# Climate change threatens Northern American turtle habitat



## News Bot (Oct 11, 2013)

Although a turtle's home may be on its back, some North American turtles face an uncertain future as a warming climate threatens to reduce their suitable habitat.






*Published On:* 09-Oct-13 08:23 AM
*Source:* ScienceDaily

*Go to Original Article*


----------



## AmazingMorelia (Oct 13, 2013)

Dont believe the BS put out by the global warming mob. There hasnt been any rise in global temps for around 16 years and it goes againat all of their predictions to date.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Oct 13, 2013)

Probably a miss print.
I expect the article should have been blaming this on the Burmese pythons in the Everglades.


----------



## zack13 (Oct 14, 2013)

AmazingMorelia said:


> Dont believe the BS put out by the global warming mob. There hasnt been any rise in global temps for around 16 years and it goes againat all of their predictions to date.


Care to back that up with some facts? Till then I think I'll stick with all the peer reviewed literature.


----------



## AmazingMorelia (Oct 14, 2013)

zack13 said:


> Care to back that up with some facts? Till then I think I'll stick with all the peer reviewed literature.


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/clip_image0025.jpg
Here you go. Just for your info, you dont have peer review for data from satallite and world temp records. Do you know what peer reviewed means?
So fact is there has been NO rise in global temps for around 16 years. Another fact is the IPCC computer modeling predicted a sizable increase over that time which never eventuated. Its a bust, and if your going to argue global warming you should have better info than saying "peer reviewed"
But as you only believe what is peer reviewed then heres one that says the global warming thing is a dud.
New study says threat of man-made global warming greatly exaggerated | Fox News


----------



## zack13 (Oct 14, 2013)

AmazingMorelia said:


> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/clip_image0025.jpg
> Here you go. Just for your info, you dont have peer review for data from satallite and world temp records. Do you know what peer reviewed means?
> So fact is there has been NO rise in global temps for around 16 years. Another fact is the IPCC computer modeling predicted a sizable increase over that time which never eventuated. Its a bust, and if your going to argue global warming you should have better info than saying "peer reviewed"
> But as you only believe what is peer reviewed then heres one that says the global warming thing is a dud.
> New study says threat of man-made global warming greatly exaggerated | Fox News




Yes I know what peer reviewed means. I wouldn't have got through my degree not knowing. Let me break it down for you though because fox news (the biggest joke news in the US) and some random picture are not peer reviewed. 
Peer-reviewed articles have been evaluated by several researchers or subject specialist in the academic community prior to accepting it for publication. Also known as scholarly or refereed.
See now with this definition we can see how a horrible news show and a photo anyone could have made with no further data or article are NOT peer reviewed. Cute though thinking fox news is peer reviewed, I got a chuckle.

This is a little thing showing what percentage of peer reviewed articles believe in global warming.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/15/2014211/study-finds-97-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming-in-the-peer-reviewed-literature/

I know I know that link itself isn't actually a peer reviewed article and I don't want you to get flip out so he is the actual article it is talking about. This one is peer reviewed.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
Notice as well this is 97.% believe humans are warming it. Obviously if the question was is the earth warming the percentage would go up as there are scientists who believe that humans aren't causing global warming.

Here is a thing asking just that question. Is the earth warming without taking humans into consideration.
Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

An actual peer reviewed article for you on global warming and it's effects.
Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change : Abstract : Nature


If you want more information or anything of the such just let me know have more than I know what to do with.​


----------



## Kurama (Oct 14, 2013)

GeoengineeringWatch.org


----------



## eipper (Oct 14, 2013)

I do not need peer reviewed lit to tell me that global warming is occurring. The reduction of the permafrost, glacier reduction shrinking of the "stable" ice at the poles is enough to tell me we are warming. 

Not everything is a conspiracy. Are we as humans the cause of this warming? Well while the earth has been subjected to many ice ages, warming events etc the rapid nature of this latest warming event (as per carbon dating) is off the scale. Our change from basically a small population of primates to one of most invasive, wasteful species is the main significant change. We don't have to like the truth, but denying the exsistence of the events and how they can best explained is ridiculous.


----------



## AmazingMorelia (Oct 14, 2013)

So you have shown what is called avoidence behaviour. You now dont argue the inital point of no actual rise in temprature because your proven wrong, so you try to avoid the topic. You then create a strawman around Fox news so you dont have to address the peer reviewed study they are merely reporting on by trying to discredit the report baised on a news outlet that reports it. And then like clockwork throw out a half a dozen articles from green blogs to try and confuse the matter.
Why dont we stick to the actual scientific point here that there has been NO rise in global temps for around 16 years, which has proved the pro warming argument to be incorrect. Infact some scientists are thinking that we might now be headed into a period of global cooling.
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph
I have a science degree and work in an environmental area. Science is an area that has theories and then experiments are done and the results either debunk the theory or prove it out. There was a theory that we were going to have elevated increases in temps over a particular period of time that was not borne out by actual results and data.
Its getting very inconvenient for the warmers now. Damm reality getting in the way again.

- - - Updated - - -



eipper said:


> I do not need peer reviewed lit to tell me that global warming is occurring. The reduction of the permafrost, glacier reduction shrinking of the "stable" ice at the poles is enough to tell me we are warming.



Again, some people just dont want reality or facts get into the way of their beliefs. http://m.livescience.com/39720-antarctica-ice-record-highs-2013.html


----------



## eipper (Oct 14, 2013)

Antarctica Sea Ice Hitting Record Highs | LiveScience


that is gold, did you read this article, let me know when you get to the third paragraph

cheers
scott


----------



## zack13 (Oct 14, 2013)

AmazingMorelia said:


> So you have shown what is called avoidence behaviour. You now dont argue the inital point of no actual rise in temprature because your proven wrong, so you try to avoid the topic. You then create a strawman around Fox news so you dont have to address the peer reviewed study they are merely reporting on by trying to discredit the report baised on a news outlet that reports it. And then like clockwork throw out a half a dozen articles from green blogs to try and confuse the matter.
> Why dont we stick to the actual scientific point here that there has been NO rise in global temps for around 16 years, which has proved the pro warming argument to be incorrect. Infact some scientists are thinking that we might now be headed into a period of global cooling.
> Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph
> I have a science degree and work in an environmental area. Science is an area that has theories and then experiments are done and the results either debunk the theory or prove it out. There was a theory that we were going to have elevated increases in temps over a particular period of time that was not borne out by actual results and data.
> ...



Like I said all I want is some proof. One singular peer reviewed article will suffice. That means not a news article that doesn't have links to any peer reviewed article either. Also it's you're not your. Sorry a pet peeve of mine when people mess that up.


----------



## AmazingMorelia (Oct 14, 2013)

eipper said:


> Antarctica Sea Ice Hitting Record Highs | LiveScience
> 
> 
> that is gold, did you read this article, let me know when you get to the third paragraph
> ...


Gold it is, but not for you. You claimed that the ice caps were melted to lows. They arnt. They are at record levels. No offence but you are doing yourself a disservice by claiming things that are not true.
The fact that there is a disclaimer saying more than one thing is responsible for ice packs growing other than temp is not a win for you, as its also goes that temp is not the only thing that is responsible for ice melts.
So fact, there is no man made GW that is responsible for melting the ice caps, as they are at record levels.


----------



## eipper (Oct 14, 2013)

For starters it only said Antarctic, nothing about arctic. Secondly it specifically excludes the use of this data from the global warming theory by explaining that the Antarctic pack ice is formed predominantly by weather and current conditions specifically excluding temperature. I apologize I got it wrong earlier only one poles ice pack is decreasing.

I am not a climatologist and frankly have a passing interest in it. However I do read journals such as Nature that do have their articles/ papers peer reviewed. I am inclined to be a sheep in this case and follow consensus. If I am wrong I will be good company.

enjoy life in your bubble of bliss,

cheers
scott


----------



## AmazingMorelia (Oct 15, 2013)

Not just the Antarctic ice caps. Six years ago the BBC and the global warming nutters claimed that by 2013 (now) the ice would have fully melted at the Arctic Pole. Unfortumatly for the GW scientists the opposite has happened. At some point you would think they would be embarrised by been so bad at their jobs that they would resign.
And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online
I have had this arguement a hundred time with people just like yourself, and everytime just like yourself they have no real understanding of the reality of "global warming". You would think people who believe and preach it might have actually looked at the global temprature trends to see if there has been any (which there hasnt for the last 16 years).
And then when they are faced with information which challanges their faith they do a runner while accusing you of wanting to kill the planet.
Its sad that so many people lack basic critical thinking. 
Reminds me of the Penn and Teller episode where they went around a protest with a petition to ban di-hydrogen monoxide (H2O or water) and 99% of the dumb asses signed it.


----------



## fishbot (Oct 15, 2013)

Global systems are complicated. You can't select out 16 years of data and use that to prove anything when the total counts are being calculated in thousands of years. Get back to me when you observe no increase in temps for over 100 years.


----------



## AmazingMorelia (Oct 16, 2013)

fishbot said:


> Global systems are complicated. You can't select out 16 years of data and use that to prove anything when the total counts are being calculated in thousands of years. Get back to me when you observe no increase in temps for over 100 years.



Do you know why Greenland is called Greenland? Because hundreds of years ago it was much warmer than it is today (the earth is coming out of a cold period) and it used to be lush green farmland instead of white ice and snow like it is now. The flawed hockey stick graph was used to show how we have warmed in a decade and now that using a decade to show a rise doesnt fit the argument we are told not to look at decades anymore. But we all know if there was warming in the last 16 years it would have been used as evidence of GW. We have been keeping accurate world temps for a few decades now and some people are so ignorant they think that the preceding millions of years before it are of no concern. Its like when they say "this is the hottest/coldest/dryest/wettest day/month/year on record". Does anyone really think that in the preceding thousands 9f years it would have been the record anything?
So there has been some theorys that that would happen.
1. Global temps to continue to rise over the last 17 years.
That didnt happen. They were wrong.

2. Sea levels to rise much quicker and flood islands and beach side properties.
Well sea levels have been rising for millions of years and now the scientists are saying there is no actual evidence that the seas are rising any faster than they ever have.

'There is no scientific consensus' on sea-level rise, say scientists • The Register

3. They said that the himalayan glaciers would be fully melted.by abourlt 2035. 
Well that was kinda BS and has since been retracted. 

Climate Change Hoax Himalayan glacier meltdown: a scientific blunder, says new report - ...

4.They said the polar bear is becoming extinct due to global warming.
Again, a load of old tosh. Their numbers have been on the rise for years.

Book: Polar bear population on the rise - Washington Times

It doesnt matter what part of this issue you look at the GW claims have amounted to lies, guess work, ineptness and agenda driven policy.


----------



## PythonLegs (Oct 16, 2013)

I think you'll find greenland was called greenland as a way of attracting settlers, named by erick the red. As in a propaganda excercise. Not that rubbish you came up with..just one more thing you should have researched.

Speaking of Greenland, while you're spouting your fox inspired claptrap, have a little look at 'warming island', just off the coast. Lets hear your explanation for that.


----------

