DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
20 comments:
I won't say that climate change, or more accurately anthropogenic-induced climate change (AICC), is a slam dunk. But the non-scientific skeptics fail to see that the evidence for AICC is multi-layered and based on the work of more than just one scientist or research group. I am all for factual scientific debate, but much of the criticism is simply political BS from people that haven't even taken the time to review the current information.
The current information has been cherry picked and some of it hidden . What needs to happen is to have a full investigation and prosecute those who were involved in the massive cover up .
10:07, you are so full of crap. so you are going to try and tell us the scientific world can explain the effects of solar flares along with el nino along with every other weather phenomenom on our planet and climate. yeah right, we spend billions on weather forecasting and they can't even get that right. back in the
70's they were forcasting an ice age! Maybe it finally showed up! when you can tell me what the weather is gonna be tomorrow and consistantly get it right come talk to me, until then go blow it out your @ss!
10:07 Is just another one of those liberal / Socialists that will say and do anything for their leader !
Actually 10:07 makes a good point and most of you, as usually, start personal attacks.
Climate change expresses itself in many different ways - some area experience warming and droughts while other see increased precipitation. Amazingly, in the winter time, that precipitation comes down in the form of SNOW.
If you judge GLOBAL climate change based on what's happening on the ES, then you're lacking basic understanding of the scientific research.
Mind you, I am not a scientist, but I would be cautious to draw my conclusions based on the obscure document with a hammer&sickle logo.
No were basing it on the fact the scientist that skewed the information has come out and said there has been no change in the last 15 years . And that the facts showing global warming were cherry picked and other contradictory information was omitted . Sorry if you think the facts are a personal attack .
There is no "climategate" scandal. Nowhere in any of the emails was the science of climate change debunked. People took quotes and tried to turn them into proof.
12:08 Nice try keep hanging on you look foolish !
I see that most rebuttals rely on personal attacks here. But I'm not surprised; it's all apart of the entertainment value of this blog.
For those throwing the "liberal" bombs, I speak to you as a scientist, not a politician. In fact, my whole point was that we need to debate the FACTS objectively. Not simply have another partisan shootout.
Case in point, take the congressman who argue that the recent snow storms debunk the theory. In fact, as alluded to by 11:22, our recent weather patterns would be the expected result of climate change (if it has occurred). This fact is forgotten when we throw all the partisan bickering into the mix. The partisan BS makes you guys also forget one major fact; current weather patterns don't have squat to do with climate change. We are talking about predictions of the overall climate in the long-term, not the present. Although scientists make this clear distinction, you guys still want to (incorrectly) use the current weather as evidence to debunk the theory.
Which again brings me back to the point. Yes, there is still debate to be had. But that debate needs to be on the entire body of evidence, not facts/misinformation/fear mongering being cherry picked by folks from either side of the aisle.
-10:07
Now for individual rebuttals:
10:19, the work of this research group has been called into question, yes. But evidence supporting climate change theory has been gathered from scientists around the world.
10:26, patterns that are as complex as the weather are expected to be highly variable in the short term. Global climate change delves into long-term trends.
11:01, simply shows how the partisan hysteria has tainted any and all debate on key issues.
-10:07
Stop playing the victim no one has made a personal attack. Global warming started at the end of the last ICE AGE last time I checked we had no cars back then not to mention Greenland used to be green . The whole global warming emergency was a scam they used the theory of one scientist who others disagreed with . There is no evidence of man made global warming and there is no evidence of the EARTH warming that could be contributed to anything abnormal !
10:07,1:23......take that test tube out of your arse and get to a fair and balanced news channel. Yesterday the lead scientist involved in this climate scandal came forward and openly admitted in an interview, that the entire mess was purposely slanted and tainted to fit an agenda. When you look at the scale of 1000 years and more...it is well within the peaks and valleys {heating and cooling}
10:19
You seem to be leaving out one tensie little problem.
The CRU and the university of east anglia is the heart or hub of information that all of teh other scientists based their reseach on.
If the trend data from UEA is flawed so is all the research based on that data.
You lefties just won't let go of your climate change religion will you?
4:55 again what you fail to understand is that while other researchers harken back to this data, especially within their publications, they are still running independent analysis. The same is true for all sciences. The discovery of the antibacterial properties of fungal metabolites (which led to penicillin) was a "flawed" experiment, yet this still forms the basis that led to the development of the antibiotics we have today.
Again you show how this debate is poisoned by politics with your so-called "leftie" label. I aknowledge an ongoing debate and admit that their are strong arguments against the theory. But yet as so many idealogues do, when a differing point of view is introduced, the first instinct is to discredit the person.
5:05 I don'tthink scientists were fudging the data on penicillin for political points and financial gain . This was never a unbiased analysis they started out with an objective and conformed the information to fit it that is not science !
9:25 point taken. But "..started out with an objective and conformed" is painting the world body of scientists with a mighty broad stroke of the brush. My major concern is that we allow politics to taint a scientific debate (both from the left and right) in the first place.
9:25 and 9:40, are these the same scientists who were being paid by the drug companies to whip the flames of hysteria about swine flu?
all of these so called scientific centers should be made to release who's funding them at the bottom of their analysis! like one earlier commentor said, these were predictions! we could have done better with a psychic and a set of tarot cards! lol!
predict this, when will the public get tired of your pseudo science and wise up?
From what I've read it wasn't a body of scientists who did the research it was the findings of one Asian scientist and they ran with it. Your right as far as politics driving it . Seems to be a conspiracy against oil use in this country .
10:38, swine flu is a prime example of what I rail against. It was many of the scientists who stated several facts regarding swine flu but the pols and the drug companies who blow it up into an "Oh My God" moment.
And FYI, most scientists are required (either implicitly or explicitly) to publish their funding source.
All I know is that Al Gore has made millions and a Nobel peace prize which is laughable in light of things but I guess he's laughing all the way to the bank !
Post a Comment