Posted on 01/19/2008 7:43:43 PM PST by CedarDave
Fortunately, most people will likely be watching the Giants-Packers game Sunday evening, and will therefore miss the one-sided hysteria.
However, for those that mysteriously don't switch channels after the Chargers-Patriots game, CBS will offer a special about global warming this Sunday instead of "60 Minutes."
How marvelous.
The CBS News website hysterically described this installment of "The Age of Warming":
Nowhere is the evidence of global warming as striking than near the earth's poles. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley's report brings him to the top and the bottom of the world, where scientists point out the effects of the warming trend. He also speaks to NASA's top scientist studying climate, who says the Bush administration has restricted what he can say about global warming.
This teaser raises many important questions. For instance, will even one of the over 400 scientists that don't believe man is responsible for global warming be interviewed by Pelley? Or, will he exclusively talk to folks that are involved in advancing this yet unproven theory?
Will any of the scientific studies concerning historical ice levels in the Arctic and the Antarctic be sited, or just the satellite data for the past thirty years?
Assuming the top NASA scientist Pelley will be speaking to is the controversial head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies James Hansen, will he be asked about his connection to George Soros? Or that the GISS predicted an ice age back in 1971? Or that Hansen's organization made a huge error in calculating temperatures this decade that was uncovered by Climate Audit's Stephen McIntyre?
~~snip~~
Or, will this installment be exclusively filled with one-sided information on this controversial subject with not one shred of balance for the viewer?
Yes, sadly, these were all rhetorical questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
We should have enjoyed the global warming while we had it. Instead they tried to make us feel bad apout it and that it was our fault.
They have to get this crap out in a hurry before everyone realizes that the change in the other diection has already begun.
Maybe, but the other alternative to get a thread bumped so that others might take a look at the title and might actually read the content is just a "PING!" or "BTTT."
Warmed up to -77 in Siberia. Iceland ports locked in by ice.
It doesn't matter the facts of the weather. Mankind has increased the amount of CO2 and they will hammer that home continuously. Even if there is no scientific effect of the CO2 increase on climate, they will make up reasons and put out hysterical outcomes so as to give excuses for the guilt-ridden liberals to enact regulations and take away freedom of choice.
Mankind has increased the amount of CO2 and they will hammer that home continuously.
I agree mainly with your response however, I believe that most of the rise in CO2 is a result of the increase in temperatures and not the other way around.
Thanks for fixing the typing mistakes in my original post.
:)
WMM
Indeed, CO2 increases result from natural temperature increases, but my understanding there is a lag time on the order of 700 years.
JUST IN- IT’S BUSH’S FAULT. =SHOCK=
Programming Note
Nowhere is the evidence of global warming as striking than near the earth’s poles. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley’s report brings him to the top and the bottom of the world, where scientists point out the effects of the warming trend. He also speaks to NASA’s top scientist studying climate, who says the Bush administration has restricted what he can say about global warming.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml
The story CBS & Pellywacker do not want you to see.
Proof Volcano Exists Under Antarctica Ice
(psst, Scott, FYI- that’s one of the POLES)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080120/sc_afp/scienceantarcticvolcanoclimate
Mean while everyone is watching the Packers and Giants play a game at below zero temp.
So then, I guess the question is: What is caising the current increaes in CO2 (if they actually exist), current warming, warming from 700 years ago, natural cycles, or burning of fossil fuels?
Combination of the latter two, I suspect.
Scientific effect?
Read my profile point #5 -- if this is actually correct (I read that some recent research has a lag of 200 years, or even none), this point explains why CO2 is still the main reason for the temperature difference between glacials and interglacials.
Not too long ago, either CBS or CNN ran a segment on of their news magazines covering the dissenting opinion of several climatology experts. I was suprised, to say the least.
But yeah, that piece last night was a one-sided joke. The one bright spot was when their experts said if we don’t make changes in the next ten years, we’ll reach a “tipping point” and it will be too late no matter what we do. The sooner we get there, the better, so we can call this crap off.
Are you familiar with the multiple lines of evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic?
I guess if you showed them to me then I would be.
I would bet that forest fires, volcanoes, etc., contribute as much, if not more C02 than humans do. If a forest burns, it not only sends CO2 into the air, it burns up a bunch of CO2 consumers (trees) leaving less O2 for us O2 consumers.
BBC: 50 years on: The Keeling Curve legacy - ( CO2 -- Global Warming?)
Go to post 34 in the thread linked above.
I would bet that forest fires, volcanoes, etc., contribute as much, if not more C02 than humans do. If a forest burns, it not only sends CO2 into the air, it burns up a bunch of CO2 consumers (trees) leaving less O2 for us O2 consumers.
Volcanoes don't; see point 1 in my profile. Forest fires are not net contributors, because the carbon that is returned to the atmosphere by combustion of the biomass was removed from the atmosphere earlier by the process of photosynthesis in the plants.
Forest fires are not net contributors, because the carbon that is returned to the atmosphere by combustion of the biomass was removed from the atmosphere earlier by the process of photosynthesis in the plants.
By the same logic, you could say that oil, coal, and natural gas are not net contributors either. They all originated from plant and animal life from earlier times.
Guess it gets back to the old law of the conservation of matter. Whatever changes there are, there is no new matter on the earth, only different forms of it.
If Co2 levels go up, plants grow faster, removing more Co2 from the air and returning more oxygen for us to breathe. So, what is the problem with higher C02 levels? It can’t trap heat, because it is colorless and odorless.
The only way to let the heat out of the earth would be to start the Freon plants back up and get a nice big hole in the ozone layer, IMHO. (This was another farce brought to us by these same global warming paranoics).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.