It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Fox News Smears Scientific American editor after Tweet Regarding Climate Change Ban

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:32 PM

originally posted by: rupertg
Fox News: We Deceive. You Believe

OH that's good!

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:32 PM

edit on 2-5-2014 by amazing because: double post

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:09 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Try watching it again, entirely refutes everything you just said.

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:13 PM
a reply to: Kali74 Are you saying that there were no weather stations on or at the airport ?

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:21 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Oh there were... they aren't used anymore and when they were, you know those temperature adjustments deniers like to throw around? They were adjusting for urban heat sinks etc...

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:27 PM
a reply to: Kali74 Aging weather stations contribute to high temperature records Back in 2007, Pat Michaels wrote in an American Spectator column “Not so Hot“:

“Weather equipment is very high-maintenance. The standard temperature shelter is painted white. If the paint wears or discolors, the shelter absorbs more of the sun’s heat and the thermometer inside will read artificially high. But keeping temperature stations well painted probably isn’t the highest priority in a poor country.”

Comparative analysis of the influence of solar radiation screen ageing on temperature measurements by means of weather stations So you can go to the source or you can go to WUWT and have a gander at the discussion and you can even contribute to give your opinion on the paper . They have a lively discussion form with some PHD's in different fields of study that can help explain some of the more complicated jargon used in science . .

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:29 PM
a reply to: Kali74 Are you denying there is a heat sink signal ?

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:49 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

No I'm not saying that at all. I don't even know how you managed to interpret me that way. I'm saying that there's always been adjustment for such. Problem is Watts etc... just simply say the temperatures are adjusted, then throw out of context quotes from sites such as NOAA explaining that they do make temperature adjustments and fail to include that they're adjusting the temperatures down from sites that have known heat issues.

Now they use an entirely new set of stations, all in remote locations.

Also Pat Michaels doesn't refute AGW, he refutes that it will be disastrous.

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 06:18 AM
a reply to: Kali74 AGW is a complicated subject .I think the biggest confusion is with the computer models they use .The computer fails to accurately predict the past and so it would be foolish to think they have any predictive value for the future . The AGW meme concentrates on one of the smallest particles that even if doubled would not equate to very much in our atmosphere . If it had the effects they claim it does ,then we surely would be seeing it . Because we don't they claim that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans .They have no proof for this but that is what they put forward .

There is good reason to believe that the earth is going into a cool phase and may continue for some time to come .Plan for colder temps is more realistic then warming .I am on the NE and this has been one of the cooler springs I have seen in quite some time .....peace

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 09:10 AM
a reply to: Kali74

"Despite claims of “severe weather is increasing”, and even after several days of tornado activity in the Midwest and the South, 2014 is still below normal compared to recent years according to data published by Greg Carbin of the NOAA Storm Prediction Center."

0506 PM CDT WED APR 30 2014

..2014.. 2013 2012 2011 3YR 3YR 3YR
PREL ACT ACT ACT ACT AV 14 13 12 11 AV 14 13 12 11 AV
--- -- -- --- ---- ---- ---- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- -- -- --
JAN 4 4 75 79 16 57 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 1
FEB 41 -- 39 57 63 53 0 1 15 1 6 0 1 7 1 3
MAR 25 -- 18 154 75 82 0 0 43 1 15 0 0 10 1 4
APR 173 -- 86 206 758 350 31 1 6 363 123 8 1 1 43 15
MAY -- -- 268 121 326 238 -- 41 0 178 73 -- 5 0 9 5
JUN -- -- 125 111 160 132 -- 1 4 3 3 -- 1 2 1 1
JUL -- -- 72 37 103 71 -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0
AUG -- -- 46 38 57 47 -- 0 0 2 1 -- 0 0 2 1
SEP -- -- 21 39 51 37 -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0
OCT -- -- 61 37 23 40 -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0
NOV -- -- 79 7 44 43 -- 8 0 5 4 -- 3 0 2 2
DEC -- -- 18 53 15 29 -- 2 0 0 1 -- 2 0 0 1
--- -- -- --- ---- ---- ---- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- -- -- --
SUM 243 4 908 939 1691 1179 31 55 70 553 227 8 14 22 59 33




The above comes from WUWT But as you can see if Anthony Watts is a fraud then he is peddling the stats we are given by the agencies responsible for it . Now anyone can cherry pick and distort them and that is what we find the pro-AGW team doing .All the prof can be traced back with the main actors and revealed in the climate gate emails .

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 09:24 AM
a reply to: Kali74
In another relate historical climate reference lets look at .. "From Brigham Young University:

Tree rings reveal nightmare droughts in the West

If you think the 1930s drought that caused The Dust Bowl was rough, new research looking at tree rings in the Rocky Mountains has news for you: Things can get much worse in the West.

In fact the worst drought of this century barely makes the top 10 of a study that extended Utah’s climate record back to the year 1429." " the west’s climate usually fluctuates far more than it did in the 1900s. The five previous centuries each saw more years of extremely dry and extremely wet climate conditions."

Once again if Anthony Watts is a fraud you will have to excuse him because he gets his info from the people that study the subjects he posts on his bloug .And does allow dissenting voices to give their opinions ,unlike most pro-AGW sites
Link to the topic

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 11:43 AM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I'm really not interested in a discussion where the goal posts keep getting moved. What we're discussing isn't really the topic anyway. However I will say Watts etc... love to frame the debate by setting up starting points that aren't always (almost never) valid. Case in point... ""Despite claims of “severe weather is increasing”" No scientist is stating that any particular severe weather has increased but that it most likely will and that globally, we do seem to be seeing the weather changing not just severe weather upticks.

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 01:36 PM
a reply to: Kali74 But when was the last period in time when the weather wasn't changing ? And if it's climate ,then when was it not changing and in a optimal state ? You mention goal posts being moved and we find that the IPCC is rampant at it . Each time they change the tune we are expected to conform or move the measuring tape .AGW was global warming /climate change ..Which is it because there is a real big difference between the two terms .

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 02:29 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

The tune has never changed just more evidence gathered and greater understanding, there's a bit more uncertainty as to sensitivity however we still know there's going to be that point when we reach it.

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:16 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1
I always remain highly skeptical of any data released by a governmental agency or contractor, you know you run the risk of putting forth something as what you truly believe as a valid argument, however, that logic is not always true, think for a moment that what if those numbers are incorrect or if certain events excluded, it amounts to nothing, I love when people that back up NASA or anything with science grab a table of data that they really don't know how or who compiled it in the first place, or what the contract terms they are getting paid by require them use or discard, or truly how accurate the event sampling is.

I am not directing this at you but people do this all the time to try and prove certain points, you have to be very careful who is feeding that data to the masses, unless you can truly start observing these things and formulating your own analysis and conclusions, you become a parrot, if you do not even know how the data you present is vetted.

edit on 3-5-2014 by phinubian because: spelling

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:17 PM
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I think I have passed the year and a half mark of removing myself from that bubble. Life is much better. I have a computer a flash drive and err torre.... yeah you know. If I want to watch a show great I can but I no longer flip through channels then find myself watching propaganda from FO..MS..CN... err any of them. I do visit family and find them watching one of the above to where I am astounded that they can pass themselves off as news.

I honestly believe the advent of 24 hour news stations have led to a less informed public. Growing up news had a specific time slot there were investigative reports 60 minutes was eye opening. (I am not even sure if that still runs) Now I have magazine subscriptions many science blogs and of course ATS to where I find myself trying to learn more on each subject. I love search engines.

Actually ATS has been instrumental in opening my eyes not so much from what others post but because there are many times I disagree with something posted by another person so I will use those search engines to find out more to either verify or refute.

Cable news has a way of telling you how you should feel about an issue and I don't care for that. There is no balance with any of them there is no investigative reporting with any of them there is just the opinion and the part of the story they want you to swallow. They are all corporate censored, biased, propaganda machines. They are entertainment more than anything and concerned with ratings and viewership.

I would love to see an actual 24 hr. news station where they bring you the news not the same story over and over on each segment with "THEIR" opinions about it.

Oh well that's my rant on them now back to your regularly scheduled........

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:23 PM
But are you guys telling me that 97% of climate scientists and probably 97% of all scientists are either a. Wrong or b. In on the biggest conspiracy of all time? Occam's Razor would tell us that that is not a probability.

You guys say.. that we aren't taking into account solar cycles and that the earth has warmed up before due to natural causes. Really? You don't think I don't know about that or don't think that all of those scientists in the whole world in every single country on earth aren't taking that stuff into consideration? Really? Because if you are, then you don't know how science works.

You guys are like only listening to the one guy who says smoking is good for you. LOL Or the one guy that says coal is clean energy. LOL Really?

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:27 PM
a reply to: phinubian I totally agree .That is why the WUWT web blog seems valuable to me .There is lots of disagreement and people are really called out by others .If someone like me has a question there are people I can only assume want to give a honest answer .I like to understand the complicated things in simple terms and graphs can be made to look one way if you don't consider all the perimeters . I think that was the deal with Michael Mans hockey stick graph or so it would seem .He wouldn't release his data and the codes he used to make them .I think that there are 3 court cases ongoing that may require him to do so ....

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:52 PM
a reply to: amazing

Well I think this is a fairly accurate depiction of what you just proposed.

Sad thing is that there are probably people who actually believe that.

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 04:08 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

ha.. well said, thank you! That about sums it up!

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in