Reporter digs into global climate change

Reporter digs into global climate change

There are 14 comments on the Free Republic story from Apr 23, 2011, titled Reporter digs into global climate change. In it, Free Republic reports that:

After spending 32 years in front of the camera as an anchorman and investigative reporter for WCCO-TV in Minneapolis, Don Shelby wanted to apologize to people about climate change.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Free Republic.

bronck burger

Fair Lawn, NJ

#1 Apr 23, 2011
just one more LYING MEDIA FOOL. EVERYTIME THEY OPEN THEIR MOUTH WE know that they are lying.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#2 Apr 23, 2011
"But, he said, climate change is not a pro or con issue; itÂ’s a scientific fact."
-
Give Don a kewpie doll for learning that climate changes.
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#3 Apr 24, 2011
Actually, AGW theory is more a 'scientific fact'. Climate change is a 'very probable extrapolation' based on the science.

There is certianly room for 'balanced reporting' on the misunderstandings of AGW and climate change.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#4 Apr 24, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Actually, AGW theory is more a 'scientific fact'. Climate change is a 'very probable extrapolation' based on the science.
You sound like a broken record, see below, as you argue with yourself.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
There is [certianly] room for 'balanced reporting' on the misunderstandings of AGW and climate change.
"Certianly?"
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
AGW is defined by the climatologiests as a theory, not a hypothesis. And the proper description of theory is 'scientific fact'.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Well, I agree that climate change is a hypothesis, but there is no reason not to teach it AS a hypothesis since it has a lot of support from the science community.
But this was about AGW, and AGW is science theory, aka fact.
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#5 Apr 24, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>You sound like a broken record, see below, as you argue with yourself.<quoted text>"Certianly?" <quoted text><quoted text>
Other than your typo, you complain is that all four quotes are saying the same thing? Or are you too dim to understand what is being said? I wonder about your creeping senility if you really cannot see the consistency of the separate quotes.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#6 Apr 24, 2011
On the one hand you argue that AGW is, "science theory, aka fact," but then argue that, "climate change is a hypothesis," which is arse about face.
Got it yet?
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#7 Apr 24, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
On the one hand you argue that AGW is, "science theory, aka fact,"
Absolutely. AGW theory is that increased GHGs from industrial emissoins and changes in land use are increasing the global average surface temperature. Solid science.
Earthling-1 wrote:
but then argue that, "climate change is a hypothesis," which is arse about face.
No. It is clear distinction between AGW which is science theory and 'induced climate change from AGW' which is a new discipline barely out of its infancy and in no way defined as 'science fact'.

All we really know is that it is almost certain that climate WILL change as AGW increases because we have lots of threads of evidence that global climate is highly sensitive to the global avereage surface temperature as an input.

Not only modelling studies but actual papers of changes in the arctic and paleoclimatology studies.

But it is not theory (scientific fact) yet. We can no more say what part of climate is induced from AGW than we can say when the next asteroid will strike.

We will, however, learn. Ignorance is curable. Stupid is forever. Science can dispose of ignorance but not stupidity.
Earthling-1 wrote:
Got it yet?
No. You apparently don't despite many many posts on the subject. I therefore consider senility as a likely hypothesis. An not just because of your age. In my opinion, nobody can be that dense without a serious medical problem.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#8 Apr 25, 2011
Twisting words to fit your agenda does not help your cause, LessFact, you originally wrote:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Well, I agree that climate change is a hypothesis
Why not just admit that you made a mistake, instead of digging your hole deeper with this BS:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
No. It is clear distinction between AGW which is science theory and 'induced climate change from AGW' which is a new discipline barely out of its infancy and in no way defined as 'science fact'.
Comment of the month for stupidity and full marks for bafflegab.
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#9 Apr 25, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
Twisting words to fit your agenda does not help your cause, LessFact, you originally wrote: "Well, I agree that climate change is a hypothesis"
Exactly. AGW is a theory ( science fact ).

Climate change FROM AGW is a 'hypothesis', not a known fact. It is almost certainy a TRUE hypothesis but he science community has not defined the how and why anywhere near well enough to qualify as a 'theory'.

Again, you support my point while claiming it disagrees. Senility is getting to be almost a given.
Earthling-1 wrote:
Why not just admit that you made a mistake, instead of digging your hole deeper with this BS:<quoted text>Comment of the month for stupidity and full marks for bafflegab.
Why would I claim to be making a mistake when your posts are so clearly deranged and missing a clear point. Not just here but on so MANY other subjects where you 'claim victory' while actually going down in flames.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#10 Jun 5, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Exactly. AGW is a theory ( science fact ).
Climate change FROM AGW is a 'hypothesis', not a known fact. It is almost certainy a TRUE hypothesis but he science community has not defined the how and why anywhere near well enough to qualify as a 'theory'.
Wow, we agree that AGW is fact, although as yet not quantified, therefore the amount of climate change caused by AGW is as yet an hypothesis.
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#11 Jun 5, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, we agree that AGW is fact,
I would like to think that we agree but you always start off with a statement, then deny it. Just like you are doing here.
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>
although as yet not quantified,
AGW is a scientific fact and quite well quantified.
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>
therefore the amount of climate change caused by AGW is as yet an hypothesis.
No. The amount of climate change FROM AGW is a hypothesis because the effects on climate are not quantified.

A very small change in the global temperature can have drastic effects (tipping points) or almost no effect (stable climates).

There will be a range of actual effects which will be hard to separate from the 'climate oscillations' that are generally on decadal scale, but some factors will be easier to isolate than others.

For example, changes to the hydrological cycle (a direct consequence of the temperature changes) will be easiest to extract. Other consequences will have many more bi-directional feedvbacks between different regions and thus be harder to isolate.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#12 Jun 5, 2011
LessFactMorehype wrote:
AGW is a scientific fact and quite well quantified.
<quoted text>
No. The amount of climate change FROM AGW is a hypothesis because the effects on climate are not quantified.
How do you nearly always manage to say one thing, then immediately shoot yourself in the foot, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#13 Sep 24, 2011
NoFactAllHype wrote:
AGW is a scientific fact and quite well quantified.
Really?
NoFactNoHope wrote:
No. The amount of climate change FROM AGW is a hypothesis because the effects on climate are not quantified.
Really?
make your mind up, is it, "quite well quantified" or, "not quantified?"

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#14 Jul 11, 2012
Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty evidently hasn't yet been able to decide whether or not AGW is "quite well quantified" or, "not quantified."
Maybe it just slipped his mind.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

University of Minnesota Duluth Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ex-UMD administrator sues school over alleged r... (Jun '16) Jun '16 Buford 1
News 3 Minnesota-Duluth coaches sue over sex discrim... (Sep '15) Sep '15 Fa-Foxy 8
News UMD sees state funding shrink, leans on tuition... (Feb '14) Feb '14 Student 1
News Duluth frostbite victim has fingers removed (Jan '14) Jan '14 FBI 2
News Green economists challenge UMD study (Jan '14) Jan '14 Jimmy G 1
News Lommel's family, friends pack fundraiser (Jan '14) Jan '14 Trotlinedesigns 5
News Native Canadian women sold on U.S. ships, resea... (Aug '13) Oct '13 Hun 103
More from around the web