Global warming? (Yes, more)

because the majority of people care more about american entertainment news than they do about whats happening worldwide

I don't know about you, but I saw this on a bunch of major news outlets at the start of this week, and as early as late last week.

The (perhaps main) reason it's not major is partly because global warming is trendy.

The other reason is that  it doesn't change the vast majority of global warming data (although the models we already have don't predict the trends we've been seeing).


Edited by ParielIsBack - 03 December 2009 at 7:50pm

slackerr26 wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: slackerr26 wrote: because the majority of people care more about american entertainment news than they do about whats happening worldwide I was hoping that wasn't the answer. I'm sad now. your post reeks of sarcasm

You misread, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, I was trying to be ironic.



....and I just heard this today on the morning radio program I listen to- and they got it from The daily show, (BAAWWWW, NOT REAL NEWS!) and it sounded interesting enough that I started digging on my own.
If this IS all true, then what 'data' do we have on that side of the fence that we can be positive isn't also fabricated? You're talking about the possibility that scientific data was completely spun out of nothingness in order to support a political and financial agenda.

And...what other evidence? As Whale keeps mentioning, "Global Warming" is something of a misnomer now, yet there are still plenty of claims that the planet is warming up- claims made by the same people who cannot explain the decade of steadily DROPPING global temperature. Claims propped up, more than likely by the data created by the very people referenced in these e-mails that are being exposed.

I have been so busy in my own little world of studying I havnt had time to keep up on any global warming debate. The reason I am commenting is, one of my proffs has to PHD's in climate modeling and something else climate related.

Now I cant speak for her, but she constantly talks about global warming during the middle of our lectures.  She has repeatedly said anyone who doesn't believe in global warming are idiots. Now thats not my opinion and being a highly educated person I am sure most of you understand why she is so arogant.

My personal opinion is that the advances and progress in alternate energy solutions and cleaner idustry is great. Wether the planet is getting warming due to humans or not, garbage ,polution and smog is still out of control.

if you will only read one article about this...

FreeEnterprise wrote: good article with facts...   http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/03/dan-gainor-climategate-media-journalists/

nuclear = best

I considered posting my thoughts in the other thread, but decided against it. I'll try here:

My biggest problem with reaching any conclusions that are not basically restatements of the e-mails themselves is that they are being read with absolutely no context, no order, and with no comparable understanding of global (or of any sort of) climatology.

Yes, there is some rather damning things said in the e-mails, but plenty of things can seem more damning than they are without sufficient knowledge. Moreover, it looked as though the people writing the e-mails were worried about people not fully comprehending the science and, given the volatility of the subject, wanted to avoid significant public backlash that would stem from a lack of understanding. This resulted in the collusion we see in the e-mails.

Plus, the silencing opponents thing isn't a concern at all for me. I have no doubts in my mind that a significant number of scholars secretly think to themselves shortly before writing a response to something "how can I most thoroughly make this person look like a donkey?" What showed through in the e-mails is, at my glance, unprofessionalism of a professional sort that comes out when one believes the actions/words will not be revealed.

I'm not trying to say they aren't at fault, or there aren't any shady dealings or anything, but condemning them and global warming because of this is jumping the gun a bit. Though it is at least not irrational to have that knee-jerk reaction.

slackerr26 wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: good article with facts...   http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/03/dan-gainor-climategate-media-journalists/

Even though that doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing factual in the article, that's still hilarious. Good find.


Edited by Gatyr - 04 December 2009 at 12:35am

Yea, I remmember the "new Ice Age' dire warnings in the 70's authored by some of the same individuals. The followers were still up in arms until another cause de juer appeared in the form of 'Global Warming' and they totally reversed thier belief in the 'New Ice Age" to remain trendy.

Clean energy is good, using the cause for a political/economic agenda is wrong. When some poor slob in some third world nation has to cut his wood burning (the only means of heat/cooking)by government mandate (due to this or that treaty) while Al Gore and crew fly/drive around the world preaching energy awareness this whole topic is hyprocracy.

With global warming being an issue it is hard to deny some of the facts. Personally I feel even though human role in the industrial facotr dosen't help the situation of global warming, it is important to remember the fact that the earth does go through heating and cooling cycles. So though it is impossible to say it is one or the other it would seem that a combination of the two help play a role in producing the results that have been gathered by scientists.

Edited by IrIsHGunNeR37 - 04 December 2009 at 7:49pm