PDA

View Full Version : Media Matters rushing to cover the liberal lying rear ends



texan
11-04-2015, 10:57 PM
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612

For all you science believers
Basically NASA says some areas losing ice some gaining ice. Actually more ice is happening. Of course the climate changes it always had. But you are a dunderhead if you buy into this liberal holy grail. Not serious. Follow the money.

Peter1469
11-04-2015, 11:06 PM
The warmists got lost when the government started giving them grant money.

AeonPax
11-04-2015, 11:07 PM
`
People should actually read the entire article, titled; NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612) before accepting the OP's opinion of what he thinks the article says.

Once again, more distortion.

hanger4
11-04-2015, 11:18 PM
`
People should actually read the entire article, titled; NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612) before accepting the OP's opinion of what he thinks the article says.

Once again, more distortion.
What's to distort ?? Is there more or less ice ?? If you really want to talk distortion lets talk about "scientific consensus" as stated in the link, there is no scientific consensus.

Bob
11-04-2015, 11:20 PM
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612

For all you science believers
Basically NASA says some areas losing ice some gaining ice. Actually more ice is happening. Of course the climate changes it always had. But you are a dunderhead if you buy into this liberal holy grail. Not serious. Follow the money.

I know that Antarctica has much more ice than a decade ago and I have a favorite photo to show proving the point well.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Construction_Crane_Buried_in_Ice.htm

13348

Bob
11-04-2015, 11:47 PM
`
People should actually read the entire article, titled; NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612) before accepting the OP's opinion of what he thinks the article says.

Once again, more distortion.

This is a disease among Democrats and for the first time in many years, I have a vital question.

What scares you guys so much? We are talking minute figures here, so why are you running scared?

I posted a photo of a construction crane that is covering up fast in the Antarctic. There is plenty of ice there so the ice lost in the smaller North is not a factor.

Democrats scare stories never have foundational proof with them.

This is far more dramatic than it looks. Normally in the antarctic, due to it being ultra dry, it takes a long long time for ice to build up. The tip of the boom is probably 100 feet high from base level. This photo was taken in 1985. Think the crane still shows today.

13349

In the mid 1960s, ITT built a power transmission line in Antarctica. The transmission towers stood 115 feet tall.


As you can see in these photos, all but the top 30 feet of the towers are now buried in ice.


And the crane used to build the towers will soon be totally covered by ice. (By the way. If you know what kind of crane this is, or how tall it is, please let me know.)


Not only are the power transmission towers being buried, so are the Antarctic research stations themselves.


The old Byrd Station has been shut down because it is buried beneath 40 to 50 feet of ice and snow and is slowly being crushed.


The old South Pole station is also buried beneath the ice.
I have to scrounge more to find the photo showing the towers.

I saw it around 1997. See what i can bring back for you guys.

Fact is, NASA recently admits for the first time a lot more ice is at the south end of earth.

Found the towers.

13350

Crepitus
11-04-2015, 11:58 PM
My opinion: Warmer air will carry more moisture, more moisture equals more snow. Warmer is a relative term, 2 degrees above -20 is still plenty cold for ice and snow to form.

AeonPax
11-05-2015, 12:49 AM
This is a disease among Democrats and for the first time in many years, I have a vital question. What scares you guys so much? We are talking minute figures here, so why are you running scared?I posted a photo of a construction crane that is covering up fast in the Antarctic. There is plenty of ice there so the ice lost in the smaller North is not a factor.Democrats scare stories never have foundational proof with them. This is far more dramatic than it looks. Normally in the antarctic, due to it being ultra dry, it takes a long long time for ice to build up. The tip of the boom is probably 100 feet high from base level. This photo was taken in 1985. Think the crane still shows toda In the mid 1960s, ITT built a power transmission line in Antarctica. The transmission towers stood 115 feet tall. As you can see in these photos, all but the top 30 feet of the towers are now buried in ice. And the crane used to build the towers will soon be totally covered by ice. (By the way. If you know what kind of crane this is, or how tall it is, please let me know.) Not only are the power transmission towers being buried, so are the Antarctic research stations themselves. The old Byrd Station has been shut down because it is buried beneath 40 to 50 feet of ice and snow and is slowly being crushed. The old South Pole station is also buried beneath the ice. I have to scrounge more to find the photo showing the towers.I saw it around 1997. See what i can bring back for you guys.Fact is, NASA recently admits for the first time a lot more ice is at the south end of earth.Found the towers.
`
Hey, let's challenge years of scientific research and study with a picture of a crane and a few towers. Cool.

Mac-7
11-05-2015, 12:58 AM
`
Hey, let's challenge years of scientific research and study with a picture of a crane and a few towers. Cool.

Years of scientific malpractice you mean

Common
11-05-2015, 03:15 AM
`
Hey, let's challenge years of scientific research and study with a picture of a crane and a few towers. Cool.

I remember when I was a kid, every mischief night and halloween there would either be snow on the ground or we would be freezing. Today they trick or treat sweating. That is the number one thing that stands out to me in a realistic way in comparison to years ago.

Bob did however bring up a good point, the democrats are always so frenzied over global warming and seem to be so afraid of it, I dont get that honestly.

I have two honest issues with global warming, there are too many scientists for it and against it still and I believe if we take the measures the left insists we take it will cost us a fortune and accomplish nothing. As long as the rest of the world like china wont do their share we would be wasting our time and money.

Of course this is a laymans view Aeon

zelmo1234
11-05-2015, 05:39 AM
I remember when I was a kid, every mischief night and halloween there would either be snow on the ground or we would be freezing. Today they trick or treat sweating. That is the number one thing that stands out to me in a realistic way in comparison to years ago.

Bob did however bring up a good point, the democrats are always so frenzied over global warming and seem to be so afraid of it, I dont get that honestly.

I have two honest issues with global warming, there are too many scientists for it and against it still and I believe if we take the measures the left insists we take it will cost us a fortune and accomplish nothing. As long as the rest of the world like china wont do their share we would be wasting our time and money.

Of course this is a laymans view Aeon

This year it was very warm and we are told that the winter her in MI will be very mild because of the EL Niño effect but last year there was snow on Halloween. I remember both when I was a child.

And of course the same effect that brings warm weather to the north in the winter bring torrential rains and snow to the areas of the west that can use the moisture ending the drought


The problem with the Climate change Science is the massive amounts of Government funding around the world. They are hooked on the money and thus the science is not made up. As our Good friends of the border uncovered for the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Common
11-05-2015, 05:48 AM
This year it was very warm and we are told that the winter her in MI will be very mild because of the EL Niño effect but last year there was snow on Halloween. I remember both when I was a child.

And of course the same effect that brings warm weather to the north in the winter bring torrential rains and snow to the areas of the west that can use the moisture ending the drought


The problem with the Climate change Science is the massive amounts of Government funding around the world. They are hooked on the money and thus the science is not made up. As our Good friends of the border uncovered for the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

zelmo all science is hooked on the money, both sides of any scientific opinion is hooked on the money. They only way they make a living is federal and private grant money. They generate no revenue.

To keep getting that money they have to show some results, whether real or imaginery someone who gives them money has to believe it.

AeonPax
11-05-2015, 05:49 AM
I remember when I was a kid, every mischief night and halloween there would either be snow on the ground or we would be freezing. Today they trick or treat sweating. That is the number one thing that stands out to me in a realistic way in comparison to years ago. Bob did however bring up a good point, the democrats are always so frenzied over global warming and seem to be so afraid of it, I dont get that honestly. I have two honest issues with global warming, there are too many scientists for it and against it still and I believe if we take the measures the left insists we take it will cost us a fortune and accomplish nothing. As long as the rest of the world like china wont do their share we would be wasting our time and money. Of course this is a laymans view Aeon
`
1 - In my opinion, most of the right are confused as why they deny there is climate change. Whether it's for party, ideological or religious reasons; it's all the same to me. The posting of pictures and anecdotal opinions is hardly scientific, academic or even logical.

2 - Having said that, I happen to be a fence sitter when it comes to global warning, this despite all the qualified scientific data I've read. However, unlike the right, I base any ambiguity I might have also from sound scientific study, not the voodoo crap from far right christians. In a nutshell, I'm not firmly convinced the mathematical models that are being used to predict such a long term climate change, are in themselves, flawed. I'm not a mathematician but I can be convinced by knowledgeable people who state those models are flawed due to incomplete data. When it comes to earth climate, I happen to be a proponent of the Gaia hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis).

Still, push comes to shove, I'll err on the side of caution and support all initiatives to save the environment and for that reason I support all reductions in fossil fuel.

zelmo1234
11-05-2015, 06:10 AM
zelmo all science is hooked on the money, both sides of any scientific opinion is hooked on the money. They only way they make a living is federal and private grant money. They generate no revenue.

To keep getting that money they have to show some results, whether real or imaginery someone who gives them money has to believe it.

And that is why like journalism, Science is dead in the USA

So lets just take what we know to be true and even most climate change activists will agree to. For the past 2 decades the warming trend has stopped and slightly reversed. (bye the bye this is the biggest mistake the left made, by trying to cover this up, they should have taken credit for it)

And we know that many of the records for warmest winters, and days are actually over a hundred years old. Even the worst Tropical seasons are not modern day but in the past.. So we are not in any immediate danger like the people making billions off this are trying to claim.

So we spend hundreds of millions on this every year, but there are some real issues with pollution. Acid Rain, the effect of exhaust fumes on trees and vegetation. Air pollution. What if, Instead of chasing a Ghost that clearly the scientific community is forging data to keep the funds, we were to change the focus and have them study new was to reduce pollution from Coal and move from a petroleum bases auto industry to one of natural gas. work on battery development for electric cars. All this could actually make a difference....

That is the problem with Government it is not result oriented it is ideology oriented. and that has to stop.

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 07:26 AM
`
1 - In my opinion, most of the right are confused as why they deny there is climate change. Whether it's for party, ideological or religious reasons; it's all the same to me. The posting of pictures and anecdotal opinions is hardly scientific, academic or even logical.

2 - Having said that, I happen to be a fence sitter when it comes to global warning, this despite all the qualified scientific data I've read. However, unlike the right, I base any ambiguity I might have also from sound scientific study, not the voodoo crap from far right christians. In a nutshell, I'm not firmly convinced the mathematical models that are being used to predict such a long term climate change, are in themselves, flawed. I'm not a mathematician but I can be convinced by knowledgeable people who state those models are flawed due to incomplete data. When it comes to earth climate, I happen to be a proponent of the Gaia hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis).

Still, push comes to shove, I'll err on the side of caution and support all initiatives to save the environment and for that reason I support all reductions in fossil fuel.

Except for the phobia about the "right" I agree for the most part.

I would not "err on the side of caution" when those demanding action are demanding very expensive solutions. However, we can easily reduce our dependence on fossil fuels without lots of government mandates and taxes. With a little nudge, the free market would take care of the problem (http://www.energyvictory.net).

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 07:29 AM
And yesterday I posted a link to an article about the views of astronomers. They think that we are heading into another mini-ice age. Astronomy is an established science with accepted methods. Climate science is not.

AeonPax
11-05-2015, 07:52 AM
And yesterday I posted a link to an article about the views of astronomers. They think that we are heading into another mini-ice age. Astronomy is an established science with accepted methods. Climate science is not.
`
Your opinion, just like my opinion. Still, from a page called "Bad Astronomy" comes this article; No, We’re Not Headed for a Mini–Ice Age (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_a ge.html)

maineman
11-05-2015, 08:03 AM
The warmists got lost when the government started giving them grant money.

So... all the medical researchers who have developed cures for cancer with government grants were all "lost" somehow and thus we should doubt the effectiveness of their discoveries?

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 08:06 AM
`
Your opinion, just like my opinion. Still, from a page called "Bad Astronomy" comes this article; No, We’re Not Headed for a Mini–Ice Age (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_a ge.html)

Incorrect. Your article seems to be from hacks who attack any questions of the orthodoxy that is climate "science."

Link to heretic science (http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates)

Since some people are obsessed with fact and opinion and whatever, Astronomy Now (http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/09/royal-astronomical-societys-national-astronomy-meeting-2015-report-4/)also covers the findings regarding global cooling.


Around 500 astronomers and space scientists gathered at Venue Cymru (http://conference.venuecymru.co.uk/) in Llandudno, Wales, from 5-9 July, for the Royal Astronomical Society National Astronomy Meeting 2015 (http://nam2015.org/)(NAM2015, Cyfarfod Seryddiaeth Cenedlaethol 2015). The conference is the largest regular professional astronomy event in the UK and saw leading researchers from around the world presenting the latest work in a variety of fields. Science writer and editor Kulvinder Singh Chadha presents his fourth and final report from the last day of the event:The two-hearted Sun beckons new ‘mini ice-age’


Like the enigmatic, eponymous character from Doctor Who our Sun may have two hearts. A new model of the Sun’s interior is producing predictions of its behaviour with unprecedented accuracy; predictions with interesting consequences for Earth. Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University presented results for a new model of the Sun’s interior dynamo in a talk at NAM2015.

****

The model predicts that the magnetic wave pairs will become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. Then during Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch, cancelling one another out. This will cause a significant reduction in solar activity. “In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” says Zharkova.

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 08:13 AM
So... all the medical researchers who have developed cures for cancer with government grants were all "lost" somehow and thus we should doubt the effectiveness of their discoveries?


That is a logical fallacy. Known as a faulty generalization.

But to shift topics to cancer treatments- I do think that a lot of them are faulty and focus on profit as opposed to treatment and cures. The money made in cancer research is from treatment. Not from government grants.

Some doctors diagnose cancer (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/michigan-cancer-doctor-sentenced/) where there is no cancer because it brings in a lot of cash.

And it isn't isolated cases (http://www.naturalnews.com/033847_chemotherapy_cancer_treatments.html).

JDubya
11-05-2015, 08:32 AM
http://s8.postimg.org/699405ugl/tumblr_mqhxwi54rk1ssr779o1_1280.jpg
http://s24.postimg.org/y9lkeg4rp/climate_change_political_affiliation.png

maineman
11-05-2015, 08:35 AM
I guess I was asking you if you believed that anyone who gets a government grant to study ANYTHING does so at the outset with the express purpose of finding out the result that the government has pre-ordained? Do you think grants are given out with the desired findings pre-specified in the grant itself? I.e...... here is some money to study "X". When you are done studying "X", be sure to come back to us with a finding "Y". If you do, we'll give you more money. If you don't, tough luck.

maineman
11-05-2015, 08:37 AM
I guess I was asking you if you believed that anyone who gets a government grant to study ANYTHING does so at the outset with the express purpose of finding out the result that the government has pre-ordained? Do you think grants are given out with the desired findings pre-specified in the grant itself? I.e...... here is some money to study "X". When you are done studying "X", be sure to come back to us with a finding "Y". If you do, we'll give you more money. If you don't, tough luck.

to continue: or do you believe that only when you are negatively predisposed to the finding "Y"?

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 08:41 AM
This is perhaps the main tool of the warmists in their attack against skeptics. And it is elementary. Only US public schools allow this to not be immediately dismissed.

No relevant number of people on earth believe that the climate does not change.

The debate is over how much influence does man have over it, and can relevant change be man within our economic restraints.

The warmists ignore economics. And if you look at the "news" about the Paris climate talks, economics is trumping warmism. The target cuts will not be met under any circumstance.

You can also look up an article about lukewarmers. That is the most sensible position out there.



http://s8.postimg.org/699405ugl/tumblr_mqhxwi54rk1ssr779o1_1280.jpg
http://s24.postimg.org/y9lkeg4rp/climate_change_political_affiliation.png

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 08:42 AM
I guess I was asking you if you believed that anyone who gets a government grant to study ANYTHING does so at the outset with the express purpose of finding out the result that the government has pre-ordained? Do you think grants are given out with the desired findings pre-specified in the grant itself? I.e...... here is some money to study "X". When you are done studying "X", be sure to come back to us with a finding "Y". If you do, we'll give you more money. If you don't, tough luck.


No.

I think that is what happened in the climate "science" field.

JDubya
11-05-2015, 08:45 AM
I guess I was asking you if you believed that anyone who gets a government grant to study ANYTHING does so at the outset with the express purpose of finding out the result that the government has pre-ordained? Do you think grants are given out with the desired findings pre-specified in the grant itself? I.e...... here is some money to study "X". When you are done studying "X", be sure to come back to us with a finding "Y". If you do, we'll give you more money. If you don't, tough luck.

I suppose if one were cynical beyond the realm of common sense or just looking for a convenient reason to not believe scientific findings, one might hold that opinion.

Of course, private industry employs scientists to do that very thing and the deniers are happy to jump on their findings as evidence that science is divided on the climate issue.

And honestly, given that private industry is driven by the profit motive, the strongest of all motives, they are the ones most likely to be guilty of employing scientists for the express purpose of arriving at findings that lessen their culpability in any environmental damage.

Crepitus
11-05-2015, 08:48 AM
I suppose if one were cynical beyond the realm of common sense or just looking for a convenient reason to not believe scientific findings, one might hold that opinion.

Of course, private industry employs scientists to do that very thing and the deniers are happy to jump on their findings as evidence that science is divided on the climate issue.

And honestly, given that private industry is driven by the profit motive, the strongest of all motives, they are the ones most likely to be guilty of employing scientists for the express purpose of arriving at findings that lessen their culpability in any environmental damage.
Oh crap, I agree with you!

I gotta go lay down or something.........

JDubya
11-05-2015, 08:51 AM
No.

I think that is what happened in the climate "science" field.

Of course you think that.

You are going to think whatever supports your pre ordained set of beliefs.

Meanwhile, here in Florida, we just had for the first time in the history of recording temperatures, not only three days of 90° or higher in the month of November, but three days of that IN A ROW.

Today it's forecast to reach 88° where I live and could reach 90° again.

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 08:52 AM
I suppose if one were cynical beyond the realm of common sense or just looking for a convenient reason to not believe scientific findings, one might hold that opinion.

Of course, private industry employs scientists to do that very thing and the deniers are happy to jump on their findings as evidence that science is divided on the climate issue.

And honestly, given that private industry is driven by the profit motive, the strongest of all motives, they are the ones most likely to be guilty of employing scientists for the express purpose of arriving at findings that lessen their culpability in any environmental damage.

Profit motive for the private sector

the power motive for government

Government will hurt you much more than the private sector.

JDubya
11-05-2015, 08:53 AM
Oh crap, I agree with you!

I gotta go lay down or something.........

The smart people always agree with me. :grin:

JDubya
11-05-2015, 08:54 AM
Profit motive for the private sector

the power motive for government

Government will hurt you much more than the private sector.

Trite.

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 08:55 AM
Of course you think that.

You are going to think whatever supports your pre ordained set of beliefs.

Meanwhile, here in Florida, we just had for the first time in the history of recording temperatures, not only three days of 90° or higher in the month of November, but three days of that IN A ROW.

Today it's forecast to reach 88° where I live and could reach 90° again.

Incorrect. The warmists climate models are consistently wrong. Our temperatures are lower than what almost every model says it should be.

Computer models. If you don't have all needed data, the results are going to be inaccurate.

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 08:57 AM
Trite.

Unpack that box.

maineman
11-05-2015, 09:10 AM
No.

I think that is what happened in the climate "science" field.

do you have any evidence to suggest that grant findings were directed by government as a prerequisite for awarding the grants in that field? Do you have any evidence to suggest that grants were denied simply because the grantee would not agree with such a condition?

JDubya
11-05-2015, 09:23 AM
do you have any evidence to suggest that grant findings were directed by government as a prerequisite for awarding the grants in that field? Do you have any evidence to suggest that grants were denied simply because the grantee would not agree with such a condition?

No.

JDubya
11-05-2015, 09:27 AM
Incorrect. The warmists climate models are consistently wrong. Our temperatures are lower than what almost every model says it should be.

Computer models. If you don't have all needed data, the results are going to be inaccurate.

Not as "wrong" as you claim....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

Just because climate models are not 100% accurate is not a valid reason to deny that they are on the right track.

leekohler2
11-05-2015, 11:31 AM
`
People should actually read the entire article, titled; NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612) before accepting the OP's opinion of what he thinks the article says.

Once again, more distortion.

No surprise there.

SouthernBelle82
11-05-2015, 02:49 PM
I remember when I was a kid, every mischief night and halloween there would either be snow on the ground or we would be freezing. Today they trick or treat sweating. That is the number one thing that stands out to me in a realistic way in comparison to years ago. Bob did however bring up a good point, the democrats are always so frenzied over global warming and seem to be so afraid of it, I dont get that honestly. I have two honest issues with global warming, there are too many scientists for it and against it still and I believe if we take the measures the left insists we take it will cost us a fortune and accomplish nothing. As long as the rest of the world like china wont do their share we would be wasting our time and money. Of course this is a laymans view AeonThere is a thing called "weather." You are aware the Earth rotates around the Sun, yes? We have a thing called 'seasons.'And wtf are you talking about most scientists are against it? No they aren't. Turn off Sean Hannity.

Tahuyaman
11-05-2015, 02:55 PM
The warmists got lost when the government started giving them grant money.


It is true that if you don't get the results they want, the flow of money stops.

Tahuyaman
11-05-2015, 02:58 PM
Incorrect. The warmists climate models are consistently wrong. Our temperatures are lower than what almost every model says it should be.

Computer models. If you don't have all needed data, the results are going to be inaccurate.

for some reason many people now believe computer models are actual proof. When did this fantasy take hold?

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 03:00 PM
Not as "wrong" as you claim....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

Just because climate models are not 100% accurate is not a valid reason to deny that they are on the right track.

They are consistently high for heat.

Don't make policy on false data.

Bob
11-05-2015, 03:33 PM
`
Hey, let's challenge years of scientific research and study with a picture of a crane and a few towers. Cool.

Right, just don't believe your own eyes.

Notice the alleged proofs shown by the left are a war of words.

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 04:00 PM
Right, just don't believe your own eyes.

Notice the alleged proofs shown by the left are a war of words.

She must work in academia.

Bob
11-05-2015, 04:02 PM
My opinion: Warmer air will carry more moisture, more moisture equals more snow. Warmer is a relative term, 2 degrees above -20 is still plenty cold for ice and snow to form.

Do you have any actual temperature measurements at Antarctica showing warmer air?

Time to present evidence. It seems democrats really crave we have a problem.

Bob
11-05-2015, 04:03 PM
She must work in academia.

Perhaps the political side.

Bob
11-05-2015, 04:04 PM
Do you have any actual temperature measurements at Antarctica showing warmer air?

Time to present evidence. It seems democrats really crave we have a problem.

Warmer being the key term inquired about.

Common Sense
11-05-2015, 04:05 PM
Warmer climate means more moisture. More moisture can equal more snow. More snow equals more ice.

The only people who can't accept that man has had an effect on our climate are a handful of skeptics and conservatives from middle America. Ties in with the whole "conservatives and their conspiracy theories thread".

Climate deniers take a portion of the data like more ice and disregard the science. It reminds me of when they say how cold it is out so how could there be global warming.

It's all a conspiracy!!! Follow the money!!! Derp!!!

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 04:06 PM
Perhaps the political side.

University, Bob.

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 04:08 PM
Warmer climate means more moisture. More moisture can equal more snow. More snow equals more ice.

The only people who can't accept that man has had an effect on our climate are a handful of skeptics and conservatives from middle America. Ties in with the whole "conservatives and their conspiracy theories thread".

Climate deniers take a portion of the data like more ice and disregard the science. It reminds me of when they say how cold it is out so how could there be global warming.

It's all a conspiracy!!! Follow the money!!! Derp!!!

Correct about warmer = more snow.

Incorrect about who the skeptics are. In eastern Europe and Russia they mock our view of climate change.

Bob
11-05-2015, 04:09 PM
University, Bob.

????? but of course.

Common Sense
11-05-2015, 04:10 PM
Correct about warmer = more snow.

Incorrect about who the skeptics are. In eastern Europe and Russia they mock our view of climate change.

LOL...well I guess you're all in great company with Putin.

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 04:17 PM
LOL...well I guess you're all in great company with Putin.

Not Putin. Scientists in Russia have long said that man-made global warming as a serious cause was bull shit. Also in Eastern Europe. Putin probably could care less.

Common Sense
11-05-2015, 04:24 PM
Not Putin. Scientists in Russia have long said that man-made global warming as a serious cause was bull shit. Also in Eastern Europe. Putin probably could care less.

Yeah, Putin's scientists. Putin has been a vocal critic and has framed media coverage in Russia in that same light.

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 05:39 PM
Yeah, Putin's scientists. Putin has been a vocal critic and has framed media coverage in Russia in that same light.

Russian scientists were not on the man-made global warming bandwagon long before Putin came to power. They follow what most astronomers say.

JDubya
11-05-2015, 06:06 PM
Correct about warmer = more snow.


Incorrect about who the skeptics are. In eastern Europe and Russia they mock our view of climate change.

While at the same time, their factories belch industrial waste into the atmosphere and environment for their own enrichment.

Same reason American corporations employ highly paid science whores to muddy the waters with cooked up results that give loyalist bucket toting right-wing foot soldiers on forums like this one cover to spout their denier nonsense.

If you want to ascribe money as the motive for arriving at some foregone conclusion, look to the corporate business world where the REAL money is, not some piddly govt grants going to agencies that employ scientists that earn 50 or 60k per year tops and do their work for the love and importance of it.

As much as you business shilling conservative types hate to hear it, greed for money lives within the business community where maximum profit is their entire reason for being.

And besides.... Russia?????

Puh - lease.

If there is a place on Earth where scientists say what they're told to, it would be there.

I'm surprised you didn't mention how China and North Korea are laughing at us, too.

Peter1469
11-05-2015, 07:06 PM
While at the same time, their factories belch industrial waste into the atmosphere and environment for their own enrichment.

Same reason American corporations employ highly paid science whores to muddy the waters with cooked up results that give loyalist bucket toting right-wing foot soldiers on forums like this one cover to spout their denier nonsense.

If you want to ascribe money as the motive for arriving at some foregone conclusion, look to the corporate business world where the REAL money is, not some piddly govt grants going to agencies that employ scientists that earn 50 or 60k per year tops and do their work for the love and importance of it.

As much as you business shilling conservative types hate to hear it, greed for money lives within the business community where maximum profit is their entire reason for being.

And besides.... Russia?????

Puh - lease.

If there is a place on Earth where scientists say what they're told to, it would be there.

I'm surprised you didn't mention how China and North Korea are laughing at us, too.

Address the cooking of the books by the Western climate scientists.

Consider the fact that the West is all a-flutter over our coming death by heat and rising water, that the Paris talks will not get nations to agree to cut C02 emissions to the desired level.

Computer models are not science. Relax about the warming meme.

JDubya
11-05-2015, 07:11 PM
Address the cooking of the books by the Western climate scientists.

Consider the fact that the West is all a-flutter over our coming death by heat and rising water, that the Paris talks will not get nations to agree to cut C02 emissions to the desired level.

Computer models are not science. Relax about the warming meme.

Why would I address something that only happened in your mind?

Computer models are science when real scientists use real scientific data to create them.

Just because they are not 100% perfect 100% of the time is no reason to discount them out of hand.

Tahuyaman
11-05-2015, 09:46 PM
Warmer climate means more moisture. More moisture can equal more snow. More snow equals more ice.

The only people who can't accept that man has had an effect on our climate are a handful of skeptics and conservatives from middle America. Ties in with the whole "conservatives and their conspiracy theories thread".

Climate deniers take a portion of the data like more ice and disregard the science. It reminds me of when they say how cold it is out so how could there be global warming.

It's all a conspiracy!!! Follow the money!!! Derp!!!

tell me you aren't serious.