Global Warming is B-S

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-02-19 11:32pm

Are the Media Giving You the Whole Story on Global Warming?
By David Holcberg

Reports on global warming fill our screens and newspapers. Time magazine's April issue, for example, carried a sixteen-page special report on global warming, featuring a frying earth on its cover. "Global Warming Is Real and Not Going Away," declared a recent front page of USA Today. "Global Warming Is Getting Worse," announced a recent headline in the New York Times. Yet, despite the extensive coverage, there is much on global warming that is left unreported.
Take for instance the cooling trend in the lower five miles of the atmosphere, detected by weather balloons, and independently confirmed by NASA's orbiting satellites. This data, gathered from all over the globe, through precise microwave and radio measurements, shows an average drop of 0.19ºF in air temperature since 1979. The National Academy of Sciences finds this cooling trend, which conflicts with the global warming hypothesis, "so pronounced as to be difficult to explain."
Most media reports ignore the evidence for cooling and focus instead on records from land stations, which indicate a 1°F increase in surface temperatures during the 20th century. What they fail to report is that this increase was measured mostly in and around urban centers, and therefore indicates urban—not global—warming.
Also left unreported is the fact that 90 percent of this 1°F urban warming occurred before 1940. If carbon dioxide emitted by industries and cars was causing this warming, should not most of the increase in temperature have occurred after 1940, when industries and cars became more plentiful and, consequently, carbon emissions increased significantly?
Even more interesting, but also left unreported, is the fact that from 1946 until 1975, while industrialization expanded and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased, urban surface temperatures actually cooled. At the time, many in the media feared a new ice age.
Such facts throw into question the belief that global warming exists and that industrialization is affecting the earth's temperature. Nevertheless, the New York Times recently stated: "Human activity is the dominant force behind . . . global warming."
If man is not the cause of climate change, what is?
Dr. Fred Singer, professor of environmental sciences and former director of the National Weather Satellite Service, explains that climate change is a natural phenomenon, which has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. Ice core samples from the Arctic, for example, show an 18ºF temperature variation during the last 160,000 years. Dr. Singer further notes that solar activity greatly affects the temperatures and the climate on earth.
But most reports in the media ignore the existence of dissenting views such as Dr. Singer's. According to Scientific American, "few scientists doubt the atmosphere is warming." Time magazine bluntly claims: "Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening."
Any reporter actively in search for the facts on global warming would easily discover that during the last three years more than 17,000 American scientists, including geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, and oceanographers, have signed the Oregon Petition declaring that "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." [http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm]
Such omissions on the part of reporters are unjustifiable, and so are their irresponsible attempts to scare people. CNN warns of "disastrous weather changes" resulting in "more floods, droughts, storms, and hurricanes." Scientific American forecasts "death by drowning or starvation" and the "emergence, resurgence and spread of infectious disease."
But many scientists, among them Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, think that the catastrophic scenarios are mistaken, and that a warming of the earth would actually be beneficial to mankind and to life in general: "Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions." Furthermore, increases in carbon dioxide would boost the growth of crops and forests, which feed on this gas.
Given all this contrary evidence and scientific dissent, why is the bulk of reporting biased towards the belief in a disastrous, man-made global warming?
The answer is that the media have largely accepted the environmentalist premise that civilized man—by exploiting nature to fulfill his needs—is not the creator but the destroyer of human values. This non-objective premise is held with blind, religious fervor. Holding the premise dogmatically, the media have no eyes or ears for evidence against it. Their view of man as inherently destructive automatically leads them to distrust all that man creates. That is why most reporters unquestioningly report that factories, power plants, and cars are causing a catastrophic global warming. And that is why thirty years ago they unquestioningly reported that factories, power plants, and cars were causing a catastrophic global cooling.
If you want to know the truth about global warming—or acid rain, or the ozone hole, or any other environmental issue—you must keep in mind that the media are not giving you the true story. And the reason for that is very simple. They are reporting on the world as they see it: distorted through green lenses.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-20 12:40am

<4 other threads with exact same subject matter detected>
<assessing course of action>
<course of action assessed>
<thread hijack in progress>

This data, gathered from all over the globe ...

It's "these data." "Data" is plural. You don't say, "This things," do you? For fuck's sake, I know English majors who consistently get this wrong. What's so damned hard to understand about "datum" being singular and "data" being plural?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-20 12:54am

"Data" is latin, dear Durandal

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-20 01:06am

kojikun wrote:"Data" is latin, dear Durandal

Um ... OK.

Specialist · Post by **Specialist** » 2003-02-22 12:49am

kojikun wrote:"Data" is latin, dear Durandal

No, he was created on some no-name colony.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-22 12:50am

lmfao

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-02-22 06:05am

Yeah, data is latin, so what?
It's still the plural of datum, which is also latin.

This datum, these data.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-02-23 08:42pm

yeah but not knowing the plurality and singularity of the word isnt not knowing english.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-02-24 03:06am

Journalists that have no degree in biology, and that have no expertise in this field, have no place to say that global warming does not exist.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-02-24 06:12am

Durandal wrote:<4 other threads with exact same subject matter detected>
<assessing course of action>
<course of action assessed>
<thread hijack in progress>

I hope your not becoming an AI, Durandal.....

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-02-24 06:59am

I'm pretty sure his intelligence is genuine.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-02-24 07:51am

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Durandal wrote:<4 other threads with exact same subject matter detected>
<assessing course of action>
<course of action assessed>
<thread hijack in progress>

I hope your not becoming an AI, Durandal.....

rvalencia... the SECOND!

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-02-24 09:23am

I found this data at Dictionary.com :

The word data is the plural of Latin datum, “something given,” but it is not always treated as a plural noun in English. The plural usage is still common, as this headline from the New York Times attests: “Data Are Elusive on the Homeless.” Sometimes scientists think of data as plural, as in These data do not support the conclusions. But more often scientists and researchers think of data as a singular mass entity like information, and most people now follow this in general usage. Sixty percent of the Usage Panel accepts the use of data with a singular verb and pronoun in the sentence Once the data is in, we can begin to analyze it. A still larger number, 77 percent, accepts the sentence We have very little data on the efficacy of such programs, where the quantifier very little, which is not used with similar plural nouns such as facts and results, implies that data here is indeed singular.

Thanks to the courageous efforts of people like David Holcberg, we shall soon be able to use the term "this data" and not be looked down upon.