Is AP NEWS Really Unbiased? For ONO :)

"Check out the article  and see what kind of links there are with it. Not one article that says AGW is a hoax by the media and the government to rake in the dollars for 'green energy'."

That's because they are reporting the news, not giving opinion pieces. Climate change is real. It is NOT some kind of conspiracy to "rake in dollars". I admit, there ARE people trying to take advantage of it to make money, but that doesn't change the fact that global warming IS happening.

And no conflicting views are allowed right?  It's not happening. Al Gore faked most of his data and the IPCC panel just plain made stuff up. Or use reports from tree huggers, or bloggers, or paid research.

As long as they only present one view point, they are biased.

But they don't present VIEWS, they present NEWS. It is up to us to read the news and then formulate our views. I can't help it if the NEWS indicates that climate change is real. And neither can they. If there is NEWS that indicates otherwise, then they will print it. But they don't print editorials, and they DON'T inject opinion, theirs or anyone else's, into the news.

So all those scientists who say that we are just having regular warming and cooling periods are all full of *****?

OK ONO, you just keep reading the NEWS.  I'm not going to fight you over this. There is just as much data against AGW as there is for it.

And they do have a slant to the site.

Peace.

LOL, now I can't even use    ' f e c e s'?

This place sucks folks.  I have tried but I can't stand it.  Be by occasional.

CHOW!

B, here is an excerpt from Wiki on the subject of the so-called "climatgate" emails. It shows that the emails were taken out of context and blown into something they were never intended to be. Almost ALL climate scientists are CERTAIN that climate change is real!

Climate change sceptics gained wide publicity in blogs and news media,^[23] making allegations that the hacked emails showed evidence that climate scientists manipulated data.^[2] A few other commentators such as Roger A. Pielke^[24] said that the evidence supported claims that dissenting scientific papers had been suppressed.^[25] The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to ensure the IPCC included their own views and excluded others, and that the scientists withheld scientific data.^[26]

An editorial in Nature stated that "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories." It said that emails showed harassment of researchers, often using Freedom of Information Act requests, but release of information had been hampered by national government restrictions on releasing the meteorological data researchers had been using. Nature considered that e-mails had not shown anything that undermined the scientific case on human caused global warming, or raised any substantive reasons for concern about the researchers' own papers.^[27] The Telegraph reported that academics and climate change researchers dismissed the allegations, saying that nothing in the emails proved wrongdoing.^[28] Independent reviews by FactCheck and the Associated Press said that the emails did not affect evidence that man made global warming is a real threat, and said that emails were being misrepresented to support unfounded claims of scientific misconduct. The AP said that the "[e]-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data."^[29][30] In this context, John Tierney of the New York Times wrote: "these researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause."^[31]

Many commentators quoted one email referring to "Mike's Nature trick" which Jones used in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization, to deal with the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem "to hide the decline" that a particular proxy showed for modern temperatures after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising. These two phrases from the emails were also taken out of context by climate change sceptics including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin as though they referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.^[23] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by skeptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.^[31] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.^[32][33] The WMO graph would have been clearer with separate colours for instrumental and proxy data rather than merging them together, but this was an issue of the WMO requirements for their cover illustration. The graphs in subsequent IPCC reports clearly showed a separate line for the instrumental temperature record, and the 2001 IPCC report discussed the divergence problem as an important caveat to be borne in mind.^[34]

Computer source code and a readme file included in the documents were the subject of discussion in the media.^[35] The readme file indicated to some that "the coder, supremely frustrated with the poor quality of his data, simply creates some [data]."^[36] John Graham-Cumming, a computer scientist interviewed by the BBC, said that the coding divulged was "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software."^[37] In an editorial, Myles Allen wrote that contrary to its treatment by some commentators the code was entirely pe****gical and was not used for any research or analysis associated with the scientific publications showing the existence of global warming.^[35]

Oh those poor TNF munchkins!!!!!!!!!!

Just when they thought it was SAFE to come out and post.

I have a feeling they better be on the lookout for flying monkeys in T-town!!!!!!!!!

Bull S@*#

Skippy

Don't worry dip****, I already said I left that place and I'm not posting there now or in the future.

What happened to Al Gore?

Once his sceme was proven fake, he's gone into hiding. He has made millions

if not billions on this sceme. And the news you refer to is extremely biased.

I'm so tired of this green this green that. It's one of the biggest hoaxes ever upon

mankind(womankind). People and corperations such as GE are getting filthy rich,

while our country is trying to recover with our hands tied behind our backs.

Skippy

And as long as you deny Climate Change, you are just an ignorant person who says nothing worth reading.

Jimbo I am noticing a pattern of short knee jerk responses.

With no thought at all put forth.

Skippy

I think just 'jerk' will cover it skippy.

Deny climate change? Weather is fluid and thus climate varies. Deny man made catastrophic effects on regular patterns of global climate? You bet.

Why was the original data destroyed? To free up a couple of tape reels!  Right! 

http://www.climatecooling.org/

One of those sites that do list data and reports from both sides.


The IPCC Projections do not Comport with Reality

    * CO2 has usually been associated with temperature rise throughout the history of the Earth. It is indeed a greenhouse gas but it operates on a logarithmic function. The Earth's natural processes also contribute, and remove, copious amounts of CO2. Since plants first appeared on the Earth, they have converted nearly all available CO2 to oxygen, fossil fuels, and other longterm removals from the atmosphere. Today less than 4/100 of 1% (379 ppm) of our atmosphere is CO2. This pales in comparison with other periods in Earth's history. Common IPCC scenarios rely on an increasing supply of fossil fuels, yet we know that this is not possible and that production will soon peak (if not already) while prices will continue to rise. It is absolutely unrealistic to think CO2 emissions will rise for the duration of this century.
    * The projected temperature rise is unrealistic, given that the USA and global temperatures have risen by only 1 deg F (.5 C) in 100 years (revised, NOAA, 1 May 2007 ), (or 150 years using the full instrumented data set) during the height of industrial expansion. Even if all this rise is correct, and is attributable to human causes, it is a trivial amount in the natural variation of the Earth, and to suggest the rise would accelerate 5 fold (IPCC best estimate) in this century is incredible. Even after the release of the new data set and procedures by NOAA on May 1, which addressed some of the urban heat island issues and dropped the warming 44% (below IPCC 2007), significant other urban heat island issues still remain. There are also issues of calibration as measurement protocols have changed, issues about the design and placement of the temperature stations, and even the strongly held view by many skeptics that this is a natural rise as the Earth recovers from the Little Ice Age (circa 1500-1900).
    * Sea level rise may have increased recently, but other studies have consistently shown no increase. Even if there is an increase, it is in the order of 1 mm per year on top of the 1-2 mm per year that  has been happening for the last century, this additional amount is 4 inches (10 cm) over the century. This is not trivial if you are in a low-lying region wrestling with land subsidence, but it is barely more than what would be coming anyway.
    * The other forecasts, such as for hurricanes, rainfall, and snow cover, are not significantly different than under natural variability, and will advance more slowly than the decadal oscillations. In particular, if ocean acidity were a problem for shell formation, it would have shown up already in areas where there are naturally high levels of CO2. It has not. Further, the lead hurricane expert for IPCC, Chris Landsea, resigned over the misrepresentation of data by IPCC.

New report from the PA today. Again, they don't make the news, they just report it.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_ARCTIC_CLIMATE_CHANGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-05-03-12-14-51

First, part of the article defies physics/chemistry. Melting Arctic ice can't cause the sea levels to rise. As ice melts, the volume contracts. H2O is one of the few compounds that shrinks when it melts and expands when it freezes. Second, there are no such thing as Arctic glaciers. There are only small islands under the vast Arctic Sea -- certainly not enough for glaciers to form.

Only the melting of the ice sheet and glaciers on Greenland could cause a sea level rise.  For at least 5 years, this was predicted and every prediction proved false.

Take a glass of warm water. Start putting ice cubes in it. The ice cubes will cool the water, but they will also melt. The level of water in the glass gets higher. The more ice cubes you put in, the higher the water level rises.

Melting ice cubes will not raise the level of the water in the glass.

However:

When an ice cube melts in a glass, the overall water level does not change from when the ice is frozen to when it joins the liquid. Doesn't that mean that melting icebergs shouldn't contribute to sea-level rise? Not quite.

Although most of the contributions to sea-level rise come from water and ice moving from land into the ocean, it turns out that the melting of floating ice causes a small amount of sea-level rise, too.

Globally, it doesn't sound like much – just 0.049 millimetres per year – but IF all the sea ice currently bobbing on the oceans were to melt, it could raise sea level by 4 to 6 centimetres.

Fresh water, of which icebergs are made, is less dense than salty sea water. So while the amount of sea water displaced by the iceberg is equal to its weight, the melted fresh water will take up a slightly larger volume than the displaced salt water. This results in a small increase in the water level.

So says Faux news.  I mean, its obvious were not experiencing disturbances in weather patterns.  Do you believe in pollution?

So says the German government who prevented Gore from showing his propaganda film.

You know, using Faux news and teabaggers really is below you, or so I thought.  I guess you went more radical after Obama got elected.

Oh those poor TNF munchkins!!!!!!!!!!

Just when they thought it was SAFE to come out and post.

I have a feeling they better be on the lookout for flying monkeys in T-town!!!!!!!!!

 I saw you flying away. 

Did you get electroshock therapy to ease that seizure you had on the TNF? 

I'm not denying climate change. As a geologist I know it is always changing.

I'm just denying that man is a significant cause of that change.

Many geologists are skeptical of manmade climate change, because we look back well beyond the time of human influence, and see much more radical climate change without our help. 

Obviously, the more ice cubes you put in the higher it gets. Same if you place more H2O in the glass in the form of water.  About 90 percent of Arctic ice is below the level of the sea. Melting decreases the volume. Simple high school physics.

So says the London Telegraph, as well! And, the left wing Guardian.

From science/howstuffworks.com:

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level -- the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

That represents a worse case scenario, not why is happening.

From the Register:

"The rate at which ice is disappearing from Greenland and Western Antarctica has been seriously overestimated, according to new research.

Measuring a disappearing ice cap is actually quite difficult to do, as the areas in question are remote, hostile environments and the exact depth of ice is often unknown. This has caused a lot of argument among climate scientists regarding how much ice is melting and running into the sea, as this affects predictions of sea-level rise and other aspects of climate modelling. (Floating sea ice, like that which makes up most of the Arctic cap apart from Greenland, is less of an issue as its melting doesn't affect the sea level.)

Thus it is that since 2002, NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite data has been used to make an estimate of ice melt from Greenland and Western Antarctica. (The rest of Antarctica doesn't seem to be melting at all - indeed Antarctica as a whole is actually gaining ice area rather than losing it - but some regions in the West are melting. The reasons for this are under investigation.)"

More at:  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2..._ice_loss_estimates/

Greenland ice is the one thing that could cause a sea rise, if it melts.  However, as some of the ice retreats, homes from the Viking settlers are revealed.  Greenland used to be green, with herds of cattle.  I doubt Viking blacksmiths caused the previous warming spell.