Global warming: Media scam
Posted: November 4, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
At least you have to admire the honesty of ABC News reporter Bill Blakemore.
He says he doesn't "like the word 'balance' much at all" when it comes to the global warming debate.

On Aug. 30, he told the nation, or at least those who still get their "news" from the major networks, "After extensive searches, ABC News has found no [scientific] debate" on whether the planet is warming as a result of man's activity.

Then, over the weekend, as if we needed confirmation that he is no reporter but an advocate for the half-baked theory, he told a conference of the Society for Environmental Journalists there was no more need to seek balance in stories about the topic.

It was very lazy of us for 10 years when we were asked for balance from the [climate skeptic] spinners," he told a group of fellow activists posing as reporters. "We just gave up and said, 'OK, OK – I will put the other side on; OK, are you happy now?' And it saves us from the trouble of having to check out the fact that these other sides were the proverbial flat earth society."

He continues: "Does [extreme weather patterns] fit exactly within the predicted pattern that we projected almost 30 or 40 years ago? This is the little logical problem that we journalists can still work on and solve."

Actually, if indeed Blakemore was actually reporting on the topic of climate change 10 years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago, he would know that the scientists and his media colleagues have changed their minds several times about what is happening.

In fact, in the 1970s, Blakemore's colleagues were telling us the real threat was global cooling. The hysteria then was about an impending ice age.

That was also true from 1885 through the late 1920s, when slightly warmer weather prompted the New York Times to report "the earth is steadily growing warmer."

Then in 1954, Fortune magazine was back promoting the cooling theory. The New York Times changed its mind in 1975, reporting "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable."

Newsweek predicted an impending ice age. Some of the same activists today who are preaching doom from warmer weather were telling us then to expect global famines as a result of the cooler temperatures.

It wasn't until the early 1980s that the scientists, most of whom earn their keep from government contracts, and their shills in the media decided the real scare – and the real payoff – was in global warming. So they switched gears again.

On Aug. 22, 1981, the New York Times, once again leading the pack, reported seven – count 'em, seven – government atmospheric scientists were predicting global warming of an "almost unprecedented magnitude."

So, we're talking about four changes of direction on climate change in one century. We went from global cooling to warming, to cooling to warming again.

The only difference now is that some journalists and scientists are so rigid in promoting their theories that they refuse to accept any debate. They refuse to hear any dissenting opinions. They refuse to hear any evidence that contradicts their lucrative scam.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52748

Global cooling? Bring it on!
Posted: November 4, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
As about six inches of snow fell on Calgary and Edmonton last week, and Fahrenheit temperatures plunged to the 20-above zero level and stayed there, the thoughts of some Albertans – of this one, anyway – focused on the subject of global warming.
"How come," I asked a friend in Virginia, who knows about such things, "how come, if the globe is warming, we have mid-winter arriving here before the end of October?"

My trouble, he replied, is that I don't keep up with scientific discovery. Had I not read, for instance, the report of the chief of the Space Exploration Department of the Central Astronomical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian part of the International Space Station. He warned last summer that another problem is rapidly overshadowing the global warming problem.

This, he continued, was the problem of global cooling. There is mounting evidence that long before the global warming threat begins to become serious, we may be entering another glacial age. This man is Dr. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, and he reached his conclusion from his readings of solar cycles.

Dr Abdusamatov notes that there are three types of solar cycles – an 11-year, a 100-year, and 200-year. The effects of the 11- and 100-year cycles afford little cause for concern. The 200-year cycle, however, is a very different matter.

"The whole world has recognized the global warming theory, which pictures catastrophic situations in the future," he told the Russian press. "I do not march in step with the world at this point. However, my theory has raised a certain interest in other countries. Hardly had I made a statement when I received several messages from scientists living in the USA, Iceland and other countries. They wanted to know more of my theory. They also want to know if I have delivered a detailed report on the matter and where it was published."

Dr. Abdusamatov said that a global reduction of temperatures would become evident about halfway into this century because solar radiation will be receding. The big chill will begin slowly, gathering pace between 2050 and '55. In effect it will repeat the conditions recorded between 1645 and 1715 when all canals froze in Holland and severe cold forced the evacuation of many communities. "The coldest years of the middle of the 21st century will be warmer than at the end of the 17th century," he said

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52777

What evolutionists, environmentalists, and global warming Chicken Littles hope you never learn about science
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science
by Tom Bethell
Exclusive hardcover edition -- not available in stores!

In science, dispassionate, objective inquiry reigns supreme, and researchers will readily give up their most cherished views if the evidence proves them wrong -- right? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Science, like virtually everything else these days, has become a highly politicized field in which the Left has worked energetically to present its pet theories and schemes -- all of which just happen to advance their case for the necessity for ever more government control over our lives. But in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell, who has for several years been making the case for real science as opposed to its politically correct counterfeit in the pages of The American Spectator, sets the record straight about some of the most controversial and politicized issues of our time.

Not only does Bethell tell the truth about evolution, global warming, and stem cells -- he also reveals the politically motivated manipulation behind the classification of species as endangered, the denigration of nuclear power as unsafe, Third World health crises, the banning of DDT and other supposedly unsafe pesticides, and more. He even skewers the modern scientific faith of materialism, showing how scientists embrace the evolutionist faith not because it is scientifically unassailable, but because they hate and fear religion -- and direct their supposedly detached scientific efforts to debunking it...

http://wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6826

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming