Media Redemption in Unmasking Global Warming Scam?
The mainstream press might just reclaim some of its tarnished reputation by investigating the climate change charade.
Every time the mainstream media shoots itself in the foot (RatherGate, ACORN’s pimp scandal, the biased coverage of the 2008 presidential elections) conservatives proclaim the industry’s death knell.
And every time they do, such talk is premature.
But there is one story that could strike a mortal blow to the biased MSM beast: the global warming meme.
Virtually every media outlet, from major newspapers to niche magazines like Men’s Health, have been sounding the alarm over global warming. Each warns us what will happen if we don’t reduce our collective carbon footprint while describing in detail ways to reduce said footprint.
Those who deny the earth is warming … well, you simply don’t invite those people into your home.
Now we learn the Earth may not have a fever after all:
- “The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.”
- “Official government measurements show that the world’s temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.”
- “For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.”
Must be Faux News’ slanted reporting, right? Try the New York Times, McClatchy, and the BBC, respectively.
Naturally, none of these stories is couched in a “we goofed, our bad” spirit. Instead, the data is introduced and then explained away by scurrying scientists out to protect their image — and their storyline.
I’m no scientist, and some of the global warming news reports could have elements of truth behind them. But clearly what we’re currently experiencing doesn’t match the frightening picture painted by climate experts over the past decade. We’ve been sold a bill of goods that, if it isn’t totally inaccurate, is still deeply flawed and needs additional study.
So how will media consumers, who already are registering record lows when it comes to trusting the media, react if current temperature figures overtake the global warming narrative?
Hard to imagine television viewers won’t tune out news shows in record numbers and believe even less of what they read in their hometown newspapers.
The anecdotal evidence against global warming has been building for some time now. Fewer major hurricanes than predicted. Snow in spots where snow rarely falls — or rarely falls so early in winter.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Christian Toto is a freelance writer and film critic for The Washington Times. His work has appeared in People magazine, MovieMaker Magazine, The Denver Post, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and Scripps Howard News Service. He also contributes movie radio commentary to three stations as well as the nationally syndicated Dennis Miller Show and runs the blog What Would Toto Watch?
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
79 Comments
1. james:Two things about this. First, are you serious about ‘anecdotal evidence?’ Global warming is a crock and it’s been a crock since these same people failed to get us to hand it over with the Law of the Sea Treaty a generation ago. Then Kyoto went bust. Now they’re reduced to trotting out the terminally unhinged Al Gore, who stands to make billions if this 21st century version of witch-burning makes it into law.
Oct 16, 2009 - 12:58 am 2. ked5:Second, the media will not redeem themselves. You assume they are embarrassed by their stupidities. They are not embarrassed. You assume that they are actually educated people who know better. They are not educated people. They are communications majors from b-list schools who couldn’t find Kyoto on a map. Get real.
Austrailian scientists and media have been backtracking for awhile. Many in academia are trying to figure out how to extricate themselves while maintaining their funding.
While the BBC has a case of its left hand doesn’t know what its right hand is doing, its current column mentioning skeptiscim of AGW reads more as a CYA piece than a true retraction of the faith.
As for the American media, it is way too little and much too late. They’ve supported the Goracle if for no other reason than he lost to Bush, and they hated Bush. (if Gore hadn’t been such an insufferable fool, he’d have taken a lesson from Nixon, bit down his pride, and waited the next opportunity. But, his arrogance is beyond Nixon’s.) Of course, they also love their “sky is falling” scenario’s to sell their papers. It’s also contributing to their demise as their credibility has fallen through the floor.
Oct 16, 2009 - 1:09 am 3. ked5:Oh, there is one delightful youtube clip of an old “in search of . . ” from 1977. Seems it was on the coming ice age, with a Stanford Climate scientist going on about how devestating “the ice age” will be. you’d think he’d learn – he’s now an acolyte of Gore. But there is money to be made in AGW.
Oct 16, 2009 - 1:13 am 4. William Briggs:Much of the media coverage about the decade-long hiatus in warming has still been unskeptical, and has sympathetically presented the views of a few climatologists who effectively say that “Warming is absent for now, but it will surely come.”
These scientists base these claims on the faith that their models are accurate. They have not been so far, at least in the sense of predicting actual temperatures. They have been in the sense of simulating climates of the past.
We have been discussing this on my blog (I am a statistician), but it is an unfortunate fact that most statistical procedures are designed to say how well a model (like a global climate model) fits old data. Fewer procedures exist to make sense of the forecasts these models make.
This has the consequence of making people far too certain of themselves. Couple that with the knowledge that climate models are enormous collaborative efforts, and so it easy to imagine how all who work on them begin to think alike—and to genuinely believe what the model says.
Oct 16, 2009 - 2:52 am 5. Brian:Global warming is the biggest scam in modern times. These climate models are supposed to be so accurate, yet they havent even been able to predict accurately whether we are going to have an active hurricane season or a mild on. For several years after Katrina the in vogue prediction was to say it would be “active” due to warming… all predictions proved incorrect.
Oct 16, 2009 - 4:24 am 6. Howiem:Then they predicted the artic would be ice free in a year… didn’t happen, now yesterday article is predicting it “could” be ice free in 20 years… and the article further implied that this would somehow effect sea levels! Even if true any 5th grader knows melting sea ice have ZERO effect on sea level…. so the reporter must have misquoted a scientist, which then calls into question every other statement made by the reporter, how many other errors did he make?
The fact is the energy from the sun (the greatest factor in earth warming) is largely unpredictable making the predictions worthless… Climate models do not even factor in the effect of the sun… assuming it to be a constant. Nothing could be father from the truth.
Sure we know the sun goes through stages roughly every 11 years, but sometimes (like the past period) it seems to violate this pattern, which throws doubt about just how much we know about it.
If your can’t predict output from the sun, you can’t predict warming on the earth…. period.
It;s too early for the media to take the plunge into truth and sanity. After all, the end of the world is now scheduled for 2030 (exact time to be presented at Gore’s next freak show. Or should the year really be 4030?
Oct 16, 2009 - 4:29 am 7. Skip:One article does not a reformation make.
Oct 16, 2009 - 4:31 am 8. MPCT:Really wonderful youtube clip from George Carlin on ‘Saving the Planet’. BTW it snowed here in CT yesterday. Usually its in the 60s+.
Oct 16, 2009 - 4:40 am 9. John "birther" Samford:And you can forget about the MSM going broke. NBC is supported by Gates. They can lose 1 million a day for the rest of the century and it will be covered out of Gates interest income. 100 BILLION is a LOT of money. Interest at 1% would be 1 billion, or almost 3x what he loses with NBC.
While Soros doesn’t have that sort of money, he owns enough Congress critters that he can get a bailout pushed through.
The MSM isn’t going to go under. Lewis, who owns Progressive and is about to make a killing from mandated health insurance, will do what he needs to save it. Rumor is he also owns a big chunk of Comcast. So he is already in the media business.
No, only two things will affect the MSM.
A nuclear device used on New York, which would be a temporary set back while the corporation found new employees.
Or regulation of the Advertising Market. Restrict advertising to no more then 5 minutes per hour and watch the profits of the MSM shrink. The trickle down effect on the rest of the economy is a matter for debate. I’m of the ‘not much difference’ school. Others see it as the end of the world, or at least Western civilization.
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.”
Oct 16, 2009 - 4:55 am 10. Paul -Indiana:- Niels Bohr
Oct 16, 2009 - 5:07 am 11. Bilgeman:Mr. Toto:
“The MSM could still save itself and its shaky reputation. Rather than simply reporting the latest facts about current temperatures, why not do a little investigative reporting as to why so many people got fooled?”
They aren’t going to save anything. The only reason for the spate of balanced stories that treat AGW claims with a degree of healthy skepticism is that reporters and their employers now are staring at the consequences of their handiwork with the inescapable price hikes from Cap and Trade legislation.
IOW, the dummies finally figured out that printing a broadsheet or a magazine is a very carbon emissive endeavor.
It murders trees,and paper mills are energy-intensive, as are printing plants.
They’re doing nothing more now than looking at the impact of their dearly held environmental ideals against their personal bottom-lines.
Any wagers on which wins out?
I predict that MSM, if Cap n’ Trade is defeated, will treat “global warmening” as it treated Nicaragua after the Nicaraguans elected Violetta Chamorro and thereby threw the Sandinistas out of power, deeply embarrassing the MSM’s expert political prognosticators in New York and Washington… for the succeeding 15 years or so, you’d have thought Nicaragua had become an “unplace”.
The fix is already in in the terminology. “Global Warming” is no longer au courant in the Newspeak dictionary, the preferred term is now “Climate Change”.
Oct 16, 2009 - 5:48 am 12. pelaut:When Carson’s water didn’t run out by 1964, Paul Erlich shouted “Look over here at Ozone”.
When the Ozone layer closed by itself (since shown to be cyclic) even before R12 and Fleurocaron got profitably (for him) retooled, the whole chorus sang “Ooops! Look over there. It’s Global Cooling.”
When the fresh evidence looked like a warming cycle instead, they all screamed, “Look over there, it’s Global WARMING!”
Now it’s equivocal, so they shout “Climate Change” to win either way.
Why don’t supposedly educated people remember the panics of water-ozone-cooling-warming-climate that these simple minded demogogues have used? Why must we pay the consequences in taxes and ruinous policies?
Simple answer. Stupid public. Worse teachers. Criminal governments.
Oct 16, 2009 - 6:05 am 13. Sizemore:This is only an aberration. By December’s Copenhagen meeting, the MSM will be in full hysteria mode.
Oct 16, 2009 - 6:09 am 14. Send $2.00:Back in the fifties some guy made a mint advertising in magazines a 100% guaranteed to work mouse trap for a couple of dollars each.
When the full proof mousetrap arrived to your house it consisted of a cheap, small wooden hammer and a thin piece of wood with the following instructions.
“Catch a mouse by it’s tail, hold it’s head on the wooden block and smash it with the hammer until the mouse is dead. If the mouse squeals repeat the process.”
The Feds locked the guy up; maybe even shot him, but years later one of his heirs managed to blow smoke up the butts of the entire world by selling it Global Warming Is Going To Get You..
And every night when Al Gore lays down to go to sleep he says to himself one thing, “I cannot believe how downright ignorant and stupid people really are.”
Oct 16, 2009 - 6:12 am 15. Bob in VA:I agree with ‘pelaut’ that the jig was up when they switched from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. They new the public was wising up. Now with “Climate Change” no matter which direction the change, their hysteria on carbon footprints can continue. The majority of the media take their opinions from the liberals – period. And as ‘Sizemore’s’ comment, the new round of talks in Copenhagen where their hero Obama will attend will rekindle their mantra for “Climate Change” and a renewed effort to pass Crap & Tax in 2010. Count on it!
Oct 16, 2009 - 6:24 am 16. John "birther" Samford:Something to think about;
If one sees the whole AGW issue as a scam to sneak Socialism into power, then it no longer matters. Socialism has already crept into the White House AND Congress. So Socialists no longer need AGW as a wedge issue.
AS far as Climate change, that is the old Socialist ploy of moving the goalposts. Climate change IS real and has existed for millions, if not billions of years.
Humans have nothing to do with it. So the Socialists can move the goalposts over a bit and let the issue die off. Within a few years, the average Joe and Jill won’t even remember there was once a thing called “Global Warming”
“Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory.”
Oct 16, 2009 - 6:50 am 17. Sebastian Shaw:John Kenneth Galbraith
US (Canadian-born) administrator & economist (1908 – 2006)
In Search Of…The Coming Ice Age (1977):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8&feature=PlayList&p=569D328F0DD9944B&index=0&playnext=1 [Part 1]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tokbiZW3gVY&feature=related [Part 2]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nprY2jSI0Ds&feature=related [Part 3]
Time & Newsweek also featured extensive articles about the so-called Global Cooling around this time.
These are the same people are were proclaiming the coming of Global Warming. Part of their backtracking I think is related to President Obama’s election & the Congress is controlled by Democrats.
Oct 16, 2009 - 7:05 am 18. Samizdat:As other commentators have suggested above, the legacy media is probably going to go back into the tank re global warming soon enough.
That being said, the evidence continues to accumulate that anthropogenic global warming is intelectually bankrupt as viable theory. If you care to read a devastating rejection I recomend Randall Hoven’s article “My Global Warming Epiphany” in the August 26, 2009 edition Of “American Thinker”.
The alarmists always talk about the correlation between anthropogenic warming and sea levels. Hoven’s article shows via scientific data that sea levels changed immensely after the last ice age, but have changed hardly at all since the industrial revolution and, in fact, have changed very little in the last 6000 years or so. If you access “American Thinkers” archives for August the article will pop up for you.
The AGW crowd is similar to the government run healthcare crowd. They are manufacturing crisis to increase government control. They are anticapitalist, antiliberty and antiindividualist. They are also, antiscience.
Oct 16, 2009 - 7:30 am 19. Poor Citizen:So…. ok then….global warming does not exist, poverty does not exist, pollution does not exist and racism does not exist…oooooooookkkkkkkkkkk got it.
(swallows pills)..
Ok, I believe you now. Great article…
Oct 16, 2009 - 7:41 am 20. David S:Understatement is your strength:
“I’m no scientist, and some of the global warming news reports could have elements of truth behind them.”
Go with it. Sometimes a little truth can open your eyes.
Peace.
DS
Oct 16, 2009 - 8:17 am 21. Old Soldier:Poor: Does the two inches of snow on my lawn in New Jersey on Oct. 16th exist?
Oct 16, 2009 - 8:25 am 22. paul_unalaska:David S. – You’re no scientist either, chief. No matter how many left winged ’science’ sites you copy and paste.
Tell us again how the IPCC/ WMO espouses the ‘truth’.
You are the epitome in regards to the ‘useful idiot’ moniker for the AGW cause.
Do YOURSELF a favor; go to school to pursue a degree in an earth sciences subject before boasting of ‘knowledge’ or bashing others with respect to climatology.
I recommend U of Oklahoma, Penn State, Colorado State for beginners. My alma mater UC Davis had a decent curriculum as well.
Oct 16, 2009 - 8:38 am 23. biblio44:“Media Redemption in Unmasking Global Warming Scam?”
Great! Now they can go after evolution! Btw, the following is from The Christian Science Monitor:
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/10/15/arctic-ocean-meltdown-say-goodbye-to-the-arctic-ice-cap/
Oct 16, 2009 - 8:41 am 24. Ruebacca:Global warming is the big lie that makes all the other lies work. If global warming is happening then massive regulation of industry life styles become logical. That is why the left loves it, they want to take over your life even without Global warming.
Oct 16, 2009 - 8:50 am 25. Ruebacca:19. Poor Citizen:
“So…. ok then….global warming does not exist, poverty does not exist, pollution does not exist and racism does not exist…oooooooookkkkkkkkkkk got it.
(swallows pills)..
Ok, I believe you now. Great article…”
Welcome to the Right. Racism is the bigots problem not mine. Poverty is a choice. CO2 is not pollution.
Now repeat this out loud: “I am a Freeman and I am responsible for my life.”
I look forward to sharing a cigar and a cocktail with you at the country club.
Oct 16, 2009 - 9:04 am 26. goy:Christian, did you let Frank J. ghostwrite this one?
First off, I don’t recall hearing any significant predictions by conservatives involving death knells. Quite the contrary, in fact.
It’s become clear that state-run media will continue to exist – if necessary, through the theft of Taxpayers’ dollars – regardless how small their audience becomes and how many outright lies they tell. That’s because the clown posse in D.C. needs an “authoritative”, “unbiased” resource to tell it what Americans are thinking and at the same time provide a concrete wall for the echo chamber in which they live. Meanwhile, those who have a soapbox (like PJM) keep dropping the ball and failing to do the one thing that has any chance of forcing the issue in advance of the feds’ plans: a nationwide boycott of The Left Wing Media’s major advertisers.
No serious person could ever expect, say, CNN to backtrack on years of propaganda now that they’ve gone all in with a full-court press to support socialism in America… though the heavens fall. “Green” is a brand now – that’s been the whole idea all along. This is why Gore & Co. went from “Global Warming” to “Anthropogenic Global Warming” to “Climate Change” to “Climate Crisis”, looking for the right meme with enough inherent meaninglessness that it could be used to sell ANY social engineering policy. At this point, too significant a portion of our gullible, cow-eyed population has been inculcated with the associated irrational, faith-based dogma. If nothing else, it would simply be bad business now for media to start badmouthing the Climate Crisistians.
Not gonna happen.
Oct 16, 2009 - 9:06 am 27. texexpatriate:goy has it absolutely right. “Not gonna happen.” Members of the MSM are not terribly bright. Back in the early-sixties at Indiana University I wrote stories and essays for J-school and Ed-school undergrads at $25 per essay/story, and even theses for Ed-school grad students. I made enough bucks at it to help feed my wife and son while finishing my degree. I also developed a skepticism for J-school and Ed-school degrees.
Oct 16, 2009 - 9:45 am 28. David S:@22. paul_unalaska:
David S. – You’re no scientist either, chief. No matter how many left winged ’science’ sites you copy and paste.
I don’t think you are in a position to judge my scientific qualifications. I don’t claim to be an expert, but at least I’m not making an idiot of myself by arguing against the evidence.
Tell us again how the IPCC/ WMO espouses the ‘truth’.
It’s not absolute truth, it’s overwhelming evidence. Have you even looked at the evidence?
Do YOURSELF a favor; go to school to pursue a degree in an earth sciences subject before boasting of ‘knowledge’ or bashing others with respect to climatology.
It doesn’t take a degree in the earth sciences to appreciate the rank duplicity of the argument against AGW. A formal degree is not required to see the evidence, or the logical conclusions. In case you didn’t notice, the folks who are worried about global warming are the better educated and more informed portion of the population. That applies to the scientific community and society at large.
I recommend U of Oklahoma, Penn State, Colorado State for beginners. My alma mater UC Davis had a decent curriculum as well.
If you are an example of what these schools are currently producing, I weep for the future of earth science in the USA. A failure to understand basic climate science is not a good foundation for deeper learning.
Peace.
DS
Oct 16, 2009 - 9:49 am 29. heetookuazy:reclaim their tarnished image? They got a full blown Marxist elected to the presidency. I’d say they have a rather large investment in the outcome of all this, since it is all interrelated.
They will of course backtrack somewhat when their advertising dollars are affected. Claim they were lied to and misled or that they didn’t really say what they said and everything was taken out of context. But make no mistake, they are in this and responsible for all of it, up to their necks. They know how to survive. I’ve watched them do it, live and in living color!
Oct 16, 2009 - 9:57 am 30. Jack Okie:Christian, don’t get entangled in the Left’s “credentialism”. Real science is done by publishing all your data with your conclusions, something the AGW hysterics have not done. Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, with websites respectively ClimateAudit and WattsUpWithThat, are doing great work exposing the cruddy and slipshod work underpinning the IPCC reports, especially the “hockey stick”. The folks at RealClimate, who are in the tank for AGW, have been ridiculing Dr. McIntyre’s findings because he is not a “climate scientist”. Dr. McIntyre is a mathematician, and since the IPCC findings rely on MATHEMATICAL MODELS one would think he might have something relevant to say.
Bottom line: The warming trend postulated by the AGW’s was based on a sample of 17(!) cores from trees from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia, a sample which is anomalous compared with larger samples from the same region. It appears there are serious problems not only with the statistical methods used here (some highly subjective selection criteria), but with the entire proposition of “dendroclimatology”, that is, using tree cores as proxies for temperature variations (“treemometers”). Foresters will tell you that rain, nutrients and shade can affect tree growth more than temperature. The above mentioned websites are a treasure trove of clear thinking about climate. I recommend you check them out thoroughly.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Oct 16, 2009 - 10:14 am 31. Jack Okie:Dave S:
When the data supporting one’s conclusions is hidden rather than published it’s not science, it’s hokum.
Oct 16, 2009 - 10:17 am 32. TellMeWhy:They will revert back to form in near future. Here’s a sample of their distortions:
http://www.c3headlines.com/is-msm-reporting-biased-towards-gw/
Oct 16, 2009 - 10:20 am 33. Bilgeman:David S:
“I don’t claim to be an expert, but at least I’m not making an idiot of myself by arguing against the evidence.”
Is he now?
Well, then meet “Greenland”:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/chmonty/HIS3931crisis/greenland.gif
Oct 16, 2009 - 10:22 am 34. Tom DeGisi:So, if you are good at math and you are in search of grant money and want to publish so you don’t perish, plus want the excitement of being part of a major effort to improve the world by saving the climate and you’d like to support your government’s strong work on that behalf(seriously, there is nothing wrong with those motives) you could build a sophisticated statistical model which predicts the past effects of gases on climate and allows us to mitigate climate risk.
Or, if you are good at math and you are in search of much more money and want to hold down a good job, plus want the excitment of being part of a major effort to improve the world by allowing more people (including poor people) to buy houses and you’d like to support your government’s strong work on that behalf (seriously, there is nothing wrong with those motives, either) you could build a sophisticated statistical model which predicts the past effects of high-risk mortgages on financial instruments and allows us to mitigate financial risk.
Hmmmm. Right now the first group has two major advantages. First, so far their sophisticated statistical models haven’t helped to take down the economy when they failed. (They are working on it, though!) Second, their past data is of much much lower quality (not too many written temperature and CO2 level records survive, from, say 200,000 BC) so it’s harder to tell when you are wrong.
Prophecy is always a hard gig. It’s better to avoid predictions which can be checked.
Yours,
Oct 16, 2009 - 10:23 am 35. Bilgeman:Tom DeGisi
#34 Tom:
“Prophecy is always a hard gig. It’s better to avoid predictions which can be checked.”
Unless your gig is predicting what happened in the past.
Which is why I predict that Greenland was once…Green.
I’ll let you know where to send me my government grant check…(make it out in Euros, if you please).
Oct 16, 2009 - 10:36 am 36. Takoma Park Mom:To David S and his ilk
Four legs good two legs bad…
Oct 16, 2009 - 10:49 am 37. Bear:Keep bleatiing like the sheep you are.
David S. Cite the evidence. This is not a jury trial. Evidence of what?
There is no experimental evidence only supporting evidence of a theory. (And some of it is highly speculative).
Unfortunately it can’t be proven or disproven….the kind of problem that is convenient for people like you.
Do you know the cost and acquisition process for a new supercomputer?
Oct 16, 2009 - 11:36 am 38. SteveB/Colorado:I know that you anti_Gore and anti-Obama folks will have difficulty dealing with a rational position that only agrees in part with you. Here’s the recent “take” from Prof. Bjorn Lomborg from Denmark, one of the leading skeptics of climate change, as published in Skeptical Inquirer magazine last year. See especially his quote; “we should take action on climate change, but we should be realistic.”
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/letrsquo_keep_our_cool_about_global_warming/
#12 Pelaut: reference to ozone layer. I believe it was Ronald Reagan who agreed to the Montreal Protocol on ozone damaging emissions in 1997, after reviewing all the evidence.
#36 Takoma Park Mom: “keep bleating like the sheep you are….” I think there are “sheep” on both extremes of the climate change debate.
Oct 16, 2009 - 11:40 am 39. SteveB/Colorado:Try this link if the other given in #38 doesn’t work:
http://www.csicop.org/si/archive/P6/
The Lomborg article is in Volume 32.2, March/April, 2008 issue.
Oct 16, 2009 - 11:49 am 40. SteveB/Colorado:Montreal Protocol was in the 80s, not 1997. Sorry for typo.
Oct 16, 2009 - 11:51 am 41. JED:One needs to calibrate the quandry of geologic time versus news cycle time to find the inconvient truth of man made global warming. Geologic time happens in cycles of 10,000 year increments, and journalistic time is about a few hours to possibly as much as one decade. Mathematically, the measurement is insignificant for massive changes when putting days against eons. However, that does not exclude catastrophic events such as meteors, earthquakes, or solar tidal waves. It is the factors of scale and relativity that keeps science sane, and the worshipful superstitious blathering.
Oct 16, 2009 - 11:52 am 42. Bear:38:
I was in Palo Alto when Gore invented the internet…stayed at the same hotel…only I was doing real work, not photo ops.
I went to HS with one of the NASA scientists working the Ozone problem…I don’t believe it self corrected as was suggested. He was a good friend and regardless of any political views I would believe in his research.
Prudence is always a good thing when dealing with your surroundings. Stealing is against the Law. (I guess unless you now write the laws)
Oct 16, 2009 - 12:01 pm 43. Sebastian Shaw:What happens when you get rid of carbon? Since most of Earth’s life is based on carbon, getting rid of carbon leads to extinction. In other words, the Communist Global Warming-Global Cooling zealots are really nihilists; they want to have absolute control of everything like any tin pot dictator as their plans for absolute power turns the Earth into a cinder as they tax & spend people to death.
The most useful thing is to send every single one of these “climate change” zealots on a spaceship & leave the Earth forever. I wouldn’t miss any of them. Al Gore needs to be the commader-in-chief of the spaceship & fulfill his desire to lead…something. It could be a Prias Spaceship run on cow manure & biological gas. Al Gore wouldn’t go though. He’s a coward & a fraud.
Oct 16, 2009 - 12:11 pm 44. goy:p.s.
Christian – this is the closest you’ll ever see to a policy reversal by The Left Wing Media. It incorporates the same tactic the left uses for every single one of the hundreds of cultural, social and political failures produced by its irrational, historically discredited, socially suicidal ideology: ignore their own culpability and blame others [emph. added]:
WaPo – through its early articles anonymously sourced by Wilson, mentioned in his 7/6/03 NYT editorial – was the very first to take Wilson “seriously” and, ironically, start the “Bush Lied” meme… with what turned out to be a whopper of a lie.
The Left Wing Media’s agenda is clear. And they’re not about to slow down now, just as they’re poised to drown the Republic in its citizens’ own media-induced gullibility.
Oct 16, 2009 - 12:21 pm 45. John "birther" Samford:“So…. ok then….global warming does not exist, poverty does not exist, pollution does not exist and racism does not exist…oooooooookkkkkkkkkkk got it.
(swallows pills)..
Ok, I believe you now. Great article…”
How did you get from AGW to poverty, pollution and racism? AS the Greatful dead said; “What a long strange trip it’s been.”
“Second, their past data is of much much lower quality (not too many written temperature and CO2 level records survive, from, say 200,000 BC)”
Tom , you are wrong about that. There are accurate and Precise records for temperature and O2 content in the atmosphere going back about 1.8 MILLION years, give or take a long weekend. Nothing as nebulous as the written word, which, after all is just opinion put to paper. Here educate yourslef with a little science;
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/1998Q4/211/project2/moana.htm
The data derived from core samples is much more reliable then the written word. That is because there is no Socialists there to spin it.
Oct 16, 2009 - 12:45 pm 46. paul_unalaska:It is what it is. No matter how fat algore gets, a core sample from the Greenland glacier gives the same temp 500,000 years ago as one from Antarticia, or a core from the Atlantic ridge. Science, real science, not junk science, which is mostly done on computers.
David, no need to weep. I’ve worked with some of the most renowned scientists in the meteorological, hydro meteorology community through the years.
I’ll be attending a conference in Brussels in December regarding MCS and its impact on upper atmospheric findings. I needn’t explain this to you though, right..
A self ordained know-it-all reading other people’s words, possesses no grasp nor ability to discuss, let alone refute alphanumeric, graphic data etc., is similar in comparing knowledge of the Mayan Empire from a Mayan History professor and a 5 yr. old.
I have looked at the IPCC’s ‘findings’. My colleagues and I turn to it to find and post weekly jokes for the office to enjoy.
BTW, a ‘formal degree’ does allow you to discuss these matters with like minded individuals EDUCATED in the similar field. Poly Sci, Philosophy or Liberal Arts degree you pursue do nothing to further your case in the sciences.
The ‘more informed’ population ‘worried’ of GW won’t take up a discussion with colleagues who feel differently. Not even with an Irish journalist.
Instead, continue to espouse emotion-based fodder to those who truly believe climate change is possible from a human standpoint.
http://www.junkscience.com
Oct 16, 2009 - 12:46 pm 47. David S:@46. paul_unalaska:
I’ve worked with some of the most renowned scientists in the meteorological, hydro meteorology community through the years.
You don’t expect me to conflate meteorology and climate science, do you? Studying the weather is not the same as studying the climate. I’m heartened by the thought that you are continuing your education, and hope that you will bring back some wonderful insights on mesoscale convective systems. Of course, knowledge about thunderstorm systems doesn’t speak to climate science at all.
I have looked at the IPCC’s ‘findings’. My colleagues and I turn to it to find and post weekly jokes for the office to enjoy.
I’m glad you find the data amusing. Most observers are not so sanguine when clear evidence of disaster is in evidence.
BTW, a ‘formal degree’ does allow you to discuss these matters with like minded individuals EDUCATED in the similar field. Poly Sci, Philosophy or Liberal Arts degree you pursue do nothing to further your case in the sciences.
Your ‘formal degree’ in meteorology does nothing to further your case in climate science – all it does is give you the vocabulary to embarrass yourself further. A group of meteorologists snickering at the climate science community does not substitute for actual data refuting their conclusions.
The ‘more informed’ population ‘worried’ of GW won’t take up a discussion with colleagues who feel differently. Not even with an Irish journalist.
Just like Obama won’t go on FOX news. One has to maintain one’s credibility.
Instead, continue to espouse emotion-based fodder to those who truly believe climate change is possible from a human standpoint.
Whatever that means. We know climate change is possible, we know atmospheric changes drive climate changes, and we know we are making changes to the atmosphere more rapid and extreme than anything in the geological record. The skeptics of climate change are valuable to the scientific community, but the evidence is so overwhelming at this point in time that it would be irresponsible to take no action.
Our descendants will curse us for eternity if we do not take appropriate action in a timely fashion.
Peace.
DS
Oct 16, 2009 - 1:39 pm 48. Frossca:A recent experience highlighted the fraud and hypocrisy of the GW alarmists. The family went on a tour of NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) in Boulder. This is a research center that gets a lot of funding in the area of global warming research.
Walking back through a half-filled parking lot after the tour cum lecture cum sermon, I noted that I could count the number of hybrids (1) and economy cars on one hand. The vast majority were SUV’s.
Nothing like walking the walk…
Oct 16, 2009 - 1:54 pm 49. Jim Baker:According to SteveP/Colorado, he is a paid environmental activist. His point of view is very non-rational and he knows it. He half learns his facts so that he can troll around this blog and lend written support to his choice of a vocation. I think he does it to get noticed by his bosses but, at any rate, you will not convince him of the religious nature of environmentalism because he has been baptized and is now doing the good work of the collective. At least, he was doing this last spring when he and I debated the tactics of his group in preventing the use of BLM lands for oil and gas exploration. Remember Steve? Environmentalism is not science because it is based on cross-correlative extrapolations, not empirically tested ideas.
Oct 16, 2009 - 3:58 pm 50. Jim Baker:David S,
Oct 16, 2009 - 4:04 pm 51. BC:Who pays you to be so obtuse? You can’t be doing this on your own, because that would describe you as being extremely vacuous.
Yeah, some scam. Idiots. Can’t guys just focus on stuff like fiscal responsibility, where you might have something sensible to say? When you bring up scientific stuff like global warming, you end up sounding like deranged hillbillies.
Oct 16, 2009 - 4:14 pm 52. Bilgeman:#47 DS:
“Our descendants will curse us for eternity if we do not take appropriate action in a timely fashion.”
You have children then, David S.? That’s a deeply disturbing thought.
But more to the point, do YOU curse your ancestors for bequeathing you a world with motor-transport, telecommunications, comparatively cheap electricity, refrigeration and air-conditioning, and indoor-plumbing?
Perhaps you personally do, but you are then as much an outlier from the normal human family as you are here on PJM.
Fact of the matter is that if there’s any cursing that’s going to be done, it will be in a far more immediate future by people to whom you will deny those benefits of modern life that I outlined above for the sake of your own misguided ideals.
(And I’m being charitable in the extreme in attributing to you that you HAVE ideals).
Oct 16, 2009 - 4:35 pm 53. Leatherneck:The Global warming scam is part of a full court press for Global Marxism.
For example: Murder as a form of birth control, one world money system called for by the UN, and a one world religious system, removing morality from schools,(see Fox news on 115 girls knocked up), and morality speech as hate speech.
Global waring is about control, so is getting people on social welfare, hate speech etc…
This is Global Marxism on the fast track.
Oct 16, 2009 - 4:37 pm 54. myth buster:BC, these guys are always wrong. They have no credibility.
Oct 16, 2009 - 5:25 pm 55. Banned by Huffpo:Wait a minute! Are you trying to tell me “The Day After Tomorrow” wasn’t a documentary????
Whaaaaaattttt????
Oct 16, 2009 - 6:44 pm 56. Mike Kelley:Don’t come to Montana if you want to see fall colors. The near-zero F. cold we had a while back froze all the leaves before most could even turn color. Now the trees are kind of an ugly gray. On the plus side, nearby Red Lodge Mountain ski area got 4 feet of snow. We laugh at “global warming” a lot around here.
Oct 16, 2009 - 7:03 pm 57. Chris in Dallas:47. David S:
You might want to know what you are talking about before you speak. Meteorology and Climatology are both disciplines within the study of Atmospheric Science. They both require intensive study of atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric physics. The difference is that the primary focus of Meteorology is the study of short term atmospheric patterns whereas Climatology is focused on the study of long term patterns.
To say that a meteorologist would be ignorant concerning the science of long term atmospheric patterns is just plain wrong.
What we are seeing here is the outcome of the way we fund basic scientific research. If a researcher claims that the sky is falling, that researcher is far more likely to get a grant from the federal government than a researcher that says that present indicators within the system they are studying are essentially benign.
Oct 16, 2009 - 7:46 pm 58. Tom DeGisi:45. John “birther” Samford:
You should read your links:
“The temperatures in this representation of the last 800,000 years were not obtained directly, but based on the fluctuations of global ice volume, and scaled to what is known of conditions during the last glacial maximum. They are meant to represent estimates of the mean surface temperature of the Earth “.
Note the words “not obtained directly” and “meant to represent estimates”.
I was saying there was no one around with a thermometer writing down temperatures. Scientists don’t have historical records. They make estimates based on proxies. That’s one of the things Climate Audit audits, that is the estimates based on the proxies. It’s also one of the things Real Climate makes competing claims about. Right now I trust Climate Audit more, but if the global warming accusers start doing a better job of transparently and rigorously working with the available data I’m confident they can produce higher quality science. I also suspect it will show little or no global warming due to recent man-made CO2 levels. I could be wrong. I wouldn’t be surprised if wide-spread farming starting around 10,000 BC had climate effects. Hopefully few environmentalists will subsequently suggest we give up farming.
47. David S:
The following doesn’t make sense:
“You don’t expect me to conflate meteorology and climate science, do you? Studying the weather is not the same as studying the climate. I’m heartened by the thought that you are continuing your education, and hope that you will bring back some wonderful insights on mesoscale convective systems. Of course, knowledge about thunderstorm systems doesn’t speak to climate science at all.”
Studying the weather and studying the climate are closely related fields. It is well known that current climate models don’t handle water vapor well. Oddly many thinking humans, like me, who are not scientists, would readily recognize that knowledge of thunderstorm systems could be extremely useful in understanding how water vapor effects weather and therefore climate. Thunderstorms are drive by heat as well. So it is patent nonsense on stilts that “knowledge about thunderstorm systems doesn’t speak to climate science at all.” At all? At all? Nothing to say at all? It’s certainly quite reasonable to wonder if the current climate models inability to take into account the action of mesoscale convective systems has compromised their ability to properly predict the future.
I would advise you to make claims that are far less broad. Always, never and “at all” cannot always be avoided, but they are often red flags.
Yours,
Oct 16, 2009 - 8:00 pm 59. Tom DeGisi:Tom DeGisi
52. Bilgeman:
No you are not “being charitable in the extreme in attributing to that ideals”. He is clearly an idealist. An idealist with a correct ideal supported by more correct ideas is a beautiful thing. An idealist with an incorrect ideal or one who has attached incorrect ideals to a correct ideal can be deadly. Poverty is deadly. Increasing poverty to decrease CO2 will be deadly. David S. is either figuring that global warming caused by CO2 will be more deadly, or that we can decrease CO2 without increasing poverty. Both of these questions are ones I would think climate scientists are ill-equipped to answer, since they are questions of economics. Since David is convinced that meteorologists have nothing to say about climate science, I look forward to his efforts to show that climate scientists are so conclusively able to make economic predictions.
Yours,
Oct 16, 2009 - 8:11 pm 60. Brian Balogh:Tom DeGisi
Jim Baker,
“Who pays you to be so obtuse? You can’t be doing this on your own -”
Just follow the links he’s left all over PJM. David S. is very much a True Believer and obviously proud of it. He has a completely closed mind and no interest in real discussion. Well, apart from responding with junior-high-debate-team one-liners. According to his resume, his primary area of expertise has been Cleaning Crew, Janitor and Crosswalk Line Painter. No, really – check it out! He seems to have problems keeping a steady job, most likely due to all the time he spends online pretending to be intelligent instead of doing his work. These are the kind of people OFA uses to astroturf the Internet. They do it for free.
Oct 16, 2009 - 8:19 pm 61. Tom DeGisi:59. Tom DeGisi:
I don’t know what burst of rabid HTML cluelessness led me to use greater than and less than signs instead ot parenthesis when quoting Bilgeman. I should have written “being charitable in the extreme in attributing to (David S.) that (he) (has) ideals”.
Sorry. Pride goeth before a fall.
Yours,
Oct 16, 2009 - 8:46 pm 62. Bilgeman:Tom DeGisi
#59 Tom:
“An idealist with an incorrect ideal or one who has attached incorrect ideals to a correct ideal can be deadly.”
On this we are in full agreement. The problem though is with this observation of yours:
“He is clearly an idealist.”
Cuz’… well see, I’ve been around PJM for a while now, and David S. has the rare distinction of not ever posting a single comment that I have read that I agreed with in any way,shape, or form.
(You should have been here for our Union “Card-Check” discussion…well, on second thought, maybe you should be grateful that you weren’t).
So, given our history, I was being charitable in the sense that I usually consign his scribblings into the category of bullsh!t, hogwash and deliberate trollery.
I suppose it’s possible that he IS an idealist, but then I would offer that that blurs the line between idealism and brain-washing far more than I think is healthy for any of our sakes.
Maybe YOU can make some sense out of him,though.
Send up a postcard from under his bridge if that happens and I’ll organize the Pajamites to hire a marching brass band and bake a cake for the occasion.
It would surely be worthy of a celebration.
Oct 16, 2009 - 9:44 pm 63. Peter Hale:I ask that you climate sceptics consider the following points:
The graph is always a staircase. 1998 was a spike due to a powerful El Nino. The upward trend then continued until the last three years, the recent cooling believed due to the La Nina phenomena. While some researchers are predicting more years of cooling, others are predicting imminent continued warming – we’ll have to wait and see. (As it happens, it was the UK Met Office researchers who reported 1998 to be the warmest year globally. NASA climate scientists say that 2005 was the warmest year. A question of data sets and interpretation – so 1998 and 2005 were neck-and-neck.)
There is no hard proof that our carbon emissions are a major cause of CC. But the risk is there and the outcome could be irreversible and disastrous. (Why is that, while scientists express caution and admit to uncertainties, sceptical people always seem to KNOW there isn’t a problem?!).
The fact that the left-minded may have taken on climate change to suit their own purposes doesn’t disprove that our carbon emissions are dangerous.
Science should always be sceptical. But Exxon-Mobil have poured millions into spreading doubt about climate science. Could this be why YOU are sceptical?!
Oct 17, 2009 - 12:07 am 64. Anonymous:@52. Bilgeman:
But more to the point, do YOU curse your ancestors for bequeathing you a world with motor-transport, telecommunications, comparatively cheap electricity, refrigeration and air-conditioning, and indoor-plumbing?
There is much to be thankful for – but the current state of the global environment is nothing to trumpet. I am very disappointed by the slow pace of progress toward sustainability, and ongoing environmental degradation. Thirty years have been mostly wasted fighting against entrenched interests – time that cannot be replaced.
Fact of the matter is that if there’s any cursing that’s going to be done, it will be in a far more immediate future by people to whom you will deny those benefits of modern life that I outlined above for the sake of your own misguided ideals.
Reducing carbon emissions worldwide does not deny to the world the benefits of modern transport, telecommunications, electricity, refrigeration, air-conditioning or indoor plumbing. All of these are 100% compatible with sustainable development, with technology that is already available. It’s just a matter of implementation.
I just wonder what you will leave future citizens to justify bequeathing a world to the next generation that has been depleted of resources, polluted with toxins, and rendered climatically unsuitable by carbon emissions. That had better be some quality plumbing!
@57. Chris in Dallas:
You might want to know what you are talking about before you speak. Meteorology and Climatology are both disciplines within the study of Atmospheric Science. They both require intensive study of atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric physics. The difference is that the primary focus of Meteorology is the study of short term atmospheric patterns whereas Climatology is focused on the study of long term patterns.
Meteorology studies short term phenomena, which can be directly observed in real time. Climatology studies long term phenomena, which cannot be directly observed in real time. Yes, both are disciplines within Atmospheric Science, but that doesn’t mean that a meteorologist has any special insight into climate science. The overlap is not sufficient.
To say that a meteorologist would be ignorant concerning the science of long term atmospheric patterns is just plain wrong.
He’s not ignorant because he’s a meteorologist – he just happens to be an ignorant meteorologist.
What we are seeing here is the outcome of the way we fund basic scientific research. If a researcher claims that the sky is falling, that researcher is far more likely to get a grant from the federal government than a researcher that says that present indicators within the system they are studying are essentially benign.
What we are seeing here is the outcome of the way we fund basic scientific research. If a researcher claims that there is no harm from carbon emissions, that researcher is far more likely to get a grant from the fossil fuel industry than a researcher that says that present indicators within the system they are studying are essentially disastrous.
@58. Tom DeGisi:
I would advise you to make claims that are far less broad. Always, never and “at all” cannot always be avoided, but they are often red flags.
Advice noted and appreciated. I may have overstated the case slightly, but I still contend that knowledge about meteorology is not sufficient to make judgements on climate science. Paul assailed my initial point, which still stands. Most people claiming that the AGW evidence is fatally flawed are not scientists, and there is plenty of evidence of AGW that continues to withstand the scrutiny of skeptics.
Peace.
DS
Oct 17, 2009 - 6:17 am 65. Lazar:Yet another incredibly ignorant diatribe. The major issue conservatives should be addressing is Republican corruption and the resulting anti-science platform. Then wonder why you got your asses handed by unreconstructed socialists.
Seriously, you can look this stuff up.
Now that “sending the MSM down the river” has disappeared from PJM front page, something apropos…
– George Orwell, Animal Farm
Oct 17, 2009 - 6:36 am 66. james:poor citizen:
Oct 17, 2009 - 6:50 am 67. Sebastian Shaw:what an effing idiot. what does global warming have to do with poverty and racism? Why not say, And Bernie Madoff is innocent?
Get a frigging clue.
Lazar, not even scientists know the truth about climate changes for the Earth. Doom Sayers have existed long before science & they exist now in the Global Warming–formerly the Global Cooling–zealots. Basically they want the same thing: bigger government, no choice, & no freedoms. The guy from the Global Cooling era of the 1970’s is the same freak in the Global Warming hysteria.
According to the Global Cooling hysteria of the late-1970’s, Earth is supposed to be in an arctic glacier. However, this did not come to pass so the freaks changed it to Global Warming. We’re going to die from the heat. Yet since we’ve been in a cooling cycle for 10 years, these same freaks will change it to Global Cooling again.
The Earth does go from warming & cooling cycles in concert with the Sun; it’s nothing new. Only the Doom Sayers are trying their best to use it for political means to achieve more concentrated power in government.
Oct 17, 2009 - 7:44 am 68. Lazar:Sebastian,
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Oct 17, 2009 - 7:57 am 69. goy:@67. Sebastian Shaw: – … since we’ve been in a cooling cycle for 10 years, these same freaks will change it to Global Cooling again.
Sebastian, they’ve already figured this one out. By using the “Climate Change” and “Climate Crisis” canards, the AGW clergy can now blame ANY observable trend in weather on changes to climate due to changes in temperature due to human activity – which, of course, must be regulated.
This is how observable, verifiable reality comes to be designated as “anecdotal evidence”, and overruled by computer models (as well as ‘missing‘ or cherry-picked proxy data) which are consistently used to justify economy-destroying, totalitarian policies.
In short, you’re not permitted to believe your lying eyes when the “experts” in Central Planning know better.
Oct 17, 2009 - 9:13 am 70. Bilgeman:#64 Anonymous:
“There is much to be thankful for – but the current state of the global environment is nothing to trumpet.”
That is because you must have either a short or a selective memory.
Within my lifetime, the air in American and most western cities has become measurably cleaner.
I can recall in the arly 70’s when even wading into the Potomac River was grounds to get a tetanus shot, today the Potomac is a delight and supports a healthy sport-fishery.
I remember when roadsides were effectively linear trash-dumps.
And I work at sea.
The practice of pumping bilges and tank wastewater over the side, and leaving miles-long oil slicks, are today a thing of the past because those who do those things are hunted down and fined and imprisoned.
Maybe you never went to the beach back in the day and walked in a sand-covered oil slick, and then needed to break out the mineral oil to wash it off of your skin, but I did.
That rarely happens anymore.
“I am very disappointed by the slow pace of progress toward sustainability, and ongoing environmental degradation.”
Frankly, I think you maybe just WANT to be disappointed, period.
“Thirty years have been mostly wasted fighting against entrenched interests – time that cannot be replaced.”
No, chum, thirty years has seen the success of what was a worthy and laudable goal: conservation, morph into a new pagan cult of “environmentalism”.
You can put on a white coat and make scientifical noises all you wish, but the fact of the matter is that you’re little different than an ignorant savage worshipping a tree, salted with a very strong streak of Socialist-brewed neo-Ludditism among your ranks.
“Reducing carbon emissions worldwide does not deny to the world the benefits of modern transport, telecommunications, electricity, refrigeration, air-conditioning or indoor plumbing.”
Yes it does. All of those endeavors share the absolute necessity of energy production…to burn something…in either their manufacture or their intrinsic operation.
To limit carbon production is to limit that energy, and therefore to limit that endeavor.
Don’t try to tell a seafaring boilerman and an electrician about how it all works, friend. I’m the guy who puts out the fires in the boilers and shuts the whole ship down when the steam drops off the turbines in the generators and the main propulsion.
“All of these are 100% compatible with sustainable development, with technology that is already available. It’s just a matter of implementation.”
That implementation takes two things: time and money, and a diversion of either into implemnetation for the way you think they should be is going to deny someone those endeavors as they are today.
You can tell yourself fairy tales about how they’re thanking you for it, but reality will prove that you are monstrously deluded when they stick the muzzle of an AK-47 in your nostril and relieve you of your car, your cell-phone, your teevee and your air conditioner.
That day will come far sooner than you might think, so were I you, I wouldn’t worry about your personal legacy to the future.
You likely won’t have one.
“I just wonder what you will leave future citizens to justify bequeathing a world to the next generation that has been depleted of resources, polluted with toxins, and rendered climatically unsuitable by carbon emissions. That had better be some quality plumbing!”
You have a remarkably shallow faith in one of the hallmarks of our species…it’s adaptability to it’s environment even while adapting it’s own environment.
They will adapt and thrive on what they inherit…exactly as we have done and our ancestors before us.
Maybe if you would stop worshiping trees and clouds and mountains and such and studied your fellow man a bit more, you’d have an appreciation for his capabilities.
Oct 17, 2009 - 1:18 pm 71. paul_unalaska:David S, – your sanctimonious retorts on subjects whereas you obviously have more emotion than knowledge vested is ever-so evident.
I enjoy cooking and playing the violin. I’d be hard pressed to assert I’d be in the company of a Gordon Ramsey, John Ash or Antonio Carluccio.
Or attempt the passion in playing the works of Haydn, Beethoven or Mozart piece.
Chris in Dallas is correct in saying meteorology and climatology go hand-in-hand with one another.
The discussion in Brussels is one of myriad of events I will and have attended.
It’s through experience, discussion I’ve found reality to be a more suited color.
The ‘actual’ and ‘overwhelming’ evidence you speak.. if it’s a no-brainer, then why hasn’t the astronomer, err, mathematician, the ‘accurate Earth climate modeler’ James Hansen or like minded individual had (heck, you think they’d plead for such a proposal. Instead, dodging and silence..) a discussion/ forum with scientists who oppose those findings? Science is indefinite, forever changing. To shun or ignore other viewpoints is criminal, ignorant and a true injustice to the science community of the highest order.
Oct 17, 2009 - 3:01 pm 72. Sebastian Shaw:Poor Citizen, volcanoes spew more toxic substances into the air than anything created by mankind; in fact, Hawaii’s volcano is erupting toxic fumes into the air making a noxious plume of smog. How do the Global Warmers plan to stop the Earth’s tectonic plates from moving? Do you know of a scientist who can give a man or woman special powers to make them one with the Earth? Outside of fantasy island, what do you plan to do to stop the Earth from moving magma around? Of course, this may well lead to stagnation & the very death of the planet itself. See, it all comes back to the Left’s own NIHILISM. Everything the left does leads to nihilism. Innovation is gone as the individual is nothing to the COLLECTIVISM of the all. The one man is irrelevant to the many “for the greater good.” For the greater good of what? The all knowing, all seeing, big brother, THE STATE.
Better yet, watch the original Twilight Zone episode, “The Obsolete Man”; it tells the same sad story the very path you’re treading down blindly without your own ability to think for yourself.
Oct 17, 2009 - 5:55 pm 73. Ben Blankenship:Just as American Indians once danced around the fire to make it rain out west, global warming gurus will huddle in Copenhagen to make it cool. They will thus further confirm doubts about the evolution of “man,” especially since one such specimen a million years older than our previously honored eldest has been unearthed.
Oct 17, 2009 - 6:51 pm 74. bela:Speaking of burning something… Well, at least it’s not that evil petroleum based stuff, right David S? Those Swedes are so much more advanced than us rubes over here.
Bilgeman, thanks for all you do – in real life and on the intertubes.
Oct 17, 2009 - 9:22 pm 75. Delia:Gore the bazillionare whore wants to make money off of your carbon credits.
HELLO?
Oct 18, 2009 - 4:37 am 76. Don51:“Reporters scolded themselves at length a few years ago for not reporting the truth about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction — or the lack thereof.”
or bury the truth -
http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2006-05/iraq-doc.pdf
Its all about the narrative and power.
Oct 18, 2009 - 11:09 am 77. Khiri:As soon as the alarmists say “the debate is over,” it’s now politics, not science.
In science, the debate is never over.
Oct 18, 2009 - 5:40 pm 78. David S:@77. Khiri:
As soon as the alarmists say “the debate is over,” it’s now politics, not science.
In science, the debate is never over.
The debate may never be over, but some points of view become justifiably unpopular. You won’t find many scientists engaging in debate about the heliocentric model, or relativity, or gravity. Some points of view are simply not supported by any evidence – and when this is the case, they are not really part of the debate.
Peace.
DS
Oct 19, 2009 - 10:40 am 79. Flu-Bird:Al Gore dont want to debate about GLOBAL WARMING becuase he dont want to be exposed as a fruad and a hypotcrit as well
Oct 25, 2009 - 11:29 am