Ronald Bailey Admits He's Wrong About Global Warming

Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine fame admits he'd been wrong about global warming.

(Has Bailey been brainwashed at one of the United Nation's Climate Change Conferences?)

See posts which have all led to this conclusion (State of Brainwash)

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=ronald+bailey

He has attended such conferences and in November 2006 continued to attend, writing a series of article...

December 15, 2003 RONALD BAILEY ALL OVER MILAN

http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/000636.html

Bailey announced his reversal...

We're All Global Warmers Now
Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place

Ronald Bailey | August 11, 2005

Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. All data sets—satellite, surface, and balloon—have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact, they all have had upward pointing arrows for nearly a decade, but now all of the data sets are in closer agreement due to some adjustments being published in three new articles in Science today.

People who have doubted predictions of catastrophic global warming (and that includes me) have long cited the satellite data series derived by climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). That data set showed a positive trend of 0.088 degrees centigrade per decade until recently. On a straight line extrapolation that trend implied warming of less than 1.0 degree centigrade by 2100.

A new article in Science by researchers Carl Mears and Frank Wentz from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) identified a problem with how the satellites drifted over time, so that a slight but spurious cooling trend was introduced into the data. When this drift is taken into account, the temperature trend increases by an additional 0.035 degrees per decade, raising the UAH per-decade increase to 0.123 degrees centigrade. Christy points out that this adjustment is still within his and Spencer's +/- 0.5 margin of error. What's the upshot? Although reluctant to make straight-line extrapolations, Christy notes in an e-mail, "The previous linear extrapolation indicated a temperature of +0.9 C +/- 0.5 C in 2100, the new data indicate a temperature of +1.2 +/- 0.5 C."

However, the Remote Sensing Systems team has made some additional adjustments, such that their global trend is 0.193 degrees per decade. Christy and Spencer disagree with those additional RSS adjustments, but acknowledge that it's an open scientific question which team is correct

...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

Astonishing development since Bailey edited a book entitled:

Global Warming and Other Eco Myths How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death

...

According to a number of respected scientists, however, leaders of the environmental movement are guilty of twisting - and sometimes manufacturing - facts in an effort to frighten people into joining their cause. In this eye-opening book, some of the most respected researchers in the US explode the myths behind much of the doom and gloom of today's environmental movement. Readers will discover how the hysteria about global warming, overpopulation, mass extinctions, coming food shortages, biotechnology, energy shortages and more are grounded not in reason but in false science and a fear of progress. Ultimately, this book will show that uniting much of the environmental movement is an agenda that is not so much antipollution as antihuman

...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Warming-Other-Eco-Myths/dp/0761536604

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Other-Myths-Environmental/dp/B000BZ6UR6/ref=pd_sim_b_3/002-7371255-1687258

and another

The True State of The Planet (The Free Press)

http://www.amazon.com/True-State-Planet-Ronald-Bailey/dp/0028740106

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/stdweb/bailey.html

and another

Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet (Paperback)
by Ronald Bailey (Editor)

http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Report-2000-Revisiting-Planet/dp/0071342605

Wrote numerous Op-Ed pieces and gave countless interviews challenging global warming

Interview listings

http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=3300

Another Bailey book entitled:

Ecoscam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse

As to the alleged global warming crisis, he reminds us that just 15 years ago "eco-doomsayers" were predicting the advent of a new ice age

...

http://www.amazon.com/Eco-Scam-False-Prophets-Ecological-Apocalypse/dp/0312086989

Bailey's columns regarding Michael Crichton's State of Fear entitled:

Ron Bailey's review in the Wall Street Journal:

A Chilling Tale By RONALD BAILEY December 10, 2004; Page W1

http://commonsblog.org/archives/000246.php

The Global Warming Code
Michael Crichton tells the truth. Ronald Bailey | May 2005

Excerpt:

What about the trend in global average temperatures, a question central to the debate in State of Fear? According to satellite data, since 1978 the planet has been warming up at a rate of 0.08 degree Celsius per decade. Simple arithmetic reveals that, if that rate continues, the planet will warm by 0.8 degree Celsius by the end of the century. That compares with an increase of 0.6 degree Celsius during the 20th century. No catastrophe there. Indeed, Crichton has one of his characters note the costly uselessness of the supposedly heat-reducing Kyoto Protocols

...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32184.html

A mere couple of months later, Bailey pens his shocker:

We're All Global Warmers Now
Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place Ronald Bailey | August 11, 2005

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

Listing of Bailey's columns on global warming

http://www.reason.com/topics/topic/150

Notice, just the day before announcing he's no longer a global warming skeptic, August 10, 2005, it seemed all was wrong about global warming's catastrophic theory, with Bailey using assuming... if... if and questioning:

The Pleasure of Climate Change A Bush administration global warming breakthrough? Ronald Bailey | August 10, 2005

"Assuming dangerous global warming is happening. What to do about it? If accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere— gases produced by burning fossil fuels and other human activities—are to blame for increasing global temperatures, the adage "the first thing you do when you find you're in hole is stop digging" comes to mind. So the obvious idea is, why not stop emitting greenhouse gases? ...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34991.html

Next day, Bailey pens

We're All Global Warmers Now Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place Ronald Bailey | August 11, 2005

Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up

....

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

What happened between August 10, 2005 and August 11, 2005?

Bailey stumps readers of his columns in Reason Magazine online a year later as well as shown in follow-up posts to another article.

Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled Ronald Bailey | May 3, 2006, 10:44am

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

What happened to Ronald Bailey between approximately May 2005 and August 2005?

Did Bailey attend a United Nations summit featuring a film about global warming?

Were subliminal messages hidden in the film and handouts?

Was a target date of August 11, 2005 set for global warming skeptics to receive email notifications about three studies which would convince them beyond any doubt of catastrophic man-made global warming reality?

Were hidden subliminal messages embedded in emails or pdf formatted pages or pages of Science Magazine?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1114867v1

Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere
B. D. Santer, T. M. L. Wigley, C. Mears, F. J. Wentz, S. A. Klein, D. J. Seidel, K. E. Taylor, P. W. Thorne, M. F. Wehner, P. J. Gleckler, J. S. Boyle, W. D. Collins, K. W. Dixon, C. Doutriaux, M. Free, Q. Fu, J. E. Hansen, G. S. Jones, R. Ruedy, T. R. Karl, J. R. Lanzante, G. A. Meehl, V. Ramaswamy, G. Russell, and G. A. Schmidt
Science 2 September 2005 309: 1551-1556; published online 11 August 2005 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1114867] (in Reports)

Global Warming Science: An Annotated Bibliography
A summary of recent findings on the changing global climate.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience2005.asp

Satellite and Surface Temperature Records Reconciled
C.A. Mears and F.J. Wentz, Science
(August 11, 2005)
A. Revkin, "Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data," New York Times
(August 12, 2005)

A puzzling discrepancy among different approaches to measuring global warming was resolved when scientists discovered an error in previous calculations used to correct satellite temperature readings. Global warming naysayers had long pointed to satellite-based temperature measurements published by two scientists at the University of Alabama as evidence that there was great uncertainty about global warming. These measurements appeared to show that the earth's atmosphere was warming far more slowly than the earth's surface, contrary to the expectations of climate scientists and the predictions of climate models used to forecast the effects of increases in heat-trapping pollution. Scientists at Remote Sensing Systems reanalyzed the raw satellite data and found that the lower atmosphere is actually warming slightly faster than the surface, in agreement with theory and models. These scientists found that the previous analysis of the satellite data had inaccurately corrected for changes in the satellites' measurement time resulting from the decay of their orbit. The diurnal temperature cycle of warmer temperatures during the day and cooler temperatures at night means that a gradual change in measurement time introduces a spurious temperature trend that must be removed from the data. The University of Alabama scientists have now acknowledged that they made a mistake and have adjusted their data series, making it much more in line with other results...

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience2005.asp

In his piece, Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore
Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else. Ronald Bailey September 22, 2006, Bailey reveals:

On the day that the studies were released I wrote a column for Reason in which I declared that my skepticism of man-made global warming was at an end...

How many other skeptics read Science Magazine that day?

How many others are willing to place their trust in data which is corrected and adjusted ... making it much more in line with other results.

Whew, we don't have access online The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature
Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz
Science 2 September 2005 309: 1548-1551; published online 11 August 2005 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1114772] (in Reports)
, those embedded subliminal messages won't work on us...

Mentions a summit somebody else attended prior to August 2005

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/7/41932/19363

Ah ha, 16TH GLOBAL WARMING INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXPO (GWXVI), April 19-21, 2005, New York, NY

http://www.eintoday.com/newsletter/samples/gwn_sample.htm

Was Ronald Bailey in attendance??

Since August 11, 2005, Bailey - the convert - writes

Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled Ronald Bailey | May 3, 2006, 10:44am

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just released a report that looks at the various global temperature data sets and finds that they are now all "consistent" with man-made global warming. The chief cause is the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels.

Global warming skeptics (and I was definitely one of them) have cited the findings of John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville who have produced a temperature series based on satellite measurements since 1979. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the UAH data series saw little or no warming and its findings were bolstered by separate weather balloon data that also found little warming. In the past few years corrections made to the data sets have boosted average global temperatures in both.

NOAA's new report takes a look at all of the data sets and finds that they all point toward a trend of increasing average warmth:...

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

Exxon secrets Fact Sheet on Bailey

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=11

Bailey explains his past thinking and admits he was wrong about global warming:

Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore
Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else

Ronald Bailey | September 22, 2006

...In 2002 came Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (Prima Publishing). The global warming contributor was University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy who is also the principal investigator for the satellite temperature measurements. Christy pointed out, "Since 1979, the global temperature trend is a modest +0.06 degrees Celsius per decade through March 2002." The myth about global warming was not that it was not happening, but that it was unlikely to be catastrophic for humanity or the planet. Christy concluded: "No global warming disaster is looming. Humans are causing an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which will likely cause a very slow rise in global temperatures with which we can easily cope."

So there was a contradiction in climate science. The models projected and the surface thermometer records were showing significant warming. On the other hand, the satellite dataset and various weather balloon datasets showed only very modest warming. Which was right? In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report at the request of the Bush Administration that found that a lot of proxy data indicated that warming was taking place. However, the NAS also noted that the divergence between the satellite data and the thermometer data was troubling. "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been as different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere," declared the report. The NAS added, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established."

Given this divergence in the various temperature records, climate scientists naturally spent a lot of time and intellectual energy in trying to explain it. In August 2005, Science magazine published three papers that went a long way toward resolving the issue. One paper found that Christy and Spencer had failed to take proper account of satellite drift, which produced a spurious cooling trend to their dataset. Another found that the operation of weather balloons also tended to add spurious cooling to their data. When the corrections were made the satellite and weather balloon datasets were in better agreement with the surface thermometer datasets that showed higher warming trends.

On the day that the studies were released I wrote a column for Reason in which I declared that my skepticism of man-made global warming was at an end. The column was titled, "We're All Global Warmers Now." The first line read: "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up." The bottom line? Christy and Spencer's corrected dataset finds warming of +0.123 degrees per decade. The corrected balloon data tend to support Christy and Spencer. However, the scientific team that found the errors in the satellite data corrects it to find warming of +0.193 degrees per decade. And the surface measurements show a warming trend of 0.15 degrees per decade. In the column, I quote Christy saying, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."

Then in May 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report of which John Christy was a co-author that further reconciled the differences in temperature trends. The report found that "global-average temperature increased at a rate of about 0.12 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.16 degrees C per decade since 1979. In the tropics, temperature increased at about 0.11 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.13 degrees C per decade since 1979." I blogged the report at Reason ' s Hit & Run the day the report was issued. I also noted that Christy told the Washington Post that he has a "minimalist interpretation" of the report because Earth is not heating up rapidly at this point.

Just to bring my intellectual journey in reporting and opining about the global warming issue up to date, I reviewed former vice-president Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth for Reason. I agreed that Gore has "won the climate debate" and that "on balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science" though I argued he exaggerates just how bad future global warming is likely to be. However, I agree that the balance of the evidence pretty clearly indicates that humanity is contributing to global warming chiefly by means of loading up the atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels...

CONTINUED

So I didn't get any stacks of $20 dollar bills in brown paper bags from ExxonMobil (don't believe any photoshopped pictures you may see to the contrary). I also don't think that I was duped by paid-off scientists. Except for climatologist Robert Balling, as the embedded links above show, the sleuths at Exxonsecrets have uncovered no payments to the scientists I chiefly relied upon in my reporting over the years. But was I too skeptical, demanding too much evidence or ignoring evidence that cut against what I wanted to believe? Perhaps. In hindsight I can only plead that there is no magic formula for deciding when enough evidence has accumulated that a fair-minded person must change his or her mind on a controversial scientific issue. With regard to global warming it finally did for me in the last year. That was far too late for many and still too early for others. However, I can't resist pointing out that I became a "convert" on global warming nearly a year before some other prominent journalistic skeptics such as Gregg Easterbrook and Michael Shermer changed their minds.
So then not a whore, just virtuously wrong. Looking to the future, I can't promise that my reporting will always be right (no reporter can, but I will strive to make it so), but my reporting has always been honest and I promise that it always will be.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html

Published on 23 May 2006 by EB. Archived on 23 May 2006. Tide turns on global warming by Staff

Flipped Positions, too, and when?

Finally Feeling the Heat Greg Easterbrook, NY Times (Op-Ed)
(24 May 2006)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24easterbrook.html?ex=1306123200&en=a4df3b808f1716da&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


[Jonathan Adler, September 23, 2006 at 6:33pm]
Ron Bailey Comes Clean:
Science writer Ronald Bailey, a longtime skeptic about whether global warming presents an apocalyptic threat, responds to charges that he and other climate "skeptics" are nothing more than paid stooges for evil corporations...

http://volokh.com/posts/1159050814.shtml

Skeptics flip

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/5/23/215030/928

Bailey 2006

Global Warming Solutions
Markets, taxes, or nothing at all?

Ronald Bailey | December 15, 2006

Assume man-made global warming is a big, bad problem. Let's try some thought experiments concerning what, if anything, should be done about it.

One "solution" might be recognizing, at least, that there is nothing to be done about it. One might argue that for the sake of lifting billions of poor people out of abject poverty humanity must continue to burn cheap oil and coal to fuel economic growth in this century. One unavoidable side effect is that this will increase the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus boost global average temperatures by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. People three generations hence will just have to adapt to this increase. Fortunately because of the wealth produced by burning fossil fuels, average incomes will have increased about sevenfold and so they will have the resources to do so. In addition, wealth may enable them to develop new low pollution energy technologies...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/117271.html

Pay It Forward What can carbon markets do for economic development? Ronald Bailey | November 15, 2006

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116751.html

"Climate Change Tourists" Go Home! The Nairobi global warming conference grinds to an end Ronald Bailey | November 17, 2006

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116805.html

Bailey 2005

Betting on Climate Change It's time to put up or shut up Ronald Bailey | June 8, 2005

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html

The Kyoto Protocol Launches! But Will it Matter? Ronald Bailey | February 16, 2005

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34958.html

Bailey 2004

Two Sides to Global Warming
Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?
Ronald Bailey | November 10, 2004

...So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional wisdom—or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There's plenty of evidence for both positions, and I'll keep reporting the data and the controversy...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

Discussion

November 12, 2004

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/11/two_sides_to_gl.html
http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/

Discussions

Converts

As CT commenters pointed out on my last post, there’s a rush of former sceptics announcing their change of views on global warming. Here’s Gregg Easterbrook and John Tierney. Ron Bailey, who changed his view on the science last year, has now taken the next step, observing that the economic costs of Kyoto are likely to be modest

...

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/05/26/more-conversions-on-global-warming/

Still after the foregoing...

More Evidence Against Manmade Global Warming

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=environment&Number=268644&page=11&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=2&vc=1

also see links on the post: State of Fear Exposes Truth of Deception

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/state-of-fear-exposes-truth-of.html

Search for more Ronald Bailey articles on global warming before and after his conversion...

Year 2000

Rush to Judgment Ronald Bailey | April 2000

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27654.html

Discussion Hit & Run (Reason Magazine) Bailey

Excerpts:

uncle sam | May 3, 2006, 12:30pm | #

Given that the climate has been warming for hundreds of years, the lack of change indicated by satellite measurements would seem anomalous.

What I want to know is how they can shown how much of the recent warming is manmade. I am not impressed with statements like "probably manmade" or, we can't imagine any other reason for it" etc.

Sam | May 4, 2006, 1:24pm | #

Also, http://www.realclimate.org/ is a good site run by real climatologists explainging or rebutting climate news and claims...


joshua corning | May 4, 2006, 4:43pm | #

Also, http://www.realclimate.org/ is a good site run by real climatologists explainging or rebutting climate news and claims.

to bad realclimate has been proven dead wrong on every claim it has made on multi proxy cliamte studies...

see here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

More

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE: HAS ANYTHING CHANGED?

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060702-5.htm


No-No No-No of Journalistic integrity

Betting on Climate Change
It's time to put up or shut up Ronald Bailey | June 8, 2005


* This article has been corrected. An erroneous reference to William M Connolley has been removed. (Return to the corrected portion.)

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html

Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled Ronald Bailey | May 3, 2006, 10:44am

Excerpts:

D.A. Ridgely | May 3, 2006, 12:03pm

Mr. Bailey:

Is your "was" which has so many here suddenly slack jawed meant to suggest you are no longer skeptical about a global warming trend or that it is in some significant measure man-made?

Dave W. | May 3, 2006, 12:16pm

T.:

Do you really believe that all that subtle stuff about interpretation of scientific data was what led Bailey to being (initially) on the wrong side of the global warming divide?


Ron Bailey | May 3, 2006, 1:11pm

Mr. Ridgely: Both--the current evidence points to a relatively small upward trend in global average temperatures and that man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for at least a portion of that trend.

Dave W:

Do you really believe that all that subtle stuff about interpretation of scientific data was what led Bailey to being (initially) on the wrong side of the global warming divide?

Actually that's exactly what happened. I've been reporting on and talking with climate scientists and actualy reading long IPCC reports for over 20 years. However, it is true that my reporting on decades of environmentalist scares (overpopulation, synthetic chemical cancer epidemics, biotech run amok) is what inclined me toward the skeptical camp in the first place. All I asked for was evidence and I am now persuaded--perhaps not soon enough for you, but I don't care what you think.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

Brother, Can You Spare 22 Terawatts? Big ideas for the future of energy Ronald Bailey | November 24, 2006

...This means that the world will need an additional 15-22 TW of energy over the current base of 13.5 TW.

So where will the extra energy come from? Relying on figures from the World Energy Assessment by the United Nations Development Program, Nocera looks at the maximum amounts of power that various non-fossil fuel sources might supply. Biomass could supply 7-10 TW of energy, but that is the equivalent of harvesting all current crops solely for energy. Nuclear could produce 8 TW which implies building 8000 new reactors over the 45 years at a rate of one new plant every two days. Wind would generate 2.1 TW if every site on the globe with class 3 winds or greater were occupied with windmills. Winds at a class 3 site blow at 11.5 miles per hour at 33 feet above the ground. And hydro-power could produce 0.7-2 TW if dams were placed on every untapped river on the earth. Nocera concludes, "The message is clear. The additional energy we need in 2050 over the current 13.5 TW base, is simply not attainable from long discussed sources—the global appetite for energy is simply too great."

Burning coal, gas, and oil could fuel the world in 2050, but the carbon dioxide produced by these fossil fuels would have somehow to be captured and sequestered (CCS) underground in order to prevent it from being vented into the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming. Some CCS pilot projects have been launched but they are not cheap and they are far from proven.

Given the magnitude of the problem of fueling the future with carbon-neutral energy, Nocera argues that the only real alternative for carbon-neutral energy production is some form of solar power. More energy from sunlight strikes the Earth in one hour than humanity uses in a year. But converting sunlight into energy useful to people is a huge unsolved technological problem. In 2000, author Richard Rhodes and nuclear engineer Denis Beller calculated that using current solar power technologies to construct a global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of the world's known iron resources, take a century to build and cover a half-million square miles. Clearly a lot of technological innovation needs to take place before solar becomes an option for fueling the world.

The challenge of supplying the world with carbon neutral energy has a lot of people calling for the launching of a "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Project." What they mean is that the Federal government should dramatically boost research and development spending for novel energy technologies...

...Maybe Nocera is right that solar power is the way to go, but history teaches us to scrap the Apollo Project model for technology R&D. Federal bureaucrats are simply not smart enough to pick winning energy technologies. Instead, eliminate all energy subsidies, set a price for carbon, and then let tens of thousands of energy researchers and entrepreneurs develop and test various new technologies in the market. No one knows now how humanity will fuel the 21st century, but Apollo and Manhattan Project-style Federal energy research projects will prove to be a huge waste of time, money and talent.

Disclosure: I own 50 shares of ExxonMobil stock. So what!

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116887.html

Post Script to Net the Truth Online Post

Find out which R&D technologies Bailey invests in, has invested in since August 11, 2005,and invest in those...

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

Not all global warmers: American Physical Society Some Members Skeptics Too

American Physical Society

Not all agree global warming caused by manmade emissions CO2...

Fox News spot reported Friday.

Special Report w/ Brit Hume

Political Grapevine
The idea that there is a scientific consensus about global warming takes another big hit

Following up...

Here's the Fox News report clip

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Change of Heart

An organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists has reversed its stance on climate change. The American Physical Society now says that many of its members no longer believe global warming is caused by humans.

The Society previously declared: "The evidence is incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring." But the Society now says there is no scientific consensus to support that statement: "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the intergovernmental panel on climate change conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are likely to be primarily responsible for global warming."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386481,00.html

It's not like skeptics haven't been of a professional background before this. Check our site archives for listing of scientists, skeptics among them, Ronald Bailey's writings until his trip to a UN Climate Change Conference in 2005 where upon return he sang: "We're All Global Warmers, Now," Bill Gray, and the Great Global Warming Scandal video...

But unfortunately, the Fox News clip report is entitled incorrectly. And its first sentence is wholly misleading.

The American Physical Association did not as a whole change its position. Some of the members have written a paper which continues the debate...

Read the update response after the initial report made the mainstream news rounds...

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."...

Updated 7/17/2008

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

The follow-up we try to get the situation down to as clear as clear can be, but sometimes it all remains smoggy, cloudy, hazy...

Net the Truth Online

Saturday, November 10, 2007
NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming

http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html

Many a noted scientist are actually acknowledging a plateau in the earth's warming trend and that the earth is actually cooling...

Read interview with Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

Scientist: Earth Cooling, Not Warming

Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:53 AM

By: Philip V. Brennan Article Font Size

A San Francisco-based scientist says that current solar activity strongly indicates that the earth is on the verge of a new ice age.

"Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh," warns Phil Chapman writing in The Australian. Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

"The scariest photo I have seen . . . is at www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory [SOHO], located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity," Chapman wrote, adding ominously that "what is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot."

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming_ice_age/2008/04/24/90591.html

Here's a link about the American Physical Association some of the membership disagreeing that there is a concensus, posted by scout.com and we'll include the last line.

Note, in light of this recent development, CNN apparently reran a portion of its series globe in Peril last night. this was after Larry King interviewed supporters of UFO aliens are out there along with debunkers... we'll post about that, too.

Like scientists who disagree with the Global Warming Theory "concensus" aren't scientists... geesh...

Whew a slew of links happy reading

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/t/news/science/topics/globalwarming/

And more discussion and info from Hot Air

Consensus collapses: APS re-opens debate on global warming; Update:

APS “reaffirms” stanceposted at 8:34 am on July 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
The American Physical Society had been a proponent of the “consensus” on anthropogenic global warming/climate change — until now. While the main organization has not addressed its position — yet — a major unit within APS has declared global warming unproven and that the IPCC’s conclusions unsupportable. The APS will re-open the debate on global warming with a new paper accusing the IPCC of deliberate obfuscation (via Memeorandum):

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/18/consensus-collapses-aps-re-opens-debate-on-global-warming/

Also see

http://news.yahoo.com/topics/climate-change-and-global-warming

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."...

Updated 7/17/2008

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

Island on global warming theory list; Bush Admin. points to climate change phenomenon ...

Inhabited Island Vanishes Beneath the Waves; Global Warming Blamed
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Dec 27, 4:53 PM (ET) by JOHN HEILPRIN
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238634,00.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece

See more on this issue at Net the Truth Online

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/ronald-bailey-admits-hes-wrong-about.html

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/52-new-species-found-bolster-crichton.html

Plate shift rather than global warming? Hyscience

Comment: We need to remember that Earth's plates are shifting in this region (plate tectonics). The island disappearing under the waves may be a result of plate shifting more than any global warming effects. Actually, the submergence was too fast for global warming

.

http://www.hyscience.com/comments_page.php

Lohachara island global warming plate shifting

http://smalltownveteran.typepad.com/

Some locals aren't buying that global warming line, by the way...

http://theaustralianindex.com/?page=search&searchterms=%22global+warming%22

Polar bears and climate change: A polarizing issue
December 27, 2006 11:56 AM PST
del.icio.us
Environmentalists and global-warming naysayers shifted into high gear Wednesday in response to news that the Interior Department will hold public hearings on a Bush administration proposal to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Citing comments by an unnamed Interior Department official, The Washington Post reported that studies focusing on how the bears deal with shrinking Arctic sea ice, which they need for hunting, are prompting the department to submit the proposal Wednesday for publication in the Federal Register. The period for public comment on the proposal is 90 days after its publication.

Under pressure from environmental groups, the Interior Department has been examining the bears' response to climate change in some regions for the past two years. The issue is politically charged because the Bush administration has so far been reluctant to acknowledge that concerns about global warming, which scientists say is driven by power-plant and vehicle emissions, are based on solid scientific evidence...

http://news.com.com/2061-11204_3-6146066.html


Govt. Sees Polar Bears As 'Threatened'

WASHINGTON (AP) - Polar bears are in jeopardy and need stronger government protection because of melting Arctic sea ice related to global warming, the Bush administration said Wednesday.

Pollution and overhunting also threaten their existence. Greenland and Norway have the most polar bears, while a quarter of them live mainly in Alaska and travel to Canada and Russia.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Wednesday proposed listing polar bears as a "threatened" species on the government list of imperiled species. The "endangered" category is reserved for species more likely to become extinct.

continued

...Environmentalists hope that invoking the Endangered Species Act protections eventually might provide impetus for the government to cut back on its emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases blamed for warming the atmosphere.

The proposed listing also marks a potentially significant departure for the administration from its cautious rhetoric about the effects of global warming. Kempthorne cited the thinning sea ice brought about by global warming as the main culprit, although he said his department wasn't required by the endangered species law to study climate change.

President Bush's steadfast refusal to go along with United Nations-brokered mandatory controls on carbon dioxide, the chief global warming gas, has contributed to tensions between the United States and other nations.

Polar bears, an iconic and cold weather-dependent animal, are dropping in numbers and weight in the Arctic. In July, the House approved a U.S.-Russia treaty to help protect polar bears from overhunting and other threats to their survival

...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061227/D8M9EN281.html

US Proposes Listing Polar Bears as Threatened Species by David McAlary
Washington 27 December 2006

McAlary report (Real Audio) - Download 322k
Listen to McAlary report (Real Audio)

The United States is proposing to declare polar bears a threatened species because of their shrinking Arctic ice habitat. As we hear from VOA's David McAlary, analysts say the move is an unusual admission by the Bush administration that global warming is an environmental threat...

U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne says he is making the proposal because receding Arctic sea ice may be responsible for polar bear population declines. He notes that Canada's western Hudson Bay polar bear numbers have dropped 22 percent and Alaskan polar bears may be suffering the same pressures, although he says their population decline is not yet statistically significant.

http://voanews.com/english/2006-12-27-voa44.cfm

Bush administration proposes listing polar bears as threatened species
JOHN HEILPRIN
Published 2006-12-27 | Page
WASHINGTON (AP) -

Polar bears are in jeopardy and need stronger government protection because of melting Arctic sea ice related to global warming, the U.S. administration said Wednesday.

Pollution and overhunting also threaten their existence. Greenland and Norway have the most polar bears, while a quarter of them live mainly in Alaska and travel to Canada and Russia.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Wednesday proposed listing polar bears as a "threatened" species on the government list of imperiled species. The "endangered" category is reserved for species more likely to become extinct

...

http://www.canadaeast.com/ce2/docroot/article.php?articleID=84587

US says global warming threatens polar bears
By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in New York
Published: December 27 2006 23:30 | Last updated: December 27 2006 23:30

Polar bears should be classified as a threatened species because global warming could cause their habitat to melt away, the Bush administration said on Wednesday.

The iconic arctic animals were being threatened by receding ice, said Dirk Kempthorne, secretary of the Interior Department, who stopped short of calling for an investigation into the causes of climate change, saying the issue was beyond his department’s remit.

“We need to just concentrate and focus on the species and its habitat,” he said, adding the George W. Bush administration had already spent $29bn researching climate change issues and related technology.

While the proposal did not represent a clear departure from the Bush administration’s stance on global warming, it marked the first time the White House had pointed to climate change as a phenomenon that could threaten the survival of a species.
Administration officials said they proposed adding polar bears to the threatened species list because Fish and Wildlife Service biologists feared that Alaska’s population of polar bears could experience a significant decline in the future. ..

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f673569a-95ff-11db-9976-0000779e2340.html

Climate Change May Put Polar Bear on Threatened List
All Things Considered, December 27, 2006 ·

The federal government says climate change threatens the polar bear with extinction, and the efforts under way to arrest global warming will not be adequate to save the mighty Arctic predator.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6687070

Proposal to List the Polar Bear as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act
The Service has proposed to protect the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA.) A proposed rule (pdf) that would add the polar bear to the federal list of threatened and endangered species was submitted to the Federal Register on December 27, 2006, we anticipate this notice being published on January 11, 2007, opening a 90-day comment period on this proposed listing.

The primary threat to polar bears is the decrease of sea ice coverage. Although some females use snow dens on land for birthing cubs, polar bears are almost completely dependent upon sea ice for their sustenance. Any significant changes in the abundance, distribution, or existence of sea ice will have effects on the number and behavior of these animals and their prey.

This proposed listing responds to a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, dated February 16, 2005, to list the polar bear as threatened and to designate critical habitat. The Service’s comprehensive review of the status of the polar bear determined that the best available scientific and commercial data indicates that protecting the species as threatened throughout its range is appropriate. The Service now seeks public review of our proposed rule

...

continued

Potential Effects of Contaminants and/or Climate Change on Polar Bears
Ecological changes in the Arctic related to both anthropogenic and natural patterns are poorly understood but are of significant conservation concern. A circumpolar study is currently underway to determine contaminant levels in polar bears and compare results with findings from a similar study completed 10 years ago. A bio-monitoring program is ongoing in Alaska.

Changes in sea ice as a result of global warming are known to affect polar bear productivity in other parts of the Arctic. An effort is currently underway in Alaska to assess sea ice habitat selection by polar bears using polar bear satellite radio locations and National Ice Center charts

...

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm

Debate on Global Warming Has Polar Bear Hunting in Its Sights

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

A Global Warning on Global Warming
The top of the world is melting. There's been a debate burning for years about the causes of global warming, but the scientists you're about to meet say the debate is over. The seas are rising, the earth is getting hotter and polar bears may be headed toward extinction. What does the melting Arctic look like? 60 Minutes Correspondent Scott Pelley went north to see.

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/26/global_warming?comment_offset=1691

NRDC

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience2005.asp

Offshoots

POLAR BEARS ON THIN ICE?

Daily Policy Digest

GLOBAL WARMING

Environmental alarmists have made much of research claiming the Arctic's polar bear faces extinction from human-caused global warming, says H. Sterling Burnett, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. But, says Burnett, those claims ignore contradictory research, including a new study by David Legates, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research. Legates' new study, published by the National Center for Policy Analysis, points to research showing:

Air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet have decreased by 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since measurements began in 1987.

The maximum air temperature that Russian coastal stations reported for the 20th century was in 1938, when it was nearly four-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than the air temperature in 2000.

In Alaska, the onset of a climatic shift -- a warming -- in 1976-1977 ended the multi-decade cold trend in the mid-20th century returning temperatures to those of the early 20th century.

Interestingly, says Burnett, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. But its own data on some 22,000 polar bears in about 20 distinct populations worldwide seems to contradict their claims:

Only two bear populations are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region. Another two populations are growing, and they live in areas were air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea.

These bears have survived for thousands of years, during both colder and warmer periods, and their populations are by and large in good shape, says Burnett. Polar bears may face many threats, but global warming is not primary among them. Source: Sterling Burnett, "Polar bears on thin ice?" Washington Times, May 15, 2006.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e9b225f7-e642-41f4-98f1-27003c985a47

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060514-094348-8238r.htm

For more on Global Warming:

http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=science

More
19 Dec 2005
How to be a real sceptic
Filed under: Climate Science— gavin @ 8:52 am

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=210

Two Sides to Global Warming
Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?
Ronald Bailey | November 10, 2004

...So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional wisdom—or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There's plenty of evidence for both positions, and I'll keep reporting the data and the controversy...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

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

Glenn Beck unconvinced man causing global warming

Heard the Glenn Beck comments first-hand so the transcript appears to be dead-on accurate. But you do have to re-read. At first hearing, it appeared Beck agreed to "maybe man is causing global warming." Upon further reading the transcript, it appears Beck paraphrased what others say "maybe man is causing global warming."

I don't think Glenn Beck will be following in the footsteps of Reason Magazine's Ronald Bailey with a conversion period that leads to acceptance of manmade global warming, according to Bailey in his 2005 article, We're all global warmers now.

We're All Global Warmers Now
Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place
Ronald Bailey | August 11, 2005

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

See sidebar posting Special Focus: Global Warming Issue

Speaking to James Hagee about signs the end times are here, Beck asks Hagee specifically about global warming...

Hagee says he doesn't believe in global warming.

Beck asserts he believes global warming is happening, but he is unconvinced of man's contribution or causing global warming.

Beck can settle the matter for all of us. He should have the author of the book the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, Christopher C. Horner, on (again) but immediately after an invite to Ronald Bailey.

He should then have Al Gore, and follow that up with Michael Crichton.

He then should interview Chris Matthews, followed by Dr. John Christy.

He should invite Anderson Cooper and then invite Don Easterbrook.

Corner Lou Dobbs, then invite Timothy Ball

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball Monday, February 5, 2007

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

See where we're going with this.

Beck's the only one who can present one side in one interview and a dose of the other side in a follow-up interview.

He as well as the rest of us should beware of hidden messages - however - subliminal messages - they are everywhere.

BECK: Do you believe that global warming is a possible sign?

HAGEE: I don`t believe in global warming.

BECK: You don`t believe the earth is getting warmer?

HAGEE: No.

BECK: Really?

HAGEE: No.

BECK: No changes?

HAGEE: No.

BECK: OK. So what is the -- what is the next sign? I mean, you know, I believe it`s getting warmer. Science tells us it`s getting warmer. I don`t believe man is causing it. I don`t believe that -- maybe man is causing it. I`m not convinced of that. I definitely don`t think we can solve it.

But I mean, the earth is constantly cycling. We`ve seen forever that it gets colder and warmer and colder and warmer.

HAGEE: I`m certainly for clean air and clean water, but I have books in my library written by very responsible people up into the middle 80s were talking about the ice age, where Canada was supposed to be a block of ice right now.

And now we`re talking about global warming, and I think the Kyoto Treaty is really nothing more than something to manipulate the economy of the United States.

BECK: It`s global -- it`s global socialism. Quickly, we`ve only got a minute. So give me the next one.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/12/gb.01.html

Meteorologists debate global warming

John Gibson had a spot about Cullen of the Weather Channel and followed up with a comment about a meteorologist who said he doesn't know of one meteorologist who believes the global warming hype.

Heidi Cullen

A VERY POLITICAL CLIMATE
I wrote a post recently that has generated some pretty strong reaction and I wanted to take a moment to stop the spin.

I am a scientist. And I'm a skeptic.

AND after more than a century of research -- based on healthy skepticism -- scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It's warming up -- glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from -- among other things -- the burning of fossil fuels.

With that knowledge comes responsibility.

Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.

Our position on global warming is supported by the scientific community ... including the American Meteorological Society. Their official statement says:

"There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change."

I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.

Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a landfalling hurricane or global warming.

Consistent with this goal, on this site and on The Climate Code we aim to help our viewers better understand why scientists are so concerned about climate change -- and then to decide for themselves what they want to do about it.

The bottom line is ... this issue isn't going away.

That said, I would like to extend invitations to any of my colleagues in climatology or meteorology to join this discussion by posting a blog on this site or even coming on The Climate Code...

http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11592.html

American weather forecasters do battle over mankind's role in global warming
By David Usborne in New York
Published: 19 January 2007
A leading climatologist on the Weather Channel in the United States has caused a squall in the industry by arguing that any weather forecaster who dares publicly to question the notion that global warming is a manmade phenomenon should be stripped of their professional certification.

The call was made by Heidi Cullen, host of a weekly global warming programme on the cable network called The Climate Code, and coincides with a stretch of severely off-kilter weather across the US this winter and moves by Democrats to draft strict new legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Specifically, Ms Cullen is suggesting that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revokes the "seal of approval" that it normally extends to broadcast forecasters in the US in cases where they have expressed scepticism about man's role in pushing up planetary temperatures...

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2165452.ece

Posted by Marc Morano marc_morano@epw.senate.gov

After EPW blog post yesterday Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

check out this blog post from ABC-TV Alabama affiliate weatherman James Spann

http://www.jamesspann.com/blog.htm

Also check out Weather Channel response to the controversy http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3ab9e37d-802a-23ad-430e-1c42aad22006&Region_id=&Issue_id=

The Weather Channel Mess
January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf

Con job at The Weather Channel
Posted: January 5, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern




This week Americans observed a national day of mourning (I'm speaking not of President Ford's funeral, but rather the day that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seized power in Congress).
Far-left political ideologies are being promulgated through ever-increasing mediums, and recently I noticed that a once-vaunted American television network, The Weather Channel, had succumbed to the cancerous spread of liberalism.

The Weather Channel debuted in 1982 and went on to earn a reputation as a well-known and respected cable network. The explosive success of the cable channel prompted the publication of a book marking the network's 20th anniversary. That success has been based on the fact that weather forecasts are sought after by a vast number of Americans on a near-daily basis.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636

More at Net the Truth Online use search of blog feature for terms william gray, global warming, michael crichton, state of fear, ron bailey, we're all global warmers now

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

Media too balanced on global warming? What planet Gore residing?

Update

'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary
Sunday, 4th March 2007, 11:04
Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.

‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.

The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world’s poor.

Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2.

Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as it claims that climate change is natural, has been occurring for years, and ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn.

A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don’t believe you – it’s taken ten years to get this commissioned.

"I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists – people with qualifications – are the bad guys.

"It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.

"It’s very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.

"Al Gore might have won an Oscar for ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, but the film is very misleading and he has got the relationship between CO2 and climate change the wrong way round."

One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.

He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth’s history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.

Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which dissolve the gas.

When the temperature increases, more gas is released into the atmosphere and when global temperatures cool, more CO2 is taken in. Because of the immense size of the oceans, he said they take time to catch up with climate trends, and this ‘memory effect’ is responsible for the lag.

Scientists in the programme also raise another discrepancy with the official line, showing that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, when global temperatures then fell for four decades.

It was only in the late 1970s that the current trend of rising temperatures began.

This, claim the sceptics, is a flaw in the CO2 theory, because the post-war economic boom produced more CO2 and should, according to the consensus, have meant a rise in global temperatures.

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary

Wednesday, 02/28/07
Gore says media miss climate message
Journalists have leaned toward balance at expense of consensus data, he says
By BEVERLY KEEL
Staff Writer
Back in Tennessee on Tuesday, Gore told a crowd of about 50 people at the U.S. Media Ethics Summit II that the presentation's single most provocative slide was one that contrasts results of two long-term studies. A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.

He noted that recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth unanimous report calling on world leaders to take action on global warming...

They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias...

http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/NEWS01/702280434/1297/MTCN02

Al Gore's Convenient Lie:
The Global Warming Spin
NewsMax Magazine's special report "Al Gore Spins Global Warming" debunks many widely promulgated notions about the global warming threat and finds that truth is the first casualty in Gore's apocalyptic film.

The compelling report by Lowell Ponte - author of the best-selling book about changing climate, "The Cooling" - and Marc Morano details the propaganda blitz about global warming … and the facts it obscures.

http://www.newsmax.com/adv/jul06/?PROMO_CODE=2E6E-1

Titled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming," Whistleblower tells the rest of the story the "mainstream press" will never reveal.
Posted: March 1, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The U.N. recently announced global warming is leading inexorably to global catastrophe. Al Gore won the "best documentary" Oscar for his disaster film "An Inconvenient Truth." The news media beat the drum of "climate catastrophe" daily, all but ignoring scientists who say the threat is overblown or nonexistent. And across America, school children are frightened to death with tales of rising oceans, monster tornadoes, droughts and millions dying – all because of man-made global warming.

However, hidden just beneath the surface of the world's latest environmental craze is a stunningly different reality, as the March edition of WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine documents.

Titled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming," Whistleblower tells the rest of the story the "mainstream press" will never reveal.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54483

Developing nations hit back on climate change
27 Feb 2007 18:43:44 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Robin Pomeroy

ROME, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Developing countries, including emerging economic giants China and India, are not prepared to take the blame for climate change, the head of the G77 group of developing nations said on Tuesday. Some countries in Europe and North America want developing countries to accept limits on their emissions of greenhouse gases when the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012, but the G77 looks likely to oppose that.

"Most environmental degradation that's happened has been historically caused by the industrial world," said Munir Akram, Pakistan's permanent representative to the United Nations and chairman of the G77 group in New York.

"China, India and others are at the stage where they are now taking off and it's quite natural that their emissions of carbon are increasing," he told a news conference after a two-day meeting of G77 diplomats in Rome.

"There's a sort of propaganda effort to try to shift the blame for environmental degradation on to these fast-growing economies, and the motives are not very well disguised."

One of the main reasons U.S. President George W. Bush pulled his country out of Kyoto was that the 1997 U.N. treaty only imposed emissions limits on developed countries.

The European Union remained in the pact but wants developing countries included in a second phase treaty which will be discussed at a U.N. climate change meeting in Bali, Indonesia in December.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report, released earlier this month, predicted global temperatures would rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 Celsius (3.2 and 7.8 Fahrenheit) this century due to the greenhouse effect.

Emissions from industry and transport, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), a by-product of burning fossil fuels like oil and coal, are blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere in a process set to increase disasters like floods and droughts.

"The developing countries contribute the least to environmental degradation but are affected the most," read a statement issued by the G77 after the Rome meeting, which covered everything from aid to U.N. reform...

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L27392364.htm

Gore Live Earth Concert

The best way to deflate erroneous information is to have widespread access to the information and an opportunity to dispute it point by point.

That's exactly what is happening with Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth documentary for which Hollywood handed him an Academy Award.

Point by point, errors in the documentary are being exposed.

And the news coverage as we all know leans towards the global warmers position with just about every major mainstream print media online linking features and articles pro-manmade global warming to every article published online. They overwhelmingly ignore any information that disputes Gore.

But even with all the free exposure, an Academy Award win, more free exposure, and trips around the world and in U.S., more free press coverage, when polled, less than one-fourth of the American public believes Al Gore is an expert on the issue.

24% Consider Al Gore Global Warming Expert

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2007/March/alGoreGlobalWarming.htm

That's a recent poll. Just wait as the public becomes privy to the other-side - the arguments of the skeptics who point by point challenge and dispute Gore's facts. The truth is much more difficult to get out when global warming (manmade) debunkers are demonized. Compared to holocaust deniers, they're called global warming deniers.

Few media networks other than Fox News Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly Factor, and Fox 'n Friends even discussed the recent New York Times piece, March 13, 2007 "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype" by William J. Broad, but bloggers across the net did.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/will-new-york-times-get-pulitzer-for.html

Senators Reid and Snowe introduced a bipartisan resolution Senate Con. Res. 17 also S. Con. Res. 24: A concurrent resolution authorizing the use of Capitol grounds for the Live Earth Concert to enable Gore's Live Earth concert to be staged in Washington DC, but the resolution apparently was blocked by Senate Republicans last week, according to a report at blogger Bob McCarty's site http://bobmccarty.wordpress.com/2007/03/26/gop-senators-block-live-earth-concert-resolution/.

According to the Politico, the Senate measure remains in the Rules and Administration Committee.

With the Republican action, Gore simply gets sympathy and the big-bad Republicans who blocked the resolution get negative press coverage for being partisan while the validity of the contents of the documentary and the global warming theorists hype slides under the radar.

If the concert would go forth in Washington, scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday portrayal would have another opportunity to continue to shoot down one by one the errors and misinformation of An Inconvenient Truth.

Don't miss the Great Global Warming Swindle video documentary (links at sidebar) or

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/F084DA7F-75E3-4ADE-9736-F216FAC97D9C/

Don't miss sidebar James Spann WeatherBrains - streaming video archives which feature interviews with not-so-well-known names, but scientific experts nonetheless, who refute global warming theory as portrayed.

Each time you hear about An Inconvenient Truth and Al Gore, replay the Great Global Warming Swindle, revisit Spann's site, and of course, revisit Net the Truth Online which links to those pesky debunkers as well as Ronald Bailey and Al Gore.

The United States public is not convinced on manmade global warming, otherwise, Gore wouldn't need to stage a massive concert here and have rock stars sing-song how we're all doomed.

If the American public were overwhelmingly of one mind on manmade global warming Gore's film wouldn't be the only one shown in elementary schools and high schools.

If the public here were already convinced, the mainstream media wouldn't continue day after day with its one-sided news coverage to try to convince them.

How about the sixth grade class that held a mock trial of global warming? Given both sides, the majority determined it couldn't be proved humans were the primary cause of global warming!

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/03/evidence-convincing-humans-blameless-on.html

Contrary to Ronald Bailey's We're All Global Warmers Now, we're not.

The fact We're Not All Global Warmers Now - for good reason - is increasingly being made known by citizen journalists all across the internet.

GOP Senators Block ‘Live Earth Concert’ Resolution
March 26th, 2007 ·
On Friday, Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s attempt to give Rev. Al Gore and members of The Warmin’ Church™ permission to stage a revival (a.k.a., “Live Earth Concert”) on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol...

http://bobmccarty.wordpress.com/2007/03/26/gop-senators-block-live-earth-concert-resolution/

March 25, 2007
Senate GOP Says No to Al Gore-Global Warming Concert at Capitol

You probably didn't notice it (since readers of The Crypt have actual lives), but late Friday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to get Senate Republicans to allow former Vice President Al Gore to stage a global warming concert on Capitol grounds. But Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) objected to Reid's request, and the resolution authorizing the concert, for now, remains stuck in the Rules and Administration Committee.

Specifically, what Reid tried to do was get an unanimous consent agreement approving S. Con. Res. 24, which would permit Live Earth and the Alliance for Climate Protection, which Gore runs, to stage a July 7 concert on Capitol grounds...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0307/Senate_GOP_Says_No_to_Al_GoreGlobal_Warming_Concert_at_Capitol.html

Gore's Live Earth Concert May Be Staged at Capitol
By J. Freedom du Lac
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; Page C02

Rock on, Al Gore.

That's the message coming from Capitol Hill, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced a resolution yesterday to allow Gore to stage a global-warming concert on the Capitol grounds...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201620.html?nav=hcmodule

Gore Gets a Hand From Congress for Climate Concert
By Jeremy Pelofsky
Reuters
Mar 14, 2007 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President and environment crusader Al Gore still has some pull in Washington, D.C. — getting a venue for a rock concert.

The former Democratic presidential candidate had wanted to highlight the need to address global warming by staging one of seven worldwide "Live Earth" concerts on the National Mall in the U.S. capital on July 7.

But two events already are scheduled for that day on the Mall so Gore reached out to a close friend in Congress, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to use the front lawn of the Capitol — albeit a much smaller area.

Reid of Nevada and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine have introduced a resolution in the Senate offering the Capitol grounds for the event. It would also have to pass the U.S. House of Representatives...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2948528

Gore eyes venue for climate concert: Congress
National Mall taken, so he's asked for 'Live Earth' event on Capitol lawn

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17600495/

Al Gore to Announce Global Climate Change Concert Series
Thursday, February 15, 2007

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252149,00.html

24% Consider Al Gore Global Warming Expert
March 24, 2007

Al Gore Former Vice President Al Gore (D) received a warm welcome on Capitol Hill last week for his testimony on the environment and Global Warming. However, while he is now an Academy Award winner and celebrity activist, just 24% of Americans consider Gore an expert on Global Warming. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 1,000 adults found that 47% say he is not an expert on the topic (see crosstabs).

In fact, just 36% of Americans say that Gore knows what he is talking about when it comes to the environment and Global Warming. Thirty-one percent (31%) say he does not know what he is talking about while 33% are not sure. Women, by a 2-to-1 margin, say Gore knows what he is talking about. Men, by a similar margin, say he does not. (More Below)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2007/March/alGoreGlobalWarming.htm

Climate expert says Gore's concert tour fueled by exaggeration

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/climate_expert_says_gores_conc.php

Global Warming Debate Continues in 2007

Don't miss Net the Truth Online previous research and links on global warming, including information and references...

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

Melanie Morgan Posted: January 12, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern world net daily
Liberal hot air

On another front, reaction continues to pour in from my column last week, which exposed the blatant move by The Weather Channel to advocate a liberal stand on global warming.

Environmental activists are furious that I mocked the failed prediction by climatologists and weather forecasters about the 2006 hurricane season. The global warming crowd promised a devastating year of powerful cyclones fueled by the warming of the earth. As it was, not one single hurricane struck the United States during the entire hurricane season.

I pointed out that this was just one example of why listening to people who have been proven wrong about forecasts time and again, and letting them dictate how we lived our lives, was insane.

I suggest everyone read this copy of the June 24, 1974, article in Time magazine where the junk science crowd in climatology beat their chests about the coming ice age. The article is literally titled, "Another Ice Age." Now, just 30 years (and no ice age) later, they say the earth is heating up and the ice caps are melting.

How many times will these people be proven wrong about global warming before brave politicians stand up and confront those who are trying to engage in social engineering?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53738


Con job at The Weather Channel Posted: January 5, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Melanie Morgan

This week Americans observed a national day of mourning (I'm speaking not of President Ford's funeral, but rather the day that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seized power in Congress).
Far-left political ideologies are being promulgated through ever-increasing mediums, and recently I noticed that a once-vaunted American television network, The Weather Channel, had succumbed to the cancerous spread of liberalism.

The Weather Channel debuted in 1982 and went on to earn a reputation as a well-known and respected cable network. The explosive success of the cable channel prompted the publication of a book marking the network's 20th anniversary. That success has been based on the fact that weather forecasts are sought after by a vast number of Americans on a near-daily basis.

What had been nice about The Weather Channel is that through most of its history it stayed clear of political propaganda and focused on delivering weather forecasts to the nation, supplemented with riveting live reports from the front lines of hurricanes, winter blizzards and springtime floods.

But no more. The Weather Channel is now engaged in a con job on the American people, attempting to scare the public that their actions are destroying the planet by creating a global warming crisis.

The move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy is in part due to the influence of Wonya Lucas, executive vice president and general manager of The Weather Channel Networks...

Emotional weather forecasting?

The Weather Channel is launching a new website and broadband channel dedicated solely to global warming called "One Degree" and has a weekly program called "The Climate Code," devoted almost entirely to liberal advocacy on climate matters.

The network is running advertisements showcasing scared and confused Americans, including children and senior citizens, wondering about the coming apocalypse caused by global warming. (You can view the ad for yourself here.)

The chief martyr for the new "emotional" approach to broadcasting at The Weather Channel is Dr. Heidi Cullen, who serves as the network's cheerleader for global warming hysteria. Cullen's supposed expertise on climatology includes, among other things, earning a bachelor's degree in Near Eastern religions and history from Juniata College. One must indeed have to believe in the mystical to accept anything Ms. Cullen has to say about climatology.

Writing for the One Degree blog, Ms. Cullen recently threw a hissy fit that some meteorologists are openly questioning the conclusions drawn by the Greenpeace crowd about the nature, extent, causes and even existence of global warming.

Cullen's diatribe, titled "Junk Controversy Not Junk Science," called on the American Meteorological Society to start requiring all meteorologists to tow the line on liberal interpretation of global warming, or else lose the organization's certification.

George Orwell's 1984 couldn't have concocted a better form of thought control.

The global warming crowd, led by arrogant hustlers such as Heidi Cullen at The Weather Channel, has set up a no-lose situation for themselves.

Climatology is by definition the study of long-term climate trends, and it will indeed be many decades or longer before any definitive conclusions about even the existence of global warming – let alone its causes – can be determined to be true or false. This means that Cullen and her cohorts can't be held accountable for their erroneous beliefs.

Even still, we can see how foolish it is to allow people like Heidi Cullen to influence decision-makers to impose further restrictions and regulations on the actions of human beings. Global warming scaremongers jumped on the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the busy 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and went on to predict that 2006 would be a potentially devastating year of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Ocean.

As it was, not one single hurricane made landfall in the U.S...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/

Related

JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE
Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate Expert
December 21, 2006

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

Another Ice Age? Time Magazine
June 24, 1974

http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

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