Back in the beloved Soviet Union, newspapers knew better than to question government authorities.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
Discredited WUWT blogger? Huh? Last I heard Watts gets lots of praise for his efforts.
“Charlatan Romm Attacks Honest Reporting with Fabricated Facts”
I think Fox news is ridiculous but I am with them on this one.
When was the last time you watched Fox news or are you just trotting out the progressive lie?
Opps. I misread your post. Sorry. Ignore my rant please.
oh you are still on…i don’t believe anything in the media.
and i don’t have a tv anyways!
Steven is the “discredited” blogger from WUWT.
Either way, Romm says one thing, others say another. The facts don’t change, only their interpretation. Just depends on which dog you rely on, the rabid one or the other one? 🙂
btw, replace the word CAGW with evolution and Fox’s position would be exposed….but since CAGW is more like creationism, I have to allow Fox their perspective and happily accept and agree with their skepticism because factual reality is not a question of your orientation.
that is so like – straw
Warmest year ever, but only the fabricated data.
NOAA & NCDC Pursue Goal of ‘Warmest Year Ever’ For 2010 – Release Newly Fabricated Global Temperatures
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/noaa-ncdc-pursue-goal-of-warmest-year-ever-for-2010-release-newly-fabricated-global-temperatures.html
lol, boy that never seems to get old! Pretty soon the heat waves of the 30’s will show a cooling!
OT: This is a headline from Discovery mag
Antarctic Melting as Deep Ocean Heat Rises
Big melting along the Antarctic coast has researchers realizing that the deep sea has been holding Earth’s warming
Sorry for the OT. Thought you might be interested.
What, are they rehashing old news? I think we’ve already been down that road. There’s some active volcanoes up under there. I couldn’t find the story to make fun of them, but last time it was volcano burps that had them all up in arms.
Steve’s blog moves fast, go back to the first posts on Dec 15….
….there it is
lol, this is funny stuff!
““It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”
The funny part is while they scream this shows Fox’ bias, they consider themselves neutral, tingly feelings and all!
Romm is a hoot. I hope he never realizes that most of the world laughs at him.
I’m glad there is a major network that doesn’t conform with the rest. And I’m basically a liberal.
lol, those weren’t hummers, it was team horses farting wot dun it!
As so often, you give the picture but not the link to the article. Don’t you trust your readers to draw the right conclusions? Here’s the link: http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/16/wattsupwiththat-foxgate-email-unequivocal-warming-of-the-climate/#more-38876
I especially like this part:
“… the traditionally conservative and staid U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the equivalent of our scientific Supreme Court, concluded its recent review of climate science:
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
And so it is a scientific “settled fact” that the Earth is warming.”
The Moon is made of green cheese! I speak from authority so it must be right, and you can no longet QUESTION IT!
Makes more sense than the gibberish you tried posting. The science is not settled, they do not even have a working hypothesis, and no models have been even close to correct yet. In other words, other than words, there is no clothes on the emperor – and Fox has it 100% correct. Romm, Media Matters, and nonsense here are 100% wrong.
You do not have to have a PHD in math to know that 2+2=4.
You’ll never get that equation past peer review
If the 2 is from CO2, then it has magical properties such as reradiating in multiple directions more energy than it absorbs, so each 2 is actually ~ 2.5 so your equation is wrong…. where CO2 is concerned anyway :).
Robb – if the peers are all idiots, why not? Look what else some of the “peers” have passed – broken Hockey Sticks and Steigs mythical warming (to name just 2 that have been in the news of late).
Anything can pass peer review – if the peers are stupid.
it’ll never get passed peer review BECAUSE it’s not garbage. (2+2=4)
I was attempting humor
My Apologies. It appears we are thinking along the same lines.
I now know why you chose you particular nome de plume…you lack so much of what you seek.
This just in…Sense Seeker quotes NAS…informs “deniers” world warms after ice age…also…water found to be wet.
Oh, didn’t you try to criticize one of my comments yesterday with “Also ‘could have been’ in a single study mostly indicates low precision.
Since you’re the authority, what is the precision equation for “very likely”.
BTW there is no such thing as a “very likely” “settled fact”
Romm never gives it a break with the propaganda. Sense Seeker must be from his blog.
No Amino, I’m not ‘from’ any blog. I read blogs and then choose what to believe, and what not. But of course I am trained to distinguish facts from opinions cloaked as facts (factoids). In my line of business (academic research) you have to be scrupulous about that, or you get chopped down in no time by peer reviewers, and after an increasingly short while, you lose your job. Except for the cleaners maybe, all contracts here are temporary, so you learn.
So you might have a different background and come to different conclusions than I do. But that’s fine. This is a free society, and everybody has to think for themselves.
choose what to believe,
how? Based upon pretty colors? The cutest girls? It sure is not anything to do with facts and science. You are bereft of both.