Watch: Viewers shocked as news anchors quit on the air

 @Insomniac Dreams  @dead_n_bloated That's what I thought too. I thought she was the 28 yr. old, and I agree he looks way older than 28, like maybe 38

@TheTruncheon gawd you’re a tool… shed. Obviously. Go figure.

 @Conrad Schnakenberg  "cited"

 @Maynard G Krebbs  @Stoat Thank you, Mr. Krebbs for your reply citing Scientific Evidence on Global Warming. Indeed, your documentation counters mine, but is how this should work- a discussion of the facts.

     I went to the website connected to your link, and looked up the documentation. "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica," (Petit JR, et al., Nature 399[6735]: 429-36, 3 June 1999), this article is the source of the counter argument and the lead scientist in the study was Jean Robert Petit.

 

    This scientist's name is all over your counter evidence, his team is the source of the VOSTOK data which has been interpreted to create the website you sited.

 

    However, in an interview about his study, this is his own interpretation of the data:

 

Take from: 

 

http://in-cites.com/papers/Jean-RobertPetit.html

 

"A salient correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature suggested from the 150-kyrs record was fully confirmed for the four climatic cycles with an almost perfect covariance between temperature and CO2." 

 

And again:

 

"Here, the Vostok data suggests a small variation (excess) of insulation (resulting from the long-term earth-sun position changes, the shortening/lengthening of the seasons) will likely warm the earth and the ocean which will release additional CO2 that in turn contributes again to an additional warming. CO2 is an important actor in the climate system."

 

and again:

 

"With industrial development and anthropologic activity, massive burning of fossil carbon as well as intensification of agriculture released exponential amounts of CO2 and CH4 over the last 150 years. Present atmospheric composition well surpasses all maximum concentrations from the ice records over the last 420 kyrs (30% more CO2, 300% more CH4).

This makes a permanent atmospheric cover over the globe which prevents the natural cooling of the earth’s surface and making it so the heat is always "on." A new climate equilibrium is expected but we have no analog from the past climate (except maybe at the time of the dinosaurs!). This raises questions for the future climate and the consequences."

 

      Now, I do have to apologize. I do not, at this time, have the original paper in my hands we are discussing (it is not available on the web). I'm going to try to get the article and cite that directly- however these are the words from the AUTHOR of the article and he seems to be refuting just about everything Monte Hieb states on his website.

 

  I freely admit. I owe you a debate based on the original source. I'm going to do what I can to get it. 

 

      I look forward to hearing your reply, and my complements to Mr. Heib for his website's arguments as well. This is how these matters should be dealt with; lets discuss facts, the evidence, and the evaluation of that evidence. This has been stimulating and educational.

 

   Thank you. 

 

 @Stoat  @Conrad Schnakenberg " I won't be responding to any further posts from you"... in other words.. "you've clearly made me appear to be the monkey's rear I am, and I am going to stop posting with you in a belated effort to limit the damage". Better?

 @Gaikokujin  @Kristen Nelson Well, yes I do, because I know that my Kool Aid is made of tiny sugary crystals that dissolve in water.  Yours on the other hand... well you folks like to believe all this stuff about water changing to wine and blood and stuff you're going to have to tell ME what's in yours, because its clear nobody can tell you anything unless they're a priest or broadcasting on the Fox news network.

 @Kristen Nelson "global warming is real"

 

LOL boy you guys get the best Kool-Aid to drink.

 @Stoat OMG stop... you're KILLINGme......

 @Kristen Nelson Just because you travel exclusively among inarticulate  people who don't question politically-correct assumptions doesn't mean everyone else does.  Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?  I guess so.

 

I hope you might consider reading some books one day.....something outside of the 'children's area' of the library.

 

Buh-bye.

 

.

 @Stoat BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA... thank you.... that truly made my night.....  I'm seeing this mental image of this jackass using the word "parlance" in casual conversation.... and I just can't stop laughing.... OKOKOK... I'll try to .... nah... still laughing....trillion dollar conspiracy... I...I can't.... I mean.... HAHAHAHAAAA.... thank you...

 @Kristen Nelson I see, so being 'smart'  means mindlessly believing a trillion-dollar global scam without question merely because it's what your chosen ideology supports, which violates a thousand years of established Scientific Method which stipulates that science is NEVER 'settled' and any true Scientist is ALWAYS questioning assumptions, particularly when such a huge volume of contradictory data is readily available from established sources, disproving it entirely.   

That reminds me of the 'smart' people who insisted that the world was flat and would burn 'heretics' at the stake.  I see, thank you so much for your gracious explanation.

 

And I'm curious what you consider to be a 'ten-dollar word'....everything I've said in this thread is common parlance among the educated people that I socialize with, and when I or they encounter a word that we're not familiar with, we either politely ask for a definition or take a moment to look it up ourselves, because we understand the value and importance of language, among other things.  You can take that as a hint if you like, although I rather doubt you will.  

 

When you play in the arena of words and language, stipulating that certain words are 'off limits' because they aren't spoken among fourth-graders is more of a reflection on the person making such a 'rule', not of the person who uses the words.   Rather than demanding that everyone else dumb themselves down, you might want to consider looking at yourself instead.

 

Have a nice day  :-)

Hey Stoat - maybe if he sounds condescending its because you're one of the idiots who doesn't want to accept that global warming is real and when smart people talk to stupid people they actually ARE condescending because they have to speak to someone who isn't on intellectually equal footing.  Hint: using ten dollar SAT words doesn't make you smart, it just means you know how to use a dictionary and a spell checker. 

 @Stoat  @Conrad Schnakenberg You don't mean personal attacks like 'teleprompter-reader', 'condescending', 'arrogant', 'patronizing', or 'religious fervor', do you?

 

Also, if you consider personal attacks the crux of the opposition then you have not in any way understood any of the arguments presented to you.

 @Terence Reilly  @Conrad Schnakenberg   "The only 'religion' of global warming are those like Stoat who form opinions without going through the overwhelming peer reviewed documents "  Your eagerness to pigeonhole me personally without having the slightest idea about what you speak of renders your entire screed meritless and unworthy of further replies.

 

When personal attacks become the crux of the opposition, that signifies that they have nothing of substance to say.

 @Conrad Schnakenberg  Once again your arrogant, patronizing tone dominates your delivery, illustrating that your religious fervor in defending an issue that is actually irrelevant to the article is driven by emotion and ideology, not science.

 

Studiously avoiding and breezily discounting the political agendas involved in the promotion of 'global warming' as 'established, irrefutable science'  insults the numerous, world-renowned scientists, who actually care about the established Scientific Method, where science is NEVER 'settled', particularly in matters so complex.

 

Unfortunately, your students have my sympathy but you don't have my respect.  I won't be responding to any further posts from you.

 @Stoat  @Conrad Schnakenberg With the proliferation of phrases such as 'teleprompter-reader' and the 'religion of global warming' Stoat is proving that he would rather listen to the opinions of the uninformed who have a political agenda and then blame others for having an agenda. Conrad may have had a condescending tone (I didn't think so, at least not any more than Stoat did, but I will not debate opinions of this nature) but the message he brought was clear. The only 'religion' of global warming are those like Stoat who form opinions without going through the overwhelming peer reviewed documents that provide hard evidence, with data that is easily verified and experiments easily duplicated. I could also provide numerous links that prove that 'Climate Gate' was nothing more than a witch hunt to discredit a small amount of scientists and use that to smear all of them. I have a sneaking suspicion that providing that proof will matter even less than advising anyone to read peer reviewed documents about climate change before speaking of it.

 @Stoat Ah, but you have said it is "biased political indoctrination"- which is EXACTLY my point as well, than you for highlighting this. Its not about politics. Its about cold, hard, scientific facts. The only way to take sides on this argument is not with verbal attacks, offended feelings, or any sort of emotional response at all.

    Its about clear undiluted evidence. I've offered evidence in my retort, but you have responded with emotion (very well written by the way- you clearly have a gift there).

    Now, you can dispute the evidence if you wish ("The Deep Ocean temperatures are NOT increasing because-", or "The Ice Caps are NOT actually melting because-"), and then we can discuss the validity of such evidence and the origin of its source. 

   This is the nature of a proper scientific debate. Your feelings, and my feelings don't matter- either Global warming is occurring, or it isn't.

 

      I am standing on the position that Global Climate change IS quite real, and it will have lasting impacts (how severe will it be within our lifetime, that I cannot tell you). I take this opinion not because it is "trendy", or because it favors a particular political party, or because I am trying to save the whales, etc. 

   I take this opinion because that is where the evidence leads. Call it a "Forensic Analysis" if you will.

 

       You sir, are a fighter. I respect that. It is important to stand up for one's beliefs. I, sir, am a scientist. I represent the facts, and to these facts a person's beliefs are irrelevant. 

 

  This is an important issue, politics -by their very nature- are rife with opinions. People who "feel" so passionately about what they "know to be right" it is so easy to get lost in that structure that it is difficult to see anything else beyond it.

       Global Climate Change is our baby, we (all of humankind) created this issue. What we do about that should not be decided by politics. The entire planet could be affected by this decision, emotions should not be allowed to get in the way. I also "feel" that it shouldn't be possible, I "want to believe" that this will not effect the future of this great country. I have no desire for humanity to suffer through this mess. 

 

      But the evidence is the thing. The data is clear, and it is matching all the expected predictions. You can I can "go at it" and keep arguing (something which will stop shortly, you may have the last word if you wish), but in the final analysis the Earth has been changed and there will be lasting consequences for those changes. 

        It is math. It is physics. These things are what they are, no matter how inconvenient the reality of it is. 

     I AM an educator, and this IS what I teach my students; don't trust anyone's opinions. Don't tow any party lines. Look for evidence. Trust only the numbers, and from there make your own (scientifically based) conclusions.

      It is NOT something that comes easily to our nature. We "want to believe" what we "want to believe" and become offended when others disagree. Emotions are easy, passion is powerful. It is part of who we are, and unfortunately to confront this issue those facets of our nature are working against us.