DescentBB

For those of you who believe in Global Warming because you "think" all the proponents are the mainstream and those who are against it are few and far between, have been fed fecal rich organic matter for year:

"In some cases, the broadcast networks have failed to include such scientists for years, while including alarmist scientists within the past six months. ABC, CBS and NBC's lengthy omission of scientists critical of global warming alarmism propped up the myth of a scientific consensus, despite the fact that many scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed studies disagree.


"Neither CBS nor ABC have included a skeptical scientists in their news shows within the past 1,300 days, but both networks included alarmists within the past 160 days -- CBS as recently as 22 days ago. When the networks did include other viewpoints, the experts were dismissed as "out of the scientific mainstream" or backed by "oil and coal companies."

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long ... -1300-days

So if the above is true, then how can one form a credible view of climate change based on select news reporting? Yes I expect certain peeps to reply back that this is not a mainstream outlet reporting this. My reply is find a mainstream source that refutes this before making biting replies. And remember...I bite back

sorry, but I don't find CNS to be a credible source. They have an ax to grind against anything 'liberal', which, in this case, lands them on the side of complete ignorance. I suspect a study conducted by an unbiased group will show their claim of lack of pro-denial voices on the networks to be a lie, I know the claim of the numbers of scientist and especially valid peer-reviewed papers to be a FLAGRANT lie(we've had this debate and had links that prove otherwise on here a few times).
Thus, I see no reason why you posted this tripe here. No substance, no verification of claimed 'facts', nothing but the usual cry for maintaining complete ignorance from another right-wing(admitted) source. Could this be just one of those awful 'trolls' you decry from others? I think it is.....

oh, and credible sources?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm

note the parts mentioning that few, if any actual climate scientists argue against either climate change, or even significant human causation. Also note the study showing not only that there aren't 'thousands' but actually there aren't ANY recent peer-reviewed scientific studies denying global climate change. NONE.

Places like your bogus 'news' source like to cite 'hundreds of scientists', when a quick look-see at their lists shows virtually NONE are involved in any way with environmental, climate or earth science.

and yet from this I do see a number of papers that are skeptical. Are all the people listed crackpots too?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerrev ... eptics.php

2 words for ya woody. Rock Snot.

It isn't "global warming". It's "climate change" now. And I'm not being sarcastic. This was done so no matter what the outcome (and we're going to be having some extreme weather shifts for a while) it's going to get pinned on us. The global public.

Because of Agenda 21

This is legit and scary. read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The term "climate change" became more common because too many people were responding to it with lovely statements like "LOL BUT IT'S A REALLY COLD AND SNOWY WINTER SO WHERE'S THAT GLOBAL WARMING?" (Apparently they missed the "global" part of global warming.) "Climate change" better reflects the fact that different areas will see different types of changing weather patterns. It also conveys the sense that it's not just a matter of temperature, but of specific weather events: stronger hurricanes, more widespread tornado outbreaks, prolonged droughts, heavier blizzards, and so on.

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

tunnelcat wrote:2 words for ya woody. Rock Snot.

TC those 2 words don't mean much. from your link:

One lake studied in the Gaspésie region of Quebec showed fossilized Didymosphenia geminata (one species of didymo) dating back to about 1970, or 36 years before the first official reports of an outbreak were recorded in the region.

So its been there long before the warming cry went out.

Spidey wrote:WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

Well, yeah. Eventually. Ya think?

When it comes to climate change…it’s always gloom and doom.

I try to look on the bright side, Snoopy. For instance, a rise in sea levels in the East of around 7 feet would make about 225 acres of my farmland into beachfront. Slick the Condo magnate!

Spidey wrote:When it comes to climate change…it’s always gloom and doom.

Watched some news reporter lady suggest that thawing snow/ice in some region of the world may release long dormant diseases/plagues due to global warming. My dad said, "I hope she freezes to death on her way home".

There's definitely an agenda behind it.

Scientists just discovered a freaky prehistoric giant virus in the Siberian permafrost, and were able to reanimate it successfully. Considering this frost isn't quite so "perma" anymore due to rising temperatures, it's a very real possibility that other similarly-preserved viruses could come to light in the future. Wanna try that skepticism again?

My problem is they were using it as a scare tactic. I'm wise to this BS, so I know there's nothing to worry about, yet they're reporting it like there is. Tired of people lying.

Having said that, my bull****-o-meter is telling me that this either happens all of the time, or it wouldn't have happened at all without their help.

Duper wrote:

Spidey wrote:WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

Well, yeah. Eventually. Ya think?

I'm closer to death, so I don't give a rat's ass anymore. Unless God reincarnates me here as punishment. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Spidey wrote:WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

hey, that's my line! ;P

I'd feel a lot better about this whole subject if it was pure science, but it's not, there's also a political agenda that goes along with it that makes you have to be a little more wary than say over astronomy.

callmeslick wrote:I try to look on the bright side, Snoopy. For instance, a rise in sea levels in the East of around 7 feet would make about 225 acres of my farmland into beachfront. Slick the Condo magnate!

Man, I don't even know if I posted and it got deleted or if you mis-appropriate your credit....


All this climate change & global warning stuff gives me fatigue... I'm happy to try to be more efficient and sustainable because it saves me money but don't go all robin hood on me redistributing wealth in the name of ecology..

snoopy wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I try to look on the bright side, Snoopy. For instance, a rise in sea levels in the East of around 7 feet would make about 225 acres of my farmland into beachfront. Slick the Condo magnate!

Man, I don't even know if I posted and it got deleted or if you mis-appropriate your credit....


All this climate change & global warning stuff gives me fatigue... I'm happy to try to be more efficient and sustainable because it saves me money but don't go all robin hood on me redistributing wealth in the name of ecology..

misattribution, Snoopy.......

Where the carcass is, there the vultures will gather