We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
Bob Esq:
I said “all” the ice sheets.
From one of your links:
“The Bremen-based company that operates the two specially reinforced cargo ships, the Beluga Fraternity and the Beluga Foresight, that made the journey said that taking the new route saved 10 days and $300,000 per ship over the usual 11,000 nautical-mile voyage through the Indian Ocean, the Suez Canal, and the Mediterranean in order to reach the North Atlantic.”
I knew it, Global Warming is at root a Capitalist conspiracy to save money. Man those guys are really clever. They win if the earth warms and they win if it doesn’t warm and they win if we go green.
To Razmataz:
I did not refer you to the Hanley article nor imply any importance for it. But ALL articles at the National Review must be considered politically motivated. I will refer you to a couple of peer reviewed science articles, cited below.
They say that for the last 740,000 years CO2 has varied between 180 and 280 parts per million on a volume basis (ppmv), essentially in the absence of humans. Since the Industrial Revolution the CO2 levels have risen to 380 ppmv as shown by your very own Mr Murdock (chart: “Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory”). He sees no problem that, in the last 150 years, CO2 levels have risen 36% above the cyclic maximum levels recorded for the previous 3/4 million years.
Unless you (or he) prove that earth surface heating is immediate after CO2 increase or that CO2 does NOT act as a greenhouse gas, then you and he are truly, suicidally reckless.
The most important chart is here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5752/1313/FIG4
The full articles:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5752/1313
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6992/full/nature02599.html#t1
Byron: “You can take me and put me against a wall and shoot me if all the ice sheets melt. That is how sure I am that it is not going to happen.”
Before you volunteer to be taken out back behind the chemical shed and be shot; you may want to take a look at what the captains of industry have been doing and planning for the past five years:
http://tinyurl.com/yfb5yyw
老虎Wooods這是一個有趣的傢伙。
off topic but talking about re-creations:
http://www.fandome.com/video/116685/Chinese-News-Recreates-Tiger-Woods-Crash-Using-Sims-Graphics/?q=c
Elaine FYI, I tried again this morning to go to the thread and once again my computer froze and had to shut it down. We had a similar problem here before on another thread about Orly. It happened to Vince and he requested that the thread be shut.
Not trying to avoid your comment. If you want, pick a thread thats dead or one no one has interest in anymore and let me know.
Thank you,
Elaine M. and John Puma,
I see a stark difference between the two articles. The National Review article cites the sources for their information. The Charles Hanley article, well, is just a story.
Jay:
“Just out of curiousity, if the ice sheets do melt, can we beat the snot out of the all the global warming deniers?”
You can take me and put me against a wall and shoot me if all the ice sheets melt. That is how sure I am that it is not going to happen.
Yes, Dr Gray can be wrong, lets put him up against Gore.
From an Inconvenient Lie. As the oceans warm hurricanes will become bigger, stronger and more frequent.
Sorry, 30 year low for worldwide tropical cyclone activity, three years in a row. Doesn’t matter who said it, thats a fact jack.
Byron, come on, you expect me to believe you don’t know who Dr. Gray is. It’s in the thread. You must not live on the coast.
I love deniers like the good Dr.William M Gray. A whole lot of hot air (like this planet needs more) and yet in his posted credentials he conveniently omits that he is a long time member of the Heartland Institute. A conservative think tank that advocates against gov’t spending, taxation, healthcare reform, global warming, information technology and free market environmentalism. As a 501(c)(3) group they do not have to disclose their financial supporters however it is an established fact that EXXON is one of their main benefactors. Seems to me that a corporate funded think tank member and advocate whose primary disclaimer of scientific facts supporting human responsibility is that all those independent scientists are lying in order to keep their funding is a simple charlatan projecting his own financial interests over honest science. The good doctor is no more than a corporate backed snake oil salesman like every other lobbyist and conservative think tank talking head. If the good doctor did not hold this position he would be kicked out of the old boys club. Is that about right Dr. Gray? Why should anyone believe a man whose “scientific” bonafides are funded by Big Oil?
Razmataz–
Reporters are the people who report the news–albeit some much better than others.
Ditto on what John P. said about The National Review.
Great presentations if you have time.
http://www.nothingtodowithco2.com/pdf/AGW_presentation_ILMCD.pdf
Buddha:
“Not a bit. You’re assuming Gray is right just because the individual assessment is somehow more important than the review”
I am not assuming Gray is right, I don’t even know who Gray is. I am merely pointing out that just because 100 people say something is so does not make it true.
Gray may indeed be wrong and mad as a hatter to boot. But just because he is one individual does not make him wrong anymore than the entire Royal Society of Science thinking Charles Darwin was wrong about evolution.
To Razmataz:
Sorry, the National Review is hardly a peer-reviewed science publication.
To non-Razmatazes: Note the NR section called “Planet Gore.”
No bias here !!
It’s the Sun we are in a Deep Solar Minimum.
The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.
“We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.
This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
50-year low in solar wind pressure
30-year low in solar “irradiance
A 55-year low in solar radio emissions
Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high,” notes Hathaway. “Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We’re just not used to this kind of deep calm.”
For the first time in history, we’re getting to see what a deep solar minimum is really like.” A fleet of spacecraft including the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), the twin STEREO probes, the five THEMIS probes, Hinode, ACE, Wind, TRACE, AIM, TIMED, Geotail and others are studying the sun and its effects on Earth 24/7 using technology that didn’t exist 100 years ago. Their measurements of solar wind, cosmic rays, irradiance and magnetic fields show that solar minimum is much more interesting and profound than anyone expected.
Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of top solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply
No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle except the last time this happened the world froze.
NEWS FLASH: In the Northeast, people buy wool socks, scarves, and gloves. They put on down coats. They have heating oil delivered to their homes and turn up their thermostats.
Baby, it’s gettin’ cold outside. Ain’t no such a thing as global warming…I tells ya!
Elaine M.,
Charles Hanley is a “reporter”. That’s all. Did you notice all the scientific studies that he cited? Did you notice how he based his report on data collected by reliable sources?
Horseshit on the canceling effect.
What they do is prove that varied terrains react differently to global warming. It’s the very change in these local states that change how they relate to the global system. Unstable. Some will cool and some will warm, but they WILL change unpredictably.
And please, criticize spelling when you have nothing else of substance. I dare say what you’ve pointed to is a style preference.
It makes you look really really credible. No. That’s not the word. Petty. Yeah, that’s the word. Or flailing.
More than a foot of snow was expected in parts of Illinois, Wisconsin and Iowa, where the National Weather Service warned of “extremely dangerous blizzard conditions” and near whiteout driving conditions. Wind gusts of up to 50 mph could build snow drifts between 8 and 15 feet tall.
Parts of New England also girded themselves for bone-chilling wind gusts and snow accumulations of up to a foot by the end of the day.
In the West, pounded by the storm’s rain and snow earlier this week, bitter wind chills as low as 40 below were sweeping across portions of southern Montana. The biting winds also were moving across Wyoming and South Dakota, according to the National Weather Service.