Newsweek‘s “environmental issue” has an article (5/28/10) by correspondent Stefan Theil declaring climate change to be “Uncertain Science.” Giving the Reader’s Digest condensed version of the denialist case, Theil refers to “e-mails and documents suggesting that researchers cherry-picked data and suppressed rival studies to play up global warming”–without mentioning that after sensationalistic media stories suggested a scientific conspiracy, subsequent academic investigations cleared the researchers of wrongdoing (Extra!, 2/10 ; FAIR Blog, 4/19/10).
He talks about a U.S. scientist “under investigation for allegedly using exaggerated climate data to obtain public funds”–without mentioning that the scientist, Michael Mann, is being investigated by Virginia’s Tea Party-aligned Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, whom the Washington Post has described as having “declared war on reality” (Climate Progress, 5/7/10). Theil claims that there is a real scientific debate “over the extent and time frame” of CO2’s greenhouse effect–and glosses over the fact that the actual debate in climate science circles is over whether the consensus predictions have underestimated how much the Earth will warm as a result of the burning of fossil fuels (Climate Progress, 5/31/10).
I suppose none of this should be surprising coming from a reporter who attacked Germany’s “green technophobia” as a “sinister” and “disturbing” relic of the country’s “powerful back-to-nature movements” and its “extreme desire for stability” (Newsweek, 7/18/09; Extra!, 2/10).
You will find the same pattern concerning Evolution vs Creationism too. If it is on the agenda of those who wish to rewrite history and science for this country. They will never stop till they win.
Most recent climate data is making 2010 to be the hottest year yet, even beating out 2005 and 1998. We lost 25% of the ice in the Arctic in one year-2007. Migration patterns are changing as are the timing for blooms and fruiting. The acidity of the ocean has increased by 30% over the intervening years since measurements were first taken. That is as bad the general temperature of the oceans have increased. If it goes too high it will not only stop absorbing CO2 but actually start expelling it! Imagine a tropical disease outbreak in Italy! Happened last year, 2009 for the first time ever.
There are those that don’t care if it happens because they have seen the historical models that show when the climate turns harsh it makes a fertile bed for dictatorships to grow, especially theocratic ones. Something they are interested in right here, the Dominionists would use it if not secretly promote it to happen. [They expect to be rich enough and prepared enough to ride it out unlike the rest of us.]
What’s so wrong with Germany, or any country, having “powerful back-to-nature movements” or an “extreme desire for stability”?
“I suppose none of this should be surprising coming from a reporter who attacked Germany’s “green technophobia” as a “sinister” and “disturbing” relic of the country’s “powerful back-to-nature movements” and its “extreme desire for stability” (Newsweek, 7/18/09; Extra!, 2/10).”
LOL. I love you all at FAIR for paying attention to the nuances — although the slant is becoming less nuanced as time goes by and the agenda becoming a lot more transparent. There are only so many ways to circumvent the truth and we’re on to them.
Science has liitle meaning for the “true believers” does it? The same goes for the writers who cater to them. Our society divides as the economic woes continue, until what? Until we have another war between “whites only” and the rest of us?
Im not even going to argue the con job that is global warming.I will let an expert do it.Introducing thee most feared man to those who want to use global warming to gain political power….Lord Christopher Monckton.!!!!Please look at the speech he gave in St Paul.His motto regarding his debate schedule against any and all so called experts who push the global warming hoax is…”ANY TIME ANYWHERE”.This is an offer Al Gore has run from like a scared little girl.The majority Congress would not even allow him to testify on behalf of the minority (a first)due to the
damage he would do to their cause.But Im taking up time you could be using to listen to him ,and learning about the shell game being perpetrated on you.So please google that.
mike,
monckton is a completely discredited fruitcake with the scientific credentials of a boiled egg.
all of the evidence, data, scientific opinion agrees with the consensus of global warming, and has done for many years, which is of course the reason why you are “not even going to argue” because you cant.
if you or any other laymen find any evidence to support your wild claims, you’re more than welcome to submit them to peer review and publishing, other its probably best to stay out of the way of people that actually know what theyre talking about.
You don’t have to refer to Lord Moncton, although I think his science mostly is all right. Many of the scientists working for IPPC have some devastating things to say (you may google the citations):
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Former IPCC Lead Author, an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT:
“Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life. … [The IPCC is] not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else…but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations.”
*
Dr Vincent Gray; Expert Reviewer of every draft of the IPCC reports since 1990, climate researcher and author of more than 100 papers: “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.”
*
Dr. John Christy; IPCC Lead Author in 2001, says on CNN, May 2, 2007 UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes:
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as [IPCC] lead authors … [and] how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.”
*
Dr. Christopher W. Landsea, IPCC Author and Reviewer, atmospheric scientist, expert with NOAA’s National Hurricane Centre. Resigned from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science:
“I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. … I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
*
Dr. Paul Reiter, IPCC participant, malaria expert, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, professor of entomology and tropical disease at the Pasteur Institute. He resigned from the IPCC and had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC:
“That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed. … We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists – but they continue to ignore the facts, and perpetuate the lies.”
*
Dr. Philip Lloyd (2009); IPCC Co-coordinating Lead Author and author of over 150 papers:
“It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.
*
Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA:
â┚¬Ã…“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,â┚¬Ã‚Â
The great debate that wasn’t. The climate is changing and we humans are responsible. No debate.