ABC, NBC, CBS ignore Climategate

[Nbadan]

how much is the global temperature actually rising?

...the power of e it seems...

[spursncowboys]

The real debate is how much effect man is having on this trend...

Did the first weather records come from stone writings?

[Nbadan]

...they are based on science...are you such an authority to dispute reasearched science?

[DarrinS]

[Nbadan]

Potomac river then...



Potomac today..




/thread

[mogrovejo]

...they are based on science...are you such an authority to dispute reasearched science?

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
The single greatest failure of science is what philosophers call “appeal to
authority”, whereby the stature of a person allows statements made by that
person to be taken as absolute fact.

Nbadan is a genius.

[mogrovejo]

Potomac river then...



Potomac today..




/thread

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

2. I don't think anybody questions that the climate changes. I think you should try to understand what's the issue upon discussion.

[DarrinS]

Someone put together a searchable database. Cool.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

[DarrinS]

Since Nbadan is a 911 twoofer, he has no business discussing anything about science.

/Nbadan

[Nbadan]

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

2. I don't think anybody questions that the climate changes.

Isn't that what I said in my earlier posts on this topic? Selective read much?

[mogrovejo]

use your head! bigass polluting companies in place don't want more restrictions on them since it will hurt their profits or even eliminate them altogether. they pump money to the gop and are currently winning:

Once again, proof? Do you have any? AFAIK, bigass polluting companies like Exxon Mobil spend a lot more of money financing MMGWA than organizations that defend the sceptical position.

[mogrovejo]

Isn't that what I said in my earlier posts on this topic? Selective read much?

No. And if it was, it'd have been a tremendous contradiction and incoherency.

I think that we can all agree that your appeal to authority was extremely misplaced in such a context.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ 120 year plot. Might as well be 10 minutes in climatalogical trends.

lol @ anecdotal dan and his hand drawn and subjectively rendered picture of the potomac vs photograph of same. As if this proved anything whatsoever.

lol @ maximum fail

[Wild Cobra]

There is no debate. Get over it.

We know the earth has warmed, That debate is indeed over. The debate drives on about what degree man's impact is and which is natural. On that topic, science is on the side that the sun is responsible for well over half the warming since the start of the 1700's. According to Lean 2004, a NASA/GISS study, solar irradiance has increased by 0.24% from 1700 to 2000. Long term data is what you need to look at. Short term data has too many short term patterns that are hard to remove. This 0.24% when plugged into a greenhouse gas model has a direct radiative forcing increase of 0.16 watts per square meter. It has an indirect forcing of 1.08 watts, through increased power driving greenhouse gasses, for a total of 1.24 watts! Now they have no real way of measuring CO2's effect, so they model it by observation, leaving out critical data line the change in driving force. They estimate CO2 increases contributed to a 1.66 watt increase, however, if we remove the 1.08 watts, there is only 0.48 watts of forcing left. The facts really hurt you alarmists.

[nuclearfm]

"wrong"

[greyforest]

Once again, proof? Do you have any? AFAIK, bigass polluting companies like Exxon Mobil spend a lot more of money financing MMGWA than organizations that defend the sceptical position.

certainly! its glaringly obvious that republicans are anti-global warming and anti-environmental regulation. try and find a fox news segment in which bias isn't significantly skewed against global warming.

since lobbyists run the country and politicians are there generally to accept money from them, some en y with a load of money who is in bed with republicans wants to deny global warming to further their interests. who the else could it be besides bigass polluting companies?

your anecdote is of little value - all it suggests is that exxon wants good PR with people who believe in global warming.

[mogrovejo]

certainly! its glaringly obvious that republicans are anti-global warming and anti-environmental regulation. try and find a fox news segment in which bias isn't significantly skewed against global warming.

since lobbyists run the country and politicians are there generally to accept money from them, some en y with a load of money who is in bed with republicans wants to deny global warming to further their interests. who the else could it be besides bigass polluting companies?

your anecdote is of little value - all it suggests is that exxon wants good PR with people who believe in global warming.

So, do you have any proof or not? You made a very precise claim -
there's billions of dollars of industry behind both agendas - and we're still waiting for some kind of data to backup your claim. We know for a fact this is true for alarmists, that have been receiving millions of dollars from energy companies, so you just need to point us some evidences that show the same is happening with sceptics.

What do you call "anti global warming"? That's an expression that doesn't even make sense to me.

That's is the problem with this discussion. Way too politicized. People have transformed "global warming" into a political cause. It doesn't really matter if there's actually a man made global warming, how serious the effects are and what is the best plan of attack if one is indeed needed. For simplistic minds, there are bad guys who "want to deny global warming", even though nobody denies global warming. Fox's narrative is different than mine? Then they're biased! Insane.

[ElNono]

How is this whole thing different from Big Pharma producing fake scientific studies to get like Vioxx in the market past the FDA? Or Tobacco, paying through the nose and battling on every court for years to hide the fact that smoking and lung cancer are related?

There's nothing new here. Bad policy based on phony science happens a lot more than what people think. Those emails coming out just merely confirmed what most of us already know: This was a feud between two camps with direct interests in politics and economics, and very little interest in science itself.
Glad it come out? Sure. Shocking? Not at all.

[101A]

How is this whole thing different from Big Pharma producing fake scientific studies to get like Vioxx in the market past the FDA? Or Tobacco, paying through the nose and battling on every court for years to hide the fact that smoking and lung cancer are related?

There's nothing new here. Bad policy based on phony science happens a lot more than what people think. Those emails coming out just merely confirmed what most of us already know: This was a feud between two camps with direct interests in politics and economics, and very little interest in science itself.
Glad it come out? Sure. Shocking? Not at all.

Pow.

Right in the kisser.

[DarrinS]

Here are two questions I have for the AGW believers:


1. Once in the Earth's history, CO2 was 1000 times higher than today's levels and temperatures were warmer. Why didn't the Earth hit these so-called "tipping points" and have out-of-control warming?



2. If this all turns out that human activity isn't causing catastrophic warming and we don't enact policy that destroys our economy, isn't that the best news ever? Why do people want to believe in this so bad?

[DarrinS]

One thing is for sure: millions of my fellow scientists, engineers, and programmers will be going over the source code with a fine-toothed comb.

If this thing really gets blown up, it won't be by some consultant, financed by "big oil", it will be by those of us who seek the truth and dissect this stuff pro bono.

[greyforest]

What do you call "anti global warming"? That's an expression that doesn't even make sense to me.

That's is the problem with this discussion. Way too politicized. People have transformed "global warming" into a political cause. It doesn't really matter if there's actually a man made global warming, how serious the effects are and what is the best plan of attack if one is indeed needed. For simplistic minds, there are bad guys who "want to deny global warming", even though nobody denies global warming. Fox's narrative is different than mine? Then they're biased! Insane.

so fox news isn't biased, and they don't deny global warming. argument over!

[greyforest]

oh wait

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578947,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569235,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569218,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520896,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html

if your article is led "Americans No Longer Swallowing Global Warming Dogma", seems to me like there's some bias going on

[jack sommerset]

ABC,NBC,CBS can report whatever they want. For no particular reason, I have not watched any of their news shows in years and the ratings show noone else has either. There are tons of places to get your news from.

[George Gervin's Afro]

ABC,NBC,CBS can report whatever they want. For no particular reason, I have not watched any of their news shows in years and the ratings show noone else has either. There are tons of places to get your news from.

fox news, talk radio, glen beck,...plenty of places.