Polar Bears, Dead Coral and Other Climate Fictions

[Glorantha]

Recent WSJ editorial : wsj.com (https://www.wsj.com/articles/polar-bears-dead-coral-and-other-climate-fictions-528b18ea?mod=opinion_lead_pos6)

I always find it interesting when past “truths” are given a fresh look. Whenever I hear claims of settled science, I am always leery.

[tophcfa]

Recent WSJ editorial : wsj.com (https://www.wsj.com/articles/polar-bears-dead-coral-and-other-climate-fictions-528b18ea?mod=opinion_lead_pos6)

I always find it interesting when past “truths” are given a fresh look. Whenever I hear claims of settled science, I am always leery.

Being a scuba diver, I can tell you first hand that the dying of coral reefs is very real, and extremely saddening : (

[fdpaq0580]

Being a scuba diver, I can tell you first hand that the dying of coral reefs is very real, and extremely saddening : (

True. And very sad indeed.

[Taltarzac725]

Being a scuba diver, I can tell you first hand that the dying of coral reefs is very real, and extremely saddening : (

Thanks for putting some light on facts.

[Cliff Fr]

Being a scuba diver, I can tell you first hand that the dying of coral reefs is very real, and extremely saddening : (

I used to hear that what was killing the coral in the Keys was runoff from septic tanks? That's not true anymore?

[ThirdOfFive]

"While you’ll find no shortage of headlines declaring that polar bears face extinction, the numbers tell a different story.

The State of the Polar Report 2018 put the new global mid-point estimate [of the polar bear population] at more than 30,000.

Data from conservation groups and the government show that the polar bear population is roughly five times what it was in the 1950s and three or four times what it was in the 1970s when polar bears became protected under international treaty.

In fact, though polar bears were placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act in 2008 over concerns that its Arctic hunting grounds were being reduced by a warming climate, the polar bear population has been stable for the last three decades.

In 1984, the polar bear population was estimated at 25,000. In 2008, when polar bears were designated a protected species, The New York Times noted that number remained unchanged: “There are more than 25,000 bears in the Arctic, 15,500 of which roam within Canada’s territory.”

New estimates from the International Union for Conservation of Nature show a mid-point estimate of 26,500 (range: 22,000 to 31,000) in 2015. In The State of the Polar Report 2018, zoologist Susan J. Crockford says updates to IUCN data put the new global mid-point estimate at more than 30,000." (fee dot org website)

Shouldn't all the polar bears be dead by now?

[fdpaq0580]

"While you’ll find no shortage of headlines declaring that polar bears face extinction, the numbers tell a different story.

The State of the Polar Report 2018 put the new global mid-point estimate [of the polar bear population] at more than 30,000.

Data from conservation groups and the government show that the polar bear population is roughly five times what it was in the 1950s and three or four times what it was in the 1970s when polar bears became protected under international treaty.

In fact, though polar bears were placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act in 2008 over concerns that its Arctic hunting grounds were being reduced by a warming climate, the polar bear population has been stable for the last three decades.

In 1984, the polar bear population was estimated at 25,000. In 2008, when polar bears were designated a protected species, The New York Times noted that number remained unchanged: “There are more than 25,000 bears in the Arctic, 15,500 of which roam within Canada’s territory.”

New estimates from the International Union for Conservation of Nature show a mid-point estimate of 26,500 (range: 22,000 to 31,000) in 2015. In The State of the Polar Report 2018, zoologist Susan J. Crockford says updates to IUCN data put the new global mid-point estimate at more than 30,000." (fee dot org website)

Shouldn't all the polar bears be dead by now?

No! Thanks to being protected.

[tophcfa]

I used to hear that what was killing the coral in the Keys was runoff from septic tanks? That's not true anymore?

Reefs close to the shoreline are definitely negatively affected by shoreline development and the associated stuff that winds up in the ocean. However, that doesn’t explain the bleaching of the reefs much further off the shoreline or in areas with little to no development. Close to the shoreline, boats dropping anchor on the reefs is also a major source of damage.

[fdpaq0580]

Reefs close to the shoreline are definitely negatively affected by shoreline development and the associated stuff that winds up in the ocean. However, that doesn’t explain the bleaching of the reefs much further off the shoreline or in areas with little to no development. Close to the shoreline, boats dropping anchor on the reefs is also a major source of damage.

Oceans are water. Wind, currents, earth rotation, waves movement of sea creatures and Shipping, and other forces mix/stir/blend thing into the water like a spoon stirring cream and sugar into your coffee or tea. The Oceans are affected from top to bottom, world wide. Just like your whole cup of coffee or tea is creamy and sweet..

[fdpaq0580]

I used to hear that what was killing the coral in the Keys was runoff from septic tanks? That's not true anymore?

Still true. But there is lots more involved than just sceptic tanks.

[44Apple]

I believe little that is put out by a Rupert Murdoch publication.

[bmcgowan13]

I believe little that is put out by a Rupert Murdoch publication.

Isn't that disappointing though? It used to be newspapers/reporters put out facts for us to form our own opinion. Now...they are forums for "political commentators"--not "newsmen" (from the likes of Cronkite, Russel, Huntley, Reasoner, Mudd, Jennings, Murrow, Mike Wallace, etc.)

I read the entire WSJ article. Mr. Lomborg certainly has strong opinions on the subject. He has a Phd in Political Science--not environmental science. He is selling/shilling a book.

Here is some information about the Dr. Lomborg from the London School of Economics.

A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment (https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/#:~:text=Bjorn%20Lomborg's%20new%20book%20False,ta ckle%20rising%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions)

The WSJ offered this up as an editorial...commentary....opinion. But that is not how the story is being quoted. People are quoting Mr/Dr Lomborg's opinion as facts. Not unlike when FOX was sued by Dominion Voting and FOX lawyers presented the legal defense that their people are NOT news reporters--they are political commentators just repeating what others have said do they are not required to "report" stories accurately. FOX News settled for over $750 million dollars--so much for defending the truth of their statements. I do not ever remember Walter Cronkite being sued.

This story was an "editorial" by Lomborg.

Are there any reliable/faithful news outlets anymore? Maybe the BBC?

[frayedends]

I’m sure I recently watched a video on how awesome the Great Barrier Reef was doing despite the dire predictions of the past.

[fdpaq0580]

I’m sure I recently watched a video on how awesome the Great Barrier Reef was doing despite the dire predictions of the past.

Tourism video? Or anti environmental propaganda by big oil/industry and others who profit from deregulation of protection for the planet we call home?

[bmcgowan13]

I’m sure I recently watched a video on how awesome the Great Barrier Reef was doing despite the dire predictions of the past.

Please share-- We have a scuba diver online (I am one also since 1978) who would enjoy seeing that the GBR is thriving again...

The Smithsonian Ocean, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Australian Institute of Reef Science, Al Jazeera, UNIESCO, the Queensland Government World Wildlife Foundation, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and the BBC say otherwise.

But if you have contrary video--please post so we can root out these naysayers and plan some trips!

Costa Rice is fantastic for diving--second only to the GBR....but only a 2-hour flight from Orlando.

[bmcgowan13]

Tourism video? Or anti environmental propaganda by big oil/industry and others who profit from deregulation of protection for the planet we call home?

WHAT? Are you saying companies like tobacco/oil/car/big pharma/Boeing/Koch Industries fund "scientific studies' for fake news to air to show they are legit? IMS...

This is who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation...

From Wiki...

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[10] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[11] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organisation.[12]

In May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016 and 2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty.[13]

The Gl...och brothers - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gl...och%20brothers).

But--few of us (me included) bothered to check out the source/author to determine any bias/motive (if any) we just click on the first article that confirms our bias/stance--and then go vote...:-( It takes less time to google the author than to read a false/misleading/paid-for article.

Cigarette manufactures had doctors and Ronald Regan promoting the health benefits of cigarettes in the 1950's.

:throwtomatoes:

[JMintzer]

Isn't that disappointing though? It used to be newspapers/reporters put out facts for us to form our own opinion. Now...they are forums for "political commentators"--not "newsmen" (from the likes of Cronkite, Russel, Huntley, Reasoner, Mudd, Jennings, Murrow, Mike Wallace, etc.)

I read the entire WSJ article. Mr. Lomborg certainly has strong opinions on the subject. He has a Phd in Political Science--not environmental science. He is selling/shilling a book.

Here is some information about the Dr. Lomborg from the London School of Economics.

A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment (https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/#:~:text=Bjorn%20Lomborg's%20new%20book%20False,ta ckle%20rising%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions)

The WSJ offered this up as an editorial...commentary....opinion. But that is not how the story is being quoted. People are quoting Mr/Dr Lomborg's opinion as facts. Not unlike when FOX was sued by Dominion Voting and FOX lawyers presented the legal defense that their people are NOT news reporters--they are political commentators just repeating what others have said do they are not required to "report" stories accurately. FOX News settled for over $750 million dollars--so much for defending the truth of their statements. I do not ever remember Walter Cronkite being sued.

This story was an "editorial" by Lomborg.

Are there any reliable/faithful news outlets anymore? Maybe the BBC?

ABC & George Stephanopoulos are currently being sued by a certain political candidate...

CNN settled a $275 million lawsuit for lying about Nick Sandman...

The WaPO settled a $250 million with Sandman in another lawsuit...

NBC was sued for faking explosions on Ford Pick-up trucks...

But sure, Fox News is the problem... Everybody drink!

[JMintzer]

Please share-- We have a scuba diver online (I am one also since 1978) who would enjoy seeing that the GBR is thriving again...

The Smithsonian Ocean, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Australian Institute of Reef Science, Al Jazeera, UNIESCO, the Queensland Government World Wildlife Foundation, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and the BBC say otherwise.

But if you have contrary video--please post so we can root out these naysayers and plan some trips!

Costa Rice is fantastic for diving--second only to the GBR....but only a 2-hour flight from Orlando.

Does this help?

Is the Great Barrier Reef making a comeback? (https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-the-great-barrier-reef-making-a-comeback/)

[Stu from NYC]

ABC & George Stephanopoulos are currently being sued by a certain political candidate...

CNN settled a $275 million lawsuit for lying about Nick Sandman...

The WaPO settled a $250 million with Sandman in another lawsuit...

NBC was sued for faking explosions on Ford Pick-up trucks...

But sure, Fox News is the problem... Everybody drink!

The problem is journalists are anything but these days

[dhdallas]

Recent WSJ editorial : wsj.com (https://www.wsj.com/articles/polar-bears-dead-coral-and-other-climate-fictions-528b18ea?mod=opinion_lead_pos6)

I always find it interesting when past “truths” are given a fresh look. Whenever I hear claims of settled science, I am always leery.

A mother polar bear comforts her cub on a melting ice floe. Take a good look at this...it is happening and is undeniable. Humans and our selfishness are responsible for these poor animals who die frightened and confused. You have to be completely devoid of feeling if you can look at this and not feel immense sadness and guilt.
https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/members/dhdallas-118996/albums/golfing-in-tv/10444-443714382-1140336067301404-6028336396105774551-n.jpg

[fdpaq0580]

WHAT? Are you saying companies like tobacco/oil/car/big pharma/Boeing/Koch Industries fund "scientific studies' for fake news to air to show they are legit? IMS...

This is who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation...

From Wiki...

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[10] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[11] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organisation.[12]

In May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016 and 2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty.[13]

The Gl...och brothers - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gl...och%20brothers).

But--few of us (me included) bothered to check out the source/author to determine any bias/motive (if any) we just click on the first article that confirms our bias/stance--and then go vote...:-( It takes less time to google the author than to read a false/misleading/paid-for article.

Cigarette manufactures had doctors and Ronald Regan promoting the health benefits of cigarettes in the 1950's.

:throwtomatoes:

I wasn't saying. I was asking. ? Is a question mark.

[fdpaq0580]

A mother polar bear comforts her cub on a melting ice floe. Take a good look at this...it is happening and is undeniable. Humans and our selfishness are responsible for these poor animals who die frightened and confused. You have to be completely devoid of feeling if you can look at this and not feel immense sadness and guilt.
https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/members/dhdallas-118996/albums/golfing-in-tv/10444-443714382-1140336067301404-6028336396105774551-n.jpg


There are many who would and will continue to deny the truth because the lies they tell and pretend to believe in, they think, absolve them from from any responsibility. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We'll, it's broke.
Zoom in and look at the cub. That poor baby bear is very like dead now, unless the photographer managed to save it. A cub that size laks the fat to survive the temperature of the water.

[MorTech]

I always thought it was funny when the idiot box mockingbird media showed the same file footage of a single polar bear floating of a small piece of ice whenever the news propagandists talked about global warming. You would think people would have the basic ability to catch on to their indoctrination technics.

[Stu from NYC]

Journalists these days have a point of view which supercedes being objective.

[Normal]

Journalists these days have a point of view which supercedes being objective.

News reporting is biased now. I don’t know how we lost objectivity. Perhaps it isn’t taught anymore? It used to be the fundamental of journalism. It seems now everything is written to support an agenda.

Like Einstein once said, “ If the facts don’t fit the theory, then change the facts. “

[golfing eagles]

Please share-- We have a scuba diver online (I am one also since 1978) who would enjoy seeing that the GBR is thriving again...

The Smithsonian Ocean, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the Australian Institute of Reef Science, Al Jazeera, UNIESCO, the Queensland Government World Wildlife Foundation, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and the BBC say otherwise.

But if you have contrary video--please post so we can root out these naysayers and plan some trips!

Costa Rice is fantastic for diving--second only to the GBR....but only a 2-hour flight from Orlando.

And what do all those organizations have in common????

A: they want your donations

So ask yourself----what advertising tactic will garner them more $$$$?

a) Everything is just fine, the oceans are doing great, keep up the good work, OR

b) Chicken Little, the sky is falling, it's imminent and we need to act now

Pretty much answers its own question, except to the indoctrinated and brainwashed.

[golfing eagles]

WHAT? Are you saying companies like tobacco/oil/car/big pharma/Boeing/Koch Industries fund "scientific studies' for fake news to air to show they are legit? IMS...

This is who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation...

From Wiki...

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[10] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[11] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organisation.[12]

In May 2022, OpenDemocracy reported that tax filings in the US revealed that GWPF had taken money from US 'dark money' sources, including $620,259 from the Donors Trust between 2016 and 2020. The Donors Trust has in turn received significant funding from the Koch brothers. The group also received funding from the Sarah Scaife foundation, set up by the heir to an oil and banking dynasty.[13]

The Gl...och brothers - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gl...och%20brothers).

But--few of us (me included) bothered to check out the source/author to determine any bias/motive (if any) we just click on the first article that confirms our bias/stance--and then go vote...:-( It takes less time to google the author than to read a false/misleading/paid-for article.

Cigarette manufactures had doctors and Ronald Regan promoting the health benefits of cigarettes in the 1950's.

:throwtomatoes:

And which organizations does Soros support?????

[ThirdOfFive]

Isn't that disappointing though? It used to be newspapers/reporters put out facts for us to form our own opinion. Now...they are forums for "political commentators"--not "newsmen" (from the likes of Cronkite, Russel, Huntley, Reasoner, Mudd, Jennings, Murrow, Mike Wallace, etc.)

I read the entire WSJ article. Mr. Lomborg certainly has strong opinions on the subject. He has a Phd in Political Science--not environmental science. He is selling/shilling a book.

Here is some information about the Dr. Lomborg from the London School of Economics.

A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment (https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/#:~:text=Bjorn%20Lomborg's%20new%20book%20False,ta ckle%20rising%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions)

The WSJ offered this up as an editorial...commentary....opinion. But that is not how the story is being quoted. People are quoting Mr/Dr Lomborg's opinion as facts. Not unlike when FOX was sued by Dominion Voting and FOX lawyers presented the legal defense that their people are NOT news reporters--they are political commentators just repeating what others have said do they are not required to "report" stories accurately. FOX News settled for over $750 million dollars--so much for defending the truth of their statements. I do not ever remember Walter Cronkite being sued.

This story was an "editorial" by Lomborg.

Are there any reliable/faithful news outlets anymore? Maybe the BBC?
Unfortunately it seems...not really. Especially not those identified as American outlets. They all seem to share one unfortunate trait in common, and that is preaching (via slanted writing, selective presentation of the facts or other means) to a certain segment of American society. Some are over-the-top blatant. Others are a bit more clever. But they all suffer from the same malady thus rendering the "news" they present, to a greater or lesser extent, more propaganda than anything else.

I've been going to foreign sources for over a decade now, preferably those without a dog in the particular fight in question. Australia has some good sources: Sydney Morning Herald, for one. For Asia, the best source by far is Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan news in English): They're comprehensive, even-handed for the most part, and dig far deeper into stories than American sources do. For the Middle East, it is The Jerusalem Post and (oddly enough) al-Jazeera, both of which, though on opposite ends of whatever spectrum is in effect over there, do a suprisingly good job with the facts of the story. For Europe, BBC and BBC America (different entities), but all European capitols and other large European cities print their major newspapers in English.

They all do a far better job of news reporting than any American source I can think of. American sources, to a greater or lesser extent, have learned that Americans' hunger for validation at the expense of true information is, unfortunately, a gold mine.

[spd2918]

A mother polar bear comforts her cub on a melting ice floe. Take a good look at this...it is happening and is undeniable. Humans and our selfishness are responsible for these poor animals who die frightened and confused. You have to be completely devoid of feeling if you can look at this and not feel immense sadness and guilt.
https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/members/dhdallas-118996/albums/golfing-in-tv/10444-443714382-1140336067301404-6028336396105774551-n.jpg

Ice formation and ice melting is seasonal. The propaganda photo you posted is a scene thay has been repeated over centuries. Polar bears can swim more than 200 miles. They didn't get that way lazing around on hard ice.

[JMintzer]

I always thought it was funny when the idiot box mockingbird media showed the same file footage of a single polar bear floating of a small piece of ice whenever the news propagandists talked about global warming. You would think people would have the basic ability to catch on to their indoctrination technics.

Except, they continue to buy it, every single time...

[fdpaq0580]

Ice formation and ice melting is seasonal. The propaganda photo you posted is a scene thay has been repeated over centuries. Polar bears can swim more than 200 miles. They didn't get that way lazing around on hard ice.

Millions of young animals die every year as a result of natural/normal conditions, accidents and predation. That is nature. The polar bears you refer to that can swim 200 miles are healthy adults. The mother and cub (especially the cub) are not likely to be able to accomplish such a feat. Humans can swim the English Channel. Yes, human can do it, but not most humans, and not likely any small children.
Conditions on earth have deteriorated. Much of it is just earth's natural evolution. But since the human industrial revolution, the deterioration has, in many places become devastation by the added contribution of human destructive and polluting activities. This continues to get worse with the ever bloating human population. The situation has become obvious to anyone willing to take a serious look. One need not be a scientist to see when your lawn dies in the heat or when dogs feet get burned on the sidewalk. But what can one think of to say to complacent individuals who want to bury their heads in the sand. Are they selfish or blind or just disconnected and don't have feeling for the world around them.

[Dusty_Star]

A mother polar bear comforts her cub on a melting ice floe. Take a good look at this...it is happening and is undeniable. Humans and our selfishness are responsible for these poor animals who die frightened and confused. You have to be completely devoid of feeling if you can look at this and not feel immense sadness and guilt.
https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/members/dhdallas-118996/albums/golfing-in-tv/10444-443714382-1140336067301404-6028336396105774551-n.jpg

I look at that & wonder why the massive icy land mass right near them was cut out of the photo. I also see a Mom & her baby having a cuddle.

[Bill14564]

I look at that & wonder why the massive icy land mass right near them was cut out of the photo. I also see a Mom & her baby having a cuddle.

Do you have an original with the "massive icy land mass right near them" still in the picture?

I can show three separate pictures of this pair with no land mass near them and an article that reports the nearest land was 12 miles away.

(This was a poor picture to use to make a point but it does not appear to be doctored)

[bmcgowan13]

News reporting is biased now. I don’t know how we lost objectivity. Perhaps it isn’t taught anymore? It used to be the fundamental of journalism. It seems now everything is written to support an agenda.

Like Einstein once said, “ If the facts don’t fit the theory, then change the facts. “

Amen to that!

Roger Ailes was truly brilliant. He was an amazing TV pioneer and cashed in. I truly respect him for that. He was the media consultant for Richard Nixon/Ronald Regan. After the Nixon/Kennedy debates he was a visionary who realized that television was indeed the future. He saw a thirst for an outlet that told people what they wanted to hear and he created it. He was the Henry Ford of targeted programming.

With the advent of the internet *everyone* can now site-surf and find the outlet/web site that confirms their already existing opinion and they head to the trough to feed. Nobody needs to hear the opposite opinion--we can so easily migrate to the source (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS) that confirms/validates our existing premise--it is always reassuring to know that we are always correct. :bigbow:

All these other web/news sources are trying to mimic Ailes--and they are decades behind him and sloppily trying to catch up. He was the Lucy Arnez of opinion /commentary/news content....

Back in the 60's he saw the future. Well done Mr. Ailes--well done.

[Taltarzac725]

Amen to that!

Roger Ailes was truly brilliant. He was an amazing TV pioneer and cashed in. I truly respect him for that. He was the media consultant for Richard Nixon/Ronald Regan. After the Nixon/Kennedy debates he was a visionary who realized that television was indeed the future. He saw a thirst for an outlet that told people what they wanted to hear and he created it. He was the Henry Ford of targeted programming.

With the advent of the internet *everyone* can now site-surf and find the outlet/web site that confirms their already existing opinion and they head to the trough to feed. Nobody needs to hear the opposite opinion--we can so easily migrate to the source (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS) that confirms/validates our existing premise--it is always reassuring to know that we are always correct. :bigbow:

All these other web/news sources are trying to mimic Ailes--and they are decades behind him and sloppily trying to catch up. He was the Lucy Arnez of opinion /commentary/news content....

Back in the 60's he saw the future. Well done Mr. Ailes--well done.

Facts are facts no matter what spin you try to put on them.

[bmcgowan13]

Facts are facts no matter what spin you try to put on them.

Yeah--I wish that were true. "Facts" were presented that Obama was born in Kenya, Hillary Clinton/Soros ran a child-sex ring out of a pizzeria in DC, Bill Gates was injecting us with a microchip through a syringe, and JD Vance had sex with a couch.

Depends on what outlet you were watching to determine what the "subjective facts" are. "Facts" were presented that the moon landing was faked, 9-11 was a government conspiracy, the earth is flat, and climate change is a hoax/scientific fact.

There are no Cronkites anymore--he literally changed world history when he told the American public on TV that the US was in a "stalemate" and the Viet Nam War was not winnable. We listened--because we knew he was not in it for the ratings. That is in no-way the case today.

Who is there now?

We cannot have an honest debate if we cannot agree on the facts. Eyes on the screen=revenue.

[fdpaq0580]

Yeah--I wish that were true. "Facts" were presented that Obama was born in Kenya, Hillary Clinton/Soros ran a child-sex ring out of a pizzeria in DC, Bill Gates was injecting us with a microchip through a syringe, and JD Vance had sex with a couch.

Depends on what outlet you were watching to determine what the "subjective facts" are. "Facts" were presented that the moon landing was faked, 9-11 was a government conspiracy, the earth is flat, and climate change is a hoax/scientific fact.

There are no Cronkites anymore--he literally changed world history when he told the American public on TV that the US was in a "stalemate" and the Viet Nam War was not winnable. We listened--because we knew he was not in it for the ratings. That is in no-way the case today.

Who is there now?

We cannot have an honest debate if we cannot agree on the facts. Eyes on the screen=revenue.

That which true is factual. That which is not true but which one asserts is true, is not factual. It is a falsehood, no matter how much you believe otherwise. Facts are facts, no matter how much you deny them, no matter how much your faith or politicians tell you otherwise, no matter how inconvenient or upsetting they may be. The facts don't care whether we agree on them or not. The facts are truth! Everything else is fantasy, opinions, falsehoods, lies.

[Taltarzac725]

That which true is factual. That which is not true but which one asserts is true, is not factual. It is a falsehood, no matter how much you believe otherwise. Facts are facts, no matter how much you deny them, no matter how much your faith or politicians tell you otherwise, no matter how inconvenient or upsetting they may be. The facts don't care whether we agree on them or not. The facts are truth! Everything else is fantasy, opinions, falsehoods, lies.

Facts are different than theories. These cover a lot of ground.


You can double check what are facts using the internet rather easily. Theories are a lot harder but I have found very few facts which negate the theory of global warming.

[sounding]

Being a scuba diver, I can tell you first hand that the dying of coral reefs is very real, and extremely saddening : (

While one person's observation is interesting, data collected from many divers -- and all systematically plotted over time -- tells a different story. Find out more at the Weather Club -- and why corals love global warming and increasing CO2.

[Taltarzac725]

While one person's observation is interesting, data collected from many divers -- and all systematically plotted over time -- tells a different story. Find out more at the Weather Club -- and why corals love global warming and increasing CO2.

Do research. So many of these graph posts are malarkey.

[golfing eagles]

Facts are different than theories. These cover a lot of ground.


You can double check what are facts using the internet rather easily. Theories are a lot harder but I have found very few facts which negate the theory of global warming.

Not hard at all. You just have to pick them out from the avalanche of nonsense promoting the myth of anthropogenic global warming.

[sounding]

Facts are different than theories. These cover a lot of ground.


You can double check what are facts using the internet rather easily. Theories are a lot harder but I have found very few facts which negate the theory of global warming.

Global warming is not a theory - it's reality - it's been warming and cooling via many cycles for billions of years. We are currently under the influence of warming and cooling cycles, but the net result of those cycles is a very slow warming trend as we continue to thaw out from the Little Ice Age ... which is expected to continue for about another 100 years or so. Find out why at the Weather Club ... The Villages Weather Club (https://www.theweatherclubvillages.com/)

[fdpaq0580]

Not hard at all. You just have to pick them out from the avalanche of nonsense promoting the myth of anthropogenic global warming.

Sounds like there is little, possibly questionable, evidence sprinkled amongst a mountain of factual evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
We (humans) didn’t start global warming, but we absolutely have contributed to it. We most certainly have done nothing to hold it back.

[sounding]

Sounds like there is little, possibly questionable, evidence sprinkled amongst a mountain of factual evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
We (humans) didn’t start global warming, but we absolutely have contributed to it. We most certainly have done nothing to hold it back.

Claims about man-made global warming are fun to make up ... but actual data is much better. So ... how much did man-made CO2 warm the earth last year?

[Pballer]

Amen to that!

Roger Ailes was truly brilliant. He was an amazing TV pioneer and cashed in. I truly respect him for that. He was the media consultant for Richard Nixon/Ronald Regan. After the Nixon/Kennedy debates he was a visionary who realized that television was indeed the future. He saw a thirst for an outlet that told people what they wanted to hear and he created it. He was the Henry Ford of targeted programming.

With the advent of the internet *everyone* can now site-surf and find the outlet/web site that confirms their already existing opinion and they head to the trough to feed. Nobody needs to hear the opposite opinion--we can so easily migrate to the source (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS) that confirms/validates our existing premise--it is always reassuring to know that we are always correct. :bigbow:

All these other web/news sources are trying to mimic Ailes--and they are decades behind him and sloppily trying to catch up. He was the Lucy Arnez of opinion /commentary/news content....

Back in the 60's he saw the future. Well done Mr. Ailes--well done.

Mainstream media certainly has a lot of catching up to do with Ailes. Fox "News" had agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787,000,000 to settle a defamation lawsuit concerning all the lies Fox promoted against them during the 2020 election. Fox promoted these lies in order not to lose viewers who only watch "news" outlets that reinforce their beliefs.

[fdpaq0580]

Claims about man-made global warming are fun to make up ... but actual data is much better. So ... how much did man-made CO2 warm the earth last year?

So ... how much did naysayers hogwash cool the earth last year?

Oh, the answer to your question is, combined with other human "contributions", @ .07 degrees C.

[sounding]

So ... how much did naysayers hogwash cool the earth last year?

Oh, the answer to your question is, combined with other human "contributions", @ .07 degrees C.

Please provide "the science" (as we are all told to follow) that produces the .07 C value.

[lkagele]

I know next to nothing about coral reefs so I did a quick search on 'coral reef thriving'. Articles abound of areas where reefs are thriving.

Fear mongering to promote a hidden agenda? Oh, sorry, We all know that never happens......

[Bill14564]

I know next to nothing about coral reefs so I did a quick search on 'coral reef thriving'. Articles abound of areas where reefs are thriving.

Fear mongering to promote a hidden agenda? Oh, sorry, We all know that never happens......

If only science was that simple.

Facts: Large areas of coral reefs have died off;; large areas are now again covered by coral.

Nearly everything beyond that is just some conclusion drawn from two data points. No investigation into why the coral died. Not investigation into what changed that the coral can now recover. No data on whether the coral that has recovered is substantially the same as what was lost.

A lightning strike causes a fire that destroys hundreds of acres of old-growth forest. Twenty years later the area is covered with healthy pines. Since the area is again covered with trees does that prove that lightning doesn't destroy forests? Can we say there were trees before and there are trees now so nothing really happened, the trees just changed their clothes?

Science just isn't that simple.

[Byte1]

It's a shame that underwater volcanoes erupt and warm the oceans so much. Too bad man can't control volcanoes like they control the climate..............:1rotfl:

[bmcgowan13]

Mainstream media certainly has a lot of catching up to do with Ailes. Fox "News" had agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787,000,000 to settle a defamation lawsuit concerning all the lies Fox promoted against them during the 2020 election. Fox promoted these lies in order not to lose viewers who only watch "news" outlets that reinforce their beliefs.

“Mainstream media” will never catch up!

In (another) stroke of brilliance, when Ailes created FOX NEWS he made sure it was on cable-only (not to be confused with FOX Entertainment which airs locally and has the Simpsons, etc.) so FOX NEWS is NOT constrained by the FCC and the Frankfurter (SCOTUS 1943) ruling that allow the federal government to meddle in on-air stations operations.

Frankfurter--“This ruling cleared the way for the FCC to regulate networks indirectly by banning licenses to individual stations that contract with networks engaged in practices considered detrimental to the public interest.“

FOX NEWS is free of the FCC public interest requirements that apply to NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. – the on-air entities. He knew (even back then) that cable was the future. He was a visionary. If you notice on-air talent reports “others are saying” and quote/echo “other” sources. Ailes freed them from the burden to investigate on his dime. Smart man. He was a businessman to the core.

There are five major recognized journalism awards. FOX NEWS has never won an Emmy, Edward R. Murrow, DuPont/Columbia, Peabody or Pulitzer. MTV and Nickelodeon have one each. Roger did not care on bit. He didn’t need them. Why fight for viewers with three other networks (forget CNN—they were newcomers) when you can groom your own loyal audience?

He is comparable to Elon Musk who had the vision, the courage and the money to step up while NASA and Boeing were failing to fill the need.

FOX is commentary/opinion—they do not purport to report news (see Dominion Voting defense) . He packed the programming/commentary with Glen Beck, Megan Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Gretchen Carlson, Chris Wallace, Jeanine Pirro, Ed Henry, Tucker Carlson, Eric Bolling, and Sean Hannity. All talented audience builders. Ailes never needed it to be a “news” station. He saw a lucrative future while mainstream media was blind During its startup FOX PAID $11 per month to get cable companies to carry the station. (Most providers are compensated for carrying their content) FOX used Rudi Guiliani to step in as the mayor to make Time Warner carry the FOX NEWS channel in NYC. He played hardball and was genius-what companies PAY cable providers to carry THEIR channel. FOX NEWS has exceeded his expectations.

FOX NEWS had revenues exceeding $3B (with a “B”) in the last quarter of 2023. What other venue can come even close to this measure of success?

The so-called main-stream entities are lost in space—they can’t compete with Roger’s genius.

[fdpaq0580]

Please provide "the science" (as we are all told to follow) that produces the .07 C value.

You asked that same question many many times. Now you have your answer. But that isn't good enough. You want others to jump through hoops of your choosing to give you answers you will deny because the truth doesn't fit your narrative. I did some work and came up with that answer. You want my answer and my work. You are like the kid in school who cheated off others test answers. Do your own research if you can and get your own answers instead of relying upon others who spin a narrative that says what you want to hear. By the way, my figure was many decimal places long. What I gave you was an appropriate figure.
Good luck. I wish you every success.

[fdpaq0580]

It's a shame that underwater volcanoes erupt and warm the oceans so much. Too bad man can't control volcanoes like they control the climate..............:1rotfl:

Don't forget the surface volcanoes. They are doing there part. Volcanic activity has been a part of Earth's evolution since the world began. Human caused destruction, pollution, deforestation, burning fossil fuel and even wood, mining, etc, is in addition to the Earth's natural heating/cooling cycles. And Human caused changes have been documented and tested and there are direct correlations that prove Human industrial activity exacerbates global warming. The truth is out there. Seek and ye shall find. Or not.

[sounding]

You asked that same question many many times. Now you have your answer. But that isn't good enough. You want others to jump through hoops of your choosing to give you answers you will deny because the truth doesn't fit your narrative. I did some work and came up with that answer. You want my answer and my work. You are like the kid in school who cheated off others test answers. Do your own research if you can and get your own answers instead of relying upon others who spin a narrative that says what you want to hear. By the way, my figure was many decimal places long. What I gave you was an appropriate figure.
Good luck. I wish you every success.

Appropriate? Just try inserting an "appropriate" trajectory (without a science based formula) into a rocket designed to land on Mars. The reason you can't provide a science-based answer to man-made CO2 warming is becase the main stream media refuses to provide it. Guess why.

[sounding]

Don't forget the surface volcanoes. They are doing there part. Volcanic activity has been a part of Earth's evolution since the world began. Human caused destruction, pollution, deforestation, burning fossil fuel and even wood, mining, etc, is in addition to the Earth's natural heating/cooling cycles. And Human caused changes have been documented and tested and there are direct correlations that prove Human industrial activity exacerbates global warming. The truth is out there. Seek and ye shall find. Or not.

If the truth is out there -- please provide it. How much did man-made CO2 warm the earth last year? Or any year?

[JMintzer]

Facts are different than theories. These cover a lot of ground.


You can double check what are facts using the internet rather easily. Theories are a lot harder but I have found very few facts which negate the theory of global warming.

Which. completely negates your claim that "You can double check what are facts using the internet rather easily"...

I (and many others) have posted those facts, multiple times, with only a modicum of time "searching the internet"...

[JMintzer]

Sounds like there is little, possibly questionable, evidence sprinkled amongst a mountain of factual evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
We (humans) didn’t start global warming, but we absolutely have contributed to it. We most certainly have done nothing to hold it back.

I think we should all move to another part of the world to "old back" and possibly even "reverse" the ever changing tilt of the earth's axis in it's orbit...

[JMintzer]

Mainstream media certainly has a lot of catching up to do with Ailes. Fox "News" had agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787,000,000 to settle a defamation lawsuit concerning all the lies Fox promoted against them during the 2020 election. Fox promoted these lies in order not to lose viewers who only watch "news" outlets that reinforce their beliefs.

Everybody Drink! But I do find it interesting that many of the prevoius claims that were deemed "lies" are now being shown to be true...

[JMintzer]

If only science was that simple.

Facts: Large areas of coral reefs have died off;; large areas are now again covered by coral.

Nearly everything beyond that is just some conclusion drawn from two data points. No investigation into why the coral died. Not investigation into what changed that the coral can now recover. No data on whether the coral that has recovered is substantially the same as what was lost.

A lightning strike causes a fire that destroys hundreds of acres of old-growth forest. Twenty years later the area is covered with healthy pines. Since the area is again covered with trees does that prove that lightning doesn't destroy forests? Can we say there were trees before and there are trees now so nothing really happened, the trees just changed their clothes?

Science just isn't that simple.

Those forest fires are needed to maintain the healthy forests.

Once they get too big, those "old growth trees" begin to choke out the undergrowth (not enough sunlight gets thru) and it does, leaving behind excellent kinding for a forest fire.

Once a fire burns the old growth threes, their seed post release new seeds (they need the fire to release the seeds), and the cycle begins anew...

Coral reefs die. Later, they are replaced by healthy new reefs... The cycle of life continues...

[JMintzer]

It's a shame that underwater volcanoes erupt and warm the oceans so much. Too bad man can't control volcanoes like they control the climate..............:1rotfl:

Same with the under water oil spills. The earth "farts" up millions of gallons of oil every year...

We really need to fix this. Maybe spending a few $Trillion$ would help...

[JMintzer]

“Mainstream media” will never catch up!

In (another) stroke of brilliance, when Ailes created FOX NEWS he made sure it was on cable-only (not to be confused with FOX Entertainment which airs locally and has the Simpsons, etc.) so FOX NEWS is NOT constrained by the FCC and the Frankfurter (SCOTUS 1943) ruling that allow the federal government to meddle in on-air stations operations.

Frankfurter--“This ruling cleared the way for the FCC to regulate networks indirectly by banning licenses to individual stations that contract with networks engaged in practices considered detrimental to the public interest.“

FOX NEWS is free of the FCC public interest requirements that apply to NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. – the on-air entities. He knew (even back then) that cable was the future. He was a visionary. If you notice on-air talent reports “others are saying” and quote/echo “other” sources. Ailes freed them from the burden to investigate on his dime. Smart man. He was a businessman to the core.

There are five major recognized journalism awards. FOX NEWS has never won an Emmy, Edward R. Murrow, DuPont/Columbia, Peabody or Pulitzer. MTV and Nickelodeon have one each. Roger did not care on bit. He didn’t need them. Why fight for viewers with three other networks (forget CNN—they were newcomers) when you can groom your own loyal audience?

He is comparable to Elon Musk who had the vision, the courage and the money to step up while NASA and Boeing were failing to fill the need.

FOX is commentary/opinion—they do not purport to report news (see Dominion Voting defense) . He packed the programming/commentary with Glen Beck, Megan Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Gretchen Carlson, Chris Wallace, Jeanine Pirro, Ed Henry, Tucker Carlson, Eric Bolling, and Sean Hannity. All talented audience builders. Ailes never needed it to be a “news” station. He saw a lucrative future while mainstream media was blind During its startup FOX PAID $11 per month to get cable companies to carry the station. (Most providers are compensated for carrying their content) FOX used Rudi Guiliani to step in as the mayor to make Time Warner carry the FOX NEWS channel in NYC. He played hardball and was genius-what companies PAY cable providers to carry THEIR channel. FOX NEWS has exceeded his expectations.

FOX NEWS had revenues exceeding $3B (with a “B”) in the last quarter of 2023. What other venue can come even close to this measure of success?

The so-called main-stream entities are lost in space—they can’t compete with Roger’s genius.

Good thing that neither CNN nor MSNBC did the exact same thing... Wait, what?

As to your "Emmy" comment, take two seconds and ponder who exactly runs and selects the Emmy nomination and votes for the winners...

[JMintzer]

Don't forget the surface volcanoes. They are doing there part. Volcanic activity has been a part of Earth's evolution since the world began. Human caused destruction, pollution, deforestation, burning fossil fuel and even wood, mining, etc, is in addition to the Earth's natural heating/cooling cycles. And Human caused changes have been documented and tested and there are direct correlations that prove Human industrial activity exacerbates global warming. The truth is out there. Seek and ye shall find. Or not.

Humans are but a gnat on the Earth's @ss in the grand scheme of things...

[fdpaq0580]

Humans are but a gnat on the Earth's @ss in the grand scheme of things...

More like ticks that carry diseases, or beetles that can devastate woodlands. Or flea that carries plague. Maybe not an insect, but a single algae that blooms and poisons ocean waters.
Remember, friend, we are the "gnat" that invented the atomic bomb. Over 8 Billion of industrial "gnats" can move mountains and reshape the earth. And, we have. Give your species the credit we deserve.

[JMintzer]

More like ticks that carry diseases, or beetles that can devastate woodlands. Or flea that carries plague. Maybe not an insect, but a single algae that blooms and poisons ocean waters.
Remember, friend, we are the "gnat" that invented the atomic bomb. Over 8 Billion of industrial "gnats" can move mountains and reshape the earth. And, we have. Give your species the credit we deserve.

To your "devastate woodlands" comment: "The United States has more trees today than we had 100 years ago (and a global study even found that the number of trees on Earth is around 3.04 trillion, a much higher number than previously believed.) The United States is the world's largest consumer (and second largest producer, after Canada) of forest products."

And this Blue Marble will be alive and well long after all humans are nothing but dust...

[fdpaq0580]

To your "devastate woodlands" comment: "The United States has more trees today than we had 100 years ago (and a global study even found that the number of trees on Earth is around 3.04 trillion, a much higher number than previously believed.) The United States is the world's largest consumer (and second largest producer, after Canada) of forest products."

And this Blue Marble will be alive and well long after all humans are nothing but dust...

Look again, friend. Since 1900 the world has lost forest area the size off the U. S., the same size forest area was lost over the previous 9000 years. Can't see the forest for the lack of trees. Huge swaths of old growth forests, the forests that best produced oxygen, have been laid waste to make room for farms/ranches and plantations like coffee and other poor/low oxygen producers. Yeah, we destroy the good and replace it with poor. If that were the only[/B] damage we did. But it isn't.
Oh, that's right you only site U.S. and Canada, but the problem is a global one. And the state of the Canadian and U.S. forests owes a lot to those tree huggers and the protection and regulations they got passed to replant forests and selective logging to keep the land healthy for regrowth. Left to their own devices, the loggers would have raped the land and left it bare and lifeless. Then you wouldn't have been able to say how great our forests are, cause there wouldn't be any.
As to the Big Blue Marble. Let's hope you are correct about it being well. But wrong about humans turned to dust. Let us hope our species lives long and prospers because we learned our lesson and quit acting blind and arrogant.

[kkingston57]

Reefs close to the shoreline are definitely negatively affected by shoreline development and the associated stuff that winds up in the ocean. However, that doesn’t explain the bleaching of the reefs much further off the shoreline or in areas with little to no development. Close to the shoreline, boats dropping anchor on the reefs is also a major source of damage.

Boats do not cause widespread whitening of the corals. Grew up on SE Florida coast and scuba dived frequently in the 80's. Stopped for 30+ years went back and saw huge changes, none of which was caused by boats

[kkingston57]

20 years ago went to the Mendenhall GLacier in Alaska and went back. Personally saw a huge difference. Saw photos in the Visitor Center and their photos showed a huge difference.

[sounding]

Look again, friend. Since 1900 the world has lost forest area the size off the U. S., the same size forest area was lost over the previous 9000 years. Can't see the forest for the lack of trees. Huge swaths of old growth forests, the forests that best produced oxygen, have been laid waste to make room for farms/ranches and plantations like coffee and other poor/low oxygen producers. Yeah, we destroy the good and replace it with poor. If that were the only[/B] damage we did. But it isn't.
Oh, that's right you only site U.S. and Canada, but the problem is a global one. And the state of the Canadian and U.S. forests owes a lot to those tree huggers and the protection and regulations they got passed to replant forests and selective logging to keep the land healthy for regrowth. Left to their own devices, the loggers would have raped the land and left it bare and lifeless. Then you wouldn't have been able to say how great our forests are, cause there wouldn't be any.
As to the Big Blue Marble. Let's hope you are correct about it being well. But wrong about humans turned to dust. Let us hope our species lives long and prospers because we learned our lesson and quit acting blind and arrogant.

With all the hype and fear-mongering, I see more and more people enjoying our wonderful climate - golfing - pickleballing - cruising - dancing - swimming - etc etc etc. JMintzer understands too. JMintzer for Climate Czar.

[JMintzer]

Look again, friend. Since 1900 the world has lost forest area the size off the U. S., the same size forest area was lost over the previous 9000 years. Can't see the forest for the lack of trees. Huge swaths of old growth forests, the forests that best produced oxygen, have been laid waste to make room for farms/ranches and plantations like coffee and other poor/low oxygen producers. Yeah, we destroy the good and replace it with poor. If that were the only[/B] damage we did. But it isn't.
Oh, that's right you only site U.S. and Canada, but the problem is a global one. And the state of the Canadian and U.S. forests owes a lot to those tree huggers and the protection and regulations they got passed to replant forests and selective logging to keep the land healthy for regrowth. Left to their own devices, the loggers would have raped the land and left it bare and lifeless. Then you wouldn't have been able to say how great our forests are, cause there wouldn't be any.
As to the Big Blue Marble. Let's hope you are correct about it being well. But wrong about humans turned to dust. Let us hope our species lives long and prospers because we learned our lesson and quit acting blind and arrogant.

We can only control what happens in the US. Which is why I SPECIFICALLY mentioned the US in my FACTUAL statement...

And we'll all be wiped out by a virus one day. Either naturally or man made...

I'm betting on the latter...

[Taltarzac725]

If I tell you a black widow spider about to bite you on the neck, and it really is, that is warning you of something bad. Not fear mongering or hype. Like telling folks to be prepared when a hurricane is headed our way is not fear mongering. Evacuation warnings are not fear mongering, and people ignore the warnings and many end up dead, injured and needing rescue. Some don't, but they gamble with their lives and the lives of others.
As for choosing a Climate "Czar", I would prefer someone who actually understands the situation and would take appropriate action instead of patting us on the back and telling us "Don't worry about a thing. Everything is just fine" when it isn't.

Our grandkids, great grandkids, and great great grandchildren and their offspring will have to deal with our reckless stupidity of not taking global warming seriously.

[golfing eagles]

20 years ago went to the Mendenhall GLacier in Alaska and went back. Personally saw a huge difference. Saw photos in the Visitor Center and their photos showed a huge difference.

As expected. But that has absolutely nothing to do with human activity

[sounding]

Our grandkids, great grandkids, and great great grandchildren and their offspring will have to deal with our reckless stupidity of not taking global warming seriously.

Global warming is indeed serious -- it happens every time the sun's Bray and Eddy solar cycles are in their warming cycles -- like today -- and I'm loving it. The dangerous part is when those solar cycles turn into their cooling cycles -- because cold is the big killer. PS ... the Tonga volcano is causing this year's heat wave -- which will continue many more months.

[fdpaq0580]

As expected. But that has absolutely nothing to do with human activity

Actually, it does. Since human activity has played a part in exacerbating/accelerating global warming, we are part of the global warming equation.
If you are unable to comprehend our true level of involvement, just consider human industrialization as the (8,000,000,000) straws that broke the camel's back.

[sounding]

Actually, it does. Since human activity has played a part in exacerbating/accelerating global warming, we are part of the global warming equation.
If you are unable to comprehend our true level of involvement, just consider human industrialization as the (8,000,000,000) straws that broke the camel's back.

Making climate claims is fun, but delivering data is the scientific way. So, according to your global warming equation ... how much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?

[golfing eagles]

Making climate claims is fun, but delivering data is the scientific way. So, according to your global warming equation ... how much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?

Well, you've challenged him with that question at least 3 dozen times and have received crickets in return. The true believers don't care about the facts, only following their propaganda masters talking points. They fail to realize that their masters have a significant monetary agenda that they are pursuing. The sad part is that those masters simply consider their followers "useful idiots".

[fdpaq0580]

Making climate claims is fun, but delivering data is the scientific way. So, according to your global warming equation ... how much did "man-made" CO2 warm the earth last year?

That same old saw? This time, for a change, why don't you do the research and just give us your finding instead of asking for others here to do it for you, over and over and over. I gave you the answer once, and you keep asking.

[sounding]

That same old saw? This time, for a change, why don't you do the research and just give us your finding instead of asking for others here to do it for you, over and over and over. I gave you the answer once, and you keep asking.

In a civil society, the accuser has the burden of proof. I did not say man-made CO2 harms our climate - you did. You gave an answer, but without the science of how it was produced. Guessing, like palm reading, is fun, but the scientific method is preferred. Remember, our climate leaders keep telling us to follow the science. So, please show us the science you used to arrive at your answer.

[fdpaq0580]

Well, you've challenged him with that question at least 3 dozen times and have received crickets in return. The true believers don't care about the facts, only following their propaganda masters talking points. They fail to realize that their masters have a significant monetary agenda that they are pursuing. The sad part is that those masters simply consider their followers "useful idiots".

Way more than 3 dozen times. And not just me. Crickets? Because it is a stupid question and we all know that it is. And it's a red herring to divert the dialog with meaningless nonsense.
Also, I did give him a answer! The, he wanted my research. If I can do the work, he can too. Don't cheat off my answer sheet.
And, as far as "useful idiots" is concerned, that is just what some guy said about his followers at some gathering recently. But that is for another time and place.
I think we can expect to see the CO2 question again and again in the future.
Have a great trip! 🙂🙂🙂

[sounding]

Well, you've challenged him with that question at least 3 dozen times and have received crickets in return. The true believers don't care about the facts, only following their propaganda masters talking points. They fail to realize that their masters have a significant monetary agenda that they are pursuing. The sad part is that those masters simply consider their followers "useful idiots".

I have asked this question well over 1,000 times over the past 2 years -- on YouTube, Twitter, and now X -- and while I've received numerous responses (guesses), no one has ever been able to provide the "science" which defines GHG warming - even though the UN's IPCC uses this science in all their climate models. The media leadership knows the answer, but they refuse to print the story - because it destroys the climate narrative and exposes the climate scam. This "science" is discussed at the Weather Club, and is frequently presented in "CO2 Coalition" articles.

[fdpaq0580]

In a civil society, the accuser has the burden of proof. I did not say man-made CO2 harms our climate - you did. You gave an answer, but without the science of how it was produced. Guessing, like palm reading, is fun, but the scientific method is preferred. Remember, our climate leaders keep telling us to follow the science. So, please show us the science you used to arrive at your answer.

The work is there for all to see. Just follow real science and you will find it. People who work for things appreciate it more than those who are given things. You can read the journals as easy as I. For your own good you must do the work. Our you can continue ridicule, doubt and deny and trust your magic 8 ball or guru
Wishing you success.

[JMintzer]

The work is there for all to see. Just follow real science and you will find it. People who work for things appreciate it more than those who are given things. You can read the journals as easy as I. For your own good you must do the work. Our you can continue ridicule, doubt and deny and trust your magic 8 ball or guru
Wishing you success.

Yes, the "real science" that you happen to agree with...

[sounding]

The work is there for all to see. Just follow real science and you will find it. People who work for things appreciate it more than those who are given things. You can read the journals as easy as I. For your own good you must do the work. Our you can continue ridicule, doubt and deny and trust your magic 8 ball or guru
Wishing you success.

Hand-waving is not science. If your number was produced by real science, please provide that scientific method you used.

[golfing eagles]

The work is there for all to see. Just follow real science and you will find it. People who work for things appreciate it more than those who are given things. You can read the journals as easy as I. For your own good you must do the work. Our you can continue ridicule, doubt and deny and trust your magic 8 ball or guru
Wishing you success.

A famous person once quipped “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it”. His first name was Adolph.

[Taltarzac725]

A famous person once quipped “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it”. His first name was Adolph.

He had an audience of extremely gullible people who believed they were chosen by destiny to lead for a thousand years, etc. And his detractors were often murdered.

There were not many voices questioning that man. And if someone did they would be on the next train to oblivion.

[Bill14564]

The work is there for all to see. Just follow real science and you will find it. People who work for things appreciate it more than those who are given things. You can read the journals as easy as I. For your own good you must do the work. Our you can continue ridicule, doubt and deny and trust your magic 8 ball or guru
Wishing you success.

Good luck, and I mean that sincerely. I tried for a while but gave up some time ago.