Monday, January 22, 2007

Global warming debate among meteorologists continues

Big Story John gibson mentioned the global warming debate again. He noted the controversy stirred by Heidi Cullen over at the weather channel and her previous statements.

"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."

Search results "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."

Gibson's guest was Sen. Inhofe... the science just isn't there that man made gases are causing global warming...

The debate continues, contrary to Ronald Bailey's We're all global warmers now.

More like the following at Heidi Cullen blog

The responses are overwhelming...

Dr. Cullen,
You are stating as fact that the "primary" explanation of warming is CO2, but that's an opinion. Climate scientist Roger Pielke, Sr., calculates that CO2 has contributed about 1/4 of the warming. There is a real question regarding how much of the current warming is caused by the sun. I've seen in the literature estimates from 30-80%. That range itself demonstrates a lack of understanding of how much the sun contributes. Scafetta & West's paper in Geophys Res Letters (Sept 2006) implies to me that at least half of the warming is based on solar activity. There are other agents, too, including human transformation of the landscape. Consequently, i conclude that the primary explanation of warming is the sun. Although CO2 apparently contributes a considerable amount, it is not the primary driver.

James Allen, Ph.D. | January 18, 2007

This is 100% a political issue. For non-scientists in the reading audience, you must first understand how the scientific community operates. Research scientists must apply for and receive Government/Industry sponsored grants. This money ultimately comes from you, the taxpayer. hence do not be deceived scientific research is A BUSINESS, WHICH MUST SELL ITS IDEAS TO CONTINUE TO BE EMPLOYED. It doesnt matter if the issue is embrionic stem cell research or global warming. Ms Cullen has done you, the average American a great diservice for three reasons; DUH #1. Historically, we are still recovering from an ICE AGE
DUH#2. How many people know that under the polar ice caps are the remains of a pre-existing RAIN FOREST! (umm if thats true, and it IS, then the Earths natural state would BE to HAVE no ICE CAPS once we fully recover from the ICE AGE)
DUH#3. Ms Cullens crowd have to ignore, and insome cases CONCEAL, the "cooling period" that occurred 3 centuries ago. They also have to ignore the fact that temps in the 30's were higher than NOW.
But ok, she is a scientist, who hasn't done the most basic exploratory work that shows strong evidence , that not only is the warming and cooling periods we go through "Normal", but that eventually the earth should reach steady state and that state could mean we should actually have tropical rain forests where our ice caps presently sit. But discovering that wont get them global warming money...which is the real issue.

Jim | January 19, 2007

Now if only all of the scientists and meteorologists who object to Cullen's science would only publicly come out of the woodwork...

Amazing how a PhD in climatology can apparently ignore Lamb's 1976 2 volume tome on the History of Climate. Lamb provided conclusive proof of the medieval warming (and others) to significantly higher temperatures than present. In those years (850-1300 AD) there were no SUV's or fossil-fired industry. Thus the so called nexus between warming and carbon dioxide emissions is a bald faced lie. You need to go back to school and broaden your sources of information, Ma'am. Probably a different school would help. You might also check out Singer and Avery's recent book, "Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 years".

Truth will eventually prevail over this hoax on the American people, the greatest since Orson Wells' 1938 "Invasion of the Martians". Dissent is not only democratic, in science it is an absolute must. Suppression of dissent in favor of consensus is dictatorial arrogance that reminds of militarism. You are joing the crowd of so-called peer reviewers and editors of science magazines who screen out dissent. Eventually the truth will win out. Don't get caught on the wrong side.

Ron Kilmartin | January 19, 2007

Lots of links on the Senate site

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics
January 19, 2007

Drudge, global warming shut down Senate site By Emily Heil

Internet surfers trying to access the Senate’s website on Friday (oh, c’mon, you know you were) might have encountered a bit of a delay. For part of the day, all of the Senate’s Web pages, including senators’ personal pages and committee sites, were down...

Use the search feature on this site for more information about this issue and any other issues of interest to you.

Thursday, Jan. 18, 2007 3:43 p.m. EST
TV Weathermen: Agree to Global Warming or Else

Could The “Global Warming” Myth Be Collapsing?
January 19, 2007 | By: J.J. Jackson

October 1, 2006 Weather Channel Climate Special

The Weather Channel is launching a new program that will explore how climate change affects people in this country and elsewhere. Its host Dr. Heidi Cullen will help people understand the link between man-made weather changes melting distant polar ice caps and changes in their everyday lives. The show, entitled "The Climate Code," premieres on Sunday, October 1, on the Weather Channel. See your newspaper for local listings...

Site supports Cullen
Andrew Freedman has contributed articles to The Weather Channel on a freelance basis. The views expressed in this column are his own and do not represent the views of The Weather Channel.

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

No comments: