Fox News On Global Warming

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

my opinion is this guy's opinion:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

I'm not talking about that guy--I'm talking about you specifically. Are you taking "that guy's" opinion as your own, then? You've levelled a strong judgment re: Looney tunes, I'd think you would be willing to stand behind it. Considering you cannot prove your opinion, then I'm going to have to assume you are willing to make judgments based on your interpretation of the facts--on your opinion.

CorporateWhore

angelica wrote:

I'm not talking about that guy--I'm talking about you specifically. Are you taking "that guy's" opinion as your own, then? You've levelled a strong judgment re: Looney tunes, I'd think you would be willing to stand behind it. Considering you cannot prove your opinion, then I'm going to have to assume you are willing to make judgments based on your interpretation of the facts--on your opinion.

That guy is an atmospheric researcher from MIT. He is also a skeptic of global warming. I agree with him. Prove him wrong?

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

That guy is an atmospheric researcher from MIT. He is also a skeptic of global warming. I agree with him. Prove him wrong?

I'm challenging your line of thinking because I see gaps. As I say, I'm not concerned with "that guy".

miller8966

angelica wrote:

I'm challenging your line of thinking because I see gaps. As I say, I'm not concerned with "that guy".

SO what if theirs "gaps" in his thinking..everyone has gaps in their theories.

CorporateWhore

angelica wrote:

I'm challenging your line of thinking because I see gaps. As I say, I'm not concerned with "that guy".

My guess is that he knows more about global climate than you do.

angelica

CorporateWhore wrote:

My guess is that he knows more about global climate than you do.

There are many experts who disagree. You are the one throwing around statements about "looney tunes". I wonder why you make statements and then are seemingly dodging them by attempting to direct attention back on me, or on the guy in the article. It gives me the impression you are not comfortable answering questions about what seem to be strong opinions you hold on the subject. If your opinions were as solid as you try to make them out to be, I think you would be quite willing to stand behind them and not use smoke and mirrors. In the end, your opinion is your interpretation as is mine or anyones. And really, calling people, or points of view "looney tunes" isn't anything close to being scientific, or based on fact.

angelica

miller8966 wrote:

SO what if theirs "gaps" in his thinking..everyone has gaps in their theories.

This is a message board, where people debate topics. It's fine that we all have gaps in our theories, and hopefully we're able to stand up to questioning and face such gaps and either become strong in our views, or realise we might not be as realistic as we might tell ourselves we are. This way we all learn.

NOCODE#1

CorporateWhore wrote:

That guy is an atmospheric researcher from MIT.

AND?


why have 90% of the north east record highs (during winter) all been reached in the last 37 years


next

NOCODE#1

CorporateWhore wrote:

My "guess" is that he knows more about global climate than you do.

"Guess" is the key word

CorporateWhore

NOCODE#1 wrote:

"Guess" is the key word

Um.

He knows more about global climate than you.

Collin

CorporateWhore wrote:

Um.

He knows more about global climate than you.

It will take me less than two minutes to find a credible scientist who disagrees and he too will know more about global climate than you or anyone here. What's your point?

CorporateWhore

Collin wrote:

It will take me less than two minutes to find a credible scientist who disagrees and he too will know more about global climate than you or anyone here. What's your point?

My point is that there is still a debate on global warming. There are still many skeptical scientists and no one should claim that man-made global warming is entirely factual.

Collin

CorporateWhore wrote:

My point is that there is still a debate on global warming. There are still many skeptical scientists and no one should claim that man-made global warming is entirely factual.

I agree but no one should claim it's bullshit either, in all fairness.

Anyway, I think there are more reasons than global warming to change our ways. We are polluting our water and our air, we are using up our natural sources... In my opinion, it would be a good thing to switch to green energy as fast as we can, whether the global warming is really man-made or not.

jlew24asu

Collin wrote:

I agree but no one should claim it's bullshit either, in all fairness.

Anyway, I think there are more reasons than global warming to change our ways. We are polluting our water and our air, we are using up our natural sources... In my opinion, it would be a good thing to switch to green energy as fast as we can, whether the global warming is really man-made or not.

I know many new buildings are being built as "green" buildings or something like that.

norm

Collin wrote:

I agree but no one should claim it's bullshit either, in all fairness.

Anyway, I think there are more reasons than global warming to change our ways. We are polluting our water and our air, we are using up our natural sources... In my opinion, it would be a good thing to switch to green energy as fast as we can, whether the global warming is really man-made or not.

I completely agree. I care 2 shits what Al Gore thinks or says but I think it's in our best interest as humans to take care of our mother earth.

sourdough

CorporateWhore wrote:

My point is that there is still a debate on global warming. There are still many skeptical scientists and no one should claim that man-made global warming is entirely factual.

Has this person ever written a peer reviewed paper which argues AGAINST climate change? I'm guessing not because there are none.

CorporateWhore

sourdough wrote:

Has this person ever written a peer reviewed paper which argues AGAINST climate change? I'm guessing not because there are none.

I guess all of these folks aren't real then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic

Songburst

CorporateWhore wrote:

My point is that there is still a debate on global warming. There are still many skeptical scientists and no one should claim that man-made global warming is entirely factual.

Are these the same scientists who are skeptical about evolution and they maintain that the earth was created 5000 years ago by god? The fact is, that when you look at temperature trends (and I know that only the last 100 years or so have been officially recorded), you can actually see that the increase is fairly proportional to our use of GHGs. I'm not saying that global warming is a bad thing, seeing as I live somewhere that regularly sees the temperature drop below -40°, but to deny that global warming is happening is idiotic. But then again, these "global warming deniers" routinely spout idiocy on this forum.

Jeanwah

CorporateWhore wrote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf

Global warming is bullshit.

Notice that this article is from the US Senate. It's well known that the Bush Admin. has tried to hush scientists that don't work for them (especially one working at NASA) by threatening them with removal from their job positions. The one from NASA actually came out with an article detailing how he was forced to censor his research of global warming findings, or he would be dismissed. He took that dismissal to expose the administration. Of course, anything coming from the U.S. Gov't is going to deny global warming is actually happening.

Obi Once

jlew24asu wrote:

I know many new buildings are being built as "green" buildings or something like that.

Buildings get better isolation and climate systems to conserve energy. Because of high oil prices new sources for energy, its conservation and more effective usage will be researched even more. I doubt the doom scenarios those fox guys are flashing with, I think we will all accept it soon enough.

Anyone in this thread who think global warming isnt a fact and that man and it's wasting of natural resources, poluting the world, claiming land, has an effect on it is misinformed. You are the ones being manipulated by the media.

The link posted is from OPINIONjournal, that doesnt add to making it factual. The vast mayority of scientists agrees on what some here are skeptical about and this mayority disagrees with what the spin doctors on Fox have to say. It like evolution, some religious folk here will question it, like some scientists do, but that doesnt make evolution less of a fact.

Global warming from Wikipedia:
Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation into the future. Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

****

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science. Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
and the full read:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf