It's hot in Vegas during the summer?????
That being said I have to take it with a grain of salt considering the source. (I rarely take fix news or msnbc etc. without consideration)
I won't say they lie but they seem to be suspiciously good at missing details that really change the story.
As for global warming, first it's a name that misrepresents the actual issue. There are very few scientists who deny the existence of climate change. (incidentally a much better description than warming)
The real argument in my mind is the extent and cause of this, I think there is exaggeration on both sides of the issue but enough data to support carbon emission as a contributor.
Denying the existence of changes is silly, or even worse is the Bachman/Limbaugh theory if it's natural, therefore it can't be bad. If you subscribe to that I recommend arsenic after all it's natural so it can't be bad.
It's not a Fox exclusive or editorial, those are just easy links. Nor is the subject of academic/scientific dishonestly a new idea to this issue. Heck, our chief CARB scientist in CA was found to be a fraud not too long ago.
That being said, it's well documented that human activity causes local climate change. It's well documented that CO2 absorbs/emits infrared radiation (heat). It's well documented that CO2 production is on the rise, and atmospheric CO2 has climbed.
Does that mean that human CO2 production today is causing global climate change? An honest scientist who is looking at just data would say "not enough data, but whatever changes are happening are small compared to historic changes prior to the industrial age." Come on, North America has ocean fossils in the middle of the freakin' deserts, and half way up mountains.
But some things to ponder when looking at the actual data, not opinions:
For every man, woman, and child living today, there is over 1,700,000,000 lbs of air. At current levels of CO2 production, it will take ~2,000 years to increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere to 1%, which is still probably not enough increase to worry about. Assuming of course the ecosystem and oceans don't absorb it.
Water vapor is the #1 infrared absorber, not CO2. Changes in humidity make man-made changes in CO2 levels statistically invalid. Kind of like spitting into a bathtub and measuring the temperature change, verses turning on the hot-water tap.
Space is freakin' cold. REALLY freakin' cold. Most our heat is lost in space. Attempts at heating up the atmosphere with small levels of CO2 aren't going to work well because of it. They try to convince us that the CO2 "traps" heat in the atmosphere like a "greenhouse". You talk about fundamental dishonesty? That's so bad it should burn their tongues as they say it. There is nothing holding the heat in. Ever wonder why it's freaking cold at 20,000'? The attic insulation sucks.
Its all a government scam if you ask me. Crooked ass government is all it is.
