[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel said TV weathercasters who displayed disbelief in human-caused warming should have their professional certification yanked.

And here is the one and only Dr. Cullen getting her ass handed to her on her own blog: Weather Channel Blog: JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE...

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"Then this month the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with its latest report."

They did no such thing. The IPCC released a "summary" of a not yet released (and still being rewritten) report.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Click pn POGW graphic for full GW rundown

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[irv]

the controversy no longer deserved balanced coverage in the newspaper

It never received any such thing anyway, so it's just as well.

(Should I put a Captain Obvious alert on this post?)

[socialismisinsidious]

"Then this month the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with its latest report

The same UN gave us the oil for food scandal. The same UN gave us the rape scandal. The same UN has a LOT to gain from "global warming".
Real credible...not.

[rabscuttle385]

Sometimes the facts are so overwhelming on one side that it's unfair and inaccurate to give equal weight to both sides...

Goodhue is an idiot for writing such a thing. Just because *SOME* of the relevant "facts" imply a man-made cause for global warming does not necessarily mean that *ALL* of the facts imply such a thing.

But the scientific mind is not incurious in the manner of, say, Heidi Cullen. The scientific impulse is to see settled beliefs as potential targets of opportunity.

Science is about questioning established notions, making observations and conducting relevant, ethical experiments that can be analyzed to produce new insights into how our world operates. Religion, on the other hand, is the exact opposite.

...

The socialist-environmentalist religion has an agenda, and they will cherry-pick facts, ignore data, and distort numbers to fit that agenda...and then attempt to silence anyone who dares to questions them.

[CIDKauf]

So what if Greenland was green when the Nordics arrived (Vikings-circa 800 or prior the little ice age)? Core samples suggest that this may be the case. So what do we do then, when Greenland becomes green again? (Not enough carbon credits?)

[stevem]

There are always three things we simply don't need to discuss in the global warming thing:

1. Is there "global warming?" About all we ever know now that the debate is over is nothing in climate stays exactly the same year after year. If it did there would never be any records set. Things would always be a tie. I guess we know the temp has risen half a degree centigrade - on average - over the last half century. Depending on who reads the thermometers the average may have dropped a tenth of a degree in the last 5 years. Either way, I want you to know I'm in uncontrolled panic. Aren't you?

2. We no longer need to debate if humans caused it. It's settled. Of course those pesky Piltdown Men frankly my dear didn't give a darn when they were busy melting the glaciers starting 15,000 years ago or thereabouts. Or was it Neanderthals. I always get those two confused. The important thing is the world would have been a better place if the saber teeth tigers had just eaten every last one of those rummies and the mastadons had stamped out those other evil creatures walking upright.

3. There no longer is a debate, it's settled, as to whether all the evils of the calendar on items one and two are bad things. Never mind that life expectancies get longer day after day. Never mind that we are producing more food now than ever before it since Australopithicus first swung down from his tree. The only thing we are doing is feeding all those rummies, and we all know where that will lead.

[Publius6961]

For centuries, global temperature trends have ebbed and flowed in cycles some scientists now link to solar activity. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600, temperatures trended upward. From 600 to 900, the trend was down, then up again until 1300. What became known as the Little Ice Age ran from 1300 to 1850. These shifts had little to do with greenhouse gases.

All this is part of the guerrilla warfare that is going on between proponents and skeptics of global warming. Dennis Deming, a climate scientist at the University of Oklahoma, recently told the Senate about his experience in the field:

“In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.”

With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them.... One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."-- Nir J Shaviv, sciencebits.com

[Quick or Dead]

The debate is closed, ignorant plebians. Now hurry and buy your carbon offsets (indulgences) from High Priest Gore or Mother Gaia's fury will rain down on all of you. /sarcasm

[Mike Darancette]

Wouldn't a scientist continually test his hypothesis?