http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v49...
A journal article showing no change in global droughts over the past 60 years. NO CHANGE!!!
There has been no change in droughts for the past 60 years. This means that they cannot even show that AGW is causing droughts in general let alone droughts in specific areas!!!
This is purely LYING!!!
And note. There are many television broadcasts spouting LIES in the name of climate change hysteria. PROFESSIONAL BROADCASTS.
What do the warmers say about this??? Do they say anything against the LIES being spread??? Nope. Instead they act as if a few million from the Koch Brothers is the entire reason that so many do not believe in catastrophic AGW.
Here is a hint warmers... The millions coming from the Koch brothers is simply nowhere near enough to even compete with the vast billions spent on AGW propaganda. The reason people are not buying what you are selling is simple. YOU ARE LYING!!! When you pretend the world is ending it is a LIE!!! When you act as if droughts are being caused by AGW it is a LIE!!!
Yes, some warming is occurring and we should reduce our CO2 emissions. But this crap scare-mongering is nothing short of a LIE. The more you lie and the longer people go without seeing the absurdly stupid predictions of catastrophe, the less people will be willing to do. And guess what alarmists... This is a marathon, not a sprint. We need long-term intelligent solutions. Not short-term panic caused by scare-mongering lies.
I believe in a Global Warming, but not man made. I kind of lost that mind set after the global warming will cause a new ice age bullshit.
>> Update : Mintie Boy, here you go, <<http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress...
>> "Our work was able to tease-out the CO2 fertilisation effect by using mathematical modelling together with satellite data adjusted to take out the observed effects of other influences such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes."<<
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress...
Let’s see what we have here:
1) they “tease-out” the results
2)” by using mathematical modeling”
3) “ together with satellite data adjusted.”
So, where is your “skepticism” about teasing-out results, modeling, and adjusted data?
>> Pegminer. I read about CC and try to refute it, because I am fed up with having it forced down my throat.<<
Not exactly true, Typical of most scientifically illiterate and disinterested Deniers, you only read anti-AGW articles – which you do not understand, but blindly accept.
Exactly how does that not show Deniers to be lying hypocrites?
Mmmm... not fed up so much as slightly puzzled at times at the people who still won't accept (or still don't realise!) they were wrong and will never be right until they learn some science. But mostly it's a hoot as they keep on repeating the same old lies (more charitably: misunderstandings) and keep on getting made to look silly by better-informed people.
I suppose it must be a bit galling to have to put up with the fact that the rest of the world (in science, engineering, business, politics, public policy...) has moved on. Most (USA excepted, due to exceptional lobbying power and funding and poor science education and lack of awareness about the rest of the world) aren't arguing about whether it's true, most people know that (sadly) AGW is fact. It's often referred to as a given, a starting point of many news items and factual TV documentaries and a factor in some bad news or further scientific work or the reason an engineering advance is proposed or made.
In academic work it's not always mentioned specifically as everyone's aware that AGW is fact. No-one's happy about the problem, they do further work to gather more data or improve understanding which leads to increased certainty. Those who still don't get it will forever be looked back on as ignorant fools, resistant to education, failures in the modern world.
Very telling. You happen upon a programme about the effects of climate change so you switch over. Would you have switched over if the programme had been skeptical of climate change – I doubt it very much. It’s clear that you also apply the same rational when browsing the internet, clearly devoting far more time to searching for, and reading, skeptical articles than those coming from scientific or academic sources.
How can you arrive at an informed opinion or debate an issue when you choose to expose yourself to only one side of the debate?
The propaganda I’m fed up of is the constant repeating of the lies that originated from the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda campaign against global warming. The Chief Executive, CEO and President of Exxon publicly acknowledged they had funded the denial machine. The very source from which many of the skeptics lies originated has stated that it was all propaganda, and yet the skeptics knowingly and deliberately continue to spread these lies.
By all means question global warming but don’t keep peddling the same documented lies again and again and again.
I'm interested in what the media, politics, groups and individuals have to say about it, but there can certainly be an element of propaganda on all sides of the argument and you have to sort that out. Maybe whomever is talking about climate change is propagandizing to some point...I recall back in grade school post WWII and during the Cold War learning about propaganda dispensed by Germany and Japan in WWII and Communist countries, but it was never mentioned that the U.S. and its Allies distributed propaganda as well. In fact, now in hindsight with the internet and globalization it surprises me how provincial and ethnocentric we all were after WWII. Even the victors-the Allies, as close as WWII brought us, started getting more nationalistic again not long after the war...which we might have expected, but I remember as a teenager being a little surprised at the criticism the U.S. got as I met exchange students from other countries and read the news. More recently I was surprised to read that Russians teach that they 'won' WWII with a little assistance from the other Allies in the form of a minor action known as D-Day. Maybe in the 'glory days' after WWII we were all propagandized and that has had a big impact on our global outlook as the world has become smaller.
Anyway, the point is it is sometimes elusive to determine what is propaganda and what is not, and we can tend to believe in the propaganda we like-accepting that as fact-and dismiss the propaganda we don't, according the disdain that the label of 'propaganda' implies. I have a hard time with it, reacting to stories and articles from various sources prematurely in some cases.
But I remain hungry for news and information about climate change. Most of it I get on line, and when I find the 'propaganda-' which might be deliberate on the part of the source, or maybe in the case of the mainstream media just going for the throat of sensationalism by quoting some nutcase on one side or the other-I look for the underlying sources. Usually it is the scientific studies and the most accurate data and charts I can find.
The path through the media almost inevitably leads me here-most of the comments I find after most articles about climate change I would describe as 'nutty.' Haw...here, although there are aggressively opposed opinions, it is more likely that I will find related commentary with links and sources, although in recent months there has been less of that and more of what I would call 'relationship dynamics' where the regular participants are arguing on a personal level, more concerned about TOS at Y/A and etc. Maybe a factor in that is how MANY articles there are about climate change being published right now.
Nonetheless, for me this forum remains the best source for information regarding the latest in climate science data and research underlying the media sensationalism-and political squabbling going on out there, which feeds the media. I pretty much read the latest over coffee early each morning, which gets the synapses firing, then come over here to see who is commenting on what. Often there is a dearth of science commentary or it is buried in the 'relationship dynamic' infighting, but quite often there is an interesting question such as this one that leads me to consider how I really am reacting to things like propaganda and how that is influencing my opinion.
This in turn impacts the decisions I make-such as the commonly held belief that the globe is indeed warming despite the disagreement over mankind's influence and how MUCH it is warming, etc. Then I look at what science tells us about the outcomes of warming-more evaporation which results in more precipitation in some areas and less in others, influenced by factors such as la Ninas, etc...then I look at resources such as drought monitors that have historical records and other information that may be available, including government policy, etc. etc. Then I invest accordingly...so far-if I can identify and am not overly influenced by propaganda, which is a piece of the puzzle that just dropped into place thanks to your question-I seem to have made some very good decisions based on the accounting.
So...if the propaganda inevitably goes with the reporting and I dismiss the parts about Manhattan being 70 feet underwater next Tuesday and on the other side how every pro-environmental group is part of the Marxist plot to enslave us all...well, there is some good stuff out there and lots of information. I guess I would have to say then, that no...I'm not 'fed up' with the propaganda, objectivity seems a part of the distant past at this point and I miss it, if indeed it was ever there, but I am resigned to taking the bad with the good and never relying on just the viewpoints that viscerally align with the way I want things to be.
Absolutely! Most of the people are. They know it is crap and only benefits a few greedy and dishonest people. The latest poll dropped GW or Climate Change off the top ten reasons people were most concerned about. All those billions of dollars in propaganda and they are losing even the PR battle.
First they lose the technical battle. Now they are losing the PR battle. Ha! Ha! It isn't a great day for the greenies, but they are not through. They will jack up the rhetoric. They will roll out all their lame scientists (maybe even reincarnate Jimmy Hansen, if they can lure him away from his communist activities) Then like all good terrorists they will tell us to convert or die, just like they are doing in the middle East. They are not through, so just watch it.
Yes, I am also fed up with the global warming..
We must take some steps to save our earth and environment from global warming and greenhouse effects.
To stop such hazards, we need to stop spreading pollution and industries need to stop the emissions of the CO2 and other CFCs in the air. The ultimate solution is to reduce the use of fossil fuels and black coals and other petroleum products which direct causes the pollution. Other preferable option for the pollution prevention caused through industries is to use the bio fuels like briquettes.
To know more, please visit: http://www.radhebriquettingplant.com/
Alas, science deniers such as yourself who dismiss such informative documentaries as propaganda are one reason why in Australia we have such poor government which cares so little about the future of our environment and of our children. One of the first things Abbott did when entering office was to abolish the science portfolio, so for the first time since 1934 Australia has no science minister. This is on top of massive cuts to science funding and the CSIRO, abolishing the Climate Commission and scraping of the carbon tax.
I hope you enjoy your football while our environment is being screwed over.
Yes i am fed up but to overcome with this problem we should use renewable source like biomass energy,wind energy and solar energy. Biomass briquette replace coal and lignite and offer renewable energy in an economical way.
Source:http://www.biomassbriquetting.com/
I AM.
I sat down last night to watch some TV, when I turned on the channel selected was ABC (Australia)
it was showing a programme called "tipping points" which was about (from the little I watched) climate change causing droughts in the Amazon, and how the Amazon was liable to suffer extreme wildfires, (hmm how come they are so sure global warming will cause droughts) so I turned over to watch Discovery (I like natural history programmes) that was showing a documentory on African Savannahs and how climate change was impacting the herbivores that live there (hmm all the studies I have read indicate that CO2 is increasing vegetation in savannahs and arid regions)
Ended up watching sport instead.
I still find it funny that you ignorant, stereotypical "Obama the anti-christ, global warming is a myth and stop with the propagendeur" people actually exist. Stop watching so much Jesse Ventura
I would be interested in that research that CO2 is boosting vegetation in the savannahs ... I would have thought the seasonal rainfall and temperatures would have be the main variables affecting plant life in these regions.
Not sure how it is "propaganda" ... science that doesn't agree with your predisposed position does not make it propaganda.
Edit: Cool thanks for that. Interesting findings. I wouldn't have thought the change would be that significant ... I suppose considering that many arid species are opportune species makes sense though (that is the species most likely to be able to take advantage of the smallest changes in their environment). I suppose it would be interesting to look at species more reliant on water, I would imagine that a decrease in rainfall would be more significant than CO2 changes.
Na! Makes me wonder how honest scientific people (scientists) can be when they research something. I use to be amazed until I found out how wrong they have been. Not just in climate science, but science in general.
Does that make me "anti-science"? Probably, but I still enjoy reading what they "try" and understand and then "try" and force their findings on people after they have received millions of dollars from companies or Governments who are willing to give them a "try"..
No. I am not fed up but I am alarmed. It isn't that easy to stop those factors that greatly contribute to global warming though but if we, will take part in taking good care of our environment like recycling and all like what is stated in the source, I am sure we will really make a difference and a greener future of our next generation.
Pegminer. I read about CC and try to refute it, because I am fed up with having it forced down my throat.
Clearly you're not fed up with global warming propaganda--you spend much of your free time reading anti-global warming propaganda sites and then asking propaganda filled questions. What you don't like is hearing things that disagree with your world view.
Yes, I am fed up especially when the corporate is pretending to be the real environmentalist while blackmailing the media to hide the real environmentalist who want to protect their local land from pollution and destruction.
No. I'm more tired of idiots who voted Obama into office and complain about him.
