Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 7:11 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 2 hrs 19 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Advanced Cell Technology Inc. Message Board

  • fraud_z_buster fraud_z_buster Dec 8, 2012 7:53 PM Flag

    Here is the REAL fun fact!

    "Climate change", aka global warming is like riding street cat that lets you get off wherever you want to get off. This street car, which is driven by Al the convenient liar, is loaded with frauds, who are fueling the global numbing ripoff scam.

    Global warming or it's newest name "climate change" is a FRAUD! Mann's "hockey stick" global numbing theory of 1990 has been debunked as a flawed science at best or an out right FRAUD! Even the emails of the so called "university climate science gurus" clearly showed that these frauds intended to mislead and deceive the reast of the world in order to bolster their globalist "climate change/cap and trade" agenda. If any consolation, the earth is cooling according to Biondi et al. Their data is more compelling than Mann's phoney hockey stick.

    "The very strong 1997/98 El Nin˜o episode was followed by La Nin˜a conditions, and the state of North Pacific climate suggests a possible reversal to a cool PDO stage from the warm PDO phase that began in 1977. The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is closely matched by the dominant mode of tree-ring variability that provides a preliminary view of multiannual climate fluctuations spanning the past four centuries."

    Biondi and his group are reputable and serious scientists who are interested in the scientific truth and knowledge instead of the ones who have dubious agendas that would make them deceive and lie. The REAL fun facts are out there for anyone interested in the TRUTH!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I like what you wrote. But doesn't have any related about actc

    • What you writing don't relate to actc. It you want to write some like this please go to face book.

    • I bet you do not beleive in evolution either? And that the United Nations troops are already in base camps in Georgia, just waiting for the signals?

      • 2 Replies to A Yahoo! User
      • Re: "I bet you do not beleive in evolution either? And that the United Nations troops are already in base camps in Georgia, just waiting for the signals?"

        AYahoo!User, this is a very excellent and veryu far reaching point you have made. I do think that although those like fraudleyz are heroically alert to threats like this still they may be missing one of the most important currently brewing threats to our great Constitution and for various, probably nefarious, reasons this threat has been in recent decades misunderestimatedly treated. I speak specifically of the Third Amendment which states:

        No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

        This has, as I said, been sadly forgotten in recent decades but as from the implication of what you cite above there is no reason to be assured that we, the people, might not be forced to quarter UN troops that, like those in Georgia, might be brought to the US for evil reasons or, for that matter, to quarter any other mercenary troops or military sub-contractors our government might hire at times. In fact, at this point Drones are increasingly becoming our frontline troops. Think of it! We might be forced to quarter Drones in our homes as they await being used against our enemies and during that time they could easily be used to spy on us in our homes. If the government didn't like what they saw they might activate the Drone and just blow up our homes. Clearly, it is time to get off that lazy rocker and get concerned about our Third Amendment rights!!!

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • I bet you believe in revolution?

    • POLAR ICE SHEETS SHRINKING WORLDWIDE, STUDY CONFIRMS
      Rapid loss already contributing to sea level rise.

      Christine Dell'Amore
      National Geographic News
      Published November 29, 2012

      The polar ice sheets are indeed shrinking—and fast, according to a comprehensive new study on climate change.

      And the effects, according to an international team, are equally clear—sea levels are rising faster than predicted, which could bring about disastrous effects for people and wildlife.

      Rising seas would increase the risk of catastrophic flooding like that caused by Hurricane Sandy last month in New York and New Jersey. Environmental damage may include widespread erosion, contamination of aquifers and crops, and harm to marine life. And in the long term, rising seas may force hundreds of millions of people who live along the coast to abandon their homes.

      By reconciling nearly two decades of often conflicting satellite data into one format—in other words, comparing apples to apples—the new study, published in the journal Science, made a more confident estimate of what's called ice sheet mass balance.

      That refers to how much snow is deposited on an ice sheet versus how much is lost, either due to surface melting or ice breaking off glaciers.

      Between 1992—when polar satellite measurements began—and 2011, the results show that all of the polar regions except for East Antarctica are losing ice, said study leader Andrew Shepherd, a professor of earth observation at the University of Leeds in the U.K.

      In that 20-year span, Greenland lost 152 billion tons a year of ice, West Antarctica lost 65 billion tons a year, the Antarctic Peninsula lost 20 billion tons a year, and East Antarctica gained 14 billion tons a year. (See an interactive map of Antarctica.)

      "When we did the experiments properly using the same time periods and same maps, the riddles did all agree," Shepherd said.

      According to glaciologist Alexander Robinson, "We've had a good idea of what the ice sheets are doing, but it seems this study really brings it all together in one data set that gives a much clearer picture.

      "It's one more piece of supporting evidence that shows there are some dramatic changes happening, and we know that's being driven mainly by a warmer climate and warmer ocean—but there's still a lot we don't know about these regions and how they're changing," said Robinson, of the Complutense University of Madrid in Spain, who was not involved in the research.
      (Read "The Big Thaw" in National Geographic magazine.)

      SHRINKING ICE CONSISTENT WITH WARMING

      For the study, Shepherd and his team took data from three fields of satellite research: Altimetry, which measures the shapes of ice sheets and how they change over time; interferometry, which tracks the speed of ice sheets; and gravimetry, which calculates the weight of ice sheets by measuring Earth's gravitational field.

      "Up until now there have been more than 30 studies that have each produced their own estimates of changes in ice sheets," Shepherd said.

      "What we did was try to take the strengths of each approach and combined all the satellite technology together to get a better estimate of how ice sheets are changing," he said.

      The results are also consistent with observations of climate change at the poles, Shepherd noted.
      For instance, Greenland is shedding five times as much ice as 20 years ago, which fits with a trend of rising air temperatures in the Arctic. (Pictures: "Changing Greenland" in National Geographic magazine.)

      In West Antarctica, glacier loss is accelerating in an area where the ocean is getting warmer. East Antarctica is experiencing a slight increase in the amount of ice stored there, but that dovetails with higher rates of snowfall expected with climate change.

      However, the growth isn't enough to compensate for the larger losses in the rest of Antarctica, the researchers say. (Related: "Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Growing in a Warmer World.")

      "The fact that Antarctica is definitely losing ice is a novel conclusion when we compare it to the last IPCC report in 2007, when scientists weren't sure if Antarctica was growing or shrinking," Shepherd said.

      "OUR DATA ARE NOW TWO TO THREE TIMES AS ACCURATE AS THOSE THAT WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE LAST IPCC REPORT." The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the leading international body for the study of climate change.

      RISING SEAS

      Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the Boulder, Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research, who was not involved in the study, said the new study's "evidence is very compelling that global warming is playing a role in massive ice losses on land that contribute to sea level rise."
      (Also see "Sea Levels Rising Fast on U.S. East Coast.")

      Overall, polar ice loss has contributed about 11.1 millimeters to global sea level since 1992—roughly 20 percent of the total global sea level rise during that period, according to the study.

      What's more, a study published earlier this week in Environmental Research Letters shows that sea levels are rising at a rate of 3.2 millimeters a year. That's 60 percent faster than the latest estimate of 2 millimeters a year projected by the IPCC. (See sea level rise pictures.)

      "These results should be a major concern for politicians and climate talks in Doha, as they show that global warming is real and having major consequences that will only get bigger over time," Trenberth said by email.

      As the World Meteorological Organization put it in a report released Wednesday during this week's UN climate change talks in Doha, Qatar, "climate change is taking place before our eyes." (See a map of global warming impacts worldwide.)

      In addition to displacing millions, sea level rise may also supercharge large storms. For example, when a storm like Hurricane Sandy makes landfall, higher seas may boost storm surges that can strip away everything in their path and create damaging floods.

      Sandy left at least 157 people dead and caused up to $80 billion in damage in hard-hit New York and New Jersey alone.

      PREDICTING FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE

      Study leader Shepherd hopes that climate modelers will be able to use this new data to better predict these consequences.

      Until now, a modeler had to "choose an estimate of sea level rise from a pot of 40 ones with some uncertainty," he said.

      Such a reconciled data set has been sorely needed, agreed Walt Meier, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

      "You have this huge range of estimates of ice mass loss from Antarctica and Greenland—they're such a large range that you get to the point of you don't know what to trust," said Meier, who was not involved in the new study.

      The new study is in "a much more manageable range, and provides much better guidance in terms of future projections."

      What's more, the study may even usher in a stronger model of another kind—scientific cooperation, Meier noted.

      Instead of myriad groups working quasi-independently, the new study's co-authors "came together and sat down—at least figuratively—and came to a consensus for the best estimate that they can," he said.

      "It's a great example," he said, "that in climate science and science in general, you can't do these kind of big things on your own anymore."

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 3 Replies to elk_1l
      • Elk - talking to Fraud Man is pointless. If you show that 99% of scientist state that climate change is real, he'll find the 1% of scientists paid by the Oil industry who say otherwise, and he'll chose to believe those. The question is not whether the climate is changing, but how much is do to our actions.

      • Elk, in the interest of acquiring the truth and knowledge for yourself, I'd recommend you read published research papers put forth by reputable solar scientists and climatologists instead of agenda driven essayists who ignore the truth and REAL facts.

        No wonder polar bears in the arctic now drink warm cokes, their ice box thawed...bwahahahaha. No offense intended, but Cut and pasting an essay doesn't mean you understand the issue in the essay. It takes independent thinking and dissecting the facts to understand an issue, unbiased. Please feel free to point out any spelling errors, as you are prone to do, when you appear unsubstantive.

        ps....I saw your other cut n'paste piece which did not survive yahoo scrutiny, I wonder why?

      • Fellows, I don't know all the facts other than some you have listed, but, I try to use reason to figure this deal out,, I know what acid rain does and what it did to one of my cars,, you can't help but think that CO2 gas production has effects on the atmosphere and thus climate change,, but' at the same time there has been much info documented that climate change is a normal process in the evolution of the earth and history show these patterns as well,, I think it all makes sense,,
        C

        Sentiment: Hold

    • Global Warming: The Psychology of Ignoring a Superthreat

      Posted: 11/21/2012, Adam Alter, NYU Stern School of Business

      Suppose you're a malevolent engineer trying to design a grave threat to Earth. Your aim is to create a force that does plenty of damage by stealth, somehow evading the attention of the governments who might otherwise frustrate your plans. Well, it turns out that the threat you're looking for already exists, and its name is global warming. Ninety-eight percent of experts agree that the globe is warming, that humans are contributing to the effect, and that our failure to act now will contribute to death, disease, injury, heat waves, fires, storms, and floods. Despite these dire forecasts, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney -- both of whom believe in human-driven climate change -- conspicuously omitted global warming from this year's menu of election issues.
      What is it about human psychology that makes meteor strikes and volcanoes so compelling, while global warming languishes as a political afterthought? The answer has many strands, but I'll focus on three, beginning with The Hollywood Test. According to The Hollywood Test, the content of our culture's films reflects our most vivid fears. Over the past several decades, Hollywood producers have funded dozens of big-budget disaster films. In descending order of frequency, those films depicted alien invasions (approximately 100), epidemic and pandemic outbreaks (37), tsunamis and destructive waves (20), earthquakes (16), volcanoes (14), and meteor, asteroid and comet strikes (14). Absent from the list is a scintillating portrayal of global warming, though two films, The Day After Tomorrow and Lost City Raiders, described global warming as the catalyst for floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and a protracted Ice Age. Al Gore's important documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, is perhaps the only film that focuses squarely on global warming, and then it's long on information, and short on Hollywood stars and scenes of graphic devastation. And that sums up the first major problem with global warming: its precise consequences aren't vivid enough. Humans are better at focusing on the moderate, specific, localized devastation of a major earthquake than on the great but murky devastation that global warming will bring in the middle part of the 21st century.
      One of the best illustrations of this difficulty comes from research in a different domain: on our willingness to contribute to charitable causes. In one experiment, people were asked to donate money to save either one sick child -- accompanied by a photo -- or eight sick children accompanied by a similar group shot. All else being equal, eight children clearly deserve more help than a single child, but the single child tugged more insistently at the would-be-givers' heartstrings, eliciting an average donation that was 77 percent higher than the average donation given to the group of eight. The pain of a single child -- a Baby Jessica down the well, for example -- has the emotional resonance of an erupting volcano or a hurtling asteroid, while the deaths of literally millions of malnourished children in Africa and Asia inspires the same muted response that we allocate to global warming.
      The second problem with global warming is that it progresses too slowly. The globe continues to warm while we're responding to fast-arriving Hurricane Sandy, tending to our wounds after devastating earthquakes in Haiti, Japan and Chile, and cleaning up after tornadoes in Joplin, Mo., and Greensburg, Kan. There will always be more pressing issues on the table, so politicians prefer to focus their time on disaster relief, fiscal cliffs and health insurance.
      People just aren't engineered to take slow-moving threats seriously. We're a bit like the fabled frog in a pot of water on the stove, who sits by idly while the water's temperature slowly rises to boiling point. The frog in this apocryphal tale doesn't realize he's cooking because the water heats too slowly to register on his danger-detecting radar. The analogy to humans sitting by while the planet warms couldn't be more obvious. But imagine instead if this century's warming and its attendant storms, droughts, heat waves, and floods were condensed to occur by the end of 2012. We'd have very little time to do much to minimize the damage, but the world's presidents, prime ministers, and hundreds of millions of coastal residents would have no choice but to prepare for the worst.
      Bound up in this second problem is a third: that although temperatures are rising in the long run, there's plenty of daily and seasonal noise that occludes that rise. We'll continue to have freakishly cold days even as the planet's average temperature rises. For example, the hottest 16 years between 1880 and 2010 all occurred between 1995 and 2010, though during the same period of time the following countries experienced their coldest days on record: South Africa, Nepal, Bangladesh, Finland, Germany, Italy, Chile, Paraguay, Philippines, Mexico, Cuba, Antarctica, Northern Ireland and Scotland. So while Earth's average temperature rises, we continue to experience isolated pockets of very cold weather.
      We're also approaching winter in the northern hemisphere, and it's very difficult to imagine a warm summer day when it's cold outside. In one study, psychologists Jane Risen and Clayton Critcher approached people outside and asked them whether they believed in global warming. The temperature on those days varied from quite chilly to very warm, and people were far more likely to believe in the concept of global warming on warmer days. In fact, knowing the ambient outdoor temperature predicted their beliefs in global warming just as effectively as knowing whether they were politically liberal or conservative. Of course that doesn't make sense at all: the temperature on one cold wintry day shouldn't change whether you expect the temperature of the planet to rise on the whole by 2050, almost 14,000 days in the future.
      So global warming is the perfectly designed threat-by-stealth. Its murky consequences aren't vivid enough to impress our distracted brains, they're set to approach too slowly to command much attention while there's still something we can do to stop them, and the earth's temperature rise is peppered with winters and freakishly cold days that distract from the unmistakable warming trend. If global warming were the work of an evil engineer, he'd deserve congratulations on a job well done.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Global Warming: The Psychology of Ignoring a Superthreat

      Posted: 11/21/2012, Adam Alter, NYU Stern School of Business

      Suppose you're a malevolent engineer trying to design a grave threat to Earth. Your aim is to create a force that does plenty of damage by stealth, somehow evading the attention of the governments who might otherwise frustrate your plans. Well, it turns out that the threat you're looking for already exists, and its name is global warming. Ninety-eight percent of experts agree that the globe is warming, that humans are contributing to the effect, and that our failure to act now will contribute to death, disease, injury, heat waves, fires, storms, and floods. Despite these dire forecasts, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney -- both of whom believe in human-driven climate change -- conspicuously omitted global warming from this year's menu of election issues.

      What is it about human psychology that makes meteor strikes and volcanoes so compelling, while global warming languishes as a political afterthought? The answer has many strands, but I'll focus on three, beginning with The Hollywood Test. According to The Hollywood Test, the content of our culture's films reflects our most vivid fears. Over the past several decades, Hollywood producers have funded dozens of big-budget disaster films. In descending order of frequency, those films depicted alien invasions (approximately 100), epidemic and pandemic outbreaks (37), tsunamis and destructive waves (20), earthquakes (16), volcanoes (14), and meteor, asteroid and comet strikes (14). Absent from the list is a scintillating portrayal of global warming, though two films, The Day After Tomorrow and Lost City Raiders, described global warming as the catalyst for floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and a protracted Ice Age. Al Gore's important documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, is perhaps the only film that focuses squarely on global warming, and then it's long on information, and short on Hollywood stars and scenes of graphic devastation. And that sums up the first major problem with global warming: its precise consequences aren't vivid enough. Humans are better at focusing on the moderate, specific, localized devastation of a major earthquake than on the great but murky devastation that global warming will bring in the middle part of the 21st century.

      One of the best illustrations of this difficulty comes from research in a different domain: on our willingness to contribute to charitable causes. In one experiment, people were asked to donate money to save either one sick child -- accompanied by a photo -- or eight sick children accompanied by a similar group shot. All else being equal, eight children clearly deserve more help than a single child, but the single child tugged more insistently at the would-be-givers' heartstrings, eliciting an average donation that was 77 percent higher than the average donation given to the group of eight. The pain of a single child -- a Baby Jessica down the well, for example -- has the emotional resonance of an erupting volcano or a hurtling asteroid, while the deaths of literally millions of malnourished children in Africa and Asia inspires the same muted response that we allocate to global warming.

      The second problem with global warming is that it progresses too slowly. The globe continues to warm while we're responding to fast-arriving Hurricane Sandy, tending to our wounds after devastating earthquakes in Haiti, Japan and Chile, and cleaning up after tornadoes in Joplin, Mo., and Greensburg, Kan. There will always be more pressing issues on the table, so politicians prefer to focus their time on disaster relief, fiscal cliffs and health insurance.

      People just aren't engineered to take slow-moving threats seriously. We're a bit like the fabled frog in a pot of water on the stove, who sits by idly while the water's temperature slowly rises to boiling point. The frog in this apocryphal tale doesn't realize he's cooking because the water heats too slowly to register on his danger-detecting radar. The analogy to humans sitting by while the planet warms couldn't be more obvious. But imagine instead if this century's warming and its attendant storms, droughts, heat waves, and floods were condensed to occur by the end of 2012. We'd have very little time to do much to minimize the damage, but the world's presidents, prime ministers, and hundreds of millions of coastal residents would have no choice but to prepare for the worst.
      Bound up in this second problem is a third: that although temperatures are rising in the long run, there's plenty of daily and seasonal noise that occludes that rise. We'll continue to have freakishly cold days even as the planet's average temperature rises. For example, the hottest 16 years between 1880 and 2010 all occurred between 1995 and 2010, though during the same period of time the following countries experienced their coldest days on record: South Africa, Nepal, Bangladesh, Finland, Germany, Italy, Chile, Paraguay, Philippines, Mexico, Cuba, Antarctica, Northern Ireland and Scotland. So while Earth's average temperature rises, we continue to experience isolated pockets of very cold weather.

      We're also approaching winter in the northern hemisphere, and it's very difficult to imagine a warm summer day when it's cold outside. In one study, psychologists Jane Risen and Clayton Critcher approached people outside and asked them whether they believed in global warming. The temperature on those days varied from quite chilly to very warm, and people were far more likely to believe in the concept of global warming on warmer days. In fact, knowing the ambient outdoor temperature predicted their beliefs in global warming just as effectively as knowing whether they were politically liberal or conservative. Of course that doesn't make sense at all: the temperature on one cold wintry day shouldn't change whether you expect the temperature of the planet to rise on the whole by 2050, almost 14,000 days in the future.

      So global warming is the perfectly designed threat-by-stealth. Its murky consequences aren't vivid enough to impress our distracted brains, they're set to approach too slowly to command much attention while there's still something we can do to stop them, and the earth's temperature rise is peppered with winters and freakishly cold days that distract from the unmistakable warming trend. If global warming were the work of an evil engineer, he'd deserve congratulations on a job well done.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Global Warming: The Psychology of Ignoring a Superthreat

      Posted: 11/21/2012, Adam Alter, NYU Stern School of Business

      Suppose you're a malevolent engineer trying to design a grave threat to Earth. Your aim is to create a force that does plenty of damage by stealth, somehow evading the attention of the governments who might otherwise frustrate your plans. Well, it turns out that the threat you're looking for already exists, and its name is global warming. Ninety-eight percent of experts agree that the globe is warming, that humans are contributing to the effect, and that our failure to act now will contribute to death, disease, injury, heat waves, fires, storms, and floods. Despite these dire forecasts, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney -- both of whom believe in human-driven climate change -- conspicuously omitted global warming from this year's menu of election issues.

      What is it about human psychology that makes meteor strikes and volcanoes so compelling, while global warming languishes as a political afterthought? The answer has many strands, but I'll focus on three, beginning with The Hollywood Test. According to The Hollywood Test, the content of our culture's films reflects our most vivid fears. Over the past several decades, Hollywood producers have funded dozens of big-budget disaster films. In descending order of frequency, those films depicted alien invasions (approximately 100), epidemic and pandemic outbreaks (37), tsunamis and destructive waves (20), earthquakes (16), volcanoes (14), and meteor, asteroid and comet strikes (14). Absent from the list is a scintillating portrayal of global warming, though two films, The Day After Tomorrow and Lost City Raiders, described global warming as the catalyst for floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and a protracted Ice Age. Al Gore's important documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, is perhaps the only film that focuses squarely on global warming, and then it's long on information, and short on Hollywood stars and scenes of graphic devastation. And that sums up the first major problem with global warming: its precise consequences aren't vivid enough. Humans are better at focusing on the moderate, specific, localized devastation of a major earthquake than on the great but murky devastation that global warming will bring in the middle part of the 21st century.

      One of the best illustrations of this difficulty comes from research in a different domain: on our willingness to contribute to charitable causes. In one experiment, people were asked to donate money to save either one sick child -- accompanied by a photo -- or eight sick children accompanied by a similar group shot. All else being equal, eight children clearly deserve more help than a single child, but the single child tugged more insistently at the would-be-givers' heartstrings, eliciting an average donation that was 77 percent higher than the average donation given to the group of eight. The pain of a single child -- a Baby Jessica down the well, for example -- has the emotional resonance of an erupting volcano or a hurtling asteroid, while the deaths of literally millions of malnourished children in Africa and Asia inspires the same muted response that we allocate to global warming.

      The second problem with global warming is that it progresses too slowly. The globe continues to warm while we're responding to fast-arriving Hurricane Sandy, tending to our wounds after devastating earthquakes in Haiti, Japan and Chile, and cleaning up after tornadoes in Joplin, Mo., and Greensburg, Kan. There will always be more pressing issues on the table, so politicians prefer to focus their time on disaster relief, fiscal cliffs and health insurance.

      People just aren't engineered to take slow-moving threats seriously. We're a bit like the fabled frog in a pot of water on the stove, who sits by idly while the water's temperature slowly rises to boiling point. The frog in this apocryphal tale doesn't realize he's cooking because the water heats too slowly to register on his danger-detecting radar. The analogy to humans sitting by while the planet warms couldn't be more obvious. But imagine instead if this century's warming and its attendant storms, droughts, heat waves, and floods were condensed to occur by the end of 2012. We'd have very little time to do much to minimize the damage, but the world's presidents, prime ministers, and hundreds of millions of coastal residents would have no choice but to prepare for the worst.
      Bound up in this second problem is a third: that although temperatures are rising in the long run, there's plenty of daily and seasonal noise that occludes that rise. We'll continue to have freakishly cold days even as the planet's average temperature rises. For example, the hottest 16 years between 1880 and 2010 all occurred between 1995 and 2010, though during the same period of time the following countries experienced their coldest days on record: South Africa, Nepal, Bangladesh, Finland, Germany, Italy, Chile, Paraguay, Philippines, Mexico, Cuba, Antarctica, Northern Ireland and Scotland. So while Earth's average temperature rises, we continue to experience isolated pockets of very cold weather.

      We're also approaching winter in the northern hemisphere, and it's very difficult to imagine a warm summer day when it's cold outside. In one study, psychologists Jane Risen and Clayton Critcher approached people outside and asked them whether they believed in global warming. The temperature on those days varied from quite chilly to very warm, and people were far more likely to believe in the concept of global warming on warmer days. In fact, knowing the ambient outdoor temperature predicted their beliefs in global warming just as effectively as knowing whether they were politically liberal or conservative. Of course that doesn't make sense at all: the temperature on one cold wintry day shouldn't change whether you expect the temperature of the planet to rise on the whole by 2050, almost 14,000 days in the future.

      So global warming is the perfectly designed threat-by-stealth. Its murky consequences aren't vivid enough to impress our distracted brains, they're set to approach too slowly to command much attention while there's still something we can do to stop them, and the earth's temperature rise is peppered with winters and freakishly cold days that distract from the unmistakable warming trend. If global warming were the work of an evil engineer, he'd deserve congratulations on a job well done.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 1 Reply to elk_1l
      • "For example, the hottest 16 years between 1880 and 2010 all occurred between 1995 and 2010, though during the same period of time the following countries experienced their coldest days on record: South Africa, Nepal, Bangladesh, Finland, Germany, Italy, Chile, Paraguay, Philippines, Mexico, Cuba, Antarctica, Northern Ireland and Scotland. "

        Elk, first off this excerpt from your NYU business school "climatologist" is absolutely FALSE! That said, your piece should have been titled "Global Warming: The Psychology of Pushing a FAUDULENT agenda driven Superthreat" Scare the masses, then offer a solution for a fee, aka FLEECE the masses, at least the stupid, ignorant and the intellectually lazy ones.

        How ironic that a "global warming superthreat" is written by a guy in a business school instead of honest and real climatologists and real scientists like Biondi, et al, and other solar scientists.

        The account of well documented climatic history contains two serious difficulties or questions for the present global warming theory and the climate change scammers.

        1) If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?

        2) If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth?

        With these two questions in mind, and all the preponderance of evidence implicating solar variability, how would the rational and sane minded folk not believe your "superthreat" is a giant bold face lie and a FRAUD!

 
ACTC
0.086+0.004(+5.01%)Jul 22 3:59 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.