| Subject: Re: A Report from the Global Warming Battlefield |
Author:
Duncan7
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:05:00 08/16/07 Thu
In reply to:
Carbonicus
's message, "A Report from the Global Warming Battlefield" on 06:47:11 08/15/07 Wed
I certainly agree with this. I've always said they should just make it about pollution. All this global warming crap was just ignorant.
> Looks like some rough sledding ahead for Al Gore and
>the other high priests of the Church of AGW and their
>innumerate "believerist" flocks!
>
>
>A Report from the Global Warming Battlefield
>
>By Roy Spencer, Ph.D. in Meteorology 15 Aug., 2007
>
>In case you hadn't noticed, the global warming debate
>has now escalated from a minor skirmish to an all-out
>war. Although we who are skeptical of the claim that
>global warming is mostly manmade have become
>accustomed to being the ones that take on casualties,
>last week was particularly brutal for those who say we
>have only 8 years and 5 months left to turn things
>around, greenhouse gas emissions-wise.
>
>
>I'm talking about the other side - the global warming
>alarmists.
>
>
>First, NASA's James Hansen and his group had to fix a
>Y2K bug that a Canadian statistician found in their
>processing of the thermometer data. As a result, 1998
>is no longer the warmest year on record in the United
>States - 1934 is. The temperature adjustment is
>admittedly small, yet there seemed to be no rush to
>retract the oft-repeated alarmist statements that have
>seared "1998!" into our brains as the rallying cry for
>the fight against global warming.
>
>
>Then, the issue of spurious heat influences on the
>thermometers that NOAA uses to monitor global
>temperatures has reared its ugly head. Personally,
>I've been waiting for this one for a long time.
>Ordinary citizens are now traveling throughout their
>home states, taking pictures of the local conditions
>around these thermometer sites.
>
>
>To everyone's astonishment, all kinds of spurious heat
>sources have cropped up over the years next to the
>thermometers. Air conditioning exhaust fans, burn
>barrels, asphalt parking lots, roofs, jet exhaust. Who
>could have known? Shocking.
>
>
>Next, my own unit and I published satellite
>measurements that clearly show a natural cooling
>mechanism in the tropics which all of the leading
>computerized climate models have been insisting is a
>warming mechanism (Spencer et al., August 9, 2007
>Geophysical Research Letters).
>
>
>We found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up
>from extra rain system activity, the amount of
>infrared heat-trapping cirrus clouds those rain
>systems produce actually goes down. This unexpected
>result supports the "Infrared Iris" theory of climate
>stabilization that MIT's Richard Lindzen advanced some
>years ago.
>
>
>No one in the alarmist camp can figure out how we
>succeeded with this sneak attack. After all, there
>isn't supposed to be any peer-reviewed, published
>research that denies a global warming Armageddon,
>right?
>
>
>But these volleys have not gone unanswered. From the
>other side of the battlefield, Al Gore and Newsweek
>coordinated an assault on a few skeptics with all
>kinds of guilt-by-association accusations. They allege
>that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big
>Oil to research and publish evidence against the
>theory of manmade global warming.
>
>
>Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate
>researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from
>the federal government to do the same, but in support
>of manmade global warming. Apparently, that's okay
>since we all know that the federal government is
>unbiased and there to help, whereas petroleum
>companies only exist to force us to burn fuels that do
>nothing more than ruin the environment.
>
>
>Little damage was done by the Gore-Newsweek assault,
>though, since the attack amounted to little more than
>a verbal "Well, your mama wears Army boots!" It didn't
>help matters that the magazine's own columnist, Robert
>Samuelson, published a follow-up article saying the
>allegation of bribes offered to scientists "was long
>ago discredited" and that "the story was a wonderful
>read, marred only by its being fundamentally
>misleading."
>
>
>Next, I'm happy to report that we skeptics have been
>getting a steady stream of new recruits. In the last
>year or so, more and more scientists have been coming
>out of the closet and admitting they've had some
>doubts about this whole global warming thing.
>
>
>In fact, chances are that your favorite TV weather
>person is a closet skeptic (unless it's Heidi Cullen
>or Bob Ryan). But please observe the "don't ask -
>don't tell" rule. Most broadcast meteorologists are
>not ready for the public embarrassment that would
>accompany their outing.
>
>
>And lastly, I have been heartened by new scientific
>intelligence that we skeptics have been gathering. I
>can predict there are more surprises to come, with
>some pretty powerful tactical weapons yet to be
>deployed. Climate scientists are beginning to question
>long held assumptions - which is almost always the
>first step toward a major scientific discovery. So
>stay tuned.
>
>
>
>Oh, and by the way, in the interests of a fair fight,
>the next time someone sees Al Gore, could you ask him
>to stop calling us "global warming deniers"? I don't
>know of anyone who denies that the Earth has warmed.
>I'm sure this has just been an honest misunderstanding
>on Mr. Gore's part, and he'll be more than happy to
>stop doing it.
>
>
>The author is Principal Research Scientist, University
>of Alabama.
>
>
>
>A Report from the Global Warming Battlefield Font
>Size:
>
>
>
>By Roy Spencer : BIO| 15 Aug 2007
>
> Discuss This Story! (2) Email | Print |
>Bookmark | Save
>
>
>
>In case you hadn't noticed, the global warming debate
>has now escalated from a minor skirmish to an all-out
>war. Although we who are skeptical of the claim that
>global warming is mostly manmade have become
>accustomed to being the ones that take on casualties,
>last week was particularly brutal for those who say we
>have only 8 years and 5 months left to turn things
>around, greenhouse gas emissions-wise.
>
>
>I'm talking about the other side - the global warming
>alarmists.
>
>
>First, NASA's James Hansen and his group had to fix a
>Y2K bug that a Canadian statistician found in their
>processing of the thermometer data. As a result, 1998
>is no longer the warmest year on record in the United
>States - 1934 is. The temperature adjustment is
>admittedly small, yet there seemed to be no rush to
>retract the oft-repeated alarmist statements that have
>seared "1998!" into our brains as the rallying cry for
>the fight against global warming.
>
>
>Then, the issue of spurious heat influences on the
>thermometers that NOAA uses to monitor global
>temperatures has reared its ugly head. Personally,
>I've been waiting for this one for a long time.
>Ordinary citizens are now traveling throughout their
>home states, taking pictures of the local conditions
>around these thermometer sites.
>
>
>To everyone's astonishment, all kinds of spurious heat
>sources have cropped up over the years next to the
>thermometers. Air conditioning exhaust fans, burn
>barrels, asphalt parking lots, roofs, jet exhaust. Who
>could have known? Shocking.
>
>
>Next, my own unit and I published satellite
>measurements that clearly show a natural cooling
>mechanism in the tropics which all of the leading
>computerized climate models have been insisting is a
>warming mechanism (Spencer et al., August 9, 2007
>Geophysical Research Letters).
>
>
>We found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up
>from extra rain system activity, the amount of
>infrared heat-trapping cirrus clouds those rain
>systems produce actually goes down. This unexpected
>result supports the "Infrared Iris" theory of climate
>stabilization that MIT's Richard Lindzen advanced some
>years ago.
>
>
>No one in the alarmist camp can figure out how we
>succeeded with this sneak attack. After all, there
>isn't supposed to be any peer-reviewed, published
>research that denies a global warming Armageddon,
>right?
>
>
>But these volleys have not gone unanswered. From the
>other side of the battlefield, Al Gore and Newsweek
>coordinated an assault on a few skeptics with all
>kinds of guilt-by-association accusations. They allege
>that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big
>Oil to research and publish evidence against the
>theory of manmade global warming.
>
>
>Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate
>researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from
>the federal government to do the same, but in support
>of manmade global warming. Apparently, that's okay
>since we all know that the federal government is
>unbiased and there to help, whereas petroleum
>companies only exist to force us to burn fuels that do
>nothing more than ruin the environment.
>
>
>Little damage was done by the Gore-Newsweek assault,
>though, since the attack amounted to little more than
>a verbal "Well, your mama wears Army boots!" It didn't
>help matters that the magazine's own columnist, Robert
>Samuelson, published a follow-up article saying the
>allegation of bribes offered to scientists "was long
>ago discredited" and that "the story was a wonderful
>read, marred only by its being fundamentally
>misleading."
>
>
>Next, I'm happy to report that we skeptics have been
>getting a steady stream of new recruits. In the last
>year or so, more and more scientists have been coming
>out of the closet and admitting they've had some
>doubts about this whole global warming thing.
>
>
>In fact, chances are that your favorite TV weather
>person is a closet skeptic (unless it's Heidi Cullen
>or Bob Ryan). But please observe the "don't ask -
>don't tell" rule. Most broadcast meteorologists are
>not ready for the public embarrassment that would
>accompany their outing.
>
>
>And lastly, I have been heartened by new scientific
>intelligence that we skeptics have been gathering. I
>can predict there are more surprises to come, with
>some pretty powerful tactical weapons yet to be
>deployed. Climate scientists are beginning to question
>long held assumptions - which is almost always the
>first step toward a major scientific discovery. So
>stay tuned.
>
>
>
>Oh, and by the way, in the interests of a fair fight,
>the next time someone sees Al Gore, could you ask him
>to stop calling us "global warming deniers"? I don't
>know of anyone who denies that the Earth has warmed.
>I'm sure this has just been an honest misunderstanding
>on Mr. Gore's part, and he'll be more than happy to
>stop doing it.
>
>
>The author is Principal Research Scientist, University
>of Alabama.
>
>
>
>href="http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081307B">
>http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081307B
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 