It's good to hear that someone can put aside their ideologies for a greater good.

Hopefully this also will mean that Fox will finally have balanced reporting in regards to AGW.

I would say he was told by the "higher ups" in this scam that he better start toeing the line. Too bad, the truth is being slowly but surely suppressed.

Mr, Murdoch is a money making machine. He too has jumped on the carbon credit bandwagon as he realizes the amount of money to be made.

Fox will stay fair and balanced, as far as I am concerned, as long as they keep publishing articles from Steven Milloy of www.junkscience.com.

Rich's theory (a small portion).

To all of you on both sides of the GW debate. Both sides are correct! Balance, just like the earth. It's cool how things work. Just to add another piece to how it all comes together.

As storms increase, more lightning is generated. Lightning produces ozone. Ozone is a good thing.

As snow and ice recede, vegetation grows. This absorbs CO2 and releases oxygen. When CO2 reacts with H2O in the air, no doubt, it increases the acidic content. Where is ice melting? The further away from the equator. What kind of vegetion grows the further away from the equator? Pines, douglas firs, evergreens! Evergreens are great at absorbing CO2, a natural CO2 sink.

Why does your lawn not grow well around pine trees, but moss does? Because of the ph of the soil, the acidity. You counter this by applying lime, alkalinity.

The acids and the alkaline naturally found on earth create energy. With that, the earth is an enormous battery. It has 2 magnetic poles for a reason. It is creating energy through chemistry which sustains a growing life on earth. A cycle!

As far as climate change, both sides are right! Why don't more people see this? We are contributing to greenhouse gases and the earth is correcting through cycles and balance, nature. We can help the earth to achieve this balance SOONER and with less damage by seeking more efficient energy. Technology is here and we need to take advantage. It is starting to happen through free market enterprise. If there is a demand for alternative energy, and there are profits to be made, it will happen because of competition through capitalism! Don't force us to change by imposing sanctions. The human spirit and economy do not respond well to this. If we both agree and logically accept each others arguement, then we are better off as a society. You are all logical, let us unite!

Good day all.

Laura,

Can you please point me to ANYWHERE that I can read a study done to verify the increase in CO2's impact on GW? Not looking for models that don't work, not looking for any information that simply points to temps rising at the same time CO2 levels rose ( you know my reasons ), and I'm not looking for any study that has not been successfully tested at least twice. More than one study corroborating the results of the other would be better.

My concern on the AGW "debate" is that no one has done this. I see how one might make a correlation between rising temps and rising CO2, however that link has not been made so far as I have seen. We saw at least 2,000 years of CO2 at 280 ppm with fluctuations in the temperature of at least a degree C without CO2 fluctuations, and we've seen the last century get warmer, then cooler, then warmer again and all the while CO2 levels only went up. I'd be glad to help the cause if anyone could convince me to do so, however I'm not religious and I don't take someone's word unless I know them.

Thanks

Is this really about the greater good Mark, or is it facing the political realities that this is going to be an issue that will affect business? From a legal and business perspective this is a smart move on Murdoch's part to avoid getting caught flat-footed on the issue. There is some pretty serious proposed legislation dealing with the issue of global warming at the federal level and the states aren't ignoring the issue either. Bottom line: this move is more likely motivated to preempt legal and political problems than it is to be "green."

Chris, who is higher up than Murdoch himself in the Fox food chain?

Alan, are you talking about the Steven Milloy that blamed the collapse of the World Trade Center on those who removed asbestos from the buildings, or who believes that second-hand smoke is harmless? That Steven Milloy?

I guess that explains a lot about your worldview.

Rich, your hypothesis is nice, but you need real-world data to support it, and right now, with CO2 rates not only rising -- but accelerating -- there is no evidence that this is occurring.

I would say he was told by the "higher ups" in this scam that he better start toeing the line. Too bad, the truth is being slowly but surely suppressed.

REPLY: I don't think that is the case. Murdoch is trying to make himself look good by giving into pressure from the enviro-weenies. Nothing more. Too bad he's becoming gutless at the behest of people like Mark, in the interest of putting on a facade.

Mark,

Yes, Steven Milloy you have identified him correctly. The view of my world is to consider all views on a subject and use my own brain to form my own opinion. Mr. Milloy does have contrary viewpoints on may subjects but so does Al Gore. After all isn't Mr Miloy and Mr.Gore at best twin sons of different mothers?

My post concerning Mr Milloy and Mr. Murdoch was to say that I hoped that since Mr. Murdoch has gone Green that he would not stop opposing views. After all the network is touted as fair and balanced.

I can't speak to the second hand smoke or asbestos theories. But in this case the only associative guilt that could I could claim would be our like opinion on the AGW farce.

I plead guilty as charged

I can't speak to the second hand smoke or asbestos theories.

In other words, even a stuck clock tells the correct time twice a day. Perhaps Mark and I attempt to hold our sources to higher standards.

BT.

Are you saying Mr Gore is a reliable source?

Most of your posts (Mark also) are less about science and more about insult. Your 'debunk the source ignore the science' attitude has shown what open minds true AGW proponents actually have. Let's not mention the Snarky condescending post that you claim are argument to someones formed opinion or actual factoids presented by the less educated than though.

I could give you source after source which argues against AGW but with your mindset it would be futile, after all you would snidely remark that they come from Big Oil or other unscrupulous webs sites or persona.

What proof have you provided that this is not, as in my view, a scam perpetuated by Environmentalists, The UN and advertised by their willing accomplishes in the Mass media.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05122007.html
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&blog=sobel

Both sides of the global warming debate are correct, to a degree.

Mark,

You are missing my point. The evidence is well, quite evident. The earth needs more greenhouse gases, because it is becoming a bigger greenhouse. Imagine that you are in a greenhouse. There is a lot of vibrant life in there, right? We, animals and plants are life. The earth is our greenhouse. If the life in that greenhouse is expanding, you need more greenhouse gas to sustain it.

As we release more CO2, the earth doesn't know if this is from cars or from species. It doesn't care. All it does is react and increases it's energy to balance and sustain the increased demand for it's energy. The earth is a vast, complex, energized battery. It has 2 magnetic poles for a reason, balance. As the population grows, we need and are tapping into the earths potential energy, by warming, which in turn is creating kinetic energy, life. Warming creates and sustains more life.

Your look into greenhouse gases is incomplete. It's not all about retaining warmth. It is also about what is contained IN the gas and how it reacts with H2O in the atmosphere, which makes it life sustaining. See my previous blogs. What's in the gas is what is creating more energy when mixed with H2O, which in turn is enabling life to expand. This is natural.

We are a component of earth. The earth wouldn't be as it is today if it were not for us. We and the earth aren't going anywhere for a long, long time.

Side note. Newtons Laws of Motion are much more complex than most people realize. The earth is constantly in motion, for a reason, balance. The earth is in motion because of it's energy that it is being created, from wind and ocean currents. This motion is also sustaining us.

With that, it is impossible for us to stop nature. We can however slow the natural reaction down by finding more efficient energy. Mark, I agree with you, 100 percent. If we want to prolong lifes energy, we need to conserve it and use it more efficiently. We can help the earth to achieve a more natural balance, and we can lessen the damage done to ourselves by seeking more efficient energy. Technology is here and we need to take advantage. It is starting to happen now through free market enterprise. If there is a demand for alternative energy, and there are profits to be made, it will happen because of competition through capitalism. Don't force us to change by imposing sanctions. The human spirit and economy do not respond well to this. If we both agree and logically accept each others arguement, then we are better off as a society. You are all logical, let us unite!

Did you deniers ever stop to think that maybe -- just maybe -- Rupert Murdoch actually took a look at the science, agreed with the consensus, and decided to use his clout to do something about it?

*gasp* Of course not. That would be too logical. There must be an ulterior motive when you have a cynical view of the world.

Here's the way sourcing works, Alan.

Most of us don't have time to validate and examine the evidence for everything in the literature. We therefore rely on sources to do that for us. Part of that reliance includes an explicit understanding that every such publication can be validated, and its evidence checked, by anyone who chooses.

By "reliable source", I mean a source that, in my opinion, can be relied on to follow this convention. That means that I assume that a "reliable source" takes steps to validate the material it publishes, check the evidence when necessary, and ensure that published papers do, in fact, conform to normal standards of integrity.

None of the links you just cited even begin to meet this standard. I'm not even sure why you cited the accuweather link, it currently leads with an entry describing the impact of warming on various natural events such as blooming dates.

If you want to rely on sources like Malloy, Tim Ball, and counterpunch.org, by all means do so.

Here are some other similarly-credible "facts":

From www.unexplainable.net:
Haunted Tales of the White House: While there are many different ghost tales associated with the White House and a few other buildings about the District of Columbia, an array of additional creatures and paranormal happenings have also taken place. In this article, you will learn of the resident phantom black cat, the president who often dwells in the attic, and what makes Dolly Madison appear to workers in full rage.

From www.ufoinfo.com:

LARGE LUMINOUS DISC STUNS MOTORISTS IN POLAND: On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at approximately 7 p.m., "a large glowing disc" suddenly appeared in the sky over Mogilnie, a small village 5 kilometers (3 miles) from Wylatowa in Poland. ...

SPHERICAL UFO SIGHTED NORTH OF SEATTLE: On Tuesday, October 15, 2002, at 7:45 p.m., John Novak and a friend were doing some automotive work in a backyard in Lake Forest Park, Washington state (population 13,142), located 15 miles (25 kilometers) north of Seattle, when they spotted a glowing UFO in the sky.

The web is chock-full of such "sources." Not all of us take them seriously.

And yes, I will argue that Al Gore is a more reliable source than either Mallow or counterpunch.

'Deniers'

Sticks and stones, Mark.

"Consensus"

There's that ugly little word again that is favored over the word "compromise" in political circles.

'*gasp* Of course not. That would be too logical. There must be an ulterior motive when you have a cynical view of the world.'

Being realistic and understanding what motivates people is not 'cynical', but rather being accurate about people's motivations. There are a lot of good people in the world who do beneficial things without expecting reward, but there are others who do beneficial things for less than gratuitous reasons. In this case, Mr. Murdoch is going to avoid a huge amount of political liability not to mention make his media business more attractive to advertisers who support reducing CO2. I am not saying that he didn't have had a change of heart, but rather that any change was probably the result of sound business analysis and not just the product of ideology or the spin behind AGW.

'And yes, I will argue that Al Gore is a more reliable source than either Mallow or counterpunch.'

Argue away...I'm all ears Tom.

BT

I will agree the three �sources� that I posted are in fact not sources for a scientific document but can and should be used in an argumentative in a free form discussion.
Since this is a discussion blog and not a pier reviewed scientific publication. I feel that it is valid to use articles which may covey or legitimize or clarify my opinion or argument.

The first link posted concerns an article refuting the premise that today�s greenhouse gas levels are unusual and that the pre industrial level of C02 was much larger than previously thought. As you�ve stated �Most of us don't have time to validate and examine the evidence for everything in the literature� so I hoped you would read the article and ponder The Journal Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck.

The second ling posted is an article from a progressive political web-site. The writer, Alexander Cockburn, is somewhat of a left thinking pundit. I thought you would be interested to read what one of your like-minded comrades had to say on the subject of AGW et al. Funny you didn�t recognize him.

The link from Accu-weather led you to Mr. Sobel�s blog. Scroll down a page or so from the article that you read, you will note that Mr Sobel states his opinion on the naming of sub-tropical storms. I found this interesting and thought you would appreciate that most free thinking individuals can recognize that some scientists and the media are changing the dynamic of the AGW argument to curry favor.

I find your references to the Haunted houses and UFOs to prove your point about sourcing to be subterfuge.

My original post was only to say that I hoped that since Mr. Murdoch has gone Green that he would not stop opposing views. After the entire network is touted as fair and balanced. I really must have touched a never. Is Millroy s a �He Who Must Not Be Named� in your world?

Finally, I don�t pretend to be a scientist and I don�t play one on the blogs.