Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 124
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,222
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Do you mean DailyMail?

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Dailymail.jpg

    This is what their print paper looks like, its a tabloid that runs stupid stories much like we see at the checkout counter telling us how celebrities are moments away from death of cancer or something despite our seeing them live for decades and decades.

    For my part, if a source is so clueless and bias, they aren't even worth my time.
    I know who printed the article, I'm asking where they got the information. Unless I'm just completely missing it, it's literally not mentioned once in the entire article. They mention professors from different colleges that agree or disagree, but even they don't say where the information comes from. They could be making it up wholesale for all I know.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    I know who printed the article, I'm asking where they got the information. Unless I'm just completely missing it, it's literally not mentioned once in the entire article. They mention professors from different colleges that agree or disagree, but even they don't say where the information comes from. They could be making it up wholesale for all I know.
    no idea. Its a good point. If an article isn't properly sourced, should we be using it in here? I'll be honest, and say I am not certain of information origins for links I have posted. I will try to pay more attention to that now.

    Great point.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,222
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    no idea. Its a good point. If an article isn't properly sourced, should we be using it in here? I'll be honest, and say I am not certain of information origins for links I have posted. I will try to pay more attention to that now.

    Great point.
    All it really takes it "according to [whoever]," and then we can go there to see if it's data that should be trusted. But yeah.. his article seems entirely devoid of that.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,598
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    All it really takes it "according to [whoever]," and then we can go there to see if it's data that should be trusted. But yeah.. his article seems entirely devoid of that.
    I am going to bump this thread and give some more information on this.

    The article is from the MET office (meteorological office) in the UK. The response to the claim is this.

    Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...-october-2012/
    What the tabloid paper did was use one of the highest point in the 1990s (El Nino year) and compare it to today. Its as shaddy as it gets especially when you look at the graph of the entire 2000's.

    Bottom line is the ocean heat content has gone up dramatically over time. Which makes sense if you think about it.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics...telli_Fig1.jpg
    Last edited by dbroncos78087; 11-16-2012 at 05:10 PM.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,598
    vCash
    1500
    IF people want more correlation to storms and Global Warming then look up this nature paper.

    Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07234.html
    The hurricane winds have gone up and from the number of storms have gone up as well.

    As a midwesterner I am more worried about tornadoes than Hurricanes. I found this graph a bit worriesome though.

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...-0112-2011.png
    Last edited by dbroncos78087; 11-16-2012 at 05:10 PM.

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    33,075
    vCash
    1000
    .....I'm beginning to think Science and Politics should be the same forum. Some cross-over with Global Warming, Abortion, etc. and the same mature (comparatively to GD anyway) audience.


    just a thought

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    7,355
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    .....I'm beginning to think Science and Politics should be the same forum. Some cross-over with Global Warming, Abortion, etc. and the same mature (comparatively to GD anyway) audience.


    just a thought
    Noooooooooooooo! I like to post my science stuff where no one will see it, and I like to talk about science in that context, if I want to talk about policy ramifications I post in politics. It works.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,598
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    .....I'm beginning to think Science and Politics should be the same forum. Some cross-over with Global Warming, Abortion, etc. and the same mature (comparatively to GD anyway) audience.


    just a thought
    I honestly didn't know there was a science section here at psd. I think the two could go together personally.

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,588
    vCash
    1500
    people wont be satisfied until New Orleans is under 10 feet of water (lol)

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cool Ranch, NM
    Posts
    18,610
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by D Roses Bulls View Post
    was my link from fox? seriously do your research. and thanks for liking my sig, it's the truth.
    Your sig is the truth?

    Who is your source, Jay Leno?
    DUDA


    Quote Originally Posted by VendettaRed07 View Post
    noah is gonna be a beast man.

    with him and harvey, its like were gonna have Goku and Vegetta in the same rotation

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    2,874
    vCash
    1500
    **deleted post
    Last edited by MagicHero3; 11-19-2012 at 05:40 PM. Reason: bleh

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    2,874
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Wait, maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but attempting to protect and clean the only planet we have to live on is "a complete waste of time and money"? Is that right? So one day when we can't breathe the air (already record asthma rates in polluted areas) and can't see across the Grand Canyon (already bad some days) or when we can't go in the ocean or food sources there die out (record acidity levels in Pacific and a sea of plastic)......where exactly are we going to make any money when there's nowhere left to live?

    Whatever, I'm tired of the immediate dismissal that some people have when it comes to environmental issues. Its so absurd and nobody gives a **** about a problem until it slaps them in the face and its too late to do anything about it.

    Let's keep laughing off the scientific community.
    did him dirty. very nice.

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    2,874
    vCash
    1500
    its pretty simple... think about this, there are some ecosystems in the world that can be affected negatively just by introducing a new element. for instance, you could merely walk into a isolated ecosystem and your body heat could cause the whole thing to collapse and die. just like that. So why is it so hard to believe that burning fossill fuels (which nature never intended to burn) harms our environment? its frikkin science, and republicans wont let go of the bible. for real. let it go guys, let it go. im not atheist, but they use religion as an excuse to sidestep ANYTHING that isnt profitable for them. God created earth, sure, but that doesnt mean we can use it as our sespool. god gave us above-ground pools, but i dont see republicans takin a dump in the water their children play in. you have to MAINTAIN a good environment, and not just say "ah whatev, let nature run its course".

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,997
    vCash
    1500
    It seems there has been no warming over the last 12-16 years, but has warmed over the last several decades. Since the history of the earth shows consistent warming and cooling trends that have nothing to do with human activity, it seems to me we need quite a bit more evidence before concluding that the current long-term warming trend is due in whole or in significant part to human activity. This is especially true since the supposed "cure" is draconian violence to western, free market economies. I also think it is suspicious that so many in the far left, socialist-type community so easily moved into the "Chicken Little, the world will soon end if we don't enact these extreme measures against capitalist economies" environmental movement. I also think it is also suspicious that so many leading AGW advocates have been caught fudging and misrepresenting data so many times.

    I think we won't know with any degree of certainty for another 100 years or so. Most likely, by then, technology will have advanced to a state where we don't have to roll back free market economies to enact whatever fixes we might find are warranted.
    Last edited by Longhornfan1234; 11-22-2012 at 09:51 PM.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justinnum1
    Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,775
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhornfan1234 View Post
    It seems there has been no warming over the last 12-16 years, but has warmed over the last several decades. Since the history of the earth shows consistent warming and cooling trends that have nothing to do with human activity, it seems to me we need quite a bit more evidence before concluding that the current long-term warming trend is due in whole or in significant part to human activity. This is especially true since the supposed "cure" is draconian violence to western, free market economies. I also think it is suspicious that so many in the far left, socialist-type community so easily moved into the "Chicken Little, the world will soon end if we don't enact these extreme measures against capitalist economies" environmental movement. I also think it is also suspicious that so many leading AGW advocates have been caught fudging and misrepresenting data so many times.

    I think we won't know with any degree of certainty for another 100 years or so. Most likely, by then, technology will have advanced to a state where we don't have to roll back free market economies to enact whatever fixes we might find are warranted.
    Please go back and research this topic a little more thoroughly. It has much more merit than you are giving it. Even if a cap-and-trade system is the method that is pursued it would be an approach that is not free market but it would apply the costs of pollution to the polluters. Which is a method that Milton Friedman put his name to. The idea that polluters do not bear the full cost of their pollution makes no sense to me. This was long seen as the biggest failure in economics until it was discovered how to correct it in a semi-free market way. If you create 100 tons of pollution, then you will pay for that emission because otherwise the cost is distributed to everyone through higher doctor bills, worse crops, and dirtier water.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •