Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for July, 2007

Just who is William M. Gray and why should we listen to or ignore what he has to say?

Lately it seems to me that the Global Warming Denial crowd seems to hauling out or citing William Gray (wikipedia), the popularly famous hurricane forecaster as a scientist that maybe can rescue their failing cause.

Given that my own personal un-scientific belief is that the global warming hurricane linkage is overstated primarily due to the way the press hypes it I was genuinely interested in just what he really has to the overarching topic of global warming. And I ‘ll be damned that while it not hard at all to find out that he’s a skeptic regarding anthropogenic global warming (in fact he quite militant about it) it’s been virtually impossible for me to find out why.

When he makes a statement regarding global warming he never cites any research he done (which is understandable, he a hurricane forecaster not a climatologist) or any research done by climatologists that helped him from his opinions. In fact what he often seems to say in varying different forms is:

"I’ve been in meteorology over 50 years…and I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."

So that’s it?

So what!

So we should just take his opinion on pure faith based on his 50 years?

I’m not dumb, I’m not stupid, tell me what the science was that you did or studied in that 50 years that lead you to your line of thinking! What he doing throwing out that line about being a meteorologist for over 50 years is just a fallacious Argument from Authority.

I had a teacher when I was a kid that it seemed whenever you asked him a question about something he just taught he would always respond saying that he had been a teacher for 30 years and that was why we should listen to him. No explanation, no clarification, no understanding, we should just take what he says as gospel because he’s got "X number of years" experience in the subject and that should be good enough. He was a really really bad teacher. The only thing I remember learning from his classes back then was just how bad some teachers can be.

In fact in my search to find out just what was behind William Gray’s thinking what I did find was a critical article on the RealClimate.org web site entitled Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming.

Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming

Read Full Post »

A great quote I just picked up from the header of George Monbiot’s blog this evening while reading his post regarding Channel 4’S Problem With Science (it was Channel 4 that produced “The Great Global Warming Swindle”)

Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it.
Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.

 

Read Full Post »

Recently what I characterize a partisan op-ed opinion article entitled Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny Chicago Sun-Times: Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutinyby James M. Taylor was published by the right leaning tabloid Chicago Sun-Times (June 30, 2007) and desperate for a win on their side the Global Warming Denial crowd has been spreading it around the net proclaiming it proof positive that Al Gore and the Global Warming believers are lying to the public.

In the first paragraph of the article Mr. Taylor writes:

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public’s ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

I will wholeheartedly echo the sentiment and agree with that in that we need to have "science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse." and I think Mr. Taylor article is the perfect example of one of the forms that biased cynical political posturing takes.

James M. Taylor & The Heartland Institute

James M. Taylor is a "Senior Fellow" for the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is self described as a "Chicago based think tank promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, and free markets." While advocating against what it describes as "junk science" and for "common-sense environmentalism" they also take on issues as surrogates for Big Tobacco (they lobby for smokers rights, they’re anti-tabacco tax, and they deny the effects of second hand smoke)among other issues(1) In short they seem to me to be a kind of ‘Discovery Institute‘ for the Global Warming Denial cause.

Mr. Taylor is a professional global warming denier. According to his biography (2) he’s a lawyer/legal analyst (3) and lawyers are "trained to represent even losing propositions". He’s also written a whole pile of Global Warming Denial articles that appear on GlobalWarmingHeartland.org one of the other sites the Heartland institute runs. In particular he’s written one particular article for the Heartland Institute back in November of 2006 entitled Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing … and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists which I will get to comment on in a moment. That one certainly didn’t get as much notice which is perhaps why he for all intents and reasons re-purposed and rewrote that piece again as "Alarmist global warming claims…".

In this retread article Mr. Taylor writes:

"A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position."

I think whenever you have an article like this where so much focus is placed on man delivering the message, Al Gore, rather than on the science you recognize and see it as the ad hominem political attack that it really is. What "science" Mr. Taylor does reference is either one of his own scientific conclusions or cherry picked sentences that when taken out of their context seem to support his and the Heartland Institutes political position.

When you look at Mr. Taylor’s claim that…

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ”An Inconvenient Truth,” have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

You can see that those supposed refutations primarily came from the many web sites and publications The Heartland Institute has created to spread disinformation and similar political propaganda organs such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It seems Mr. Taylor and the Heartland Institute and their ilk would prefer a policy where we just continued to study things and otherwise stayed the course we are on now rather than take any real action on anything.

The reality is that the continuing scientific research has shot down many of the claims coming from the Global Warming Denial machine and Mr. Taylor’s attack on Al Gore assertions sound like they’re coming from a Baghdad Bob.

Taking a Look at Mr. Taylor Manipulating and Cherry Picking the Science

In Mr. Taylor’s op-ed piece he makes 12 references to scientific research or declarations that he says refute assertion made by Mr. Gore in the film An Inconvenient Truth.


#1 – "Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported…" refers to the fifth paragraph in Mr. Taylor’s article which says:

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

The quotation "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame" does not come in fact come from the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate but in fact comes from another article that Mr. Taylor wrote entitled Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing … and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists. In other words he’s quoting himself as the scientific authority.

There is however an American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate article from September 2006 entitled Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin. which might be what Mr. Taylor is trying to get us to believe he pulled that quotation from but it’s certainly not from anywhere in there. What that paper does actually say however in one of the points in the conclusions drawn is:

Summer temperature reductions and positive trend
in winter precipitation imply reduced ablation [the removal of snow and ice by melting or evaporation] and
increased accumulation of Karakoram glaciers.
These climatic changes are consistent with the observed
thickening and expansion of glaciers in the
UIB region, in contrast to widespread retreat and decay in the eastern Himalayas.

John Cook on his Skeptical Science: Examining the science of global warming skepticism web site on the Skeptic Argument:Himalayan glaciers are growing page writes on that subject:

The original 2006 study is not refuting global warming (quite the contrary) but observing anomalous behavior in a particular Indian region which has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat in the rest of the Himalayas. There is no disputing that glaciers are retreating – a 2007 satellite study of Himalayan glaciers has observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. Globally, glaciers are shrinking in area and thickness and the melt rate has accelerated dramatically since the mid-1990s. In essence, the 2006 Himalayan study is the exception that proves the rule.

In other words the increased snowfall has allowed the Karakoram glaciers to grow somewhat there is "widespread retreat and decay in the eastern Himalayas". Mr. Taylor had taken a report that said there is "widespread retreat and decay in the eastern Himalayas" and turned it around saying to the public that it said "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."


# 2- As to the first reference "Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine,…" that appeared in the sixth paragraph as:

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests’ humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Comes from a short little 492 word blurb of an article entitled African ice under wraps
Secrets locked in Kilimanjaro’s ice cap need urgent protection
(text) by Betsy Mason that appeared probably as interesting filler in the November 24th 2003 of Nature since the focus of it was on the unique, novel, and wild idea of covering the mountain top in a giant tarpaulin to help save it’s ice cap.

Eric Steig (4) a geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle who’s primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in writing a piece entitled Tropical Glacier Retreat (May 23rd 2005) writes a little bit more scientifically about the Kilimanjaro glacier retreat criticizing the Heartland Institutes tactics and interpretations saying (the emphases are mine):

….The reports put out by the Heartland Institute (here and here) are typical. The first of these, which came out under the banner "Global Warming Fears Melting," is headed by a quote from Patrick Michaels starting, "Kilimanjaro turns out to be just another snow job …" and goes downhill from there. All subtlety, tentativeness, context and opposing evidence has been lost. The study is presented as a broadside on one of the central tenets of global warming, in a fashion echoing skeptics’ coverage of the "hockey stick" issue. Even when the work is quoted directly, it is quoted without the context needed to make sense of the claims. Notably, the quote "Mölg and Hardy (2004) show that mass loss on the summit horizontal glacier surfaces is mainly due to sublimation (i.e. turbulent latent heat flux) and is little affected by air temperature through the turbulent sensible heat flux." is intended to give the impression that air temperature can make no difference, whereas we have seen that the results of [Moelg and Hardy,2004] are compatible with several ways in which air temperature can affect ablation.

The skeptics’ press, especially as echoed in Crichton’s State of Fear states that the Kilimanjaro retreat can have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming, because it began in the 1880’s, before any appreciable CO2 response is expected. The error in this reasoning was discussed in the previous section. This situation here is reminiscent of the ubiquitous "Little Ice Age" problem. It is a fact of life for attribution studies that the climate changes associated with the end of the Little Ice Age overlap with the beginning of the era of industrial warming. Thus, a graph will always give the superficial impression that the present trends are just a continuation of something that began before human influences were much in the picture, leading one into the fallacy that the causes of the beginning of the trend are the same as those responsible for its continuation.

The Heartland Institute’s propagation of the notion that the Kilimanjaro glacier retreat has been proved to be due to deforestation is even more egregious. They quote "an article published in Nature" by Betsy Mason ("African ice under wraps," Nature, 24 November, 2003) which contains the statement "Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit." Elsewhere, Heartland refers to this as a "study." The "study" is in reality no scientific study at all, but a news piece devoted almost entirely to Euan Nesbit’s proposal to save the Kilimanjaro glacier by wrapping it in a giant tarp. The article never says who the "experts" are, nor does it quote any scientific studies supporting the claim. The Mason news article is what Crichton quotes as "peer reviewed research" proving that it is deforestation, not global warming, which is causing the Kilimanjaro glaciers to retreat. (George Monbiot’s article in The Guardian documents a similar case of systematic misrepresentation of glacier data by skeptics.)

(and it goes on…Tropical Glacier Retreat )

As Eric Steig infers in his article while Nature is an eminent magazine of science if you look at the African Ice Under Wraps article text you’ll see we don’t know who did, or how much, science was done in the article which really wasn’t focused on the cause of the melt but on the unique and wild idea of putting a "tarp" over the mountain to stop the melt. Interestingly too in the abstract to that article on the Nature Journals web site it says:

Secrets locked in Kilimanjaro’s ice cap need urgent protection. The celebrated ice cap on Africa’s loftiest peak could vanish within 20 years, taking with it a unique scientific resource.

Douglas R. Hardy, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst has said in looking at Kilimanjaro: "There’s a tendency for people to take this temperature increase and draw quick conclusions, which is a mistake, the real explanations are much more complex. Global warming plays a part, but a variety of factors are really involved." Hardy doesn’t totally dismiss global warming as having some effect but thinks that less moisture to be pumped into the atmosphere due to forest reduction and as a consequence of that less precipitation to replenish the Kilimanjaro glaciers are the predominant human influenced effect on the climate there.(5)

Mr. Taylor however taken little comment from within a tiny filler article from the Journal Nature and it sound like it was taken from an article of scientific research on the climate in the Kilimanjaro region which it wasn’t. And the same author of that little November 2003 article, Betsy Mason is also the author of May 2006 a more significant article entitled Global Warming Could Be Worse Than Predicted, Research Shows.


#3 – Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes…. reference comes in the seventh paragraph and says:

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Looking through that whole IPCC Report I found it doesn’t say "no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes" but instead says that:

"Observational evidence for changes in small-scale severe weather phenomena (such as tornadoes, hail and thunderstorms) is mostly local and too scattered
to draw general conclusions; increases in many areas
arise because of increased public awareness and improved efforts to collect reports of these phenomena." (AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf pg.15)

In other words the data on tornados is too local and too scattered to draw a definitive conclusion one way or the other at this time. Mr. Taylor’s made his statement sound like the IPCC has conclusively ruled out any link between global warming and tornadoes which is just not that case at all.


#4,5 & 6 Appear in the eighth paragraph, related to tornadoes in that it is another form of "severe weather", Mr. Taylor then writes about hurricanes :

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, (4) hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. (5) Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years . (6) Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

The same IPCC report I just mentioned says "Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies
vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s.
" and goes on to later say regarding extreme weather events that "extreme events usually result from a combination of factors" and therefore it is "not simple to detect a human influence on a single, specific extreme event." But "Nevertheless, it may be possible to use climate models to determine whether human influences have changed the likelihood
of certain types of extreme events.
"

Mr. Landsea disagrees with that conclusion and instead echoes the opinion expressed regarding tornados in that there is not enough data available on hurricanes to conclusively make that judgment at this time and withdrew from authorship of the report because of that disagreement.

As for Colorado State University’s William Gray while perhaps the world most well known and visible hurricane expert but from my own observation he is also something ideologue (he’s often prone to quote and praise Senator Inhofe) so I always take anything he says with a grain of salt (see Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming). Like Mr. Taylor to me Mr. Gray seems more interested in attacking the messenger Al Gore than the logic of the science and scientists whose thinking Al Gore is giving voice to. In Mr. Gray’s writing and oral comments to the general public instead of giving us the logic and reasoning for his own thinking he often uses expressions such as "I’ve been a meteorologist for 50 years…" assuming we should then just take on faith without question what he has to say solely because of that.

While I was unable to find any reference to Mr. Gray writing or saying "…that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years" but I also have no real reason to doubt that figure either but the point is with regard to Mr. Taylor using that reference in his op-ed is it is irrelevant.

The problem is not ‘U.S. Warming’ it is ‘Global Warming’. Mr. Taylor did not quote Mr. Gray saying "that the number of major hurricanes making landfall WORLDWIDE has declined in the past 40 years" and even then isn’t the number of hurricanes making landfall anywhere a chance roll of the dice based on the weather patterns at the time the hurricane or tropical storm in question is formed?

Regardless of any other science and information linking or not linking hurricanes and global warming the number of hurricanes making landfall is absolutely irrelevant as to the issue of whether global warming is taking place.

As for "Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity." I believe that ultimately refers to the paper Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear in model projections of global
warming
by
Gabriel A. Vecchi and Brian J. Soden that was distributed at one point by the American Geophysical Union.

Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt in their Real Climate article of Apr 24th 2007 entitled Hurricane Spin write (the emphases are mine):

A recent paper by Vecchi and Soden (preprint) published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters has been widely touted in the news (and some egregiously bad editorials), and the blogosphere as suggesting that increased vertical wind shear associated with tropical circulation changes may offset any tendencies for increased hurricane activity in the tropical Atlantic due to warming oceans. Some have even gone so far as to state that this study proves that recent trends in hurricane activity are part of a natural cycle. Most of this is just ‘spin’ (pun intended), but as usual, the real story is a little more nuanced.

We have commented on the connections between hurricanes and climate change frequently in the past (see e.g. here, here, here, and here). The bottom line conclusion has consistently remained that, while our knowledge of likely future changes in hurricanes or tropical cyclones (TCs) remains an uncertain area of science, the observed relationship between increased intensity of TCs and rising ocean temperatures appears to be robust (Figure 1). There is nothing in this latest article that changes that.

Even Soden in speaking of his own research paper has said:

"This certainly isn’t the last word on global warming," Soden said. "There’s a lot of debate about how clearly they’re (connected). There will be a lot more research on this."

He also said it’s not yet possible to tell how much the increased wind shear will offset the strength of storms strengthened by higher ocean temperatures. (Global warming may spawn wind shear able to hobble hurricanes, study finds by Tim O’Meilia
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Wednesday, April 18, 2007)

It’s been noticed by others far smarter than me that the Global Warming Skeptics actually tended to disagree more with each other than with the scientists that actually believe in global warming and the issue of Hurricanes and wind shear is a classic example case of that too.

The paper states that the increase in water temperature created by global warming that tends to help spawn hurricanes is mitigated by the increase in wind shear created by global warming. In both events global warming is the root cause so if you are going to use that paper in a claim that you make it can’t be that global warming doesn’t exist or take place. I wonder just what is Mr. Talyor’s overarching opinon on Global Warming? That it doesn’t exist or that it isn’t anthropogenic in origin?


#7 – However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports…reference refers to the 9th paragraph

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa’s deserts are in ‘spectacular’ retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Mr. Taylor cites the New Scientist article Africa’s deserts are in "spectacular" retreat. as if that isolated case is in and of itself is a good thing? John Cook again on this on his Skeptical Science: Examining the science of global warming skepticism web site answers mr. taylor directly in writing:

a quick look at the actual article shows that Taylor’s cut-n-paste egregiously misrepresented the contents of the article. First, the "spectacular retreat" was confined to the "Sahel region of the southern edge of the Saharan desert," and that no consensus for the retreat existed. A possible reason for the recovery of the desert, according to the article, was improved farming and irrigation methods. Even if the recovery of the desert were due to increased rainfall in the region, it’s scientifically irresponsible to judge larger patterns by a small sample size — in this case, a specific region. All other reports show that the size of deserts world-wide is rapidly increasing, including the Sahara Desert’s creep northwards. (Skeptical Science: Skeptic Arguments: Deserts are retreating)


#8 & 9- refers to the 10th paragraph:

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to (8) a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain."(9) In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

This Article Is Still Under Development


#10, 11, & 12- And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century….reference refers to the 11th and second to last paragraph

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet (10) the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently,(11) scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And (12) the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

This Article Is Still Under Development



General Footnotes:


The Articles cited by Mr. Taylor in his article:


Other Criticsm of Mr. Taylors Article

A television commercial very well worth remembering.

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round heads in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them. But the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.

(Jack Kerouac – From his book: On The Road)

Is that apropos? I like to think it is.

(I was reminded of this old commercial after tracing back an incoming link from the Sumptuous! – reflecting a world too special to waste blog in a post there entitled Thinking differently where the author there drfrank claims to have rediscovered it from the "blog of Steven Brant, a New York based consultant who’s trying to use systems thinking to meld the domains of sustainable development and conflict prevention. The entry there containing it was a great one entitled "Al Gore: "Think Differently" To Create A Better World")

Read Full Post »

Thanks to Kevin Grandia’s posts over on DeSmogBlog.com ABC Australia’s Tony Jones and Durkin Transcript I learned about video and a transcript of Australia’s ABC journalist Tony Jones’ interview with "Great Global Warming Swindle" director, Martin Durkin and a subsequent debate in the studio on Durkin and his movie and the Global Warming issues a whole. As I’ve done in the past for instance with You Tube videos of PBS’s Nova Series: Evolution I’ve assembled together in one place all the videos to make their viewing easier to follow.

The first two videos are of the actual interview with Martin Durkin and videos 3 thru 8 are the studio debate and Q & A.

Kudos to Tony Jones for a journalist’s job well done.

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt1 Martin Durkin yet again conclusively demonstrated to be a lying swindler. ABC Australia TV debate 12 July 2007

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt2 Martin Durkin dissected, demolished and debunked by ace Australian journalist Tony Jones. Durkin revealed as a dangerous lying knave.

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt3 Debating Panelists: Robyn Williams (science journalist), Michael Duffy (talk show journalist -a denier), Professor David Karoly (IPCC Climate Scientist)

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt4 Debating Panelists: Professor Bob Carter (Geologist, Skeptic). Professor David Karoly (IPCC Climate Scientist), Ray Evans (Lavoisier Group Skeptic and Propagandist)

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt5 5 Debating Panelists: Professor David Karoly (IPCC Climate Scientist), Nick Rowley (UK Climate Change Strategist), Dr Nikki Williams (CEO, NSW Minerals Council), Ray Evans (Lavoisier Group Skeptic and Propagandist)

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt6 Debating Panelists: Robyn Williams (science journalist and broadcaster), Dr Nikki Williams (CEO, NSW Minerals Council), Michael Duffy (skeptic journalist), Greg Bourne (ex-BP, now CEO of WWF), Professor Bob Carter (Geologist, Skeptic), Professor David Karoly (IPCC Climate Scientist), RW (again), BC (again).

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt7 Debating Panelists: Greg Bourne (ex-BP, now CEO of WWF), Professor David Karoly (IPCC Climate Scientist), Nick Rowley (UK Climate Change Strategist), Dr Nikki Williams (CEO, NSW Minerals Council), Audience Participation (three members of the public)

Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt8 Q&A from the public in the audience: Fiona Wain (CEO, Environment Business Australia), The Muddled-Guy-in-the-Brown-Hat (a must see!), the 30-Something Man accusing environmentalists of a "Hitler-Nazi-race-science" conspiracy (wow, this sounds serious!), Dr Chris Turney PhD (paleoclimatologist, University of Wollongong) asking WTF are we going to do about sea level rise, the Suit-and-Tie man saying there’s-too-much-fiddling-while-we-burn, and finally the Wise Woman raising the massive "DEAD ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM" issue of sustainable population levels for our planet.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Wow! Just an absolutely scathing criticism of how the Bush administrations manipulates and/or disregards science to advance thier own theological and ideological agenda and muzzled the Surgeon General. (thanks to CrooksAndLiars.com: Bush’s Former Surgeon General Blasts Administration)

Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona’s Opening Statement in the Senate Oversight Committee’s Hearing on ‘The Surgeon General’s Vital Mission: Challenges for the Future ‘:

During my first year as Surgeon General I was still quite politically naive in the ways of the Beltway. As I witnessed partisanship and political manipulation I was astounded but also unsure of what I was witnessing. I had no reference point. I asked myself whether this was just happening to me as a new Surgeon General, or whether this was the norm for all Surgeon Generals.

Richard Carmona Responds to Senator Waxman’s Questions:

Much of the discussion was being driven by theology, ideology, pre-conceived beliefs that were scientifically incorrect. So I thought this is a perfect example of the Surgeon General being able to step forward, educate the American public as well as elected and appointed officials so that we can have, if you will, informed consent on an issue to the American public to make better decisions. I was blocked at every turn. I was told the decision had already been made. Stand down, don’t talk about it. In speeches where initially that information was put in speeches it was removed from my speeches…

Read Full Post »

Okay so I just got the word that tipped me off to a story over on the conservative Newsbusters.org web site where they are working diligently around the clock on "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias". (If you’ve got a rock, they can find the liberal media bias under it for sure!)

nThe story I was pointed to (by a fellow who is an extreme Global Warming Denier by the way) is entitled BBC Report on Sun and Climate Change Contradicts Its Own 2004 Story. It reports that on Tuesday, July 10th 2007 the BBC ran a story entitled ‘No Sun link’ to climate change that contradicts as story they ran back Tuesday, July 6th 2004 that was entitled Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high.

I find this really funny on a couple of different counts.

It seems to me that Newsbusters (an organ of the conservative The Media Research Center) has a position that Global Warming is not anthropogenic in origin and they’ll atack what they call ‘Global Warming Alarmists’ whenever they get an opportunity. The story Tuesday, July 10th 2007 that there is‘No Sun link’ to climate change supports the contentions of the Global Warming / An Incovient Truth side of the arguement in that it trashes the Global Warming Denial postion that the sun and/or sunspots is what drives global warming whereas the BBC story from back on Tuesday, July 6th 2004,Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high would cast a light that would favor their position.

In other words the Newsbusters guys just lost one of the players on their team to our side. Why are they so thrilled about that?

Well the truth is however in reality they didn’t really lose a player on their side over to ours. The BBC is a news reporting agency, not a group of scientists or a politician. They’re not supposed to take sides. It’s not at all like what happened when Frank Luntz switched sides over to ours. The only way I can can see it is that the BBC as a news organization doesn’t have a position on the Global Warming issue and is in fact providing the public with reports from both sides of the issue. Gee what a concept, journalistic neutrality.

Now what I again don’t think I understand is that Newbusters according to their banner is supposedly all about "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias" and their stated mission is "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media". Isn’t that exactly what we have on the part of the BBC?

Newsbusters completely screwed the pooch on this one if you ask me. Attacking the BBC now they look like hypocrites and stupid partisan idiots if you ask me….

….oh yeah,… that’s right,…they are.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »