Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is that the same website that fact checked the SNL skit of obama? The saem bunch that fact checked Palin autobiography (unprecedented, btw).
Yeah, they have no agenda at all.
They are part of the liberal MSM who have been invested, completely and thoroughly, in the progress of AGW.
It is very telling though that they had to come out "absolving" the cabal of the worst kind of scientific hoax.
It tells you they are losing the "RP" campaign. There are about 2 weeks behind the curve.
Wow, read those fact check sites Sanrene, they have no factual evidence in them and are simply evasive claims of support using various statements from the administrations as evidence of their claim, much like those are doing on the news when they attempt to defend it.
Conservative Hunters And Fishermen Back Climate Change Legislation
Hunters and fishers, afraid that global warming could hamper their favorite pastime, have stepped into the lobbying fray for climate change legislation.
Different people have various reasons for taking the issue seriously, but like it or not, the majority are willing to take responsibility and do what it takes to reduce CO2 levels.
dont we first have to astablish for sure that the earth is really,really warming up and then, big if, IF the earth is warmng, 2nd we have to establish for sure what is causing,the earth to warm up. I dont believe when you say the majority are willing to take resposibility right now. because right now we dont know what to take reposibility for especialy with climate gate.why the secretcy
No, it isn't that. Follow their sources, they are factual analysis which shows using the evidence why, they are merely links to claims made which state their points are correct, yet do not contest the evidence directly or show why it is correct or incorrect. Seriously, read them closely and follow all the sources.
For example:
Quote:
World Meteorological Organization announced on Dec. 8 that the 2000-2009 decade would likely be the warmest on record, and that 2009 might be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. (The hottest year on record was 1998.) This conclusion is based not only on the CRU data that critics are now questioning, but also incorporates data from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
First off, the WMO's research was reviewed by several of those implicated in the scandal. Also, it doesn't link to the research, but a news story which reports the claim of the WMO to which it ALSO does not link any research or provide direct examples to its claim, rather it is an press release with a link to a graph with no proper citations to the research which provides these results. Here is a statement directly at the top of that press release.
For use of the information media
Not an official record
There are no citations are reference to actual research, simply summaries of claims without proper support. (When you fact check, you check facts, not claims made).
They link the following graph:
In fact checks haste to support their bias, they failed to even deal with problems concerning the global station data sets.
Also, there are extreme problems with bias in the "news sources" to which are claiming they are "reporting the facts". They aren't reporting facts, they are using sources to which they rely on the "word" of the source as the fact with no evidence to support what they are saying. Terrible reporting indeed.
You can go through that entire editorial (and I do say editorial because it is in no way shape or form a fact checking read) and show how each and every "fact check" is simply regurgitated defense lines of those involved. Heck, most of the sources they use are controlled by many of those implicated.
Do some more reading. If they can't point to the research exactly, if they can not contest the objections specifically, they are simply a commercial for AGW.
Right....no references. Uh huh. They're only right straight from the horses mouth.
I think the problem is that they do not realize it is from the horses mouth, but since they never look deeper than administrative summaries and "fact checking" sites which use those summaries as evidence, they never realize who is behind them.
It is like using the SS as a source to verify Hitlers claims to which the SS uses reports created and reviewed by Hitler to verify Hitler himself. Politics at its best.
For people truly interested in facts, I suggest exploring the wealth of research documented on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website. In particular, see the WG1: The Physical Science Basis.
There is a wealth of emotion-based denial totally bereft of facts out there, and on the other side, there's a wealth of research based on direct observations and measurements. For most rational human beings, figuring out which one to believe is easy.
No, it isn't that. Follow their sources, they are factual analysis which shows using the evidence why, they are merely links to claims made which state their points are correct, yet do not contest the evidence directly or show why it is correct or incorrect. Seriously, read them closely and follow all the sources.
I was actually referring to the picture of the graffititi, which didn't copy. I should have been more clear.
dont we first have to astablish for sure that the earth is really,really warming up and then, big if, IF the earth is warmng, 2nd we have to establish for sure what is causing,the earth to warm up. I dont believe when you say the majority are willing to take resposibility right now. because right now we dont know what to take reposibility for especialy with climate gate.why the secretcy
The Earth is warming. The debate is whether or not it is being accelerated by human's use of dirty energy. What secrecy?
For people truly interested in facts, I suggest exploring the wealth of research documented on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website. In particular, see the WG1: The Physical Science Basis.
There is a wealth of emotion-based denial totally bereft of facts out there, and on the other side, there's a wealth of research based on direct observations and measurements. For most rational human beings, figuring out which one to believe is easy.
You are quoting the IPCC as evidence to support the position?
Here are links in chronological order dealing with issues concerning the IPCC and the research they are using since 2005. This information and the analysis done by someone who was also a reviewer of the AR4 (the current IPCC report to which you are linking). There are a few in there as well authored by some others.
This will put the issues in context. The IPCC is in question here and there are serious issues with their findings and policies.
The Earth is warming. The debate is whether or not it is being accelerated by human's use of dirty energy. What secrecy?
Yes, warming has occurred, but there is an omission of context.
The claim is that warming is unprecedented. This is not true as in order to establish this, one needs to erase the MWP which is exactly the issue with Mann and Briffa and also a problem with the display of the most recent warming trends. Once the MWP is evaluated, the position of attributing it to man obviously becomes irrelevant as the results show that it is unlikely a man made occurrence.
There is no way to tell since the raw data they used to determine temperatures has been destroyed. Now why would they do that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
