Blogal Warming?
...in the direction that we have already predetermined.
I wrote a post recently that has generated some pretty strong reaction and I wanted to take a moment to stop the spin.I am a scientist. And I'm a skeptic.
AND after more than a century of research -- based on healthy skepticism -- scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It's warming up -- glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from -- among other things -- the burning of fossil fuels.
With that knowledge comes responsibility.
Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming...
Overproduction of Hot Air from Self-Proclaimed experts are the main cause of Global Warming. What say you?
That said, I would like to extend invitations to any of my colleagues in climatology or meteorology to join this discussion by posting a blog on this site or even coming on The Climate Code.
UNLESS of course, they disagree with global warming, in which case they either 1) won't be invited and/or 2) will have their certifications revoked and their invitation recinded..
We look forward to spirited discussion provided the opposition shows up..
"The bottom line is... you will be INDOCTRINATED, citizen!"
"silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true."
Can someone post her initial statement, the one in which we apparently misunderstood what she said? (Reminds me of kerry blaming ME for not getting his "joke").
here is her initial statement:
"Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. 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. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement. "
The Weather Channel software is coming off my computer tonight. The Weather Channel link is coming off my favorites tonight. I never tuned into the cable channel, so no need for a change there.
Buh Bye, Weather Channel.
Isn't the Wather Channel being run now by some really liberal weenie? I think I read about this guy being a real fruitcake/latte' drinkin' freak, but can't remember where he came from, CNN maybe.
It would seem we have an ecological inquisition where anyone who dares to dissent from the man caused global warming dogma is persecuted.
"We are rotating at over a thousand miles pre hour and wobbling. We are hurtling around a sun, on the arm of a spinning galaxy, in an expanding universe, and you and your pals have it figured out? It’s CO2 and cow farts right. Please!"
So how does one explain the very warm conditions of the Mesozoic? The dinosaurs were the fossils so they were burning any fuels.
"This issue isn't going away."
That's what they told Columbus when they said his ships would sail over the side of the flat earth.
Well it should be and I'm sick of the piling on by people (business, media, etc.) whose fear mongering about impending doom can only lead to political action.
When I was in television that executive producer, now news director in a big city, was trying to "spread the gospel" of global warming. The meteorologist thought the idea was junk.
Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott has piled on the global warming B.S. express, too. I hope for the sake of his company, he gets the hell off.
Anyone who pushes this crap, including John McCain, who spoke about it as something to be dealt with when he visited the UK late last year, risks my anger and wrath.
So GWB had better keep this global warming mantra out of the State of the Union next week.
The threatening of meteorologists credentials is the last straw for me.
The global warming hysteria must stop now. We cannot be dragged into bad policy on the basis of bad science.....
She qualifies for application of my tagline.
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
The Cooling World
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now
There ought to be, as it is typical of what we see today. Yet, it is from a magazine article of 1975 hyping the then well-known threat of global cooling. It has all the features that we have come to know and love about the modern version – deductions from a recent random fluctuation in the temperature trend, accounts of increases in tornadoes, economic and social disasters including crop failures and much more.
Such apocalyptic warnings continued until 1983, when the scaremongers did an about turn, allegedly as a result of the prompting of the green civil servant Sir Crispin Tickel, who persuaded his boss, Margaret Thatcher, that she could use her political uniqueness in holding a science qualification to promote a new scenario, which was attractive to her as she was at war with the coal miners and the oil sheiks.
Although global warming via carbon dioxide had been mooted, it was then fashionable to believe that it was more than countered by the negative effects of pollution. The fantastic engineering solutions being promoted at the time were remarkable, only to be superseded by the economic suicide pact that was Kyoto.
BEFORE GLOBAL WARMING THERE WAS GLOBAL COOLING
Before today's scientists started predicting catastrophe due to global warming, there were scientists who were predicting catastrophe due to global cooling. And that was just thirty years ago.
George Will has a column titled "Cooler Heads Needed on Warming" in which he discusses scientists' and journalists' predilection for environmental doomsaying. Take a look at the predictions of distaster due to global cooling from scientists and "their journalistic conduits" back in the seventies:
Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
Will ends his column with this:
About the mystery that vexes ABC -- Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? -- perhaps the "problem" is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.
Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.
So, a few decades from now we can expect predictions of doom about more global cooling.
________________________________________
When warmists wax on catastrophic climate change, one agency they quote a lot is the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body comprised mostly of warmists bent on proving their man-made global-warming theory, the facts and their limited understanding of how climate works be damned.
The IPCC's last report in 2001 predicted planetary warming of up to 10 F and a sea-level rise of nearly 3 feet by 2100. Since then, it has been "refining" its numbers, weighing new data and supposedly developing a better understanding of climate science. Its "fourth assessment report," due out in February, will conclude civilization's threat has been overstated, so it will lower its warming projection to 2.7 F to 7.5 F, and adjust its guess on sea-level rise to 17 inches.
Still, the IPCC is worried because carbon-dioxide emissions have risen by 3 percent in the past five years. Relying on past IPCC work, The Earth Institute at Columbia University concluded this year that atmospheric concentrations of CO2, now 0.00038 percent, could reach 0.00055 percent "well before the end of the century, with potentially disastrous implications for human well-being and the Earth's natural systems." At the present rate, it would be more than 9,000 years before CO2 reached 1 percent.
Those numbers are meaningless without context, so here's some: CO2 is abundant on Venus, a hellishly hot planet that warmists say portends earth's fate unless mankind curbs its greenhouse-gas emissions now. But Venus' atmosphere is 97 percent carbon dioxide, giving it 255,000 times more CO2 by volume than earth's and making warmists' fears laughably overheated.
But even if fossil fuels were banned tomorrow, the effect on the climate would be at best immeasurably small. "So whether the climate changes we are observing are reversible is a nonissue," said Steve Milloy of junkscience.com. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., put the IPCC's revisions in perspective: "Climate science is always going through these 'refinements.' The media (have) alternated between four separate global cooling and warming scares since 1895, (including) the erroneous prediction of a coming ice age in the 1970s." Still, the IPCC and other warmists should be encouraged to keep refining their data until this latest warming scare disappears.