Comments on: Telling Half the Story 100% of the Time http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/telling-half-the-story-100-of-the-time.html Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:47:37 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Charles http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/telling-half-the-story-100-of-the-time.html/comment-page-1#comment-5810 Charles Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:21:33 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1322#comment-5810 Stonyground - I'm not convinced that there is a conspiracy among journalists (although prepared to believe that there are vested interests pushing the AGW story). More likely that "MOVE ALONG FOLKS, NOTHING TO SEE" does't sell as many papers as "DISASTER! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!" Stonyground – I’m not convinced that there is a conspiracy among journalists (although prepared to believe that there are vested interests pushing the AGW story). More likely that “MOVE ALONG FOLKS, NOTHING TO SEE” does’t sell as many papers as “DISASTER! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!”

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/telling-half-the-story-100-of-the-time.html/comment-page-1#comment-5785 hunter Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:56:38 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1322#comment-5785 TP100, OHC is down world wide. It is interesting that the alarmist community, when confronted with temps going down, simply flip over to HC, which is what Pielke and other skeptics ahve been calling for some length of time. The alarmists apparently hope to add confusion, but simply following the facts still shows that the AGW predictions of apocalypse are simply wrong. TP100,
OHC is down world wide.
It is interesting that the alarmist community, when confronted with temps going down, simply flip over to HC, which is what Pielke and other skeptics ahve been calling for some length of time. The alarmists apparently hope to add confusion, but simply following the facts still shows that the AGW predictions of apocalypse are simply wrong.

]]> By: TP100 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/telling-half-the-story-100-of-the-time.html/comment-page-1#comment-5768 TP100 Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:04:08 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1322#comment-5768 This is a little off point from this discussion, but I am hoping someone can provide some additional clarification re: info from skepticalscience.com, their rebuttal to the argument that the earth is currently cooling is that empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air. The site goes on to say, among other things that the surface temperature is avery noisy signal, which to me implies that it is not a reliable source for measuring climate change. So, my question is, are there studies outside of what skepticalscience.com provides that confirms their empirical evidence? This is a little off point from this discussion, but I am hoping someone can provide some additional clarification re: info from skepticalscience.com, their rebuttal to the argument that the earth is currently cooling is that empirical measurements of the Earth’s heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

The site goes on to say, among other things that the surface temperature is avery noisy signal, which to me implies that it is not a reliable source for measuring climate change.

So, my question is, are there studies outside of what skepticalscience.com provides that confirms their empirical evidence?

]]> By: Loco http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/telling-half-the-story-100-of-the-time.html/comment-page-1#comment-5765 Loco Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:44:28 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1322#comment-5765 I think the news is finally out! We are starting to wake up, even down here in Australia!! http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/wise_australia_starting_to_reject_this_dodgy_disaster/ I think the news is finally out! We are starting to wake up, even down here in Australia!!
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/wise_australia_starting_to_reject_this_dodgy_disaster/

]]> By: An Inquirer http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/telling-half-the-story-100-of-the-time.html/comment-page-1#comment-5763 An Inquirer Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:26:36 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1322#comment-5763 Maybe it is the websites that I visit, but I notice a consistent trend in the AGW pessimist camp vs. the skeptics. I seldom see the latter denying history, science, or observations while former does it quite often. Maybe it is the websites that I visit, but I notice a consistent trend in the AGW pessimist camp vs. the skeptics. I seldom see the latter denying history, science, or observations while former does it quite often.

]]> By: Scott http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/telling-half-the-story-100-of-the-time.html/comment-page-1#comment-5762 Scott Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:21:45 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1322#comment-5762 Lonesnark, tourism numbers for Greenland and Antarctica are virtually the same, 30k+ a year. As for whether it was warmer or not, there is lots of documentation pointing to the Vikings withdrawal from Nova Scotia b/c the weather deteriorated (read got colder) to such a level that they could no longer maintain their colonies in Greenland, which were crucial to the voyage. Lonesnark, tourism numbers for Greenland and Antarctica are virtually the same, 30k+ a year.

As for whether it was warmer or not, there is lots of documentation pointing to the Vikings withdrawal from Nova Scotia b/c the weather deteriorated (read got colder) to such a level that they could no longer maintain their colonies in Greenland, which were crucial to the voyage.

]]> By: DocBud http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/telling-half-the-story-100-of-the-time.html/comment-page-1#comment-5760 DocBud Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:41:04 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1322#comment-5760 srla: "it would raise ocean levels about 4 cm, a significant increase" How tall are you, srla? srla: “it would raise ocean levels about 4 cm, a significant increase”

How tall are you, srla?

]]> By: Ted Rado http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/telling-half-the-story-100-of-the-time.html/comment-page-1#comment-5756 Ted Rado Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:45:00 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1322#comment-5756 All this talk about the press being biased misses the point. When I studied engineering many years ago, the poorer students took snap courses, such as journalism. Journalists I have known are almost completely devoid of the slightest understanding of scientific or engineering principles. For example, the TV shows a hydrogen powered bus emitting only water vapor, with appropriate idiotic commentary. No mention is made of the source of the H2 (which is from hydrocarbons or water electrolysis). Similarly, CO2 sequestering is made to look like a simple, winning concept. I am sure there are journalists who are not snap course dummies, but for the most part, anyone depending on the popular media for their scientific or engineering information is in deep doodoo. It is certainly reassuring to know that our technology and science-related laws are promulgated by people who have no pertinent background, and reported to the public by journalists who are equally unqualified. What a wonderful way to run an insane asylum. All this talk about the press being biased misses the point. When I studied engineering many years ago, the poorer students took snap courses, such as journalism. Journalists I have known are almost completely devoid of the slightest understanding of scientific or engineering principles. For example, the TV shows a hydrogen powered bus emitting only water vapor, with appropriate idiotic commentary. No mention is made of the source of the H2 (which is from hydrocarbons or water electrolysis). Similarly, CO2 sequestering is made to look like a simple, winning concept.

I am sure there are journalists who are not snap course dummies, but for the most part, anyone depending on the popular media for their scientific or engineering information is in deep doodoo.

It is certainly reassuring to know that our technology and science-related laws are promulgated by people who have no pertinent background, and reported to the public by journalists who are equally unqualified. What a wonderful way to run an insane asylum.

]]> By: srla http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/telling-half-the-story-100-of-the-time.html/comment-page-1#comment-5753 srla Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:54:47 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1322#comment-5753 Just to clear up one bit of information. Actually it seems melted floating ice might actually raise sea levels to some extent, due to the difference in density of the fresh water in floating ice and salt water in the oceans. If all the floating ice were to melt, it would raise ocean levels about 4 cm, a significant increase, but hardly in line with the "worst case scenarios" floated about. More on the topic can be found here: http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html Of course, if the Antarctic ice is actually growing, then perhaps that would compensate for the added water from floating ice. Anyhow just thought I'd mention that before some anthropomorphic climate change fundamentalist does. Just to clear up one bit of information. Actually it seems melted floating ice might actually raise sea levels to some extent, due to the difference in density of the fresh water in floating ice and salt water in the oceans. If all the floating ice were to melt, it would raise ocean levels about 4 cm, a significant increase, but hardly in line with the “worst case scenarios” floated about. More on the topic can be found here: http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html

Of course, if the Antarctic ice is actually growing, then perhaps that would compensate for the added water from floating ice. Anyhow just thought I’d mention that before some anthropomorphic climate change fundamentalist does.

]]> By: Stonyground http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/telling-half-the-story-100-of-the-time.html/comment-page-1#comment-5752 Stonyground Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:43:15 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1322#comment-5752 All this discussion about Greenland seems to be missing the point somewhat. That point being that the media appear to be deliberately misleading the public by only reporting stuff that supports belief in man made global warming and ignoring the stuff that does not. Those of you who post on this site criticising its position need to ask yourselves whether it is possible that your belief in global warming could be a result of this relentless barrage of one-sided information. Interestingly a commentator from the BBC has actually come out and said that it is a bit worrying that global warming doesn't seem to be going quite to plan, admitting that global temperatures seem to have peaked more than ten years ago. After all, if we can't keep the public on side it might be a bit difficult to justify fleecing them with more green taxes. All this discussion about Greenland seems to be missing the point somewhat. That point being that the media appear to be deliberately misleading the public by only reporting stuff that supports belief in man made global warming and ignoring the stuff that does not. Those of you who post on this site criticising its position need to ask yourselves whether it is possible that your belief in global warming could be a result of this relentless barrage of one-sided information.

Interestingly a commentator from the BBC has actually come out and said that it is a bit worrying that global warming doesn’t seem to be going quite to plan, admitting that global temperatures seem to have peaked more than ten years ago. After all, if we can’t keep the public on side it might be a bit difficult to justify fleecing them with more green taxes.

]]>