyme disease angle--don't forget malaria and dengue fever for the states that are ALREADY a suitable climate for the host mosquitos. THAT, once it gets a foothold biting enough infected people(ie it is just a fact of life with more immigrants and world traveling) here, will be a nightmare. You can throw drug resistant tuberculosis in with that mix too.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Is it the sun? Hm... Nope:









Does the medieval warm period compete? Nope:









Is it cooling? Nope. 

















One said has science. One side has facts. It's the side that says AGW. The other side has no science, and no facts.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> Why does it always end with the denialists calling others who trust science childish names?


Not always but it could be because of the childish "evidence" used by the human caused global warming side. 

They can't even answer the most basic question: Is the increase in atmospheric CO2 a cause or an effect of the warming.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pcwerk said:


> salmonslayer said:
> 
> 
> > Is it a fact?
> ...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> pcwerk said:
> 
> 
> > And does this "fact" take into account that a lot of weather stations which years ago were in rural ares are now surrounded by urban environments which is known to produce much higher LOCAL temperatures?
> ...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Not always but it could be because of the childish "evidence" used by the human caused global warming side.
> 
> They can't even answer the most basic question: Is the increase in atmospheric CO2 a cause or an effect of the warming.


How would increased CO2 be a product of GW? CO2 is quite obviously the culprit. Even the most basic, grade-school level science can tell you, and show you, that CO2 does indeed have greenhouse properties. There is no way increased CO2 could be a result of GW.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Are there any charts that show frequency of abnormal weather events over time?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

beccachow said:


> > Originally Posted by *naturelover*
> > _Because they're frightened that they could be wrong and powerless to do anything about it, and that's what frightened, powerless people do, they resort to name calling and sarcastic commentary.
> > _
> 
> ...


Ain't that the truth! :hysterical:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

watcher said:


> Is the increase in atmospheric CO2 a cause or an effect of the warming.


It is a cause. It is not only in the atmosphere, it's in the oceans too. It is causing both the oceans and the atmosphere to warm up.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> How would increased CO2 be a product of GW? CO2 is quite obviously the culprit. Even the most basic, grade-school level science can tell you, and show you, that CO2 does indeed have greenhouse properties. There is no way increased CO2 could be a result of GW.


Let me educate you a bit. 

The solubility of a gas (CO2) in a liquid (water) goes down as the temperature goes up. Therefore as the temp of the world's water goes up it releases more of the CO2 dissolved in the water. The less CO2 dissolved in the water means more CO2 in the air. So, the increase of CO2 could be nothing more than what is being released from water covering 70+% of the world's surface as the temperatures rise.

No one can prove if the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 is an effect of the rising temperatures or just an effect.

If you think it is the cause please explain to me how the C)2 was generated to cause last major global warming event, the end of the last ice age.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Is it the sun? Hm... Nope:


LOL Your chart is 10 years old

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html




> During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show *no significant warming trend over the last 100 years *(1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized.





> Each year Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record." The UN's executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on* ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading*. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have* year after year showed little or no warming*.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Paumon said:


> It is a cause. It is not only in the atmosphere, it's in the oceans too. It is causing both the oceans and the atmosphere to warm up.


Ahh . .no. As I stated as the temperature of a liquid increases the liquid's ability to hold a gas in solution falls. Therefore as the oceans warm the amount of CO2 in them will fall. And just where must this CO2 go? The atmosphere.

A quick google search using 'solubility of CO2 in water vs temperature' will allow you to educate yourself.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Yes, a fact.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...warmest-decade


 Your year old newspaper article of a report that has since been ammended is hardly proof of fact. I provided you 6 or 7 links from a variety of sources that say something different and there are hundreds more that argue both sides; you may be happy with being a true believer but that is extremely bad science and does little to advance your argument. 



> How would increased CO2 be a product of GW? CO2 is quite obviously the culprit. Even the most basic, grade-school level science can tell you, and show you, that CO2 does indeed have greenhouse properties. There is no way increased CO2 could be a result of GW.


 CO2 is indeed a known greenhouse gas, basic grade school science will tell you that the oceans are huge CO2 sinks holding huge deposits of CO2 and that warmer water will release more CO2 into the atmosphere. If the earth is warming from whatever cause, natural, manmade, or both and the oceans warm then they will release more CO2 into the atmosphere.

AGW skeptics and proponents both agree with this simple fact so your not really helping your argument much. Google it, even the most ardent AGW sites state this.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> One said has science. One side has facts. *It's the side that says AGW*. The other side has no science, and no facts.


LOL You left out a word: *NOT*

You *still *want to ignore all science and LOGIC that contradicts your agenda

It's funny to watch


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> LOL You left out a word: NOT
> 
> You still want to ignore all science and LOGIC that contradicts your agenda
> 
> It's funny to watch


 They are science "deniers" BFF


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Let me educate you a bit.
> 
> The solubility of a gas (CO2) in a liquid (water) goes down as the temperature goes up. Therefore as the temp of the world's water goes up it releases more of the CO2 dissolved in the water. The less CO2 dissolved in the water means more CO2 in the air. So, the increase of CO2 could be nothing more than what is being released from water covering 70+% of the world's surface as the temperatures rise.
> 
> ...


You forget an important fact: the oceans also absorb CO2.









http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/never_mind_future.php


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL You left out a word: *NOT*
> 
> You *still *want to ignore all science and LOGIC that contradicts your agenda
> 
> It's funny to watch


Are you this rude in real life?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I just read yesterday that all those computer models have left out the dirt.
*Global Warming bites the Dust*


> Global Warming, CO2 and Energy Policy
> A new study by Jasper Kok was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Professor Kok is a climatology researcher with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). You can read the article about his study at the dailytech.com. In summary, the computer models used for calculating Global Warming are wrong. *CO2 likely plays a much smaller role in any climate change verses the activity of dust in the atmosphere. Any recent warming has probably been due to the increased solar activity and interaction with air-borne dust. *


 http://www.redstate.com/remington_steele/2010/12/30/global-warming-bites-the-dust/


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> I just read yesterday that all those computer models have left out the dirt.
> *Global Warming bites the Dust*
> 
> http://www.redstate.com/remington_steele/2010/12/30/global-warming-bites-the-dust/


I posted that last week. It got ignored because it didn't fit the religion.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah I missed that. Well now my post is at the top of the new page maybe that will make a difference. But then maybe not.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I would concur with that thing about the dust in the air, I do believe it's contributing to warming but not that dust or solar activity are the only causes. Dust is just something that's adding to it but the dust has lots of help from man stirring it up to get it there in the atmosphere, it didn't just get there from wind blowing it up there. So dust is another thing that man is contributing to the air. 

You wanna see pictures of dust in the air on the first sunset of 2011 on the west coast, and how it's changing the quality of light? Look at these pictures, that band of reddish color you see directly above the land is dust and smoke over human inhabited areas. And that's right near the ocean. Wonder what it's like in the middle of the continent. Check it out: 
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=378579 


.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

I KNEW dusting my house was dangerous. Now I have proof. I will do my part, and never dust again !!!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> LOL.....and we're still here, still inhabiting coastal cities.
> 
> What I have yet to see, from any report, is that any of the current proposals will reverse the rise in temperatures.....that cap and trade will lower the temperatures.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Dust is just something that's adding to it but the dust has lots of help from man stirring it up to get it there in the atmosphere, it didn't just get there from wind blowing it up there. So dust is another thing that man is contributing to the air.


I wish man would stay off Mars, then.



> July 9, 2003: Something is happening on Mars and it's so big you can see it through an ordinary backyard telescope.
> 
> On July 1st a bright dust cloud spilled out of Hellas Basin, a giant impact crater on Mars' southern hemisphere. The cloud quickly spread and by the Fourth of July was 1100 miles wide--about one-fourth the diameter of Mars itself.


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/09jul_marsdust/


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

It is fact that during the industrial revolution humans converted massive amounts of fossil carbon to carbon dioxide and put that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

It is also fact that the oceans are sequestering less carbon dioxide than they did previously.

It is also fact that the pH of the oceans is dropping and that is having significant negative impacts on the fish and invertebrate populations.

If it wasn't so serious it would be comical to watch all the desperate attempts to avoid understanding that we are responsible for climate change.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Murray in ME said:


> I didn't watch the video but I did read the text. And, it does make some good points. I don't agree with all of them but, just because some people don't agree with you on this issue doesn't make them ignorant.
> 
> As far as FOX manipulating us to keep us all in the dark, you can believe whatever you like but that doesn't make it true. In the FOX interview that your article quoted, Joe Bastardi makes a good argument that the climate issues we're seeing are cyclical. He's not the only one who thinks that. I suspect though that you're referring to the leaked memo from the FOX director that your article mentioned. He reportedly orders correspondents to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question". What is so wrong with that? It's the truth. All it is doing is saying that there is more than one point of view on the subject. Again, true. Mr. Sammon did not direct FOX correspondents to manipulate anyone or try to keep anyone in the dark. Just to present both sides of the issue. The last time I checked, showing that there is more than one side to an issue isn't trying to keep anyone in the dark.
> 
> If you think about it logically, the argument could easily be made that the media that only shows your side of the issue are, in fact, the ones manipulating the news to keep people in the dark.


And another-


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> And don't forget Alabama in your states. They got hit with Christmas snow in Birmingham this year. My inlaws are having fits about how cold it was in Florida, although I guess it's warmed up since Christmas. Here in Ga we actually had snowfall BEFORE Christmas. It didn't stick, but it snowed. Yep, global warming. :umno:


And doncha love the way it snowed in Copenhagen for the 'global climate change "Change"' there? Never b/4 snowed at that early time.
Oh, and the RECORD LOW temps for this last one in Cancun? 
But bet no one can figure out the message there...


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

fishhead said:


> It's encouraging to read that most business groups are beginning to take climate change seriously. That will eventually eliminate the manufactured "controversy" that Exxon/Mobil has created and we can get on with the business of trying to keep this planet habitable for future generations.


What business takes seriously is coming increases in energy prices. Energy is going to get quite expensive, if not from vastly increased demand from places like China and India, then it be from hundreds of billions if not trillions in taxes on that energy, or even both demand based prices increases with taxes on top.

Government has it's eye on energy as a huge tax source, and whether AGW is real or not, governments don't let lucrative new tax sources get away easily.

As for manufactured doubt, it's not hard to manufacture... All you really have to do is go look at the temperature records being put forth, dig into where they came from and how they were assembled to see clearly that the minute increase in temps over the last few hundred years is larger than the margin of error for measurement instruments and techniques. And that's just a start.

One thing is for certain, any weather related disaster, any temperature record either cold or hot, will now be said to be the result of global warming... You know, because no temperature records were ever broken before we started burning gasoline and bad storms just didn't happen.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

fishhead said:


> It is fact that during the industrial revolution humans converted massive amounts of fossil carbon to carbon dioxide and put that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
> 
> It is also fact that the oceans are sequestering less carbon dioxide than they did previously.
> 
> ...


Then what explains the previous warming periods that happened BEFORE the industrial revolution? 

This is not a unique event.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Just another note,

If you look at the graphs on the last page of posts you'll notice they all state "temperature anomaly" meaning how far the temperature deviates from a reference value, a reference value they calculated the temperature should have been, should be now and should be in the future according to their calculations.

So how high the graph spikes is dependent on what value they calculated the temperature should be.. It is an anomaly graph, or deviation from normal graph.

The actual temperature appears something more like this, which is the actual recorded temps for the U.S., about a degree and a half difference from 1895 to 2008.











And there is more, here is an anomaly graph assembled from every source besides tree ring data, which is what makes the hockey stick graph so inaccurate.. So just removing doubtful data taken from tree ring measurements makes a huge difference... 










Here is another twist on anomalies,

GLOBALLY AVERAGED DEVIATIONS FROM AVERAGE TEMPERATURE PLOTTED
ON A SCALE RELEVANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATION DEVIATIONS
Per Year from 1851 to 1984..










Same data used, just presented differently in what to me is a more rational basis for the reference value, and a more rational temperature scale.


The ability to reconstruct temperature is a very error prone and inexact science. Even today it is not a perfect science, but for most of our recorded measurements the instruments themselves were not capable of accurate measurement of temp within a degree or more.

The increase in temps over the last 100 or 1000 years is simply an educated guess, with real scientific doubt as to accuracy and a margin of error as large as the measurement differences are.

Then these increases are presented as an "anomaly" from another calculated value, assumed to be "normal" temps, and the graph showing temperature deviation from normal whatever that is.

I figure the science will be tightened up and more solid and settled about the time they put me under for the long dirt nap.. And any effects from climate change that happen between now and then will not be anything I will notice happening around me. Science just isn't to the point of being able to say what the temperature is, what it was, what it should be, how the climate will react, and how the climate functions.. But with the gazillions being spent now they surely will be able to in time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> You forget an important fact: the oceans also absorb CO2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry but I don't see your point. Sure the ocean absorbs some CO2 but as the temps rise its ability to hold what it has falls. 

I didn't even get into all the CO2 which would be released from the melting ice from the rising temps.

The point is no one can show a causal relationship between CO2 and increased temps. You can only show correlation between the two.

I can "prove" to you two things. 1) Selling ice cream causes temperatures to rise and 2) building churches causes crime. How? By using the facts. If you check the numbers you will discover both statements can be proven. Plot the amount of ice cream sold vs the average temp and you will see as one goes up so does the other. Ditto for the number of churches in an area and the number of crimes. Because I can provide facts to support my proof do you now believe the two statements?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> It is fact that during the industrial revolution humans converted massive amounts of fossil carbon to carbon dioxide and put that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
> 
> It is also fact that the oceans are sequestering less carbon dioxide than they did previously.
> 
> ...


Its a fact (i.e. easily proven with the numbers) as the number of churches in an area increases the number of crimes also increase. Therefore if we ban the building of more churches the number of crimes would stop rising.

Do you agree?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> The point is no one can show a causal relationship between CO2 and increased temps. You can only show correlation between the two.


And what would you blame the rising temperatures on? It's not the sun, because the total radiance is actually going down, and it's not cyclical.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Txrider said:


> The actual temperature appears something more like this, which is the actual recorded temps for the U.S., about a degree and a half difference from 1895 to 2008.


We are looking at global temperatures, not US temperatures.

Furthermore, a lot of money is being spent on defeating AGW. Remember, oil, energy etc. is a multi-trillion dollar annually business. Climate change money is just normal research money being spent. If you can show a source that shows an extravagant amount of money being spent on AGW propaganda, that would be good.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

It's hard to imagine a world wide conspiracy among climate scientists led by Al Gore.

I mean does he have a ray gun to their heads or something?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> We are looking at global temperatures, not US temperatures.
> 
> Furthermore, a lot of money is being spent on defeating AGW. Remember, oil, energy etc. is a multi-trillion dollar annually business. Climate change money is just normal research money being spent. If you can show a source that shows an extravagant amount of money being spent on AGW propaganda, that would be good.


Yes, we're looking at global temperatures. And we're looking at a global push for green energy technology. And we're looking at the UN's proposal to get developed countries to commit $100 Billion annually to non/under-developed nations such as Africa. TPTB had the Chicago Climate Exchange in place for an anticipated multi-trillion dollar market but disbanded it this year because of the failure to pass cap and trade legislation. 

So, naturally you're going to have plenty of propaganda to push the idea. The IPCC Climategate scandal is but one example of large amounts of money being spent toward convincing the global population of the need for cap and trade legislation.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> And what would you blame the rising temperatures on? It's not the sun, because the total radiance is actually going down, and it's not cyclical.


I'm not blaming it on anything because there isn't enough evidence to do so. For all I know its caused by an increase in geothermal activity. Or maybe aliens.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Txsteader said:


> The IPCC Climategate scandal is but one example of large amounts of money being spent toward convincing the global population of the need for cap and trade legislation.


The fact that you are still using the IPCC "scandal" is but one example of just how desperate the skeptics are for "evidence" to "support" their "theory", which is actually just a very bad hypothesis.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

In point of fact the Hockey Stick has been reproduced _numerous times_ by _numerous independent_ researchers using _numerous different_ proxy data sets.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

fishhead said:


> It's hard to imagine a world wide conspiracy among climate scientists led by Al Gore.
> 
> I mean does he have a ray gun to their heads or something?


No. it's an extremely sophisticated electromagneticanethonalammonium ion gun that controls people's minds. He traveled forward in time to get it and came back again.:help:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And what would you blame the* rising temperatures *on?


Your fantasies, since there's no real proof temps ARE rising


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The fact that you are still using the IPCC "scandal" is but one example of just how desperate the skeptics are for "evidence" to "support" their "theory", which is actually just a very bad hypothesis.


The fact that you pretend there is not lots of data to show your position is incorrect is a sign of YOUR desperation



> Global Warming â the Short Version of Why the Anthropogenic CO2 Theory is *Wrong*


http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_SimplifiedNutshell.htm


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> The fact that you are still using the IPCC "scandal" is but one example of just how desperate the skeptics are for "evidence" to "support" their "theory", which is actually just a very bad hypothesis.


The fact is, the report was badly flawed.....and flaws create doubt. If they were wrong on that point, what else could they be wrong about. 

Problem is, our lives are going to be effected economically and significantly by cap and trade legislation. I'd rather be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that whatever actions our government takes will indeed reverse the trend. But, so far, they haven't been able to convince me that this event is caused by man.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> The fact is, the report was badly flawed.....and flaws create doubt. If they were wrong on that point, what else could they be wrong about.
> 
> Problem is, our lives are going to be effected economically and significantly by cap and trade legislation. I'd rather be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that whatever actions our government takes will indeed reverse the trend. But, so far, they haven't been able to convince me that this event is caused by man.


Too bad we're not thinking of the economic lives of our great-grandkids...


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Txsteader, they don't need to convince you of anything in order to put their plans into effect.

.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> The majority of climate scientists believe we are influencing the climate.


But-------

can they prove definitively that legislation will change the course of the current warming trend? 

Scientists have also shown that the Antarctic ice caps have completely melted and refrozen repeatedly over the centuries....i.e. not caused by industrialized civilizations? How is it that this current event isn't just another cycle that will reverse itself in due time? 

IOW, they *believe* that we are influencing the climate, but that ignores the fact that current global warming is not a unique event. If not, then can they *prove* that man is the cause _this time_?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Txsteader, they don't need to convince you of anything in order to put their plans into effect.
> 
> .


That's a fact. There's a name for that.......it's called tyranny.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Too bad we're not thinking of the economic lives of our great-grandkids...



If I couldn't find any facts to support me, I'd use emotional rhetoric too


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Old 12/28/10, 10:48 AM
beccachow's Avatar 
beccachow beccachow is online now

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,897
At LAst...Proof that Man Has Lived On Other Planets!!!
"First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earthâs seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Marsâ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, âthe Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sunâ. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASAâs Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptuneâs largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sunâs temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=5086 for rest of article

No more wondering over whether there is life on other planets...we were ALREADY there and messed THOSE planets up first, what with our gas emitting cows and what-nots.
__________________
Becky

www.notreligion.com

Now tell me that the sun is not the cause.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> In point of fact the Hockey Stick has been reproduced numerous times by numerous independent researchers using numerous different proxy data sets.


 This is exactly why we are so skeptical of what is being posted here. The hockey stick theory has even been abandoned by the original thoerist and virtually everyone on the AGW band wagon because it was proven false.

Your use of long discredited and abandoned information is indicative of why people are now turning away from the entire climate debate issue. Yes the IPCC scandal was a couple years ago but it killed a lot of trust thats hard to regain...repeating information that even AGW scientists admit was wrong isnt helping your cause.

I dont know if AGW is real or not but I do know that claiming that the science is settled, using anecdotes, using incorrect references to initial theories that even the IPCC admits was wrong, and calling those who explore differing theories or who dont fully agreee with the total AGW package as "deniers" doesnt sound too well thought out if your trying to convince someone. Maybe thats why globally the constant misrepresentation of the true issues of climate change is creating a backlash and almost single handedly setting back the environmental movement.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Your use of long discredited and abandoned information is indicative of why people are now turning away from the entire climate debate issue. Yes the IPCC scandal was a couple years ago but it killed a lot of trust thats hard to regain...repeating information that even AGW scientists admit was wrong isnt helping your cause.


When did they say the hockey stick was wrong? Some graphs do indeed not show a hockey stick, but almost all show an increase in temperature.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> When did they say the hockey stick was wrong? Some graphs do indeed not show a hockey stick, but almost all show an increase in temperature.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/...akes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Some graphs do indeed *not show *a hockey stick, but* almost *all show an increase in temperature.


LOL 
Your own statements show it's based on nothing but hype.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Al Gore made a critical error in his initial conceptualizing how to increase his fortune. He hit upon AGW, thinking it would work great... if he'd only never said "warming", but instead, Global Climate Change, he would be more insulated from anomalies, such as the coldest winter in Great Britain in a millennia.

If the Arctic Ice sheet melts, Europe will enter into a new ice age. Mess with the Gulf Stream, and 'interesting' things happen. Without it, England and Europe have weather similar to Northern Canada... very unpleasant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the official AGW scientific studies... show me the data. Of course, they can't, as it doesn't exist... that which didn't fit their model was conveniently discarded... you know a reel of digital computer tape takes up a vast amount of space. Right. Release the Data.... 

I (as well as a lot of Climatologists) would like to see the data, not someone's conclusions.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Gee I guess some have forgotten how after the movie came out, and many critics later, Al Gore even admitted he exaggerated the graph. To make a "Dramatic Effect".
Many have short memories I guess, or never wanted to hear the truth, even if Al Gore said it himself.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

texican said:


> that which didn't fit their model was conveniently discarded...


That is assumption. Can you show any evidence of discarded, manipulated data?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

That what had been shown in those E Mails that were intercepted awhile back. n those E Mails they admitted they had been messing around with the data.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

texican said:


> I would like to see the data, not someone's conclusions.


Here are just a couple.



> Worldwide, emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities increased by 26 percent from 1990 to 2005. Emissions of carbon dioxide, which account for nearly three-fourths of the total, increased by 31 percent over this period.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thus we see many more indicators than just rising temperature.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> That what had been shown in those E Mails that were intercepted awhile back. n those E Mails they admitted they had been messing around with the data.


They did not. That is a lie perpetuated by many media sources.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> We are looking at global temperatures, not US temperatures.


The US is on the globe, and is likely the most accurate measured temperature set for any large and mass area. Just one data point.



> Furthermore, a lot of money is being spent on defeating AGW. Remember, oil, energy etc. is a multi-trillion dollar annually business. Climate change money is just normal research money being spent. If you can show a source that shows an extravagant amount of money being spent on AGW propaganda, that would be good.


Money is money and people have to eat. If AGW was said to be non existent by everyone in science, the hundreds of millions of grants to study it would dry up.

Where 30 years ago a climate study group worked with almost no budget on a shoestring, grant funding is plentiful now.

For example the CBO study that found just U.S. funding for climate change studies and mitigation etc. was 99 Billion from 1998 to 2009. 35 billion in the stimulus bill alone.

Some will take money from oil companies as well, but I have seen no reports of them spending tens of billions on it.

Point is there's money flowing to people on both sides. Agendas exist on both sides. I take what each side has to say with a grain of salt and apply critical thinking to it all. I read the whole IPC report, I followed it to the studies it referenced, I have studied the science, read all the leaked e-mails, etc. etc.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> They did not. That is a lie perpetuated by many media sources.


No it is actually not.

The e-mails showed removal of data from parts of proxies from graphs where those proxies did not show what they wanted the graph to show. It was dome when tree ring proxies critical to the temperature reconstruction they wanted to present diverged from recorded temps in modern times and diverged from the modern recorded temp records.

So instead of doubting the proxy data, and not using it, they tossed the part they didn't like after a certain year and kept the rest.

They also showed them blocking FOI requests for years for access of their base temperature data and mathematical methods used for adjusting that data. 

Unfortunately the reason for this ended up being that the original data the temperature record came from, the actual temp measurements, were thrown away... The programs used to adjust and correlate the temperature measurement sets was not kept either. The dog ate their homework, nobody can double check their work, and instead of just saying so and taking the embarrassment they blocked FOI requests with BS..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Are you this rude in real life?


LOL

How are my statements any different from many of yours?

Or are you ignoring THAT fact also


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I would concur with that thing about the dust in the air, *I do believe it's contributing to warming* but not that dust or solar activity are the only causes. Dust is just something that's adding to it but the dust has lots of help from man stirring it up to get it there in the atmosphere, it didn't just get there from wind blowing it up there. So dust is another thing that man is contributing to the air.



Anything that that *blocks sunlight *actually helps keep temperatures down

If your theory were even REMOTELY true, temps would RISE after a volcanic eruption.

You just want to blame "man" for everything, even though that requires ignoring both science and logic


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Thus we see many more indicators than just rising temperature.


Lots of pictures with not much actual data, and no *source* given.

It's fairly certain it's from one of the many sites *promoting* the AGW lie.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Furthermore, a lot of money is being spent on defeating AGW. Remember, oil, energy etc. is a multi-trillion dollar annually business. Climate change money is just normal research money being spent. If you can show a source that shows an extravagant amount of money being spent on AGW propaganda, that would be good.


Just a note.. This is what is known as an ad hominem attack, shoot the messenger.. Belittle the person to invalidate what he has to say, instead of arguing against what he has to say on it's own merit.

If you say that any scientist taking money from say, Exxon, is going to say whatever he needs to say in order to keep that funding and not see the funding cut off it could hold merit. Human nature is human nature after all and we all have to make a living.

But if you measure the AGW scientists by the exact same yardstick, taking into account climate research has gone from almost no funding to 10 billion dollars a year from just the federal government alone, not counting UN funding, state funding, private funding and other countries funding.. Then using the same measure you must also say that these scientists also are going to say whatever they need to say to keep their funding and not see it cut off.

Personally I measure both sides by this same yardstick, and I realize both sides have an agenda, and I look into the data, where it came from, how it was assembled, and what has been left out of added, changed or smoothed or corrected and let the chips fall where they may.

After much studying on the subject I come to my own conclusions which follow neither sides most visible rhetoric.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Txrider said:


> Just a note.. This is what is known as an ad hominem attack


I did not at all mean it to be. Sorry!

On a side note, the program that NASA uses to develop their anamolies is publicly available and their chart has been reproduced several times.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Anything that that *blocks sunlight *actually helps keep temperatures down
> 
> If your theory were even REMOTELY true, temps would RISE after a volcanic eruption.


That's not entirely correct. You are thinking of volcanic particles erupted into the upper atmospher blocking sunlight and keeping temperatures down at earth level, and that is correct. 

However, during the winter (and even in summer) when the earth is already warmer than the atmosphere above it and you have a layer of dust and smoke particles in the lower atmosphere that originated from ground level, that layer captures and traps earth heat and creates pockets of warmth in the air beneath the layer of dust and smoke. This is most especially noticeable in valleys that are surrounded by high mountains. As soon as you get to an elevation that takes you above the layer of dirt in the air the temperatures become colder. 

You don't have what we call mountains where you live so you couldn't be expected to notice something like that but anyone who lives in high mountain regions with many low valleys such as on the west coast knows about low elevation heat pockets trapped by dirt in the air. This is not a theory, it is a fact.

Now to demonstrate, look at the pictures Paumon posted. That dirty red band you see stretched amongst and just over the mountains is all a warm band of dust and smoke that came from ground level and is trapped amongst the mountains because there's not enough wind that day to blow it east. In turn, that layer of dust and smoke traps earth heat and industrial or other human made heat and keeps it trapped in pockets in the valleys close to the earth. You must keep in mind that the mountains are much higher than they may appear in the pictures because they're nearly 200 miles away and you're seeing them showing above the curve of the earth. Consequently, at sunset when the sun is at it's lowest to the horizon, as seen in the last picture, you get a sunset that looks like flames and smoke as the sun shines through the dirt in the air. 



Paumon said:


> Yesterday at sunset I went down to Point Grey to take pix of New Year's Day sunset, these are looking mainly south across the Strait of Georgia towards Washington mainland, and south west across the western end of the Strait of Jaun de Fuca to where the sun was setting directly behind the mountains of the Olympic Peninsula about 175 miles away. These are without a doubt some of the most unusual sunset colors that I've ever seen at this time of year. Those black things in the water are log booms tied up near the shore.
> 
> Looking towards Washington mainland, a progression as the sun was setting:
> 
> ...


 
.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> As soon as you get to an elevation that takes you above the layer of dirt in the air the temperatures become colder.


It's always colder at higher altitude, regardless of time of year or the amount of dust in the air.

It's mainly because the air is less dense



> You don't have what we call mountains where you live so you couldn't be expected to notice something like that but anyone who lives in *high mountain regions with many low valleys* such as on the west coast knows about low elevation heat pockets trapped by dirt in the air. This is not a theory, it is a fact


You're describing microclimates, when the topic is *GLOBAL* warming.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's always colder at higher altitude, regardless of time of year or the amount of dust in the air.
> 
> It's mainly because the air is less dense
> 
> You're describing microclimates, when the topic is *GLOBAL* warming.


You are prevaricating. The dirt in the air still traps heat beneath it.

The topic is about global warming and *public health*, go look at the topic title again to refresh your memory. 

Don't you dare try to tell me that global warming and the filth that we pump into the air, such as you see in those pictures, does not effect the public health. If you can't admit that much to yourself then you're a fool. :hrm:

.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Looks like a pretty sunset to me..
Matt


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

It _was_ a beautiful sunset. Stunning!

.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Gee I guess some have forgotten how after the movie came out, and many critics later, Al Gore even admitted he exaggerated the graph. To make a "Dramatic Effect".
> Many have short memories I guess, or never wanted to hear the truth, even if Al Gore said it himself.


Yup, this along w/the emails from those schmardt scientists that admitted to screwing w/data.
Not too many disagree there's climate change. Been that way since earth began, I guess. 
BUT-the causes? Could be we're contributing. Wouldn't doubt that at all. We should be good stewards of our planet. Seems the countries on the other side of it don't care tho. China is uncorrigible. (?)
So you guys who believe we're the total cause??? Do you all agree w/Cap & Trade? B/c is you do, you're dooming us all. It will NOT fix a thing in the enviorment but will cause a complete meltdown of our economy.
What would your other solution be? Or do you all just want to rant?


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Ed Norman said:


> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/...akes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/


Yea, this sure looks like a credible, non-biased source...


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If I couldn't find any facts to support me, I'd use emotional rhetoric too


There are plenty of facts but facts will not work with some...


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Txrider said:


> Just a note.. This is what is known as an ad hominem attack, shoot the messenger.. Belittle the person to invalidate what he has to say, instead of arguing against what he has to say on it's own merit.
> 
> That was not an ad hominem attack. Look at the beginning of this thread
> where posters suggest I get a brain if you want to see an AH attck...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Don't you dare try to tell me that global warming and the filth that we pump into the air, such as you see in those pictures, does not effect the public health. If you can't admit that much to yourself then you're a fool


That's not "filth" 
Those are clouds


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup, this along w/the emails from those schmardt scientists that admitted to screwing w/data.


They did not.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

pcwerk said:


> Yea, this sure looks like a credible, non-biased source...


Deny deny. You won't find contradictory evidence on the pro-global warming sites, the same as you won't find anti-anything on pro-anything sites. If you want to look at something deleterious to your cause, you will have to leave the safe confines of your cause's approved materials. Pretending the evidence doesn't exist because of where it is found, doesn't make the evidence magically go away.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They did not.


LOL

Did too:



> Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that &#8220;I&#8217;ve just completed Mike&#8217;s Nature *trick *of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith&#8217;s *to hide the decline*&#8221;


You can deny, but the facts don't lie


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*Russian ships stranded in 30cm thick ice*
Oceans are warming?? Hmmm this sure flies in the face of that.


> Russian ice breakers are battling through 30 centimetre thick ice to reach three ships with over 400 passengers and crew that have been stranded in the north Pacific since December 30. The refrigerator vessel Coast of Hope, Commonwealth and a research vessel Professor radioed for help on after becoming *trapped in thick ice *on Thursday.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8236090/Russian-ships-stranded-in-30cm-thick-ice.html


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> *Russian ships stranded in 30cm thick ice*
> Oceans are warming?? Hmmm this sure flies in the face of that.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Russian-ships-stranded-in-30cm-thick-ice.html


Well of course it's frozen, just as should be expected at this time of year. It's the Sea of Okhotsk, north of the Pacific and enclosed between Eastern Siberia and the Kamchatka Peninsula. 

.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The Washington Post
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
*Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise *and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

See Below:





Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 
88 years ago!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ed Norman said:


> Deny deny. You won't find contradictory evidence on the pro-global warming sites, the same as you won't find anti-anything on pro-anything sites. If you want to look at something deleterious to your cause, you will have to leave the safe confines of your cause's approved materials. Pretending the evidence doesn't exist because of where it is found, doesn't make the evidence magically go away.


It's hard to make something that never existed go away.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post -
> 88 years ago!


Hey AK, I thought you might be interested to know about this report. It's a viral email going around but the report you posted is only partial, there was a lot left out, and some parts of it have been changed to give a false impression, so I found the REAL full length report for you. The report is from the America Consul at Bergen Norway to the State Department at Washington, D.C. and was about an Arctic Norway oceanographic trip and coal deposit expedition in the summer of *August 1922* in the ocean around Norway*.* 

Here is the full report - you will have to position your cursor over it and left-click once to bring it up to full size.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png

It was found through this website: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/...-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/ 

.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> Did too:
> 
> ...


Tnx, BFF, I remembered that but not able to quote it.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

greg273 said:


> You just called 95% of the worlds climate scientists 'dumb gullible socialists'. Hey enjoy that internet access, brought to you by those dumb gullible socialist scientist types. You know the internet is just a scheme to make money and control the masses right???


The 95% is not proof for global warming but rather is real proof for mass indoctrination. Climate change is real and global warming is part of the change but who has proven man made activity is the cause? Is man made activity the cause or is it just associated with the change? ..... The global indoctrinators are using the internet and attempting to control the masses but at least in the USA they are lately loosing the battle. Even if man is causing or partially causing climate change it could be difficult and maybe impossible to prove... a hypothesis must be testable and in this case isolating the man made causes from natural causes and determining which are most significant could be impossible.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> The 95% is not proof for global warming but rather is real proof for mass indoctrination. Climate change is real and global warming is part of the change but who has proven man made activity is the cause? Is man made activity the cause or is it just associated with the change? ..... The global indoctrinators are using the internet and attempting to control the masses but at least in the USA they are lately loosing the battle. Even if man is causing or partially causing climate change it could be difficult and maybe impossible to prove... a hypothesis must be testable and in this case isolating the man made causes from natural causes and determining which are most significant could be impossible.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> Is man made activity the cause or is it just associated with the change?


Well, how about the process of elimination? You might recall, perhaps: I posted a topic about the natural cause of climate change. I had a very clear, very simple question that should have been extremely easy to answer, in the first post. 200+ replies later, it was still unanswered.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I posted a topic about *the natural cause of climate change*. I had a very clear, very simple question that should have been extremely easy to answer, in the first post. 200+ replies later, it was *still unanswered*.


You got lots of good answers with data to back them, and you choose to pretend not to see them


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> The 95% is not proof for global warming but rather is real proof for mass indoctrination. Climate change is real and global warming is part of the change but who has proven man made activity is the cause? Is man made activity the cause or is it just associated with the change? ..... The global indoctrinators are using the internet and attempting to control the masses but at least in the USA they are lately loosing the battle. Even if man is causing or partially causing climate change it could be difficult and maybe impossible to prove... a hypothesis must be testable and in this case isolating the man made causes from natural causes and determining which are most significant could be impossible.


This post should become a "sticky" Real truth has been finally posted along with common sense.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

GO, Johnny...Go Johnny :clap:


----------

