Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.'

[Klown]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

That the earth orbits the sun is a fact.

2+2 = 4 is a fact.

That humans can influence the earth's climate is an opinion.c.

Science is not about "opinions". Science is a methodology that enables the validation or refutation of a hypothesis - the support of theory with experimental and observational evidence.

If you understood how science arrives at its conclusions you would have known that scientists do not publish opinions in peer reviewed journals.

How did you arrive at the "FACT" that the earth orbits the sun rather than other way around?

The ancient Greeks first postulated that the solar system was helio centric in about 400 BC. Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric solar system with very little evidence at his disposal.

As far as your 2+2=4 FACT is concerned there are examples in qauntum mechanics where this is
NOT true. Also mathematics is an abstract philosophy not a science. Mathematics does not require evidence in order to make claims. The mathematical method is very different from the scientific method. Mathematics relies on axioms and generates proofs based upon these axioms and logic.

(Don't feel embarrassed about accepting a simple scientific fact such as anthropogenic global warming jut because you detest Al Gore and a documentary he made a few years ago)

 

[Klown]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

I am familiar with the scientific method

So those scientfic bodies that are saying the man made global warming issue is settled, well they are full of crap. They dont know what hell they are talking about. Which is not unsual for a lot of academic scientists.

What you have demonstrated is that you don't understand how science works and generates conclusions.

AGW isnnotnjust about predictive climate models.

Are you aware of any models that predict a cooling earth and unchanging climate as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere?

I didn't think so.

If you wish to dismiss every single scientific body in the world including NASA and the American academy of sciences just because you hate Al Gore then that is your choice. It's hardly a sound foundation for forming your views.

I won't why EXXON and all the other fossil fuel and energy corporations have accepted the science that validates AGW?

AGW was settled by science in the 1980s after being postulated almost 150 years ago.

You have to get with the times and be well informed by credible sources, not with the University of Hollywood and Fox news outlets

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

Science is not about "opinions". Science is a methodology that enables the validation or refutation of a hypothesis - the support of theory with experimental and observational evidence.

If you understood how science arrives at its conclusions you would have known that scientists do not publish opinions in peer reviewed journals.

How did you arrive at the "FACT" that the earth orbits the sun rather than other way around?

The ancient Greeks first postulated that the solar system was helio centric in about 400 BC. Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric solar system with very little evidence at his disposal.

As far as your 2+2=4 FACT is concerned there are examples in qauntum mechanics where this is
NOT true. Also mathematics is an abstract philosophy not a science. Mathematics does not require evidence in order to make claims. The mathematical method is very different from the scientific method. Mathematics relies on axioms and generates proofs based upon these axioms and logic.

(Don't feel embarrassed about accepting a simple scientific fact such as anthropogenic global warming jut because you detest Al Gore and a documentary he made a few years ago)

It wasnt proven to a very long time after which technology was able to catch up. Postulations and proof are two very distinct and different things. Global Warming by man is a postulation that requires proof. It is an extordinary claim, which requires extrodinary proof. Its one thing to prove its warming, its another thing all together to prove we are causing it, its another thing all together still to say we can correct it. Get the incontraveratable proof and I will believe it. Till then as far as I am concerend the people who spout that nonsence are full of it.

 

[Klown]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

It wasnt proven to a very long time after which technology was able to catch up. Postulations and proof are two very distinct and different things. Global Warming by man is a postulation that requires proof. It is an extordinary claim, which requires extrodinary proof. Its one thing to prove its warming, its another thing all together to prove we are causing it, its another thing all together still to say we can correct it. Get the incontraveratable proof and I will believe it. Till then as far as I am concerend the people who spout that nonsence are full of it.

It's not an extraordinary claim. Quite logical actually. AGW is a scientific fact ever since the last natural cycle was ruled out in the 1980s.

Are you claiming that humans have not increased the CO2 level in the earths atmosphere via activities such as deforestation and fossil fuel combustion? Are you claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Are you claiming that a rise in atmospheric CO2 level will not increase the earths temperature? Are you claiming that an increase in the earths temperature will not effect the earths climate?

What are you claiming?

Do you also dispute tat CFCs caused the depletion of the ozone layer?

Gee I wonder why every single nation in the world decided to ban CFCs in the 1990s?

On what basis was that action taken on?

Don't tell me it was science that determined the link?

Could this be true ladies and gentlemen?

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

What you have demonstrated is that you don't understand how science works and generates conclusions.

AGW isnnotnjust about predictive climate models.

Are you aware of any models that predict a cooling earth and unchanging climate as CO2 concentration increases in the earths atmosphere?

I didn't think so.

If you wish to dismiss every single scientific body in the world including NASA and the American academy of sciences just because you hate Al Gore then that is your choice. It's hardly a sound foundation for forming your views.

I won't why EXXON and all the other fossil fuel and energy corporations have accepted the science that validates AGW?

AGW was settled by science in the 1980s after being postulated almost 150 years ago.

You have to get with the times and be well informed by credible sources, not with the University of Hollywood and Fox news outlets

I notice you left out the left out the part of my post that talks about models and how they are built. I know how they are built, I help refine them. If you know anything about science you no very little is settled.

I said nothing about Al Gore, I could care less. What I do care about is a bunch of academics who dont know dick trying to say something is settled when they damn well know it aint. Especially on the flimsy ass evidence they purport to have. You take those twits models into any respectable engineering firm and they would laugh their asses off. Their models are jokes. Litteraly. The aerospace industry and the DOD spent Billions getting their models to just now start to be good enough not to need testing. Big time money and minds working at it in lab conditions. Find me a lab with a global climate prototype physical model. You cant.

I am more informed than you by far. Nasa is a political body so the go with the political wind. Hanson whos, over there is a jackass and his rep definately preceeds him. Exxon and all dont want to make waves. My customers are Chevron and Occidental. You should see the crap they deal with. I almost feel sorry for em. Almost.

Most of the people you talk of in the abstract, I do business with, Exxon, Occidental, Chevron, NASA, JPL at Cal Tech, Lockheed Martin, Rockwell and various other local firms from Mojave. I may not have letters and a sheepskin, but when it comes to engineering I know a thing or two. Its my second career. I dont know where you are getting your info but its third hand at best.

Science is not a unified body of thought by far.

Most of the evidence for GW is models. The theory is dependent on them. Without them there is no proof.

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

It's not an extraordinary claim. Quite logical actually. AGW is a scientific fact ever since the last natural cycle was ruled out in the 1980s.

Are you claiming that humans have not increased the CO2 level in the earths atmosphere via activities such as deforestation and fossil fuel combustion? Are you claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Are you claiming that a rise in atmospheric CO2 level will not increase the earths temperature? Are you claiming that an increase in the earths temperature will not effect the earths climate?

What are you claiming?

Do you also dispute tat CFCs caused the depletion of the ozone layer?

Gee I wonder why every single nation in the world decided to ban CFCs in the 1990s?

On what basis was that action taken on?

Don't tell me it was science that determined the link?

Could this be true ladies and gentlemen?

The hypothesis is Man is causing the climate to change and warm via the increase in Carbon Dioxide. Yes? No?

I am not making any claim, I am asking for and not getting proof. What proof? Models?? Big fricken woop. Models can be wrong and often are. It takes time to refine them. Its as much art as science. Thats with known quantities.

As for CFC's jury is still out

A paper published last week in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics claims stratospheric ozone is the most important driver of recent climate, accounting for 75% of Earth's temperature variations during the period 1926-2011. Ozone is in turn controlled by natural variations in galactic cosmic rays & solar activity, rather than man-made chlorofluorocarbons or 'greenhouse gases.' The Svensmark hypothesis relates variations in solar activity to amplified variations of galactic cosmic rays, which in turn result in changes in cloud cover. This new paper may provide a second mechanism by which variations in solar activity are amplified by the effect on galactic cosmic rays and ozone.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000867

Just one in many published in the scientific journels, which I dont recomend reading unless you have insomnia. I have to, to keep up with the latest in turbine theory and high speed flow theory. I need sleep I read one one of those.

 

[Klown]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

The hypothesis is Man is causing the climate to change and warm via the increase in Carbon Dioxide. Yes? No?

I am not making any claim, I am asking for and not getting proof. What proof? Models?? Big fricken woop. Models can be wrong and often are. It takes time to refine them. Its as much art as science. Thats with known quantities.

As for CFC's jury is still out

A paper published last week in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics claims stratospheric ozone is the most important driver of recent climate, accounting for 75% of Earth's temperature variations during the period 1926-2011. Ozone is in turn controlled by natural variations in galactic cosmic rays & solar activity, rather than man-made chlorofluorocarbons or 'greenhouse gases.' The Svensmark hypothesis relates variations in solar activity to amplified variations of galactic cosmic rays, which in turn result in changes in cloud cover. This new paper may provide a second mechanism by which variations in solar activity are amplified by the effect on galactic cosmic rays and ozone.

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Climate sensitivity to the lower stratospheric ozone variations

Just one in many published in the scientific journels, which I dont recomend reading unless you have insomnia. I have to, to keep up with the latest in turbine theory and high speed flow theory. I need sleep I read one one of those.

The jury is still out on the link between CFCs and ozone depletion? Almost 25 years after every nation on the planet banned CFCS use?

Are you making up all this stuff as you go along just to defend your AGW denialism?

Amazing ladies and gentlemen.

First he claims AGW is an opinion of a few scientists and not a scientifically validated fact. And now even CFC link to ozone depletion has an out of court jury.

Are you now saying it is uncertain that Chloroflurocarbons catalyse the following reaction in the forward equilibrium direction O3 <=> O2 +O.?

Interesting, I have my high school chemistry text book hear that says they do. An American author too.

Are you sure you wish to continue this exchange? I am feeling a little sorry for you in public

Why not discuss something even simpler than AGW and ozone depletion, such as whether the earth is flat.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

The hypothesis is Man is causing the climate to change and warm via the increase in Carbon Dioxide. Yes? No?

I am not making any claim, I am asking for and not getting proof. What proof? Models?? Big fricken woop. Models can be wrong and often are. It takes time to refine them. Its as much art as science. Thats with known quantities.

As for CFC's jury is still out

A paper published last week in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics claims stratospheric ozone is the most important driver of recent climate, accounting for 75% of Earth's temperature variations during the period 1926-2011. Ozone is in turn controlled by natural variations in galactic cosmic rays & solar activity, rather than man-made chlorofluorocarbons or 'greenhouse gases.' The Svensmark hypothesis relates variations in solar activity to amplified variations of galactic cosmic rays, which in turn result in changes in cloud cover. This new paper may provide a second mechanism by which variations in solar activity are amplified by the effect on galactic cosmic rays and ozone.

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - Climate sensitivity to the lower stratospheric ozone variations

Just one in many published in the scientific journels, which I dont recomend reading unless you have insomnia. I have to, to keep up with the latest in turbine theory and high speed flow theory. I need sleep I read one one of those.

You deeply misunderstand science if you seek proof. Science doesn't deal in such rigid absolutes. Religion does.

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

The jury is still out on the link between CFCs and ozone depletion? Almost 25 years after every nation on the planet banned CFCS use?

Are you making up all this stuff as you go along just to defend your AGW denialism?

Amazing ladies and gentlemen.

First he claims AGW is an opinion of a few scientists and not a scientifically validated fact. And now even CFC link to ozone depletion has an out of court jury.

Are you now saying it is uncertain that Chloroflurocarbons catalyse the following reaction in the forward equilibrium direction O3 <=> O2 +O.?

Interesting, I have my high school chemistry text book hear that says they do. An American author too.

Are you sure you wish to continue this exchange? I am feeling a little sorry for you in public

Why not discuss something even simpler than AGW and ozone depletion, such as whether the earth is flat.

I gave you a paper to read. You want more papers to read I'll give em to you. They are in peer reviewed Journels. Now I am making up papers in scientific journels. Sure.:roll:

I am not the one disputing your "facts" now, I'm letting the academic boys do it. Your fact is being disputed for CFC AND Global warming, which I find humourous. I wasnt even looking for THAT paper. Didnt even know about to tell the truth. Tell you what. You tell me which journels are acceptable to YOU, and I will only use those papers cited in those journels. Ok with with you? Or are they not scientific enough for you?

High School text books are regularly wrong, point of fact. As far as the author and that particular reaction. Dont know, I'll presume he's right for now. I might even run it by my chemist buddies. Do you know how to apply that information to a complex system like artic weather and current. You do realize that scientific understanding of ozone depleation and rejuvination is far from complete. Right? The same with your anthroprmorphic global warming theory, right?

You do know people make mistakes right? All the time. Even great big groups of them.

The world was PROOVED not to be flat.

In science you gots to prove your theory. So give me something to chew on, gimme a bone, prove it. There should be plenty of journels out supporting your contention send some my way.

Tell you what. No more private messages to me lets keep everything public. You seem to think I am some boob hick from the sticks and inbred too. Thats ok. An old man I know has a saying he uses, alot. "We shall see."
We gona see who knows their stuff. No more hyperbole. Its time to get technical. I'm breaking out the old slide rule. Bet you dont even know what that is. Start looking for for the Journels you want ME to use. Time for for a schooling.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

In science you gots to prove your theory.

Not really. One must attempt to disprove their hypothesis, and others the resulting theory. It's not so much "see, this is it" as "well, we can't counter it or find significant unnoted factors". When it comes to AGW, previous rapid temp change, many times, leaves me wondering how much of it is A. The question more interesting, like asking why instead of how much, is 'what percentage of GW/climate change is A'. People rarely want to answer that.

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

Not really. One must attempt to disprove their hypothesis, and others the resulting theory. It's not so much "see, this is it" as "well, we can't counter it or find significant unnoted factors". When it comes to AGW, previous rapid temp change, many times, leaves me wondering how much of it is A. The question more interesting, like asking why instead of how much, is 'what percentage of GW/climate change is A'. People rarely want to answer that.

You know thats a very good approach. I would have to agree with you.

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

You deeply misunderstand science if you seek proof. Science doesn't deal in such rigid absolutes. Religion does.

Retorical licence. Eco nailed it I think.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

Define 'opinion' and 'fact' for me.

Really?

Opinion: The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.

Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.


In order to be indisputable, it needs to be observable, repeatable, and the evidence cannot be interpreted in multiple ways. It needs to be true beyond ANY doubt, which is not the case here.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

I don't need to demonstrate anything. I'm not claiming that global warming is false. I'm stating that you can't present it as an indisputable "fact" when it isn't.

For you to make that comment you will need to demonstrate the following

1. The combustion of fossil fuels do not produce CO2 as a byproduct
2. Deforestation does not release stored carbon as CO2 into the atmosphere
3. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
4. The atmospheric level of CO2 has not been increasing over the industrial period
5. The earth has not been warming as a direct result of CO2 increases in the earths atmosphere
6. The earths climate is not influenced by the temperature of the earths surface and oceans

You seem to have a lot of work to do in order to substantiate your OPINIONS.

Good luck!

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

I don't need to demonstrate anything. I'm not claiming that global warming is false. I'm stating that you can't present it as an indisputable "fact" when it isn't.

That we are warming is a fact. The question is what percentage is our doing and, probably more importantly, what can we do to mitigate and prepare for the change.

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

You know thats a very good approach. I would have to agree with you.

I am gona add a couple of thoughts I just had. Klown is wondering why I am not convined that global warming and now the cfc are not nessarily anthmorpchic. He claim it is fact, Fait Accompli. It has been proved. If there were no good arguements against it I would tend to agree with him. Problem is there is. Which ordinarily I would be inclined to not be bothered and let the labcoat boys and girls hash it out, because thats what scientists do. I cant because now some politition wants me to change my life and tax me out of house and home over this. If thats going to happen, then I would expect a damn good reason for it, and it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt this is in fact so, and we can do something about it. Now when this issue first came to my attention I thought it was similar to the cfc deal back in the mid 80's. So started doing my homework. This is about 06 after I got back from overseas. Just started my business and wanted to be sure that the regulatory fall out wasnt going to hurt me too bad. I found out some very dismaying things mainly I was gona be raped via regulation and tax. My motivation to find out if I was getting buffaloed sky rocketed. I started reading papers in the journeles and come to find out that the so called settled science wasnt settled at all. I dont know if you remember but out here California we have a agency called CARB, california air resources board, other wise know in california as the air nazi's with good reason. Anyway they their own scientist on the board that told them they needed to start regulating NoX and particulate and co2 outputs from vehicles based on his data. Long story short, ahem gentleman in question was not qualified to be a garbage man let alone a scientific advisor, and the research he used was bogus. Sufficent to say that board decided to go ahead and regulate anyway. The regulation requires the mandatory retirement of vehicles and the instalation of equipment the equipment is not designed for. Not to mention very pricey. Oh did I mention more than a few board members have interests in these add on companies. Will this might not be a burden for larger companies with higher equipment turnover smaller companies such as myself and my contractors by equipment and keep it for very large periods of time. It one of the way we are able to compete with larger companies. Well this is being taken from us for no good reason. We tried suits so far no success. If they can do this now then they can do this later. Say I get an up to date peice of equipment. I have it for a couple years then Carb comes and say that it is no longer compliat and you have to get new equipment. I invest a lot of money in equipment. New for my operation is in the neighborhood of over 200,000. My contractors would have to pay that as well. A large company amoritizes there equipment over a period of three to five years. I and my contractors and other small firms amoritize over twenty years. Now you begin to see how we can compete straight up with the big boys. That advantage is being taken from us. I now cannot compete as effectively and I have to raise my rates. The equipment we have can pass the emissions they were designed to pass easily. They cant meet the new standards. Which didnt exist at the time. Now you know I have dog in this fight. Which leads me to this there have been several scandels of falsifed data on the global warming. How do I trust that I am not being lied to? These people have interests in the outcome of these regulations and taxes. Come back to CARB the had a so called scientist who made the data up, CARB made regulations based on that data, and CARB wont even do a new study and hold off on theregulations to see if they are even needed. How is that even remotely equitable? Let alone legal. I hope you begin to understand why I am a sceptic on this stuff, because I am dealing with consequences as we speak. This doesnt include all the papers in the scientific Journels that propose alternate theories. I truly do not understand why people say there is no doubt. I doubt it alot. There might be a grain of truth in there somewhere, but it sure as hell aint the end all be all.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

You are all over the board on this one. What's the main point you're trying to make here?

Science is FULL of opinions. This is why several accepted scientific theories have been replaced, modified, or simply proved wrong over the years.

That's not to discredit science. However, to state that science does not deal in opinions is utterly false.

Science is not about "opinions". Science is a methodology that enables the validation or refutation of a hypothesis - the support of theory with experimental and observational evidence.

If you understood how science arrives at its conclusions you would have known that scientists do not publish opinions in peer reviewed journals.

How did you arrive at the "FACT" that the earth orbits the sun rather than other way around?

The ancient Greeks first postulated that the solar system was helio centric in about 400 BC. Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric solar system with very little evidence at his disposal.

As far as your 2+2=4 FACT is concerned there are examples in qauntum mechanics where this is
NOT true. Also mathematics is an abstract philosophy not a science. Mathematics does not require evidence in order to make claims. The mathematical method is very different from the scientific method. Mathematics relies on axioms and generates proofs based upon these axioms and logic.

(Don't feel embarrassed about accepting a simple scientific fact such as anthropogenic global warming jut because you detest Al Gore and a documentary he made a few years ago)

 

[Peter Grimm]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

Exactly right.

If the average global temp went up by one degree last year (for argument's sake... I have no idea what it actually did), then that is a fact. You can measure it, document it, and it is what it is.

The reason WHY the temperature went up by one degree is debatable. Just because a majority of scientists believe one thing does not make it fact.

That we are warming is a fact. The question is what percentage is our doing and, probably more importantly, what can we do to mitigate and prepare for the change.

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

That we are warming is a fact. The question is what percentage is our doing and, probably more importantly, what can we do to mitigate and prepare for the change.

By fact what exactly do you mean? How much over what period? Is it a normal variance? Or could it be statistical anomaly or a difference in measuring methods?

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

By fact what exactly do you mean? How much over what period? Is it a normal variance? Or could it be statistical anomaly or a difference in measuring methods?

We can look back 10, 100, 1000, 10000 years and we are warming. We can look back 100k, 1m and 1b years and see it has happened before, many times. The question is, how much (of the rate and total impact) is anthropogenic and, probably much more importantly, what can we do to mitigate and prepare for the obviously coming changes (which vary in specificity depending on geography and microclimates).

So, what percentage of GW is A? No one likes to answer that question.

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

We can look back 10, 100, 1000, 10000 years and we are warming. We can look back 100k, 1m and 1b years and see it has happened before, many times. The question is, how much (of the rate and total impact) is anthropogenic and, probably much more importantly, what can we do to mitigate and prepare for the obviously coming changes (which vary in specificity depending on geography and microclimates).

So, what percentage of GW is A? No one likes to answer that question.

So what is the relitive tempreture rise? How much did the planet warm in the past?

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

So what is the relitive tempreture rise? How much did the planet warm in the past?

Sometimes more, sometimes less. We cannot establish a "natural rate of warming" nor a "natural max temp". It has always varied. What we can tell is that CO2 and other stuff aggravates the situation. To what extent? Someone give us a percentage. We also know that the circumpolar being inturrupted will cause an ice age, and GW looks like it is gonna cause that, hopefully in thousands (or at least hundreds) of years.

Knowing a few things that are almost surely contributing to the warming trend (which results in various types of climate and weather changes in different places), we must decide what steps are reasonable regarding mitigation (depending on what our actions might be contributing and in what way) and how we can improve preparation for the impending changes.

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

Sometimes more, sometimes less. We cannot establish a "natural rate of warming" nor a "natural max temp". It has always varied. What we can tell is that CO2 and other stuff aggravates the situation. To what extent? Someone give us a percentage. We also know that the circumpolar being inturrupted will cause an ice age, and GW looks like it is gonna cause that, hopefully in thousands (or at least hundreds) of years.

Knowing a few things that are almost surely contributing to the warming trend (which results in various types of climate and weather changes in different places), we must decide what steps are reasonable regarding mitigation (depending on what our actions might be contributing and in what way) and how we can improve preparation for the impending changes.

Read post 66 you will see why I ask. People claiming that GW is something it may not be, is driving a lot of policy decesions that unfortunely are costing me heavily and for as I can tell no benifit.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

Read post 66 you will see why I ask. People claiming that GW is something it may not be, is driving a lot of policy decesions that unfortunely are costing me heavily and for as I can tell no benifit.

If you give me, for the sake of discussion, 20%. I think that is a significant enough number to qualify, logically, some mitigation measures. What those are, exactly, is up for debate. I can also presume that accepting GW is happening (it is, whose fault whatever), we can look at likely changes and how we might better prepare for those. This brings you into the climate change debate on a level above partisanship. Perhaps the best avenue for an individual is to look at an area/region that is interesting to them, take a look at el nino impacts for that place, factor in some warming and increasingly radical weather changes (within the area's existing parameters, most importantly) and look at probable impacts and measures that have been and should be taken in preparation.

 

[lpast]

Re: Scientists: 93% of Fox News climate change coverage is ‘staggeringly misleading.

I think alot of people who watch Fox actually believe what they are being told. You can tell what posters here watch Fox News on a regular basis.

Yup they run with one source making one statement as gospel