Global Media Publishing

Some critics of my claim that Global Warming is a lie became rather abusive i. E’ Try reading the scientists’ reports instead of the media’ Except for the online magazine the Nottinghamshire Times the media seem to be revelling in publishing global warming scare stories. As for reading scientific reports, I do frequently, and the comments I make are from those reports that are freely available on the internet. The famous Hockey stick Graph is another dodgy dossier, Al Gore had to eliminate the medieval warm period to make it look as though there had been a sudden rise in the earth’s temperature. Not true, it’s a lie. Green taxes are nothing but a tax levied by deception, and the Czech President was right. “Green Zea lots are a bigger threat to democracy than the communists. “. I was so glad to find this — I agree. When it comes to scholarly research, you have to look at the money. Where does the research money come from, and how does the research facility ensure that they get future funding. The answer is fear. That being said – I don’t necessarily negate that me may be in a period of warming. What I do question is the extent to which humans are responsible and the extent to which humans can counter it. Indeed -assuming for the sake of argument that the G. W. Zea lots are correct, by their own statistics we’d have to have a complete deindustrialization to even make a dent. Does this mean I’m not in favor of alternative fuels, conversation and reduced pollution? Of course not, they all have multiple benefits including improving of national security, quality and length of life. But we don’t have to be scared into these positive changes. Haven’t we had enough lies from the government and so-called “experts”? I tend the think that the Earth has a knack at maintaining an equilibrium with a few degrees here or there – might cause a little pain – but I doubt it will rise to the level of chaos that some predict. I might be a little biased living in Wisconsin – we wouldn’t mind it being a little warmer here.


This entry was posted in Media Publishing. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Global Media Publishing

  1. Mandy Nesmith says:

    Could you cite any of this abuse, put in context and present a balanced argument by giving a balanced representation of the debate.

    Some people who believe that glaobal warming is happening get frustrated bet because they fear the consequences of GW, feel disempowered and see the sceptics and the SUV drivers as blockages to progress being made.

    It is sad that it takes a sceptic set piece question to bring out such a raft o answers, I am beggining to to wonder if any proper debate goes on round here. You haven’t even cited these abusive zea lots.

    Personally I don’t think the sceptics are an important group in the wider debate on GW and aren’t worth getting abusive about.

  2. Andy Smith says:

    “Why Is It These Global warming Zea lots Are So Abusive – Are They afraid Of an open and Honest Debate. ?”

    Of course calling someone a “Zea lot” doesn’t really open up the subject to a open and honest debate – Believe in global warming or deny it – putting the question in such an abusive way does tend towards swinging the opinions towards your belief system!

    I personally believe that humans are affecting this planet in a major way, one only has to see the amount of animals and plants that are heading towards extinction to see that we are messing up in a big way!

    Even if you don’t believe that we are affecting the world, do you really want to live on a planet which has pollution everywhere? where most forms of life have been wiped out? where you can not swim at the seaside for all the plastic and oil and sewage that increasingly cover the oceans?

    We only have one planet, lets not wreck it any more than we already have!

  3. Grace Robot917 says:

    isn’t global warming just the earth doing what the earth does for her own cleansing and protection mostly all few million years or so. ??? the earth has a lot of damage and pollution to remove this time, I thought it was a natural event.

  4. Randi says:

    No more abusive than the idiots whoever claim that everything is okay (like Martin Durkin, the biggest hack/liar in the history of “documentary”. Even Christopher’s Guest’s mockumentaries are more believable). But don’t take my word for it. Research it yourself.

  5. Jasmine Terrence says:

    Yes, I can see how being told to give good sources would be abuse to a GW theory opponent.

    But seriously, we didn’t abuse you, we simply refuted your arguments. You made any rather outlandish claims. For example, you implied in this question that Al Gore had something to do with the Hockey Stick graph (or even global warming theory in general). Clearly this is absurd.

  6. Wiz Nesmith says:

    Yes they’re very afraid of it. Most of them are following other agendas and just use this issue as a platform.

    I went to one of these London festivals recently and there was a stall from Friends of the earth and another from one of these Green energy providers. The friends of the earth people were trying to get people to sign a petition demanding “strict laws to protect the planet”. When I started asking them precisely what laws do they want, they got very aggressive. The reason was that they’d no idea!!! But if you ask them about Palestine, war in Iraq, the G8, capitalism then they have very strong views. The green energy people were much nicer but again had no idea when you ask them for details on the product they’re trying to sell.

    This issue is best left in the hands of science. There is no room for pressure groups and political or ideological movements.

  7. Valen Masterson272 says:

    I agree with you. This global warming madness is just an excuse for the Government to tax us more and nothing more than a PR bandwaggon to jump on for any z lister celebrity wanting to raise their profile. You mostly find that the so called green celebrities (Geldoff, Bono, and lately, Sienna Miller) lead the most polluting and excessive lifestyles of us all and have the bare faced cheek to preach to the rest of us. What really gets my back up is the “well respected scientists and environmentalist whoever have travelled the world for the research” – how did they travel the world then? probably by aeroplane – oh please, how hypocritical can you get. I don’t fall for it at all.

  8. Harpy Fujiyama says:

    Debate ? But that would mean they have to be honest about their claims. The earth goes through a warming/cooling cycle about all 20 years. Check your history. Twenty years ago, the coming ice age was the scare tactic. In fact, drastic reactions could make things WORSE, not better. This is nothing more then Al Gore crying about the 2000 election

  9. Terry Eaddy says:

    I know what you mean. And I also think that GW is a load of cow-cr*p.

  10. Tiger Robot says:

    I too have read the science (still am and any of it is tough going) and it’s true that you get heavily criticised if you question anthropogenic climate forcing – even though many of the claims are simply bad science – and any not even science at all, but personal opinion.

    I have no patience at all with bad science, but the current scare about climate is also propogated by bad journalism and dodgy politics.

    2500 of the worlds “top” scientists do NOT agree at all that humans are screwing up the atmosphere. The IPCC report was edited before publication to make it look like there was a consensus on Anthropogenic climate forcing, when there isn’t.

    Claims that sea levels are rising at an “unprecedented rate” are wrong in the extreme. Studies of ice sheet disintegration on Greenland show the break up of the ice there has “decreased in 2006 to previous levels” and “suggest that special care must be taken in how mass-balance estimates are evaluated, particularly when extrapolating into the future, because short-term spikes could yield erroneous long-term trends. ”

    The studies by Shepherd and Wingham (2007)led them to the conclusion that the current “best estimate” of the contribution of polar ice wastage to global sea level change is a rise of 0. 35 millimeters per year, which over a century amounts to only 35 millimeters, or less than an inch and a half.

    Sound like an “unprecedented sea level rise” to you? I absolutely agree that we should do our level best to exert positive influences on our environment, but to claim we are changing climate with projected disasterous results (which again are erronus – climate models are truly useless) is merely causing billions in money and resources to be diverted in combatting something which is very far from being proven. Scientists just don’t know enough about the atmosphere – ocean system, which many of them freely admit.

    The one thing I really cannot stand though, is how Carbon Dioxide is being presented as a pollutant.

    C02 is how living things grow and consider this – at current levels C02 is measured at 380 parts per million. Water vapour (always left out of the climate alarmists calculations) comes in at 10,500 parts per million. Water vapour is a “greenhouse gas” – by far the greater, yet it is rarely mentioned.

    gcnp58 – I’m not misquoting anything – read it for yourself

  11. Depressed Johnson says:

    Why are they abusive? most of these people are absolutely delusional, taking proxy data with numerous problems such as ice core samples contaminated with drilling fluids, a childish assumption that bubbles of air in water ice will maintain their original atmospheric composition and significant uncertainty with nonlinear depth time relationships. Then pasting modern short term actual measurements to form a CO2 record of humanities activities. The CO2 record itself is just another hockey stick which will soon be exposed as another IPCC supported fraud. Then they take rudimentary assumptions of the atmospheric life cycle of CO2 being hundreds of years with the most basic of conjecture to support that hypothesis, when actuality it is more likely to be in the decade range. And they hook all this up with basic GCR models with near constant TSI values and a ridiculously low ratio of water vapor forcing and attempt to predict the future, and actually have the audacity to suggest global policy changes, in order to alter the climate based on this nonsense.

  12. Tiger Raneesh says:

    Typical on answers! the majority rules even in an open environment like this – I worry about asking certain Q’s because of all the one sided answers. ps I agree with you

  13. Andy Terrence says:

    i couldn’t tell you exactly why, because i’m not one of them, to put in in a general perspective, i’ll just say generally I agree with what you are saying, global warming is not a threat to the world. . . . . . . i think it’s because all these people can even think hard enough to come up with a legitimate argument. . . . all they can come up with are insults and mindless banter. . . .

  14. Mandy Richards says:

    I think we have to consider global warming in terms of consumption. The more people there are on the planet consuming resources is going to create waste and that means pollution.

    To imagine that carbon emissions from transport and industry does not pollute the atmosphere is very naieve. This is the same mindset as those who crap in the Nile and wonder how they get dysentery when they drink from it.

    In order to tackle the problem there needs to be a global consensus between nations otherwise the UK going it alone will not make any significant difference.

  15. TuffGirl Johnson says:

    You need to realize this section is about global warming. If you want to talk politics (as in all the Al Gore drivel) why don’t you go do it in the Politics section? If you want to argue the science, why don’t you do that over in the science section? You may not realize it but your language is quite offensive. It gets boring and annoying and tends to displace the topic of the section. Nobody is seeking you out, and nobody wants to debate you. You’re coming here, and if you want to be welcome try behaving in a more socially acceptable manner. .

  16. Jasmine Raneesh says:

    anyone who disagrees with the fact that humans have an impact on the rising temperature of the planet is pretty. . . well. . . stupid. The real question is how BIG of an impact we are making. Many people speculate a massive shift in climate is upon us, whereas other supporters of the GW theory simply recognize that we are making a negative impact, whether it is small or large. The point is. . . steps need to be taken to ensure the well-being of future generations.

  17. Jasmine Hall20 says:

    I agree that global warming is too over rated in todays media. I do however think there should still be research carried out and action progressively applied to certain aspects of modern day life. I think there is a lot of unfair judgment on 4×4 drivers, and thats one of the main things people are getting frustrated about when they moan about global warming. The carbon emissions on modern 4×4 vehicles are not that bad, and a lot of these old bangers you see still driving around, even little 1. 4 fiestas, can emit equally as much carbon into the atmosphere as a relatively new range rover, and are just as thirsty on fuel.

  18. Florida Durham says:

    When you advertise your ignorance you invite derision. You are projecting your own fear.

  19. Ursula Richards says:

    You are absolutely correct.

    There is no doubt that the earth is warming, but it has been warming since the last ice age, or else it would still be covered with ice.

    The problem is that the zea lots all believe that they have the power to do something about it, which they don’t.

    global warming has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are doing. . . . . put the blame on the sun where it belongs.

  20. Daytona323 says:

    No abuse here, just science.

    The hockey stick was overly smoothed (averaged). Since then it’s been duplicated using less aggressive smoothing. The resulting graphs show the Medieval Warm Period clearly. They also show that something very different is going on right now, and that we’re already warmer and headed up fast. Ten peer reviewed studies:

  21. Jasmine Camry says:

    Because they are not willing to accept that much of the alleged threats to the environment, are myths which are based soley on computer modelling, and have been refuted by reputable scientists, who are not reported on by the mainstream media.

  22. Mandy Lowell says:

    I think that you’ve misunderstood substantive criticism of your question and supporting material for abuse. I, and others, presented substantive criticism against your arguments and you respond by suggesting that this was abuse.

    As for reading scientific reports, I’m not sure which reports you are referring to. Please try reading the IPCC report:

  23. Marcalo Fujiyama56 says:

    First of all, the real issue in not whether or not there is Global Warming, for certainly, the vast majority of scientists believe are admitting this. There is not one schorlarly report you can find in the past 5 years denying the global temperatures are rising. The issue is whether or not it is HUMAN INDUCED. Are the activities of humans, namely the release of so called greenhouse gases causing this event.

    The truth is, this is a far more complicated question that only a few scientists in the world are really qualified to answer, but even at that, the majority of them have come to the conclusion that indeed, humans are causing GW through our activities the produced exess CO2 beyond what the earth’s natural systems can absorb.

    I think you are totally wrong is saying GW believers won’t debate this. It’s happening everyday on hundreds of blogs and radio and television. But really, you are a few years behind the curve here. . . the debate is over as to whether it exists and is human caused. . . the real debate is related to what we should or can do about it.

    But if you still want to have a debate, I’d gladly step up to the plate. . . after you at least look at the site:

  24. Grace Dree says:

    I havn`t seen your Q`s before but I have thought along the same lines. I`m not a scientist but am interested in natural history and there has been so much in the news about it that I think people have become a bit brainwashed because that is all they have heard.
    The earth has been warming for thousands of years, England and most of Northern Europe were covered in a massive ice sheet, we have been warming up ever since.

  25. Marcalo RR232 says:

    I have a PhD, am not funded by any government and I DO believe anyone with half an education is having one over on all governments. GW is a blank cheque, throw money at me and I will tell you what you need to hear to increase my budget.

  26. Mary-Kathryn Masterson says:

    They are “True Believers” who are almost all of a Leftist mindset. They are in denial of the possibility that they could be wrong. They mindlessly support “Doing Something” without having the slightest idea of what its impact would be. To them anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid, because they know they are right. To achieve the goals they believe in they are willing to change the evidence, lie, libel, slander and denigrate the opposition.

    Look at the temperature records from the end of the Ice Age until now, the Holocene Era, the ones the GW supporters haven’t doctored to make their theories work. Look at solar activity records they haven’t suppressed. We have been warming up from the medieval Little Ice Age which really ended about 1815. Look at the earlier warm period when the Vikings grew wheat in Greenland. Actually calculate the tiny amount of CO2 human activity produces and ask yourself if reducing that, destroying technological civilisation, is worth slowing climate change by an infinitesimal amount. Remember that one large volcanic eruption cam put more greenhouse gasses into the air than all of human activity throughout history.

    They will call you a “denier” a label which implies you oppose the truth. A Zea lot is just someone who fiercely believes in something. Unfortunately the GW people refuse to listen in a spirit of give and take, because their personalities are incapable of that. A true Leftist has the same type of personality, don’t try to confuse them with facts, because their tiny minds are already made up.

  27. Ms Raneesh says:

    The third world pollutes the earth more and if possible warms the earth more than the western world.

    China: Mine fire, 100 million tons of coal on fire, can’t stop it, each year that amount goes up into the atmosphere as sulphates.
    India: Mine fire, 10 million tons of coal on fire, can’t stop that one either.

    One thousand fires warming homes with wood pollute more than a city of 100,000 using natural gas.

    California: Puts out 1% of the world output of C02, that’s with ten cement plants.

    India: Puts out 16% of the world output of C02.

  28. Mindy Jeffs says:

    Hey Nexus,the full first paragraph from Shepherd and Wingham is listed below. So, are you aware you are at best distorting what they said? It is this kind of misquoting that makes all you “skeptics” look like a bunch of wingnuts.

    Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets

    Andrew Shepherd and Duncan Wingham
    Science 16 March 2007:
    Vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1529 – 1532
    DOI: 10. 1126/science. 1136776

    After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth’s ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0. 35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3. 0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>