FOX News says that because it's cold outside global warming is a hoax, is that good science?

Quite brilliant really... ol' RL got double the audience and all the controversy necessary to gain the Neslon ratings that advertizers like to see... But those Fox method-actors pretending to be knowledgeable news commentators do nothing but boost sales of headache medicine to those with a modicum of intelligence and with enough masochism to watch a Fox news editorial. There's two ways to respond to a comment like that: The first is to react on the same level, by just waiting for the next time the weather is hot, and then say, "Wow it's hot. Global warming must be true."

The second is to explain something to people who know how to think, but who just don't know something about how climate works, and it works like this: "Climate" is when you have regular, annually repeating patterns of weather as a function of the latitude and your location relative to the oceans. The flowing ocean-and-air currents of the climate making weather is driven by heat absorbed from the sun. If you add more heat to the oceans-and-air, then the flow of ocean-and-air currents will get stronger, and will eventually settle into a new pattern, with things like a wheat line that's moved further north, and with former wheat-lands becoming deserts.

But that's only *after* it's *stabilized* into the new annual pattern. Imagine you put a paddle into the water and pull on it. Notice those little eddies that swirl out and around from the paddle?

Those are eddies of chaos spun off from the addition of new energy to the flow of the water that you put the paddle into. When you add heat to the oceans-and-atmosphere, then the first thing to happen is that eddies of chaos get spun off and all around until it settles into the new climate pattern. Those eddies of ocean-and-atmospheric chaos can result in things like heat-waves in the middle of winter, and freaky blizzards in the middle of summer.

Those types of bizarre weather behavior will continue until the climate settles into the new pattern Therefore, if global warming is happening, one *expects* to see heat waves in the winter, and freaky cold spells in the summer, and at the current rate of heating, it's going to get worse before it gets better. The strange thing about people who want to stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la' when they hear about climate change is that it's so simple to just look at the evidence... like... thickness of the arctic ice-cap now compared to 60 years ago. At the rate things are already *seen* to be going, here's where it's going to be in 40 years.

We're a bit more than half-way in-between right now. Thirty percent of the arctic ice-cap has already disappeared.

Ever noticed how anti-climate-changers tend to be both freakishly right-wing, yet ironically will advocate the notion that reporting of climate-change is a conspiracy for corporations to make money?Like... make up your mind.

If there's a way for entrepreneurialism and the free-market to drive an adaptation to a lower carbon footprint in order to reverse global warming, then... what the heck's wrong with that? Ultimately it's the governments of the world who will be held accountable for managing people and their populations in the chaotic wake of massive global warming. That's their job.

That's why they get elected. And if it were to become known that the leaders knew in advance that global warming was happening, and that nothing was done to correct or prepare for it, it's not the industrialists who will get blamed - even though they were the ones to cause it - it will be government to catch the flak. Theoretically a government could behave in a very authoritarian manner and make lots of hard decisions by compelling people at gun-point to change their behavior in order head off the catastrophe, but educated people accustomed to making their own decisions don't like that, however they are okay about intelligent regulation.

All a government has to do is tweak the tax-structure a bit. Make taxes higher on those things that damage the climate while cutting taxes on operations that help the climate such that over-all it's revenue-neutral - so nobody can accuse them of tax-grabbing - and then leave the entrepreneurs along to run wild in the newly leveled playing field. You get maximum benefits of free-entrepreneurial ambitious when the players are presented with an intelligently leveled playing field, whereupon the government stands back and umps the game.

Free-enterprisers from economies like Taiwan and Sweden don't object to government being an intelligent umpire of a free-market oriented, well-leveled playing field. That's what they want, and that's what they've got, and their economies are doing fine. Sweden has a carbon tax of $250 per tonne... yet her economy is *booming* compared to the USA, so the taxes and the controls of carbon emission are not a problem for the economy as long as the entrepreneurs are free to play.

Entrepreneurs have no problem adapting to things like carbon-taxes... that's what it means to be an entrepreneur. Being a good entrepreneur means you're the most flexible for doing fast adaptations to new circumstances... and competition is no problem... heck, it can even be a motivation... as long as the rules are the same for everyone. The problem is if you've got players who want to cheat outside the rules.

That's when the game breaks down, and the entrepreneurs decide it's just not worth playing, whereupon the society looses all the benefits of having a free-market to take care of the details. So who would want to cheat?Well... semi-senile owners of anachronistic operations who cannot adapt to a new game because they lost, or maybe never had, that true entrepreneurial spirit which thrives in a well regulated free market, comes to mind... It's like how real athletes can focus on competition and excellence when all players know the rules of the game, and it's well refereed... only bad or incompetent athletes will want to cheat the rules by doing things like bribe the ump to ignore bad plays. But if you do have a well-regulated economy, which in a free-market entrepreneurial society mostly means revenue-neutral tweaking of the tax-structure, then yes, the best and most innovative entrepreneurs are going to make profits by doing things to fix the climate.So what?

I couldn't give a tinkle-berry if someone gets rich for doing something that's good for everyone. You know, capitalism and free-enterprise are not the same thing. Capitalism is a system of ownership, whereas free-enterprise is a system for production.

Capitalism does not necessarily correlate to free-enterprise, but it does counterpoint to Communism. Capitalism is when a small number of semi-invisible people can own-and/or-control the infrastructure upon which the economy operates and it's called private ownership, whereas Communism is when a small number of semi-visible people can own-and/or-control the infrastructure of the economy and they call it state ownership... and both are equally freaky if they get out of hand. You can have a Communist state with a sufficiently regulated free-enterprise economy, which is what's happening in China, and they are prospering.

You can also have a Capitalist state with miserably insufficient regulation of a level playing field for free-enterprise, like Nigeria, and it's hell. Did deregulation under Reagan/Bush lead to prosperity? Regardless of whether you're upper, middle, or lower class, tell me as a nation how the financial debt-status is looking since a few Orwellian pigs bribed license to scoop huge fortunes out of the economy and wire it to offshore banks?

Foxian anchors are payed to blither from one side of the mouth a defense of ownership of non-enterprising and anachronistically arthritic, inflexible corporate money-milkers as being a moral right, while out the other side of the mouth they bilge forth statements about the scientific study of climate change as being a blasphemous conspiracy designed to enable private enterprise to make money fixing the climate... ... which means... Fox is either hypocritical, or it is an enemy of well-refereed free-enterprise to make the world a better place.

First lets define good science. ~quote 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

~endquote/ physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_ww... Reference Well it is if we were to measure "Is it cold outside now? " Yes that is an accurate scientific statement.It is not good science if we are measuring "Is global warming effecting the temperature of the planet long term? " or "Is global warming a hoax?

" or "Is humanity causing climate change?" Taking a snippet of time as a measurement defining the long term effect of climate change is a politically motivated ploy to undermine the community of scientists that would say the Earth is dangerously close to being on the brink of disaster by climate change. On the other hand the scientists that had their emails hacked at the University of East Anglia in England did not do their cause any justice by opening up the debate about whether or not this global warming is being reported accurately to begin with.

It seems neither side is playing fairly.. there sees to be political motivation on both sides of the coin and that is the biggest issue about the plight of the planet.

There's no data to support AWG anywhere under the sun, ahem. If there were, Climategate wouldn't have been an issue.

No, it's not good science. "Fox News, right-wing attack dog Sean Hannity misinformed his viewers that 2009 — the fifth-hottest year in the past 130 — was 'one of the coldest years on record. '" 1 There you have it.

Also, just because it's cold during the winter does not invalidate global warming. In fact, it further proves this extreme weather trend experts and scientists predicted. ----quote---- "It's part of natural variability," said Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

With global warming, he said, "we'll still have record cold temperatures. We'll just have fewer of them. " "We basically have seen just a big outbreak of Arctic air" over populated areas of the Northern Hemisphere, Arndt said."The Arctic air has really turned itself loose on us.

" In the atmosphere, large rivers of air travel roughly west to east around the globe between the Arctic and the tropics. This air flow acts like a fence to keep Arctic air confined. But recently, this air flow has become bent into a pronounced zigzag pattern, meandering north and south.

If you live in a place where it brings air up from the south, you get warm weather. In fact, record highs were reported this week in Washington state and Alaska." ----quote---- 2 Realize that Fox News has an agenda, Rupert Murdoch has even admitted it. 3.

Fox never claimed it was science. Most of what people claim as "science" is not really science at all. People who cannot defend their position throw the term "science" around all the time hoping that nobody will question it.It might help if you tell us who on Fox made the statement.

The new term is Global Climate Change not Global Warming. When it is warmer in one spot it is colder somewhere else, as in effect. The heat in one place could create could cause tsunami or hurricane which could cause another place to be frigid.

Hurricanes are caused by hot water, after they are created in these settings, and because of the warmer temperatures in the warmers sea they are moving further than before and causing more havoc. There is colder weather where there has never been before, to compensate for the warm temperatures at other places . There has to be an equal balance and Mother Earth is trying to do this.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.