Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Quoting Neapolitan:
It's funny; every time someone brings up Fox's well-known--and well-deserved--anti-science reputation, some defender shouts out, "But MSNBC!" My response. Again:

A) I don't watch MSNBC much.

B) The head honchos at MSNBC have not sent out memoranda ordering their employees to lie about climate change.

C) When MSNBC does talk about climate change, they tend to have on actual, you know, climate scientists, not debunked nitwits like Watts and Bastardi.

D) To the best of my knowledge--and please correct me if I'm wrong--there have been no credible university studies undertaken that point conclusively to how MSNBC's systemic and systematic dissemination of lies and propaganda have lead to its viewers having a very flimsy grasp on the issues of the day. (Care to take a guess as to which network has?)

LOL! I forgot about Bastardi being equal to Fox News,WUWT and Dr.Seuss's farmers Almanac.....How is it he can be so stupid for so long? What's it been like 35 years now??? Does he even know that NOAA exists?

Quoting nymore:
 Here is an how you move forward. Identify problem (We have done that we are at the very least part of the problem) now move on to ideas on how to solve said problem, (But many here would rather continue identifying the problem, and laying blame I guess it makes them feel useful) after you have identified solid solutions, move on to fixing said problem. Is that so hard to understand.

Nymore, I have some questions for you, and I'm asking them straight - I'm not being sarcastic or trying to do a "gotcha".

If you think we have identified a problem (GW), and have figured out that we are "at the very least" part of the problem, then what do you want from this blog and these discussions?  Why are you here?  Do you want the discussion here to be about solutions and ways to implement them?  How do you personally think we can try to identify solid solutions?

From Greenpeace International:

Point of No Return - The massive climate threats we must avoid

Publication - January 22, 2013

The world is quickly reaching a Point of No Return for preventing the worst impacts of climate change. With total disregard for this unfolding global disaster, the fossil fuel industry is planning 14 massive coal, oil and gas projects that would produce as much new carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2020 as the entire US, and delay action on climate change for more than a decade.

Continuing on the current course will make it difficult – if not impossible – to prevent the widespread and catastrophic impacts of climate change. The costs will be substantial: billions spent to deal with the destruction of extreme weather events, untold human suffering, and the deaths of tens of millions from the impacts by as soon as 2030.

Burning the coal, oil and gas from the 14 massive projects discussed in this report would significantly push emissions over what climate scientists have identified as the "carbon budget", the amount of additional CO2 that must not be exceeded in order to keep climate change from spiralling out of control.

The global renewal energy scenario developed by Greenpeace – the Energy [R]evolution – shows how to deliver the power and mobility these dirty projects are promising without the emissions and the destruction ... not only faster, but also at a lower cost. The clean energy future made possible by the development of renewable energy will only become a reality if governments rein in investments in dirty fossil fuels and support renewable energy.

The world is clearly at a Point of No Return. Either replace coal, oil and gas with renewable energy, or face a future turned upside down by climate change.

Download the Point of No Return report.

Quoting Xulonn:
Time to head over to Tamino and Neven to read some real science.

Speaking of the always awesome Tamino, he just posted an excellent entry about trends and fluctuations vis-a-vis extreme extreme weather (the double usage of "extreme" intentional). Among many excellent bits, there's this about probable denialist cherry-picking of one possible warming scenario:

"The trend keeps rising, and the fluctuations keep fluctuating, but since they go sometimes up and sometimes down, and since they don't go as far as the 2012 fluctuation very often, in this particular future scenario the temperature didn't get as high as it was in 2012 for eighteen years, not breaking the 2012 record until 2031. If this is how the future unfolds-- and it could well do so, although it could also reach a new record high well before that -- we'll hear proclamations of 'No warming in the U.S. for 18 years!' Oklahoma senator James Inhofe will declare that we're in a cooling period. Anthony Watts will host a guest article by Chip Knappenberger that U.S. temperature data indicate nothing to worry about. Fox News will give them, and a lot of other crackpots, a national televised forum to spread their propaganda. Imagine if you will, the hubbub in 2022 when, just by accident, the fluctuation goes in the opposite direction to the trend and the so-called 'Heartland Institute' buys print ads in the New York Times declaring that the whole global warming idea is a scam, climate scientists are a bunch of frauds, and we should really be worried about the next ice age."

As I said, awesome as always.

(FWIW, Neven tells me he's building a house this summer, so his blog will necessarily consist of fewer and more infrequent articles, and more open forums. FWIW II: I've added a few new homegrown Arctic sea ice forecast graphics to my climate graphs page that will be accessible through Neven's site within a week or so.)

Quoting Xandra:
From Greenpeace International:

Point of No Return - The massive climate threats we must avoid

Publication - January 22, 2013

The world is quickly reaching a Point of No Return for preventing the worst impacts of climate change. With total disregard for this unfolding global disaster, the fossil fuel industry is planning 14 massive coal, oil and gas projects that would produce as much new carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2020 as the entire US, and delay action on climate change for more than a decade.

Continuing on the current course will make it difficult – if not impossible – to prevent the widespread and catastrophic impacts of climate change. The costs will be substantial: billions spent to deal with the destruction of extreme weather events, untold human suffering, and the deaths of tens of millions from the impacts by as soon as 2030.

Burning the coal, oil and gas from the 14 massive projects discussed in this report would significantly push emissions over what climate scientists have identified as the "carbon budget", the amount of additional CO2 that must not be exceeded in order to keep climate change from spiralling out of control.

The global renewal energy scenario developed by Greenpeace – the Energy [R]evolution – shows how to deliver the power and mobility these dirty projects are promising without the emissions and the destruction ... not only faster, but also at a lower cost. The clean energy future made possible by the development of renewable energy will only become a reality if governments rein in investments in dirty fossil fuels and support renewable energy.

The world is clearly at a Point of No Return. Either replace coal, oil and gas with renewable energy, or face a future turned upside down by climate change.

Download the Point of No Return report.

You think Greenpeace would like my tunnel idea?

Quoting Neapolitan:
Speaking of the always awesome Tamino, he just posted an excellent entry about trends and fluctuations vis-a-vis extreme extreme weather (the double usage of "extreme" intentional). Among many excellent bits, there's this about probable denialist cherry-picking of one possible warming scenario:

"The trend keeps rising, and the fluctuations keep fluctuating, but since they go sometimes up and sometimes down, and since they don't go as far as the 2012 fluctuation very often, in this particular future scenario the temperature didn't get as high as it was in 2012 for eighteen years, not breaking the 2012 record until 2031. If this is how the future unfolds-- and it could well do so, although it could also reach a new record high well before that -- we'll hear proclamations of 'No warming in the U.S. for 18 years!' Oklahoma senator James Inhofe will declare that we're in a cooling period. Anthony Watts will host a guest article by Chip Knappenberger that U.S. temperature data indicate nothing to worry about. Fox News will give them, and a lot of other crackpots, a national televised forum to spread their propaganda. Imagine if you will, the hubbub in 2022 when, just by accident, the fluctuation goes in the opposite direction to the trend and the so-called 'Heartland Institute' buys print ads in the New York Times declaring that the whole global warming idea is a scam, climate scientists are a bunch of frauds, and we should really be worried about the next ice age."

As I said, awesome as always.

(FWIW, Neven tells me he's building a house this summer, so his blog will necessarily consist of fewer and more infrequent articles, and more open forums. FWIW II: I've added a few new homegrown Arctic sea ice forecast graphics to my climate graphs page that will be accessible through Neven's site within a week or so.)

LOL! That may well happen but if it did happen there will be no more summertime Northern Arctic Ice.... All that ice heat would go to cool the atmosphere.....So for now it will be business as usual and continued ice melt...Tunnels anyone?

Neapolitan,

Did you catch Apocalypse4Real's Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Maps at Neven's? Scary,it looks like most of the ice is quite thin.

Quoting FLwolverine:

Nymore, I have some questions for you, and I'm asking them straight - I'm not being sarcastic or trying to do a "gotcha".

If you think we have identified a problem (GW), and have figured out that we are "at the very least" part of the problem, then what do you want from this blog and these discussions? Why are you here? Do you want the discussion here to be about solutions and ways to implement them? How do you personally think we can try to identify solid solutions?

I like to come here and read the discussions and most of the time just sit on the sidelines. I would like to see some discussions on possible solutions, Rookie and myself have thrown around some ideas but no one else here has even joined in. I have seen some throw around solar and wind but they never want to get into details. You will only find solutions by looking at the problem from many sets of eyes, you may see or know something I don't and I may see or know something you don't.

I do posts some articles once and awhile but these are always sourced and not from opinion pieces. Do I call some on here out, absolutely but only when they post garbage. I do this by far more on one side than the other, because if Tomball or whoever posts crap many here will call him/her out. If Neapolitan or whoever does the same thing not a peep out of them, so if they won't do it I will.

Quoting JohnLonergan:
Neapolitan,

Did you catch Apocalypse4Real's Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Maps at Neven's? Scary,it looks like most of the ice is quite thin.

Yes, I have. I think that, barring some bizarre and unforeseen event, there'll be an extremely rapid meltdown this year, and records will again be set for area, extent, and volume. All the currently-growing FYI is thin and fragile as per A4R's charts, and will thus--obviously--be quick to melt/flush. (FWIW, I think area will max out around 13.4 million km2, extent will top out at 14.2 million km2, and volume won't get over about 21,000 km3 [and bottom out around 2,700 km3, with an excursion to under 1,000 km3 by summer of 2015].)

Quoting JohnLonergan:
Neapolitan,

Did you catch Apocalypse4Real's Arctic Sea Ice Thickness Maps at Neven's? Scary,it looks like most of the ice is quite thin.

Tunnels are the only solution to this problem folks...

Quoting nymore:
I like to come here and read the discussions and most of the time just sit on the sidelines. I would like to see some discussions on possible solutions, Rookie and myself have thrown around some ideas but no one else here has even joined in. I have seen some throw around solar and wind but they never want to get into details. You will only find solutions by looking at the problem from many sets of eyes, you may see or know something I don't and I may see or know something you don't.

I do posts some articles once and awhile but these are always sourced and not from opinion pieces. Do I call some on here out, absolutely but only when they post garbage. I do this by far more on one side than the other, because if Tomball or whoever posts crap many here will call him/her out. If Neapolitan or whoever does the same thing not a peek out of them, so if they won't do it I will.

Tunnels are the only solution...

Quoting Neapolitan:
Yes, I have. I think that, barring some bizarre and unforeseen event, there'll be an extremely rapid meltdown this year, and records will again be set for area, extent, and volume. All the currently-growing FYI is thin and fragile as per A4R's charts, and will thus--obviously--be quick to melt/flush. (FWIW, I think area will max out around 13.4 million km2, extent will top out at 14.2 million km2, and volume won't get over about 21,000 km3 [and bottom out around 2,700 km3, with an excursion to under 1,000 km3 by summer of 2015].)

Correct extremely thin..

Quoting nymore:
I like to come here and read the discussions and most of the time just sit on the sidelines. I would like to see some discussions on possible solutions, Rookie and myself have thrown around some ideas but no one else here has even joined in. I have seen some throw around solar and wind but they never want to get into details. You will only find solutions by looking at the problem from many sets of eyes, you may see or know something I don't and I may see or know something you don't.

I do posts some articles once and awhile but these are always sourced and not from opinion pieces. Do I call some on here out, absolutely but only when they post garbage. I do this by far more on one side than the other, because if Tomball or whoever posts crap many here will call him/her out. If Neapolitan or whoever does the same thing not a peep out of them, so if they won't do it I will.

Thank you for your reply. It will help me understand your comments better.

I remember those discussions between you and Rookie - or rather I remember that you were having them. I'm embarrassed to say that I scrolled right by them. I'll pay more attention next time, although I don't think I will have anything to add. I'm still trying to conquer my great sense of despair over the whole GW/CC situation. But like a lot of other people on here I have kids and grandkids and can't afford to sit around and do nothing.

Have a good evening and stay warm up there!

Nymore and others have expressed interest in not just discussing the problem but approaches to possible solutions. I think articles about mitigation are posted more frequently to Dr. Masters blog, but I'll offer one here:
World Bank looks to battle climate change with better transportation
By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers January 18, 2013

Excerpt: WASHINGTON — There’s an unexpected method governments can use to reduce poverty, improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, top world leaders said Friday.

Their idea: Make transportation in the world’s megacities more available and sustainable to reduce congestion and benefit populations – and economies – that are projected to boom in the coming decades.

Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, said Friday at a global transportation conference that working on sustainable transportation is part of the bank’s moral responsibility and will be a major focus of its lending in the coming years. Lifting people out of poverty is the bank’s chief mission, Kim said. But climate change caused by global warming threatens that mission, he said, particularly for future generations.

Andrew Steer, a former World Bank executive who now heads up the World Resources Institute, pointed to cities such as Lima, Peru, where congestion costs the economy 10 percent of its national income. Green transportation pays for itself, Steer said, and plenty of solutions already exist.

Complete article here.

Quoting nymore:
I like to come here and read the discussions and most of the time just sit on the sidelines. I would like to see some discussions on possible solutions, Rookie and myself have thrown around some ideas but no one else here has even joined in. I have seen some throw around solar and wind but they never want to get into details. You will only find solutions by looking at the problem from many sets of eyes, you may see or know something I don't and I may see or know something you don't.

I do posts some articles once and awhile but these are always sourced and not from opinion pieces. Do I call some on here out, absolutely but only when they post garbage. I do this by far more on one side than the other, because if Tomball or whoever posts crap many here will call him/her out. If Neapolitan or whoever does the same thing not a peep out of them, so if they won't do it I will.

Nymore, we have had some good discussions. Your call to duty forestalled our last discussion.

I will quickly call someone out when they have poorly or incorrectly presented the science. Since I do not know all of the science related to the AGWT I cannot call out mistakes that I do not recognize as being a mistake. (At least not until I have researched it further) When you call someone out it is often not as much to do with the science as it is to do with conversations unrelated to the science. Such as the conversations on media news sources. Who cares who is more correct on which media service is most correct in its reporting? Certainly we should hold all media news sources accountable, but not so much each of us on our opinions on them.

Perhaps, soon, we can continue our discussions on strategies that may lead to a more survivable climate for our future generations. We may not come up with any truly workable strategies ourselves, but, perhaps, someone will recognize something in our conversations that is workable? Perhaps they will even join in the discussion? This is not about egos. This is about giving our future generations their best opportunities for the most stable climate we can leave them.

Quoting TomballTXPride (#129):
Okay, Fine. I really don't want to argue with you, Schamemoe. I'm sorry is I ruffled some feathers here.

Um, yeah... Right... No you're not. Your behavior has proven that you revel in ruffling feathers.

Quoting TomballTXPride (#146):


Please do. You started it, so I'm going to take your word you will end it.

This childish nonsense doesn't belong in here, Barefoot.

Tomball, regardless of your suggestions to the contrary, you are not the adult here. You are not the moderator. You're not even a helpful contributor. Stop trying to act like an authoritative figure in these blogs at Weather Underground. By axiom, there is no authority in science, and you are just as guilty as anyone else for acting immature in this blog. Or have you forgotten about your spat with Neapolitan before the holidays? You know, the blog entry of Dr. Rood's where you made one of your many famous false statements (comment #138)?:

Quoting TomballTXPride:
Get moving, Mikey.
I want proof. Real proof we are responsible for 70-100% of the warming.
Think you can fill that void. Can you measure up, little man?
Not non-sense from you, either.
That really too difficult to ask?

So, back to the original subject: Have you been able to find any scientific evidence to back your claim that humans are not responsible for 70-100% of the current global warming trend?

Didn't think so...

Quoting TomballTXPride (#158):

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Someone, please, show me the correlation:

There is none. That has been no evidence of any correlation between any warming and CO2 emissions. Not from what I've seen here in this blog anyway.

But we sit back and wait to see what they try to come up with next....

Ah, yes. We're back to this again. Very shallow lies, Tomball/NeopolitanFan.

Your unreferenced opinions are not based in reality. The assumption is well-refuted by the scientific literature. Here's a recent example:

Shakun, J.D., et. al., "Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation." Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915

And if you don't believe them, here's another expert that will explain it to you in easier terms:

Quoting Xulonn:
[...] I'm beginning to think that perhaps TomballPride is simply a delusioned shill for the denialist industry. He/she claims to be a woman - a housewife and mother of young children. However, busy moms don't often have time for this sort of crap, certainly my step-daughter with her four young children does not. Tomball's posts reek of orchestrated denialist propaganda and techniques such as the current LOUD AND LITERALLY SCREAMING denials of common scientific facts. This of course, is based on the well-known propaganda technique that if you repeat a lie often and loud enough, some people will begin to believe it. And this is also a tactic of Fox [so-called] News. [...]

I agree with this 100%, David. I've watched TomballTXPride for over a month now; studying his patterns and analyzing his methods. Indeed, he is acting very much like a troll/shill/sock-puppet/whatever, either for payment or for personal gratification, manipulating the conversation in a direction of his own choosing and dodging every rational argument presented before them.

Everyone should know that these commenters within Dr. Rood's blog -- people like NeapolitanFan, Iceagecoming, TomballTXPride, Ossqss, and even Nymore (who, judging from the recent responses, claims to be neutral about climate science, yet posts false conclusions and disparaging comments within Dr. Rood's in memoriam piece for Dr. Jerry Mahlman) -- all follow a very distinctive misinformation pattern: They (1) start up disagreements and incite arguments by posting non-sequitur and highly controversial statements with little basis in fact. They then (2) fall silent for a brief period when the arguments take on a life of their own, usually perpetuated by both climate-change realists and denialists alike (the latter being eager to maintain the illusion that there's doubt about the science behind climate change). Finally, (3) they have the gall to come back and act conciliatory about the subject and/or act sagacious regarding the behavior of others in the forum, completely diverting attention away from the main subject of the blog.

THIS IS THEIR METHOD OF CLIMATE CHANGE DENIALISM: To disrupt and manipulate the conversation through subterfuge, innuendo, and intentionally-placed disinformation, diverting it away from the main subject so as to avoid any substantial or meaningful discussion of it.

Do you see what they've done? All it takes is one non-factual and preposterous statement against the science of human-induced climate change, and they did their damage. The rest of us unintentionally perpetuate it by continuously countering their argument with fact. But fortunate for them, they need not budge on their position: They simply have additional opportunities to re-state their controversial/outrageous statements, allowing them to resonate (and re-resonate) within the blog-o-sphere, making it appear as if there is a controversy about the science WHERE THERE IS NONE.

To the climate-change realists: Relax. You've done your due-diligence. They deserve one, maybe two responses from you to help them rationally understand the subject. After that, if they're just re-hashing old arguments or using any one of Dr. Boaz's 14 propaganda techniques, then you're being manipulated. Manipulators deserve silence.

To the denialists: Congratulations. You've yet again disrupted the conversation flow within another one of Dr. Rood's blog entries. I'm sure you're proud. Have a nice day.

Quoting etxwx:
Nymore and others have expressed interest in not just discussing the problem but approaches to possible solutions. I think articles about mitigation are posted more frequently to Dr. Masters blog, but I'll offer one here:
World Bank looks to battle climate change with better transportation
By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers January 18, 2013

Excerpt: WASHINGTON %u2014 There%u2019s an unexpected method governments can use to reduce poverty, improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, top world leaders said Friday.

Their idea: Make transportation in the world%u2019s megacities more available and sustainable to reduce congestion and benefit populations %u2013 and economies %u2013 that are projected to boom in the coming decades.

Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, said Friday at a global transportation conference that working on sustainable transportation is part of the bank%u2019s moral responsibility and will be a major focus of its lending in the coming years. Lifting people out of poverty is the bank%u2019s chief mission, Kim said. But climate change caused by global warming threatens that mission, he said, particularly for future generations.

Andrew Steer, a former World Bank executive who now heads up the World Resources Institute, pointed to cities such as Lima, Peru, where congestion costs the economy 10 percent of its national income. Green transportation pays for itself, Steer said, and plenty of solutions already exist.

Complete article here.

Great idea if the power comes by Gulfstream Kinetic energy...Miami can go totally green this way along with a few other major cities up along the East Coast...Perhaps,New York too..

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Nymore, we have had some good discussions. Your call to duty forestalled our last discussion.

I will quickly call someone out when they have poorly or incorrectly presented the science. Since I do not know all of the science related to the AGWT I cannot call out mistakes that I do not recognize as being a mistake. (At least not until I have researched it further) When you call someone out it is often not as much to do with the science as it is to do with conversations unrelated to the science. Such as the conversations on media news sources. Who cares who is more correct on which media service is most correct in its reporting? Certainly we should hold all media news sources accountable, but not so much each of us on our opinions on them.

Perhaps, soon, we can continue our discussions on strategies that may lead to a more survivable climate for our future generations. We may not come up with any truly workable strategies ourselves, but, perhaps, someone will recognize something in our conversations that is workable? Perhaps they will even join in the discussion? This is not about egos. This is about giving our future generations their best opportunities for the most stable climate we can leave them.

BINGO.....

Quoting etxwx:
Nymore and others have expressed interest in not just discussing the problem but approaches to possible solutions. I think articles about mitigation are posted more frequently to Dr. Masters blog, but I'll offer one here:
World Bank looks to battle climate change with better transportation
By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers January 18, 2013

Excerpt: WASHINGTON — There’s an unexpected method governments can use to reduce poverty, improve public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, top world leaders said Friday.

Their idea: Make transportation in the world’s megacities more available and sustainable to reduce congestion and benefit populations – and economies – that are projected to boom in the coming decades.

Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, said Friday at a global transportation conference that working on sustainable transportation is part of the bank’s moral responsibility and will be a major focus of its lending in the coming years. Lifting people out of poverty is the bank’s chief mission, Kim said. But climate change caused by global warming threatens that mission, he said, particularly for future generations.

Andrew Steer, a former World Bank executive who now heads up the World Resources Institute, pointed to cities such as Lima, Peru, where congestion costs the economy 10 percent of its national income. Green transportation pays for itself, Steer said, and plenty of solutions already exist.

Complete article here.

Hello, etxwx.

The most heartening comment that I read in this article is where Jim Yong Kim said this, with his 3 year son in his mind: "To put it very bluntly . . . when he’s my age, he’ll be living in a world where the oceans will be 150 percent more acidic, the coral reefs will have all been melted away, the fisheries would have been completely disturbed, and probably every single day, there will be food fights and water fights all over the world," he said. "The world that I’m literally handing over to him as an adult will be one that does not exist today. For me it’s very real."

Why do I find this so heartening? This is the first time I have seen someone, with enough influence to make a difference, to start thinking more about the upcoming generations and less about them self. Even with this, if there is to be time to make any difference, these plans need to start now and not 20 years from now.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Hello, etxwx.

The most heartening comment that I read in this article is where Jim Yong Kim said this, with his 3 year son in his mind: "To put it very bluntly . . . when he’s my age, he’ll be living in a world where the oceans will be 150 percent more acidic, the coral reefs will have all been melted away, the fisheries would have been completely disturbed, and probably every single day, there will be food fights and water fights all over the world," he said. "The world that I’m literally handing over to him as an adult will be one that does not exist today. For me it’s very real."

Why do I find this so heartening? This is the first time I have seen someone, with enough influence to make a difference, to start thinking more about the upcoming generations and less about them self. Even with this, if there is to be time to make any difference, these plans need to start now and not 20 years from now.

Like I said Mad Max.....

Hello Rookie,
Yes, that is a heartening statement. I hope it will dawn on more and more influential people that their actions (or lack of action) will greatly affect their descendents - not just other people's.

Whether such realizations will happen in time remains to be seen. Reactions, solutions, mitigation, and adaptations will, by necessity, be many and varied. I'm often struck by that when reading the news...a brief mention of a public building recycling water, farmers adapting to reduced water supplies, LEDs gaining popularity and other small scale but significant changes in attitude. Such changes are often driven by economics - which is fine as long as the changes happen. People don't have to be - *gasp* - "tree huggers" - they just need to be pragmatic and care about their kids.

Rookie, I just want to let you know that your reasoned and polite contributions to WU are greatly appreciated. :)

Quoting TomballTXPride:




*Sigh*

And how many times have I been over this with all of you. Of course this is the first time I have seen you, so allow me.

Do you believe everything you see published on the internet, specifically when you "google" something.

There is nothing scientific that says the seas have risen. Yes, there are predictions that suggest they will rise at a given point. But I have been hearing that now for the past 30 years and nothing.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the science.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annu rev-marine-120308-081105

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712 -011-9119-1?LI=true

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/f ull/nature10847.html

There are many more such papers.

Quoting Birthmark:

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the science.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annu rev-marine-120308-081105

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712 -011-9119-1?LI=true

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/f ull/nature10847.html

There are many more such papers.

Here is reality, open your eyes and put on your jackets.

Quoting iceagecoming:



Here is reality, open your eyes and put on your jackets.

You mean it's cold in winter? Oh, no! I guess that means AGW isn't happening...for those who have no idea about the subject, anyway.

Quoting TomballTXPride:


Incorrect on all accounts. Try again please. I am just dying of your response. The anticipation is just tickling me!

None of those links even comes close to disprove my original point on Fox News being one of the most honest News Networks out there.

Not even close.

I didn't base my opinions on links or studies. I based my opinion on personal reading of Fox. I read it sometimes because it entertains me in a morbid way. But my take on Fox is that it is very pseudo conservative and spins issues to fit that view point.

It seems that Fox's mantra is that news must address itself to the broad masses of the people in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. I believe that Fox thinks the art of news-sites consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses.

The broad masses of the people are not made up of intellectuals or even simply persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.

Thus you get a lot of readers along the lines of people who think because Al Gore commutes everyday by 747 around filled with waterbeds that therefore the earth isn't warming. Thus in Fox news you get "Liberals are bad", "conservatives save America", etc. along the lines of The New York Banner, feeding emotional pablum to adults who don't have thier intellectual feet underneath themselves. If you don't believe me, read the comments below the articles. Whether Fox news tries to achieve those results or not, the result is the same.

Oh, by the way, here is a link that happened to be the first one I found. You could find many more if you bothered trying to research Fox's record on honesty. I was actually looking for the Canadian lawsuit where Fox defended itself based on the fact that it was entertainment not news and therefore had no restrictions on its honesty. I just took the first one I found.