PBS Attacked for Allowing Global Warm...

PBS Attacked for Allowing Global Warming Skeptic to Speak

There are 289 comments on the NewsBusters.org story from Sep 19, 2012, titled PBS Attacked for Allowing Global Warming Skeptic to Speak. In it, NewsBusters.org reports that:

If you had any doubts about the level of zealotry involved in today's global warming movement, they likely will be erased by the goings on at PBS the past few days.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsBusters.org.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#102 Sep 22, 2012
LOLROIKWH wrote:
yes the planet has warmed up after the last ice age or the USA would still be covered in ice.........LOL
But man was not around when the planet started re warming..........LOL
Two points, the Little Ice Age didn't end until 1850, there were quite a few humans around at that time.

Man was around long before the last ice age started.
"The Last Ice Age cycle lasted from roughly 60,000 to 20,000 years before present"
-
"The first Homo sapiens, descendants of H. rhodesiensis, appeared in Africa about 250,000 years ago."
-
Do you know anything worth knowing?

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#103 Sep 22, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Two points, the Little Ice Age didn't end until 1850, there were quite a few humans around at that time.

Man was around long before the last ice age started.
"The Last Ice Age cycle lasted from roughly 60,000 to 20,000 years before present"
-
"The first Homo sapiens, descendants of H. rhodesiensis, appeared in Africa about 250,000 years ago."
-
Do you know anything worth knowing?
And you are claiming they were causing MMGW ..........LOL
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#104 Sep 22, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
\
It's not what 'Jeremy' thinks that counts. What counts is what he can show evidence of. His evidence shows that where temps and CO2 are measured from the same sources, CO2 follows temps. If you use a proxy study from the NH and compare it to the SH CO2 values, then you can find some studies that show a different relationship. You can find that same kind of relationship when you compare apples to oranges.
>
>
Hmm,

Seems to me that according to the "nature" link I posted, "Jeremy" did prove the relationship between CO2 rise and warming by studying data from 80 locations around the world....Anyone looking only in apple orchards will be unlikely to find any oranges....

"But, by analysing data gathered from 80 locations around the world, Jeremy Shakun, a palaeoclimatologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues have shown that at the global level, warming followed CO2 increases. The team used seven different records of past temperature, including ice cores, ancient pollen and the chemical composition of fossilized microscopic life.

This is the first effort to get most of the data thats out there together, says Shakun.It's the first hard empirical proof that CO2 was a big driver of global warming out of the ice age. The finding is published in Nature today1."

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#105 Sep 22, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Again?
Looks like it.

fun farts wrote:
...temperature increaes precede CO2 increases and temperature decreases precede CO2 decreases.
Dr Shakun said in the BBC article:
...temperature lags behind the CO2...
fun farts wrote:
Shakun agrees with me.
fun farts is detached from reality.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Looks like now Gord is deceased, you've taken over his role of forum loon, endlessly repeating the same wild lunacy however many people point out your tangent with reality.

Cuckoo!
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#106 Sep 22, 2012
Laughing at One moron wrote:
<quoted text>
Caught in another lie.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/chico-ca/TJQ8...
>
>

You are correct!

MEXITROLL got caught in another one of his lies...

The Moron HERE IS ONE gets all all his disinformation out of the sewer and then he has the nerve to say someone else's words are mu,....what a freak!!!

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Mexico

#107 Sep 22, 2012
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>>
>

You are correct!

MEXITROLL got caught in another one of his lies...

The Moron HERE IS ONE gets all all his disinformation out of the sewer and then he has the nerve to say someone else's words are mu,....what a freak!!!
Tell us why you can't prove anything I have said was a lie?????

Yes you claim I told a lie but you also claim that fraud CAUSED the housing crisis but you can't prove either
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#109 Sep 22, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Two points, the Little Ice Age didn't end until 1850, there were quite a few humans around at that time.
Despite the name misqueue, the LIA was NOT an 'ice age'.
Earthling-1 wrote:
Man was around long before the last ice age started.
"The Last Ice Age cycle lasted from roughly 60,000 to 20,000 years before present"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_per...

Your numbers are way off. As usual.
Earthling-1 wrote:
"The first Homo sapiens, descendants of H. rhodesiensis, appeared in Africa about 250,000 years ago."
That is your claim. Not supported by enough data to be worthy of discussion. According to the "Recent African Ancestry theory", modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis and migrated out of the continent some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, well within the last ice age. In fact, it may have been climate change FROM the ice age that started the migration.
Earthling-1 wrote:
Do you know anything worth knowing?
Do you?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#110 Sep 22, 2012
LOLROIKWH wrote:
And you are claiming they were causing MMGW ..........LOL
I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but I know you wouldn't have a clue where to start looking.
41,252 posts and you've learned nothing other that how to make a fool of yourself.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#111 Sep 23, 2012
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Despite the name misqueue[sic], the LIA was NOT an 'ice age'.
Where did I say it was, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
That's right, I didn't, because it wasn't an ice age, so that was your miscue.
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Your numbers are way off. As usual.
They're not my numbers, they're NOAA's.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/100k.html
NoFactAllHype wrote:
That is your claim. Not supported by enough data to be worthy of discussion.
Wrong again, as usual, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, it's not my claim, it's written word for word on each one of 2,670 web pages here:
https://www.google.com/search...
NoFactAllHype wrote:
Do you?
Yes, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
PHD

Houston, TX

#112 Sep 23, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but I know you wouldn't have a clue where to start looking.
41,252 posts and you've learned nothing other that how to make a fool of yourself.
I see that you have ingested more of your meds. Your post is a direct image of your self. Are you trying to make another ASSumption of your self? Talk about clueless you can't answer a 2nd grade question.
Fun Facts

Alexandria, LA

#113 Sep 23, 2012
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
>
>
Hmm,
Seems to me that according to the "nature" link I posted, "Jeremy" did prove the relationship between CO2 rise and warming by studying data from 80 locations around the world....Anyone looking only in apple orchards will be unlikely to find any oranges....
"But, by analysing data gathered from 80 locations around the world, Jeremy Shakun, a palaeoclimatologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues have shown that at the global level, warming followed CO2 increases. The team used seven different records of past temperature, including ice cores, ancient pollen and the chemical composition of fossilized microscopic life.
This is the first effort to get most of the data thats out there together, says Shakun.It's the first hard empirical proof that CO2 was a big driver of global warming out of the ice age. The finding is published in Nature today1."
Read the study. Then the rebuttals. Then an explanation of the cycle differences between the NH and SH climates. A good. Place to start is a comparison of the antarctic and greenland data.

GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#114 Sep 23, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the study. Then the rebuttals. Then an explanation of the cycle differences between the NH and SH climates. A good. Place to start is a comparison of the antarctic and greenland data.
>
>
O.K Anthony.....
Fun Facts

Fort Worth, TX

#115 Sep 23, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like it.
fun farts wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr Shakun said in the BBC article:
<quoted text>
fun farts wrote:
<quoted text>
fun farts is detached from reality.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Looks like now Gord is deceased, you've taken over his role of forum loon, endlessly repeating the same wild lunacy however many people point out your tangent with reality.
Cuckoo!
I keep asking you to read the paper. Shakun agrees with me in that the antarctic ice core data is a local proxy study. I've said this for a while now. He also agrees with me that the ice core data show temps increase co2 follows. We agree on these points.

Where it falls apart is when he tries to compare proxy studies fron the NH to co2 data fr the SH. Even in the two data sets of ice core data timing differences are noted throughout the entire data set of approx 100 to110,000 years. Greenlands data set only goes back to the eemian when there was no ice.

The next is the NH proxy studies. All proxy studies have dating issues. We have more confidence in the ice cores because they are measuring the same thing using the same methodology.

No so with plankton, unless you are comparing two plankton studies using the same methodology. Even when you do that, plankton studies are very local. Same same with all proxy studies.

What shakun did is to undo the old standard of the agw argument, one reason this is still debated here but is practicaly silenced everywhere else.

CO2 values have not risen from the ice core data value of 280ppm. Co2 values from the antarctic are local to antarctica and no more represent global values then the temps collected from the same ice reflect global temps.

Look at the paper,,,look at each of those proxy studies as compared to the co2 values. You will not see what the newspaper headlines told you you would see.

But to see, you must look.
Fun Facts

Fort Worth, TX

#116 Sep 23, 2012
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
>
>
O.K Anthony.....
Thank you. No expletives or derogatory name calling, I really apreciate that. I am on my phone now. When I get to my computer I will post some of the graphs. You may get to some fr the reference fair game posted. Not sure of that didn't open his link but we were discussing this on another thread.
Fun Facts

Fort Worth, TX

#117 Sep 23, 2012
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>
>
>
O.K Anthony.....
If you are referring to Watts, for me that would be a compliment. I too analyze what I read in terms of mathmatics. If 2 and 2 don't make 4 somethings not right

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Tlajomulco De Ziga, Mexico

#118 Sep 23, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but I know you wouldn't have a clue where to start looking.
41,252 posts and you've learned nothing other that how to make a fool of yourself.
You have been proven wrong on ev

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Tlajomulco De Ziga, Mexico

#119 Sep 23, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but I know you wouldn't have a clue where to start looking.
41,252 posts and you've learned nothing other that how to make a fool of yourself.
Still waiting for your answer on my math for the ROI..........LOL
Fun Facts

Fort Worth, TX

#120 Sep 23, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Despite the name misqueue, the LIA was NOT an 'ice age'.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_per...
Your numbers are way off. As usual.
<quoted text>
That is your claim. Not supported by enough data to be worthy of discussion. According to the "Recent African Ancestry theory", modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis and migrated out of the continent some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, well within the last ice age. In fact, it may have been climate change FROM the ice age that started the migration.
<quoted text>
Do you?
Not 'may have' it did. 50,000 years ago the earth hit max obliquity and the warmest temps in that time period of glaciation. As a result there was a mass migration of humans to various parts of the world.

Max obliquity happens every 41,000 years and is the reason our thermal max of the hollocene was 9 to 8,000 years ago.

Technically we are living in an ice age that started about 2.5 milion years ago. We are currently in an interglacial. Our periods of glaciation for the last 400,000 years have been dominated by the earth's eccentricity cycle. That has not always ben the case.

Prior to 500,000 years ago, our glacial cycles followed the obliquity cycle. Why did it change? We don't know.

There is a lot we don't know, that's not a problem. Most scientists and many others devote their lives to discovering what we don't know. The problem is when the fearfull perceive something they can't figure out and grab the first explanation they can find because they can't deal with the unkown.

Remember thousands of witches were burned at the stake to apease a God that was thought to be angry and causing the advancing glaciers in Europe.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#121 Sep 23, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep asking you to read the paper. Shakun agrees with me in that the antarctic ice core data is a local proxy study. I've said this for a while now. He also agrees with me that the ice core data show temps increase co2 follows. We agree on these points.
Where it falls apart is when he tries to compare proxy studies fron the NH to co2 data fr the SH. Even in the two data sets of ice core data timing differences are noted throughout the entire data set of approx 100 to110,000 years. Greenlands data set only goes back to the eemian when there was no ice.
The next is the NH proxy studies. All proxy studies have dating issues. We have more confidence in the ice cores because they are measuring the same thing using the same methodology.
No so with plankton, unless you are comparing two plankton studies using the same methodology. Even when you do that, plankton studies are very local. Same same with all proxy studies.
What shakun did is to undo the old standard of the agw argument, one reason this is still debated here but is practicaly silenced everywhere else.
CO2 values have not risen from the ice core data value of 280ppm. Co2 values from the antarctic are local to antarctica and no more represent global values then the temps collected from the same ice reflect global temps.
Look at the paper,,,look at each of those proxy studies as compared to the co2 values. You will not see what the newspaper headlines told you you would see.
But to see, you must look.
Beh! Beh! Beh!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#122 Sep 23, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are referring to Watts, for me that would be a compliment.
To anybody who understands science, it would be an insult.

Watts is a fool, his audience morons.

That his blog is called a science blog is a travesty.

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CO2 emissions threaten ocean crisis 17 min IB DaMann 23
Poll What is the most STUPID post made by an AGW'er.... (Sep '09) 25 min many lies little ... 1,128
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 39 min ritedownthemiddle 53,997
News The Global Warming Religion punishes another He... 52 min IB DaMann 2
The Science of GHG 57 min IB DaMann 129
News Who still takes global warming seriously? (Jan '10) 1 hr IB DaMann 30,864
Is CAGW a soteriological system of belief? 2 hr IB DaMann 2
More from around the web