Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' (natural, better, economy)

[newtoli]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

I think prudent and practical reduction of pollution is a necessity however the public has a right to know facts and not have media corporations feeding them a pack of lies. Mass media news outlets are no longer a source of information, their primary goal is to entertain and to push the agendas of the people producing it and the public eats it up.

I think that I'm not going to take the word of someone named thecoalman as unbiased fact when discussing global warming.

Fun activity: throw the names of those "Experts" into google and read their thoughts on other scientific matters as well.

[thecoalman]

The ice I referenced is the annual Ice that forms each year: NASA - Arctic Sea Ice Reaches Lowest Coverage for 2008

As we are still in an above average warm climate the article you referenced stands to reason. Going to be interesting to see what this years data shows.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by newtoli

I think that I'm not going to take the word of someone named thecoalman as unbiased fact when discussing global warming.

So what exactly have I written that you find biased or nonfactual?

I'll answer that for you, nada. I'll give you a piece of advice, everything I write can be backed up as I research what I post instead of following along like a sheep or cut and paste something from some whacko website.

I'm trying to discuss here the media bias that is quite prevalent where this topic is concerned. Do you find the article in my OP unbiased?

[HappyTexan]

Of course it's biased. Look at who is behind the articles and see what they have to gain.
This goes for most "this is good, this is bad" type of articles. They are usually pushing their own agenda. It's hard to decipher what is true and what isn't anymore.

[CleanCutHippie]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

This is why I trust very little that comes out of the media, overhyped is too small a word to say the least. As I see it you cannot trust anything reported in the media. They report bad news and that is it and apprently in this case the "jouranalist" is making stuff up...


FOXNews.com - Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

Foxnews...lol....what a surprise. How do we know these scientists aren't the ones who we cant trust?

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by CleanCutHippie

How do we know these scientists aren't the ones who we cant trust?

That's the hardest question to answer of all and unfortunately for us the general public we have to make our own judgments. Despite the "Science is apolitical" mantra that is far from the case and that of course would apply to both sides of an issue especially where you have one as politically charged as this. I'm sure you can look up the names of the scientists in the Fox article and find many reasons as to why their opinion may be biased but the same is true of the scientist mentioned on the other side of the issue. The original article from the AP quotes a bunch of politicians with the exception of one scientist which by the blurb on her university page could certainly be looked at as bias.

Scientist without an agenda or can't be bought and sold are the ones we need to hear from but I'd venture to guess we never will because their opinions will never see the light of day either by their own choice or becuse they will simply be ignored.

My point is the media is not only feeding the public one side of this debate but is also exaggerating or printing outright lies. If you follow the original article you'll find that much of it is not attributed to any particular scientist or study but the words of the author and they are stated as fact. This is a disservice to the public no matter which side of this debate you are on. We need real information getting to the public and not the bias opion of some reporter that is spinning facts or wrtiing things that fit his/her own agenda.

[SCGranny]

But what about... the fact that while Arctic ice is shrinking, ANTarctic ice is growing?

Sorry but I think that our economy and lobbyists are driving a lot of this 'global warming' hype. I am very familiar with the 'carbon credit' scam that is going to grow exponentially under the new presidency - the 'green jobs' Obama has promised. This is how it works -

You own a large company that by dint of your existence, pollutes - say, you own UPS, with all of those brown vehicles that spews out carbon every single day. I own a large farm. I have common sense so I practice things like rotational grazing, no-till farming, etc. to keep my land from being over-grazed or the soil depleted. The gubbermint is mad at you because you are a polluter (durn you you evil CEO you). So along comes a very creative fella, called a carbon credit broker. He sends representatives out to my farm to see how many acres on which I have responsible farming methods. Then he sends a representative to YOU, and tells you that I am 'banking carbon credits' that you can buy. This carbon credit broker then PAYS ME from the money you give him to buy carbon credits so you can continue to run your trucks, and takes 10% off the top for his own company. Everybody's happy - I am happy because some fool city boy is giving me money for what I am doing ANYWAY, you are happy because for a little extra money (that you can charge off to your customers) you can be green, the broker is happy because he is getting "his money for nothing and his checks for free", and de gubbermint is happy because it looks on their balance sheets like everyone is doing something for the carbon emissions. Scam? How dare I say such a thing?

Everyone's employed, everyone gets money, and everyone feels all better about themselves for doing something to help the environment. Yay. High fives all around.

Fools, I tell ya. FOOLS.

[CouponJack]

Amazing how people can't answer a simple question on why the guy hides and won't debate......

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

But what about... the fact that while Arctic ice is shrinking, ANTarctic ice is growing?

The annual ice which is formed each year was more than it was iat the end of the summer 2007, this coincided with a colder year. The perennial ice at least according to that article is still shrinking however neither article mentions 2008 specifically. I'd imagine that would be something very hard to calibrate for one year adn it was still quite warm last year compared to others on record. I believe it was the tenth highest recorded.

As suggested by some this might be the start of a cooling period which has about a 30 year span at which point we'll hit some very cold weather such as what we had in the mid 70's. If that's the case the perennial ice will cease to melt and start to grow again.

One thing to keep in mind is the data used to generate the NASA reports has only been collected since the mid 70's as they didn't have the satellites prior to that. While on the topic I get skeptical when they report anything when they are relying on old data especially when it is from decades or centuries ago. I appears they have enough trouble keeping things straight now as I've seen many articles pointing out why the data is suspect such as relying on the same data from a weather station as an absolute measure when the weather station was moved to a different location or where the local environment has changed such as macadam being layed below there instruments are.

[SCGranny]

I attended a debate between two scientists at an Emergency Preparedness convention. They debated the whole "global warming" theory. The woman who insisted that we humans were the main cause of global warming was talking about the anomalies in the global warming stance - in partcular was one year where their measurements and hypotheses went totally askew. Those of us in the audience looked at her graph and started laughing. The anomaly that destroyed that trend? The year that followed the Mt St Helen's eruption!

I still think that the globe warms and cools in response to much larger events than humans can influence. If Yellowstone erupts, that could cause a massive cooling trend, due to the interruption of solar warmth. If it never does, then sunspots, solar flares, increased or decreased magma activity around the world will still have far more devastating and long-reaching impacts than a mere handful of humans burning wood in their fireplaces to keep warm, or driving vehicles without emission controls. It all adds up certainly - but I still cannot see where humans cumulatively have a greater impact than a Mt St Helen, or a Vesuvius. And neither could the global warming, gloom and doom prognosticators. We might actually be grateful for a few degrees of human-waste-generated warmth, if we have any more plates shifting or volcanic eruptions...