Since Kyrie wants citations, I'll start showing my citations. http://http://boortz.com/nuze/200702/02022007.html
That's not a source. Well, not a good one anyway. That's the equivalent of me linking to a Rush Limbaugh (or however you spell his name) site and saying HERE IS THE TRUTH.
Neal Boortz is a U.S. talk radio host based in Atlanta, Georgia and nationally syndicated by Cox Radio and the Jones Radio Networks. He is also a lawyer and best-selling author.
You're trying to make this into politics to battle my presentation of scientific research and opinion. Would you please post something a little stronger than opinion or political propaganda?
A prime example of the idiocy of his website:
Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"
I'd like to see the article containing that quote. And I'd like to add that if I'm ever abducted by aliens, I will promote the cause of peace between humanity and other races by being quoted as saying to them "we have to destroy all aliens to be truly at peace."
One major thing I'd like to point your attention to from that link is:
Quote:
What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
Any rebuttle on that?
Did you even look at the link I posted concerning that? I'd like to see said graph...except your source doesn't actually link to it. We're just supposed to take his word that it exists.
I simply find it interesting that he's suggesting that IPCC 2001 ignored the "Midieval Warming Period" when the link I posted was from their 2001 report and covered exactly that topic.
Edit: I think I found the graph he's referring to, and to what he's specifically referring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
The hockey stick controversy is basically a dispute over the validity of Mann's graphs/data and their use in IPCC reports. He supressed the two notable temperature variation periods, most specifically the MWP. However, the MWP is still being debated. They're still trying to figure out if it was as warm as has been previously suggested, and if it was actually a global event, or only a local one.
Here is the history of MWP and LIA in the IPCC reports: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and_LI ... CC_reportsIf the ice caps are "melting" then how can these ice cores display layers that show the effects of CO2 levels?
I think what you're asking is, how can ice core samples be accurately dated if the glaciers are melting. If so, then here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.htmlWhy did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?
I can't even read what that's trying to say between all the names and qualifiers. Here's a trimmed and more readable version:
Why did a reporter refuse to interview David Deming after his testimony unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?
I don't know. How does that have
anything to do with this? This appears to be another example of using one person to represent all people/opinions/etc.
Global warming is a bunch of propaganda.
I've posted links to scientific articles, studies, research. You've posted links to radically political opinions. Who's pushing propaganda?
Could you back up any of what you're saying (at least on the scientific end) with actual data? Leave the politics out of it. I'm not trying to push any politician's agenda, I'm simply presenting facts that I've found. I'd really love to see something legitimate from the opposing view point to better educate myself. I believe that global warming is occuring because all scientific evidence that I've seen suggests that. If someone could bring in convincing evidence of the opposite, I'd be all for it.
Code:
Parts of the Northeast United States have been nailed by six to seven feet of snow. No ... that's not six to seven inches, we're talking six to seven feet! For those of you educated in government schools, that would be from 72 to 84 inches. They're expecting another two feet perhaps by the end of the day. Why? Well ... global warming, of course! What else would cause record snowfalls other than global warming?
Oh, and if that wasn't enough for you, then here's some more:
Quote:
One city in upstate New York, Redfield, has accumulated 146 inches of snow in the latest winter storm to roar through. Another major winter storm is on the way .... more snow, more cold weather ... and this one is headed to Chicago. Chicago will pick up a foot or more of snow in the next day or two. . Below Chicago into the Mississippi Valley they're looking at another ice storm on the way. I don't know about you ... but a few more weeks of these cold temperatures and 100-inch snows and I'm going to really be fed up with this global warming.
This is very interesting. I'd like to look at a map, specifically, "North East United States" (which is where Redfield, NY is, so we'll group them into one map).
There are, of course, different opinions on what exactly 'North East United States" actually means, but all opinions agree in this one regard: it includes the Great Lakes areas. This is extremely important (and was conveniently left out of your source's notes).
Breakdown: your "source" suggests that because these areas are receiving record levels of snow that this means global warming must surely be B.S.
However, if your source were a scientist (which he isn't), he'd most likely know about this:
The Lake Effect. When cold dry air moves across large bodies of warm water, the cold air picks up water vapor from the lake and freezes it, depositing it in areas around the lake. So it would appear that the lakes being warmed (perhaps from global warming, perhaps not) actually leads to increased snow levels.
Interesting article comparing snow fall in lake effect areas and non lake effect areas:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 052121.htmNow let's look at one of the places that you called specific attention to: Redfield, NY. Redfield is in an area of New York called the Tug Hill Plateau. This is significant because the Tug Hill Plateau is
famous for record level snow falls.
The location of the region in relation to Lake Ontario often creates ideal conditions for accumulation of lake effect snow.
Now, your source has made a true statement but he presented in a way so as to lead to false conclusions. Actually, and I'll give him this much, it's quite funny. You read his statements as proof against global warming when by his own admission the increased snow is caused by global warming.
They're expecting another two feet perhaps by the end of the day. Why? Well ... global warming, of course! What else would cause record snowfalls other than global warming?
Yes, it's quite possible that global warming lead to increased snow falls through higher than average lake temperatures, but I don't have any data on current and past lake temperatures, so I can't say with confidence that it's true.
RedneckNoob, you really really
really need to find someone with actual data to quote and not propagandized opinions. For someone who's concerned with "information manipulation", you need to become better informed. I'm not trying to insult you with any of this, or anything stupid like that, but I think you might be a little confused on what you're really fighting against.
[/epic post]
