How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Next stop? Cambridge Bay: Crystal Serenity cruise to anchor in Nunavut - North - CBC News
See that. That was phonied-up up on a sound stage in Burbank by fukctard, libtard, demdumb, liberal, socialist, Al Gore lovin' Obamie-commies.
They haven't encountered any ice in their transit if the Northwest Passage, yet ... further proof that the World is getting colder!
Just ask Walter.
He knows all.
See that. That was phonied-up up on a sound stage in Burbank by fukctard, libtard, demdumb, liberal, socialist, Al Gore lovin' Obamie-commies.
They haven't encountered any ice in their transit if the Northwest Passage, yet ... further proof that the World is getting colder!
Just ask Walter.
He knows all.
Who paid for it? Do they get the same rate as Apple when they announce a new gadget as "news"?
Want to bet money on that?
New word for Wally day: advertorial.
An advertorial is an advertisement in the form of editorial content. The term "advertorial" is a blend (see portmanteau) of the words "advertisement" and "editorial." Merriam-Webster dates the origin of the word to 1946.
Don't Be Fooled by Ads Disguised as News | CIO
more and more tech websites, along with general interest online publications, are turning to something called "native" or "sponsored" content.
Simply put, native content is pretty similar to what used to be called an "advertorial," or a post written at the behest of an advertiser, but made to look like news, a feature story or a blog. Reputable publications that use sponsored content (CIO.com is one) label it clearly. But outfits with less integrity (ahem, Sports Illustrated) either don’t disclose it, or disclose in such a way that a casual reader could be misled. (Speaking of disclosures, I sometime edit, but never write, sponsored content for a very reputable company. It’s not my favorite gig, but I need to pay the bills.)
The problem: Advertising disguised as editorial product undermines everyone’s trust in the Internet. The issue has been getting a fair amount of media coverage lately – The New York Times columnist David Carr had a good, if a bit hyperbolic, piece this week – and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also noticed. (Even The Times has reportedly considered using native content.)
On Monday, the FTC announced that it will hold a workshop on December 4 about native advertising and the "blurring of digital ads with digital content." The agency notes that: "Increasingly, advertisements that more closely resemble the content in which they are embedded are replacing banner advertisements – graphical images that typically are rectangular in shape – on publishers' websites and mobile applications."
Such workshops are often followed by a period in which the FTC asks for public comment. If it gets that far, I’ll let you know. In the meantime, read the fine print. Always read the fine print.
I hope you understand that NOAA has been standing their ground by using consensus - they are telling us that it's a proven fact and that it is backed up by the AMA and the American Horticulturalist Association.
Global warming is not proven by a consensus of people that don't know anything about the science.
The original source of the 97% consensus was from a questionnaire given to the some 11,000 scientists leaving the first conference by the IPCC. Virtually ALL of the scientists said either that there was insufficient data to judge or they said, "no comment".
This did not fit the IPCC's needs so they reduced those whom they needed to those 39 scientists that self identified themselves as "climate scientists". There really was no such thing at the time so these people were searching for an identity more than anything else.
Of the 39, 2 said that there definitely was no proof of AGW. The remaining 37 said the opposite. That is where "97% of all scientists" came from.
Lately as that number has been questioned by the other 10,961 they have turned to still more dishonest methods.
Climate Change: No, It
So in actuality the overwhelming consensus is that there is insufficient data to tell anything. Why would you take the word of a "climate scientist" who quotes a paper but not the man who wrote the study to begin with?
My own belief backed up by study after study is that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature changes and does not cause them. During the time when CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing at a linear 1% per year man's use of fossil fuels was increasing at 13% per year in the US and coal use in the rest of the world was increasing at 25%. So while CO2 was increasing linearly the use of fossil fuels was increasing logarithmically.
We also know that the chemical structure of CO2 and the spectrum in which it absorbs energy is simply not present in high quantities on the Earth.
CO2 Absorption Spectrum.
Almost none of the claims about CO2 make the slightest sense since CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere that virtually all of the energy that is held inside of these molecules is passed to the surrounding atmosphere through direct conduction and not by radiation in a waveband. i.e. Energy in a molecule causes it to vibrate. It takes a lot of energy to "fill" each molecule with enough energy that it releases it as a wave of IR. Instead it bumps into the surrounding molecules and passes part of it's energy on to them as motion. That means that O2 and N hold the majority of energy in the atmosphere. This eventually works it's way into the upper atmosphere and it radiates into space following Plank's law.
Do you really need to be corrected? If Mercury ever had an atmosphere it was boiled off with temperatures FAR exceeding those of Venus. Now there is no atmosphere to slow the radiation from Mercury the planet itself is so hot that it radiates all of it's head off of the night side. and reaches within 100 C of absolute zero
Surface temperature of:
Mercury - 430 degrees Kelvin at noon
Venus - 759 degrees Kelvin anywhere on the planet
Mercury actually has water ice on it's north pole. All year round.
Wasting your breath. Ton is a fish doctor that hasn't been around for a couple of years now. Got tired of being corrected all the time.
I hate to disappoint people but this "weather" that many have been complaining about for the past 4 months can now be classified as "climate". 
Unfortunately you can't call weather events "climate" unless they continue for 10 years or more. This is what upsets the True Believers so much about the weather hiatus for the last 19 years. And even NOW it heating could continue but I think that this warm period is over the hump and will begin dropping. Imagine the tears in the eyes of that happens.I hate to disappoint people but this "weather" that many have been complaining about for the past 4 months can now be classified as "climate".
Yeah, average Canadian temperatures about 3 degrees warming that normal couldn't possibly be because the La Nina has caused the cold weather to slide further south where temperatures are below normal.
Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.
It sure must hurt you to be wrong so often.
I have snow on my dead Metro Vancouver lawn.
Is it possible warm and cold can displace each other?
Why doesn’t Mercury have an atmosphere but Venus and Earth do? Then Mars barely does but rest of the planets are nothing but dense atmospheres. What gives?
An Earth Scientist asks....
Is it possible warm and cold can displace each other?
Why doesn’t Mercury have an atmosphere but Venus and Earth do? Then Mars barely does but rest of the planets are nothing but dense atmospheres. What gives?
An Earth Scientist asks....
