Global Warming Alarmists - You have been suckered by the media

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Fire and Ice

Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming


By R. Warren Anderson
Research Analyst


It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”

Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.

The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”

[snip]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

This article is 17 pages long, complete with charts and graphs. If you really want your eyes open, you will read it. Otherwise - remain a sucker!
 
This article is 17 pages long, complete with charts and graphs. If you really want your eyes open, you will read it. Otherwise - remain a sucker!

Well, I read it, all 17 pages. Nowhere did I find one "chart" or "graph" of any actual data. Unless you are counting that one picture of Time Magazine's polar ice cap growth "data", which is merely a map that some child with a compass could've drawn some circles on. If that is your definition of "charts and graphs" or hard facts, I pity you. All that article is, is conjecture and opinion.

BUT that said, the article does make a small point, that the media tends to have a knee-jerk reaction and over-hype certain things, GW being one of them. I cannot disagree with that point. However it does not change the FACT that GW is occuring, and the overwhelming evidence is that man is more likely a contributor than not. WHAT we can and should DO about it is certainly still up for debate. So since you have been SUCKERED into the counter-hype such as this article and believe that we shoud do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about GW, you are just as guilty and anyone else you criticize. I suppose you are one of those who opposed doing NOTHING about the "hole in the ozone" layer and opposed the reduction / elimination of CFCs that was mandated by governements around the world and claimed if we changed from R12 to R134a in our cars it would spell the end of the automotive industry and we'd all be riding horses to work and craping in outhouses?? If so, how silly you must feel now.
 
Sorry, sucker, I can't read your reply because you are on my ignore list.

Sucker.:rolleyes:
 
Sorry, sucker, I can't read your reply because you are on my ignore list.

Sucker.:rolleyes:

My, how mature of you. Well if that's the case, then you won't read this post either. The fact that you've put me on your ignore list and refuse to read my posts proves that you are afraid to debate me, which makes you just like your avatar. You might point a gun around, but you are still a little PU$$Y.

:rolleyes:
 
Blah blah blah. That's all I hear. :rolleyes:

There isn't one single sentence in that article that is false and you know it.

Face it Johnny: You have been blinded by a media designed to keep people in a state of fear. Your Global Warming Scientific Consensus is nothing but junk science, and as more and more scientists come out in opposition, GW will go down, and go down hard. Just like eugenics and the Geocentric Theory did.
 
Look up weather patterns from around the globe. Not from the last 30-50 years, but go back 130 years.
You will find that in the last 30-50 years, there is a very slight warming trend, but only in the huge metro areas...Hong Kong, NY, Mexico City, etc, and so on.
This tells us that the more asphalt, the more warming.
But go back 130 years, or more, some cities have data going back farther than that, and you will find more cooling around the globe, than warming.
Add to all of this the fact that Mars, Venus, Neptune, to name just 3, are all in a warming trend, as well. Is that caused by humans?.
To me, this is another lib/dem scare tactic, to push us all into "greener" pastures.
 
Well, I read it, all 17 pages. Nowhere did I find one "chart" or "graph" of any actual data. Unless you are counting that one picture of Time Magazine's polar ice cap growth "data", which is merely a map that some child with a compass could've drawn some circles on. If that is your definition of "charts and graphs" or hard facts, I pity you. All that article is, is conjecture and opinion.

The "data" cited by the GW crowd is flawed and based on junk science. Charts or graphs can be made from bad data just as easily as good data, and just because one argument has charts and graphs doesn't make it more valid. Your whole argument here is focusing on style over substance. You must understand that the argument made in the paper was mainly that GW alarmists use flawed science, and thus flawed info to support their position. They further attack any argument that disagrees with them, instead of debating the facts. You don't need charts and graphs to prove that. Your whole argument misses the point on this...:)
 
FACT: The media DID PUBLISH what the article says they published WHEN they published it.

That is not conjecture or opinion. If you are too ignorant to connect the dots of the constant roller-coaster of emotion-baiting from global cooling-to-warming-to-cooling-to-warming, then I PITY YOU.
 
Look up weather patterns from around the globe. Not from the last 30-50 years, but go back 130 years.
You will find that in the last 30-50 years, there is a very slight warming trend, but only in the huge metro areas...Hong Kong, NY, Mexico City, etc, and so on.
This tells us that the more asphalt, the more warming.
But go back 130 years, or more, some cities have data going back farther than that, and you will find more cooling around the globe, than warming.
Add to all of this the fact that Mars, Venus, Neptune, to name just 3, are all in a warming trend, as well. Is that caused by humans?.
To me, this is another lib/dem scare tactic, to push us all into "greener" pastures.

You are WRONG.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Largest warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. The remote location of most warming makes it clear that the warming is not a product of local urban influence.

I find it hilarious that the same people who dismiss temperature measurements of our own planet are also the same who bring up the argument that other nearby planets are also warming. Exactly how many ground temperature reading stations exist on those other planets? And you have more faith in the accuracy of those measurements than the ones of our OWN planet?? :bowrofl:
 
.
To me, this is another lib/dem scare tactic, to push us all into "greener" pastures.[/QUOTE]

greener is better if it rids us of being dependant on oil from the thieving scumbags from the middle east
 
Watermelon.

Green on the outside, red on the inside.
watermelon.jpg

That's really the best way to demonstrate the motivation behind the leadership of the modern green movement.
 
I find it hilarious that the same people who dismiss temperature measurements of our own planet are also the same who bring up the argument that other nearby planets are also warming. Exactly how many ground temperature reading stations exist on those other planets? And you have more faith in the accuracy of those measurements than the ones of our OWN planet?? :bowrofl:

How many ground reading temperature stations are in those areas u mentioned? Siberia alone had hundreds of measuring stations closed during the early 1990's (which is why the temp in the 1990's seemed to skyrocket and became labeled "the warmest decade in history").

In the areas mention here on earth, most of those reading don't come from temperature readings on the ground, but from thermal reading from satallites, same as the temperature readings from other planets. In other words, the temperature reading of the places you cited are just as accurate, or innaccurate as the as the ones from Mars.

Consider the effects of warming in the areas you cited: Longer growing seasons.
That is a bad thing?!

"The remote location of most warming makes it clear that the warming is not a product of local urban influence."
In other words, NOT MAN MADE!!!
*owned*
 
.
greener is better if it rids us of being dependant on oil from the thieving scumbags from the middle east

problem is, "greener" in the political sense won't do that. In fact, it does quite the opposite.
 
In the case of Mars, the polar caps are diminishing at a similar rate as is happening here. I expect the nasa scientists are monitoring other similar indicators on the other celestial bodies.
 
It's all the conservatives' fault! Damn capitalists, killing our environment! If only we could all just use one square of toilet paper and live outside with outhouses and be vegetarians, then the world would be better off!!!

Johnny, I hear that Putin is trying to revive the old Soviet Union. Maybe you'd be more comfortable moving back there.

By the way, there have been NUMEROUS examples of the shoddy construction, bad performance, and poor placement of these so-called temperature measuring stations across the country. How can anybody prove that their data is accurate?
 
How many ground reading temperature stations are in those areas u mentioned? Siberia alone had hundreds of measuring stations closed during the early 1990's (which is why the temp in the 1990's seemed to skyrocket and became labeled "the warmest decade in history").
So I guess the fact that permafrost in Siberia is thawing is also because of fewer monitoring stations? And I'd be interested to a citation on this. I've searched high and low and can't find any mention of Siberian weather stations being shut down. I'm not saying it's untrue, I've just not found anything.

In the areas mention here on earth, most of those reading don't come from temperature readings on the ground, but from thermal reading from satallites, same as the temperature readings from other planets. In other words, the temperature reading of the places you cited are just as accurate, or innaccurate as the as the ones from Mars.
Are you just making this stuff up as you go? First of all, satellites can't take temperature measurements. They measure radiation at different wavelengths and it's up to scientists to interpret those readings, and the methods of interpretations are still up for debate.

Second, we've only had satellites taking those measurements for the last 30 years or so, which hardly compares to the 150+ years of records we have from ground stations.

Consider the effects of warming in the areas you cited: Longer growing seasons.
That is a bad thing?!
You assume that all global warming means is higher temperatures and everything else stays the same. You assume wrong. Large-scale temperature changes affect global wind patterns, which affects local weather. Areas that were once temperate become dry, dry areas experience flooding, etc. Witness the drought in the southwest and the catastrophic flooding in Texas. And yes, some areas become colder.

"The remote location of most warming makes it clear that the warming is not a product of local urban influence."
In other words, NOT MAN MADE!!!
*owned*
No, in other words the warming cannot be attributed to the "Urban Heat Island" effect that skeptics point to constantly. Speaking of which, those effects are indeed factored into the data.

And Fossten, this crap about global warming "alarmists" being anti-capitalist, enviro-nazis is hogwash, and only succeeds in changing the subject (which is the goal). You guys continue to question the motives of scientists who are trying to warn us of climate change, yet I have seen no evidence whatsoever to support the theory that they're in it to destroy civilization. On the other hand, you guys give a complete pass to the industry-funded think tanks and "skeptics" who unquestionably have a HUGE stake in pooh-poohing climate change. They blur the issues by framing their arguments around things that climate science doesn't even claim ("Ooh we had a blizzard! So much for global warming! HAHA"). With all the disinformation that they disseminate to add to the noise, it's impossible to keep up. I've come to the conclusion that it's no longer worth fighting for. We have no children, so I really don't give a damn any more. If your children inherit a hell on earth, it's not my problem. :cool:
 
So I guess the fact that permafrost in Siberia is thawing is also because of fewer monitoring stations? And I'd be interested to a citation on this. I've searched high and low and can't find any mention of Siberian weather stations being shut down. I'm not saying it's untrue, I've just not found anything.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go? First of all, satellites can't take temperature measurements. They measure radiation at different wavelengths and it's up to scientists to interpret those readings, and the methods of interpretations are still up for debate.

Second, we've only had satellites taking those measurements for the last 30 years or so, which hardly compares to the 150+ years of records we have from ground stations.

You assume that all global warming means is higher temperatures and everything else stays the same. You assume wrong. Large-scale temperature changes affect global wind patterns, which affects local weather. Areas that were once temperate become dry, dry areas experience flooding, etc. Witness the drought in the southwest and the catastrophic flooding in Texas. And yes, some areas become colder.

No, in other words the warming cannot be attributed to the "Urban Heat Island" effect that skeptics point to constantly. Speaking of which, those effects are indeed factored into the data.

And Fossten, this crap about global warming "alarmists" being anti-capitalist, enviro-nazis is hogwash, and only succeeds in changing the subject (which is the goal). You guys continue to question the motives of scientists who are trying to warn us of climate change, yet I have seen no evidence whatsoever to support the theory that they're in it to destroy civilization. On the other hand, you guys give a complete pass to the industry-funded think tanks and "skeptics" who unquestionably have a HUGE stake in pooh-poohing climate change. They blur the issues by framing their arguments around things that climate science doesn't even claim ("Ooh we had a blizzard! So much for global warming! HAHA"). With all the disinformation that they disseminate to add to the noise, it's impossible to keep up. I've come to the conclusion that it's no longer worth fighting for. We have no children, so I really don't give a damn any more. If your children inherit a hell on earth, it's not my problem. :cool:
You still haven't addressed the article. What a surprise. I guess you can't dispute facts and history, eh?

You are totally, consummately wrong, but who really gives a crap. You won't listen to reason, even if the facts hit you upside the head, because you are a born-again believer in the religion of global warming.

The one person getting all the attention drawn to global warming is Al Gore, the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD. The man is a kook, a Gaia-worshiper, and a left wing socialist. He's the one going on and on about how the debate is over and we have consensus. He's the one trying to silence the scientists who state that there isn't enough evidence to support the theory that man is responsible for global warming. If Algore isn't evidence of a socialist agenda, I don't know what is.

Your example of permafrost melting is, as usual, anecdotal. Every time you do that, I can cite an example that indicates global cooling. For example, is the FACT that the ANTARCTIC ICEPACK is THICKENING a result of GLOBAL COOLING? Ah, but of course, you've already insulated yourself against that argument by claiming that ALL climate change is a result of global warming, right? This despite ANY evidence to support this claim. :bowrofl:

Your argument is bordering on the absurd, to wit: Everything is a result of global warming, even if we experience another ice age.

You are oversimplifying a very complex climate system in order to fit it into a template called global warming, and you will be proven wrong eventually.

Then again, it's impossible to prove to someone their religion is wrong, isn't it?:rolleyes:

"You can't HANDLE the truth!"

-- Col. Nathan Jessup
 
The answer to the #15 by FOSSTEN

It's all the conservatives' fault! Damn capitalists, killing our environment! If only we could all just use one square of toilet paper and live outside with outhouses and be vegetarians, then the world would be better off!!!

Is succintly answered in the English TV series "RED DWARF" and I quote RIMMER in saying... Toilet paper? 3 squares 1 up, 1 down and 1 to polish.

thanx gorm4660
 
I wouldn't mind a little global warming. It drops into the 20's and 30's here in Philly at night. That being said :rolleyes: .... I've snooped around on weather.com and a lot of the record highs they have on archive are from a long long time ago. Now if I saw record highs across the board for recent times, such at 1990 til the present, I'd probably be a believer in the warming theory. The thing is, the record high's and lows are so scattered across the board I can't find a trend to prove anything really accurate.
 
You have been blinded by a media designed to keep people in a state of fear... GW will go down, and go down hrd.

Two very funny things, when coming from a right wing nutjob.

I wouldn't mind a little global warming. It drops into the 20's and 30's here in Philly at night. That being said :rolleyes: .... I've snooped around on weather.com and a lot of the record highs they have on archive are from a long long time ago. Now if I saw record highs across the board for recent times, such at 1990 til the present, I'd probably be a believer in the warming theory. The thing is, the record high's and lows are so scattered across the board I can't find a trend to prove anything really accurate.

This is why we have people who are smarter than you to do it for you. They're called scientists.
 
This is why we have people who are smarter than you to do it for you. They're called scientists.

Because it must take Einstein to find the average temperature off of a series of charts.

Don't insult my intelligence here, especially when the "scientists that we have" have contrasting theories about the temperature fluctuation in the world, as previously posted throughout this thread.
 
Two very funny things, when coming from a right wing nutjob.



This is why we have people who are smarter than you to do it for you. They're called scientists.

Ah, the idiot troll is back.

:rolleyes:

Thanks for your noncontribution to this forum, especially where you misquoted me.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top