You need to be more suspicious of everything you read about global warming in the conventional media.

The media isn't trying to explain the actual models, it's looking for "cartoons" of the competing global warming theories to get people to look at advertisements with controversy and attention grabbing headlines.

So, if one scientist says something offhand, and in this case with no time reference (did the scientist mean ten years, or, as seems equally likely, a hundred years?), the media has a profit motive to distort whatever is said into a sensationalistic headline.

If there is a "global warming industry", it's profit model is based on advertising, because it is pushed by the media.

You need to look at the actual science publications to get any real information on this subject.

Media links just tell us what the media, with a profit motive, wants us to think - and they will happily play both sides of the street, and happily distort the science, if it plays on peoples fears and prejudices and brings eyeballs to advertisements.

It's foolish to trust the media on anything.

I agree. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of it all. :upsidedow

Very well put, but too long for the average attention span on GFY :winkwink:

jesus christ you global warming deniers are gullible fuckers - don't you get that there are large corporations that make a lot of money by fooling you stupid cocksuckers?

THANK GOD

I am happy some people still think.

"on record" doesnt mean shit.

We need to look at the pollution of our rivers, food supply and not waste one cent more on CLIMATE CHANGE. Which is a completely NATURAL OCCURANCE.

wow you describe instances where the globe has weather fluctionations between cold and hot. Wow you are a true scientist!

at the very least university builds critical facilities.

this one one of the reasons people go and finish.

don't worry, you are never too old to take your thinking to the next level.

Then you should have nothing to worry about.

actually, this scenario doesn't take into account the fact that scientists lied about global warming.

meh ...........

It's funny how people fail to realize this :thumbsup

What's happened the last few billion years on earth in it's natural balance is not the point. It's about what man has introduced in the last hundred years or so and what effect it may have in tilting that delicate balance.

http://www.2flashgames.com/2fgkjn134...epalm-7279.jpg

Jesus Christ, every time it snows or gets cold some idiot comes and makes a post about how GLOBAL Warming must be bullshit.


FYI, global warming is the avg temp around the world going up each year. If it increases by more than just a couple degrees over a decade the repercussions would be catastrophic. Global warming is NOT reflected by it being hot or cold in your town today. :upsidedow

Nobody lied about global warming... Bill8 explained it basically...

But I will make it simpler for the GFY brain :)

Northern/Western European cold and snow winter 2010/2011 explanation with global warming:
Global Warming -> Ice Melts -> Melted Ice Water cools oceans -> Gulf stream cools down -> Gulf stream heats air less than in 2009/2010 ->Europe gets colder air -> Europe gets colder

There, simple huh?

Wow, didn't intend to start a global warming conspiracy thread. Never seen frost on my car like I did yesterday morning. That's all I'm saying. LOL. I have not seen all the evidence or lack of it to make a real educated opinion about global warming. Although I do see how big cooperations are making billions off the scare the media has created about it.

////////////

who is making billions of the global warming "scare?"

i was not aware that climategate had been recently exposed as a manipulation of the facts and i simply stated that the explanation given didn't take climategate into account.

Start off with the pollution credits trade, windfarms, solar, did you know that BP is huge in solar? How many billions in tax dollars are going to alt fuels? I'm not saying we should not go green, we should, and it's business as normal the huge cooperations are the ones that stand to get even biiger from this.

errm ... deduct the years mankind wasnt present ... 4,500,000,000 maybe? and then narrow it down to the years of INDUSTRIAL mankind ... you are left with how many years then? hum? :winkwink:

amen ... i guess most EU folks know about this ... with the gulf stream weakening the EU zone gets a lot colder :warning

no. bill8 ignored the fact that scientists stand to reap hundreds of billions of dollars in funding (also known as high paying jobs) if they can 'prove' that there is some grave threat upon us that only they can solve, and instead pretended the media is the problem.

Coldest and wettest start to summer ever this year on the east coast of Australia

yeah sure ... as natural as supported by billions of tons of CO² emissions by mankind :2 cents: blockhead :disgust

I suspect you have no idea wether or not individual scientists or scientists in groups have actually lied.

I'd be happy to dissect any examples of individual or group lies. What examples did you have in mind?

The internal peer review system of science culture is very harsh on scientists that lie. If you actually know any possible lies, it might be interesting to see what the science community did about it.

But, I think you have no idea wether or not there have been lies, and that you are just repeating something you've been told to repeat by the corporate media or someone influenced by the media.

If, however, we find examples of actual lies by actual scientists, it wouldn't be a definitive argument against the much much larger body of research, measurements, and models. It's just a reminder that scientists are human beings and people sometimes lie and cheat.

Which is always good to keep in mind.

I dont believe the "threat" can be solved. It's a done deal.

Your side is welcome to investigate wether or not funding plays a role in influencing science, and I strongly urge you to do so. Such investogations can only strengthen the scientific community.

I'm not ignoring funding issue you describe, altho I'm curious how you think that so many scientists around the planet, funded by so many different institutions, are in collusion?

Your side has had years now to come up with evidence to support your charge, yet as far as I can tell, despite the fact that this would make HUGE media news, you have been unable to support your claim.

You've been told to repeat this argument by the media, and I doubt you have even thought about wether or not there have been any facts or investigations to support it.

I urge you to find evidence to support your theory. present it here and let's examine it.

one thing we can count on is that the big corporations are going to be making billions of dollars off every scare that comes along, and there are many threats facing this country and this planet at the moment.

the amount they stand to make off global warming is peanuts compared to the money they will be making when the age of expensive oil is truly here, and we will probably see that by the end of this decade.

because we have not planned for the end of cheap oil, they will be able to exploit that panic like nothing our society has ever seen before.

global warming is slow, and nothing can be done about it now. the end of the cheap oil age will be much more dramatic and painful, and it will happen before most of us die, unlike the worst effects of global warming.

THANK YOU...

You know your stuff.

"Climate Change" IS a natural occurrence.

"Global Warming" is not. At least, not completely natural. Man, who releases tons of pollution, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, is warming the planet too. This is key.

Whether its natural or not can be debated by both sides. Regardless of who is right, we need to do something to stop the warming trend. Don't listen to Global Warming deniers like Glenn Beck. Listen to the scientists who are doing the actual research.

The planet is in trouble...

right, because sticking a thermometer at the airport and around all that concrete and asphalt will not affect the temperatures

I think I'll just leave this here....


http://cpe.kmutt.ac.th/wiki/images/9/96/Global_temp.jpg

good post, but evidence did come out. correspondence between scientists leading the charge, privately discussing how to fudge data and mislead the public when hotter temperatures were not showing up a year or so ago. they knew it could hurt their funding, and they discussed how to fake the data to protect their cash cow.

Yep.....

you missed this

you are very careful not to name names, I note.

presumably you decline to name names because you are talking about the most heavily investigated science "scandal" of all time.

Perhaps you care to tell me what the results of the investigations were?

I'd love to discuss it detail by detail with you. I think it's a fascinating case study.

I personally hope to see even more investigations of this famous "scandal" - I think it has been a boon to the scientific community, and a much needed push towards greater transparency and education of the layperson.

I strongly urge you to urge your congresspersons and anyone else you can get to listen to continue investigating.

sorry, I don't understand - what did I miss?

just a minute ago it didn't exist, and now you want to discuss it?

your whole point is obviously that you know more about this than the rest of us media-fed sheep, so go ahead, out with it. what were the results of the 'investigation' by other scientists who needed to keep their cash cow intact?

i don't give a fuck.

as i mentioned previously, it was simply a comment based on a recent end of the year article.

So, you don't give a fuck about any possible retort to your postings?

ugh.

you wrote this
i replied with this
this guy chimes in with this
i replied with this
you then wrote this

dude, it was a comment based on a fucking article i read that stated as such. it wasn't my fucking opinion, i was simple relaying the conclusion. get off my fucking back.

fuck, you gfy climatologist can ruin fucking wet dream.

You're the one making the attack, it's only polite for me to allow you to take the strike.

however, in addition, it's important to outline the quality of the knowledge on which you are basing your attack.

I have argued that it is purely media "knowledge", that you have been told to say a certain thing, and you don't even understand what it is that you have been told to repeat.

that you have no real sense of the actual events or issues involved, and haven't really studied it or even thought about it much, and that your sole source of knowledge on the subject comes from well known media sources, particularly from the murdoch media empire.

prove me wrong. explain the issues, and explain why the investgations of the most heavily investigated science scandal of our time, and possibly ever, were incorrect.

You're awfully upset over one question.

He made his claim, you're just attempting to refute it with circular reasoning. Ball is in your court.

you are using good, although transparent, debate tactics i will grant you that. the problem you have run into is that i have no interest in debating you.

your assertion that media profits from global warming more than scientists is laughable.

you believe in scientists. i believe in scientists.

when scientists can get billions of dollars for agreeing with certain data interpretations, i see the billions of dollars and understand.

Nope.

In a formal debate his circular reasoning would have him looking foolish.

and aonther gfy thread degrades.

no, i just couldn't give a fuck about a gfy poster named mqtrheels making unsubstantiated claims about nasa.

if you have a link to an article stating that nasa gets every one of its temp readings from airports across the globe, i'd prolly read it for fun.

otherwise, as stated, i don't give a fuck.

Thread is still on topic.

Btw, pot and kettling is not fun.

Obviously, you're so upset you haven't any idea who is making what claims.

Go back and read this thread, fool.

clear as mud - but I will guess that you are trying to say "what about climategate?", but are being cagey because you already know that none of the investigations of climategate found any wrongdoing.

with one exception - it was considered a violation of science ethics to share data from a scientist outside the east anglia circle within east anglia without permission (I believe that was the finding on that particular breach, if I have a detail wrong I still stand behind my general description as accurate enough for gfy). But that sharing had nothing to do with the commonly discussed and published issues in the east anglia emails, so it doesn't apply to climategate as a political issue.

There was an additional civil finding, that east aglia was not responding properly to FOI requests, but that isn't considered an ethical breach. The scientists argued that FOI requests were bombarding the center at an unprecedented rate and that they didn't have staff or time in place to answer them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy

as I said, I urge your side to continue investigations. and i fervently support greater scientific transparency. if climate information is going to be subjected to greater public scrutiny some sort of system to make that possible, including paying staff to put data onto open servers and making subscripttion publications more available to the public, should be instituted.

but if you continue to claim wrongdoing, without new evidence, when 3 investigations in the UK and one here in the US have all said none occured, then your side is simply ignorant at best and intentionally lying for political purposes at worst.

personally, I think you are both ignorant, which is common, AND intentionally lying for political purposes; but I'm willing to allow that simple ignorance is sufficient explanation, given the average state of the american mind.