NBC hit piece on "Climate change" airing now

UNT90 · April 9, 2014

Wake me up when there are palm trees growing in the North Pole.

Dude, when that happens, you and I are putting on the old guy Hawaiian shirts and taking a roadie to see Santa!!

Quoner · April 9, 2014

At least it's on NBC so there won't be many watching. Jay Leno had the right answer when they asked him what NBC stood for...

His answer? NoBody Cares.

Boom. Classic Leno. I don't care who you are, that's good stuff.

Army of Dad · April 9, 2014

Fuel from seawater:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-navy-game-changer-converting-seawater-fuel-150544958.html

Not sure of the science behind it or the affect on emissions since the fuel is supposed to be able to run in current engines without modifications.

UNT90 · April 9, 2014

Fuel from seawater:
http://news.yahoo.com/us-navy-game-changer-converting-seawater-fuel-150544958.html
Not sure of the science behind it or the affect on emissions since the fuel is supposed to be able to run in current engines without modifications.

So what you are saying is global warming is the path to an unlimited fuel supply?

Brilliant!!

The Fake Lonnie Finch · April 9, 2014

Dude, when that happens, you and I are putting on the old guy Hawaiian shirts and taking a roadie to see Santa!!

Exactly. And financing it by growing bananas and pineapples here in North Texas! With the best of luck, the polar ice caps will have put New Orleans and Houston completely underwater.

The more you look into it, the better this climate change thing is looking! When did Al Gore miscalculate all of this to happen?

The Fake Lonnie Finch · April 9, 2014

So what you are saying is global warming is the path to an unlimited fuel supply?
Brilliant!!

No more high heating bills in the winter!

GreenGuy123 · April 10, 2014

See, you lost me at "certain scientific facts," otherwise we may have agreed. Conserve? Good. Clean air? Good (as long as government restrictions are not overly burdensome on businesses to the point of costing jobs), but don't force BS therories down people's throat as facts. Don't say the world is ending tomorrow of I put my plastic bottle in the trash instead of the recycle.
Just stop.
And this program didn't. To the N'th degree didn't.

Maybe you misunderstood. I meant certain facts lead to logical conclusions...like gravity. The Greenhouse Effect is a certain fact. Air Pollution is a certain fact. Polar Caps melting at an alarming rate is a certain fact. When you consider certain facts all together, you start to make logical conclusions. If the polar caps continue to melt and break off at the rate that they currently are, sea levels will rise and climate conditions will change dramatically. That's not good for humans, especially Mean Green Football. To be honest, I really don't give two s**ts if the Earth is actually warming or not. All I know is that certain facts would lead me to believe that bad things are on the horizon. Never did I say we're all going die tomorrow or even attempt to put anything in your throat. I just have no idea how people can openly deny something that's backed by science, logic and plausibility. I actually applaud your ability to do so.

FirefightnRick · April 10, 2014

Maybe you misunderstood. I meant certain facts lead to logical conclusions...like gravity. The Greenhouse Effect is a certain fact. Air Pollution is a certain fact. Polar Caps melting at an alarming rate is a certain fact. When you consider certain facts all together, you start to make logical conclusions. If the polar caps continue to melt and break off at the rate that they currently are, sea levels will rise and climate conditions will change dramatically. That's not good for humans, especially Mean Green Football. To be honest, I really don't give two s**ts if the Earth is actually warming or not. All I know is that certain facts would lead me to believe that bad things are on the horizon. Never did I say we're all going die tomorrow or even attempt to put anything in your throat. I just have no idea how people can openly deny something that's backed by science, logic and plausibility. I actually applaud your ability to do so.

Just asking...Have we been able to gauge what rate at we should be alarmed over? I mean, for the ones that are melting is it possible that they melted just as fast or faster before? And some are melting and others are growing. Should we be alarmed at the growth rate too?

Rick

The Fake Lonnie Finch · April 10, 2014

I'm saddened to read that sea levels might be raised only 20 inches or so...not near enough to rid us of the East Coast, Houston, and New Orleans...sigh....

KingDL1 · April 10, 2014

Maybe you misunderstood. I meant certain facts lead to logical conclusions...like gravity. The Greenhouse Effect is a certain fact. Air Pollution is a certain fact. Polar Caps melting at an alarming rate is a certain fact. When you consider certain facts all together, you start to make logical conclusions. If the polar caps continue to melt and break off at the rate that they currently are, sea levels will rise and climate conditions will change dramatically. That's not good for humans, especially Mean Green Football. To be honest, I really don't give two s**ts if the Earth is actually warming or not. All I know is that certain facts would lead me to believe that bad things are on the horizon. Never did I say we're all going die tomorrow or even attempt to put anything in your throat. I just have no idea how people can openly deny something that's backed by science, logic and plausibility. I actually applaud your ability to do so.

Sorry to burst your bubble but "The Green House Effect" and what causes it is a just a theory not even close to fact many different thoughts on that subject. Polar Caps Melting at an alarming rate is not Fact, actually the antarctic has been building at record rates. the North pole had been melting but slowed or stopped depending who you want to believe, but the north pole is also known to go through cycles. So building fact off of BS just makes for more BS.

mattmartin817 · April 10, 2014

I'm saddened to read that sea levels might be raised only 20 inches or so...not near enough to rid us of the East Coast, Houston, and New Orleans...sigh...

TFLF hates black people.

Disclaimier: This is a joke, I do not think he really hates black people.

Edited April 10, 2014 by mattmartin817

GTWT · April 10, 2014

Sorry to burst your bubble but "The Green House Effect" and what causes it is a just a theory not even close to fact many different thoughts on that subject. Polar Caps Melting at an alarming rate is not Fact, actually the antarctic has been building at record rates. the North pole had been melting but slowed or stopped depending who you want to believe, but the north pole is also known to go through cycles. So building fact off of BS just makes for more BS.

Sigh....

A 'theory' in science is a statement that is supported by all the available evidence and contradicted by none. I suspect you meant to say "just a hypothesis" but you would still be wrong.

Do you have support for some of your contentions, such as "the antarctic (sic) has been building at record rates"? Or is this just BS making for more BS?

The Fake Lonnie Finch · April 10, 2014

TFLF hates black people.

Disclaimier: This is a joke, I do not think he really hates black people.

I plussed thee one because you had been negged. Besides, it's well known that it's not black people I hate but, rather, whitey. Everyone who is someone knows I'm all about this:

The Fake Lonnie Finch · April 10, 2014

Sorry to burst your bubble but "The Green House Effect" and what causes it is a just a theory not even close to fact many different thoughts on that subject. Polar Caps Melting at an alarming rate is not Fact, actually the antarctic has been building at record rates. the North pole had been melting but slowed or stopped depending who you want to believe, but the north pole is also known to go through cycles. So building fact off of BS just makes for more BS.

And, evaporation. Somewhere along the line, when the ice is melting into water and the earth is hotter, evaporation will occur. Unless...evaporation is just left out of the assumptions that we're all doomed.

I wouldn't doubt it if it were left our or seriously discounted. After all, if I can't convinced legislatures around the world (especially the legislatures of rich, First World countries) that they are doomed unless they act now, I can't get my hands on their taxpayers' money through research grants.

Evaporation is for suckers!

UNT90 · April 10, 2014

And, evaporation. Somewhere along the line, when the ice is melting into water and the earth is

I wouldn't doubt it if it were left our or seriously discounted. After all, if I can't convinced legislatures around the world (especially the legislatures of rich, First World countries) that they are doomed unless they act now, I can't get my hands on their taxpayers' money through research grants.

Evaporation is for suckers!

It amazes me that some people blame everything on the human element when it comes to global warming, yet completely excuse the human element when it comes to researching global warming.

You know the human element is at work in the research field by the reactions of some global warming researchers to research that questions global warming.

It's swift.

It's personal.

And it's mean.

While having very little to do with the facts.

Coffee and TV · April 10, 2014

I'm glad this thread is back. I've learned that gmg.com posters are all smarter than 97% of climate scientists out there.

UNT90 · April 10, 2014

I'm glad this thread is back. I've learned that gmg.com posters are all smarter than 97% of climate scientists out there.

Money has a strange way of justifying opinions my friend, even amongst scientist.

What's funny is a bet you hate "big pharma." Who is creating all of those drugs that you are being overcharged for? Are they impervious to money motivation?

If so, you have quite the dichotomy in your opinions, my friend.

KingDL1 · April 10, 2014

Sigh....

A 'theory' in science is a statement that is supported by all the available evidence and contradicted by none. I suspect you meant to say "just a hypothesis" but you would still be wrong.

Do you have support for some of your contentions, such as "the antarctic (sic) has been building at record rates"? Or is this just BS making for more BS?

Wow! So besides playing with semantics you are here to tell us that all theories turn to fact and there are no such thing as conflicting theories. That theories do not get dismissed and proven wrong all the time. Nor is there ever a reason to question these theories because by your definition theories are supported by all the available evidence and contradicted by none. I am going to have to talk to my Science professors again.

UNT90 · April 10, 2014

Ya, like theories about brush fires in the SOuthwest US causing the North Pole icecap to melt.

Not brush fires in China, or Russia, or Central Europe, only brush fires in the SW USA.

Yes, that was the "theory" presented as fact on that exceedingly stupid NBC hit piece.

A 6th grader could figure this out. But, then again the sixth grader hasn't yet been fully indoctrinated with the new religion of our time.

And why only the SW USA? They knew their audience, and the theory holder knew from where a potential grant fund would come.

Edited April 10, 2014 by UNT90

GTWT · April 11, 2014

It amazes me that some people blame everything on the human element when it comes to global warming, yet completely excuse the human element when it comes to researching global warming.
You know the human element is at work in the research field by the reactions of some global warming researchers to research that questions global warming.
It's swift.
It's personal.
And it's mean.
While having very little to do with the facts.

'90, I know there are climate scientists who question climate change. Mostly, though, they're questioning the interpretation of data gathered by other scientists. Can you give me some examples of actual climate change research that questions climate change or it's anthropogenic causes?

Thanks in advance!

GTWT · April 11, 2014

Wow! So besides playing with semantics you are here to tell us that all theories turn to fact and there are no such thing as conflicting theories. That theories do not get dismissed and proven wrong all the time. Nor is there ever a reason to question these theories because by your definition theories are supported by all the available evidence and contradicted by none. I am going to have to talk to my Science professors again.

Well, words matter, and if you're going to discuss science you should learn to use words as they're used in science.

You're right though that theories don't "turn to fact". It's the other way around. Facts are the basis for theories. The facts behind the science of climate change are published in peer reviewed journals and summarized in the IPCC reports. It's okay to disagree with the interpretation of those facts, but if you do you should base that disagreement on sound science and not religion, economics, or ideology. And certainly not on '90's pop psychology of the greedy nature of scientists.

KingDL1 · April 11, 2014

Well, words matter, and if you're going to discuss science you should learn to use words as they're used in science.

You're right though that theories don't "turn to fact". It's the other way around. Facts are the basis for theories. The facts behind the science of climate change are published in peer reviewed journals and summarized in the IPCC reports. It's okay to disagree with the interpretation of those facts, but if you do you should base that disagreement on sound science and not religion, economics, or ideology. And certainly not on '90's pop psychology of the greedy nature of scientists.

Say it theories get proven wrong, it is a start.

GTWT · April 13, 2014

Every scientific theory is falsifiable. That's a strength, not a weakness. New data, or better interpretations of old data, will lead to theories being replaced or, more likely, modified. For example evolutionary theory was modified when Mendel's rules of inheritance were discovered and interpretated. That modification of evolutionary theory didn't destroy Darwin's theory, rather it made it stronger.

Let's look at the facts behind climate change. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) There are massive ammounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere through man's burning of fossil fuels. 3) The earth's mean temperature is increasing at a rate that correlates with CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.

From these three basic facts a reasonable person would conclude that further increases in CO2 will result in further warming and further changes in climate associated with warming. Our best models suggest the effects on man's environment from these climatic changes will be deliterious. Don't believe the models? Come up with more data or better models. Until you do, these analyses are the best available science.

Edited April 13, 2014 by GTWT

UNT90 · April 13, 2014

Every scientific theory is falsifiable. That's a strength, not a weakness. New data, or better interpretations of old data, will lead to theories being replaced or, more likely, modified. For example evolutionary theory was modified when Mendel's rules of inheritance were discovered and interpretated. That modification of evolutionary theory didn't destroy Darwin's theory, rather it made it stronger.

Let's look at the facts behind climate change. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) There are massive ammounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere through man's burning of fossil fuels. 3) The earth's mean temperature is increasing at a rate that correlates with CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.

From these three basic facts a reasonable person would conclude that further increases in CO2 will result in further warming and further changes in climate associated with warming. Our best models suggest the effects on man's environment from these climatic changes will be deliterious. Don't believe the models? Come up with more data or better models. Until you do, these analyses are the best available science.

And you will continue to get these models as long as the person paying for them has a vested interest that the "science" turn out a different way.

Many people have offered alternative theories, only to be viciously attacked personally. Not there theory, but the scientists themselves.

I'm curious why you think that is?