Global Cooling?

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Check the link - National Post - not quite the Tyee but I'd didn't read anything overtly biased in the article.

Didn't see anything overtly biased? Did you read the first sentence/paragraph?

"In his enviro-propaganda flick,...and one of the centrepieces of global warming hysteria..."

?

I was speaking more to the data points. The writer may have been happy to report the data, but the reporting of the data sets requiring revision (and the revisions being accepted by the data holders) seemed a straight reporting of facts.

And if you don't think Gore's film was propoganda, maybe you should take a more objective view of the film. (not saying it was bad propoganda, but by definition most documentaries are propoganda)

The data points? I can take basically any statistics and turn them around to prove my point. Don't you know 95% of statistics are made up anyway??

And regardless, what's his point? What's he advocating?

As for Gore, I never said anything about his movie so why assume I have even seen it much less agree with it?

First Kermit - chill out....

Second - I am not sure what you are trying to say. I simply put up a link to an article in a a national newspaper that provided a counter argument in the global warming debate. I made a comment stating I didn't think the article was too biased. You attacked that assertion (not the actual article or it's facts so I guess you agree with them). I clarified my point and stated that your statement that the writers use of 'propoganda' was a biased statement was unfair as most documentaries are biased. Your response is nonsensical... make an actual argument, refutation or point.

As a followup - and clarification - the data was revised for the US only not for global temperatures and really only jiggered around the results a little bit for the US. Not the major blow to Global Warming arguments that it purports to be.

Chill out? Am I coming across upset?

"You attacked that assertion (not the actual article or it's facts so I guess you agree with them)."

Attacked? I was simply pointing out that article was many things, unbiased was not one of them. And assuming I agree with the article because I didn't refute it is silly, I wasn't referring to the content of the article at all.

"I clarified my point and stated that your statement that the writers use of 'propoganda' was a biased statement was unfair as most documentaries are biased."

So are you saying this jounalist and the National Post are in the business of writing propaganda? I didn't think newspapers and documentaries were the same thing...

"make an actual argument, refutation or point."

I guess I was wondering what yours was...

Mine is simply that this journalist is another in a long line of journalists who spin the numbers so that their point can be proven true. I'm just poking fun at your statement it's unbiased...nothing more, nothing less.

Trying to liven up this forum is very difficult....

Follow the link for a good response. In short:

-this is US data only, not global. In 1934, the US had a much higher than normal average, but the rest of the world not as much so... in 1998 (the 'new' 2nd hottest, by a fraction of a degree), the US hardly stood out at all.

-the 'hottest summers' don't mean much. Maximums are anomalies. You really need to look at the overall trend, which is rising.

The link has some coloured maps and graphs that illustrate these points quite well.