Posted on 01/18/2007 2:07:32 PM PST by blam
Global warming dissenters few at U.S. weather meeting
Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:30 PM GMT
By Ed Stoddard
SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - Joe D'Aleo was a rare voice of dissent this week at the American Meteorological Society's annual meeting in San Antonio.
D'Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a group of scientists, doesn't think greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming and climate change.
Researchers who hold such contrary views do not appreciate being lumped together with flat-Earthers. They are legitimate scientists who question the mainstream, but they are a distinct minority.
"Greenhouse warming is real, but I think it is a relatively minor player," D'Aleo said.
He claims other factors like solar activity and other natural causes are probably playing a greater role in rising temperatures -- a position that gets a mostly chilly reception from this crowd.
Several scientists and writers interviewed at the society's conference, which ends on Thursday, stressed that most researchers believe there is little scientific debate about the causes of global warming.
That does not mean there is a consensus.
(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.co.uk ...
Sure. That would be like someone suggesting that homosexual behavior is deviant at an APA meeting.
It would be politically incorrect.
Were they able to meet with the rest of the city shut down for 2 days due to an ice storm?
The correct behavior is to keep mouth shut or visit the Global Warming gulag for a few dozen years, Kamrade.
Several scientists and writers interviewed at the society's conference, which ends on Thursday, stressed that most researchers believe there is little scientific debate about the causes of global warming.
heidi cullen, the global warming nazi at the weather channel has now officially called for all meteorologists that work at the weather channel to be decertified if they don't hop on the global warming bandwagon..can ya believe that?? don't argue with the opposition, just shut them up by whatever means necessary..
quote
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.
unquote
the above taken from her blog
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html?cm_ven=one_deg_blog&cm_ite=one_deg_commentary&from=one_deg_commentary
I have to be honest.
I'm not sure whether pollution or naturally occurring events (or a combination of both) are causing global warming - although I tend towards the 2nd possibility.
But as scientists, one would think that they would have an open mind towards other possibilities. That, in itself, is most regretful, that scientists and metoeologists have walled themselves off from considering some other factor(s).
My lifetime study of Earth's climate system has humbled me. I'm convinced that we have greatly underestimated the complexity of this system. The importance of obscure phenomena, ranging from those that control the size of raindrops to those that control the amount of water pouring into the deep sea from the shelves of the Antarctic continent, makes reliable modeling very difficult, if not impossible.
http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/broecker/broecker.html (11 of 13) [02/12/2003 10:05:30] Wallace S. Broecker, "Will Our Ride into the Greenhouse Future be a Smooth One?" GSA Today 5/97
I love the replies to her thread!
Oh, and their forecasts suck. Just ask the LA citrus farmers.
Grants only go to those who will endorse the official view. Go figure that the majority of peer-reviewed papers endorse the official view. Who's going to write a paper on an ice berg that isn't melting?
Funny also the inclusion of the press in the statement that a "large majority of researchers and writers" hold a viewpoint. And what kind of researchers? Those who actually study global warming, or those than confess the party line when discussing secondary ecological effects?
Also, when you actually get down to what the statement that the large majority holds, it's pretty much nothing:
Global temperatures rose about 1 degree Farenheit last century, and may rise another 1 to 4 degrees this coming century.
Big whoop. That statement isn't what's driving the hysteria. How many scientists agree with THIS statement:
Anthropogenic global warming will accelerate quickly enough as to create catastrophic occurrences great enough to overwhelm the harm caused by stifling economic growth in the developing world, including the environmental damage caused by the subsequent poverty.
As Al Gore likes to say, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary (or research grant) depends upon him not understanding"
Yes, we are, but in some cases we get ice and snow if the jet stream happens to go this far south. It hasn't been this bad since 1985.
Wow, that was scary. The only hope I got from that was the serious dressing-down she got in the comments section.
Al Gore invented Global Warming.
The Weather Channel has been a bit leftist for a while now. This fits right into their modus operandus.
I'll get my weather elsewhere.
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.