The global warming global cooling climate change agenda is much easier for the public to swallow when reporters offer some evidence, so CBS attempted to do so in a recent report detailing climate change in Greenland. Greenland and other remote, underpopulated places are supposed to be safe targets for climate activists to use as examples because people seldom go there to refute false claims.
Unfortunately for the CBS reporter, there’s this thing called the Internet…
Breitbart reported:
In an article that appeared on CBS’s website on the July 19, journalist Vinita Nair wrote: “The impact [of climate change] has been dramatic in Greenland, the huge ice-covered island between the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans.
“Almost 8 years ago to the day in 2007, it was 35 degrees below zero on top of Greenland’s vast ice sheet. Strong winds and blowing snow were more the norm for researchers there.
“This summer, the sun is shining and the ice is thinning; it’s 27 degrees above zero – 62 degrees warmer. Researchers are trying to determine if the warming is a trend.
“Satellite images show that on the warmest day this month, half the ice sheet’s surface was melting, double the norm for this time of year.”
Climate blogger Paul Homewood took one look at CBS’ claims and smelled something fishy so he dug into the data. See what he found ACTUALLY happened in Greenland over on the NEXT PAGE:
Liberels feel about things. Most of the rest of us think. I THINK “Junk sience”, is just that. Remember what Gobbles said.
our resident grifter in chief’s left has a agenda to spew regardless of reality.
Almost all science is ‘Junk science” today. Nearly all the published journals (you know, the kind that universities have where people are peer reviewed for accuracy in their papers and journals for more specific fields of study to be published in magazines and such), are mostly owned by 6 companies, meaning there is hardly any peer reviewed or published journals that are truly independent, which means those who pay for the studies and the research will have the ultimate say in who does or doesn’t get published. Keep that in mind when you look for your citations and validations.
“This paper provides such $#%&!@*ysis, based on 45 million do$#%&!@*ents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Wonder what the place looked like when they decided to name it GREENLAND !?!!!?!
Actually, I’m pretty sure the Vikings were trying to throw folks off by calling this Greenland… Hence “Iceland” getting that name… I could be all wet, tho…
Why? Section 8 coming ?
There is no news anymore just story time
We have a nut on our hands!!
Gee, another article that denies Science & makes up their own data…
Real scientists have been supplanted by activists who believe that their cause (continued grant money) is so important that even opposite findings from their expectations cannot change their mindset.
…and the lying liars just keep on lying….