Warming ocean melts Greenland glaciers

FOX news says: "We've actually measured the waters at their source and have seen their temperature going up, up, up in a way that can't be explained without taking into account human influences."

Oh FOX news repeats what CNN said in my recent posts:

"In the June-August period, the world's ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record since 1880, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The surface temperature was 62.5 F (17 Celsius), 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C) above the 20th century average. Meteorologists say the reason was El Nino weather patterns combined with manmade global warming."

Also:

"The North Atlantic has seen especially large changes in recent years."

More by FOX news: The temperature of the water that flows into the Arctic has increased by as much as 3.5 F (2 C) since the 1990s, says Helge Drange, professor of oceanography at Norway's University of Bergen. "This can only be understood as a combined effect of natural variability and manmade warming," he says.

Oh look what FOX news says: Oceans help to contain global warming by absorbing about half of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere, but the water also expands as it warms, raising sea levels.

It could also have a big impact on climate through feedback mechanisms, such as the melting of seaside glaciers and changes to ocean currents that warm or cool different parts of the globe.

"The findings confirm the outcome of an undersea battle below the dark surface of the North Atlantic: Arctic waters that usually dominate this region have yielded to an influx of subtropical water carried north by westward branches of the current commonly called the Gulf Stream," says FOX news in their article "Warming ocean melts Greenland glaciers."

And the AMO switched to its cool phase in January 2009.

truthist wrote:

FOX news says: "We've actually measured the waters at their source and have seen their temperature going up, up, up in a way that can't be explained without taking into account human influences."

You do realize that the quotation marks mean that they are telling you what someone else said (in this case Ruth Curry), not making the statement themselves.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
You do realize that the quotation marks mean that they are telling you what someone else said (in this case Ruth Curry), not making the statement themselves.

A read of the whole article would show to you that you are NOT correct. Only the first post contains Curry's words. The others are by FOX unless noted by name.

I do realize why you make this comment because my posts that quoted CNN and NOAA earlier were met with a few comments like "it's not FOX." Here is FOX reporting similarly and in detail.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>A read of the whole article would show to you that you are NOT correct. Only the first post contains Curry's words. The others are by FOX unless noted by name.
I do realize why you make this comment because my posts that quoted CNN and NOAA earlier were met with a few comments like "it's not FOX." Here is FOX reporting similarly and in detail.

OK, I only looked at the first quote and because you misrepresented that one I did not look at the others. I will take your word for it.

By the way I cannot find a FoxNews article, this one is s AP article that a local Fox affiliate picked up.

Also, the data supporting the recent ocean temperatures claim has come into question. Just thought you would like to know.

See my post on Ocean temperatures here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Current Ocean temps are a result of the Medieval Warm Period!

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, I only looked at the first quote

Swell. But jumped to write a comment without even reading the article or my related posts. Read the article to learn something.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

and because you misrepresented that one

LIAR. I did NOT misrepresent anything. You are bickering as usual. BORING

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

I did not look at the others.[/QOUTE]You admit how silly you are.
[QUOTE who="YouHelpFixIt"]
I will take your word for it.

Read the article to learn something.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

By the way I cannot find a FoxNews article,

I can't help you with that.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

this one is s AP article that a local Fox affiliate picked up.

And I called it 'FOX news'-- not "FOXNews" as you put it -- and 'FOX reporting.' Can you read and comprehend? Or are you just bickering again?

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

Also, the data supporting the recent ocean temperatures claim has come into question.

This is hearsay on your part. Some call it "gossip." As to questioning temperatures that goes on 24/7 because we study those.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

Just thought you would like to know.

Read the article to learn something. TODAY.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, I only looked at the first quote

Swell. But jumped to write a comment without even reading the article or my related posts. Read the article to learn something.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

and because you misrepresented that one

LIAR. I did NOT misrepresent anything. You are bickering as usual. BORING

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

I did not look at the others.

You admit how silly you are.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

I will take your word for it.

Read the article to learn something.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

By the way I cannot find a FoxNews article,

I can't help you with that.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

this one is s AP article that a local Fox affiliate picked up.

And I called it 'FOX news'-- not "FOXNews" as you put it -- and 'FOX reporting.' Can you read and comprehend? Or are you just bickering again?

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

Also, the data supporting the recent ocean temperatures claim has come into question.

This is hearsay on your part. Some call it "gossip." As to questioning temperatures that goes on 24/7 because we study those.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

Just thought you would like to know.

Read the article to learn something. TODAY.

So, FOX News is where we should look for the truth?
How odd, until recently, it was science we were told to heed.

And as the Sun sinks slowly on the glowbull whining hoax, its cult member continue to ramble on about the end of life as we know it, erm, in a few hundred more years than they first mentioned.

In the meantime, maybe they should go about their daily business and forget glowbull whining, as the apocalypse has been postponed for a while?

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>Swell. But jumped to write a comment without even reading the article or my related posts. Read the article to learn something.
<quoted text>LIAR. I did NOT misrepresent anything. You are bickering as usual. BORING
<quoted text>You admit how silly you are.
<quoted text>Read the article to learn something.
<quoted text>I can't help you with that.
<quoted text>And I called it 'FOX news'-- not "FOXNews" as you put it -- and 'FOX reporting.' Can you read and comprehend? Or are you just bickering again?
<quoted text>This is hearsay on your part. Some call it "gossip." As to questioning temperatures that goes on 24/7 because we study those.
<quoted text>Read the article to learn something. TODAY.

WOW you really are in a snit today.

You did misrepresent what the AP article said in your first post and I called you on in when I replied to that post in post #7. Please notice that I did not reference your other posts in that reply. Failing to attribute the quote to the actual person who said it and instead writing that the local Fox station that ran the AP article is saying the same thing is misrepresenting who said what. I could have accepted it as a mistake, but since you have now defended it, I have to assume it was intentional on your part.

It is my mistake for assuming you meant Fox News instead of FOX news, perhaps you can see how that is unclear. In the future if you would attribute them to the actual source of the article (in this case AP) instead of the TV channel affiliation, it would be much more straight foward.

As you can imagine with any AP story many other newspapers and TV stations also ran the same story, and it would be reasonable to say that only the editors bother to even read it (no reporters or scientists probably even looked at it), so attributing the quotes to them is kind of silly.

The reason FoxNews has so many viewers is because they report the news. News has no agenda, or at least should not have an agenda, it should be reported as news. If you are a FoxNews viewer, not a Fox commentary viewer, you will get a lot of news.

Now what will be interesting is if FoxNews would do a report on this story including the fact that the report is from a single data set and that the other data sets did not show the same values.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW you really are in a snit today.

You are back to bicker again.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

You did misrepresent what the AP article said in your first post and I called you on in when I replied to that post in post #7. Please notice that I did not reference your other posts in that reply. Failing to attribute the quote to the actual person who said it and instead writing that the local Fox station that ran the AP article is saying the same thing is misrepresenting who said what. I could have accepted it as a mistake, but since you have now defended it, I have to assume it was intentional on your part.
[QUOTE who="YouHelpFixIt"]L isten. My post is #1. The thread article is mentioned just above in the page. The article starts with Curry's name. Just read the article instead of bickering. You are a time waster.
[QUOTE who="YouHelpFixIt"]
It is my mistake for assuming you meant Fox News instead of FOX news, perhaps you can see how that is unclear.

You are sloppy. That is why you bicker so much.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

In the future if you would attribute them to the actual source of the article (in this case AP) instead of the TV channel affiliation, it would be much more straight foward.

NONSENSE. Just read the article.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

As you can imagine with any AP story many other newspapers and TV stations also ran the same story, and it would be reasonable to say that only the editors bother to even read it (no reporters or scientists probably even looked at it), so attributing the quotes to them is kind of silly.

Whatever. It is NOT prudent for me to mention my opinion to you.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW you really are in a snit today.

You are back to bicker again.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

You did misrepresent what the AP article said in your first post and I called you on in when I replied to that post in post #7. Please notice that I did not reference your other posts in that reply. Failing to attribute the quote to the actual person who said it and instead writing that the local Fox station that ran the AP article is saying the same thing is misrepresenting who said what. I could have accepted it as a mistake, but since you have now defended it, I have to assume it was intentional on your part.

My post is #1. The thread article is mentioned just above it in the page. The article starts with Curry's name. Just read the article instead of bickering. You are a time waster.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

It is my mistake for assuming you meant Fox News instead of FOX news, perhaps you can see how that is unclear.

You are sloppy. That is why you bicker so much.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

In the future if you would attribute them to the actual source of the article (in this case AP) instead of the TV channel affiliation, it would be much more straight foward.

NONSENSE. Just read the article.

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

As you can imagine with any AP story many other newspapers and TV stations also ran the same story, and it would be reasonable to say that only the editors bother to even read it (no reporters or scientists probably even looked at it), so attributing the quotes to them is kind of silly.

Whatever. It is NOT prudent for me to mention my opinion to you.

Why is it that almost everything truthist writes is vague, uninformative and usually contains nuts?

The BBC is supposed to be apolitical, but it sadly tends to lean toward whichever political party is in power at any given time.
I'm not sure if this applies to US news coverage, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the case.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>You are back to bicker again.
<quoted text>My post is #1. The thread article is mentioned just above it in the page. The article starts with Curry's name. Just read the article instead of bickering. You are a time waster.
<quoted text>You are sloppy. That is why you bicker so much.
<quoted text>NONSENSE. Just read the article.
<quoted text>Whatever. It is NOT prudent for me to mention my opinion to you.

So by your documentation standards you could also say:

CNN says illegal aliens undermine the economic fabric of the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/26/hate.groups....

Or here is funny one:
MSNBC claims to have found Bigfoot.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26222822/