The New Global Warming Thread

[leejo]

If anyone wants to try to show any article from livescience that supports all this stuff about new temperature data, and the global warming hoax, that would be good, because I'd like to read it. If I wondered why I haven't heard all this anti-global warming noise, it's defiantly because PBS and livescience.com haven't said a word about it. From the information that one gets from just PBS and livescience, it's clear that the "majority of scientists" do in fact, without any doubt agree on the fundamentals of the IPCC reports.

If anyone wants to show an article that the Cookie Monster wrote that says Global Warming IS real, that would be good, because I'd like to read it. Any article by the Cookie Monster or the Fanstasic Four. Any Superhero, or Sesame Street Character. Hell, any MUPPET. Go ahead. Find an article by a Superhero or a Muppet that says Global Warming IS real and I'll eat your cabbage.

OMG dude Karnac the Magnificent sees many deep Indian burns and swirlies in your future. No offense, but if that argument were the rock, and you were driving the lane with it, someone would swat it into the nosebleed seats. If that last post were a plant, I'd plow it like Scott Baio plows cheap floozies. If that sad, weak, IGNIT last argument were a cheap whore on the Flava of Love, I'd get it drunk and spank it before conspiring with the other contestants to have it voted off the show. DAMN!

[GlobalWarmin]

If anyone wants to show an article that the Cookie Monster wrote that says Global Warming IS real, that would be good, because I'd like to read it. Any article by the Cookie Monster or the Fanstasic Four. Any Superhero, or Sesame Street Character. Hell, any MUPPET. Go ahead. Find an article by a Superhero or a Muppet that says Global Warming IS real and I'll eat your cabbage.

OMG dude the Karnac the Magnificent sees many deep Indian burns and swirlies in your future.

Yeah, like we can trust that lying Cookie Monster, or that Republican think-tank, the Fantastic Four.

Are you suggesting PBS and livescience.com have the reputation as being incorrect, biased, or fictional? I don't think asking someone to use these sources to support their position is like asking someone to quote the Muppets.

All I've seen to support the position that global warming isn't real are websites by bloggers no one cares about, talking about reports that few accept. However, in the real world of governments and citizens who aren't Neo-Cons, global warming was put to rest awhile ago.

[GlobalWarmin]

No offense, but if that argument were the rock...

What argument? I was letting it be known that none of the credible sources I use for news seemingly have any of the anti-global warming information that I've seen people mention as their 100%, without a doubt, accurate proof. I didn't search every single topic, so I just let it be known that if anyone checks to see if I was telling the truth, and they happen to come across something, I would like to read it too. That's not much of an argument to poke holes in.

If your reading comprehension were the rock... ?

edit for many typos.

[leejo]

Your implied argument brutha. Reading comprehenshun is my middle name. Captain Reading Comprehenshun CO2.

[GlobalWarmin]

Your implied argument brutha. Reading comprehenshun is my middle name. Captain Reading Comprehenshun CO2.

Hehe.

Okay, then what is my implied argument?

[IceCold]

Are you suggesting PBS and livescience.com have the reputation as being incorrect, biased, or fictional?

A reputation of bias? PBS? Yes: http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/

[leejo]

Hehe.

Okay, then what is my implied argument?

That since neither of your handpicked sources have any comment on the "new data" and all their featured stories insist that climate change, melting ice, bad hair, and priapis are man-made, it must be so.

You know what? I would rather put a live chicken in my pants than continue this discussion with you. I would rather lick Paris Hilton's back seat clean than have a debate with you about climate change. I would rather pound my thumb with a hammer that had been dipped in hepatitis-tainted blood then stick that thumb in my bum and sing "Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me" at a bus station that argue with you about whether livescience.org and PBS form a solid, unbiased, and irrefutable platform for a position on global warming.

The new data, Inspector, is freely available at NASA's site (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/) and has been widely discussed for almost a month in this thread, not to mention the media, livescience and PBS notwithstanding.

Peace out!

[GlobalWarmin]

A reputation of bias? PBS? Yes: http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/

So, PBS has conservative bias does it? That's news to me. Actually, I have to admit, I already am aware that Neo-Cons believe PBS has a Liberal bias, which is of course false, so I kinda set myself up for that one.

However, it's actually funny and fitting that you link something about a conservative shill disguised as a reporter, who just happens to be on PBS. I guess he's just PBS's way to try and "balance" things for those conservatives viewers (hey, PBS has pay the bills too). I bet he also thinks global warming is a hoax.

[GlobalWarmin]

That since neither of your handpicked sources have any comment on the "new data" and all their featured stories insist that climate change, melting ice, bad hair, and priapis are man-made, it must be so.

That's not at all what I said, and I didn't imply anything, except that there might actually be articles on their websites that confirm what others are saying about Communist cults of fanatical scientists who want to destroy the world, or new groundbreaking, certain to be correct, information that counters everything the IPCC reports say. I hope that clears that up for you. I thought what I said was pretty clear.

[GlobalWarmin]

The new data, Inspector, is freely available at NASA's site (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/) and has been widely discussed for almost a month in this thread, not to mention the media, livescience and PBS notwithstanding.
!

Haha. The "new data" from NASA, eh? What a trustworthy source they have turned out to be for climate data...

more links about NASA and the Bush Administration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/sc...77ee7f&ei=5088

[leejo]

Yeah well like I said Reading Comprehenshun is my middle name so you have your story and I have mine. I don't believe for a second that you posted just because you were curious to see if anyone else could find an article on these silly sights that didn't confirm your thinking on this subject, but whatever.

[GlobalWarmin]

Yeah well like I said Reading Comprehenshun is my middle name so you have your story and I have mine. I don't believe for a second that you posted just because you were curious to see if anyone else could find an article on these silly sights that didn't confirm your thinking on this subject, but whatever.

Really, in all seriousness, I just thought it was interesting and that I would share that fact. I even offered something for both sides. I mean, it could be viewed that PBS and livescience are both involved in a cover-up, or it could be that the references that people have posted for me (as their concrete evidence) are not reputable enough to even get mentioned by globally trusted, major news sources like PBS and livescience.com (or that I just didn't see them).


Edit:

Add http://www.earthsky.org to the credible Internet resources available that seemingly give no inkling that global warming isn't in part man-made, real, and impacting the world right now.

The amount of information in support of the IPCC reports from reputable media and academic sources is so overwhelming, it's amazing that any non-expert would even have the nerve to disagree, especially because of some blog they read, or what some tool on FOX News has to say.

I'm glad that I found this thread though. Sorry to stir things up. So, I'll do what every other rational person who posted on this thread has most likely done, and get the hell outa here I should have left after learning Greasy Mullet was serious that commie scientists were trying to take over the world...

Enjoy your fantasy world everyone! Trust me, it's much happier in your world than mine.

GlobalWarmin

[IceCold]

I had never heard of livescience.com before you mentioned it. I'm going to add it to my favorites, though. Looks good.

And, in all seriousness, you're again asking for an article by the Muppets, or a superhero-any-superhero. Can we stay reasonable?

[GlobalWarmin]

Okay, one more post because this is too funny.

Interested in this new temperature data stuff that I missed in the news, I did a quick search. Here is what I found right away:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html

"Climate change skeptics and their cheering section among conservative bloggers and radio shoutmeisters think so – even though most scientists say, no, the tweak is not a big deal and overall trends are in the direction of toastier days around the globe."

What is so funny about this, is that I suggested this "new data" that you people were talking about was probably only being discussed by right-wingers anyways, and not by scientists. Come to find out, I was exactly right. I guess it pays to get your information from somewhere except GOP mouthpieces.

Goodnight!

[Kerostasis]

I've personally never liked livescience.com much just because I've had too many issues with their page-load times, and the majority of their articles are written to a 6th-grade reading level. But I'm sure they carry some respectable articles at a more serious level too.

Unfortunately, the first encounter I had with their "more serious" articles was the page of articles linked by GlobalWarmin here, containing blatant deceptions and lies, so at this point I really have no respect for livescience.com as an authority on controversial scientific issues. I treat it as more of a wikipedia type reference -- an ok starting point to get a general idea of how something works, but if you want real research you're going to need to go back to the original sources.

Therefore, your assertion that "livescience.com has reported nothing that backs what has been said about new temperature data, or the myth of global warming" means nothing to me. How about reading the actual peer-reviewed paper linked by Squid last page? I found it a really interesting read, and much more reliable than the average livescience article. In case you somehow missed the link, here it is again:

ACTUAL PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDY