Council Member
Posts: 1,708 
June 18th, 2008, 06:04 AM
Meteorologist Says Money Behind Warming Alarmism 'Can Corrupt Anybody'
Cullen adversary argues he knows only one broadcast meteorologist who is 'on the global warming bandwagon.'
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
6/17/2008 11:27:10 AM
A year and a half ago, James Spann questioned the money and the so-called scientific consensus pushing the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Today, he says it’s losing steam. Two imminent surveys of meteorologists may further complicate the climate debate.
Spann, a broadcast meteorologist for ABC 33/40, an affiliate in Birmingham, Ala., downplayed the future of the global warming movement in a June 13 appearance. He was interviewed by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council for its Washington Watch Weekly broadcast. Spann told Perkins:
“[Y]ou know, there was some great power in that movement back in January of 2007,” Spann said. “It’s pretty rapidly running out of gas and it just seems like every day more and more people are coming out with the fact that that’s pretty much a hoax. And these are Ph.D climatologists that are pretty much saying what I said all along.”
In January 2007, Spann received national attention when he wrote a post on his blog challenging a post by The Weather Channel climate expert Dr. Heidi Cullen. Cullen had argued that meteorologists should have the American Meteorological Society (AMS) credentials taken away if they doubt the validity of manmade climate change.
“If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval,” Cullen wrote for Weather.com on Dec. 21, 2006.
Spann fired back on Jan. 18, 2007: “Well, well,” Spann wrote. “Some ‘climate expert’ on ‘The Weather Channel’ wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for ‘tolerance’, huh?”
Spann claimed at the time he didn’t know any broadcast meteorologists who were sold on the theory touted by global warming alarmists. Since then, he has managed to find one.
“Again, one of my statements in that original article – I did not at the time know of a single broadcast meteorologist that was on the global warming bandwagon,” Spann said in his interview. “Now since then – and it’s been a year and a half, I found one, one guy and I know hundreds. I’ve been doing this for 30 years and I know meteorologists on television in some of the most liberal markets in this country that agree with me and I did find one – and that’s fine. And I certainly respect his opinion.”
Spann’s comments about broadcast meteorologists come two weeks prior to the AMS 36th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology, set for June 25-29 in Denver. At the conference, two separate surveys of broadcast meteorologists’ opinions on climate change are set to be unveiled – one by the National Environmental Education Foundation and one by Sean Sublette, a meteorologist for WSET, the ABC affiliate in Lynchburg, Va.
Spann explained it wasn’t his belief that carbon dioxide was a pollutant, but he told Perkins to understand the motivation of those who say it is – they should follow the grant money.
“Of course, the root of this whole thing is money,” Spann said. “And, there is a vast amount of wealth being generated by this whole issue. And I always recommend to folks – if anyone speaks on the subject, get a disclosure and find out their financial interests in it.”
The same claims are often made by climate change alarmists – global warming skeptics are in it for the money from big energy corporations. Spann told Perkins he has never accepted any money for speaking out about global warming alarmism, but he had reservations about money’s effects on government policy pertaining to climate change.
“When I speak on this topic, I’ve never accepted one dime,” Spann said. “It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other – if warming that we’ve seen in recent years is natural or not. But, there’s a vast amount of grant money going to very, very powerful people and I think that maybe that flows into some of the lobbying efforts and it goes and winds up in Washington.”
He pointed to former Vice President Al Gore as an example of how money behind climate change and global warming alarmism can perpetuate a theory that shouldn’t warrant as much merit otherwise.
“I’m not a politician, don’t understand it – I honestly don’t know,” Spann said. “But, I will tell you that there’s a lot of people who have gotten very, very wealthy – filthy rich off this subject. I think former Vice President [Al Gore] collects a minimum of $200,000 per speech on this and all of this money – it can corrupt anybody, and I just think it’s all about money.”
Meteorologist Says Money Behind Warming Alarmism 'Can Corrupt Anybody'
Cullen adversary argues he knows only one broadcast meteorologist who is 'on the global warming bandwagon.'
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
6/17/2008 11:27:10 AM
A year and a half ago, James Spann questioned the money and the so-called scientific consensus pushing the idea that mankind is causing global warming. Today, he says it’s losing steam. Two imminent surveys of meteorologists may further complicate the climate debate.
Spann, a broadcast meteorologist for ABC 33/40, an affiliate in Birmingham, Ala., downplayed the future of the global warming movement in a June 13 appearance. He was interviewed by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council for its Washington Watch Weekly broadcast. Spann told Perkins:
“[Y]ou know, there was some great power in that movement back in January of 2007,” Spann said. “It’s pretty rapidly running out of gas and it just seems like every day more and more people are coming out with the fact that that’s pretty much a hoax. And these are Ph.D climatologists that are pretty much saying what I said all along.”
In January 2007, Spann received national attention when he wrote a post on his blog challenging a post by The Weather Channel climate expert Dr. Heidi Cullen. Cullen had argued that meteorologists should have the American Meteorological Society (AMS) credentials taken away if they doubt the validity of manmade climate change.
“If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval,” Cullen wrote for Weather.com on Dec. 21, 2006.
Spann fired back on Jan. 18, 2007: “Well, well,” Spann wrote. “Some ‘climate expert’ on ‘The Weather Channel’ wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for ‘tolerance’, huh?”
Spann claimed at the time he didn’t know any broadcast meteorologists who were sold on the theory touted by global warming alarmists. Since then, he has managed to find one.
“Again, one of my statements in that original article – I did not at the time know of a single broadcast meteorologist that was on the global warming bandwagon,” Spann said in his interview. “Now since then – and it’s been a year and a half, I found one, one guy and I know hundreds. I’ve been doing this for 30 years and I know meteorologists on television in some of the most liberal markets in this country that agree with me and I did find one – and that’s fine. And I certainly respect his opinion.”
Spann’s comments about broadcast meteorologists come two weeks prior to the AMS 36th Conference on Broadcast Meteorology, set for June 25-29 in Denver. At the conference, two separate surveys of broadcast meteorologists’ opinions on climate change are set to be unveiled – one by the National Environmental Education Foundation and one by Sean Sublette, a meteorologist for WSET, the ABC affiliate in Lynchburg, Va.
Spann explained it wasn’t his belief that carbon dioxide was a pollutant, but he told Perkins to understand the motivation of those who say it is – they should follow the grant money.
“Of course, the root of this whole thing is money,” Spann said. “And, there is a vast amount of wealth being generated by this whole issue. And I always recommend to folks – if anyone speaks on the subject, get a disclosure and find out their financial interests in it.”
The same claims are often made by climate change alarmists – global warming skeptics are in it for the money from big energy corporations. Spann told Perkins he has never accepted any money for speaking out about global warming alarmism, but he had reservations about money’s effects on government policy pertaining to climate change.
“When I speak on this topic, I’ve never accepted one dime,” Spann said. “It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other – if warming that we’ve seen in recent years is natural or not. But, there’s a vast amount of grant money going to very, very powerful people and I think that maybe that flows into some of the lobbying efforts and it goes and winds up in Washington.”
He pointed to former Vice President Al Gore as an example of how money behind climate change and global warming alarmism can perpetuate a theory that shouldn’t warrant as much merit otherwise.
“I’m not a politician, don’t understand it – I honestly don’t know,” Spann said. “But, I will tell you that there’s a lot of people who have gotten very, very wealthy – filthy rich off this subject. I think former Vice President [Al Gore] collects a minimum of $200,000 per speech on this and all of this money – it can corrupt anybody, and I just think it’s all about money.”
Council Member
Posts: 1,708
June 19th, 2008, 05:56 AM
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Gore's Home . . . and Media Corruption [Henry Payne]
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research’s bird-dogging of Gore’s energy hypocrisy sheds light on another scandal: The corruption of media environmental coverage.
The Center is a small non-profit in Nashville dedicated to reporting on Tennessee public policy, primarily government spending. In February 2007, staff investigator Trent Seibert uncovered that the Goracle’s home utility bills were 20 times the national average, a bombshell that came just one day after Gore's Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth.
Drudge picked up the story and it spread like wildfire across the Internet — and it made waves in journalism circles too. How had a tiny think tank scooped the Nashville Tennessean, one of the country’s storied investigative newspapers, on Tennessee’s most prominent public figure?
With egg on his face, Tennessean editor Mark Silverman admitted that his paper had possessed the information for months but not published it. “We got occupied by other stories,” Silverman lamely explained. The paper, in other words, claimed not to think it a priority to report that the world’s most prominent green politician — a Tennessean who had called global warming a “moral threat” and a “planetary emergency” — was, in fact, an energy hog. For perspective, would the paper have put on the backburner a story that, say, another former Tennessee senator — pro-life advocate Fred Thompson — and his wife had aborted a child?
In fact, Silverman is a known Democratic partisan with a reputation for protecting Democratic pols. As news editor for my paper, the Detroit News, before he took the Tennessean job, Silverman consistently ran defense for state Democratic politicians as well as deflecting major stories that countered the party’s environmental and health-care agendas.
The Center’s Seibert (a tough, gumshoe reporter who is hardly a movement conservative) knows this all too well, since he himself worked at the Tennessean before joining the non-profit. When I asked him recently about Silverman’s excuse for not reporting the Gore story, he said matter-of-factly: “They sat on it.”
Further, when the Tennessean finally addressed the story, the paper actually spun it to favor Gore, writing:
Like the utility bill story, news of Gore’s profitable investments in green companies that benefit from his crusade has also been ignored by the MSM. And this year — as in 2007 — it’s the Tennessee Center for Public Policy Research that has scooped the news media on important facts concerning Gore’s home energy use.
You will find nothing in the Tennessean.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Gore's Home . . . and Media Corruption [Henry Payne]
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research’s bird-dogging of Gore’s energy hypocrisy sheds light on another scandal: The corruption of media environmental coverage.
The Center is a small non-profit in Nashville dedicated to reporting on Tennessee public policy, primarily government spending. In February 2007, staff investigator Trent Seibert uncovered that the Goracle’s home utility bills were 20 times the national average, a bombshell that came just one day after Gore's Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth.
Drudge picked up the story and it spread like wildfire across the Internet — and it made waves in journalism circles too. How had a tiny think tank scooped the Nashville Tennessean, one of the country’s storied investigative newspapers, on Tennessee’s most prominent public figure?
With egg on his face, Tennessean editor Mark Silverman admitted that his paper had possessed the information for months but not published it. “We got occupied by other stories,” Silverman lamely explained. The paper, in other words, claimed not to think it a priority to report that the world’s most prominent green politician — a Tennessean who had called global warming a “moral threat” and a “planetary emergency” — was, in fact, an energy hog. For perspective, would the paper have put on the backburner a story that, say, another former Tennessee senator — pro-life advocate Fred Thompson — and his wife had aborted a child?
In fact, Silverman is a known Democratic partisan with a reputation for protecting Democratic pols. As news editor for my paper, the Detroit News, before he took the Tennessean job, Silverman consistently ran defense for state Democratic politicians as well as deflecting major stories that countered the party’s environmental and health-care agendas.
The Center’s Seibert (a tough, gumshoe reporter who is hardly a movement conservative) knows this all too well, since he himself worked at the Tennessean before joining the non-profit. When I asked him recently about Silverman’s excuse for not reporting the Gore story, he said matter-of-factly: “They sat on it.”
Further, when the Tennessean finally addressed the story, the paper actually spun it to favor Gore, writing:
A day after a film about his efforts to combat global warming won an Oscar, former Vice President Al Gore was called a hypocrite by a Tennessee group that said his Belle Meade home is consuming too much energy.This kind of environmental bias in America's media is an epidemic that occurs daily in publications from the Tennessean to the New York Times to CNN. And it is a major reason why Gore (and his movement) is still taken seriously as a policy leader — rather than the discredited, false prophet that he really is.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk (the) walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Drew Johnson, president of (the Center).
Gore's power bill shows, however, that the former vice president may be doing just that.
Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills. That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources. The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper.
Like the utility bill story, news of Gore’s profitable investments in green companies that benefit from his crusade has also been ignored by the MSM. And this year — as in 2007 — it’s the Tennessee Center for Public Policy Research that has scooped the news media on important facts concerning Gore’s home energy use.
You will find nothing in the Tennessean.
Council Member
Posts: 1,708
June 20th, 2008, 01:09 PM
Do you believe the use of Fossil fuels causes Global Warming? (Discuss)
Yes 44%
No 34%
Unsure 20%
N/A 0%
Total votes: 17871 View previous polls
Over 50% of Canadians don't believe or are not convinced of AGW and yet not one dissenting voice of any political stripe was heard yesterday after Dion's Green Shift (Horse Shift) was announced. 50% of Canadians have no voice in Ottawa on this matter.
Do you believe the use of Fossil fuels causes Global Warming? (Discuss)
Yes 44%
No 34%
Unsure 20%
N/A 0%
Total votes: 17871 View previous polls
Over 50% of Canadians don't believe or are not convinced of AGW and yet not one dissenting voice of any political stripe was heard yesterday after Dion's Green Shift (Horse Shift) was announced. 50% of Canadians have no voice in Ottawa on this matter.
Duration_Improvate
Posts: 625
Location: Nearby yet far away
Location: Nearby yet far away
June 20th, 2008, 01:36 PM
My guardiens (I mean gods and goddesses). It's another case of popular science. At this rate, there will be no knowledge. Thank the guardiens debating people are not part of the elite and secret society of elites. Most elites and secret society of elites decides the major facts and opinion. Just in case. I will be more specific. Here I am typing some random stuff to keep Hitler-like people logical. The critics do not want truth or dare. Yes, global warming is temporary.
Most people are not convinced of global warming. It does not mean the whole entire process is global warming. The weather is becoming warm in some times, while colder in the others. The main reasons are: earth's magnetic flip, the sun's changing cycles, and the people's industrial waste. The excess gases provide a heat capacity for heat. When the magnetic flip is finished, earth will then cool. Since the earth is cooling anyhow, some people thought it will cool. Truthfully, it will be hot in the least expected times. Cold in the least expected times.
Again, wear cloth that have a four seasons usage. Always pack excess jackets, sweater, shoes and boots. If 2030's weather is nuts, please also pack first aid kit, a stick, a hook, and a flat strip of metal. Compass will be useless. The sun's ray will be useless due to the overpollution of toxic gases. Don't depend heavily on photovoltaics. Depend somewhat on thermovoltaics, and gagets that uses the sinking cold air as energy. Have excess water along the way. An oxygen tank may be needed.
My guardiens (I mean gods and goddesses). It's another case of popular science. At this rate, there will be no knowledge. Thank the guardiens debating people are not part of the elite and secret society of elites. Most elites and secret society of elites decides the major facts and opinion. Just in case. I will be more specific. Here I am typing some random stuff to keep Hitler-like people logical. The critics do not want truth or dare. Yes, global warming is temporary.
Most people are not convinced of global warming. It does not mean the whole entire process is global warming. The weather is becoming warm in some times, while colder in the others. The main reasons are: earth's magnetic flip, the sun's changing cycles, and the people's industrial waste. The excess gases provide a heat capacity for heat. When the magnetic flip is finished, earth will then cool. Since the earth is cooling anyhow, some people thought it will cool. Truthfully, it will be hot in the least expected times. Cold in the least expected times.
Again, wear cloth that have a four seasons usage. Always pack excess jackets, sweater, shoes and boots. If 2030's weather is nuts, please also pack first aid kit, a stick, a hook, and a flat strip of metal. Compass will be useless. The sun's ray will be useless due to the overpollution of toxic gases. Don't depend heavily on photovoltaics. Depend somewhat on thermovoltaics, and gagets that uses the sinking cold air as energy. Have excess water along the way. An oxygen tank may be needed.
Duration_Improvate
Posts: 625
Location: Nearby yet far away
Location: Nearby yet far away
June 20th, 2008, 01:46 PM
I was not clear about the case of popular science. Most scientists searches for fame and some games in their experiments. Notice, their process to obtain their knowledge is experiments. They experiment with a part of the nature. Most of the findings reveal only a part of the whole truth. One part of the whole truth is a partial fact. When the group of scientists decide it's true, then it is a scientific fact.
Most people respect scientists, however people also ignores the scientists' errors. If a person does not ignore some of the scientists errors, the person will be more confused.
Politics sometimes accept facts that are wrong. This is to make the politicians feel content. I don't care what. If you want to know the difference between truth and lies, you have to observe, predict, and think about the universes.
I was not clear about the case of popular science. Most scientists searches for fame and some games in their experiments. Notice, their process to obtain their knowledge is experiments. They experiment with a part of the nature. Most of the findings reveal only a part of the whole truth. One part of the whole truth is a partial fact. When the group of scientists decide it's true, then it is a scientific fact.
Most people respect scientists, however people also ignores the scientists' errors. If a person does not ignore some of the scientists errors, the person will be more confused.
Politics sometimes accept facts that are wrong. This is to make the politicians feel content. I don't care what. If you want to know the difference between truth and lies, you have to observe, predict, and think about the universes.
Duration_Improvate
Posts: 625
Location: Nearby yet far away
Location: Nearby yet far away
June 20th, 2008, 02:20 PM
I forgot to describe the elite secret society. The elite secret society may be like robinhood's gang or the gang of mafias. Normally, the good elite secret society's members are seperate. I have no idea who they are except I heard about it on the internet. The bad ones are small influencial gangs in places like Chicagos. They were the Illuminati. Now, I don't know who they are. The Illuminati related elite secret societies are restricted as well. Once the members of the society become most corrupt, they will automatically be eliminated by normal people.
I forgot to describe the elite secret society. The elite secret society may be like robinhood's gang or the gang of mafias. Normally, the good elite secret society's members are seperate. I have no idea who they are except I heard about it on the internet. The bad ones are small influencial gangs in places like Chicagos. They were the Illuminati. Now, I don't know who they are. The Illuminati related elite secret societies are restricted as well. Once the members of the society become most corrupt, they will automatically be eliminated by normal people.
June 21st, 2008, 09:04 AM
Quoting Walter
Half of an internet forum population...and it's not half that don't believe the cause, it's over half that are non-believers and unsure. Of those who do have an opinion, you non-believers still are behind. There's a reason that polls have answers split into more than one category.
Most of them have Jack or Stephan to speak for them. Non-AGW believers have no one at present and we represent over half of the popuulation.
Bright Spark
Posts: 460
Location: Vanderhoof, BC
Location: Vanderhoof, BC
June 21st, 2008, 12:13 PM
To my mind the "How" is less important than the why...
Moving to a green based post modern agricultural society is as much a make work and new skill development project than anything....or that's what it could lead to.
Academics and their blathering are becoming a pain in the arse, standing in the way of proper development and economic deployment....All in an attempt to grab research dollars for research into lazy issues, a low hanging fruit kind of thing....
We still have to fix the planet though, and figure out how to ration finite resources, whatever excuse the academics and media feed into the system....
Quoting Walter
Why let facts get in the way?
By FRED WARD
Monday, Jul. 16, 2007
IN JUNE THE New Hampshire Union Leader published a story "At mount (Cannon), talk is about global warming." This article quoted some participants making statements like "winters with less snow and more rain," without specific dates and data. It's difficult to check fuzzy comments like that.
However, there was one data set quoted, "the average winter temperatures in the Northeast have increased 4.4 degrees since 1970," which was a checkable piece of information. These same erroneous data were quoted in the Keene Sentinel last August, but in the context of a 4.4 degree increase in winter temperatures in New England. The Sentinel published my response stating that the actual change in winter temperature in New England, based on all 11 first-order National Weather Service stations in New England, from the early 1970s to the early 2000s, was a whopping two tenths of one degree!
Now we have the very same erroneous number quoted for the Northeast, and it's just as wrong this year as it was last year.
Looking at the same years as previously for New England, but adding three randomly selected stations outside New England but in the Northeast -- Cleveland, Buffalo and Philadelphia -- for the same years (1971-1975 and 2001-2005), the data show that the average winter temperature at Cleveland had actually fallen from 30.2 in the early 1970s to 29.6 in the early 2000s, Buffalo had fallen from 27.2 to 26.9 and Philadelphia from 35.8 to 35.1.
It's unlikely that the weather data from other stations in the northeastern United States would give much different results.
So why do the global warming zealots continue to quote 4.4 degrees?
One has to wonder if any one of "the panel of experts" at the conference knew better. Did he or she speak up to correct such a glaring misstatement of fact?
If the last 30 years show little change, what about climate change over centuries or millennia? Good, worldwide temperature data are available for less than a century, but that hasn't stopped the alarmists from quoting what are called "temperature" data extending back to the Romans. Such data are not temperatures, but proxies which are claimed to measure temperature.
Such proxies include tree rings, ice cores and the like, but they all suffer from one serious limitation. The proxies can be calculated from the weather, but the weather cannot be calculated from the proxies. The brief reason is that many different weather elements work in complex ways to produce the proxy.
Tree rings are a simple case, made thicker or thinner by a combination of autumn and spring rains, sun and temperature. All kinds of combinations of these weather elements can produce a thick ring or a thin ring. But which combination? Was it a lot of sun, or maybe gentle rains, or what? All proxies have similar, but different problems.
A more interesting argument heard in New Hampshire is that the ski areas and the maple syrup industries are hurting because of global warming. Using skis and syrup to make the case that the temperature in New Hampshire has warmed substantially is disingenuous because the actual temperature data for New Hampshire are available. Why would you use ski and syrup data to measure temperature when the temperature data are easy to find?
You could suspect that anyone using the ski and syrup data, rather than the temperature data, has already looked at the actual temperature data and found what I found, little or no warming, so they turned to skis and syrup. Interesting!
Finally, for those of you old enough to read in the 1970s, there was a lot of hysteria back then about the global temperature. The same "if we don't act promptly, in 10 years it will be too late" statements were published, on the covers of reputable papers and magazines, by many of the same "scientists," and for many of the same base motives. The only difference between the 1970s and now was that the disaster that was just around the corner was global cooling!
How times change, while people don't.
Is it global warming, political warming or globaloney?
Fred Ward of Stoddard has a Ph.D. in meteorology from MIT
By FRED WARD
Monday, Jul. 16, 2007
IN JUNE THE New Hampshire Union Leader published a story "At mount (Cannon), talk is about global warming." This article quoted some participants making statements like "winters with less snow and more rain," without specific dates and data. It's difficult to check fuzzy comments like that.
However, there was one data set quoted, "the average winter temperatures in the Northeast have increased 4.4 degrees since 1970," which was a checkable piece of information. These same erroneous data were quoted in the Keene Sentinel last August, but in the context of a 4.4 degree increase in winter temperatures in New England. The Sentinel published my response stating that the actual change in winter temperature in New England, based on all 11 first-order National Weather Service stations in New England, from the early 1970s to the early 2000s, was a whopping two tenths of one degree!
Now we have the very same erroneous number quoted for the Northeast, and it's just as wrong this year as it was last year.
Looking at the same years as previously for New England, but adding three randomly selected stations outside New England but in the Northeast -- Cleveland, Buffalo and Philadelphia -- for the same years (1971-1975 and 2001-2005), the data show that the average winter temperature at Cleveland had actually fallen from 30.2 in the early 1970s to 29.6 in the early 2000s, Buffalo had fallen from 27.2 to 26.9 and Philadelphia from 35.8 to 35.1.
It's unlikely that the weather data from other stations in the northeastern United States would give much different results.
So why do the global warming zealots continue to quote 4.4 degrees?
One has to wonder if any one of "the panel of experts" at the conference knew better. Did he or she speak up to correct such a glaring misstatement of fact?
If the last 30 years show little change, what about climate change over centuries or millennia? Good, worldwide temperature data are available for less than a century, but that hasn't stopped the alarmists from quoting what are called "temperature" data extending back to the Romans. Such data are not temperatures, but proxies which are claimed to measure temperature.
Such proxies include tree rings, ice cores and the like, but they all suffer from one serious limitation. The proxies can be calculated from the weather, but the weather cannot be calculated from the proxies. The brief reason is that many different weather elements work in complex ways to produce the proxy.
Tree rings are a simple case, made thicker or thinner by a combination of autumn and spring rains, sun and temperature. All kinds of combinations of these weather elements can produce a thick ring or a thin ring. But which combination? Was it a lot of sun, or maybe gentle rains, or what? All proxies have similar, but different problems.
A more interesting argument heard in New Hampshire is that the ski areas and the maple syrup industries are hurting because of global warming. Using skis and syrup to make the case that the temperature in New Hampshire has warmed substantially is disingenuous because the actual temperature data for New Hampshire are available. Why would you use ski and syrup data to measure temperature when the temperature data are easy to find?
You could suspect that anyone using the ski and syrup data, rather than the temperature data, has already looked at the actual temperature data and found what I found, little or no warming, so they turned to skis and syrup. Interesting!
Finally, for those of you old enough to read in the 1970s, there was a lot of hysteria back then about the global temperature. The same "if we don't act promptly, in 10 years it will be too late" statements were published, on the covers of reputable papers and magazines, by many of the same "scientists," and for many of the same base motives. The only difference between the 1970s and now was that the disaster that was just around the corner was global cooling!
How times change, while people don't.
Is it global warming, political warming or globaloney?
Fred Ward of Stoddard has a Ph.D. in meteorology from MIT
To my mind the "How" is less important than the why...
Moving to a green based post modern agricultural society is as much a make work and new skill development project than anything....or that's what it could lead to.
Academics and their blathering are becoming a pain in the arse, standing in the way of proper development and economic deployment....All in an attempt to grab research dollars for research into lazy issues, a low hanging fruit kind of thing....
We still have to fix the planet though, and figure out how to ration finite resources, whatever excuse the academics and media feed into the system....
Council Member
Posts: 1,708
June 24th, 2008, 05:27 AM
A Desperate Man
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Radicalism: In another example of junk science run amok, NASA scientist James Hansen wants oil executives put on trial for giving "misinformation" about his global warming theory. Is this where society is headed?
If so, we are headed for a dangerous place. Only in totalitarian systems is dissent a criminal offense.
Hansen, who 20 years ago Monday cranked up the global warming scare with his congressional testimony, is a clever promoter. By fusing his pseudo science with the wild-eyed efforts of eco-activists, media dupes and pandering politicians, he's been able to convince the public that his flawed theory is actually holy writ.
Out of this has emerged a madness that has divided Westerners into "us," the believers, and "them," the skeptics who are looked down upon as socially irresponsible reprobates.
That's not enough for Hansen, though. He now wants to ratchet his machine up a few notches.
Put the oil men on trial, he says, because it's "a crime" for them to "have been putting out misinformation" that places doubt on his unproved — and unprovable — premise that man's use of fossil fuels is warming Earth.
We wonder: Will it be up to NASA's secret police to make the arrests that will be necessary to drag these men before the tribunal?
Al Gore, the most famous face of the global warming-industrial complex, has been saying for years that the debate is over, that science has declared humans are responsible for climate change.
He, of course, is wrong. There are skeptics in the scientific community, literally thousands of them.
Many are on the leash, however, afraid to speak out for fear of being bullied, denied research grants and ostracized for expressing politically incorrect doubt. For them, the debate is indeed over.
Those who refuse to be browbeaten, though, are in danger of seeing their careers ruined or, perhaps someday, sharing a prison cell with the oil executives Hansen wants to try.
Criminalize dissent: That's one way to ensure the debate is over.
Hansen's comment is revealing. It's the sort of declaration made by a desperate man trying to hang on to his declining relevance.
Hansen knows the climate of fear he has stoked is receding as more people start to see through his nonsense. He's just trying to stir up some storm clouds.
A Desperate Man
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Radicalism: In another example of junk science run amok, NASA scientist James Hansen wants oil executives put on trial for giving "misinformation" about his global warming theory. Is this where society is headed?
If so, we are headed for a dangerous place. Only in totalitarian systems is dissent a criminal offense.
Hansen, who 20 years ago Monday cranked up the global warming scare with his congressional testimony, is a clever promoter. By fusing his pseudo science with the wild-eyed efforts of eco-activists, media dupes and pandering politicians, he's been able to convince the public that his flawed theory is actually holy writ.
Out of this has emerged a madness that has divided Westerners into "us," the believers, and "them," the skeptics who are looked down upon as socially irresponsible reprobates.
That's not enough for Hansen, though. He now wants to ratchet his machine up a few notches.
Put the oil men on trial, he says, because it's "a crime" for them to "have been putting out misinformation" that places doubt on his unproved — and unprovable — premise that man's use of fossil fuels is warming Earth.
We wonder: Will it be up to NASA's secret police to make the arrests that will be necessary to drag these men before the tribunal?
Al Gore, the most famous face of the global warming-industrial complex, has been saying for years that the debate is over, that science has declared humans are responsible for climate change.
He, of course, is wrong. There are skeptics in the scientific community, literally thousands of them.
Many are on the leash, however, afraid to speak out for fear of being bullied, denied research grants and ostracized for expressing politically incorrect doubt. For them, the debate is indeed over.
Those who refuse to be browbeaten, though, are in danger of seeing their careers ruined or, perhaps someday, sharing a prison cell with the oil executives Hansen wants to try.
Criminalize dissent: That's one way to ensure the debate is over.
Hansen's comment is revealing. It's the sort of declaration made by a desperate man trying to hang on to his declining relevance.
Hansen knows the climate of fear he has stoked is receding as more people start to see through his nonsense. He's just trying to stir up some storm clouds.
Electoral Member
Posts: 858
June 27th, 2008, 09:43 AM
The global warming is in progress.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080627/sc_livescience/northpolecouldbeicefreethissummer
And see our link:
The earth approaches the sun
eanassir
http://universeandquran.site.io
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080627/sc_livescience/northpolecouldbeicefreethissummer
And see our link:
The earth approaches the sun
eanassir
http://universeandquran.site.io
