|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 28, 2010 12:16:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 28, 2010 12:59:23 GMT
Haven't seen enough of the whole thing to make an informed opinion as to the accuracy of his video.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 28, 2010 13:13:31 GMT
It's not a history of AGW at all, but a rather confused string of environmental issues through time and in the popular press. I am not an environmentalist for example, nor am I interested in population bombs or silent springs. But the science is settled that we have significantly altered the carbon cycle which will have a non-negliable effect on the environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 28, 2010 14:14:48 GMT
It's not a history of AGW at all, but a rather confused string of environmental issues through time and in the popular press. I am not an environmentalist for example, nor am I interested in population bombs or silent springs. But the science is settled that we have significantly altered the carbon cycle which will have a non-negliable effect on the environment. Of course it is ....  There have been additions of fossil carbon back into the 'carbon cycle' - but that hasn't ALTERED the cycle. Volcanoes regularly return fossil carbon back to the atmosphere. Does irrigation using 'fossil water' ALTER the hydrologic cycle? |
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Aug 28, 2010 14:40:09 GMT
Quote "Does irrigation using 'fossil water' ALTER the hydrologic cycle?" unquote
What matters is -case by case- possible overexploitation of available resources -such as fossil water- and its impact in surrounding human population in short-medium trends.
As for the question itself addressed to Socold, I would like -hope you both don´t mind- to take a guess and say YES but within the confines and perspective of the overall Hydro Cycle it may not have a high quantitative impact, but for sure does for our human society being one of the most concerning problems regarding fresh water trade and handling.
|
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Aug 28, 2010 14:41:16 GMT
...and availability
|
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Aug 28, 2010 16:50:00 GMT
Oh come on, Hannity is a global warming expert like Beck is the next MLK. Fox is becoming laughable, it is all about there personalities, news and truth are now so low on the agenda as not to exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 28, 2010 17:07:18 GMT
Oh come on, Hannity is a global warming expert like Beck is the next MLK. Fox is becoming laughable, it is all about there personalities, news and truth are now so low on the agenda as not to exist. And that differs from other news outlets how? Is there any one of them that is not a political organization on some level? |
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Aug 28, 2010 17:18:52 GMT
slh1234-
Try BBC radio or NPR, I agree that MSNBC and CNN do also have there viewpoint, but to promote a rally on MLK day, at his site, where a bunch of white folks show to hear about how religion should return to America really takes the cake for lack of journalistic integrity. And the million bucks to the republicans from Fox also makes them very special...
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 28, 2010 17:30:27 GMT
Fred, I'm sorry, but I have also watched BBC and listened to NPR. They are as political as any other "news" outlet and have just as much issue with that nebulous concept you call "Journalistic integrity." It's all about which viewpoint you're more comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Aug 28, 2010 17:38:00 GMT
BBC radio, radio.
NPR is much less political on average than any other.
It should not be what viewpoint you are comfortable with, as intelligent folks truly understand other viewpoints.
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 28, 2010 18:03:33 GMT
Fred, you're missing the point with the intelligent folks comment. Yes, but intelligent folks are just as likely as unintelligent folks to see be upset when someone does something against their beliefs, and just as likely as unintelligent folks to accept without questioning or seeing anything out of line when it doesn't line up. I notice that you also find some things unacceptable about foxnews and see it as evidence that truth isn't important with them.
I have personally listened to NPR and heard softball questions being sent like "Are (certain party) being hypocrites on this?" My thought when I heard this was that it was a good example of seeing a splinter in someone else's eye but missing the plank in their own. It was a question designed specifically to make a certain political viewpoint look good and minimize the other viewpoint. This is just one example and it was specifically on NPR.
In the case of NPR, I would have to say that (boring != apolitical). They are as political as any other organization.
yes, BBC, and on radio, and online ... still political if you open your eyes to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Aug 28, 2010 23:37:35 GMT
NPR is much less political on average than any other. You have got to be kidding. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 28, 2010 23:50:14 GMT
BBC radio, radio. NPR is much less political on average than any other. It should not be what viewpoint you are comfortable with, as intelligent folks truly understand other viewpoints. NPR is much less political on average than any other.
That's a good one  |
|
|
|
Post by fredfriendly on Aug 29, 2010 0:12:34 GMT
Oh come on, listen to NPR then go to Fox or CNN or MSNBC - NPR wins for actual facts hands down. I will take the BBC over all of them, but for their coverage of climate.
|
|
;D
;D
