|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..45..87..129..171..212~213~214~215~216..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts 
|
Yesterday's news:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/......ientists This could get more interesting... Quote: A sharp and mysterious rise in emissions of a key ozone-destroying chemical has been detected by scientists, despite its production being banned around the world. [...] Even just the publicity about the new CFC-11 production could lead to its shutdown, he said: “Somebody who was maybe doing it purposefully will realise – oh, someone is paying attention – and stop doing it.”
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
"Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?"
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/article......243.html "My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, that's a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, that's a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, that's a story. When they show cooling of any sort—and there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming began—there's no story." hmmmm. But yeah, no bias in the press whatsoever. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 17, 2018, rockwall wrote: In the 70s it was ice age fearmongering. Trendy self-loathing and vague cosmic casuisty remain workable attention grabbers. "Scientist detect signs of new paradigm..."
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
RNK Inner circle 7528 Posts
|
Https://www.investors.com/politics/edito......ia-bias/
"Just had two years of record breaking cooling" The article also talks about how climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. And a few other things that you don't hear in the main stream media.
Check out Bafflingbob.com
|
|||||||||
|
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, RNK wrote: Just to keep things in perspective, the article does say: "That's not to say that a two-year stretch of cooling means that global warming is a hoax." Furthermore, Aaron Brown, the author referenced in the article, is a financial author - NOT a climate scientist. The piece is an editorial - basically, it's just his opinion. The numerous links in the article (or at least the ones I clicked on) simply point to other editorials in this same publication (Investors Business Daily), and not to external scientific documents. This is cherry picked data for sure. A non climate scientist looked for a slice of data in an overall trend of warming in an attempt to discredit climate science. If you want to know what NASA says, since that's who the article references, go straight to the horses mouth - not to an agenda driven publication like 'Investors Business Daily'. The below link shows that both NASA and NOAA data show 2016 to be the warmest year globally: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-......globally It also notes that 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurred post 2001. And if there was a cooling trend from Feb. 2016 to Feb. 2018 as your article says, then how could 2016 have become the warmest year on record??!!! So, the bottom line is... don't get financial advice from NASA and don't get science advice from 'Investors Business Daily'. 
Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
I enjoy the way nothing that agrees with Ron is "agenda driven".
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Senor Fabuloso Inner circle 1243 Posts
|
Quote:
This is cherry picked data for sure. A non climate scientist looked for a slice of data in an overall trend of warming in an attempt to discredit climate science. BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER! That's what all the deniers do. Question is why? I suspect it's cause they don't want to be regulated and don't care what they do to the environment?
No matter how many times you say the wrong thing, it will NEVER be right.
If I'm not responding to you? It's because you're a TROLL! |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, Senor Fabuloso wrote: pay for more expensive unproductive fussing.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, R.S. wrote: Well, yes, Aaron Brown is not a climate scientist. Which is why he references reports done by climate scientists. It doesn't take much effort to click through to his links to find the reports that he DOES reference but seeing as how you're a bit too lazy to do it yourself, I'll provide them here. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031......nt.co.uk https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.......er-1.pdf Also, as you noted in your quote above, neither article is an attempt to disprove AGW. Both articles are used to point out the bias and hypocrisy of the press. Is it your opinion that someone needs to be a climate scientist to point out the press's bias? |
|||||||||
|
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote: Do you deny that that article is agenda driven? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
|
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, rockwall wrote: Which of those links on the main page of RNKs article did NOT point to another Investors Business Daily page?? Even so, the article loses credibility right off the bat when it tries to discredit climate science by touting "We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling", when 2016 was the warmest year ever recorded!! So you tell me, how could 2016 be both a record cooling year AND simultaneously the warmest year ever recorded? Using faulty data (or using irrelevant cherry-picked data) does not demonstrate media bias. If anything, it demonstrates the bias of the article. Speaking of laziness, did you go to the NASA and NOAA sites to review their data? Don't you think they would be among the very best sources of climate information? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, R.S. wrote: Do you deny that the media is agenda driven? |
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, R.S. wrote: Of course I did. I guess you didn't. Here is a link to the data from the NASA site. (Of course you'll have to click through the NASA link that is provided in the article to get to the actual data which may be why it was too difficult for you to do.) https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt It appears to say pretty much exactly what the article claims. |
|||||||||
|
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, rockwall wrote: It's not clear how to interpret that chart. The NASA site I referred to was the link I posted. Is that where you got the chart? Anyway, the headline to RNKs article proclaims "We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling". But the NASA and NOAA data shows that 2016 was the warmest year on record globally. See here: NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-......globally So how do you reconcile that discrepancy? RNK's article seems more designed to play down climate concern than to present unbiased science (which is not surprising given the publication the article came from). Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2889 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, rockwall wrote: Did someone move the "answer the question with a question" thread over here?
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
|
R.S. Regular user CT one day I'll have 188 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, rockwall wrote: Depends. Most, yes. But certainly some are more agenda driven than others. Do you deny that that article is agenda driven? Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, R.S. wrote: Of course not. There is very little that is NOT agenda driven. (including your posts and my posts.) |
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, R.S. wrote: I got the chart from here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ Is that good enough for you? Quote:
On May 18, 2018, R.S. wrote: Hey, you're the one who insisted we use NASA's data. If you can't figure it out, that sounds like a personal problem. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Stirring the pot seems kinda counterproductive when worried about heat.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 18, 2018, R.S. wrote: There are actually a number of ways to easily reconcile that mathematically. I'll leave that simple exercise up to you. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (153 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..45..87..129..171..212~213~214~215~216..224~225~226 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: May 17, 2018 01:48 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.14 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|