Now Anybody Can Be a Global Warming Expert

[Guest slamminshaun]

Well at least ABC News thinks so....You can send in a story to them on how global warming has affected your life and they'll believe you. How in the holy hell can anyone possibly say that global warming has affected their life this way or that way? What, now everyone's an expert???

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2094224&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[Guest xmuzik]

global warming is now the official crack rock of the new millenium

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

Where in this article does it imply that if you turn in a response that you are an expert in Global Warming?

See peeps....Shaun gives another example of how conservatives twist the truth with his statement...

[Guest slamminshaun]

Where in this article does it imply that if you turn in a response that you are an expert in Global Warming?

See peeps....Shaun gives another example of how conservatives twist the truth with his statement...

Just because they don't use the words "send in the article and we'll label you an expert" doesn't mean they aren't treating you as such. C'mon dude, ABC News is accepting news stories from unqualified sources and you know it.

What next? Send in your videos of Santa Claus?

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

Where in this article does it imply that if you turn in a response that you are an expert in Global Warming?

See peeps....Shaun gives another example of how conservatives twist the truth with his statement...

Just because they don't use the words "send in the article and we'll label you an expert" doesn't mean they aren't treating you as such. C'mon dude' date=' ABC News is accepting news stories from unqualified sources and you know it.

What next? Send in your videos of Santa Claus?

[/quote']But where does it imply anywhere in the article that you would be "treated as such"? Is ABC news giving away some kind of prize or awarding people who respond to this article with some kind of certification that you are an expert in global warming or that your response will be aired as the top story on the evening news??

[Guest tres-b]

They are asking people to discuss how an unproven theory is changing their lives. That is just ridiculous.

[Guest trancepriest]

Lately I've noticed how my penis is growing to enormous proportions... no kidding around I mean this thing is getting HUGE. Since my diet has been the same and nothing much has changed... I have to say that this is attributed to global warming. I'm really scared of what it might look like by the end of summer. You white boys should be happy though... for us blacks its really too much.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

They are asking people to discuss how an unproven theory is changing their lives. That is just ridiculous.

Well I wouldn't say it's unproven. The debate go's on weather or not Global Warming is casued by man or if it is a natural phenomenon. Whatever the case may be, it is happening.

[Guest jamu]

But that huge hole in in the earths atmosphere is a BIG JOKE to a "Non Proven Theory". Which a great deal of the scientist involved in dispproving that theory are on a goverment payroll.

But hey if we continue to keep reading articles from The Association of British Drivers and lavoisier.com I am not surprised that global warming shouldn't be an issue. But hey how many of us truely understand Atmospheric Science enough to argue. And I am sure enough of you have accually seen enough and understood enough satillite imagry to understand whats going on up there.

By the Shaun if you keep with this stupid non exsistent Global Warming issue send me a private email and I will give you the phone number to a real scientist that has studied this phenomena and is not on a goverment contract who accually reads satillite imagry from the Arecibo Observatory Puerto Rico and Trumsford Observatory in Norway. Call him and get your facts striaght.

[Guest slamminshaun]

Yes, and I've read about scientists who proved that plants cause global warming. What's your point? What makes your scientist more reputable then that guy?

The point of the thread was simply that Joe Schmoe can't say for sure how global warming has affected his life, other then being constantly worried about it maybe. I'd be really interested to see the dumbass responses ABC is going to get. I'll be willing to bet the farm that the more asinine the response, the more credibility they'll lend it.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

Yes' date=' and I've read about scientists who proved that plants cause global warming. What's your point? What makes your scientist more reputable then that guy?

The point of the thread was simply that Joe Schmoe can't say for sure how global warming has affected his life, other then being constantly worried about it maybe. I'd be really interested to see the dumbass responses ABC is going to get. I'll be willing to bet the farm that the more asinine the response, the more credibility they'll lend it.

[/quote']Shaun you posted an article once about a scientist that claims that droppings from a group of birds from Canada caused global warming...

[Guest slamminshaun]

What makes these theories less credible then man-made sources of global warming? I figrued anything published by the BBC might as well be gospel for a liberal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

And I thought the bird droppings story was equally credible since I had found it on NPR's own website.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4758128

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/14/tech/main709226.shtml

[Guest jamu]

Well why don't you ask him Shaun, I am sure that he will be MORE THAN happy to answer you on that and any another question you might have on most of the nonsensical articles that you post on global warming. And by the way chances are that he knows who they are, and in his words "the bought out wack jobs" that wrote them.

P.S. Be sure to ask about the funding sources and be sure to question him thoroughly on his expertise. 8)

I'll be waiting for your PM.

[Guest slamminshaun]

What makes these theories less credible then man-made sources of global warming? I figrued anything published by the BBC might as well be gospel for a liberal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

And I thought the bird droppings story was equally credible since I had found it on NPR's own website.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4758128

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/14/tech/main709226.shtml

C'mon does anyone care to respond to this? BBC reported that plants cause global warming. NPR and CBS reported that bird poop causes pollution that causes global warming. Why is it that only man-made sources are credible theories?

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

What makes these theories less credible then man-made sources of global warming? I figrued anything published by the BBC might as well be gospel for a liberal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

And I thought the bird droppings story was equally credible since I had found it on NPR's own website.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4758128

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/14/tech/main709226.shtml

C'mon does anyone care to respond to this? BBC reported that plants cause global warming. NPR and CBS reported that bird poop causes pollution that causes global warming. Why is it that only man-made sources are credible theories?

This is great that you posted this you want to know why? Becasuse these are natural casues of global warming and nature causing pollution.

What is natural about human pollution? Absolutely nothing!

So if pollution caused by things in nature are harmful, then UN-NATURAL pollution caused by humans is exponentially as harmful!

Or perhaps pollution from artificial man made chemicals emitted and disposed of by billions of people around the world is not as harmful to the enviroment as these natural pollutants...because man made pollution just magically disappears..

Our chemicals just seep into the ground and disappear in the soil and our fumes and emittions from power plants across the world just magically disappear into thin air..non pun intended..LOL

[ryan2772]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/index.html

Study: Earth hottest in 400 years

Panel says humans responsible for much of the warming

Thursday, June 22, 2006; Posted: 12:45 p.m. EDT (16:45 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer.

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.

The Bush administration also has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.

Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.

The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.

For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Guest slamminshaun]

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

Hmm...the report doesn't sound the least bit politically-motivated. Sounds like he already made up his mind about it and was shopping for scientists who agree with him. I'm sure Mr. Boehlert had no idea what the report results would be.

[Guest Miss_Digital]

everything causes global warming

global warming is the root of all evil

[Guest sross]

What makes these theories less credible then man-made sources of global warming? I figrued anything published by the BBC might as well be gospel for a liberal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

And I thought the bird droppings story was equally credible since I had found it on NPR's own website.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4758128

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/14/tech/main709226.shtml

C'mon does anyone care to respond to this? BBC reported that plants cause global warming. NPR and CBS reported that bird poop causes pollution that causes global warming. Why is it that only man-made sources are credible theories?

Did you even bother to read the BBC article Shaun? Because if you did, you clearly didn't understand it.

[Guest slamminshaun]

Actually, the BBC article has been edited from the one I remember posting 6 months ago. Here is another link that doesn't give quite the opinionated commentary as the BBC one does. Enjoy!

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34437/story.html

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

Here's an article that came out today saying that the Earth is the hottest it's been in 2000 years

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_sc/global_warming_9

[Guest xmuzik]

when people cut hot nasty latin food inspired gut farts does the methane contribute to global warming or do the leaves on the palm trees swallow it all up ?

[Guest slamminshaun]

Here's an article that came out today saying that the Earth is the hottest it's been in 2000 years

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_sc/global_warming_9

It says 400 years, but nice try.

"Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee, had asked the academy for the report" <--nah, doesn't sound like a politically motivated report to me. You know damn well this guy went fishing for scientists that agreed with him.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

Here's an article that came out today saying that the Earth is the hottest it's been in 2000 years

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_sc/global_warming_9

It says 400 years' date=' but nice try.

"Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee, had asked the academy for the report" <--nah, doesn't sound like a politically motivated report to me. You know damn well this guy went fishing for scientists that agreed with him.

[/quote']Are you fuckin blind man? Read the bold print on the article!!

And here's a paragraph taken from it..

Their conclusions were meant to address, and they lent credibility to, a well-known graphic among climate researchers — a "hockey-stick" chart that climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes created in the late 1990s to show the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years.

Nice try to you!!! Shit I'll never get a mortage from you! You can't even read!! LOL

[Guest slamminshaun]

Here's an article that came out today saying that the Earth is the hottest it's been in 2000 years

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/ap_on_sc/global_warming_9

It says 400 years' date=' but nice try.

"Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee, had asked the academy for the report" <--nah, doesn't sound like a politically motivated report to me. You know damn well this guy went fishing for scientists that agreed with him.

[/quote']Are you fuckin blind man? Read the bold print on the article!!

And here's a paragraph taken from it..

Their conclusions were meant to address, and they lent credibility to, a well-known graphic among climate researchers — a "hockey-stick" chart that climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes created in the late 1990s to show the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years.

It says its the warmest its been in any period in 400 years, then goes on to say its the warmest its been in 2000 years. Whoever wrote that obviously intended to confuse his readers.