tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post2152914282507928078..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Could the media be biased? Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention 'Lull' in Warming All 92 TimesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-18112685413263820362013-07-15T06:02:53.719-07:002013-07-15T06:02:53.719-07:00"ABC, CBS and NBC ignore 'mystery' wa..."ABC, CBS and NBC ignore 'mystery' warming plateau in favor of alarmism about sea levels, allergies, weather."<br /><br />This translates to "ABC, CBS and NBC ignore scientifically proven warming plateau in favor of funding models that 'justify' alarmism about sea levels, allergies, weather."<br /><br />It's all a bad joke.<br /><br />Are there carbon regulators in the ionosphere that can transfer carbon credits traded from one firm to another?<br /><br />"Carbon credits" are just as valid as "pollution credits" - just ask the Easter Bunny.Vincent Nuneshttp://r8ny.com/blog/vincent_nunesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-3581606424405784682013-07-14T09:41:45.844-07:002013-07-14T09:41:45.844-07:00"Could the media be biased?"
Do wind t..."Could the media be biased?"<br /><br /><br />Do wind turbines kill endangered birds?<br /><br />http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/16/energy-in-america-dead-birds-unintended-consequence-wind-power-development/<br /><br />Do wind turbines kill rare birds?<br /><br />http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/wind/scotland-turbine-kills-rare-bird-as-ornithologists-watch-in-horror.html<br /><br />I tried to find additional stories at old media sites. But not to my amazement, there were none. Now what was the original question....?HughKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-79492717173438453342013-07-13T18:08:43.221-07:002013-07-13T18:08:43.221-07:00I knew about 'Global Cooling' in the 70...I knew about 'Global Cooling' in the 70's and I thought that was a laugh but I had no idea this stretches back to 1895. Just as a side note, Professor Robert W. Wood disproved the greenhouse effect way back in 1909 and many have since then repeated it, yet it seems no one cares. It means Global Warming was never going to be proven, it relies on the GHE which is, well, repeatedly disproved. Yet the battle rages on, why? Even the American Meteorological Society acknowledged it in 1951 but has yet to refute it since-<br />[2] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It shows the American Meteorological Society had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology. The AMS stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-56018593060298421682013-07-12T08:27:02.624-07:002013-07-12T08:27:02.624-07:00Not the first time for this sort of bias by a long...Not the first time for this sort of bias by a long shot. As I pointed out last summer, the PBS NewsHour had not bothered to show its viewers any significant amount of scientific points from skeptical scientists ever since 1996, if not before:<br /><br />"PBS NewsHour global warming coverage: IPCC/NOAA Scientists - 18; Skeptic Scientists - 0" http://junkscience.com/2012/07/13/pbs-newshour-global-warming-coverage-ipccnoaa-scientists-18-skeptic-scientists-0/Russell Chttp://gelbspanfiles.com/noreply@blogger.com