All stories and editorials are pro global warming.
2007-10-02 15:28:58 · 11 answers · asked by Steve B 1 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
The media is liberal slanted. Period.
They're gonna tell you what their benefactors want you to hear. Global Warming has become a religion. It's sad how people will buy this crap on the word of a former Vice President who went insane after losing the election!
How did they miss that little detail?
Look at the answers you're getting here. Dana says almost ALL DATA indicates we're causing Global Warming.
Wrong.
Almost all data indicates we contribute UP TO 2% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
Wow. I'm sorry. That 2% must be some killer CO2 because the other 98% is doing nothing but our 2% is?
But, of course... if they speak out against the establishment, scientists are threatened with loss of funding. Gotta follow the religion of man made global warming, despite mounting evidence that we are nowhere near the cause.
Two Percent.
Isn't that the amount of fat in that skim milk?
Hmm... must be responsible for my waistline!
Look, there isn't even documented evidence that it's CO2 causing it. Mars and Venus are experiencing it, too.
Weird, huh?
I don't think we have SUVs there.
Of course... Al Gore can't sell SUN OFFSETS so he has to go with Carbon.
2007-10-02 17:38:20 · answer #1 · answered by Bryan~ Unapologetic Conservative 3 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Everyone is buying into the wrong argument. It is warming. The data says so. How widespread is the warming? Is what warming is occurring due to man and CO2. Are the true issues.
By the way. If the gas tank is full, one drop will make it overflow. So the amount of CO2 contributed by man could be 0.01 and still cause some global warming. Of course there are so may other factors that make the temperature we probably couldn't tell.
So lets change the argument to the causes and the affects of mans activity on global temperature instead of weather global warming is occurring.
2007-10-02 19:57:43 · answer #2 · answered by paul 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because its stories are about new scientific findings, and scientific findings are not 'pro' or 'anti' global warming.
If the stories you're seeing verify the anthropogenic global warming theory, that's not surprising, because almost all scientific evidence indicates that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.
Somebody once said "reality has a liberal bias". Well I don't know about that, but science has a reality bias.
BRYAN - try and learn about the natural carbon cycle sometime. If you can't understand this very basic science, how do you expect to understand the science behind global warming?
2007-10-02 15:41:51 · answer #3 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
They also don't show stories about how NASA faked the Moon landings.
Or about how the Earth is 6000 years old and things like the Grand Canyon and fossils are fakes created to "test our faith".
In other words, they show science, not political nonsense.
That global warming is 80-90% caused by man has been proven by science, as much as anything is proven.
The first website shows the facts. About 40 years ago, man's rapidly increasing production of greenhouse gases overwhelmed nature. The second covers it in great detail with peer reviewed science containing hundreds of references to the scientific literature.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
You can't say this is a "liberal" thing:
"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"
"Pat Robertson (conservative Christian leader) said, he believes “it is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.” Robertson implored, “we really need to do something on fossil fuels.”
Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed." Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart
You can choose not to believe this, just as you can choose to believe the Earth is 6000 years old and that fossils are fakes, created to "test our faith". But you're ignoring the data and denying science when you do.
Skeptics arguments are refuted here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.realclimate.org
Good website for more scientific data and proof:
http://profend.com/global-warming/
2007-10-02 20:36:35 · answer #4 · answered by Bob 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Probably because of the overwhelming data showing that global warming is real.
2007-10-02 15:48:09 · answer #5 · answered by endpov 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Because they agree with the majority of scientists' research and findings? ie in your own terminology they are all 'pro global warming'
2007-10-02 15:42:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Most places of acquiring news have a liberal bias. so they would not tell the truth or at least the whole story.
2007-10-02 18:45:58 · answer #7 · answered by Rocketman 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Perhaps because they don't have a section for paranormal and occults beliefs.
2007-10-03 02:47:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is probable that most are from AP or Reuters or the usual suspects.
2007-10-02 15:31:29 · answer #9 · answered by JimZ 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
There are just too many errors to correct many reports in a short time frame; therefore, I shall focus on a few: "Some extreme weather events — such as heat waves and heavy downpours — are becoming more severe and are occurring with greater frequency." Okay, this shows that these "scientists" have no (ZERO) grasp of ancient Earth history. For one thing, let's assume you believe in the flood; okay, then, these "extreme downpours" are not abnormal compared to what can be. Okay, let's assume you believe that the flood evidences are merely localized extremely severe events. Again, such downpours make these "ordinary." In addition, outside of Biblical or Secular reports, ancient peoples report over and over of unusual/atypical downpours that caused much flooding in their time frames (for instance, read data from Ancient Weather Events circa AD1-AD1000). And that reference is NOT all. That's just a start. I mean, you can continue reading from AD1 to about AD2000. As to heat waves, again, the science of weather is NEW, people. Therefore, to make a boldfaced statement that we have this record or that record is meaningless. It may well be a record (although it is doubtful) within 100 or so years...but is it a "historical" record? We just do not know. Take a look at this: Not long ago, Calif. went through a severe drought. Now, some scientists cautioned (although they were pro-climate change)...but these people cautions not to jump to conclusions that this was climate change. NOPE! Instead, the climate crowd ran to the lies and claimed it was a "record" drought. AND, they claimed "climate change" did it. No, the reports showed it was one of MANY. In fact, some climate nuts hoped that this might become the famed "Mega-Drought" of California history (so, they played both ends). No, that would take a hundred years or so. Sorry. Even the Weather Channel is focused on the "environment" when it makes claims of so much hail as climate change "proofs." Uhhhh, NO. Ancients report the same phenomena in their day...in truth, one report had a chunk of hail that measured approx. 2 to 3 foot wide, 4 foot long, and about 2 foot thick (I don't have the data in front of me but that is approximately the sizes). Yes, the other hails were the size of peas, hens' eggs, "fist" sized, etc. Again, all of this is normal. Ancients report much loss of human and animal life and much property damages from these hail downpours. NO (ZERO) abnormalities. Lastly, I must add that this crap is only a military tactic cooked up by the Communist Party about 7 to 9 decades ago. No, not "conspiracy" theory. Just the Communist Party keeping its word. I know as I've talked to these nut jobs that hate the United States of America. The Communist Party made a promise, and they are KEEPING IT. Period. You must obtain a copy of Mark R. Levin's book: Plunder and Deceit. Now, granted, he is not calling these events "communists"...but, still, it is well researched and will open your eyes....even make you pee yourself with fear....afterwards, you will become extremely angered over the damage caused to our Nation. Plunder and Deceit is published by Simon and Schuster, Inc. Hmmmm, the copyright is 2015. The particular chapter to read (although ALL of the book is frightening as to the dangers our beloved Country faces) is "On the Environment" (starting at page 109, Chapter 7). The EPA is OUR huge enemy, an infiltrative agency to destroy the USA. Read Mr. Levin's book. I beg of you to do so. Please, get it and read it. If you love technology, there are many in the environmental movement that want the USA (only the USA) to de-technology itself and go back to "an easier way of life." So, if you love computers or games or cell phones or I-pads or what have you, FORGET IT. You are evil and hurting Gaia. Shame on you. At least, that's what I've been told by those whom believe this garbage. They claim our technology is killing mother Earth. Just ours, mind you. Again, the Communists I spoke to decades ago were bold and brash on this; this is to disarm America and to cause high prices which bankrupt the people of America and bankrupt the Country. It is a military strategy they are employing. In war, one military tactic is to cut off all (absolutely every single one) supply lines (food, gas, shelter, energy, transportation, etc.). You ever wonder why foreign nations ride bikes mostly? To save the environment? HA! No, you cannot ride long distances to mobilize a military strike force and you cannot fight armored vehicles. Simple military plan. It works and has worked for many a year. Also, get Mr. J. Edgar Hoover's book, Masters of Deceit. Publisher is Pocket Books, Inc. Copyright 1958 (approx.) It is on the Communist threat to America. Mr. Hoover was years and years ago a Director of the FBI. The communist threat began approx. in the very early 1900s. Hopefully, you can find Mr. Hoover's book...before someone tries to buy up all back copies...hopefully, too, they are still out there (I managed to snag a copy).
Now, you are going to have to swallow hard on this next reference...at least, some people will. I know many have a bad image of this man; however, do not let this stop you from getting his books on this vital subject matter. No, don't let it stop you...refuse to give in to prejudice. You must look up Mr. Rush Limbaugh's book titled, See, I Told You So, Chapter 14, "The O! Zone -- An Environmental Update," Page 171, Copyright 1993, Pocket Books Publisher. I know his data is correct as I lived during the time frames he references and heard the very stuff being spouted that he quotes. So, gather your data so as to be better informed. Oh, and also, you should look into another of his books; I know for some folks it is hard to stomach him. Again, try to overcome preconceived notions or prejudices or what you may have heard. Again, the data he has I can vouch for. At times, I've talked to nut jobs that say this crap he quotes of them. At other times, in the past, I've read articles written by some of these...quoted "experts" or seen their televised presentations. Therefore, look into Mr. Rush Limbaugh's book titled, The Way Things Ought To Be, Pocket Books Publisher, Copyright 1992, Chapter 15, Page 152, "Sorry, But the Earth is Not Fragile." Overcome your hate for the man and read the data.
Good luck. Study. Oh, and before I forget, there are some who play the "let's be balanced" on this issue. Let me translate that for you: "Shut up and believe in climate change, you stupid denier." Whilst I realize that some subjects have a balance, this subject's "balance" must (MUST) be only the truth. Anything else is NOT a real balance. In addition, I must confess that I get upset with so many so-called "scientists" being fooled by this scam. Now, I know that the Communist Party said it would infiltrate the sciences (amongst many areas) with their own people. This would account for much of the false data releases. Howbeit, what about those whom claim to be real, reputable scientists? Why have you not stood up against this junk? Look, I know a similar issue arose years ago when it came to evolution versus creation. If those going for jobs or degrees did not give the "evolution" answers, sorry, you got fired, did not get the job or did not get the degree (the establishment kept you out). In truth, you were made fun of and ridiculed. So, I realize that there is a certain amount of "threatening" here, too. Still, get some courage, PLEASE! I don't say this lightly; I know how it feels to get fired due to a "position" that cuts across the establishment's demanded "answers." I also know how it feels to be put down and made fun of (even when I know I am right...I got the straight talk from these fools). AND, I know that the liars can tell a good story. I'm not saying they do not. The Communist Party has been in the business of concocting lies for a long time and are excellent at it. They can say, for instance, that they are for democracy but, all the while, destroying anything to do with it. Yes, they can spin a good yarn. It is the same here with this environmental climate change yarn.
One more thing, there are some that complain that there is an extra abundant rebuttal to climate change issues lately. However, does anyone complain about all the years of this crap? No. Does anyone complain about the flurry upon flurry of stories swearing that mankind is killing the Earth and causing climate change? No. So, it is needful that someone "grows a pair" and answer back to this fairytale.
2016-02-03 08:41:37 · answer #10 · answered by Paul 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋