The claim of bias was supposed to undermine it's climate change article, little more. No newspaper is impartial, it's POV will swing with it's writers and editorial staff. The goal should be to approach a balance, but that will never happen, so you read or listen to their points forewarned.
Man Made Climate Change Explained As If It Was To Kids
- Thread starter yung_dood
- Start date
I actually said it undermined yung dood's claim to be an authority on the issue.
Everyone can find news articles that support their views. That won't convince anyone.
We'll be long gone before we are wiped out due to any side effects from climate change.
Why is it that mankind is so arrogant to believe that we are the end all to be all in the evolution of our planet?
I suspect that once we are gone, a new dominant species will emerge.
It happened before... it will happen again.
I'm reminded of the late George Carlin's great bit on global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4
Of course, no one with "a degree" ever listened to Carlin.
The good news is there are some around that feel it's not always about you. No one who uses both side of their brain is thinking what you claim.
We have a responsibility to do the best we can with what we have been given so that we can pass it on to our children and their children. We are only renting the world for them.
I see that the bear in the picture has no more to worry about global
warming than we do. Like us the bear won't care about the impact of
the melting of polar ice packs. I venture to guess they won't be as
smart as us as to whistle past the climate change graveyard in the
future when they are ready to migrate away to the south.
warming than we do. Like us the bear won't care about the impact of
the melting of polar ice packs. I venture to guess they won't be as
smart as us as to whistle past the climate change graveyard in the
future when they are ready to migrate away to the south.
Last edited:
The polar bear photos are often not what they seem.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11879
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=5961259b-de08-4532-850b-09d4753bed39&k=88988
Rather than relying on screaming headlines and dubious news reports, it's best to focus on the real-world evidence and the fact that the models that predicted imminent catastrophe have been shown to be flawed.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11879
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=5961259b-de08-4532-850b-09d4753bed39&k=88988
Rather than relying on screaming headlines and dubious news reports, it's best to focus on the real-world evidence and the fact that the models that predicted imminent catastrophe have been shown to be flawed.
The picture wasn't meant to be the evidence of global warming
in my post. Polar ice cap melting has to occur on a massive scale
than that to be alarming.
I understand that screaming news headlines are less than reliable.
I'd look no further than the readiness of the oil giants to benefit
from the melting of Arctic sea ice for the evidence of it. Around
this time last year Royal Dutch Shell was already spending $4.5 billion
on operations and lease purchases in preparations to step up Arctic
Drilling. Meanwhile Imperial Oil along with Exxon-Mobil and BP
have already filed with regulators to drill in the deepest water in
the Canadian Arctic. Thanks to climate change drilling operations
in the arctic sea are going to be a lot less challenging and less
costly when sea ice are shrinking. Another good thing that
comes with climate change is that there is actually no imminent
catastrophe and the oilers understand that. At worst it will be just
another BP Gulf oil disaster as a result of their action. The
meltdown is going to take many decades to complete its course.
in my post. Polar ice cap melting has to occur on a massive scale
than that to be alarming.
I understand that screaming news headlines are less than reliable.
I'd look no further than the readiness of the oil giants to benefit
from the melting of Arctic sea ice for the evidence of it. Around
this time last year Royal Dutch Shell was already spending $4.5 billion
on operations and lease purchases in preparations to step up Arctic
Drilling. Meanwhile Imperial Oil along with Exxon-Mobil and BP
have already filed with regulators to drill in the deepest water in
the Canadian Arctic. Thanks to climate change drilling operations
in the arctic sea are going to be a lot less challenging and less
costly when sea ice are shrinking. Another good thing that
comes with climate change is that there is actually no imminent
catastrophe and the oilers understand that. At worst it will be just
another BP Gulf oil disaster as a result of their action. The
meltdown is going to take many decades to complete its course.
Oil and Gas is spending $1 billion a year to say similar things.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change
The industry to check is the insurance industry. Check extreme weather related damages and new premiums for extreme weather events like the continent wide blizzard or our ice storm and then tell us that there are no damages. And this is only 1 degree of global temperature change.
I'm guessing you weren't amused by the Terence Corcoran column in the National Post today:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...ate-change-not-on-the-same-course-as-reality/
Actually, it is pretty funny when "climate researchers" who go to the Antarctic are found to be rather clueless about the state of the Earth's climate.
It's called climate change. The term global warming is misleading and what nay sayers use to argue.
Al Gore was a "naysayer"?
http://www.amazon.com/An-Inconvenie...e=UTF8&qid=1388791197&sr=8-4&keywords=al+gore
When I was in school, my science teachers taught me how to test a hypothesis. Experiments were conducted and if the actual evidence was dramatically different than what the hypothesis predicted, I was taught to question the hypothesis.
What were you taught?
All hypothesis' have to be able to be disproved in order to be credible, that's basic science. The beauty of science is that it's open to criticism unlike religion or science fiction economics.
Due to the High number of experts that agree on the issue of man made climate change, it's safe to say that its a good bet
In a similar thread a few months back, I mentioned that it was my impression that the Antarctic was expanding. I got laughed out of the room.
A similar recent column from Lawrence Solomon:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...arming-believers-2013-was-the-year-from-hell/
Last edited:
The "high number" consensus figure is a crock. Furthermore, claims that there is a "consensus" must be based on evidence, not used as a substitute for evidence.
You do make an important point about the fact that credible scientific theories need to be falsifiable. Unfortunately, the advocates for the theory of global warming have refused to say what the criteria should be. If it can't be falsified, it can't be verified.
Of course, you could use the benchmark for questioning the merits of the models that was set by Phil Jones, the director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, in one of the leaked Climategate emails: "Bottom line: the 'no upward trend' has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
That 15-year criteria set by Jones has been met and surpassed.
