Now that the "crisis" in the Atlantic Currents has been debunked,?

Question

what will the next piece of evidence of Global Warming that will be shown to be a sham? Will Algore correct an Inconvient Truth for his inconvient lies? See:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293510,00.html

By the way the leftards who slam Fox News should know that the story orignated with the well known far right wing BBC.

Answer 1

Nope. UncleAl will continue to hawk his snakeoil and the libs, progressives, and all others who are afraid of _everything_ (that must be a horrible way to live!) will continue to sink their hard-earned resources into sham carbon credits and other (not so) green enterprises.

Answer 2

Based on the results published in Nature, reputable scientists would conclude that there is not enough evidence to draw any conclusions about long-term trends in North Atlantic circulation. There is incomplete data back to 1957 and a richer data set from 2004 onward. How does data from 2004 or 2005 compare with 10 or 100 year averages? Are fluctuations observed in 2004 and 2005 a departure from the norm or a continuation of the norm? Is there a signal under the noise?

The author of the report cited is Steven Miloy, Fox News' "junk science expert". Steven's argumentative narative belies a lack of understanding about the scientific method. Science advances when scientists scrutinize and improve upon the work of others. The term debunking is reserved for exposing falsified data. The data in the first study are less complete, not falsified. Further, Miloy does not understand science very well because he can't tell the difference between no result (not enough evidence) and a negative result. Miloy is misinterpreting results to serve a political agenda. One would had thought that Exxon Mobil could afford to buy better talent.

Answer 3

Ah. Fox News.

It's not junk science just because it was wrong. That's how science works - you hypothesize, then you test (or observe) to see if you're right.

This wasn't actually evidence though, this was an expected effect of global warming. Whatever.

So far, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that the planet is warming. And there is solid evidence that humans are contributing to it. You're right to ask - will some evidence be shown wrong? That's part of science. BUT - you have to wait until we find out instead of concluding that it's wrong. Until you show otherwise, the evidence shows that global warming is here. If you don't acknowledge that, they YOU are the one doing junk science.

Answer 4

Wouldn't matter. Global warming is a very selective science. Just because Fox news reported it, shows just how untrue your "science" is. In fact, it's more of a crisis just because it was shown on Fox.

Answer 5

Corporate news (Fox) gives corporate view, reality not needed.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/principles.htm

See what is said about Foxnews.
See paragraph 2 line 11:

Keep on watching and listening to Fox.
Just like a computer, crap in crap out.
They spew crud to improve their profits why do you?

Answer 6

LOL
The 'mind numbed robots' of the GW crowd are already chiming in. They see the words 'Fox News' and make their judgements without going any further.

They forget that NO news service gives the whole truth, not even CNN. You have to think for yourself.

Answer 7

Fox is biased just like the dirty hippies...except it's the opposite bias (obviously...). Try to find a news source that actually consults scientists...not jesus-humpers (like...humping his leg and stuff) and republicans who care more about their standard of living and the money they make. Seriously, when you talk to real live scientists, I believe you will find that article is a big piece of crap...

Answer 8

It's doubtful that Al "Chicken Little" Gore will post a correction. :-)

Remember kids: Get your science from scientists, not from career politicians.