Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Heating Up Over Nothing: Some Facts About Global Warming
Associated Content ^ | February 20, 2007 | Tim Phares

Posted on 02/21/2007 8:41:11 AM PST by TBP

It is ironic that as a major cold snap sweeps the eastern and central United States, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an agency of the United Nations, has released a report warning us of global warming and insisted that it was caused primarily by human activity.

The United Nations does not have a high record of reliability. The Los Angeles Times reported when one of the UN's agencies wrote a report a few years which disagreed with conventional wisdom on second-hand smoke that the UN suppressed the report. The UN is also well known for its anti-Americanism.

Nobody denies that the climate is changing. It has been changing ever since Earth came into being. That is why there are no longer dinosaurs, mastodons, and other life forms that used to roam the planet. But over the past 100 years, the average temperature has gone up seven tenths of a degree Celsius, or about a degree Fahrenheit, most of that before 1940.

As Jonah Goldberg writes in the February 8 issue of the Los Angeles Times, "The Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800%, by one estimate." He goes on to say, "Given the option of getting another 1,800% richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer, I'd take the heat in a heartbeat." So would I.

But the Marxist Luddites of the "global warming" movement don't see it that way. They would prefer to subject the United States to the restrictions of the Kyoto protocol (which the U.S. Senate defeated 95-0 during the Clinton-Gore Administration), despite the fact that China, India, and other Third World countries are exempt and that pollution is much worse in the Third World then in the industrialized world.

In an excellent article published February 5 at the Canada Free Press website, Dr. Timothy Ball, a doctor of climatology and Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, wrote that "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification." He notes that 30 years ago, we were being warned about global cooling by the same interests.

That is not even taking into account the fact that the polar ice caps are melting on Mars and there is even some melting on Pluto. Now, I wonder how the human race made that happen.

Interestingly, these changes coincide with an increase in solar activity. According to scientists with the Max Planck Institute, sunspot activity is at its highest in 1000 years.

It also fails to account for the fact that there was a significant warm period in the Middle Ages (roughly 800-1300 AD) in which the Vikings farmed Greenland and wine grapes grew in Nova Scotia. This was followed by a major cooling during the Renaissance, lasting from about 1350 until about 1900. Since then, we've been in a warming cycle. Like the current warm cycle, the medieval warm period (which was warmer than today, by most reports) coincided with increased activity on the Sun. Columnist Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette notes that "The Medieval Warm Period was a time (mostly) of peace and plenty; the little Ice Age (mostly) of starvation and war."

But, but, but...there's a scientific consensus, the "global warming" advocates say. Well, it was that kind of scientific consensus that got Galileo imprisoned. You can't do science by consensus. Dr. Ball writes, "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact."

Besides, there isn't really all that much of a consensus. The actions of the "global warming" activists underline that fact. Note the recent controversy at the Weather Channel. Heidi Cullen, a self-proclaimed "climate expert" for the Weather Channel, called for silencing any meteorologist who questions man-made "global warming" by decertifying them. Cullen said, "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." Of course, she apparently did not know that in the Southern Hemisphere, hurricanes do rotate counterclockwise. On December 17, 2006, her program, "The Climate Code," featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts calling for Nuremberg trials for anyone who questioned man-made "global warming." Cullen is a contributor to the IPCC report. Yet all responsible meteorologists admit that the climate goes in cycles. But that apparently doesn't matter to Cullen and her friends.

The meteorologists and climatologists who promote the alarmist theory of global warming told us that the 2006 hurricane season would be dramatically worse than the 2005 season. It was not nearly as bad. If they were that for off on a short-term projection like that, why are we supposed to take their word for it on a long-term theory such as anthropogenic global warming?

When physician-scientist-author Michael Crichton suggested that climate change theories be reviewed by double-blind studies and evidentiary standards akin to what the Food and Drug Administration uses for new medicine, he was verbally vandalized by Senator Barbara Boxer. Senators Susan Collins ("R"-Maine) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) have demanded that Exxon Mobil stop funding research that questions man-made global warming, something it hasn't been doing at least since 2005.

Former Vice President Al Gore cancelled an interview with a Danish newspaper (one which had been long scheduled) rather than appear with Bjorn Lonborg, a former member of Greenpeace who is a global-warming skeptic. Yet Gore remains a major stockholder in Occidental Petroleum.

Why do the advocates of the man-made warming viewpoint have to resort to these intimidation tactics if there is a scientific consensus? The answer is because there isn't.

Recently, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery wrote a book called Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years in which they show that there is evidence of 600 warmings in the last million years.

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia is one of a group of hundreds of climate scientists who question the man-made global warming hypothesis. Another is Canadian Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University. He says, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences argues that the small increase in temperatures may be caused by atmospheric changes not related to human activity. He notes that until early in the 20th century, temperatures were going down. Shaidurov explains that the most common greenhouse gas is water and very small changes in the water vapor in the atmosphere can contribute to significant changes in the temperature of the Earth's surface. We have little control over the amount of water vapor.These are just a few of the hundreds of climate scientists who diverge from the theory of man-made "global warming." Yet the effort to force us to embrace extreme solutions to this problem, solutions that could damage our standard of living, continues. Are we getting all heated up over nothing?


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarming; socialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

1 posted on 02/21/2007 8:41:26 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TBP
Hey! Don't blame us cows!

We got our own problems!

2 posted on 02/21/2007 8:43:44 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; honolulugal; SideoutFred; Ole Okie; ...

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on graphic for full GW rundown


3 posted on 02/21/2007 8:48:25 AM PST by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

The sky is falling, the sky is falling,! Our snow cover is melting which means the warmth of the sun will now not reflect back into the atmosphere and the heat will stay here and contribute more to GW. We are doomed!


4 posted on 02/21/2007 9:06:52 AM PST by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Yes, but since Al Gore was jipped out
of his Presidency, he desperately NEEDS
this doctorship of authenticity to
add to his data re Internet Invention,
authorship of Love Story, et ad nauseum!


5 posted on 02/21/2007 9:07:57 AM PST by Grendel9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
as a major cold snap sweeps the eastern and central United States

See my F'n tagline you G'd'm S'nofaB'''ch.

I am talking to the author not you TBP. It just drive me freakin nuts.

6 posted on 02/21/2007 9:11:38 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (I don't care what side of the debate you are on: Weather is not Climate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
He notes that 30 years ago, we were being warned about global cooling by the same interests.

They were right! Just ask anyone on the East Coast!

7 posted on 02/21/2007 9:31:56 AM PST by vox humana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy

actually, the sky IS falling. See the threads about asteroids coming our way...


8 posted on 02/21/2007 9:48:02 AM PST by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TBP
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

That's inconvenient! /s

9 posted on 02/21/2007 10:32:50 AM PST by TigersEye (Copperheads are infesting our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Tim Phares is a writer and journalist who follows political affairs, sports, and also is a spiritual counselor, teacher, and coach. He has written for numerous publications online and in print.

Education/Experience: Hiillsdale College B.A. English

Like that wasn't obvious. This article is ridiculously bad.

10 posted on 02/21/2007 10:55:21 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Just in case somebody wonders why:

In an excellent article published February 5 at the Canada Free Press website, Dr. Timothy Ball, a doctor of climatology and Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, wrote that "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification."

Here's some additional info on Dr. Timothy Ball:

Tim Ball

Tim Ball update

Calgary Herald Statement of Defence

11 posted on 02/21/2007 11:07:28 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
"Hey! Don't Blame Us! "

"We Got Our Own Problems! "

12 posted on 02/21/2007 12:42:58 PM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

What makes the article so bad? Do you disagree with what he writes?


13 posted on 02/21/2007 5:27:55 PM PST by westmichman (They cried "Peace, peace," but there is no peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Bump


14 posted on 02/21/2007 6:36:53 PM PST by A. Pole (Gore:We are the most powerful force of nature.We are changing the relationship between Earth and Sun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

bookmarked


15 posted on 02/21/2007 9:03:28 PM PST by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

The guy's a climate scientist, a doctor of climatology. He is certainly a worthy source.


16 posted on 02/21/2007 9:43:20 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

No worry bout that, the UN is going to deal with it. They are going to talk it into little bitty pieces.


17 posted on 02/22/2007 7:07:52 AM PST by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: westmichman
What makes the article so bad? Do you disagree with what he writes?

It repeats whole-cloth a bunch of skeptical talking points that are misleading, erroneous, or both. One of the initial points is the warming on Mars and Pluto, which has nothing at all to do with variability of solar activity. There's a lot more.

18 posted on 02/22/2007 12:32:02 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TBP
The guy's a climate scientist, a doctor of climatology. He is certainly a worthy source.

I wouldn't characterize someone who has consistently presented one-sided, biased, misleading, and erroneous arguments as a "worthy source" unless it was my goal to do the same.

19 posted on 02/22/2007 1:06:44 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

So you'd rather take the word of some phony-baloney socialist politicians and Nazified TV performers from the Weather Channel than climate scientists? OK.


20 posted on 02/22/2007 3:08:40 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Some more facts to cloud up the argument ...
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.htm


21 posted on 02/22/2007 3:11:04 PM PST by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
So you'd rather take the word of some phony-baloney socialist politicians and Nazified TV performers from the Weather Channel than climate scientists?

Your editorial perspective is duly noted. Thanks. If you'd like some enlightenment on the actual science (or lack thereof), feel free to ask.

22 posted on 02/23/2007 6:43:10 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

I've been reading the science. All of the data that I use is from scientists, mostly climate scientists. They don't agree with your narrow little ideological perspective. You hve brought nothignto this discussion except name-calling, leftist ideology, and disinformation.


23 posted on 02/23/2007 6:56:53 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TBP
All of the data that I use is from scientists, mostly climate scientists.

Then why don't you read the following three items and then retract what you say about Mars and Pluto, for starters?

Global warming on Mars?

Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find

Important excerpt: "Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto." Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes. Since 1989, for example, the sun's position in Pluto's sky has changed by more than the corresponding change on the Earth that causes the difference between winter and spring. Pluto's atmospheric temperature varies between around minus 235 and minus 170 degrees Celsius, depending on the altitude above the surface. The main gas in Pluto's atmosphere is nitrogen, and Pluto has nitrogen ice on its surface that can evaporate into the atmosphere when it gets warmer, causing an increase in surface pressure. If the observed increase in the atmosphere also applies to the surface pressure--which is likely the case--this means that the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years."

The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change

You hve brought nothignto this discussion except name-calling, leftist ideology, and disinformation.

I haven't called anyone names; I haven't stated any political views; and I haven't yet even provided any information before the links in this post.

By the way, my "perspective" is not ideological. It's scientifically-based.

24 posted on 02/23/2007 7:29:19 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
By the way, my "perspective" is not ideological. It's scientifically-based.

That's what all the left-wing ideologue scientists say. And especially the left-wing ideoloues who aren't scientists, merrely alarmists, like Heil Heidi Cullen and Algore.

25 posted on 02/23/2007 7:36:16 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I haven't called anyone names; I haven't stated any political views

Whatever.

You certainly called one of the climate scientists cited names, adn you know it too. And you've clearly established your political agenda on this issue. Purely political.

26 posted on 02/23/2007 7:42:57 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TBP
You certainly called one of the climate scientists cited names,

What did I call him, exactly?

And you've clearly established your political agenda on this issue.

My agenda is to correct egregious errors of science, such as the one indicated above. As a conservative Republican, I am very concerned when other conservative Republicans post misleading and erroneous information on an issue with important societal implications. If that means I have a "political agenda", so be it.

27 posted on 02/23/2007 7:57:40 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

And you'd rather ignore all teh other sources cited, whihc are also reliable climate and other scientists.


28 posted on 02/23/2007 8:04:39 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
As a conservative

Really? You could have fooled me.

29 posted on 02/23/2007 8:05:23 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
One of the initial points is the warming on Mars and Pluto, which has nothing at all to do with variability of solar activity.

No, of course not. Huamns cased it, especially conservatives and Republicans. Obviously.

30 posted on 02/23/2007 8:06:53 AM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
My agenda is to correct egregious errors of science...

Then start with those who choose to short circuit the process of reviewed science!

James Hansen, Heidi Cullen, Senator Collins, Senator Rockefeller have all made efforts to silence those who choose to even question anthropological global warming.

Bjorn Lonborg still believes in anthropological global warming, but is demonized because he believes that there are better ways to spend money on the environment.

Clearly this is not a scientific article, so please spare us from your self-important heroic "efforts." Nobody on the anti-GW side is suggesting that "its over", "end of discussion", "take away certification" or any other Stalinist notions that are designed to stop scientific discourse.

31 posted on 02/23/2007 8:31:34 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TBP
And you'd rather ignore all teh other sources cited, whihc are also reliable climate and other scientists.

How about we stop worrying about the sources and talk about the scientific errors? I regret that I initially led with Tim Ball's credential controversy. Directly addressing the errors about warming on Mars and Pluto would have been far more effective. We could also talk about how Singer and Avery are wrong. Or about the positive water vapor feedback. Or about the real story on hurricanes and global warming.

And it's unfortunate that being somewhat knowledgeable about climate science seems to disqualify me from being a card-carrying conservative Republican.

32 posted on 02/23/2007 8:45:08 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kidd
James Hansen, Heidi Cullen, Senator Collins, Senator Rockefeller have all made efforts to silence those who choose to even question anthropological global warming.

Have any of these three said anything indicating that there should be a suppression of properly-formulated climate science research of any kind in peer-reviewed journals? I think Hansen and Cullen would welcome that. I don't know what "efforts" by Hansen you are referring to. Cullen actually suggested that accredited meteorologists should know the basics of climate change science. Exact 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." The right-wing attack on her interpreted this as a call for suppression of opposing views, when in fact she was -- clumsily -- advocating a better-informed meteorological community and by default, a better-informed public.

Clearly this is not a scientific article, so please spare us from your self-important heroic "efforts."

Clearly. But it's another example of giving far more credence to skeptical arguments (and arguers) against human-caused greenhouse gas warming than they are due.

33 posted on 02/23/2007 9:01:33 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Cullen's blog is here:

http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html

The context of her blog is that meteorologists that disagree with her haven't read peer reviewed material. Her arrogance is especially grating.

You will note that she asks people to view a website, the "Pew Center's Climate Change 101" as a resource. Please note that the "Pew Center's Climate Change 101" does not contain peer reviewed articles. Then, a mere two sentences later, she assails meteorologists who don't review peer reviewed material!!!

The Weather Channel presents a nightly scaremongoring show "It Can Happen Tommorrow" (why is the Weather Channel presenting earthquake scenarios??).

Heidi Cullen is in no position to criticize others for accepting "junk political controversy" because she is one of the leading pushers of it.


34 posted on 02/23/2007 1:46:36 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Please note that the "Pew Center's Climate Change 101" does not contain peer reviewed articles.

She said if someone does not have a lot of time, it's a good resource. The report is fully referenced (sometimes to the IPCC reports, which are also fully referenced.)

Heidi Cullen is in no position to criticize others for accepting "junk political controversy" because she is one of the leading pushers of it.

Objection, your honor. Counsel is interjecting their opinion into this line of questioning.

35 posted on 02/23/2007 2:56:14 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
How about we stop worrying about the sources and talk about the scientific errors?

So far, you have not shown us any.

36 posted on 02/23/2007 9:54:58 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
"Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth.

But iot doesn't need to be directly connected to be useful in pointing out the error of the anthropogenic warming theory. How could we humans have caused the warmings on Pluto or Mars? But if they're going on, too, and we humans couldn't hve caused them, then something else is happening. But why should something like that wreck a useful political doctrine?

37 posted on 02/23/2007 9:57:41 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Nobody on the anti-GW side is suggesting that "its over", "end of discussion", "take away certification" or any other Stalinist notions that are designed to stop scientific discourse.

Which makes oyu wonder if the people on the Algore side really believe that they have anywhere near as strong a case as they claim.

38 posted on 02/23/2007 10:00:30 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Cullen actually suggested that accredited meteorologists should know the basics of climate change science.

Heil Heidi said that any mneteorologist whoquestions the anthropogenic global warming theory should be decertified. That is suppression and it's totalitarian.

39 posted on 02/23/2007 10:02:28 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TBP
So far, you have not shown us any.

If you want me to, I'll go through them one-by-one.

40 posted on 02/24/2007 6:23:16 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TBP

The question about warming is neither interesting nor important. The ice core data shows that the "global climate" is constantly in flux, either warming or cooling.
"Global warmers" appear to take as their point of departure that warming (or cooling) is unnatural - and that therefore an extrinsic explanation, preferably mankind's failure to adopt socialism, must be the answer.

I have no doubt that the northern hemisphere is warmer, on average, than it was in 1800. I also have no doubt that the localized effects of warming (Sahara changing from savanna to desert) or cooling (NYC under 2 miles of ice) can be catastrophic and can decimate human populations. All this has happened in the past, many times, and no doubt will happen in the future.

But what accounts for the foolish obsession about humans causing this latest natural fluctuation?


41 posted on 02/24/2007 6:24:40 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
How could we humans have caused the warmings on Pluto or Mars? But if they're going on, too, and we humans couldn't hve caused them, then something else is happening.

Humans didn't cause the warmings on Pluto and Mars. Neither did the Sun -- particularly recent solar variability. So what is happening on Earth is exclusive to Earth. And what is happening on Earth is anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming. Simple, eh?

42 posted on 02/24/2007 6:25:02 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Heil Heidi said that any mneteorologist whoquestions the anthropogenic global warming theory should be decertified.

No, that is not what she said, at any time. I supplied the exact quote in post 33. What you said was from a different source. A nice illustration about the usefulness of consulting the original sources instead of secondhand.

43 posted on 02/24/2007 6:28:03 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Objection, your honor. Counsel is interjecting their opinion into this line of questioning

Objection overruled. The evidence clearly indicates that Heidi Cullen is a significant distributor of junk political controversy. Kidd has provided documented evidence of two cases. It is not Kidd's opinion that Ms. Cullen made reference to a non-peer reviewed website as a n authoratative source of information. Nor is it Kidd's opinion that Ms. Cullen produces a nightly show designed to produce fear.

Could you please tell the court, Mr Cogitator, why the Weather Channel is in a position to present a show that features earthquakes and civilization-ending meteors?

44 posted on 02/24/2007 1:30:33 PM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
No, that is not what she said, at any time.

Actually, she did, as you know.

45 posted on 02/24/2007 9:32:11 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
And what is happening on Earth is anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming.

Only you, Algore, and Heil Heidi believ that. The climate has always warmed and cooled, warmend and cooled. Just in the 20th century, it cooled until about 1910, warmed until roughly 1940, cooled until the 1970s, warmed until the end of the century. The temperature has not gone up in several years. Your data simply doesn't hold up.

Right now, we appear to be in a warm cycle. But it's been warmer than today. There was a major warming in the Middle Ages, followed by a major cooling during the Renaissance. Were those anthropogenic? The medieval warm period was, according to most reports, at least as warm as the current era. We know that the Vikings farmed Greenland and wine was made in Nova Scotia. Try that today.

The temperature has gone up less than a degree in a century. Futhermore, most of that happened prior to 1940 and apparently none in the past few years, as the temperature is what it was about 7 years ago.

Anthropogenic theory is largely based on the hockey-stick model, which has been proven false and on computer projections that have been proven to be wrong. That's why people like Algore and Heil Heidi have to work overtime to suppress any discussion of the data on the issue and to ge critics of their opinions defunded. That's the only way they can establish their case.

Now consider this: CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas. Trees and other plants take in CO2, so planting more trees should reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There are more threes than ever before (thanks in large part to the paper companies), yet the Earth appears to be in a warming cycle.

46 posted on 02/24/2007 9:48:16 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Your sources:
the socialist former Vice President
some chick on TV who wants to decertify anyone who dares to disagree with her opinion
the left-wing, America-hating UN
Grist Magazine
several left-wing political orgnizations.

The article's sources:

Jonah Goldberg
the February 8 issue of the Los Angeles Times
Dr. Timothy Ball, a doctor of climatology and Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Canada Free Press
the Max Planck Institute
Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette
physician-scientist-author Michael Crichton
Bjorn Lonborg, a former member of Greenpeace
Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, authors of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University
Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences

So which list do you think has a higher degree of reliability?


47 posted on 02/24/2007 9:59:06 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
No, that is not what she said, at any time.

Well...

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611052.shtml

"Dr. Heidi Cullen, a 'Climate Expert' for cable TV's 'The Weather Channel' believes that the cause of global warming is man-made. If you are a meteorologist, you too should agree. So sayeth Dr. Cullen.

An item from EPW points to a Cullen blog entry from December, (she hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code") and she is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

It appears that she is serious. Does she really wish to try to silence critics and stifle dissent?"

The article goes on to quote Heil Heidi as saying, "maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."

So it looks like Heil Heidi did say it. But this kind of intolerance of discussion is what I hvae come to expect from the pro-anthropogenicist side. I've sadly come to expect them to try to stifle any speech that disagrees with tehir opinion, and sadly, they keep living up to that expectation.

48 posted on 02/24/2007 10:09:13 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
No, that is not what she said, at any time.

Well...

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611052.shtml

"Dr. Heidi Cullen, a 'Climate Expert' for cable TV's 'The Weather Channel' believes that the cause of global warming is man-made. If you are a meteorologist, you too should agree. So sayeth Dr. Cullen.

An item from EPW points to a Cullen blog entry from December, (she hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code") and she is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

It appears that she is serious. Does she really wish to try to silence critics and stifle dissent?"

The article goes on to quote Heil Heidi as saying, "maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."

So it looks like Heil Heidi did say it. But this kind of intolerance of discussion is what I hvae come to expect from the pro-anthropogenicist side. I've sadly come to expect them to try to stifle any speech that disagrees with tehir opinion, and sadly, they keep living up to that expectation.

49 posted on 02/24/2007 10:09:19 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TBP
It also fails to account for the fact that there was a significant warm period in the Middle Ages (roughly 800-1300 AD) in which the Vikings farmed Greenland and wine grapes grew in Nova Scotia.


800 through 1300 is roughly the same time period when the muslims were previously very troublesome.

Obviously this means global warming is caused by muslims.

Spread the message!
50 posted on 02/24/2007 10:20:57 PM PST by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson