Greenpissers. What else to expect from them?
ib4z
Welcome to FR.
Kennedy has jumped the shark and I have lost all confidence in him and scrutinize closely anything he "pushes".
Why is he pushing so hard?
The NHC produces a lot of data, problem is, it doesn't support the hypothesis. 2005 was not the most devatating hurricane season. Katrina was NOT a cat 5 when it went inland. Tens of thousands did NOT die. There was no concerted effort to abandon minorities, in fact, it was the swiftest and largest response to a natural disaster in the history of this country.
Yes, global warming seems to be taking place but is it all that BAD? After a century of development, the traveling world is locked into otto/diesel cycle engines which produce lots of CO2; but it is water vapor that is the main driver of global warming, not CO2. The president realizes this and calls for our weaning off foreign, and domestic, oil/hydrocarbons; and yet, we in the new energy field have had the answers for years, and we don't see a single DIME of funding. Now, whose fault is that?
It's SO ironic
when "mainstream" types talk gag rules.
How many news feeds
carried the story
of Mims catching NASA at
bad ozone numbers?
---------------------------------------------------
In 1990, Mims had calibrated two of his TOPS devices to agree with measurements from a multi-million-dollar Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) aboard a polar-orbiting NASA Nimbus 7 satellite as it overflew Texas. But then the satellite data began to diverge from his TOPS measurements.
In 1992 Mims checked the TOPS devices against the gold-standard, US$100,000 Dobson spectrometer at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory – and its readings also differed from the satellite’s. Clearly, the problem lay with the satellite’s TOMS instrument.
Confronted by the possibility that their vital observations of the ozone "hole" over Antarctica were in error, sceptical NASA researchers checked – and found the satellite had drifted in its orbit, so that the satellite could no longer see sunlight scattered from a special calibration panel, and was giving incorrect measurements. [That's a 'cleaned up' version of how NASA admitted their mistake!]
Mims suddenly had the attention, and respect, of professional ozone researchers.
His reputation grew further in 1993 when he won a Rolex Award for his proposal to establish an international ozone-monitoring network called SPAN (Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network), equipping a small number of volunteer observers with his invention so they could gather atmospheric data anywhere in the world, on land or at sea, especially in data-sparse regions.
[The Rolex Awards, Forrest Mims]
...................................................................
Forrest Mims III
Forrest Mims III set up a network to monitor ultraviolet radiation and ozone levels, first in his home state of Texas and then across the world, using a hand-held device he invented himself. He also proved that NASA’s ozone- monitoring satellite was giving false readings, after which NASA and other climate scientists started taking him more seriously. Most recently, he has been looking at the effects of smoke, dust and haze on sunlight and ecology. He makes a living writing books about science, lasers, computers and electronics.
Q: Your hand-held ozone monitor became a crucial tool in monitoring stratospheric ozone levels, which protect life on the Earth’s surface from damaging ultraviolet radiation. How did you come to invent it?
A: I became interested in measuring levels of UV radiation when I learned that the US government had closed down its UV-monitoring network in the late 1980s. I then realised that you could measure the ozone layer by looking at UV light at two different wavelengths where it is absorbed by the ozone. So I built some ultraviolet detectors at home and in 1990 I began making daily measurements. I now have almost 16 years’ worth of data and I have published many scientific papers about my findings.
Q: What happened when you discovered that NASA’s satellite measurements of the ozone layer
were out?
A: The satellite measurements began to diverge from my data in 1991. NASA said, maybe you’ve got an aerosol error or maybe your instrument has got a problem. I visited Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, which houses the world-standard ozone instrument, four times, and guess what, it was also seeing a difference compared with the satellite. Later NASA said they had made an error. The satellite was drifting out of orbit. At that stage they agreed to write a paper with me, although they later pulled out. The management weren’t too keen. But that was my first paper in Nature.
Q: How does an amateur get through the peer-review process?
A: Sometimes there is resistance to publishing my papers, but most of them have been published. Now I peer-review papers for scientific journals and I’ve peer-reviewed two-dozen books for scientific publishers. On a number of occasions professional scientists have taken me aside and asked me how to get published in Nature. Only once or twice in my career has somebody been rude or resentful that I didn’t go through the process they did.
Q: Why do you think amateurs like yourself make such an important contribution to science?
A: I once asked the famous Canadian ozone scientist James Kerr, “Why is it that Canada does so much better at measuring ground-level ozone than the US?” He had a very simple answer: we can’t afford satellites. That made my day. That is why an amateur scientist can do science just as well as anyone else: we can’t afford the tools of the professionals so we have to do the very best we can with the tools we have.
[Forrest Mims — An ID proponent you should know]
Ok, I get the part where some scientists have connected increased hurricane activity with a change in water temperature.
Where is the paragraph that proves man is responsible for affecting the water temperature?
I guess we are just supposed to accept that with no scientific proof.
Maybe if we all ran out and bought hybird cars and electric lawnmowers there would be no hurricanes next year.
Oh yes, we can't have scientists going around talking about climate change. All must be muzzled by Bush, who is an evil Republican trying to keep us beholden to those extremist Muslims who control the oil.
In fact, this is the first scientist who is crying about climate change I've ever heard, because those evil Republicans keep throwing them in Guantanamo, where there is torture, proven by terrorists who talk to the press about their abuses.
In fact, global warming caused by scientists is a proven fact which cannot be denied, like Darwin's theory of evolution, the big bang, stem cells, 5-day forecasts, fat free diets...not only the MSM knows this but also Liberals!
We must protest the muzzling of Scientists big S! I can't believe one scientist escaped the evil Bush administration which has gestapo like powers to keep them all quiet! I'm sure Hansen is not writing a book or looking for crass publicity! I believe! Kerry is really the President! We must listen to Journalists and take their word for everything!
This rant brought to you by a fed up evil conservative.
Even if the earth were warming, there simply isn't enough data to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the cause.
The earth seems to have been warming steadily since the ice age. Did Dinosaur methane emissions do what cars and cows are being blamed for today? This just develoves from there.
Overpopulation is the real issue of our age, but nobody is going to touch that one. As long as those evil producers are declining and those angelic non-producers are expanding out of control, everything is wonderful.
Ahhhh. Science.
It certainly isn't what it used to be.
National Geographic? nice pictures but otherwise crap. If you have access to the classic days of WW2 and just after, note the difference.
This atticle has NOAA and NASA peppered throughout and that zinger is snuck in with the hope that it will have "authority by association", although this is one idiot's opinion using that saddest of all techniques: the Hilary approach, where...
... . They concluded: her trick was never actually to make any arguments -- just state conclusions that were all already accepted as self-evident by her audience.
This doofus whines about NOAA and NASA limiting themselves to science. His political bent suffers as a result. Too effing bad! Science has not challenged global warming. Science merely will not go where the ignorant and the "progressives" wish to go: to manippulate society with the chimera of "stopping global warming", a fool's errand.
Who cares?
Did he go back and look at the mid 50s? I remember the heat back then when corn plants dried up when they got to 2 - 3 feet. Stock tanks dried up, grass did not grow all summer, yet now we blame this "global warming" on the current administration.
This is from the same bunch of idiots that think the shell fossils found in the Rocky Mountains were actually ocean creatures. If that was the case back then, the entire planet and all it inhabitants would be gone.
Do not change the title from that found at the source.
Get real jobs, eh? Such complainers. Government scientists are not scientists first, they are sinecurees. On the dole.
Or not, depending on your political dogma, and your level of tonedeafness on subjects you've "made up your mind" about.
Global warming was the GOAL of the research and to find any evidence otherwise is regarded as failure.
The rinky-dink computer models they use will come with anything they need if they "tweak" them enough....and they do...for $$$$.
News of everything that proves global warming is not man-made is suppressed. Same $$$ at work.
Even global warming's biggest believers will have to admit, that the difference between us taking drastic measures and doing absolutely nothing would only make the difference (in their own computer models, (fully tweaked) of a fraction of one degree over a hundred year span.
It's the "herd instinct" that makes most people buy into it. They are told a huge number of scientists favor global warming. Science has never been about choosing up sides and which ever side has the most members must be right. That's not science, it's political spin.
If you still believe in that crap, you haven't really done any homework. It's all available online and is easy to find. There's no good excuse for being "Stuck on Stupid" on this subject.