Posted on 03/31/2013 5:37:27 PM PDT by neverdem
In my Weekly Standard cover story about the fallout from the “Climategate” email scandal three years ago, I offered the following question by way of prediction:
Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases?
The article then went on to survey emerging research (U.S. government funded!) casting doubt on high estimates of climate sensitivity, along with alternative explanations on some climate factors, such as “black carbon.” The question in my mind at the time was how long this would take to begin to break out into the “mainstream” scientific and media world.
That day appears to have arrived. The new issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity. That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now. A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages...
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Remember Acid Rain?
That was a good one... Sadly for liberals, citizens living on lakes could look down and see healthy fish - it was a short lived scam. Wasn't there also one about polar bears drowning because ice floes were melting? That one hit young children hard - and was pushed by idiot low info 'teachers'...
Conservatives should make a complete list of liberal scare stories - well, scare lies... so we can save future generations from being robbed by these lowlifes. Maybe the New York Times or Washington Post would run the list - they ran all the liberal bullsh*t. (Just kidding - the biased groupthink boys of the New York Times can't think outside the itty bitty box they live in...
“That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now.”
The economist used to be an “august” British puplication, and fairly unbiased, and I was a subscriber.
Then it moved its main base of operations to Sixth Avenue in Manhattan and gradually its pages more and more resembled NewsSpeak and Time in the political orientation of its editors and writing.
I first ended my subscription and after a few attempts to see what was happending between it’s covers I quit buying it on the newsstand.
It always had one great editorial flaw. Like the writers of the publications of Jehovah’s witnesses, most of its articles were published without sighting a single reporter or author.
“Humans have as much effect on “climate change” as Zero pissing in the ocean and causing “global flood”.”
BUMP! LMAO
A minor correction, if I may:
The average USA 20-something thinks he knows knows far more about global warming than he obviously does know about the US Constitution.
I was a denier before they called us that. I signed on The Petition Project to keep us from signing a Kyoto type accord waay back when. (Over 35,000 scientists who said the science was not settled and no such treaty should be signed until more definitive studies had been undertaken.)
Needless to say, I don't worry about being on one of the Government's lists...I know I am.
“The average USA 20-something knows far more about global warming than the US Constitution.”
Not really. They know nothing about either of them. They have established attitudes about global warming—but no knowledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.