FOLLOW BOREME
 
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Drone view of frozen Niagara Falls

Drone view of frozen Niagara Falls

(1:55) February 2015. Freezing air from Siberia has encased Niagara Falls in ice, drawing in visitors from all over the world. The ice isn't expected to melt completely before May 2015.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1285 days ago)

global warming? what global warming? the falls are frozen!!

thank you obama!

ReplyVote up (70)down (119)
Original comment

global warming? what global warming? the falls are frozen!!

thank you obama!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1285 days ago)

Even with similar freezing weather experienced in the US last winter, 2014 still turned out to be the warmest year on record. That is very worrying.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

Even with similar freezing weather experienced in the US last winter, 2014 still turned out to be the warmest year on record. That is very worrying.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1285 days ago)

By such a small fraction of a percent that it is negligible and easilly quite natural. It is hilarious how "Man made global warming nuts will count a fraction of a percent as "Proving" their stance yet Pooh pooh any proof to the contrary.

ReplyVote up (121)down (124)
Original comment

By such a small fraction of a percent that it is negligible and easilly quite natural. It is hilarious how "Man made global warming nuts will count a fraction of a percent as "Proving" their stance yet Pooh pooh any proof to the contrary.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1285 days ago)

You might have had a point if this was the only temperature stat in existence. The warmest 14 years on record have all occured this century.

If by 2020, it's the warmest 19 years, will you doubt your position? Or will you react like any religious fundamentalist worth his weight in salt, and stick to your guns even when drowning in overwhelming evidence and ridicule?

ReplyVote up (103)down (116)
Original comment

You might have had a point if this was the only temperature stat in existence. The warmest 14 years on record have all occured this century.

If by 2020, it's the warmest 19 years, will you doubt your position? Or will you react like any religious fundamentalist worth his weight in salt, and stick to your guns even when drowning in overwhelming evidence and ridicule?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1285 days ago)

"Overwhelming evidence and ridicule"? Really? I wonder where you get your info from?

Funny how scientists are separating themselves from the "Man made global warming" stance by the droves every year.

Obviously the evidence is NOT so "Overwhelming"! LOL

Time will tell Walter .... I won't say "I told you so" :P

ReplyVote up (68)down (119)
Original comment

"Overwhelming evidence and ridicule"? Really? I wonder where you get your info from?

Funny how scientists are separating themselves from the "Man made global warming" stance by the droves every year.

Obviously the evidence is NOT so "Overwhelming"! LOL

Time will tell Walter .... I won't say "I told you so" :P

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1285 days ago)

Out of 10,855 peer-reviewed articles on climate change in the past 2 years, only 2 rejected human causes. Yep, you read that right - 2. LINK

Which do you think is most likely?

1. Climate scientists are correct - that human activity is actually warming the climate to a dangerous degree.

2. Climate scientists are incompetent.

3. Climate scientists are competent, but science itself is not advanced enough to understand a system as complicated as the climate.

4. Almost every climate scientists around the world is falsifying data, or interpreting data in a knowingly false way, so they can get another grant for more research on something already studied to death. And that governments all around the world love it because green taxes are such a vote winner.

If none of the above are exactly what you're thinking, which is the closest?

ReplyVote up (123)down (120)
Original comment

Out of 10,855 peer-reviewed articles on climate change in the past 2 years, only 2 rejected human causes. Yep, you read that right - 2. LINK

Which do you think is most likely?

1. Climate scientists are correct - that human activity is actually warming the climate to a dangerous degree.

2. Climate scientists are incompetent.

3. Climate scientists are competent, but science itself is not advanced enough to understand a system as complicated as the climate.

4. Almost every climate scientists around the world is falsifying data, or interpreting data in a knowingly false way, so they can get another grant for more research on something already studied to death. And that governments all around the world love it because green taxes are such a vote winner.

If none of the above are exactly what you're thinking, which is the closest?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1284 days ago)

5. The papers were cherry picked and the results anonymous. The people using a survey to illustrate a point don't know the scientific method to prove a hypothesis so they use a flawed study as their only proof.

An example is if you ask 10,855 preachers, they overwhelming majority of them will say there is a god. Is that proof that god exists?

ReplyVote up (129)down (109)
Original comment

5. The papers were cherry picked and the results anonymous. The people using a survey to illustrate a point don't know the scientific method to prove a hypothesis so they use a flawed study as their only proof.

An example is if you ask 10,855 preachers, they overwhelming majority of them will say there is a god. Is that proof that god exists?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1284 days ago)

Actually, the papers were not cherry picked. Geochemist James Powell went through EVERY scientific climate study published in a peer-review journal in 2013. Methodology is here: LINK In 2012, only 1 paper rejected AGW. Powell didn't ask scientists for their opinion - he looked at the conclusions of their actual research.

As for your example of 10,855 preachers - that suggest you think preachers are as credible as scientists. Really? I don't believe you think preachers are as credible as scientists. You just haven't thought it through.

A better example would be, if you ask 10,855 doctors, the overwhelming majority will say smoking seriously damages your health. True that's not absolute proof, but it's good enough for me.

ReplyVote up (110)down (126)
Original comment

Actually, the papers were not cherry picked. Geochemist James Powell went through EVERY scientific climate study published in a peer-review journal in 2013. Methodology is here: LINK In 2012, only 1 paper rejected AGW. Powell didn't ask scientists for their opinion - he looked at the conclusions of their actual research.

As for your example of 10,855 preachers - that suggest you think preachers are as credible as scientists. Really? I don't believe you think preachers are as credible as scientists. You just haven't thought it through.

A better example would be, if you ask 10,855 doctors, the overwhelming majority will say smoking seriously damages your health. True that's not absolute proof, but it's good enough for me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1284 days ago)

It is called cherry picking when you have criteria that excludes.

1. Must be peer reviewed -- cherry picked.
2. Must have been published -- cherry picked.
3. Must have been in 2013 -- cherry picked.

What would hold more weight is if they went to all the universities and found the entire list of all graduates with degrees in climate science. Then, those people were asked specific questions. It needs to be done this way because the study you refer was flawed where authors said the analysis did not reflect their view of the paper so the people made the wrong conclusion. Asking the scientist directly avoids any incorrect interpretations.

The method of getting opinions of scientists with climate degrees would exclude people like Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" because his expertise is in mechanical engineering and not climate science. It would also exclude people like Neil DeGrass Tyson because he is an astrophysicist and not a climate scientist.

The questions you would ask:
1. Is the average temperature of the planet increasing?
2. If yes to #1, has the temperature risen higher than before modern humans were on the planet (around 200,000 years ago).
3. If yes to #2, are humans the major cause of the increase in average temperatures.

Followup questions:
4. How much of an increase in temperature have humans been responsible for and how much of the increase is naturally occurring?
5. If the past temperatures of this planet was consistently at 25C, why isn't it normal for the planet to revert back to that temperature if there were no humans on the planet?
6. Is CO2 the major cause of green house gas or would that be methane and water vapor?
7. If you could make a suggestion to the humans to fix this "problem" what would it be? Stop driving cars, trains, boats, trucks, and airplanes or stop animal farming?
8. Are we all going to die like WalterEgo says or will we survive this just like the animals of the past survived just fine when the temperatures were 25C average every year?
9. Should we invest in technology to scrub the carbon out of the atmosphere or solar roadways?
10. If we reduced the CO2 levels, what effect would that have on the plant life?
11. What is the highest CO2 levels since humans were on the planet 200,000 years ago and what is it today? What was it before human existence?
12. Was the cause of the last ice age because we didn’t have enough CO2 in our atmosphere?
13. There have been at least 5 major ice ages in the earth’s history. When we are not in one of those ice ages, the Earth has been ice free — even in high latitudes. Since we are still coming out of an ice age, why wouldn’t it be normal for the ice to melt in the high latitudes?

There is a list of 650 scientists that have doubt about AGW and their names are known along with their credentials and a statement as to why they have doubt. The same cannot be said about the 10,855 papers you keep referring. We don't even know how many scientists that represents and for all we know, it could be 10 scientists that wrote all 10,855 papers.

ReplyVote up (66)down (125)
Original comment

It is called cherry picking when you have criteria that excludes.

1. Must be peer reviewed -- cherry picked.
2. Must have been published -- cherry picked.
3. Must have been in 2013 -- cherry picked.

What would hold more weight is if they went to all the universities and found the entire list of all graduates with degrees in climate science. Then, those people were asked specific questions. It needs to be done this way because the study you refer was flawed where authors said the analysis did not reflect their view of the paper so the people made the wrong conclusion. Asking the scientist directly avoids any incorrect interpretations.

The method of getting opinions of scientists with climate degrees would exclude people like Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" because his expertise is in mechanical engineering and not climate science. It would also exclude people like Neil DeGrass Tyson because he is an astrophysicist and not a climate scientist.

The questions you would ask:
1. Is the average temperature of the planet increasing?
2. If yes to #1, has the temperature risen higher than before modern humans were on the planet (around 200,000 years ago).
3. If yes to #2, are humans the major cause of the increase in average temperatures.

Followup questions:
4. How much of an increase in temperature have humans been responsible for and how much of the increase is naturally occurring?
5. If the past temperatures of this planet was consistently at 25C, why isn't it normal for the planet to revert back to that temperature if there were no humans on the planet?
6. Is CO2 the major cause of green house gas or would that be methane and water vapor?
7. If you could make a suggestion to the humans to fix this "problem" what would it be? Stop driving cars, trains, boats, trucks, and airplanes or stop animal farming?
8. Are we all going to die like WalterEgo says or will we survive this just like the animals of the past survived just fine when the temperatures were 25C average every year?
9. Should we invest in technology to scrub the carbon out of the atmosphere or solar roadways?
10. If we reduced the CO2 levels, what effect would that have on the plant life?
11. What is the highest CO2 levels since humans were on the planet 200,000 years ago and what is it today? What was it before human existence?
12. Was the cause of the last ice age because we didn’t have enough CO2 in our atmosphere?
13. There have been at least 5 major ice ages in the earth’s history. When we are not in one of those ice ages, the Earth has been ice free — even in high latitudes. Since we are still coming out of an ice age, why wouldn’t it be normal for the ice to melt in the high latitudes?

There is a list of 650 scientists that have doubt about AGW and their names are known along with their credentials and a statement as to why they have doubt. The same cannot be said about the 10,855 papers you keep referring. We don't even know how many scientists that represents and for all we know, it could be 10 scientists that wrote all 10,855 papers.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1283 days ago)

It is not cherry picking. You should read James Powell's methodology before you come up with your own.

You want to ask scientists for their opinions. That might be very interesting, but as an arbiter of truth, it is a complete non-starter because there's no reliable way to tell the difference between a scientist who is lying, incompetent, or indeed correct - whatever their qualifications.

Looking at actual research is a much better approach because research is based on real experiments and real data. It has to be peer reviewed because climate science is too complicated for Joe Public to judge. As you know, peer review is when other experts check the research. All papers published in scientific journals are peer-reviewed. It is a core principle of the scientific method, which may not be perfect, but is by far the best way we have of reliably understanding reality.

"Must have been in 2013…" Actually, in a similar number of papers in 2012 only 1 rejected AGW.

In response to your last paragraph - the 10,855 papers represent ALL climate research published in scientific journals in 2013. They are not anonymous, every paper has an author/s. I don't know how many climate scientists actually did research in 2013, but it's probably more than 10.

ReplyVote up (56)down (125)
Original comment

It is not cherry picking. You should read James Powell's methodology before you come up with your own.

You want to ask scientists for their opinions. That might be very interesting, but as an arbiter of truth, it is a complete non-starter because there's no reliable way to tell the difference between a scientist who is lying, incompetent, or indeed correct - whatever their qualifications.

Looking at actual research is a much better approach because research is based on real experiments and real data. It has to be peer reviewed because climate science is too complicated for Joe Public to judge. As you know, peer review is when other experts check the research. All papers published in scientific journals are peer-reviewed. It is a core principle of the scientific method, which may not be perfect, but is by far the best way we have of reliably understanding reality.

"Must have been in 2013…" Actually, in a similar number of papers in 2012 only 1 rejected AGW.

In response to your last paragraph - the 10,855 papers represent ALL climate research published in scientific journals in 2013. They are not anonymous, every paper has an author/s. I don't know how many climate scientists actually did research in 2013, but it's probably more than 10.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1283 days ago)

Since you are stuck with the methodology of looking at papers instead of asking scientists then please stop saying that the scientists agree. Instead, say that papers agree after being misinterpreted by reviewers.

When Galileo discovered that the Earth goes around the sun, who peer reviewed his ideas? Ideas should not be discounted because they are not peer reviewed. In society, there is a propensity to “go with the flow” and agree with the majority. If you make waves and disagree, it can hurt your career. Ben Stein explains this in his documentary called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” You should watch it and you may finally understand.

Very few scientists have tenure that would allow them to keep their job if they openly oppose a popular political agenda so few of them are going to create papers or be willing to put their name as a peer reviewer on a paper against AGW. However, there were 650 scientists that did do that in an open letter to congress but for some reason you keep ignoring those people and keep reverting back to a survey of cherry picked papers.

So if you can, please find for me a list of the non-anonymous scientists that wrote those papers along with their credentials. I have been unsuccessful in finding that information so I could use your help since you claim the research was not anonymous.

By the way, there have been actual surveys sent to scientists and it has been determined that only 36 percent believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis. This was a peer-reviewed study. There were 1,077 actual earth scientists in this study. Here’s a link to it. LINK

Here’s one paragraph that I pulled out:
“The ensuing debate is often caricatured as a war between two sides – ‘you either believe in climate change or you don’t’ – especially in North America. We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action (as outlined in Figure 2). On this basis, we find five different frames, each of them summarized in Table 3.”

Breakdown of Table 3:
36% Comply with Kyoto (Believe in AGW)
24% Nature is overwhelming (Changes are natural, normal cycles of the earth - Deny AGW)
10% Economic responsibility (Either natural or human caused)
17% Fatalists (Either natural or human caused and consider it to be a smaller public risk)
5% Regulation activists (Both human and naturally caused with moderate public risk)
8% refused to answer

So according to actual scientists, only 36% of them say it’s AGW, 32% say it’s both natural and human caused, and 24% say it’s only natural and humans are insignificant to the cause.

ReplyVote up (117)down (116)
Original comment

Since you are stuck with the methodology of looking at papers instead of asking scientists then please stop saying that the scientists agree. Instead, say that papers agree after being misinterpreted by reviewers.

When Galileo discovered that the Earth goes around the sun, who peer reviewed his ideas? Ideas should not be discounted because they are not peer reviewed. In society, there is a propensity to “go with the flow” and agree with the majority. If you make waves and disagree, it can hurt your career. Ben Stein explains this in his documentary called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” You should watch it and you may finally understand.

Very few scientists have tenure that would allow them to keep their job if they openly oppose a popular political agenda so few of them are going to create papers or be willing to put their name as a peer reviewer on a paper against AGW. However, there were 650 scientists that did do that in an open letter to congress but for some reason you keep ignoring those people and keep reverting back to a survey of cherry picked papers.

So if you can, please find for me a list of the non-anonymous scientists that wrote those papers along with their credentials. I have been unsuccessful in finding that information so I could use your help since you claim the research was not anonymous.

By the way, there have been actual surveys sent to scientists and it has been determined that only 36 percent believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis. This was a peer-reviewed study. There were 1,077 actual earth scientists in this study. Here’s a link to it. LINK

Here’s one paragraph that I pulled out:
“The ensuing debate is often caricatured as a war between two sides – ‘you either believe in climate change or you don’t’ – especially in North America. We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action (as outlined in Figure 2). On this basis, we find five different frames, each of them summarized in Table 3.”

Breakdown of Table 3:
36% Comply with Kyoto (Believe in AGW)
24% Nature is overwhelming (Changes are natural, normal cycles of the earth - Deny AGW)
10% Economic responsibility (Either natural or human caused)
17% Fatalists (Either natural or human caused and consider it to be a smaller public risk)
5% Regulation activists (Both human and naturally caused with moderate public risk)
8% refused to answer

So according to actual scientists, only 36% of them say it’s AGW, 32% say it’s both natural and human caused, and 24% say it’s only natural and humans are insignificant to the cause.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1283 days ago)
Latest comment:

didn't we already establish that it's all a IPCC illuminaty conspiracy to create panic and fear in order to facilitate the creation of the NWO?

ReplyVote up (58)down (115)
Original comment
Latest comment:

didn't we already establish that it's all a IPCC illuminaty conspiracy to create panic and fear in order to facilitate the creation of the NWO?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1285 days ago)

Oh Stop it!! we have gone this rout so many times. I won't argue climate change anymore, Getting sick of the subject. You can call this a win if you like... I am sure that would be what you would respond with :P But... No more please.

ReplyVote up (56)down (123)
Original comment

Oh Stop it!! we have gone this rout so many times. I won't argue climate change anymore, Getting sick of the subject. You can call this a win if you like... I am sure that would be what you would respond with :P But... No more please.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1283 days ago)

I'm sorry you're sick of the subject. I usually try a different approach every time just to keep it interesting since climate change is probably the most pressing issue that faces mankind today.

You ignoring difficult questions doesn't mean I win, and why should you even care - what matters is that you remain wrong. Just like the religious fraternity you so love to diss. If you're happy with that, then that's cool with me. Just stop spouting libertarian-inspired nonsense.

ReplyVote up (118)down (114)
Original comment

I'm sorry you're sick of the subject. I usually try a different approach every time just to keep it interesting since climate change is probably the most pressing issue that faces mankind today.

You ignoring difficult questions doesn't mean I win, and why should you even care - what matters is that you remain wrong. Just like the religious fraternity you so love to diss. If you're happy with that, then that's cool with me. Just stop spouting libertarian-inspired nonsense.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1285 days ago)

I was feeling a bit chilly this morning - global warming must be a fraud. And another thing - these idiots who say the world rotates around the sun - what a bunch of clowns. I can see from window that it rises in the East and sets in the West even if I don't move an inch. Tch! Scientists and evidence-based thinking. How do they really know the moon isn't mostly made of cheese and they just landed on the bit made of rocks, eh? You tell me that!

ReplyVote up (114)down (123)
Original comment

I was feeling a bit chilly this morning - global warming must be a fraud. And another thing - these idiots who say the world rotates around the sun - what a bunch of clowns. I can see from window that it rises in the East and sets in the West even if I don't move an inch. Tch! Scientists and evidence-based thinking. How do they really know the moon isn't mostly made of cheese and they just landed on the bit made of rocks, eh? You tell me that!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Drumbeat (1284 days ago)

There is lots of carbon in coal. Photosynthesis, where plants use CO2 from the atmosphere to grow is how the carbon gets there. Plants get no food from the ground, they get water and some vitamins is all. All the carbon in coal should be back in the atmospeher so that plants can thrive again. They are strugling along with only 0.01% it is so unfair.

ReplyVote up (129)down (123)
Original comment

There is lots of carbon in coal. Photosynthesis, where plants use CO2 from the atmosphere to grow is how the carbon gets there. Plants get no food from the ground, they get water and some vitamins is all. All the carbon in coal should be back in the atmospeher so that plants can thrive again. They are strugling along with only 0.01% it is so unfair.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1284 days ago)

Interesting you use the earth going around the sun as an example. Centuries ago, people actually did think the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun went around the earth. The overwhelming majority thought that (similar to the majority of cherry picked papers). It was a small minority of people that challenged the majority and was finally successful in making it fact.

ReplyVote up (64)down (121)
Original comment

Interesting you use the earth going around the sun as an example. Centuries ago, people actually did think the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun went around the earth. The overwhelming majority thought that (similar to the majority of cherry picked papers). It was a small minority of people that challenged the majority and was finally successful in making it fact.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1284 days ago)

it's an IPCC illuminaty conspiracy, OK we get it,

ReplyVote up (114)down (114)
Original comment

it's an IPCC illuminaty conspiracy, OK we get it,

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Kitty Hawk's easy-to-fly flying car
Kitty Hawk's easy-to-fly flying car
Apple Park, drone view
Apple Park, drone view
El Rodeo, victim of Guatemala's Volcano of Fire
El Rodeo, victim of Guatemala's Volcano of Fire
How drones are changing architecture
How drones are changing architecture
Will AI cause WW3?
Will AI cause WW3?