Great!...More propaganda from the Comedy Broadcasting System!...(I could call it something else, but I will refrain)...Remember, the network that had Dan Rather?...Excellence in journalism 101!......Don't make me laugh, my ticker can't take it.....

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

As always at the heart of these controversies, how can we do anything about global warming if it is a Solar System wide phenomenon? I vote we cool down the sun a bit, that will fix the problem.

Global warming is a hoax. I read an article yesterday in the St. Louis Post Dispatch which stated spring comes earlier and fall arrives later, each by two weeks. I've read this nonsense before. In the spring and fall seasons the temperature changes about 10 degrees per month. A two week change each season would mean average temperatures would have warmed about 5 degrees. Even by the global warming advocates the earth has only warmed one degree in the last century. This is one of many facts I could produce to show the lies behind this warming nonsense. Dr. Storm

Predictable 'liberal media' response from Oiznop and Co. When they can't dispute facts, they question the source. Please continue enlightening us with your unbiased, objective journalistic sources such as Drudge and Junkscience.com.

-Mark

Ah yes, the CBS "fake but accurate" Evening News. Perfect place for a series on global warming.

Fyi...everyone's sources has been questioned in this forum at one point or another. Interesting tidbit...my husband and I recently purchased a computer game called Civilization IV. In the game you basically create a civilization from the beginning of man to present and beyond or at least until you wipe everyone out. Basically, you control history. You can actually create Global Warming in the game. It took us until we got past 2050 to finally wipe everyone, and the only way we could create the Global Warming was by nuking everyone.

I find these comment boards amusing and infuriating in equal measure--and I just can't seem to understand why they even bother posting if they think even discussing the issue is beyond the pale. Wow, the kooks come out of the woodwork. Every source for news outside of Fox is horribly biased. All the AGW scientists are in the pocket of some impossibly organized global conspiracy funded by the UN and the Democratic Party--two groups that somehow manage to be useless and disorganized and yet capable of executing grand worldwide conspiracies. To say nothing of the evils perpetuated by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch! I suppose if CBS ignored the issue, or gave equal time to thousands of researchers and to the handful of scientists paid by corporations to oppose them, then they would be fair and accurate. What kind of bizzaro world are such people living in?

Yup, go figure. I am sure that they are going to be fair 50/50 in presenting both sides of the argument, right ;) Not!

I hope they talk about the many cold temperature records that have been set across the continent this year. Surely they'll mention that Buffalo, NY, set another record low just this morning? Mt. Washington, NH was -90 this morning. Yup, still cold up here, as it has been for most of the winter.

150 years of earth warming industrialization and here we are March 6, 2007 still setting record lows. This winter, our continent has been colder than average. How can that be? The science is not adding up. People of the cult should be asking themselves, shouldn't we be setting record high temps? Maybe the greenhouse effect isn't living up to all the hype. Don't worry, once the expected warm spring and summer temps get here, you'll be firing on all immoral carbon emitting cylinders again. Could you imagine if we had a warmer than noraml winter here in North America? The GW cult would be in full throttle. Chin up cult, there is always next year.

The bizzaro world we live in is called earth. And it's only going to get more bizzare on a daily basis. We went full out bizzare when everything had to be politically correct, and discovered that America is tolerant, but yet intolerant of anything that is different. The only thing is the people that are expected to be tolerant and turn the other cheek.

Well, I'm tired of being tolerant and am running out of cheeks. The whole AGW debate is infuriating, but which side is truly correct? The earth is warming to some degree is it a natural cycle or will we find out somewhere down the road say couple hundred years that the democrats were right? Who cares, but we could at least be a more effecient society at least we've done something good to save our resources.
My heating bill has been much nicer since we've had a shorter winter, and the flu has only run rampant here during the coldest parts. So if being on the warmer side can cut down on the amount of illness and our heating bill....why are we complaining? Consider it a gift from God or whatever you believe in.

Yup, go figure. I am sure that they are going to be fair 50/50 in presenting both sides of the argument, right ;) Not!

Had television been around during WWII, it sounds like Rich would have wanted Edward R. Murrow to say, after the discovery of Dachau, "And now, for the Nazi side of the story, ..."

When the discussion is about the speed of light in a vacuum, the shape of the earth, the acceleration due to gravity, whether or not the earth is older than six thousand years, and -- yes -- evolution, it doesn't make sense "to be fair 50/50 in presenting both sides of the argument".

"Fair", in this context, is to report the current understanding of the scientific community about this issue. When the scientific community is in overwhelming consensus, it is manifestly NOT fair for any journalistic medium to present otherwise.

Back in January, when the northeast was experiencing record high temperatures, Rich and the rest of the deniers were loudly shouting "We don't have enough data, this is just a short-term warming spell, it's preposterous to claim global warming is responsible." Now, when the northeast is experiencing cold temperatures, suddenly "the science isn't adding up".

Rich, try this once again: Global warming causes *changes* -- often extreme changes -- to existing weather patterns. Some areas will get colder, some warmer. Some areas will receive more snow, some less. Some areas will receive more rain and less snow, some areas will receive less rain and more snow. Programs like the broadcast we're discussing hopefully attempt to explain this.

Rich also didn't mention the fact that Tokyo is experiencing its first snowless winter since records began in 1877, the entire European continent has been experiencing warmth that is almost surreal this winter, and January was the warmest January on record globally. He also forgot to mention that all of our top ten warmest global annual temperatures have been set in the past eleven years.

But hey, it's cold outside today. Surely that must mean global warming isn't occuring. (sarcasm)

Well, congrats on your heating bill, Julie, but I do care--and not only because all our air-conditioning bills will more than make up the difference. This isn't about today or tomorrow. Got any kids? Grandkids? I bet they'll care a lot more than you do.
As for this "political correctness" nonsense, it only proves my point (bizzarro!). People who think that the slanted coverage of Fox News--to say nothing of Rush Limbaugh and the like--are doing nothing more than providing "balance" against actual news organizations, who at least try to be impartial, really have very little understanding of what constitutes journalism. I don't really like rants; I like information, and there's more of that in one page of the evil New York Times than in 24 hours of Fox. It's not political correctness, just plain correctness.

What I've always wondered is, if the "scientists" can't even predict the weather 5 days into the future with any accuracy, why all the fuss over some forecast of 1 or 2 degree change 100 years from now? Until they can predict the temperature for next weekend within 1 degree accuracy, it seems pretty pointless to bother with them on global warming.

{Rich, try this once again: Global warming causes *changes* -- often extreme changes -- to existing weather patterns. Some areas will get colder, some warmer. Some areas will receive more snow, some less. Some areas will receive more rain and less snow, some areas will receive less rain and more snow. Programs like the broadcast we're discussing hopefully attempt to explain this.} This sounds eerily to me like it always has been, am I missing something? Oh right, even normal changes are AGW...gotcha.

{Well, congrats on your heating bill, Julie, but I do care--and not only because all our air-conditioning bills will more than make up the difference. This isn't about today or tomorrow. Got any kids? Grandkids? I bet they'll care a lot more than you do.} If it keeps warming up like it is naturally, they'll be thankful they don't have to shovel snow like I do, and marvel at how we grew a garden with such a short growing season. Heating bills will be a lot less. I fail to see the down side, and I don't mean Al G's tall tales.

[quote]....against actual news organizations, who at least try to be impartial, really have very little understanding of what constitutes journalism. I don't really like rants; I like information, and there's more of that in one page of the evil New York Times than in 24 hours of Fox. It's not political correctness, just plain correctness.[/quote]

The New York Times impartial...okay, but "journalism" doesn't necessarily constitute information; of course in the case of the New York Times it might be disinformation but not necessarily information.

That's a lawyer's perspective and not a rant.

"'Fair', in this context, is to report the current understanding of the scientific community about this issue. When the scientific community is in overwhelming consensus, it is manifestly NOT fair for any journalistic medium to present otherwise."

Then why is the IPCC still issuing reports? If the science is as settled as gravity and there is nothing left to be learned why waste billions of dollars repeating the IPCC process every five years? Could it be that something besides the science is driving the process and perhaps, just perhaps, that is why proponents of AGW get their knickers in a knot every time someone questions their orthodoxy.

Contrary to the notion that the science is settled is the demonstrable fact that many questions remain unanswered. As long as that is the case comparisons to gravity and the speed of light are unadulterated nonsense. Even the IPCC does not go as far as some of the zealots go in declaring the debate over. They insert all sorts of qualifers in their reports. Would the AGW proponents disagree with the IPCC? If not, you can hardly fault others for questioning their conclusions.

I have a hard time understanding the vehemence with which so many proponents of AGW attack those who question them. It seems to that they would welcome debate. Each time their hypotheses pass the test they are strengthened. Gravity is no longer questioned because it went through the testing process and came out unscathed. AGW must go through the same process before the quoted words above will be appropriate.

Okay, first, BT, how do you get quotes to show up in italics? It's pretty cool and a way to keep track of what is being commented upon.

Julie congrats on your heating bill this year. Just got our Feb. heating bill and dang if it a ton of money. Note that air cooling in summer will not "make up" for the lower winter energy bills. All things equal, it often takes less energy to cool down a space than it does to heat it. In the all electric house I live in, summer bills are always much less than winter bills.

Face the facts, GW, whether AGW or just good ole nature induced GW, is generally good for humankind. Sure there are a bunch of changes that will occur but to say they are all bad is probably wrong. Our grandkids will be just fine just like we are relative to what our grandparents were saying when they were worried about us.

Media bias is a real thing and I have seen it first hand. They will nearly always present a dark and fearful story because it sells. Dire predictions of change due to GW sell. I have yet to see any major media outlet, including FOX, outline the positives in GW.