“The Weather Channel” Mess
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.
WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.
I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.
January 18th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Revoking AMS Certification on qualified meterologists just because they don’t buy into the global warming hype would be a really stupid move. It seems tolerance is not a two-way street but more of a its their way or the highway type attitude. Good to know not everyone believes this ridiculous hype of man-made climate change.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
I appreciate anyone who has passion for whatever issue they are discussing. That being said, suggesting that someones certification be revoked because they disagree with you is a little over the line. So, what about Global warming? I think evidence clearly suggests that the environment is heating up. I also totally believe this is a natural cycle. That being said, humans are dumping large amounts of junk into the atmosphere and we should all be more cautious about the environment, but to blame what is likely a natural cycle on people is a little premature.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I think that Al Gore has Heidi Cullen on his payroll. what losers
Take a look at Heidi’s blog here: http://climate.weather.com/blog/
January 18th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I graduated with a degree in Environmental and Natural Sciences. My senior paper was “Global Warming: Does it Effect Climate Change?” I found during three months of intensive research – no, global warming does not effect climate change. The weather patterns are natural cycles. However, global warming is very real, but I tend to agree that some of the stuff we read are hyped up and not as severe as we are led to believe. However, rather than in the next 25 year, it more likely in the next 100 years, Florida, parts of California, India and island chains will indeed be underwater due to the warming of the earth.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
james is correct…..there is ZERO evidence that humans are causing warming….think please, the claim is co2 we generate acts as a greenhouse gas and traps heat(ture to some degree), the problem is that co2 is only a TINY component of our atmosphere far less than 1%, the major greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR and it acts both ways, trapping some heat BUT also blocking out a lot of heat and moving coolness from the atmosphere back to the surface in the form of rain.
the global warming folks call co2 a pollutant, and FACT co2 is NOT a pollutant, it IS necessary for life as we know it on this planet.
water KILLS thousands each year on this planet is all 3 forms, as liquid in drownings, as vapor it burns the skin, and as a solid, well around 50 died last week from solid water contact.
IF co2 is a pollutant then water is a far WORSE pollutant.
james was correct about the climate, constant CHANGE is the natural state on this planet, IF there is a period of stable climate for a long period that indeed would be news because it hasnt happened here YET!
follow the money, and indeed it is shocking that people have the audacity to call themselves scientists, accept these grants, and tell LIES, that anyone with an 8th grade science education should debunk with ease!
January 18th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Hi, Its been a long time since I’ve been on the site (sorry) but I really appreciate all the effort James puts into this blog. I enjoy reading his thoughts ( not forecast ). I think some people get the two confused. Also where did the old weather forum that the so called weekend forecasters would make their predictions/ forecast go to? It was fun reading everyone’s thoughts.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Stand your ground James , thats why your “whole team” , how ever many of us there are , love you ! How rediculous to want to revoke something that you have EARNED . To you know where with the TWC and whomever .
January 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Way to go James! I always thought you were a man of character and this proves it once again. I think it is ridiculous to revoke someone certification just because they don’t agree with them. This just proves that the days of personal freedom are coming to an end. When we are told what to think and what to believe, something is going wrong. Don’t want to sound like a fanatic, but times really are changing and I’m afraid for the worse. Way to go James, Stand up for what you believe. I wish there were more like you.
January 18th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
At best no one knows for sure if we are adversely affecting the environment. It is arrogant to act as if one knows for certain if the planet is suffering from the way we are living.
Also, has anyone ever noticed that in the first picture at the top of the page the man looks like he is either smothering or comforting an ugly woman?
January 18th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
There are some of us who are scientists (different fields- civil engineers or gov’t energy staff or biologists) who want to protect the environment too. You know, the hippies from the sixties and seventies. Someone from my high school did major work with promoting efficient engines and encouraging the use of electric cars and use of biofuels. My husband and i carpool and we have a flexfuel car even though Alabama is like the last state to have 85 ethanol. We recycle. Maybe Gores film was too corny or too political or too ….. However, i watched a special about China on PBS last night and it was shocking to see the pollution in the rivers and in the air. Reminds me of the news from the sixties in America- rivers full of dead fish. I like to be positive and think of how the air and streams have improved and how this generation needs to be reminded of how much pollution we had and think of what China has now. Solar flares are in cycles, weather is in cycles, etc. Remember the old Weather Channel when it first started? Remember tv without so MANY commercials? I will get off my soapbox. That’s my two cents on the topic. PS Grants are hard to get to fund research of any kind, with this “continuing resolution” especially. The government has not passed a budget and we are on a day to day existence.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Well, I quit watching the Weather Channel a long time ago when it became more “The Commercial Channel” with a little weather information thrown in between the strings of advertisements and self-promotion packages. For me, their “weather credibility quotient” is running too low right now for me to spend my time with them.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
It is unfortunate to see so many folks preaching, and so many willing to consume, the man-made global warming sermons.
Far too many people these days are willing to feed at the Mass Media Diner, ’cause it’s easy and readily available.
We can’t let real scientific data get in the way now can we?
Sort of a case of “my mind’s made up, now don’t confuse me with the facts.”
Not much debate over the world getting warmer. It is. But why do so many “smart” people seem to believe it’s all because of man and our burning of fossil fuels?
Heck, they are SCIENTISTS!
Don’t they know about the various periods of climate change that have occured over the past gazillion years and realize that Fred and Ethel haven’t been driving their Buick but for the last 80 years or so !?
I guess all the previous periods of climate changes were “OK” because they were “natural”.
But now, WHOA, let’s wait a minute here. We’re burnin’ GAS and OIL! Man is now the cause, and that ain’t a good thing.
Geeze!
If all the hot-world worriers were REALLy worried, they be screaming at China, and India, and the other “developing countries”. Nah- far easier, and much more profitable, to bash the USA for being energy hogs and pollution junkies.
I agree with James, for the most part, this ain’t about science, it’s about MONEY.
The Weather Channel has been swallowed by the monster, same as so many other people and media outlets:
“Hey, whaddaya’ know? We’re successful! We must be important too. People will listen to us. Let’s save the world!”
The Weather Channel is now (IMHO) a boon-doggle. Rarely watch it anymore.
Too much drivel for me……
Thanks to James and Bill et. al.
Keep fighting the good fight. But better make it quick guys. The way I figure it, the Gulf of Mexico is going to be up to about Alabaster any day now.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Heidi absolutely has gotten this show off the ground with the fear all the hurricanes put into people about global warming, wierd events like the tsunami and Al Gores’ movie. Never is there a shred of evidence on the Weather Channel against global warming. The funniest thing to me right now is everytime they do their 7 day forecast with maps and temps, the temps over the last week towards the end of the 7 day peroid are always coming back up to near 60 here in Bham. Not once in the last 5 days have those forecasts been close. I know they probably feed off the GFS MOS but I think if you want people the look at you as credible there should be more thought into things like that. Almost like they want it to look warmer, haha!!! Either that or they are scared to be wrong and take a stand……like they have on global warming!!!
January 18th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
This issue is also seen by many in the liberal camp as the best chance in a they have to achieve world wide redistribution of wealth.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
a pet peeve of mine about forecasts…..sometimes you will see when a cold front is moving in a forecast for a high and low on monday of say 55 for high and 40 for low…then tuesday a high of 35 and low of 20.
the “peeve” is that forecast is NOT possible.
the low for one day cant ever be higher than the high for the next day!
if the low for a day happens at night(when cold fronts are moving), at 1159pm the day ends and the low at that time will be the high for the next day if the temps continue to fall.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
#9 Dale, how dare you insult Little Miss Molly!! She is cute, clever, intelligent, loving, and lovable, and very much an important part of this weather site.
You owe her a sincere apology!!!
January 18th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Suggesting that your license be striped because you don’t think global warming is real is absurd… maybe we need to suggest that their license be pulled because they think it is real. I think they are taking it way too far. They have no proof it is real. Nobody does but God. On the other side, I think we need to look at ways to protect the environment and build cleaner automobiles. Researching global warming is a waste of money and effort, we need to focus on protection and not figuring out if Global Warming is real
January 18th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
The ‘religiousness’ of the movement demands that they be stripped of their AMS certification. If these fanatics don’t realize how much they have become like a church, gaea help them.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Thank you! Thank you! Finally someone stands up and reveals the truth. People who say that they understand the global climate cycle without having analyzed millions of years of data (99.99% of those in support of global warming) are fools playing into a money-driven sham.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Decertify any meteorologist who confuses lobbying and political cant with science. Those who make this mistake, have no appreciation for the scientific method.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
On a subject this important we can not rely on scientific process or reason. A board of inquisition should be formed to convince non-believes of the errors of their way.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Hello,
I do not buy this so called global warming. Lets see when is the last time the ice caps reached the temprature above freezing? For this ice to melt wouldnt it have to be above freezing? The fact is that the weather has always changed. And over time the weather gets warmer. If you guys do not recall that their was an ice age long ago. And since that ice age the temp has risen. Earthquakes do cause the ice caps to break (This is natural) The ICE IS NOT MELTING. This is a crazy theory and is not based on any factual information. The weather channel should change its tune or get lost. They need to look at the facts.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
You’ve been link by Drudge…Congrats!
January 18th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I understand (not first hand knowledge, but from a credible source(s)) that many of the data points taken to show increasing temperatures were taken by newer urban centers, aka “heat islands”. If one looks afield from the urban centers, where you have localized weather impact from asphalt & removed forest, you see no change in temperatures. Many charts were provided by Michael Chriten(sp?) in “State of Fear” (now a paperback novel), WITH FOOTNOTES! Although the story line is a work of fiction, the fictional characters argue/debate global warming. Chriton supplies huge numbers of charts, graphs, and www-references from government & educational sites. Go check the sources on the web. They’re real. And it blows the global warming bull$hit out of the water. (Thank you Michael). Now, I support conservation and intelligent industrial & product design. But the enviro-nazis (they ARE ideological fascists) want to roll the industrial & economic clock back 200 years and the population back by a couple billion because man is evil and nature is good. James, thank you for speaking out and naming the beast.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
It’s not just about money. The issue has tremendous political legs, as well, offering, as it does, great leverage as a green/non-green issue, big oil/alternative energy issue, and even republican/democratic issue, as if some of us would be for global warming and some not.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Because of Heidi Cullen’s Socialistic views, I have written the Weather Channel and asked to cancel and asked for a refund for my Premium membership of the Weather Channel. I want the Weather Channel off my desktop.
All members should follow suit.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
I am a fairly educated man (two undergraduate degrees, one Master of Science). I am tired of these so called experts trying to stifle thought and research that disagrees with their pre-conceived point of view. Much of this drivel comes from actors, politicians, and enemies of industry who have no concept of scientific method or thought. Still, they are the same people who tell me that a short 9-11,000 years ago my state (Michigan) was covered by sheet of ice up to one mile thick. Was it automobiles or factories that caused that glacier to melt? Why do we find tropical plants buried in the ice of the arctic? Was that because of the ice age predicted in the 1970′s by these same experts or another caused by man’s progress? We only have to go back to the 1930′s to find a time when average temperatures were higher than today, and only to the 1700′s to find the devastating effects of “the little ice age.” Frankly, I am delighted that warming has opened millions of acres to farming that were to cold when I was a boy and that higher levels of CO2 are bringing faster growth of plants. Just a final thought – aren’t these the same folks that carbon date fossils on the assumption that carbon levels in our atmosphere have remained steady for millions of years?
January 18th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
James! I lived in Bham for many years and always depended on your forecasts and exemplary severe weather coverage. However, on this issue of global warming you have exceeded even my high expectations. What a load of garbage! Divide the last 150 years of instrumented weather history by the 4,000,000,000 years the planet has been around and you will get my level of confidence in the “warming” hype. Yes, something is happening. The trouble is, it has all happened before. Many times. But only this time are there people in a position to profit from it. Why doesn’t anyone mention the “soda bottle” effect? When the oceans warm (sunspot cycle?), they release carbon dioxide just like the fizz in a soda when it warms. Higher CO2 levels are an EFFECT, not a cause! Just wait for the next Krakatoa if you want to see CO2 go up! TWC went to hell when they fired Marnie Stanier.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Right on ! Finally some truth from the Main Stream Media.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Science by consensus – lets come together and agree on the laws of science
New gov’t law – to reduce the amount of greenhouses gases each person must inhale twice for every exhale they make. This will effectively reduce the amount of CO2 by a factor of 1/2.
I teach Physics and if we could all agree I would like to make gravitational acceleration 10 m/sec2 rather than that pesky 9.81 m/sec2. It would make the calculations much easier for my students.
Wouldn’t it be much safer if water froze at a cooler tempearature? So if we can come to an agreement, how about 20 degrees F? And if anyone disagrees with our new fact we will take away their thermometers.
Don’t they teach the difference between facts, theories and hypothesis in in those global warming camps. How about the scientific method? I guess an application of statisitical analysis would be way over the top.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Yep, the earth has been warming for the past 10,000 years, give or take a day. How come nobody asks about the Sun, its energy output and whether or not it is constant? Be sure to note: The Sun will expand into a red giant and the earth will be destroyed by the sun in a billion years, give or take a day
So, what’s there to worry about a little CO2?
January 18th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Where has the science gone? Why the efforts to take away certifications with
those who putting things out there to hold against the light of inspection. Why the efforts to prevent government scientists from publishing without “peer”
review? Where has the methodology gone to hear, inspect, defend and test? How very far we have come since the Golden Age and the Renaissance, bullying for ideology and greed still abounds.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
MAN MADE is the real issue. Can you imagine someone saying murder didn’t exist? That would be crazy. But we have to ask what is the CAUSE. The Cause, the cause, the cause, did I already say the cause? If Al Gore and the millions who follow him could just admit that they came up with a great scheme. Global Warming, sure. But could we please address the simple question of “Is global warming natural or man-made”?
I also want to know who was driving the SUV’s 150,000 years ago to cause that global warming or the previous 100 global warming events.
Al Gore won’t tell you what happens just AFTER a global warming cycle. I’ll give you a hint:We all get to move to Cuba for life.
January 18th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Taking away AMS certification may be a little severe, but on the other hand, clearly anyone who refuses to believe that humans have any affect on the weather is no one anyone should listen to about anything.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
The global warming theory offers the mechanism for the biggest increasein taxation in the history of mankind. Of course the goverment is going to support it. Europe needs Kyoto type protocol taxes and restrictions to shackle the US competitiveness, so they are pushing for it as well. Crichton’s book “State of Fear” included an interesting theory, that since the advent of the internet, the universities have lost their monopoly on knowledge, and have now reinvented themselves as inventing new crises for the government to protect us from to get our votes, and the media to scare us with to hold its audience. In turn the government funds the research for those crises that keep them in office. Global warming is just one of those bogus issues.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
James Spann is the man.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
James, the only reason to watch TWC is to see if Jim Cantore will finally get taken out by a sheet of wind-borne corrugated metal. Count me as a scientist who believes that global warming is caused by hot air in congress and overheated printing presses at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Wonderful. someone has discovered something that has been going on for thousands of years! Nearly every morning the earth is ever so gently warmed by energy from our own sun and almost every evening it ever so gently cools again on average. It is warmer in the summer than it is in the winter, on average. It can be hotter during drought times than wet times on average. Once upon a time glaciers were here where people now live in homes. Once upon a time Large mammals ate fresh green plants where snow, ice and glaciers now cover the ground. Just because it did not happen in your lifetime does not mean it has not happened before. Science says some of our volcano’s put out more Green house gases in a week than we could create in a year. I don’t know if the answers , but I know that in the 1970′s the coming Ice Age was all the scientific rage of the day with money and articles thrown towards the study of coldness. Perception is reality, but Reality is not always perception.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
For those who advocate “man made” global warming I have
one question. What caused the melting of glaciers which
covered the mid-west in ace age era? These glaciers were
over 1000 foot deep and formed the great lakes of today.
That was 10,000 years ago when man was not burning oil,
natural gas or even coal. All the cave man of that era had
was twigs and small tree branches. It took a lot of effort
to start fire using two flint stones. Did the cave man burn
too many twigs?
January 18th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Wonderful. someone has discovered something that has been going on for thousands of years! Nearly every morning the earth is ever so gently warmed by energy from our own sun and almost every evening it ever so gently cools again on average. It is warmer in the summer than it is in the winter, on average. It can be hotter during drought times than wet times on average. Once upon a time glaciers were here where people now live in homes. Once upon a time Large mammals ate fresh green plants where snow, ice and glaciers now cover the ground. Just because it did not happen in your lifetime does not mean it has not happened before. Science says some of our volcano’s put out more Green house gases in a week than we could create in a year. I don’t know the answers , but I know that in the 1970′s the coming Ice Age was all the scientific rage of the day with money and articles thrown towards the study of coldness. Perception is reality, but Reality is not always perception.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I AM SURPRISED ANYONE FROM THE WEATHER CHANNEL SAID OR DID ANYTHING ANYMORE CONCERNING WEATHER..THEY ARE SO GOOD AT ADVERTISING AND NOT FORCASTING ANYMORE..OH, 2 MINUTES OF WEATHER AND 8 MINUTES OF COMMERCIALS,,OH, LET ME PLEASE WATCH IT.., I QUIT WATCHING THAT CHANNEL YEARS AGO..
January 18th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
No offense, but TV meteorologists mostly only look at local weather conditions. You most likely do not have an extensive backround in things like the effects of greenhouse gasses globally. You’re trained to predict the local temperature and precipitation.
You say that large sums of money go into PROMOTING global warming, but you ignore the massive amounts of corporate money from corporations like Exxon/Mobil put towards proving fossil fuels are not causing global warming. This was even exposed in a recent, nationally circulated article.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
What qualifies al gore as a meteorologist? Is it because he flunked out of Divinity school?
January 18th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Just one more reason women shouldn’t be allowed in the workplace…………..ok obviously I AM JOKING, but sadly Heidi’s ignorant comment is worse than the statement I made above.
Heidi and Gore are FASCIST PIGS!!!
I will NEVER watch her show again.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
NASA has shown that there is global warming on Mars (polar ice caps melting). It has to be because of all of the Martians driving their SUVs, correct? (Hint: Use brain here – Mars warming – no “man” on Mars… Keep trying… You can do it…)
January 18th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
This is really disturbing!
Right on, I truly believe there’s no human involvement in this global warning stuff.
Bob
Wyoming
January 18th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
SNOW IN MALIBU?! THAT’S GLOBAL WARMING FOR YA’
January 18th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Gasp, You mean were not doomed, I guess I don’t have to feel bad when I walk past my bike to drive two miles to work. Cheers everyone and Al Gore you can go back to counting all your big oil stock dividends and counting Tipper’s butt nuggets
January 18th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
So much vitriol over people who dare to ask you to maybe, possibly, consider that you leave an environmental footprint on this earth and it might be a good idea to do some things that could make things better for the environment. While I agree that decertifying people who disagree with you is wrong and shouldn’t be done, I’m amazed at the amount of anger directed at people who simply have a concern for the environment.
Al Gore made a movie. He didn’t force any legislation down people’s throats. He didn’t cut off funding for industrial groups. He simply has something he believes in and is trying to get his message out. If you don’t agree with environmentalism, fine. But for the love of God, why get so angry about it? If there is not enough proof of man-made global warming for you, fine. I can see that. But why not act responsibly anyway, JUST IN CASE?
Its like Pascal’s wager. Very little can be lost by acting in an environmentally responsible manner, and if, in fact, man-made global warming doesn’t exist, then there’s no harm, no foul. If you act responsibly and there is man-made global warming, then you’re helping the environment. If you don’t act responsibly and man-made global warming doesn’t exist, no harm, no foul. If you don’t act responsibly and it does exist, you’re helping to ruin the environment. Given those four choices, the only one that makes sense is to act responsibly, considering its the only one that can’t have a negative outcome.
Partisanship has just gone waaay too far. All this anger seems a bit like cutting one’s nose off to spite his face.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
I can’t waint until CA is submerged, I’ll be 3 hours closer to a nice hot beach!!
Amen to fossil fuels and second hand smoke.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
This is the most comments on this blog post since hurricane Katrina. I find it interesting and agree with James and the majority also. Very intelligent discussions!
January 18th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I have been involved in local television news for 15 years. I have worked in 4 television markets with numerous staff meteorologists. I, too, have never met a single TV meteorologist who believes global warming is man-made. Not a single one. Yet none of them ever voices their skeptecism on the air because its way to political.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
NASA has shown that there is global warming on Mars (polar ice caps melting). It has to be because of all of the Martians driving their SUVs, correct? (Hint: Use brain here – Mars warming – no “man” on Mars… Keep trying… You can do it…)
Another good article – Newsweek in 1975 had a great expose on the impending Ice Age… “Scientists” were in a panic that the Earth was cooling too fast and the government wasn’t going to do anything about it. They wanted to cover the polar ice caps with black soot to melt them. Apparently our SUVs took care of the problem for them. Thank God!!!
January 18th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
What a pity that science has been reduced to fear mongering and ad hominem attacks. I can think of no greater loss to civilization than the impending demolition of science’s respectability. We need more people like James to speak out. Thank you, James.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
James you have more fans than you realize out here. Please continue to speak the truth and we will come behind you as your support. Do not let the minority continue to tell the rest of us to sit down. The time is now to stand !!! Great Job.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I’m not a GW hyper or denier. The only thing that concerns me is that if GW is man-made, the real solution is catastrophic in itself. Does anyone really believe that if they drive a energy efficient car, they can save the world. It would take outlawing cars in the US and Europe to reverse the effects of 6,000,000,000 people.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Here some are again, feeling arrogant, all-seeing all-knowing. NO your
certifications should not be taken away. YES, 100 years or so of humans trying
to protect us by forecasting the weather combined with our recent (world history
wise) onslaught to Mother Earth, it doesn’t ‘look’ good. It is predominately
our plantet’s natural changes. We will most likely see big changes in geological
activity, as well. You can not remove the weight of the ice caps without re-
shaping the world sort of like an egg, and not expect some tectonic shifting/
flexing. So- hang on to your hats, be more self-sufficient, and enjoy the ride.
MARK: Do you own a homeowner’s policy? If so, when you signed that, did you
not agree to the terms listed under acts of God? If you are so anti-religious,
then you should currently be insuring your home with a cash bond.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Stick to your guns, James. Don’t let them tell you what to think. Besides, Mobile will be a cool place to scuba dive when all those homes and buildings are under water. And don’t go buying into that whole “Earth is round” nonsense either.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
It all started with the ozone hole, supposedly caused by r-22. The ‘scientist’ said it was the chlorine in the chloroflourocarbons (refrigerants) that caused the hole. What about the fact that 75% of the earth is covered by a chlorine/sodium brew that lofts its contents upwards of 50000 feet, and has been doing so forever.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
The threat is too specific to the assertion that global warming is occurring. If the consensus is that “global warming” is just a general warming that is not simultaneously killing the atmosphere, then it would be easier for a learned meteorologicalist to say yes or no. But when the definition is contentious, it is simply asking too much for the person to decide yes or no.
It would be insane for a weatherman to say that humans have no effect, but the issue isn’t whether humans have ANY effect, but rather the necessary and sufficient effect that is causing “global warming”.
How can a weatherman be expected in good conscience to agree with proponents of the contention when the proponents can’t show that this warming is unnatural?
They have great statistics and I am still listening to know more, but if they think they have already given us enough info to decide, then they’re the ones who need to be muzzled.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
One of the meteorologists in Cleveland, Dick Goddard, whose AMS number is 45, has said for years that global warming is just a myth, and frankly, being a resident of Northeast Ohio for almost 44 years, I am inclined to believe him. In three of the last five winters here, we have had record snowfalls for an entire winter. And record low temperatures have outnumbered record highs by a two-to-one margin. Isn’t it funny that most of the global warming alarmists never live in a city in the North or Northeast? I’d bet good money there would be fewer of them if they did.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I never thought I would stop watching the Weather Channel after being an avid fan of it for several years. However with the introduction of their sensational series “It could happen tomorrow” I began to have doubts. Anything can happen tomorrow, even honesty in Washington.
Thank you for confirming my doubts.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
To Brian who posted at 11:09 pm:
No offense taken… but many of us tv mets DO have extensive experience with global
climate issues. Many of us have to take climatology courses in college and also keep up to speed on the latest advances in the science.
We ain’t just pretty faces telling you its gonna rain
January 18th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Global warming AND science are both LIES!
They aren’t in the Bible, PERIOD! END OF DISCUSSION!!!
OF course the liberal terrorist/scientists want you to believe their satanism, but the fact is they have no PROOF!!!!
Ask God tonight when you pray, what is the meaning behind all these lies? It is to distract us Christians from the light – do NOT fall for the trap!!!!
God put the planet here to use and would never allow it to harm us, let alone by utilizing God’s fruits!!!
LIBERAL LIES!!!!!!!!!!!
January 18th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Thanks James!
I was very skeptical about the THEORY of global warming when Clinton (while he was president) held a global warming conference in which the major constituents were sociologists, psychologists and the like. At that time, the climatologists hadn’t been funded yet so there weren’t too many of them at the conference. It seemed to be more of an emotional issue than a climate issue.
Hey, I’m a scientist (computer) – I want to see the facts. I want to judge for myself. I don’t want conclusions shoved down my throat, as is currently the case. I see a dearth of valid, scientific discourse and it is very alarming for several reasons of which any reasonable person could discern.
I could see how man-made pollution would have an effect on the environment. However, I don’t see how definitive or even rough estimation of the effect of man could be determined since no VALID model can be constructed to tell the future or could even be used to explain the present. Anyone who says they have a valid model is a charlatan. For goodness’ sake, we don’t even fully understand the effect clouds have on our environment. CLOUDS! It seems absurd but weather is almost infinitely complex! Ask any meteorologist.
The way I see it, it’s a cost benefit thing. Is it worth plundering a SIGNIFICANT portion of the GNP — which could potentially plunge us into economic chaos — before we understand the problem? Do we even KNOW that it is a problem we have caused? Do we KNOW if there is anything corrective that we could perform that would have a SIGNIFICANT effect?
I don’t want to spend trillions of dollars on a “solution” that will end up being no solution at all — sorry, but good intentions are not enough. I don’t want to “feel good” – I want to do what’s right. In this case, doing what’s right might be to do nothing at all. 1) because we may not be the cause of the relatively current warming trend and 2) because there is nothing SUBSTANTIVE that we could do about it anyway regardless of the cause. And no, the wealth redistribution plan of the Kyoto protocol doesn’t cover it.
Regardless, it’s a good idea to cut down on the filth we (citizens of the Earth — not just the US) belch into the environment. I can’t wait for the day that we have seriously reduced our consumption of fossil fuels (coal and oil). The necessary, economically feasible technology isn’t here yet, but hopefully it will be some time soon. What I’m hoping for is relatively cheap technology that would *directly* convert the power of the sun to perform hydrolysis — without the inefficient two step process of sun->electricity->hydrolysis) producing hydrogen and oxygen for use in fuel cells which would power our cars and possibly our power plants. Wouldn’t that be cool?
January 18th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Hey Brian-
I know the answer! All the media people and politicians need to do is get into big jets and fly all over the earth warning people about the dangers of CO2 emissions! How can we believe them when they obviously don’t believe themselves? Meanwhile, socialists like you point at industry defending their self interests against this witch hunt as evil? Govt grants = (B)illions, industry studies and reports= (M)illions. Where is the deck stacked? Your idea of massive is whack. Who really pays? The poor who cannot afford hybrid cars, higher consumption taxes, or higher gas prices. Hit even harder are those poor American Somali’s who did not even get a minimum wage hike by the new corruption-free leadership.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Why are all the other planets warming up over the last 30 years of exploration man has witnessed?, read the Viking/Cassini Probes data collected and verify for yourself. The whole solar system is warming because the sun is growing larger over time….
January 18th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Global warming AND science are both LIES!
They aren’t in the Bible, PERIOD! END OF DISCUSSION!!!
OF course the liberal terrorist/scientists want you to believe their satanism, but the fact is they have no PROOF!!!!
Ask God tonight when you pray, what is the meaning behind all these lies? It is to distract us Christians from the light – do NOT fall for the trap!!!!
God put the planet here to use and would never allow it to harm us, let alone by utilizing God’s fruits!!!
LIBERAL SECULARIST SATANIST LIES!!!!!!!!!!!
January 18th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Paul Douglas here in Minneapolis believes in manmade global warming. He is a long time meteorologist, and he has totally drunk the kool-aid on this one. You will never convince him otherwise. On the other hand, Dave Dahl, an even longer time meteorologist from the same market does not believe in manmade global warming. He is to be commended.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Hmmm. Seems to me that 1. meteorology is, um, a slightly different endeavor than climatology, and so just as one wouldn’t ask a climatologist what the weather is going to be like next week, you wouldn’t put much weight on what a meteorologist thinks is happening to the planet’s climate system; and 2. most meteorologists — sorry — are trained only to the master’s degree level and many television weathercasters not even beyond a bachelors, so they can hardly really be considered at the same level of expertise, now can they? And finally, 3. trying to discredit climate science by this canard of “look how the funding flows” is typical of the pseudo-science, anti-intellectual rightwing wackos. 99.9% of scientists are of the highest integrity and follow the data. Look, they all drive cars and like living the same lifestyle as the rest of us do. If you think they have some subversive agenda to deny us all our lightbulbs, then you are missing one yourself.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
and don’t forget about Mount erebus, the chlorine volcano in Antarctica. Chlorine volcano..ozone hole hmmm.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I applaud Dr. Cullen for making a brave and courageous attempt to weed out the ignorant fools from her profession. The neocon Bushies will stop at nothing to discredit scientists like Dr. Cullen. The TV weathermen are just reading from the White House talking points they get everyday. Those indoctrinated dupes feed the mindless sheeple who believe their local weatherman like he was one of the Biblical prophets. The real scientists should purge their ranks of the fools who doubt “Earth in the Balance” and “An Inconvient Truth”. Vice Presient Gore and Dr. Cullen have more environmental knowledge in their little fingers then all the TV weathermen in the world.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
It seems someone’s tricked our president into believing this whole man-made global warming thing. It shouldn’t be a part of the political agenda… it’s simply a well planned distraction in my humble opinion.
Thanks for speaking out James… finally!
January 18th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
James, You made drudgereport.com!!! Check it out. You will be flooded with press over the next few months. This is your time! Over 25 years waiting, we know you will make us proud. Get some rest and knock these guys out. This will be a challange of sorts, but I think I speak for all of us in Birmingham when I say we have your back, whenever you need us.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Wow. You people are amazingly delusional. Really. You all believe that humans setting fire to billions of gallons of gasoline is having absolutely NO effect on the global climate?
You must realize that if you run a car in a closed garage it will eventually kill you.
But when you release it all on the road and into the skies you believe it just magically goes away. That’s insane.
Also, you should understand the theory before you mock it. Freezing temperatures in Malibu isn’t an argument that Global Warming doesn’t exist. Some scientists would see this as a confirmation of the erratic weather patters predicted by Global Warming. Global Warming doesn’t mean that temperatures everywhere in the world constantly get higher. It means that rainfall may not come where and when it used to. Highs in some areas may be higher than expected, lows may be lower. I encourage you all for the sake of our futures and our children’s futures that you at least keep an open mind on this subject.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I feel sorry for Heidi Cullen’s husband and children. Maybe they can change their names when this all blows over and it is proved that the recent warming is completely unrelated to human activity.
And then Heidi can attend Halloween parties as a horse’s ass.
Intolerant know-it-alls like her need to be held accountable and ruined in the court of public opinion. Let’s hope she’s singled out and becomes the laughingstock of her profession for generations.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
But Global Warning *is* a religion – we are slipping back into the Dark Ages where science is under control of the “church” and/or government – you *must* agree or be branded a heretic.
Any honest and competent scientist has known since Lorenz in the early to mid 60s that you *cannot* use linear modeling to predict a chaotic situation. But you can get a lot of funding to build bigger and better “models” to run on bigger and faster computers. We could save a fortune by just using Ouija boards instead.
Given all that plus the fact that quite a few of the “warmers” have been caught flat out falsifying data plus the “high priests” ignoring contradictory evidence I wonder if we are going to lose science as we know it today.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
The polar ice caps on Mars have also been melting the last 50 years. DAMN those Martains and their polluting SUV’s!
January 18th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
More “left-wing-wacko” tripe of arrogance and Obfuscation. Plus there are billions (with a “b”) of money and grants driving this HOAX.
fjschroederphd
January 18th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Yes the climate has changed in the past. The average global temperature has almost exactly mimicked the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 goes up temp goes up, CO2 goes down, temp goes down. This pattern has been found for the past 600,000 years (as far back as the records go). We now a higher level of CO2 in our atmosphere than at any time in the past 600,000 years. Follow the pattern! Why is the CO2 higher now than at any time in the past 600,000 years? Regardless of how you answer that question the fact is that we need to somehow deal with the rising CO2.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Global Warming is the big red herring that Socialist (Democrats) are banking on as a means to an end: To force America into closing big business (bad guys),
lower the standared of living (Americans HAVE too much), and creating a third world state of citizens who have no idea or means to make a better than average living! Gore, Pelosi, Clintons, Boxers, et al would love to accomplish what the CFR and others have been wanting for years! And, like the turncoat Jimmmah Carter, they’d get Nobel Peace Prizes for it! God will cleanse the earth after he gets done punishing the politcians for destroying Humanity!
January 18th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Looks like the flood of visitors from Drudge has seeped over…
Oh, and to Brian, #43…
“No offense, but TV meteorologists mostly only look at local weather conditions. You most likely do not have an extensive backround in things like the effects of greenhouse gasses globally. You’re trained to predict the local temperature and precipitation.”
You obviously know nothing about James Spann. I’d trust the man with my life.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
It came from the ground, it was organic in nature when it was deposited there, therefore at some time in the past, this carbon was evidently airborne? Yes or NO? Coal is but vegetation of millinium past. Oil but the residue of carbon based lifeform processes weather plant or animal. Now explain to us where was the carbon when it was not being stored in the earth eons ago?
January 18th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
JBB, I have heard the argument that climate is not weather and weather is not climate. However, the only time that is brought out is when the current weather does not match the global warming hype predictions. Like right now in Malibu, does the climate model provide for those kinds of variances? Doubtful. Using thermometers with +/- 1 degree Celsius accuracy to find a .4 degree shift is very difficult-that is what the error analysis states about the instruments being used currently to track temperature. To dismiss the production of CO2 by volcanic and natural activity which shifts wildly from year to year also does not support a model that many have faith in. Do you understand how much Yellowstone pumps into the atmosphere on a yearly basis or what the effect is every time Mt St Helen’s blows? Makes man-made production look like firecrackers compared to nuclear warheads when compared to each other. Check out the forum referenced in his article. Check out physorg.com for what scientists think on this matter and educate yourselves with comparing CO2 emissions to water vapor for which creates a higher warming environment. There are really good reasons many climatologists like Mr. Gray aren’t taking money from the Grand Sugar Daddy in the sky. If Carbon is the culprit then growing trees, chopping them down and burying the matter would be a very efficient way to get the carbon out of the air and back into the soil. That is not the point of the hype, it is to control industry, taxes, and provide a level playing field for communist and socialist countries who cannot compete with the capitalist governments on the planet. It is as simple as that. That is why those countries are always exempt from any policies that are considered and the US is always to pay the most toward any solution.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
I’ve heard that the earth’s magnetic field is rapidly weakening, and is overdue for a switch (which happens periodically), making North become South and South become North. Could it be such a weakening allows the solar wind to deposit more energy through to the atmosphere? It would be interesting to match weather histories to the changing strength of the earth’s magnetic, to see if there is a correspondence.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:01 am
The hockey-stick temperature uptick coincides with the advent of Marconi and his radio. Radio, television, radar (especially),cell-phones, et al, all add to the energy in the atmosphere, and therefore to its temperature.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:04 am
I was starting to think that i was the only one that did not think what we do can make any difference worth talking about.
If you look at maps of Greenland from the 1700′s it shows shoreline that was not covered with ice that is now melting.
What i see is more of a shift caused by the wind. Many Volcanoes deep under the Pacific Ocean heat the water that then rises to the surface causing the change in wind. If the ocean gets a degree or two warmer from what man is doing then my pond would be hot and it is not.
What do these nuts expect to do if man was causing this?
We would have to stop burning everything no more cars planes and heating our homes would not be allowed.
That is what would be needed if man was causing the change.
We need to keep the air clean but all this talk about something man cannot change is stupid.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:04 am
The fact that the earth is closer to the sun today than it was 30 years ago couldnt have anything to do with it being warmer could it?
January 19th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Don’t believe the liberal lies, they’ve been talking about all sorts of BS for years, funded by the billionaire corporate liberal media hollywood scientist elites in this country!!
They hate God and they are trying to push their lies on the rest of us, DON’T BELIEVE THE SATANIST LIES!!!
The whole concept of pollution is a lie, proven by countless real surveys and studies. Do you think God would create something bad for us on this earth? Only Satan has created the bad, and it is in the LIBERAL SCIENTIST ELITES that run the country and media!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:04 am
The American Meteorological Society’s official Policy On Global Climate Change: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/global.html
Adopted September 1990 – apparently you’re a little behind on your continuing education, eh, Mr. Spann?
Some highlights:
“The scientific debate on these issues and efforts in model improvement are likely to continue for some time before high confidence can be placed in model predictions of climate change. Nevertheless, to address the serious practical issues associated with global climate change, numerical models provide the best available estimate of human impact on the changing climate; they indicate a reasonable probability for large climate changes over the impending decades.”
“For perspective, this projected climate change is of the same magnitude (but in the opposite direction) as the last ice age when continental ice caps penetrated well into Europe and North America… The difference is that the global warming may occur over the next few decades, whereas the ice-age changes occurred over thousands of years!”
January 19th, 2007 at 12:04 am
To bad the Founding Fathers didn’t insert a seperation of science and politics clause in the consitution.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Shhh! Quiet! No more Gore Denial!
The Weather Nazis are listening.
Why do you think they were called “Storm Troopers” during WWII?
January 19th, 2007 at 12:08 am
In a brief attempt to allow some facts to seep into the media-fed ignorance (such as Bill Taylor’s retort that “the global warming folks call co2 a pollutant, and FACT co2 is NOT a pollutant, it IS necessary for life as we know it on this planet.”, which comes straight from a Competitive Enterprise Institute advertisement), here are some reasons why what is happening now differs from the natural fluctuations in global climate.
On a geological time scale, large quantities of CO2 can be exchanged only by either the ocean or the land biomass (remind yourselves or learn about the carbon cycle). Obviously carbon needs to be preserved in exchanges with the atmosphere, so, if the atmospheric CO2 were being released from either, we would measure significant amounts of carbon being removed from these reservoirs.
No decrease in oceanic carbon has been detected, because there has been an increase in that carbon, because the ocean is a sink for CO2 (basic carbon cycle). Same goes for the land biomass, even after deforestation.
Then where is this carbon (in the form of CO2) coming from? The earth does have another significant carbon reservoir: fossil fuels.
At no point during the Holocene epoch have C02 levels come near the present day level (around 380 ppm), which is rising at an unnatural rate due to release of CO2 from fossil fuels.
Recent measurements from the Mauna Loa observatory, which has been measuring CO2 levels continuously for decades, show a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2:
1993: 357.04 ppm
1994: 358.88 ppm
1995: 360.88 ppm
1996: 362.64 ppm
1997: 363.76 ppm
1998: 366.63 ppm
1999: 368.31 ppm
2000: 369.48 ppm
2001: 371.02 ppm
2002: 373.10 ppm
2003: 375.64 ppm
Even if the rising CO2 levels were not caused by humans, we should not be complaining that this is some conspiracy to make a quick buck, but focusing on the fact that human life, if not all life, on earth is threatened, whether naturally or by humans themselves. We need to reduce CO2 levels either way, if we want to live on this planet.
References
Bousquet et al. (2000), Regional changes of CO2 fluxes over land and oceans since 1980, Science, Vol 290, 1342-1346.
Ciais et al. (1995), A Large Northern Hemisphere Terrestrial CO2 Sink Indicated by the 13C/12C Ratio of atmospheric CO2, Science, Vol 269, pp. 1098-1102.
Keeling, Piper and Heimann (1996), Global and hemispheric CO2 sinks deduced from changes in atmospheric O2 concentration, Nature, Vol 381, 218-221.
McNeil et al. (2003), Anthropogenic CO2 uptake by the ocean based on the global chlorofluorocarbon data set, Science, Vol 299, 235-239.
Takahashi et al. (2002), Global sea-air CO2 flux based on climatological surface ocean pCO2, and seasonal biological and temperature effects, Deep Sea Research, Vol 49, 1601-1622.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:08 am
The man-made global warming religion strikes again! The jihad against anyone who doesn’t believe this man-made global warming crap has begun. Take away the professional credentials of anyone who doesn’t follow the party line on global warming. Shout down and intimidate anyone who disagrees with the man-made global warming religion. How long before the rabid followers of this sophistry want to burn anyone who doesn’t believe this junk science at the stake as infidels and heretics?
With the rantings of Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel has lost all credibility. How long before Barbra Streisand will be doing the long range weather forecast there? They were once a great place to go get weather information. Now they are nothing more than just another outlet for political propaganda.
As for the alleged climate change, the fact that the sun may have something to do with all of this is conveniently ignored. They will scream about the earth’s polar ice cap shrinking, but fail to mention that the same thing is happening on Mars. All we get from the man-made global warming religionists is half-truths, hysteria and outright lies. All of this is to get grant money as James Spann has reported here, but there is yet a bigger agenda behind all of this, to sell us the Kyoto Protocol economic suicide pact.
When it comes to the man made global warming theory, P.T. Barnum said it best, “There is a sucker born every minute.â€
January 19th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Hey mitch2008 you are absolutely right — we need to keep an open mind. We have dumped untold trillions of tons of junk into our environment in modern history. That can’t be good.
You are also absolutely right about the theory of global warming — although there is an average, global increase in temperature that translates to higher temperatures in some locations and lower temperatures in others.
However, I think the fundamental debate is over whether this is a natural temperature increase (as has happened before in ancient history) or a climatological event that is caused by human activity. Personally, I think it is both but that’s just a guess, and I can’t intelligently guess the ratio. That’s just it — a number of us feel that the climatologists are pushing a guess as if it were a fact. Some are alleging that these climatologists are funded by GW proponents and thus have a bias. I don’t know if that is true, but it feels right to me because of the crusade-esque fervor that exists today – but I don’t know.
Thanks for the calm and reasonable reminder to keep an open mind.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Tom (35.)
“clearly anyone who refuses to believe that humans have any affect on the weather is no one anyone should listen to about anything.”
Of course humans are ONE of the causes of global warming,
But they are not the ONLY cause nor are they the MAJOR cause.
Natural Cycles, Sunspots, Vulcanism, AstroPhysical Events,
All contribute.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:09 am
“since God put the planet here.” lol
January 19th, 2007 at 12:09 am
i would like to note the hatefulness in the posts from the GW proponents here in this very thread.
seems be they taliban, Christian, or GWite, folks get riled when you challenge their religious beliefs.
thank you for showing exactly where you stand on the side of faith rather than science!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:10 am
That’s it, if we blow up the sun we won’t have global warming anymore!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Does anyone think that maybe we aren’t having global warming but solar warming?
Kids educated in the 1970′s were taught about the impending doom from the upcoming ice age and how to matriculate to the nearest fallout shelter. My how issues have changed.
Follow the money! Even the those with the highest integrity are tempted by the lure of green from DC.
Al Gore already has the solution to the “problem” yet the “cause” has not been defined.
Removal of the internal combustion engine from our world’s economy will doom us faster than snot due to the poor sanitary conditions that will exist. Anyone remember the thick layer of horse poo in the streets from the horses pulling the wagons?
Feelings and emotions sell more than facts.
Pessimism sells, optimism pays. (old stockbroker quote)
Kold in Kansas
January 19th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Reading this makes me sick, those liberals are terrorist promoters, domestic terrorism via the fear mongering in the liberal media about weather!
Pollution and global warming isn’t real, and evolution isn’t real. It is all the same big liberal lie left over from communist sympathizers, learning from the Nazis how to lie a big lie to get the masses to believe.
We must save America people, God’s country is under attack by liberal satanists under the veil of science and education, they are polluting our childrens minds away from the Lord!
Stop the lies!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Ajay, I loved your question. Silly Rabbit, don’t you know it was actually caused by dinosaur farts. Methane Gas caused solar radiation to be trapped in the atmosphere which raised the temperature. There you go, you global warming freaks, maybe someone will give you a million dollars to research that. What we have here is a failure to communicate. They talk, we listen. We talk, they talk louder. Freedom of Speech is getting more one sided as the years go on. HUM, I wonder if that is MAN MADE or NATURE? I think I will find someone who will fund my research. I’m being serious here, the original article was great but some of your answers were just as great. I wish you could get them published. You meteorologists and scientists are a very intelligent group. Maybe ya’ll can serve on Nancy Pelosis global warming committee. I bet not, we wouldn’t want to have conflicting opinions now would we. I bet Al baby is the Chairman.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:11 am
If scientific conclusions can’t be held up to scrutiny they it isn’t science — its religion.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:11 am
I almost paid attention to this until the part where God put the planet there. If you believe that, clearly you are not interested in science.
Glaciers melting in 10,000 years time is a lot different than glaciers melting in 100 years time.
The most sensible approach would be to admit that there are natural AND manmade causes to global warming, and while we can’t do anything about the natural causes, at least we can change the manmade causes.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Skipping right past rule #1 – Do not feed the trolls…
Wow. You people scare me. The partisans and the “arm chair” scientists (Unless I missed someone, Spann is the only one here that has any quals whatsoever) seem to rule the day here. Maybe GW is real, maybe it isn’t… seems most of the posters won’t really care until it is too late anyhow.
Now lets try something different… lets step back from our reactionary opinions. Is clean air something only liberals want? Is a cheaper alternative to getting screwed at the pump something only conservatives want? Liberals and Conservatives want the same thing if you dig far enough past the “spin.”
Speaking of spinning… I’d like to take a spin in the Tesla Motors roadster. GW or not, thats a pretty sweet car. (and it doesn’t pollute out the tailpipe, double bonus)
January 19th, 2007 at 12:12 am
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, IT IS ABOUT TIME THE TRUTH GETS OUT–NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING, NO $. I AM A GEOLOGIST (B.S.UOFA) AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEER (M.S.UOFA) AND ORIGINALLY STUDIED UNDER TROY L. PEWE ((GLACIAL GEOLIGIST AND DEPT. HEAD RET.) AT THE ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY)) ALSO MICHAEL F. SHERIDAN, VULCANOLOGIST look them up. THEY ARE HIGHLY PUBLISHED. ANYONE WHO THINKS GLOBAL WARMING OR COOLING IS NEW SHOULD EDUCATE THEMSELVES ABOUT IT.
THE EARTH HAS A LONG HISTORY OF EXTREME CLIMATE CHANGE LONG BEFORE MAN. IT SIMPLY HAS TO DO WITH THE ENERGY OF THE SUN AND THE NATURAL DYNAMICS OF THE EARTH. SUV’S AREN’T A FART IN THE SOLAR WIND, OR IN 1/2 THE HOT AIR THAT COMES OUT OF WASHONGTON, D.C.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Despite over 5000 measurement stations around the globe, the average daily temperture has been shown to be higher in the Northern hemisphere summer months then in the Southern summer months. This shows a likely bias in N. hmisphere measurement sites. If in the modern era, of internet connectivity we cannot measure even this, how can we say what the average daily temp was 100 years ago let alone 1000 years ago.
Global warming is likely happening, will likely continue, but our effect may be insignificant. And like the earlier poster said, I too remember these same factions talking up global freezing in the 70′s. The theory then was that soo much air pollution would reflect sunlight away from the Earth resulting in cooling. May have been some truth. In the last 30 years our largest contribution has been clean air acts that allow more water vapour into the upper atmosphere, adding to global warming. Oh well dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t. Kyoto is just another way to say “Tax the rich (countries)”.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:14 am
I’ve been studying climate science for years as an historian. Apart from the money motive of the global warming scare mongers, there is the ideological factor of the utopian and socialist mindset that simply cannot imagine the world would not be better off if people like them were tinkering with economies and societies to fit their ideas… all too many scientists suffer from this sort of delusion of grandeur when they should be the ones to know better just how limited and counter-productive our efforts to alter big natural forces are. Thanks for standing up in an increasingly hostile anti-intellectual environment brought to us by the screaming meanies of the lost Left.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:15 am
There was a time when I watched TWC religiously almost-that was until they started spewing forth all the Global Warming B.S. If they don’t hurry and get Heidi off the air, my chances of viewing TWC are slim at best!!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:15 am
If a scientific conclusion can’t be held up to scrutiny then it isn’t science — its religion.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Science does not know money, science does not know nations economies, Science knows science and that is it.
If global warming was a true oncoming train wreck for mankind you have to ask yourself one thing. Why do those that are pumping global warming as a religious person spreads the faith, Why do they constantly say how the U.S., The EU, Canada, Russia need to sign on to the Kyoto treaty to stop global warming before it stops. But, exempt China, India, and other “developing” nations from having to stop their pollution???
I mean if cutting greenhouse gases will stop this so called global warming, why are the current biggest polluters in the world (China and India)exempt? Why dont ALL countries have to abide by the rules and not just the richest?
Follow Algores money on this one.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I think you’re all missing the point. If you lock yourself in a closed garage with a running car, it will kill you.
Poisinous gas and toxins come out of the tailpipe. What does God, Satan, Hollywood or Al Gore have to do with that?
It’s just common sense. Humans have an effect on the earth’s environment.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:18 am
James, Methinks they watched “The Day After Tomorrow” one too many hundred times. The difference between the Global Warming “experts” and REAL scientists is that real scientists draw their conclusions AFTER they complete their research, and not the other way around. PS I served as a meterologic and oceanographic technician in the Western Pacific for three years with some very serious weather pros, not to mention a few weather events I saw for myself. To assume one has command of the functioning of the earth’s biosphere is pure arrogance. IMHO, if the earth didn’t tank from all the devastation to the environment during WWII, Los Alamos, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it never will. Saying you can predict Global Warming is like saying you can predict human behavior: no matter how much you know, people still surprise you. GW is BS.
I hope this doesn’t cost you your certification, Jim. And no, I’m not joking.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:18 am
There must be much more open debate on the subject of global warming not less. This is the only way we will get to the bottom of the subject. The public rarely hears a differing opinion from the media which is why there is so little knowledge on the subject.
When scientists begin advocating the censuring those that do not agree with them, then the concepts of science have truly been lost to those people.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Al Gore smoke so much pot in the 60-70′s that he pretty much wasted his mind and I had to have my wife perform the VP tasks. He could not even beat junior Bush. Now his only source of income since he did not invent the internet is to fly in a gas guzzling plane promoting that humans are responsible for global warming!
Its too bad that we are not the cause to any global warmth since most of us are getting tired of long cold winters and would like to see the Earth’s temp turned up a few degrees.
- Slick Willy
January 19th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Thank you, Jim, for speaking the clear-as-day truth. Sadly, we live in a politically-correct time where if one does not go along with emotionally/politically charged “voices”, like the lady on the WeatherChannel who wants to have your certification revoked, they simply shout louder until they succeed in drowning out all opposition. I’ve noticed this is especially true when their posturing withers under the bright light of reasoned truth, which are the obvious facts in this debate that human-engineered global warming is a money grabbing farce, as you correctly say. Pardon the pun, but if one’s position can’t “weather” honest and sincere scrutiny, it only exposes the fact that this isn’t about true science, but the agenda of environmental radicals like Al Gore and the hysterical enlistees in his Lilliputian army.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:22 am
James,
If Billions of dollars are flowing into the hands of those that want to research global warming, I can only assume that there are Trillions of dollars being provided by major green house gas producers that seek to stop any such research.
Also, do you seriously expect us to think you do the forecasting for your region, and that you don’t use the free forecasts available from the National Weather Service ( http://weather.noaa.gov/ )
As for the comment 85: “If you look at maps of Greenland from the 1700’s it shows shoreline that was not covered with ice that is now melting”. Think a little before you type. Do you honestly believe cartography was completed to the same level of accuracy in the 1700′s as it is now.
And for the record 87, yes I hate god.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Global warming is a bald faced lie, forced upon us by the ones who envision themselves as the self appointed saviours of us all:socialist liberals. How those disingenuous, duplicitous, intellectually dishonest, factually challenged, malodorous liars can look into a camera and talk about the big lie that is global warming with a straight face is bad enough. Suggesting that all meteorologists that do not subscribe to their lies have their AMS certification revoked shows just how hypocritical and desperate these liberal liars are…..and how hypocritical they are. Liberals champion themselves to be so much more inclusive and open minded than those evil, planet destroying conservatives. But disagree with a liberal and you get at least two things: a personal attack and a threat.
I used to be a liberal Democrat…..then I got sober.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:23 am
“We need to reduce CO2 levels either way, if we want to live on this planet.”
Well, um, actually, there’s a pretty solid argument to be made that pumping up C02 levels in the atmosphere is a net benefit to our planet in general even if you believe the wildest out there forecasts of C02-caused global warming … and a *spectacular* benefit if you’re even mildly skeptical on its alleged warming effects (and you should be for a variety of unproved assumptions in the models).
The reason? Simple. C02 is plant food. Crop yields go up, desertification reverses, forests spread faster, all sorts of Really Good Things start happening to the plant kingdom and therefore those who feed on it, benefits that far outweigh reasonable estimations of C02-related warming costs.
More info on this at
http://www.co2science.org/
as well as lots of other contrarian information on the global warming hoohah.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Typical arrogant Yanks. Then again this article originates from Alabama. If you only knew how the rest of the world views you.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:25 am
“typical of the pseudo-science, anti-intellectual rightwing wackos”
My goodness if that isn’t a fine example of cognitive disconnect.
“99.9% of scientists are of the highest integrity and follow the data”
And 4 out of 5 dentists recommend crest toothpaste…..lol
“deny us all our lightbulbs”
Nice strawman, where did anyone say that? What the reality based right is saying to the very science challenged left is that if GW is occurring there is no definitive proof that it is predominately man made. There may be a portion that is but then the question is realistically what can be done. Kyoto…give me a break even the idiots that signed up to it aren’t meeting its goals and even if they did China, Russia, etc are never going to do adhere to it. Whatever made the enviros think they lived on a planet where the climate never varies…oh sorry I used the word think…never mind they Feeeelllll. Oh well simple thoughts for simple minds.
The hype surrounding GW is used by the media, most of which are pandering morons, is to sell emotional product and that appeals mostly to the Feeeelllllling left. Folks like JBB take jabs at the education of a meteorologist yet he just knows hes right without even a hint of the training a mere bachelor degreed meteorologist has and smugly comforts himself by arrogantly stereotyping dissenting views.
I hope one day we will be able to reduce our dependence of harmful products and believe that everyone should try to make that little bit of a difference that each one of us can make. However I will not run panicking off a cliff because a 10,000 other lemmings do.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Man-made global warming is either happening or it isn’t.
If it is, then it behooves us to do something about it. And doing something creates jobs.
I hear a lot of whining about how “emissions controls will destroy the economy!” What a load of baloney!!! Do you think that money just disappears into thin air? Of course it doesn’t!
If you’re building windmills to generate power, then somebody has to get paid to build them. If you’re putting scrubbing mechanisms on smokestacks, then somebody has to get paid to build them and then somebody else has to get paid to install them. If you want to reduce energy consumption, you have to employe engineers to design more efficient appliances. You see where this is going?
These are good jobs that diversify an economy. Can you imagine how great it would be for the American economy to add 50,000 manufacturing jobs to satisfy the demand for power-generating windmills? It would be fantastic!!!
So let’s say you do all of this stuff and it turns out that we were wrong about global warming. SO WHAT?!
A lot of people have good jobs, everything is more efficient, and there’s less pollution in the air (which we DO KNOW causes increased rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses). To say nothing of how good it would be (economically, politically, and strategically) to not be dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
These are all great results of taking global warming seriously – and we enjoy them whether we’re right or wrong!! It’s rather embarassing that the anti-global-warming lobby continually ignores these things, and instead pretends like the money spent to combat global warming just disappears into the ether.
Which tells me something about you guys – this is nothing more than another partisan ideological battle to you, and you just want an excuse to argue against liberals. It wouldn’t matter if they had all the evidence in the world to support them, you would nit-pick something just for the sake of arguing.
If you take it seriously and do something about it, you win whether you’re right or wrong. What possible reason could there be, then, for not doing something?!
NONE!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:26 am
We came out of the ice age and we know man had nothing to do with it. Case Closed.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Wow am I damn glad I’m not an American you’re all bloody Idiots.
“Zero Evidence”?
That’s Like Saying that Iraq actually had WMD.
or
GWB Loves Black People.
This guy is a TV Weatherman that took a six week course the reast here do not even have that much Education.
G-d Bless America; You Need It.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:28 am
I was sooo concerned regarding the recent chill that has covered California this past week that I have left my cars running 24 hours a day in the hope that that green house gases emitted will warm things up a bit
January 19th, 2007 at 12:28 am
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
-Albert Einstein
For all we know it could be cow flatulence that’s causing ‘global warming’.
Comedian Ron White’s response to the question (from a vegan), “Ron, what are you doing to help stop global warming?â€. He replies, “I’m eating the cows…â€
But you go ahead and keep the faith Tom (in your human induced global warming…)
oh, but do “follow the money.”
-Deep Throat
January 19th, 2007 at 12:30 am
All of the global warming baloney just amazes me. It is all based on incomplete, distorted data. It dares not take into account thousands (if not millions) of years of natural climate change. I am not a meteorologist. I am an engineer. My work involves keeping a constant eye on the weather. The NWS forecast site is my homepage, so I can start my day based on what the weather is doing. I get out of the office, a lot. If the earth is getting a little warmer, I believe the reason is there for all to see. Yet, it seems no one can figure it out. It is the giant fusion reaction 93 million miles distant. Our weather changes from season to season, just because the relative angle of sunlight changes. Just think about the temperature flucuations the sun can produce with a small solar “burp.”
January 19th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Thanks, James.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:32 am
You say you don’t know a single meteorologist who believes in man-made global warming huh? Funny that. I am an engineer son of an accomplished PhD biologist and neither of us have ever met a single scientist or engineer who gives this crap any more than the shortest shrift. Of course the climate is changing. It’s dynamic and always will be. Once there were great glaciers as you say. Before that? Anyone’s guess? What I do know is that I frequently find seashells in the mountains of Arizona, and I have seen wooly mammoths in the LaBrea tar pits! If that isn’t enough to make one recognize the ever-changing nature of nature, then ask yourself who planted the foliage that now blooms in the arctic? The latest harbinger of our doom? Hardly. If it’s growing there now, it must have grown there millions of years ago (barring a recent visit from Johnny Appleseed)…and what caused the lack of ice then? Power Plants and SUVs? I doubt it. What caused the desertification of the once lush Nile basin, the rapid growth of the Sandia range? The snows of Kilimanjaro for crying out loud?
Our community needs to get loud about this JUNK science and its people like Heidi Cullen who should be on the run. True science welcomes our dissent, and Stalinists like Cullen only hasten our descent.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Mucius Scaevola,
the analysis is done in petagrams not PPM. There are 3 papers on file that dispute the accuracy of the measurement(again). synopsis from one with the author attached.
In summary, the Sabine et al. (1) estimate of anthropogenic CO2 uptake should be combined with an additional term of about –7 ± 10 Pg C to account for air-sea CO2 exchanges driven by warming and stratification. The error estimate on the anthropogenic contribution should furthermore be increased to about ±23 Pg C to reflect uncertainties associated with changes in ocean circulation, heat content, and O2 content on the {Delta}C* method. Combining these corrections yields an estimate of 111 ± 25 Pg C for the net oceanic uptake of CO2 from 1800 to 1994. I hope that this comment will initiate a process to examine these corrections more closely.
Ralph F. Keeling
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
La Jolla, CA 92093–0244, USA
You attach a nice summary of +19 ppm, but the error analysis says that the data is good to +/- 25 petagrams. Meaning you are citing a trend that is totally within the margin of error. I am highly suspicious of a trend that is this neat with an error analysis that is that loose.
If you take the tact that the measurements are now more accurate taking this correction into account then I question the accuracy of all reading prior to those.
I also could not cite collection methods that may be influenced by man made environmental factors close to the collection site. In other words, was there an increase in manufacturing during the period in the immediate area or a decrease in vegatation? Or was water temperature a factor in CO2 absorption? One of the studies questioning this one stated this.
Finally, is CO2 a contributor to global warming? If so why dont the back models support this, in other words use todays model to predict a shift from 1950 to 1970 and it does not work. There is no model that works backwards, and the forward models continue to over predict every time.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Cheers to anyone who fights the Global Warming Nazis.
It is clear that the Earth is warming – approximately 2 degrees F. However, this is CYCLICAL – the Earth warms, the Earth cools. It is natural. In 30-50 years when the cycle ends and the temperature drops 2 degrees F, the same lunatics who scream “Climate change! Global warming!” will scream “Climate change! Global cooling!” and demand that we burn our houses down to warm the planet up.
Something must be done to counter these psychos. Examine their records, their backgrounds – and see that most if not all who are advocates of global warming are socialist and anti-capitalist radicals. They want to destroy the economies of the world for their own destructive ideology.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:35 am
As I remember it, the week following 9/11, all the news reporters were standing outside, marveling on how clear the sky was with all the airplanes grounded. Maybe part of the problem is putting all that pollution high in the atmosphere. More jet aircraft every day, flying more miles, burning more oil.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:36 am
I have seen plenty of studies in the last few years. Without exception they link warming to human activity. IMO the natural warming cycle is there too, but since the recent speeding up of warming coincides with population growth, the industrial revolution and the clearing of the planet’s imense forest cover. Some people make fun of scientists who said in the 1970′s that we might have an ice age; they use this to say “see how stupid the scientists were?” But things have changed dramatically. The power of current computers makes old ones seem a joke. The software for analyzing data is incredible. The data available is of a higher magnitude; qcean temp, satelites, ice cores, ocean sedimate samplings…on and on. We can now forecast circulation patterns of air and water in response to temp changes to get an idea of possible futures. For example, losing the Amazon forest would mean a much drier Northern Mexico and Texas; Losing equatorial Africa hits the Midwest with drier conditions; failure of the Indian Monsoon would increaese the loss of the glacier and snow cover in Tibet which would mean less water in Asia’s rivers…it would also alter air currents so the Artic would warm faster. When the ice melts it reflects less sunlight which speeds warming even more. Artic warming speeds melting of the Greenland ice cap which brings more fresh water to the North Atlantic and might actually trigger an ie age in Northern Europe. To gain knowledge and understand our planet takes money. Global warming is very important and the money is well spent.
God did not create a beautiful planet so we could ruin it. Some people will not take responsibility for their actions. They say “oh, it’s Gods plan…don’t matter what we do”. Bullshit!! We have free will and we can alter what is happening and evolve. If you don’t care about your childrens future that’s your problem. Don’t don’t force your ignorance of science on others who are working for a better future.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Earth WILL burn up, and there’s nothing you can do about it. (2 Peter 3:7,10,12)
Repent and believe that Jesus (The Christ) died for your sins and rose again, and you will be saved!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Arrrrrr……let’s be strippin’ this evil ignorant (liberal) weather wench bare naked and tie ‘er bent well o’er to the mizzen for this ‘ere blasphemous doggerel! She be nothin’ more than fish bait (and smell) with nary a science mind about her. Gang rape, lads? All ye “global warming by humans” freaks shall soon burn in yer own special hell!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:38 am
It is my understanding that President Bush is not into global warming, at all, and refuses to fund anything related to it. So where are these billions of dollars coming from? I just don’t understand how global warming people are getting all this money. Where is it coming from?
January 19th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Just as acid rain was determined, by rigorous scientific research, to be an extremely insignificant event, so too will man’s influence on the earth’s CLIMATE.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:39 am
The difference is that you’re NOT IN A CLOSED GARAGE! And hello, a greenhouse has a glass roof. Does the earth have a glass roof?
January 19th, 2007 at 12:39 am
In response to Martin’s post above:
Martin,
Yes, Mr Gore only made a movie, but as Senator, VP, and Presidential candidate (possible future Pres nominee?), he sponsored or endorsed legislation that would mandate changes in behaviour for American citizens and corporarations (remember the Kyoto protocol). Clearly, Mr Gore’s hope *is* to force his brand of environmentalism on the American public.
Please forgive the anger and hostility from some directed at the likes of Mr Gore for attempting to force massive changes in our lifestyles and economy on the slimmest evidence that global warming is caused by humans. Extraordinary claims (or demands) should be met by extraordinary evidence linking our actions to climatic change.
That being said, I also believe that we can argue conservation on much better grounds, like higher incidents of asthma and such in cities than rural areas. Plus, I would love to divorce our energy needs from the tyrants who control the oil now (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Canada ) and see ourselves more energy self-sufficient (wind, solar, fusion, synthahol from coal, etc.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:39 am
“Then again this article originates from Alabama.”
And you probably originate from Camden or maybe Moss Side in Manchester.
“If you only knew how the rest of the world views you.”
Arrogant Brit if you only knew how little we cared.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:40 am
i will use laymans terms and common sense.
i want any of you believers in GW to refute the following.
greenhouse gases have the ability to trap heat from the sun and ALSO to block heat from the sun, meaning they act as barriers both on the way in and back out.
i KNOW this to be true based on direct observation of clouds, made up of water vapor the main by far greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
it is also true that co2 has those properties acting as a barrier to heat transfer in and out of this planet, clearly the added co2 also BLOCKS some of the heat from the sun each day so its net effect should be negligible.
bottom line greenhouse gases both trap and block heat, and co2 is no different than the rest!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:43 am
And again…the US in the age of ignorance and selfishness. We are obviously not causing global warming…by driving our huge SUVs 10 meters to the Supermarket and buying the unhealthiest, utterly processed food on the planet.
The world scientific community takes it as a fact, it is tought in geography books in Europe in the 5th grade but why should we care? As long as we can teach “intelligent design” to our obviuosly not intelligent children and still be proud of this great culture. Long live the US!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:44 am
If we keep electing Democrats/Liberals then Global Warming will become law. It’s not really about money folks … its about power. Like the religious fanatics of the past the Democrats/Liberals are distorting science for political effect. Unfortunately, their crusade is winning the day.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Anybody that thinks we (man) are not creating climate change is attempting to fool themselves & causing listeners to laugh at them. Sad!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Anybody that thinks we (man) are not creating climate change is attempting to fool themselves & causing other listeners to laught at them. Sad!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:45 am
There is no need for anybody to be overly concerned about global warming. Before summer gets here this year, I am going up and will personally turn the thermostat down on the sun. Look for talk of a new ice age by fall.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Also note the way that Al Gore manipulates his graphs to exclude any data that doesn’t look good. He shows you the “hockey stick” of CO2 levels but doesn’t show you what the increase in temperature is. He just tells you to imagine it. Why? Because it’s so small it would be a laughably small bump on his graph.
And his projections about population are simply absurd. Birth rates in every developed country have fallen below replacement level, meaning we’re just as likely to have a problem of not enough people as too many. He just extrapolates data from when he wants and projects it to wherever he wants as though he could predict the future. It reminds me of the guy in the late 90s who said since stocks have been going up 18% a year, he’s going to retire a billionaire thirty years from now. Hello, Al Gore, what goes up comes down. Stock, markets, everything operates according to cycles. Every cycle, even in your graph shows CO2 peaking and then coming down. Why didn’t you project that???
Why should you? You have a convenient platform to run on in the future. A convenient issue that is internationally marketable putting you in high demand across the world for appearances and speeches, for which I’m sure you are very well compensated. The only losers are the American public who’s going to have to pay for this through higher taxes, higher prices and loss of competitiveness to our strategic rivals, namely China. Get a life.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Has any climate experts ever thought that we as living beings are adding to the carbon dioxide in the air? We breath in oxygen and breath out…..ooops….oh my gosh…say it isn’t so….carbon dioxide!!! Where does it go? Back into the air. What happens to a goldfish if you put it in water and don’t change the water. It uses up all the oxygen and the fish dies. Maybe, just maybe, could it be, that we are using up the oxygen by breathing and replacing it with carbon dioxide? Maybe my comment is a little over the top but at the same time…the more population…the more carbon dioxide. Now let me add that I ain’t gonna stop breathing on account of it so oh well…I guess things will just have to warm up if that has anything to do with it.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Fifteen to 30 years ago. Time magazine said we was in the ice age, and they did a huge story in their magazine. Last month they did one on global warming. The only difference between the two articles was that “ice age” was replaced with “global warming”.
from Time magazine:
Friday, Dec. 08, 1967
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,844266,00.html
Friday, Nov. 14, 1969
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840384,00.html
Monday, Nov. 13, 1972
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html
Monday, May. 17, 1976
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945635,00.html
Monday, Jan. 26, 1981
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954611,00.html
This is just a few on the subject there could be many more. You can do a search for them, and even do a search on global warming. For the ice age start where I left off. It is getting late and morning comes quick. Just put Ice age in the search area at top and select the dates and science to the left and click on the refine button. I posted these because mere man didn’t get it right then either.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Al Gore and the Acolytes trumpeted the record number of hurricanes in 2005 as proof positive that The Age of Global Warming was upon us. Then came 2006, one of the wimpiest hurricane seasons in recent memory.
A respected researcher, Mayfield said, that in his opinion, the increased hurricane activity since 1995 is due to natural cycles of hurricane activity and is “not enhanced substantially by global warming.”
According to True Believer Theorists, “global warming of the atmosphere could breed hurricanes via several complex mechanisms. To give one example, global warming could directly warm Atlantic waters, thereby encouraging evaporation of tropical waters. Like a man throwing oil on a fire, evaporation would boost skyward the kind of warm, moist air parcels that fuel hurricanes.â€
This is highly circular reasoning. Global warming could cause more hurricanes, if hurricanes were formed by Global Warming as theorized. Therefore, more hurricanes prove Global Warming.
By that line of reasoning, Global Warming existed in the 1940s through the 1960s, then took a hike for 25 years, and has now come back. I wonder where Global Warming goes when it goes away?
We know what followed Global Warming the last time it went away. It was called the Little Ice Age (1300-1750 AD).
The last long period of Global Warming lasted 500 years (800-1300 AD), but we called it the Medieval Warm Period. People then wouldn’t have called it Global Warming, because they were ignorant and didn’t know they lived on a globe.
Their ignorance rivals Al Gore’s, who still doesn’t know we already had a period of Global Warming we call the Medieval Warm Period, so Al should call his Global Warming II.
Or probably more like Global Warming MCMXCVIII, or MMDCLI, or even more likely, Global Warming MMMMMMMMMMMMM and a whole lot more.
Please go to the index on my website for articles and links proving that man-caused Global Warming has not been proven, but that Global Warming and Global Cooling have been here a long time, with no input from man.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Totall agree James, and those of you that laugh at God putting the planet here have bigger issues to deal with. I pray for you, I hope you’ll eventually stop laughing, because it’s really no laughing matter.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:53 am
I would like to call on respected scientists throughout the world, to jump on the bandwagon, and “debunk†the unwarranted assumption that the only way to “combat†global warming is by curtailing industrial production.
I am not a climatologist but I know that many politicians, and many of the study commissions that they support, are looking at the wrong problem and the wrong solution to that problem. The politicians, the commissions, and Mr. Lomborg are making the unwarranted and un-scientific assumption that the only way to reduce the earth’s gigantic CO-2 reservoir (750-800 gigatons according to the UN inter-governmental panel on climate change), is to reduce the annual industrial CO-2 emission (approximately 6-7 Gigaton) into this 750-800 gigaton reservoir.
Al Gore, Mr. Stern, and Mr. Lomborg, please take note: There are other ways of reducing this growing CO-2 greenhouse reservoir that blankets the earth. Other “solutions†that should be factored into the cost-benefit equation are: 1) Consider the cost of planting 10% more trees (The earth’s vegetation now absorbs 60-70 gigatons of CO-2 per year out of the 750 gigaton reservoir (according to the UN). A 10% annual increase in absorption of CO-2 would offset the 6-7 gigatons CO-2 ascribed to industrial production. 2) Maybe it’s cheaper to seed 10% of the oceans with Plankton. 3) And speaking of global solutions, would it not be even more cost effective to replace 100% of all fossil fuel burning electric power plants with nuclear power plants. This would lead to a large reduction of CO-2 emitted by fossil fuel burning plants; a much larger reduction than the curtailments envisioned by the Kyoto accord.
I understand Mr. Gore’s preoccupation with the CO-2 Kyoto accord (Kyoto is his greatest accomplishment, and any demagoguery that will enhance his political career is understandable). But I don’t understand why respected journalists (including the WSJ) don’t expose those politicians that purposely confuse the question (which is often scary) with the answer (which is often wrong). Examples of such confusion are to be found in the British politicians that commissioned the Nicholas Stern study, and with all due respect for Mr. Lomborg it is also found in his very valid critique of the Stern report. Respected scientists throughout the world are often asked by politicians to validate portions of the (scary) question. But they are not asked to determine all the alternative possible solutions to the scary question. I would like to call on respected scientists throughout the world, to jump on the bandwagon, and “debunk†the unwarranted assumption that the only way to “combat†global warming is by curtailing industrial production.
Sincerely
Alan Rosen: Cognitive Scientist (retired magnetospheric physicist)
http://www.MCon.org
January 19th, 2007 at 12:55 am
to all the brits globally, from a kentuckian by birth and alabamian by CHOICE i have a couple of things to say
1776
you fools still think there are “royal” people?????
bow to your superiors
dismissed!
January 19th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Your overly simplistic analysis (that the earth’s climate has been changing since god put the earth here”) does not refute the fact that carbon dioxide put into the earth’s atmosphere by man-made cars, burning of coal and other factors has greatly increased the warmth of this earth, and that our water supplies from snow packs all over the earth are already experiencing the impact of this warming. This isn’t a liberal political issue, this is what scientists have extensively documented, and the impact of this is going to affect our children and grandchildren, whether they are conservative or liberal.
And you are a complete hypocrite Mr. Spann. Let’s follow the money trail right here on your blog: you clearly have a conservative fan base that you are working right here on this blog to support you and your well-paid job. So don’t point a finger at liberals and scientists and say that money raised by that community discredits their position. You are directly making political arguments to cultivate a fan base doing exactly the thing that you are saying is wrong, and your a weather man. Shouldn’t people like you be smiling and telling us to wear a coat tomorrow and leave the climate change research discussions to the climatoligists, and the political discussions to talk radio?
January 19th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Saw this link on Drudge–he’s a total (idiot) sceptic about global warming. Then saw that this came from an Alabama weatherman. There you go! Global warming may be a good thing if all the morons in Alabama are underwater…
January 19th, 2007 at 12:57 am
The arrogance of man to think he is so much more powerful than nature. The “years” of data we have are but a blink in time to our planet and to think we have had that much effect in such a short time is the same as believing you found a system to beat the lottery.
The Earth is a living breathing organism (unlike the Constitution!)and will go through temperature and climate changes whether we are here or not.
Did you know that the moon is moving further from Earth each year (a true fact) and will eventually ruin our climate. What should we do about that? I’m sure Republicans and CO2 will be blamed. Shame on everyone for using fear to control the people and ruin the economy based on nano science.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Observer,
The measurements from the Mauna Loa observatory are in PPM and measure atmospheric CO2, having nothing to do with Sabine et al. study in petagrams measuring oceanic CO2.
I don’t know anything about CO2 modeling, but whether CO2 is a factor in global warming is really not debated any longer.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:57 am
The weather channel is no longer a weather channel. It’s a show! A bad one at that. I used to watch back in the day but now it’s no longer useful. Get rid of the flashy producers and get back to the basics….WEATHER. As far as Global warming is concerned I will turn in my AMS seal if they think they can control my thinking. The fact is that many questions remain, and money spent by this Government, out tax dollars, is one sided. It’s all on the side of proving global hyping or warming. Get a clue lady.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Thank you Mr. Spann — for succinctly airing the “dirty little secret” of science i.e., follow the money. Making a living as a scientist, unless one works in a field with direct access to markets, is a tough go — and with the decade of post secondary education required to really practice in a field, some believe, I think, that they “deserve more” …. which is too bad. Unfortunately, science has it’s share of whores, like any other field of endeavor. Sometimes I wonder though whether the “scientists” at issue realize the extent to which they are being used by powerful political forces.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:59 am
I sure as hell wouldn’t ask a meterologist what he thought about global warming. No more then I would a car mechanic. THis is way out of your area of expertise. Climatologists study and model massive global processes occurring over 100s and 1000s of years, not local weather phenemonon occurring over a matter of days. The fact is you don’t know enough on your own to confirm or deny global warming or its effect on climate. People who actually model the climate into the future (yes, they are estimating because no one can predict hte future) believe that this is an issue. I trust them more than you. And the “big money” they get is a joke. Do you know what a typical university or think-tank research salary is? Its nothing. There’s no “BIG MONEY” conspiracy here except that large corporations will do anything in their power to prevent this story from getting out because it might potentially upset their entrenched position… I mean what a joke. To talk about “following the money trail” and ignore large multi-national corporations to focus on the “special interests” of a couple of dozen of poorly paid PhDs in a laboratory is beyond ridiculous. Its just stupid. These guys are WAY under-paid and could go work in the private sector for big money. They do this out of concern. I guess thats hard to believe for a republican…
January 19th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Follow the money. Climate change = money.
You must have my certificate and do it my way or you can’t be in business, have an opinion or rights = Monopoly — These weather people are only following a well traveled trail. Like other self intrest groups trying to legislate where they can’t get it any other way and don’t have the real support of the public. — Sounds like the Canadian Real Estate Association trying to eliminate Lawyers, and the For Sale By Owner websites. Follow the money. They want a monopoly all to themselves.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:00 am
PS one volcano erupting puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans do in 50 years. Even if we stopped everything the wackos say we should Volcanic activity will cause increased worldwide tempuatres. What cha gonna do about that? Oh I know, the SUV’s are causing vibrations which increase volcanic activity—
January 19th, 2007 at 1:00 am
so, why not just keep polluting, destroying, overfarm, over cut, and over mine every last resource on earth? After all, the Lord will provide….so what if there is global warming or not…big deal…money is what counts and if there is a way to keep the industrial base going, forget the future…get it now…eventually, some entrepeneur will cut the last tree and the Lord will provide….a dead planet…
January 19th, 2007 at 1:02 am
WHEW!
I THOUGHT IT WAS ONLY ME WHO TURNS OFF THE WEATHER CHANNEL WHENEVER THE “CLIMATE EXPERT” LADY COMES ON! I CAN’T BELIEVE THE SHOW IS ACTUALLY BROADCAST! WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE TALK ABOUT “MAN” BEING THE MAIN CAUSE OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE, I HANG MY HEAD IN SADNESS…”IT MUST BE THE TERRIBLE STATE OF OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM “,I CAN’T HELP THINKING.I RECENTLY BROUGHT MY SOLAR TELESCOPE TO MY CHILDREN’S CLASS TO SHOW THEM WHAT SUNSPOTS LOOK LIKE…AND AS THEY WERE LEAVING I SAID,”KIDS, YOU’VE JUST SEEN THE REAL REASON FOR GLOBAL WARMING… THE SUN!”
January 19th, 2007 at 1:04 am
This example of thought control moves the liberal camp closer to their goal of a one-party U.S. government. I really do fear what will happen in the U.S. over the next six years with Democrats running the show. The Democratic Party could turn into America’s Taliban.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Bill Taylor,
“greenhouse gases have the ability to trap heat from the sun and ALSO to block heat from the sun, meaning they act as barriers both on the way in and back out.”
Greenhouse gases allow visible light to pass, no matter at what angle it is presented. The key is that they “trap” infrared radiation.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Global warming is the child of the environmental movement which is simply against big energy, their monopoly, their power, their money, and their polluting power plants. They opt for renewable energy from wind, thermal and solar generation, which have no emmissions, are free to obtain, and would cost less to therefore invest and distribute. Renewables would reduce the influence of the rich and powerful traditional energy industry in shaping policies.
There’s always an inkling of truth to every side. It would be nice to find the right balance, even if global warming was natural. Polluting the atmosphere with CO2 gases has to cause Mother Earth to over-react to a certain degree or another.
In time human minds thru science will solve these problems when the solutions are more apparent. In the meantime, lets wait for reality to reach our doorsteps, but be mindful of our responsibilities to the generations which follow us.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:07 am
“Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon . . . global warming is a big cash grab”
You’re crazy if you think the scientists researching global warming are getting rich. There aren’t any environmentalists lining their pockets with cash with all this supposed “grant money.” On the other hand, I do see a lot of oil folks making a lot of money.
In fact, don’t the oil, automotive, airline, military technology, and aerospace industries have an interest in seeing climate change debunked? If you want to talk about global warming and following the money… aren’t those industries the ones with the most at stake, and the most money to contribute to spinning the science in their favor??
It’s also quite amusing that so many people here are willing to believe a weatherman over scientists who are studying the issue. . . a weatherman! This guy can’t even get the weather forecast for tomorrow correct, and you’re willing to take his word on global climate change??
January 19th, 2007 at 1:08 am
oh wait, you’re from alabama…nevermind.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:10 am
I think both sides here will agree that there are a lot of idiots who post on this site. I am only one of them (idiots) and I pray for global warming if only to delay the next Ice Age that is most certainly on the way…I hate cold. Fankly, at my age, I just want all the money I can get back from the government after all I have put in.
I know I might be screwing the “children,” but that’s why we (Boomers) have universities isn’t it? We figured out how to live through the mess that the WWII generation left us, let the X’ers figure out how to live through the mess we leave them. That is totally logical, even the liberals would have to agree…if they had the power of logical thought.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:10 am
I was watching the weather a few days ago and the weatherman on this particular channel said the bad weather was due to “climate change” or something stupid like Al Gore would say.
This is the first time I have heard a weatherman say something like this. Most weathermen are intelligent.
There is a book by Michael Crichton titled “State of Fear” which I listened to early last year and enjoyed immensely.
http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html
But I’m not so sure, Michael, that the theory of eugenics is entirely false. I think there really is a “rising tide of imbeciles” — its true cause has yet to be discovered. It’s not genetic. Maybe it’s a virus. Perhaps it has something to do with being brainwashed in certain public school systems, or with being affected psychologically by the liberals that surround us.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:12 am
you are joking i hope?
during a thunderstorm you can see ALL the visible light from the sun?
clouds THE “greenhouse gas” indeed do block visible light from the sun!
January 19th, 2007 at 1:12 am
The one thing that I can’t figure out, is the hype about the massive flooding that will take place when the polar ice caps start to melt. You all remember that ice contracts when it melts and from what I remember in my science class is that 90% of an iceberg is below the water line. So if these giant icebergs start melting, then the water should recede and thus give everyone with waterfront property even more land to build upon.
Sounds to me like global warming is a good thing.
Remember all the dire productions about the amount of hurricanes that the US would see this past season? As it turned out, this was an unusually quiet season. See the numbers below…
9: The number of named storms this year
17: The number of named storms predicted May 31 by a team at Colorado State University led by Professor William Gray
45 mph: The wind speed when Tropical Storm Alberto hit the Florida Panhandle near Adams Beach on June 13, the strongest winds over Florida all season
56 percent: The average homeowner rate increase Citizens Property Insurance Corp. requested even after no hurricanes struck Florida
27 percent: The Citizens rate increase approved to start Jan. 1
$100 million: Estimated damage in the United States from Tropical Storm Ernesto
0: The number of storms that formed in October, the first time since 2002 that no storms formed that month. Also, no Category 4 or 5 storms formed this year for the first time since 1997.
30 years ago, scientists were making predictions about the next coming ice age in fact time magazine ran a cover about the coming ice age.
Global warming is a scam! Read Michael Creighton’s book ( State of Fear)
January 19th, 2007 at 1:12 am
A little reflection for those who like to respond in kind with those that say what they like to hear….
Assumptions:
1. You don’t believe in so-called “man made” Global Warming
2. You like to point out that the earth warmed up naturally many years ago and freed North America from the death-grip of glaciers with out man-made intervention
3. You accept that the earth is actually warming up. It is hard to ignore the disappearing ice-shelves in the antarctic, etc. Ozone holes may go in cycles but they are still getting statistically bigger over time.
***here’s the part to think about***
Is it possible that BOTH could be true? Perhaps the Earth is warming up naturally due to a few large volcano’s spewing CO2 AND due to man-made involvment?
Another (more important) thought:
O.K., so you feel good about shooting down the man-made aspect to global-warming. Great. Perhaps you say that the earth is warming up naturally. My question is still the same, “What are you going to do about it? Are you going to try an intervene so that we do not suffer through the next major natural climate shift? Are you going to stand around watching destruction and say, “See, we didn’t cause this. It wasn’t me!” Who cares if it was you or not. Let’s try to find a solution.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:17 am
thank you for putting it the way it needed to be put. Thank GOD for people out there who will stand up and say the right thing no matter what anyone else will say.
Bud you shall be blessed in your life. This was very much needed.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:18 am
I recall when the government in Houston was justifying the “need” to have time-wasting, expensive emission controls made mandatory, they put their sensors on the feeders to freeway interstates. If you know anything about Houston traffic, all freeways are basically a 4-6 lane parking lot during rush hour (which lasts about 6 hours a day). This is science at its worst.
Those who worship at the alter of global warming are very fast to find a financial connection between any research contrary to their position and oil comanies, cigarette companies, and other “evil” corporations. Yet they completely ignore how much of the global warming scientists are completely dependent on government grants to keep the charade going.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Is everybody in Alabama this fucking dumb?
January 19th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Mitch2008,
“Some scientists would see this as a confirmation of the erratic weather patters predicted by Global Warming.â€
Pray tell, what weather patterns are NOT predicted by GW? The answer is that current GW theory predicts every possible type of weather pattern, except stasis. We’ve never had stasis, so nearly every prediction is guaranteed to be borne out as fact.
Snow in Malibu? GW. Heatwave in France? GW. Record snowfall in Antarctica? GW. Record hurricanes? GW. Normal quantity of hurricanes? GW. Heavy rainfall in WA state? GW. Dry summer in WA state? GW. Hot? GW. Cold? GW.
If it’s hotter than usual, the GW alarmists predicted it, and if it’s colder than usual, well, they predicted that too. They must be correct, because they predict every possible eventuality.
We who are lucky enough to be alive at this time have inherited an Earth climate already in a warming trend. Enjoy it, recycle your trash, ride your bike to work, never throw batteries in the landfill, quit smoking, and switch to LED lighting as quickly as possible.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:22 am
If the best argument some of you have for global warming is to come on here and say “oh, you’re from Alabama ergo you are idiots” then I don’t think your argument, logic, or manners hold much merit.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Let’s face it, this is the new religion of the left and if you don’t believe it you are a heretic and will be punished.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:23 am
When any scientiest or weatherperson can accurately predict local weather a month in advance maybe I’ll listen to their prediction for world wide weather for many years in advance.
Until then, do these people believe the climate is in equalibrium? It changed in the past before man and it will change in the future after man. From everything I’ve read, it would appear the GW pinheads are so hung up on CO2 for political reasons that they totally ignore the affects of H2O in the atmosphere which far outweighs any CO2 influence.
It would also appear that the oceans are warming – something man could not influence – for whatever reason. Warmer oceans release CO2 and also warm up the atmosphere. Note that with all the glaciers melting there is no ocean rising. How come? Maybe because it is the glaciers and ice packs near the oceans that are melting but the warmer oceans are putting more water vapor into the air which is coming down as a lot of snow inland.
Oceans warming, sunspots, volcanoes, axis wobble, axis tilt, orbit variations, and ONLY God knows what else, all have an impact on global warming or global cooling.
Which is cause and which is affect?
Are the warming oceans a precursor to the next ice age? Some scientists believe so. As for me, I’d rather be sunbathing in Central Park in January than cross country skiing in July. Or if NY is under water make that water skiing in January.
I noted the affects of the next ice age conveniently got left out of an Inconvenient Truth. Is it better to lose a few coastal cities to flooding or half of Europe, Asia and North America to glaciers?
Maybe a few hundred thousand more SUVs will put enough extra CO2 in the atmosphere to delay or mitigate the next ice age.
Bottom line is that it is all way too interelated and complicated for stupid man to figure out and those that think they can fix it have way too much pride to be trusted with anything.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:26 am
#166 “Great. Perhaps you say that the earth is warming up naturally. My question is still the same, “What are you going to do about it? Are you going to try an intervene so that we do not suffer through the next major natural climate shift?”
LOL! I love it! How completely self important and self absorbed we are. Magical thinking should now become part of public policy?
I have an idea – lets build a giant tug-ship to haul the earth an additional million miles or so away from the sun. I think 93 million miles is just too close!
January 19th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Michael Creighton is a scam, and Max is an idiot with his ice-contracts/iceberg waterline analysis. (As ice melts, it does contract–but it flows into ocean basins–and thus the total volume occupied by water INCREASES; glaciers are ON LAND, not in the water, and the Greenland ice cap alone holds enough frozen state H20 to raise current ocean levels by 23 feet.) But if you believe your logic, perhaps you can start an Ocean-front REIT and invest in a bunch of land that, by your assessment, must currently be selling at an incredible discount against its future value.
Net-net: Virtually every one on this board is suffering the self-delusion that Jung summarized with his accurate assessment that “mankind can’t stand too much reality.” You guys can deny man-made climate change all you want, and be thankful that you found each other. Because no one in the mainstream scientific, business or cultural community wants to listen to your out-moded and generally disproven drivel. You are the right-wing equivalent of Nancy Pelosi.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:28 am
“Brian Turney Says:
January 18th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Wonderful. someone has discovered something that has been going on for thousands of years! Nearly every morning the earth is ever so gently warmed by energy from our own sun and almost every evening it ever so gently cools again on average. ”
That’s funny… I thought the Earth was round and that the sun was always shining upon it from some angle. The concept of “morning” and “evening” is relative to where you are on the planet, whereas the term GLOBAL refers to that which is occuring to the entire globe… even outside of the United States which is at the globe’s center. Oh wait… not only am I a liberal moonbat.. but I also used the term relative which means I must also be a moral RELATAVIST… AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGH!!!
January 19th, 2007 at 1:29 am
I’ve found debating global warming nuts the same as debating christians; take a stand differing from theirs and you get the same response, if I’m wrong and they’re right, I’ll burn.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:29 am
The biggest factor in Global Warming is……
The Sun
duh, get a grip
January 19th, 2007 at 1:31 am
This is a website that might be of some interest to anyone who is interested in some basics of global climate change.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Some scientific facts:
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth’s natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively ‘trap’ heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat.
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years.
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data)
Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Projected increase from 1990-2100 is anywhere from 0.09-0.88 meters
According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a global temperature increase of anywhere from 1.4 – 5.8°C from 1990-2100
January 19th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Thank you for a voice of reason. I hope this is picked up beyond Drudge and into mainstream outlets.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:32 am
If someone would have asked me to guess where this idiot weather man worked, “Alabama” would have been the first thing out of my mouth.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Global warming is rubbish, junk science at best and propaganda at the worst for the socialist cause. Man was not a significant factor in any of the other warming / cooling spells throughout history. All happened before the industrial era. The global sociocrat junk scientists have yet to explain that one. They are caught up in chasing the bucks available to those who agree with AlGorithm and his mad rush to take us back to the stone age. To understand the natural process, you must understand chaos theory. Nature abhores balance and will drive anything in balance out of balance. Once out of balance, nature will correct the imbalance and return the condition to a state of equilibrium. That is the fundamental unpinning of weather patterns and temperature trends. If the earth’s ambient temp increases, caps melt, water vapor increases, causing more rain and storms which will block sunlight, causing a decrease in temps and a cooling period. Balance – imbalance – rebalance.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Man Made Global Warming is very real and it’s some of you people that are going to contribute to the eventual catastrophe brought on by our activities. Confusing the public is exactly what will make people apathetic about doing what they can to reduce greenhouse emissions before it’s too late. Man has been pumping enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution, almost 175 years of added Co2 and other dangerous emissions. Coupled with extreme deforestation and the pollution of the oceans as well, it’s perfectly clear that man is having quite an effect on the planet and probably not a good one. Sitting around arguing that the ozone hole is a a fluke, or saying the planet has been here for so long how could man possibly throw it off balance only distracts people from doing what is neccessary to stop this extreme danger. If the Earth heats up only 20 or 30 degrees the effects it will have around the world will be a disaster such as the human race has never experianced. The industrial nations need to stop thinking about their “economies” which are usually large corporations that have no interest in stopping global warming at all because the steps it may require could hurt their quarterly profits (boo hoo). It’s not fat cat rich scientists who are being given money to propagate a myth of global warming. It’s the opposite, where companies of course know that pollution might have an adverse effect on the enviroment but simply care about profits so THEY pay people to stir up controversy where there really isn’t any. The science is very concluive about global warming and mans impact on the planet, it’s the people who are in charge of governments and companies as well as the average person that simply doesn’t want to believe it because it’s scary. But soon enough it will be too late and then things will be very very scary, like fertile regions turning arid as well as floods and stronger more dangerous weather. Stop deluding yourselves with th idea that there is a controversy because while your sitting around arguing and delaying valuable time the Earth is heating up more and more every year, and believe it or not the day will come when the consequences of our actions will not be some guess but reality out in the real world.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:39 am
I CAN’T REMEMBER THE LAST TIME A WEATHERMAN WAS RIGHT ABOUT ANYTHING.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:40 am
If “the left” wants us to believe that man and animal are equal (think PETA) and they refer to animals as nature, then, post hoc ergo propter hoc, anything man-made or man-caused is natural as well. Besides, I just heard that automobile emissions are half as bad as we first thought, it is the bovine excrement that is causing more global warming than converting liquid petroleum into CO2 via the exhaust pipe.
STOP-COW-PATTIES-NOW!.com
January 19th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Just offhand from reading this, I’m going to have to say that it’s going to be awfully hard to out dumb Alabama. Kansas appears to be out of the running, but perhaps Texas or Oklahoma would like to give it a try?
January 19th, 2007 at 1:41 am
And all of you thinking that Jesus is going to fly out of the sky on a cloud of glory and whisk the true “believers” naked into heaven that’s fine…believe in whatever you want…Zeus, God, Jesus, or whatever invisible deity you’ve given control of your life over to but don’t try and force it upon the rest of use who see EVIDENCE and actually try to accomplish something ourselves instead of looking to a book written 2000 years ago by who knows, that’s been changed and revised and added to and subtracted to over those 2000 years by normal PEOPLE who may have had some bias. Belief is a wonderful thing as long as it’s personal but don’t try and screw over the whole human race because you believe God will protect us. He hasn’t done a bang up job so far, we have only ourselves to count on.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:42 am
The global warming zealots are dangerous! To continue to ignore the warning signs emanating from this group is like trying to ignore the rise of Stalinism, Nazism, Pol Pot, Islamofacism you name it.
There are many of them who are enraged with anger at the world. They simply wish to eliminate all those who do not believe in their “religion” which has really twisted hardcore Leftist/Communistic undertones and associations. Of that their can be no denial.
From the perspective of the “global warming†crazy, the rapid mass elimination of millions or billions of people from the planet is a “good thingâ€. I’ll leave you to be the judge if that would be a good thing or not but we should not deny what it is that the “Global Warming Haters” really want.
We already have much evidence of this by various insane Leftist university professors who have pretty much said that the mass extermination of people would be good for the planet – usually they imply that those exterminated should come from Western nations of course.
The danger with the “global warming†fanatics is that one of them or a group of them well funded by the likes of Richard Brannagin, Sorros, or someone like them will develop a biological super weapon and use it with the full vengeance of the self-rightrous insane “global warming†bigot. Of course they will insure that they and the few elite among them will have the antidote. The rest of human scum will not deserve to live according to the way these people think.
The fact is you already have those who subscribe to this zealotry calling for internment in concentration camps of all those who disagree with them. Combine that with the call to strip credentials from other professionals who disagree and we are quickly developing the global psychological profile of those who subscribe to so called man-made “global warming”.
Then you have Al Gore’s “inconvenient lies” and absurdities. Pure propaganda, disinformation, spin and hysteria. Ask yourself this – why is it those fanatics on the Left always seem dangerously enraged at the world? Full of hatred and anger they seem ready to detonate a bomb at any second? What is it with these people anyway? The world is supposed to revolve around them or something? These people have issues and seem totally egotistical and self-absorbed.
Remember this, next time you hear a global warming fanatic you are looking at someone who is either dangerously insane and evil, a purely self-centered money grubber who loves taking money out of your wallet and putting it in hers (also know as thieves), an incredibly stupid and a brainwashed follower, or some combination of the above.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Planting more vegetation will not work unless you also bury it afterwards, similar to how coal is produced. Reason being that it takes an enormous amount of fresh water to plant and maintain the vegetation. Once it is grown it slows down absorption of the carbon. Imagine how much Carbon is removed from the atmosphere as you make gas a solid, it has to be substantial. So if you want to remove Carbon/CO2 from the atmosphere grow trees, bury them, grow more. Maybe make houses out of the wood…that keeps the carbon from re-entering the atmosphere. However, that solution does not impede US growth and help developing countries so will never be accepted by the world community. The solution has to involve a transfer of wealth from rich countries to poor or liberals will not like it. We need to suffer and our lifestyle must change preferably to misery and to the control of the government for it to be acceptable to them. Dont forget there has to be a decrease in our ability to manufacture, and taxes there has to be plenty of taxes on everything that can conceivably contribute to rising temperature. There also will be no measure of effectiveness or success. If it looks like it is failing then more taxes will be needed and if it is successful then it means that more taxes are the answer.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Attention Advertisers! You too, can reach this prime demographic. Put the power of Alabama’s ABC 33/40 sales team to work for you. We can help bring customers just like these to your business everyday. Give us a call at 205-403-3340. Ask for Jim-Bob Auhshucks
January 19th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Wow, someone working for an ABC affiliate accusing american politicians and a cable network of doing things for money. Hmmm. I wonder what diverging vested interests all of the competing multiconglomerates have in this discussion.
Conservatives and Liberals wake up! No one is running this country except business interests, on BOTH sides! Stop buying your disposable christmas trees and eating your 10% less fat orange-flavored waffle for a minute and think.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Wow there are a lot of morons on this site! GW is real and is caused in part by man and GOD has nothing to do with it because GOD does not exist..Wow you GOP lug heads are scary!
January 19th, 2007 at 1:45 am
“That’s Like Saying that Iraq actually had WM…”
They did, did u put it up your ass?
January 19th, 2007 at 1:45 am
Here’s one for you. If we can control the weather how about getting everyone to hold up a piece of short wave radiation reflecting device so we can send the incoming solar radiation back up to space? We do this for 2 days and save the world. I’ll start tomorrow. Any takers?
January 19th, 2007 at 1:45 am
In earth’s history, everytime there has been a greenhouse period the planet was tropical and plants benefitted, which in turn benefits animals. Even the poles were tropical. Ice ages on the otherhand were pretty bad. Maybe the planet is finally comeing fully out of the last ice age, as its supposed to. Maybe a warmer planet is better. I think its a natural cycle as well, and I actually think it may be exactly what the planet needs.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:46 am
same crowd said there would be global cooling in the 80′s…
January 19th, 2007 at 1:49 am
If you really care, turn off all of your household appliances and live under a rock! U libs really are fools!
January 19th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Wow, what a bunch of hopeless morons you GW deniers are. Really. Have fun in your echo chamber.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Global warming is caused by forest fires in the west and Saddam lighting oil fields on fire! , and all the shit u rich libs do to your lawns and pools! Turn a light off once and awhile!
January 19th, 2007 at 1:54 am
FIRST: Make no mistake, meteorologists are NOT climatologists, so revoking the certification of a METEOROLOGIST because he/she doesn’t believe in a particular CLIMATOLOGICAL trends is obviously stupid. Let’s revoke the certification of a dentist because he/she can’t remove that wart on my big toe. (if you don’t know the difference between climate and weather, look it up.)
SECOND: Let’s quote the story:
If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject.
How many of the IPCC scientists are television meteorologists? I’d wager that none are. And while on the topic of the IPCC, don’t forget that one major prediction of global warming – of any system experiencing a regime-type change – is highly increased variability. Kinda like wearing shorts in the SE one day and getting snow the next…
The world is flat. The continents don’t drift (i.e., plate tectonics), the earth’s poles wander. Global warming is completely natural with no human influence whatsoever…. Interesting.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:55 am
If we put half as much money into research and development of clean renewable energy as we do into pointless wars and faith based denial we could do what is neccessary to save ourselves. You far right wingers and religious bullies will be the death of us all.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Don’t dig down into the earths core folks, you might not like the molten lava you find! FOOLS!!
January 19th, 2007 at 1:57 am
indeed
January 19th, 2007 at 1:58 am
“Typical arrogant Yanks. Then again this article originates from Alabama. If you only knew how the rest of the world views you. ”
File that under we don’t give a fuck FOOLS!
January 19th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Ha! As if the people who deny the man-made global warming theory don’t have a financial interest in doing so? Give me a friggin’ break…
January 19th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Pleistocene Epoch (1.8 million-10,000 years ago):
This epoch is best known as the “Great Ice Age.” Ice sheets and other glaciers encroach and retreat during four or five primary glacial periods. At its peak, as much as 30% of the Earth’s surface is covered by glaciers, and parts of the northern oceans are frozen. The movement of the glaciers alters the landscape. Lakes, such as the Great Lakes in North America, are formed as ice sheets melt, and retreat. Global warming begins after the last glacial maximum, 18,000 years ago.
Holocene Epoch (10,000 years ago to the present):
The Holocene Epoch may be an interval between glacial incursions, typical of the Pleistocene Epoch and therefore not a separate epoch in itself. However, it is a period marked by the presence and influence of Homo sapiens. During this time, the glaciers retreat, sea levels rise, the climate warms, and deserts form in some areas.
We live in an interglacial period. The climate warming is one aspect of living in an interglacial period. This cycle is what has happened since before man, and it will continue to happen after man is long gone. There is nothing we could do to stop the cylce if we wanted to. This planet will go through these cycles forever, the best we can hope to do is hang on for the ride.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Junk science in the wrong hands has proven to be as deadly as the plague. Millions of children die every year because of a book written over forty years ago. “Silent Spring†lead directly to the world wide ban of DDT. DDT is a substance so harmless to humans that it can be eaten by the handful, yet it kills malaria carrying mosquitoes and it costs just a few dollars a ton.
The crime of “Silent Spring†is eclipsed by the evils of a junk science theory that became popular around the turn of the 19th century. This theory reached its most influential level during the fourth decade of the 20th Century. The theory was called “Eugenics†and it lead its followers directly to building places like Auschwitz and the deaths of over 10 million people deemed undesirable through the teachings of Eugenics champions.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Finally some sanity. Thank you for refuting this absolute nonsense. I am tired, tired of this Global Warming the sky is falling!! Amen and amen. Look, I have no doubt that there is warming; as stated by the qualified meterologist that wrote the above, it is cyclical. Man is not the cause of each burp on the planet. It is typical ‘elitest’ hyperbole to believe that ‘we’ can cause such a massive earth change as they predict. The doom is sickening. The hype is tedious. While I agree that man can damage the planet in regards to pollution and such..to believe we can or have caused the earth to undergo massive doomsday climatic change is the height of narcissism. Shame on the Weather Channel..
January 19th, 2007 at 2:05 am
So called man-made Global Warming is the biggest scam to ever hit planet earth and its subscribers are indeed a dangerous bunch. They are the biggest fools to ever inhabit the planet.
The “hidden agenda” of the global warming freaks is so transparent it’s ridiculous.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Young fellow your a breath of fresh air. If these Morons are so afraid of global warming, we can create a Nuckear winter for them by throwing enough dust into the air. Mt.St.Helen proved that. Lets see, If we Nuke Iran,North Korea,Syria- Oh well I’ll let you bright children figure how much dust we have to throw up to create the perfect temperatue. Only problem is you may have to get out your Long Johns if they goof. It will be easier to cool the earth than heat it up. Nancy Palosi is going to create a globak warming committee. Thats going to be a real Chinese fire drill. Don’t Worry-Be Happy Now.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:07 am
The other day I saw a headline reading something to the effect of “first island to be covered by water due to global warming.” Now what they didn’t bother to mention once in their diatribe on the sky falling, was anything concerning the erosion of the delta this “island” was located in. Hmmmm…. man made control structures and natural river mouth migration…. that’d be over the heads of too many people…. let’s say it’s Global Warming!
Will someone please send these quacks to a geologist. I’m all for energy conservation, saving the wildlife and trees, and ridding the world of circus clowns, but to look at only a speck of global history and have the hubris to conclude that Man is altering the course of a system that operated for hundreds of millions of years….
Instead of another commission to “study” warming, how about they take that money and figure out how to make a couple of volcanoes blow. Put enough ash into the atmosphere and they can take the temperature down to where ever they want the darn thermostat set.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:08 am
Oh, btw — James Spann isn’t even as qualified as I was kindly assuming. He doesn’t even have a bachelor’s degree in meteorology, only “a certificate in broadcast meteorology from Mississippi State University.†But no matter. Either way, he speaks not from fact-based reality.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:09 am
Thank-you for showing the courage to express your opinion on this sensitive issue. Many scientists refusing to accept global warming have been “brutalized” in the press and even at professional meetings. I hope your reward does not bring you similar treatment. Your advise to “follow the money” is spot on. Whatever her professional credentials, Ms. Heidi Cullen has shown herself to be an entertainer, rather than a weather professional. Not because of her views on global warming, but because her call to decertify weather professionals who don’t agree with her are is an afront to the scentific process and to the meteorology professionals.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Post number 210 says Oh, btw — James Spann isn’t even as qualified as I was kindly assuming. He doesn’t even have a bachelor’s degree in meteorology, only “a certificate in broadcast meteorology from Mississippi State University.†But no matter. Either way, he speaks not from fact-based reality.
Figures
January 19th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Pleistocene Epoch (1.8 million-10,000 years ago):
This epoch is best known as the “Great Ice Age.†Ice sheets and other glaciers encroach and retreat during four or five primary glacial periods. At its peak, as much as 30% of the Earth’s surface is covered by glaciers, and parts of the northern oceans are frozen. The movement of the glaciers alters the landscape. Lakes, such as the Great Lakes in North America, are formed as ice sheets melt, and retreat. Global warming begins after the last glacial maximum, 18,000 years ago.
Holocene Epoch (10,000 years ago to the present):
The Holocene Epoch may be an interval between glacial incursions, typical of the Pleistocene Epoch and therefore not a separate epoch in itself. However, it is a period marked by the presence and influence of Homo sapiens. During this time, the glaciers retreat, sea levels rise, the climate warms, and deserts form in some areas.
We live in an interglacial period. The climate warming is one aspect of living in an interglacial period. This cycle is what has happened since before man, and it will continue to happen after man is long gone. There is nothing we could do to stop the cylce if we wanted to. This planet will go through these cycles forever, the best we can hope to do is hang on for the ride.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:16 am
Thanks for speaking up. Hope to hear more from you and your colleagues!
The Global Warming brain-washing movement needs to be eliminated. Funny how these lunatics who are so eager to belittle religion are so eager to pray at the altar of Global Warming with no idea of what real science is.
Must agree with a previous poster who compared the Global Warming movement to terrorist groups – Islamic, Atheistic, or otherwise. GW zealots eagerly threaten anyone who disagrees with violence (eg. previous posts here!). GW itself is similar to a death cult in rejecting all the advances of civilization. Will we see a GW suicide bombing in 2007?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:17 am
James – Thanks. Anyone who took any glaciology in college will agree with you.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Thank you so much James for speaking out against Dr. Cullen’s attempt to stifle debate on this matter. If more people had the courage you do to speak from their profession this wouldn’t be such a one-sided debate.
God bless you James, you’re doing the right thing.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:22 am
I’m still trying figure out how these so called scientists know what the average temperature of the earth within a tenth of a degree was 200-500 years ago. Please. I know we can do amazing things with science. I had a lot of science classes in college at a major university. I also remember in middle school how they used to cram the crap down our throuts like it was fact and we better just learn to live with it. They told us by the time we’re 30 we’ll all have to live underground because we won’t even have an atmosphere and the solar radiation will burn our skin off. The more I learned about science, the more it became evident to me that these people were full of crap. Especially when you find out people can earn a lot of money researching this type of matter. Go to the weather channel and look at Heide’s bio and what she did to get her PhD. I bet her research matter paid for her PhD. I bet the people she worked with we sold on this garbage too. How do you bet they paid for their PhDs ?
Jim Cantore makes me absolutely sick. I wish I could punch him in the gut sometimes. I used to love the weather channel. It’s now becoming the MTV for 30-60 year olds. There’s hardly any “weather” on it. All it is anymore is tv shows about weather, and commercials. And don’t forget the self promotional bits for Jim Cantore. This guy has an ego that could crush Heide Cullen in a fraction of a second. I remember last year when they were “banking their careers on the most catastophic hurricane season we have ever seen becasue of global warming. Did we even have any hurricanes last year? Yeah, I know there were a couple, but really, they said that global warming was causing these things to happen and 2006 was going to be worse than anything before it. It fell flat. Don’t these people have to answer for this? I don’t remember seeing a Jim Cantore spot where he said they were wrong and they’ll look at the models to see where they went wrong. You know why? It’s not about the models, or the science, or the accuaracy about what they’re doing. They want to be right there in a hurricane, sorry, Jim Cantore wants to be right there in the hurricane to show boat and get a pay raise and badge for saving people’s lives, however it is that people like Jim Cantore save people’s lives in these events. He said it, not me. Then Heide gets her firepower to propell her “beliefs”. I know they would never publicly admits to it, but I just know that TWC was bummed out by not getting the big hurricanes they had hoped for.
Someday this Global Worming crap will be over and I’m glad I won’t ever be duped by this popular cult following. I think these so called meteorologists like Cullen should be called out for what they really are “Science Nazis”. Hey, if all these classy politicians can call GW Bush a “Hitler” and a war crimainal anytime they want, then we should be able to at least label these people for what they truely are…Nazis. If you don’t believe me pick up a history book of pre-WWII Europe and see “Nazi Propiganda Machine”
January 19th, 2007 at 2:24 am
Hey anon, post#14. Listen to what you are saying! Are you completely nuts, or just cognitively challenged?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:27 am
We can’t ignore the combined statements coming in from all over the world. It’s apparent they all think the same way.
Start stringing together all the statements and positions of the global warming doomsayers and a picture is starting to emerge about who these people are and what they believe. They seem really angry with anyone who dares to disagree with them about ANYTHING or point out evidence that contradicts what they claim. I can just picture these people getting into power and angrily rounding up “deniers†and herding them into death camps. These people obviously feel that strongly about it.
They clearly do not want any REAL scientific study or debate, they just want us to take their word for it based on flawed computer models, lies and distortion. They want to lock up anyone who does not agree with them – or worse. Obviously, those who are deep into it and have created this story depend on keeping this thing going for so they get a steady paycheck.
People who think man causes global warming are scary and dangerous sounding.
The only thing we can compare this to is that the global warming people are acting the exact same way Islamic Radicals do when you disagree with them.
Scary!
January 19th, 2007 at 2:27 am
They use something that happens naturally to scare people into thinking its caused by the policies of the opposing party. Its a political tactic, a low one, but its a tactic. Unfortunately, the gullible will eat it up and actually believe it.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:28 am
She posted a “rebuttal” blog as well today. In the second post she 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.”
I think you should take her up on the offer James and put her in her place!
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11592.html
January 19th, 2007 at 2:29 am
You know, you’re absolutely right. I totally underestimated the stupidity here. It’s going to be damn hard to out dumb America. No wonder you guys can’t win a war anymore.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:30 am
I don’t believe that the changes in the weather on this planet are man made but are GOD made He created this planet for us to live on and to use the resources that he created. GOD knows what the stuff will do and he has it under control and if he didn’t we would be living on boats and platforms like they do in the movie Waterworld and co2 is just a part of the earth and it couldn’t exist with out it! If the Govermentis so concerned why don’t they ban every thing that runs on fossil fuels? Because they would lose money that they get from those industries that support them “Liberal Democrats” so James spann keep on telling the weather they way you know how and the weather channel doesn’t stand a chance against you, you and Dan Satterfield CH 19 and Brad Travis CH48 both in Huntsville Al Know how to Tell the weather as it really is, so keep on trucking!!!!!!!!!!!! “James Spann for President”
January 19th, 2007 at 2:30 am
I think it’s ridiculous for anyone to say that the current warming of our atmosphere isn’t unprecedented. Our globe has NEVER seen an increase of temperature this severe, period, and NEVER such an incline in a short amount of time.
Any of you – watch “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore. He gives a speech in his movie that is completely unbiased and lays the facts out in an easy-to-understand layout.
However…I agree with James that this comment was over the top. One of the fundamental rights of our nation is free speech, and I personally respect and admire anyone with an opinion about a given subject.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:36 am
She didn’t propose censoring their free speech, she just proposed relieving them of their accreditation. If someone of scientific stature and credibility proposed that contrary to all the available evidence, rising planetary carbon dioxide concentrations do not raise average planetary temperatures, and contrary to all the available evidence, humanity is not driving planetary carbon dioxide concentrations to unprecedented levels, then I would further argue that they be relieved of their tenure, or at least set out to emeritus pasture like William Gray. But hey, this is the new America. You’re seeing it in all its glory right here.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:37 am
I have to laugh at these “global warming” nuts. Is it bad to pollute the air? Of course! But let’s control it better for that reason not try to “scaremonger” humanity to achieve it.
I read with interest a 25-30 year old edition of Newsweek (amongst others) where the cover story was about a new “Ice Age” coming. This was apparently the big scare of that period.
And it was the same groups of people who are pushing/propagandizing this global warming fear today.
I have to wonder just what it actually IS they’re trying to accomplish.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:39 am
Global warming does happen, BUT man has NOTHING to do with it! A vulcanologist friend put our pollution impact on the world into perspective. All the pollution created by mankind since its beginning does not equal the amount of “pollution” put out by one small to moderate Volcanic eruption. You know, the kind that occur quite a few times a year around the globe.
That being said, what kind of impact is one measly little SUV going to have on the planet? Even a million? Diddly and squat. That’s what.
Personally, this nutjob who wants to decertify meteorologist out to lose her approval herself. She’s obviously more interested in pushing an enviro-fascist agenda than providing sound weather data to the public. Proof positive that conflict of interests is not limited to the legal profession.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:43 am
Can you quantify that for us in SI units of diddlysquatons?
You know, you being a great scientist and all.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:44 am
>
And you know that the globe has NEVER seen an increase ever becasue you have daily temps form the creation of the planet to prove your point, or are you making up facts to prove your point?
>
Al’s “Inconvenient Truth” was that he conveniently left out the truth.
>
Here a quote for you, “opinons are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink”. I’d rather stick to facts. Just becase you ‘like’ the way your opionion is, does not mean that it is factualy correct, and something like GW that has very little to do with fact, and much more to do with opinion that can have a very real and negative effect to me… bothers me.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:46 am
The author, and every commenter above should be tied to a fence and bludgeoned with a heinously overgrown zucchini. There is a reason that this country ends up with baffled child-kings as president, and that reason is the rampant imbecility as evidenced above. You all provide poetic evidence that everyone in this world tends to get exactly what they deserve. I look forward to relaxing with a fine glass of wine and watching your high-pitched squeals hasten this society’s inevitable trip towards mediocrity.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Re: #43, Brian: The National Enquirer scarcely qualifies as an authorative source on global warming infomation. I suppose you depend on Doonesbury for all your political info as well.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:46 am
*I think it’s ridiculous for anyone to say that the current warming of our atmosphere isn’t unprecedented. Our globe has NEVER seen an increase of temperature this severe, period, and NEVER such an incline in a short amount of time.*
And you know that the globe has NEVER seen an increase ever becasue you have daily temps form the creation of the planet to prove your point, or are you making up facts to prove your point?
*Any of you – watch “An Inconvenient Truth†by Al Gore. He gives a speech in his movie that is completely unbiased and lays the facts out in an easy-to-understand layout.*
Al’s “Inconvenient Truth” was that he conveniently left out the truth.
*However…I agree with James that this comment was over the top. One of the fundamental rights of our nation is free speech, and I personally respect and admire anyone with an opinion about a given subject.*
Here a quote for you, “opinons are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink”. I’d rather stick to facts. Just becase you ‘like’ the way your opionion is, does not mean that it is factualy correct, and something like GW that has very little to do with fact, and much more to do with opinion that can have a very real and negative effect to me… bothers me.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:50 am
One more fact.
For those of you that keep repeating that ‘we are in an unprecedented period of global warming” you should take into consideration our actual temperature records only go back for a few hundred years at best. Everything else is extrapolated from other sources many of which are “best guesses”.
I also recall the “dire predictions” last year of a disastrous hurricane season this year by many of our global warming types citing, naturally, global warming as the reason.
It didn’t happen.
And even if it had there have been periods of intense hurricanes and not for centuries as well.
As I have stated previously, deal with pollution for that reason alone and quit this constant leftist liberal fearmongering. The people are getting tired of it.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:50 am
Alabama has the highest number of rocket scientists and Huntsville, Alabama has the highest number of Ph.D.s per capita in the USA. Look it up morons, your attacks are based on stereotypes and ignorance.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:52 am
The thing that I enjoy about this global warming hype is it reminds of one of my beloved stories that I read over and over again….Chicken Little. Al Gore is the biggest Cluck of all.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:52 am
By the way, Al Gore is not a scientist and I doubt he has ever given an unbiased opinion of anything in his entire life.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:53 am
Man-made “Global Warming” is crap (for reasons listed by others above, among others)
But what I wanted to point out a hilarious/idiotic quote from Cullen:
“It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather,” “It’s not a political statement… it’s just an incorrect statement.”
Interesting, however she wasting her time telling us, and should choose a different audience to inform about how hurricanes rotate. After all, it was Al Gore’s Inconvenient Piece of Crap that used a backwards rotating hurricane on it’s posters, promotional items and DVDs!!!
Anyway, just wanted to point out how funny it is that this “expert” (read: lying alarmist) Cullen brings up hurricane rotation, unaware (or dishonestly ignoring) that the Gore crew (who is on her side) couldn’t get it right before having the image printed MILLIONS of times all over the world.
(If this is new information to you, simply look up the movie on Amazon, then go out and search for satellite images of hurricanes… I challenge you to prove that the “Inconvenient” hurricane was rotating the right way)
January 19th, 2007 at 2:53 am
The planet might be heating up, but that doesn’t mean man is doing it. It’s done it countless times before.
A better indicator would be the million mile long plumes of raw heat blowing out of the sun. Take a look at the stats:
http://www.spaceweather.com/solarflares/topflares.html
04/11/03 X28+
02/04/01 X20.0
16/08/89 X20.0
28/10/03 X17.2
07/09/05 X17
Four of the five most powerful solar explosions every recorded by man happened in the last 6 years. 28 of the 29 most powerful ever recorded happened since 1980. What the hell do you expect?
Well I’d expect Jupiter to be warming:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
“The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.”
I’d expect Mars to be warming:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
“And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars’ south pole have shrunk from the previous year’s size, suggesting a climate change in progress.”
Maybe even Pluto would warm:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
“Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists”
Oh hell, maybe even the pole of Saturn that points at the sun would warm up:
http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/news/science/saturn/
“‘If the increased southern temperatures are solely the result of seasonality, then the temperature should increase gradually with increasing latitude, but it doesn’t,’ added Dr. Orton. ‘We see that the temperature increases abruptly by several degrees near 70 degrees south and again at 87 degrees south.’”
Maybe even warming on Neptune’s biggest moon:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml
“According to observations made by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and several ground-based instruments, temperatures on Neptune’s largest moon have increased dramatically since the Voyager space probe swung by in 1989.”
So explain how the hell man is heating up the whole solar system? You got to be dumb as a box of rocks to swallow the Progressive clap trap.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:55 am
From my observations, the intolerance on this subject started fairly recently and is about 99% from the “man is definitely causing it” camp.
There are some interesting arguments and speculations on both sides, but the mainstream media (comprised mostly of politically correct Leftists, Liberals and Lemmings) is all about slamming anyone who dares to question the popular belief.
The computer models which predict our near demise by flooding are based on an extremely limited data set. We just don’t know that much about how the sun, the oceans, the land, and the clouds interact with each other yet. They just started seriously measuring a lot of this stuff a very short time ago (with temperature buoys and satellites for example).
The global warming debate might be a legitimate one, but global warming fear mongering seems driven by people with lots of different agendas – none of which have anything to do with weather.
PS As an aside, I fing it interesting that hateful Leftists (at least one in this blog) like to use the term “neocon” as a type of bigoted insult like some kind of an “N” word. I can’t help but wonder if these people even know what a neocon is or where the word came from. The neoconservative movement was started by a small number of Leftist intellectuals several decades ago who abandoned their fellow Leftists over differences about the evils of communist totalitarianism.
The neocons understood the the reality of the atrocities committed by Stalin, Moa, Hoa, and Castro et al.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:56 am
JAMES, YOU ARE MY HERO, YOU’VE ALWAYS STOOD UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE. YOU HAVE ALWAYS SHOT US STRAIGHT AND I KNOW THERE IS NOT A MORE DEDECTATED METEOROLOGIST IN THE NATION. THE LITTLE BIT I KNOW ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING IS THAT VOLCANO ERUPTIONS OVER THE YEARS HAVE DONE WAY MORE DAMAGE THAN BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.
I VOTE THAT WE REVOKE HER LISCENSE!
January 19th, 2007 at 2:56 am
As a scuba diver for many years, I’ve seen the depletion of coral and much sea life around many part of the globe. Yes, much is from over fishing, but the corals bleaching is due to earth warming. Eventually we will have destroyed our sea population, making many dead oceans. Only in controlled and protected areas can we research. With the depletion of sea life and dead seas and these weather patterns you dismiss, is a shallow and naive point of view. To say it is a divine “god” thing is just stupid. We are over populated, more then at any time in history. We destroy what we see and what more of it. We deserve what we get. So, preach your shallow and naive views. All you do is make people think they can keep polluting and supporting companies that destroy natural resources. If you are a person of spiritual conscience, then where is it? This earth was for us to inherit, and look at what we are doing to it. You are such a fool to dismiss the dangers our planet is going through! Bring on the ice age or lets have our ozone be gone. Remove this human infestation. For we are not worthy to inherit this earth. That is your view to be so dismissive!! You fool!
January 19th, 2007 at 2:57 am
*The author, and every commenter above should be tied to a fence and bludgeoned with a heinously overgrown zucchini.*
yawn.
*There is a reason that this country ends up with baffled child-kings as president, and that reason is the rampant imbecility as evidenced above.*
So you are sayig you don’t like democracy?
*You all provide poetic evidence that everyone in this world tends to get exactly what they deserve.*
I don’t understand why you are saying i deserve the best, you mean standerd of living, rights, civil liberties?…
*I look forward to relaxing with a fine glass of wine and watching your high-pitched squeals hasten this society’s inevitable trip towards mediocrity.*
hehe, when you are #1 it is enviable, there is only one way to go. We are a superpower, 2nd to none, the only thing we can do is go down, but I doubt you will see this in your lifetime.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:58 am
Al Gore, though a Southern Baptist, worships the mother goddess Gaia and advoctaes “reliance upon a Higher power, by whatever name”.(quoted from Dave Hunt’s book, OCCULT INVASION)…………When we hurt the earth, we are attacking his god/creator/savior. According to Gore and his pagans, Gaia (Mother Earth) is a living organism of which we are all a part. (a pagan superstition)….At the Global Forum (Jan 1985), Gore declared that ecological problems could be solved only through a “new spirituality” common to all religions. Al Gore’s “Higher power” by whatever name, contradicts the Bible. The Bible says that Jesus is the ONLY Name under heaven by which we must be saved from our sins. Gore is a self-confessed New Ager. Just before becoming Vice President, Gore wrote a book in which he praised the “wisdom distilled by all faiths”. He praised goddess worship and blames Christianity for wiping out “the last vestige of organized goddess worship”. He praises Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Baha’i as well as New Age and occultist Catholic priest Teilhard de Chardin.
I’m a Bible-believer, and the pagans have no credibility at all.
See http://www.bible-codes.org.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:06 am
Paul!! What is your address, so that I can send you a quarter to buy a clue! Dude! We have natural earth patterns that take decades to happen, but we are making them happen ablormally. So fkg what! Smoke your joint! And drink your alcohol! What do you care! – You don’t!! Also, to type your comments in UPPER CASE! Yea!! Whatever! How much smarter can American’s get!
January 19th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Sure we’re warming the planet,
but its doubtful it can be reversed when you take into account developing nations such as China etc. I’ts clearly time to ban water vapor!! Anywhoo, who really cares about a 1/4 inch rise in the oceans every 5 years because whom will that inconvenience? Malibu Homeowners? Manhattan developers? Come on now – the Dutch have done pretty well staving off the sea, they’ve built plenty of sea walls.. So Bill Me!! What we SHOULD focus on is the destruction of ocean species and overfishing, you know, stuff we EAT. The ocean is more fragile than our atmosphere by far, and inundated with tons more pollutants and bio waste. A dead sea will arrive well before the 100-200 yr. time frame predicted for global warming effects. Now if we can put controls on AL GORE…
January 19th, 2007 at 3:12 am
The Left has accepted this nonsense as their new religion. Once they have taken that step, they simply can’t let it go or it destroys their entire world and shakes them to their core.
If you pick a religion to follow, it better be a good one and better be built on something with a lot more substance than this absurdity. This is a reflection of the “believers”, shallow, little substance. They know it and we know it.
Do or die is pretty much their motto at this point and that makes them very dangerous.
They can’t stop now or they lose all credibility. That’s the problem with the position the “believers” have gotten themselves into by being so naive and gullible. They are the product of a microwave generation.
Many of the “believers” are having serious doubts but they don’t know what to do because they have wrapped their entire political ideology around this new craze that is based on little data – much of it manufactured to produce the political statement they are trying to achieve and based on a microscopic span of time.
In fact they are escalating the rhetoric and actively trying to bring about a situation where eventually if you disagree with them you will be locked up or shot or probably both.
We are the “deniers” of absurdity and they are the “believers”. People also used to think the world was flat merely because a bunch of elitist Left Wing Snobs said so.
Historians in the future will look back on this time as they are shivering in the next ice age and wonder with incredulity how a certain segment of society could be so dumb and so wrong. Wonder what name they will come up with for these people who buy into every latest craze and fad with little thought.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:13 am
You dont agree with global warming, you are STUPID, you must die.
Bwwwaaaaahhhhhaaahhhaaaahaaa.
These liberal nuts continue to amuse me. Just like in the 70′s when the Amazon was going to disappear by 1990.
What a friggin joke they are.
Thank God, a few people still have a brain left.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:18 am
There’s none so blind as those that will not see…
What a bunch of ignorant, right-wing, redneck morons (and I include all those who so quaintly list their qualifications – Lori, a BS and three months of undergraduate ‘research’ doesn’t really cut it in the big world).
I suppose you guys still cling to the belief that smoking is unrelated to cancer, that the earth was made in 7 days and the moon is made of green cheese. TV weathermen are not scientists, they are TV personalities, with their own pathetic need to stir up controversy, gain publicity and stroke their own egos.
For anyone to reduce such an important issue to one of left wing / right wing politics is beyond belief. Those who are better qualified, and better placed to review the facts, than the majority of respondents here all believe that the increase in global warming is a direct result of human activity. But that’s OK guys – keep driving your SUVs to your NRA meetings – you just KNOW you’ve got nothing to worry about – right?
January 19th, 2007 at 3:20 am
*Esteban Ramirez Says:
January 19th, 2007 at 3:06 am
Paul!! What is your address, so that I can send you a quarter to buy a clue! Dude! We have natural earth patterns that take decades to happen, but we are making them happen ablormally. So fkg what! Smoke your joint! And drink your alcohol! What do you care! – You don’t!! Also, to type your comments in UPPER CASE! Yea!! Whatever! How much smarter can American’s get! *
Keep the quarter, you need the clue, what PROOF (ie facts) do you have the we (ie humans) MADE weather patterns happen ablormally( :p )? Or is this more opinion? If you have solid FACTS, please share them, the vast majority of people that doubt man-made GW is occuring is asking request.. simple… thing… please show the FACTS, the scintific methode you employed, your research, your raw data… that will ‘prove’ GW is man-made.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:26 am
“For anyone to reduce such an important issue to one of left wing / right wing politics is beyond belief.”
Explain to us then why the Left has wrapped their entire political ideology around this debate and THEY have made this thing political.
The Left has been on the attack against America since day one and it’s THEY who have made this political – get a cue already. What, you guys expect the opposition just to sit their and not counter? That’s not the way it works in the big world.
It’s like the Left walks into a crowded elevator and rips a nasty one and then wonders why everyone hates them. Jeeze! Get a clue.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Hypocrisy = those who preach (eco nuts) but wont live it.
You people believe GW, then live it and live me alone.
Tell Algore and Huffingmore to quit flying and using energy
It is called freedom and quit trying to take it away from me!!!!!!!!!!!
It is more of the imposition of your will on me.
LEAVE ME ALONE. GO LEAVE YOUR GW BY YOURSELF.
HYPOCRITES !!!!!!!!!!!
January 19th, 2007 at 3:35 am
And just think, thirty percent of the eligible voters in America are just as dumb, and quite possibly dumber (hard to imagine) than you guys. Sobering thought, eh? No wonder America is bankrupt.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:38 am
I have noticed that “acadamia nuts” insist that education always makes one fully qualified to discuss a subject in their field of study, yet there is never any consideration as to whether the educated one is “good” at it. If someone else brings up a point or two, they should not be rejected because of their beliefs being different.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:38 am
Think of the the weather channel like CNN. Once they reported the news and know they try to make the news.
Both are irrelevant when it comes to the weather or news
January 19th, 2007 at 3:38 am
Notice how the global warming freaks worship hypocrites like AlGore and all the other limousine liberals who live in huge mansions with just two people in them, swimming pools, huge manicured lawns, fountains and the like? They jet around in charter jets with just a few people feeling all smug and superior, are driven around in SUVs (one person to a vehicle) and just plain overall live lives of massive hypocrisy?
Anyone ever notice the H Y P O C R I C Y? Does the hypocrisy from the left wing idiots ever make you sick? AlGore whose family made a lot of money growing tobacco as well as destroying the environment in the mining industry –what a joke. Ok, let all the rest of us make our fortune first doing the things you do and then we’ll sit around all smug afterwards like you and preach to the rest of the world. Idiots.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:43 am
While she’s at it, maybe the weather-babe from The Weather Channel can get the Pope to excommunicate non-believers too, or arrange to have them burned to death for hearsay.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:43 am
i doubt you TV meteorologist guys know jack.. you’re friggin television meteorologists.. look to the guys with the PhD’s, the guys doing research RIGHT NOW.. how many TV meteorologists are doing research currently? in between the coke and the botox injections? gimme a break!
January 19th, 2007 at 3:43 am
http://www.junkscience.com/
January 19th, 2007 at 3:45 am
A lot of people with “PHD’s” are challanging the religion of Global Warming. Deal with it, your god is false.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:46 am
I’ve been following weather forecasting for 35+ years. I actually aspired to become a NWS meteorologist, until I realized the degrees needed and time spent at BF Egypt locales before you could get the “cake” locations to work at. I too remember the “Coming Ice Age” hype of the 60′s and 70′s, only to give way to “Global Warming” hype in the early 80′s. I think it really started to get press after the major El Nino of 1982. Because of the unusual “warming” of the eastern Pacific that caused it, the doomsday media thought ocean warming and “Global Warming” were one in the same. From then on it just snowballed with all sorts of dire predictions of doom. Droughts, floods, ice caps melting, oceans rising anywhere from a few feet to 30-40 feet over anywhere from a 30 to 100 yr span (all wild, pulled from the ass numbers). Do the math on any of these predictions from the 80′s and you’ll see they’ve all fallen flat on their faces. I’m still waiting for even 1 inch of ocean level rising.
I’m not saying that there’s NO climate change going on, their most likely is, but the climate ALWAYS changes. Like many have said already, Mars ice caps have receded in the last 50 years. Even evidence of climate change is occurring on Jupiter, with the Great Red Spot changing size, and other formations changing significantly.
Many of the “warmers” fail to admit that the Sun only has to fluctuate its energy by less that a fraction of 1% to have a major impact on Earths climate. A 1% change would be catastrophic. I believe we are in a very minor fluctuation in the solar cycle.
What really pisses me off about the enviro-socialists using the “Global Warming” hype to try to get us to change our capitalistic ways, is what’s becoming a “holy than thou” attitude if you don’t agree. Like you want the Earth to be destroyed if you don’t by it, hook, line and sinker. Why don’t they just come out honestly and say they are against polluting the planet. They would get much more support to help curb pollution in general, other than using speculative computer “models” that can be tweaked to predict any type of outcome, with cumulative effects.
That’s also why Kyoto is such a farce. Countries like China and India are TOTALLY exempt from pollution controls under that treaty. You think we’ve seen a loss of manufacturing to those countries so far, just think what would’ve happened if we signed on to it? Those countries, especially China, have taken the worst of Capitalism and the worst of Communism and combined them into a greedy socialist empire that puts industrial growth over all else, including its own peoples health and welfare. And it’s only going to get worse. A billion people there want SUV’s like the Yanks have. Do we go over there and stop them from having the Chinese version of the “American Dream” (though a much socialized one at that)?
Why aren’t the enviro-do-gooders going over to China, India, and Southeast Asia preaching them to stop using their 2 stroke motorbikes, and newfound affordable, non-pollution regulated, autos?
Pollution from growing 3rd world economies are going to kill more people, much quicker, than any effect of so called “Global Warming” in the next 50 years.
But, I forgot, “Global warming is peoplllllllleee!!!!!”
(Apologies to Charlton Heston’s scream from Soylent Green)
January 19th, 2007 at 3:46 am
“Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing”?? how about billions of dollars ARE flowing. TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON WAR THOUGH.. and i doubt that billions figure is even close to correct. anyway, you can’t even get subject-verb agreement right, so why the f*** should i trust your opinions as an accurate judgment of the weather, MUCH LESS the REASONS for the weather, i.e., man-made OR natural causes of global warming? anyway, global warming is too vague a term, for instance if climate conditions change in the warm direction, western europe will actually freeze! it’s really global screwing, or something akin. peace!
January 19th, 2007 at 3:57 am
“Billions of dollars of grant money is flowingâ€?? how about billions of dollars ARE flowing. TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON WAR THOUGH..”
And there you have it, yet again more proof that the entire global warming thing is completely tied up in the politics of the global left. Now they are trying to drag “The War” debate into “Global Warming”. For them it’s just one political issue after another and the Left won’t be happy until we are all equally miserable or at least as miserable as they are in life.
People might take you idiots more seriously if you didn’t make everything political and just stuck to facts. But you can’t help yourselves cause you are idiots. Have a nice day idiots.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:58 am
Most of you posting have no clue what Mr. Spann’s qualifications are, nor do you know how well he is respected in the meterological community. You are posting based on total ignorance (especially those of you talking about Alabama, or foreigners calling America bad, if it’s so bad why is everyone coming here?) GW is nothing more than baseless hype. The climate changes. No one has records going back to the beginning of time. When the world is over, it will end just like the Bible says it will. Those of you who choose not to believe this will eventually in fact believe. Might just be too late though. Don’t understand why you have such a hatred for Christianity anyway.
Those of you buying into the GW hype are just the type our media love. You must be spoon fed everything, and told how to believe. Then you come on a forum and insult and curse because you cannot back up your arguments. Look at yourselves in the mirror if you want to talk about gullible.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:01 am
You GW nuts are going to believe what gives you reason to live.
Without the issues: GW, peace, famine, AIDS, Africa, etc, etc, ad nausem, You are irrelevant and have no reason to live.
Why is it so important for everyone to agree with you, does it make you feel smarter?????????
OK, OK, we give in, you are all smarter than the real Americans (flyover folks).
Feel better to rip us and call us names? Then you must feel better now.
The real Americans will just have to hold our breath and pockets until your 15 minutes is over.
So back off and tack a breath and GO AWAY.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:04 am
While I think decertification is stupid, I think the myopic view of global warming deniers is also stupid. The issue needs more scientific study (on all sides), not just someone saying “It’s not true because I don’t think it’s true”. I’ve always thought Spann to be a self-important blowhard and this only confirms my view.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Chris, James Spann is not “just a TV meterologist”, his experience in meteorlogy is second to none. I am a meteorologist as well, except I work in the private sector. I forecast and test new products, and I must say James Spann is the best meteorologist on TV. Not only does James know the local climate better than anyone around, but he also knows every knook and crannie in this state. His experience speaks for it self and is the man to turn to during severe weather.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:17 am
This is a strange argument. Real scientists don’t assert that anything is absolute “fact” — just that the evidence supports a pattern or process, and that other possible explanations have been shown to be less likely. The consensus of expert climatologists is that global warming is real, and that humans are the major contributors. Hundreds of experts (real experts) got together and published a paper in support of this a couple of years ago in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, and more evidence keeps flooding in.
There’s little question that the Earth has experienced major changes in temperature in its history, and that this has had a big impact on the diversity of Life. There’s little doubt that this will continue to happen for natural reasons. But the available evidence indicates that it’s happening a lot faster than it has in the past, and there’s a very strong correlation between an increase in human activities that release carbon dioxide and an increase in global temperature. There’s also overwhelming evidence that this is having a major effect on Life all over the planet, and the planet itself, much of which in turn determines the welfare of humans. This seems to be happening so quickly that the systems it affects can’t adapt and rebound quickly enough to survive. So where does that leave us?
Of course, it could all be coincidence, natural cycles, etc. But the available evidence indicates that this is a manmade event. As others here have pointed out, the scientists involved don’t stand to gain much from supporting this idea, and potentially could gain more by opposing it. Yet they don’t, because they’re most interested in making the best possible predictions and examining the evidence as objectively as possible. This has nothing to do with politics, religion, etc.; it’s based on years of training and experience, and a commitment to scientific integrity. Scientific integrity is a powerful thing — although there are always a few sell-outs, those of who have spent decades in the field aren’t about to risk our reputations or self respect just for a few moments of fame based on sensational claims.
It’s not long ago that the idea that “germs” cause infection was dismissed, and the suggestion that doctors wash their hands before surgery was seen as silly. As recently as the 1960s-70s, people were still arguing about whether cigarettes caused lung cancer, and pregnant women were being advised to smoke to calm their nerves. Scientific studies have pretty much resolved these issues, although we’ll never know for sure.
If I provided any kind of plausible evidence that there were a bomb in a building, it would be evacuated immediately. The authorities wouldn’t stand around asking for more tests, study groups, risk assessments etc. Here we have thousands of experts saying that there’s a real danger of a worldwide disaster, and backing up their concerns with hard data. Maybe they’re all wrong, but is it really worth taking that chance?
January 19th, 2007 at 4:22 am
I thought it was just me, I was watching a local channel when a tornado watch scroll went over the bottom of the screen about conditions 10 miles from my house so I switched to the weather channel and watched an informercial and a climate change movie but no scroll and no mention of a warning for ten minutes during which I jumped back and forth to other local stations –they all had some mention of the problem so I turned off the weather channel and used the national weather service website to see if I was near a danger zone. I will never watch the weather channel again and now I understand why. Before this I was beginning to think Comcast wasn’t interested in local service. Now I just shake my head and regret that political correctness has censored another source of information that use to be helpful to us and provide warnings about severe weather.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Global Warming is a theory, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that changes in climate are nothing more than normal patterns that have been taking place since time began. Spot on regarding the money trail – grants, grants and more grants. 20 years ago (give or take) the popular theory was the coming ice age, that didn’t pan out so we are now faced with global warming. Historical weather data (keep in mind records have only been kept for what? 100 years?), suggests that there are patterns in place, which appear to be natural. Go figure.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:22 am
I am neither scientist nor climate expert, but perhaps a touch of “old man” logic is in order in regard to the effects of “global warming”.
Warm air contains moisture. When it meets the arctic temperatures, that moisture falls in the form or snow and sleet, or condenses and freezes on existing ice, all building up the arctic ice.
Cold air, near to freezing temperature or below freezing temperature, is dry. There is no moisture in it to support a build up of arctic ice.
Run that through ENIAC.
Epw
January 19th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Here is evidence for scientific proof that you say does not exist.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html
January 19th, 2007 at 4:29 am
Why is it that the vast majority of the scientific community believes that global warming is a very credible hypothesis with reasonable enough evidence to support drastic changes in our environmental policies – yet “anyone with an eighth grade science education” or people “who wrote a college paper” on the topic “know” that it’s not legitimate science?
This argument reminds me of evolution. Even though (once again) the vast majority of the scientific community believes evolution, as a theory, is based on good science, people “who took high school biology” know it’s false.
Scientists aren’t always right, but there’s a better chance some of the world’s greatest minds with decades of training in the scientific method have a better chance at being right than the average person who took a few courses in college. As for the claims of academic politics, this is one issue where those who speak AGAINST global warming have benefited from both attention and funding in recent years. How many government scientists have either been fired or denied funding because they failed to “tone down” their rhetoric in recent years?
Global warming isn’t a certainty, and its probability should be based on hard science and not sound bytes. Let’s leave those to politicians.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:30 am
To all people who believe in Global Warming:
Look at the scientific facts (or the lack there of)! 150 years of weather records is not enough data to determine if Global Warming is in fact occurring. Maybe over the past 150 years we have been increasing in temperature…but what about the BILLION of years before that? Not only that but, 150 years ago the United States was in a Industrial Revolution and most of these observations were taken in what is today considered rural areas. Now fast foward 100 years and the areas where observations are taken are covered in concrete and asphalt. This is called the “Global Heat Island Effect” and Dr. Christy from the UAH wrote a paper about this and presented it to Congress in the 1990′s. In the Mid 90′s Chicago had a severe heat wave, which killed hundreds of people. After this fatal heat wave, the city of Chicago recieved a grant from Congress to plant trees and plants. Since then the vegitation has decreased the amount of solar radiation being absorded in the city and summer time temperatures have been cooler. Still belive in Global Warming?
Point number 2:
In Earth’s history there have been times with no ice on the poles. So whats going on? Several things are possible, the Earth’s tilt changing and plate techtonics are both possible explaniations. The Southern Hemisphere is the coldest of the two Hemispheres, however the southern hemisphere recieves more solar radation than the northern hemisphere. The southern hemisphere has a land mass over their poll, while the north pole does not. Knowing about Geology, we know that landmasses move and that at one time there was probably not a landmass at either poll. Knowing all the above you need to know that land cools more than and faster than water. This is why the South Pole is colder than the north pole. So the movement of plates can alter climate if the landmass moving is at the poles. The point is no one know’s enough about this topic to say if it is ocurring and if it is , it probably has nothing to do with humans or pollution. Everyone needs to dig deep and not scratch the surface with this topic. It is easy to look at it and blame on pollution or the release of green house gases, but science is not meant to be looked at from the surface. And finally if this person is a true climatologist, why is she working for the Weather Channel.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:34 am
This is exactly the problem in most areas of science – the public relations game trumps scientific responsibility and integrity. Most scientists are out there ramping up the propaganda machines to stir up public support for whatever “expensive new paradigm” will “save the day” and be deserving of more and more taxpayer funding – more and more people trying to carve out larger and larger portions of a fixed sized money-pot… The hysteria around global warming is one example, and another is in my own field, where they hype about the human genome project and its descendants as the “fountain of youth and immortality” is another example of the same nonsense. Scientists acting out of greed seeking to obtain more and more money to please their universities (who of course get anywhere from 50 – 100 percent overhead on top of it) and advance their careers, even when they themselves know the hype and spin they are throwing out is about as scientifically responsible and logical as James Carville and Karl Rove debating political topics – I mean the spin always trumps the substance because of the greed and excess surrounding all Federally funded science these days… So much for scientific objectivity – like they always say in journalism – just follow the money trail!!!
January 19th, 2007 at 4:35 am
There is no doubt earth has been warming the last 20 years or so. There is also no doubt many glaciers have receded. Why? That’s the question. Is it primarily man’s activity? Or is it perhaps more directly related to the sun and the solar constant? It is interesting to note that the Martian ice caps have receded noticeably in the last 20 years. Draw your own conclusions.
signed,
Tom from Magicland Farms in Michigan
January 19th, 2007 at 4:36 am
Quote: From Jebidiah #68
“Global warming AND science are both LIES!
They aren’t in the Bible, PERIOD! END OF DISCUSSION!!!”
Wow…….
Im at a loss of words after encountering that silly logic….Seems to reflect the shallowness of the logic that most of the opposing arguments against global warming on here show.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:37 am
I could not, for the life of me, understand why Al Gore was so movotated by this subject, AFTER READING THIS ARTICLE – WHO ELSE KNOWS MORE ABOUT GRANTS THAN POLITICAL MINDS!
Growing up on the farm, reading weather signs accurately was manditory.
After the first Saturn V launch into space, everything changed!
Just like throwing a cinder block into the still pond, everything 360 degrees around impact, responds to it. The jet streams above the earth are just as disturbed around the Saturn V thrust as pond surface is by pentrating cinder block.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:38 am
Did you consult your magic book for your great insights?
January 19th, 2007 at 4:38 am
So it’s getting warmer in spots. It’s also getting colder in other spots. Youo will either move to avoid getting snowed on or baked by the sun. If you don’t adapt, you will die. James is right when he says the money is the reason all this hype. There is money on both sides of the isle. The truth is most likely somewhere in the middle.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:40 am
One more comment – as a general rule, screwing around with the environment obviously leaves drastic and seemingly irreversible effects. The modern industrial world is only a half-century old, and the number of endangered species, kilometers of deforestation, disruption of biological systems, etc. has been substantial and could have potentially devastating consequences which we can’t even anticipate yet. Even if the evidence about the effects of global warming are inconclusive, what may seem expensive and inconvenient today is nothing compared to the consequences if we’re wrong.
Our current policy towards the environment is the global equivalent of going hiking in the mountains blindfolded and someone telling you since there’s no credible evidence you’re near a cliff, there’s no reason to watch your step.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:43 am
Figures
January 19th, 2007 at 4:43 am
By the way:
We should remember how many “scientists†bent upon grabbing political power denied for years that the gasses causing depletion of the ozone layer could be coming from volcanic activity. Now look back and realize that volcanoes put out more of the gas in one day than man has produced since the beginning of time
January 19th, 2007 at 4:44 am
Mr. Spann,
You are awesome for calling it for what it is…..pure unadulterated propaganda from TWC. I’ll start believing Heidi when she does a January livecast from Siberia in a bikini.
Keep up the good fight!!!
January 19th, 2007 at 4:53 am
Global warming caused the end of the ice age, did it not?
January 19th, 2007 at 4:57 am
The most valuable commodity is information. With poor information, a bad decision is likely to be made, while with good information, a correct decision is probable. What kind of information do we have in this case? Keep in mind that there is no global warming model that correctly models clouds or water vapor. Currently, we have poor information, the weather is not well understood. Otherwise, we would have more than a 7 day forecast, fgs. In the absence of good information, it is better to not take any drastic or reactionary action like Kyoto or anything suggested by global warming proponents. Just imagine how SOL the Earth would be if we had melted the icecaps in the 1970′s to warm the Earth, which was suggested by the global cooling proponents. In fact, current predictions of the Earth’s weather based on the Sun’s cycles claim that the Earth will cool over the next few decades, so all of this “effort” and worrying may be for naught.
Also, I find it interesting that the a closed garage argument was used to prove to skeptics that car exhaust will kill you. For your information, the Earth is an open, decoupled, non-linear, dynamic system, and a closed garage is a closed system. Your simplification is erroneous.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Way to go! Thanks for giving a voice to the other side of the climate change debate! PLEASE, keep the debate open!!!
While we’re at it, maybe we should revoke the Ph.D.’s of other numerous doctorates in climate studies who disagree with Dr. Cullen and the global warming gaggle. What a ditz.
Well . . . at least they finally got her to smile on camera. I thought she never would . . .
January 19th, 2007 at 5:06 am
bfromnc gets it all wrong, when he claims:
“I hear a lot of whining about how “emissions controls will destroy the economy!†What a load of baloney!!! Do you think that money just disappears into thin air? Of course it doesn’t!
If you’re building windmills to generate power, then somebody has to get paid to build them. If you’re putting scrubbing mechanisms on smokestacks, then somebody has to get paid to build them and then somebody else has to get paid to install them. If you want to reduce energy consumption, you have to employe engineers to design more efficient appliances. You see where this is going?”
No, we don’t. Forcing private industry to spend money on “environmental” equipment FOR WHICH THERE IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT IT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE does not generate wealth–nor does it demonstrably improve the environment. It just becomes another cost, one reflected in higher prices.
It’s just another “make work” project, like the ones tried to ameliorate the Great Depression. Take a thousand guys, tell them to level Mountain “A” and put the dirt “over there”. Then pay them money.
What is gained? Nothing. How are the workers paid? The government can tax the private sector to get the money to pay them (thereby reducing the private sector’s ability to invest or spend money as it sees fit), or it can borrow the money (and have to pay it back someday), or it can just print more paper currency (and thus devalue the currency.) All these alternatives arenegative in effect, unless a positive result is manifestly clear.
As for money not disappearing into thin air: Hah. That’s not the issue. The issue is: who is that money taken from? What results are achieved?
Those who want to tax the bejeezus out of americans to counteract the alleged effects of global warming caused by humans need to be damned clear as to just how and why their use of the resulting money will achieve anything.
If bfromnc can offer such an explanation, let’s see it.
Those interested in learning more about why bfromnc commits an economic fallacy can start by viewing wikipeida’s article on the French economist Bastiat, who showed why the need to pay for repair of a broken window, for example, presents a net economic loss, even though the glazier gets money for his work.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:12 am
Good for you! Keep speaking the truth about this politically/greed motivated farce. Most thinking people agree with you, those that aren’t greedy or power hungry that is.
God bless!
January 19th, 2007 at 5:34 am
I’m no meteorologist, nor a scientist of any stripe, but this issue has interested me. I’m 27 years old, and for all my life, I’ve been warned of the dangers of global warming. It’s only been in the last few years that I’ve started to see some contrary views.
As near as I can tell, the plain and simple fact is that we don’t know. Not for sure. It makes my stomach turn a little bit every time I see or hear some theory being espoused as a truth that YOU MUST BELIEVE and people barking about SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE which they never quite seem to actually produce. Oh sure, they tell you where it’s published, but let’s be honest. As long as John Q. Public has assurances from a “reliable source” that there IS evidence, he doesn’t really need to SEE that evidence and he’s certainly not going to make a lot of time to go looking for it. He’s got kids to feed.
I think it’s important to have the debate. I think it’s important that both points of view get time to explain their arguments without being dismissed out of hand. You suggest that the community of global warming supporters are a bunch of fear-mongering doomsayers who are only trying to scare people to ensure that their big-money-research-and-punditry industry continues to keep on rolling, and I think that’s true, to a certain extent. On the other hand, one might argue that the opponents of the notion that global warming is caused by man and has potentially disastrous effects are simply trying to engender a political climate more friendly to large corporations who want to act with impunity with regard to the environment. I feel that opinion is swayed FAR too much in favor of Global Warming at the moment, but it’s important that it not swing too far in the other direction either. Debate is the thing, and what is currently going on is not debate, it’s “Shut up. I’m right, you’re wrong.”
Personally I think the only reason that we NEED in order to be concerned about, say, deforestation is that there will be less trees. I like trees. Don’t you like trees?
January 19th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Let’s stipulate (to use lawyer-speak that says I don’t intend to waste my time arguing) that GW is real, and let’s also stipulate that humans have an effect. How much is that effect, and how much can we alleviate it to prevent accelerated GW? Taking a note from the Kyoto estimates, if we implemented all of the restrictions in that agreement, we would slow the temperature increase by a whopping 0.02 deg C over the next century (assuming there’s any credibility in being able to reliably measure the effect to that degree of accuracy). Reducing our polluting impact on our environment is a good thing, and I don’t see anyone here who disputes that, but the energy represented in the environment (one class 5 hurricane carries the equivalent of a 100 megaton hydrogen bomb) is so enormous that we are deluding ourselves to think we can stop (or even significantly delay) GW. I’m concerned that we’re so focused on trying to do the impossible that we’re not paying any attention to how we should adapt as a species to alleviate the impact of an inevitably changing climate. Adapting is what humans do well, and we should focus on that.
One other note: continue to ignore Mr. Elifritz – he’s a nutcase wacko who likes to “demonstrate” his intellectual superiority by demeaning others. I’ve seen him perform his act in other fora.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:29 am
I haven’t had a chance to read all the post, so I hope that I’m not repeating someone.
My belief is that there is really no way of telling what the temps were like 100,000 years ago. The Americas have only been dicovered for a little more that 200 years, and until you can say that on this date, of what ever year the temp was ????. There is no way to she could poss. agree that Global warming is man made, there just isn’t enough data to support that. We can not go back 400 or so years and say, “gosh, its alot cooler, can’t wait until the future gets here.”
To close, I guess all the Scientist need to have their degree, endorsements, and whatever other seal they may have pulled, for Thinking and Believing that Pluto was a planet.”
Now, How about that!!!
January 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Why take away people’s crediations and credibility because they disagree with another side. Is there global warming, yes, but it is a natural event that occurs due to nature. Geological evendince show this, but lacks the money to broadcast like GW advocates. If there is a hole in the ozone caused by humans, I want a grid to it so I can charter a tour of it and sell t-shirts and place a sign saying “I have been to the hole in the ozone.”
January 19th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Why does global warming matter when the world will end with one nuke from North Korea anyways?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:19 am
In my mind the jury is still out on the Global Warning, I just don’t feel like our records go back far enough to reach such a conclusion. Also, keep in mind without Global Warming Dr. Cullen is just another face in the crowd who would probably not have her own show. It is in her best interest to be sure that Global Warming exists. I would be much more receptive to her views if she presented a more balanced approach.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Thanks to EVEYONE who posted a reply. I didn’t know that my thoughts on the Heidibeast were so universal. It’s gotten to the point for me that if her face shows up on TWC, the channel is changed. I used to leave the TV on TWC just for background, and since I live at 6000ft, for insight to incomming weather, especailly snow. No more.
TWC has jumped from reporting to advocacy. I still don’t understand the relation of earthquakes to weather, but that doesn’t stop TWC from including earthquakes in their “It Could Happen Tomorrow” show.
Anyone out there interested in starting up some competition to TWC? Here’s one subscriber who will sign up without hesitation.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Global Warming Is Real! And Real Science Knows It!
The problem is: what you see in the media and what the whacko left spouts is not the real science.
Real science knows that “periodically” over the last few million years or so, the earth’s atmosphere has warmed and cooled within a relatively narrow band, Currently, we’re somewhere near the middle of that band.
The physics and astrophysics of our solar system have the biggest single effect on the environment of the earth. You’ve heard of summer and winter, Ipresume. However, the environment of earth is an extremely complex interactive system with many factors. Humans can have very short term impact on very localized areas of the environment; say the immediate vicinity of downtown Chernobyl.
But the idea of you and your SUV irreversibly damaging the environment by causing global warming is right up there with dinosaur flatulence causing the drying up of the sea that is now the Bonneville Salt Flats.
I know that I occasionally rant without an offer of positive solutions to the problems about which I rant. Today though, I offer to all those lefties who really need to take some action to retard global warming, a task beneficial to all.
At certain locations of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans there are rifts where sub mantle temperatures exceed 10,000 degrees. Through these rifts vent extremely high temperature sulfurous ooze which heat the oceans. Go sit on one with Al Gore!
January 19th, 2007 at 10:54 am
James all I can say is that you have to stand for what you believe in. I have always been a believer in your forcast. No one is perfect but you are better than you average bear…lol. Seriously, I believe you have enough listeners that trust in you and your group if the pull the AMS certification, it would still not be a problem. I don’t know how the local brodcasting co. that you work for would feel as to have the lead meteroligist with his AMS certification, but I do know that I would be more than willing to pay a yearly fee for your service, as I am sure many more here would be as well! Keep up the great work my friend. Keep the faith, Kim
January 19th, 2007 at 11:05 am
James:
You have been mentioned and discussed very favorably
on the Neil Boortz Show and on his website.
As for the issue,anyone who knows about this understands
that the problem is caused by ChemTrails and by the excessive
radiation from those many cell-towers.Both are changing our mental
perceptions of reality.
The proper solutions are a facial filter and appropriate shielding
for your cranium.
You can learn more any night on Coast to Coast am,with
Art Bell….
January 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I am ready to talk about the weather conditions in our area again. Some of these radicals are scarey! The language is rough in places, too. If you can’t think of an adjective or exclamatory- just leave that part out! Some of these people from other countries who read this to make fun of our opinions need to surf their own waters.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Does the word NewSpeak ring a bell? You rock J.S., do not succumb to the “Thought Police”.
The Newspeak term for the English language is Oldspeak. Oldspeak was intended to have been completely eclipsed by Newspeak before 2050.
The genesis of Orwell’s Newspeak can be seen in his earlier essay, “Politics and the English Language,” in which he laments the quality of the English of his day, citing examples of dying metaphors, pretentious diction or rhetoric, and meaningless words — all of which contribute to fuzzy ideas and a lack of logical thinking. Towards the end of this essay, having argued his case, Orwell muses:
“ I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions. â€
Thus forcing the use of Newspeak, according to Orwell, describes a deliberate intent to exploit this degeneration with the aim of oppressing its speakers.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:42 am
REASONS FOR GLOBAL WARMING:
1. The Sun
2. 71% of the earth is covered with water and ice
3. Carbon Dioxide
4. Ozone
5. Anarobic Bacteria
6. Insects
7. Forest Fires
8. Volcanoes
9. Then and only then, Man
January 19th, 2007 at 11:44 am
I have been a meteorologist for 33 years and am most concerned that the issue of man induced or enhanced global warming is a politcal rather than a scientific one.
For example, a few years ago the thought that hurricanes were linked to “global warming” was a joke in the scientific meteorology community but after 2 years of extream activity, now it has been deemed by “some” folks as the major cause.
We need to stop looking at short term events and associate them with long term changes in climate/weather. December and early Jan showed us very warm temps in the US.. Now from Mid Jan and probably through FEB we will see much below normal temps. Just as I can’t stand to see folks say “see, it’s 70 in NYC.. its Global warming… I cannot also take the folks that will say “It’s 5 degrees in NYC with 20″ of snow … see there is no such thing as global warming”.
Lets let science determine what is going on and don’t let the media and politicians decide… I know that train has long left the station but I can always hope for common sense
My personal thoughts on this lean towards the side of the studies which show man’s impact as being minimal compared to the large scale patterns of this planet. I suspect in 20-30 years we will be see that this small scale pattern of warming and cooling (yes 30 year cycles are small scale compared to the larger scale cycles of hundreds and thousands of years) has reversed again and global warming will be a non-issue.. I will probably be food for worms by then and miss out on all the fun
January 19th, 2007 at 11:55 am
To #292 — Thomas Lee Elifritz: You refer to us Alabamians as “the dumbest”. You’re certainly entitled to that opinion. Where were you educated?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:58 am
James, continue to think outside the box. The process is healthy. Biodiversity is good, so diversity in thought processes are good too. All great thinkers throughout history have been scoffed at and ridiculed. Now you join the ranks of many such great and valuable men and women. Don`t allow yourself to be silenced. Fight the good fight. Continue to walk the path God put you on with boldness and with the confidence that you know what you know what you know. You know that when a believer makes a stand he or she will be confronted by great opposition. Stand…
PS I bet you use Linux too….
January 19th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Thomas,
Your brain and conscience have obviously been seared by the lies of the left. Science is not scary to Christians. Our Father created nature and everything in it. We love science but we also believe in avoiding junk science for the sake of a false religion known as liberalism. Your hatred and intolerance of those who have a different view point than yours is showing thought Thomas. Where’s the love?
January 19th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
James,
Been about 15 or more years since I have seen you. You might remember my mother, Bette, who did a cooking segement on the morning show with Tom York around that time. I applaud your opposition to this Birkenstock Bimbo on TWC. As a student pilot, with post-baccalaureate minors in chemistry and physics, I regard meteorology as both a science and a “best-guess” suggestion. Where ATC and TRACON tells my instructor and me to go, we go. Most of the time this works well, but when it doesn’t, the pucker factor goes way up, and back to KBHM we head in a hurry. Now to my point.
I was watching a show regarding the physics of the sun (possibly on TDC), and the sun is going through a rather “big fit” right now. Historical fact, a “solar hurricane” hit North America, mainly Quebec, about ten years ago. The electromagnetic power of this solar temper tantrum left people literally in the dark for weeks. Interestingly, the polar ice caps on Mars are melting. Maybe this is man made too? Well, the mainstream media is not the least bit curious about this observation, I guess, because it interferes with a specific political agenda. The sun is a star, it is in a heating cycle now, there is nothing we can do at this point to change it. It will then go into a cooling cycle, again, not one dam thing we can do about that either.
Thirty years ago, the envirowhack fashion du jour was that industial pollution was going to have us all buried in ice in a few years. Now they are scaring us into swimming lessons. Would these anti-capitalist, ne’er do wells please tell me for once and for all – should I invest heavily into snow shoes or SCUBA gear?
Cheers,
Keith
January 19th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
to post 92, Thomas Lee Elifritz,
I see you chose some very intelligent words to express your opinion in your post. You must be a quite intelligent person. Where did you get your High School GED? Prison?
January 19th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Through 276 comments on this subject so far, there are an equal number of suggestions to adopt nuclear energy and eliminate circus clowns. In all the fervor about global warming, little seems to be made of how we can realistically and economically do something about it from the people who say we’re causing it (although I concede they have many unworkable “solutions”). Why aren’t the global alarmists out there actually promoting something worthwhile to turn the tide…nuclear energy? France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear. Worldwide, ‘ceptin’ the U.S., there are major pushes to build nuclear plants. China is out there shoring up long-term supplies of uranium. Others are preparing to switch from petroleum. It’s cheap to produce. It emits zero pollutants. Safety systems have come a long way in three decades. And the raw materials (uranium) are mostly found in “friendly” countries…Australia, Canada, and the U.S. I worry that we’ll be last to the party because of our political spinelessness. And please spare us the “it’s not safe” diatribe until you know how many people die in the production of other forms of energy.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I am liberal.
Anyone who does not agree with me is a liar or stupid, and must be punished.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
So in order to believe this chucklehead of a weatherman, we have to believe that:
1. the alternative energy lobby is somehow bigger or more powerful than the vastly bigger fossil fuel lobby;
2. “God put the planet here” is not a political statement
Republicans: please leave the science to the people who use facts, OK?
I look forward to the first faith-based weather report – it should be hilarious.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Thomas,
Calm down. God loves conservatives and liberals. You are not any ones judge. And yes anyone can see that is your true intent, to judge. Just remember you can lie to anyone you like and they can tell you that your wrong and a liar. But if you lie to yourself……
That being said I feel that no matter what; whether global warming it natural or being caused by humans the consequences of the latter can not be ignored. Obviously, much more study should be put into this. Because if there is even a 1% chance or lower of it being humans fault we must know for sure and begin doing something about it before it’s too late to do anything. Otherwise we can sit in our homes every day and pretend that we do everything right and nothing wrong. From my experience that almost always leads to trouble. Finally I would like to say I would be much happier if this was something natural and we as a people did not cause yet another blight to this planet God so humbly lets us live in.
January 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
[...] For me, this raises the question: What’s in it for them to be in league with Al Gore? I know the surest ways to find the answer to a political question, which the dogma of man-caused global warming surely is, is to follow the money. Fortunately, there are AMS members willing to speak out and lead us to it: ABC 33/40 Weather Blog » “The Weather Channel†Mess [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
“I have nothing against “The Weather Channelâ€, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.”
http://beta.abc3340.com/news/talent.hrb?i=188
James (Spann) is a trustee of the Alabama Baptist Children’s Homes and Family Ministries, and is a member of the University of Alabama College of Communication Board of Visitors. James is also chairman of Reality Radio, which operates AllWorship.com, a cluster of Christian music streams on the Internet.
James and his wife Karen have been married for 24 years, and they have two boys: J.P., 21, and Ryan, who is 8! An active member of Hunter Street Baptist Church in Hoover, James teaches in children’s worship on Sundays and serves in several other ministries.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I’m a chemist/environmental scientist who frequently uses statistical analysis and have long been concerned about the misuse of science and statistics (I even presented a paper at a conference chastising colleagues on sloppy science). The major problem is people making observations and arriving to a conclusion that, while possible, is not the ONLY conclusion. Faulty cause and effect reasoning.
Control studies, eliminating all but one variable, are rearely possible. And yes, James Spann is very correct that the “buckets o’money” grants reward studies that support their predetermined causes. At least one analysis supporting GW had to be reduced from the common 99% or 95% confidence level to 90% or below–meaning 1 out of 10 data could represent false positives or false negatives!
Climate is variable and cyclical over long periods of time–thousands to tens of thousands of years–and basing long-term decisions on a mere century or so of reliable observation is unwise. You might be right but the sample is small compared to the population (eons). If you accept that earth is experiencing a slight temperature rise, it’s still a huge leap to attribute this to man.
If the Mars warming data is correct, it is a much more logical step to assume that solar effects are responsible for Earth’s GW than anything else. Volcanoes eject enormous quantities of sulfur and carbon dioxides into the atmosphere; SO2 contributes to cooling, CO2 to warming. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice! I believe that human impact on GW is being overstated for the sake of funding (and political agenda).
That being said, you can be skeptical of GW and still an environmentalist. I don’t litter, don’t burn leaves, try not to waste water, and recycle when possible.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
First: if the globe didn’t get warmer we’d be living on the ice that formed the Appalachian Mountains. Second: The sun is getting hotter – scientific fact. Third: If the Grand Canyon began forming today environmentalists would be screaming about the Bush erosion problem! I love this stuff!
January 19th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Mere words simply do not adequately express my astonishment at how much damage you idiots have inflicted, and in such a short time, to the prestige and standing of the citizens of the United States of America in the greater world. But words are all I have, since violence (which James has already proposed over at my blog) is not an credible option for the educated and informed. It is not only my right to comment on stupidity, it is my duty as an American citizen.
It makes no sense for me to try to explain science to the willfully ignorant.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Let’s separate the science from everything else. Is there anyone who disputes the evidence that the earth has warmed up over the last century? If so, what is your evidence? If you believe that the earth has warmed up over the last century, do you have any evidence that this trend will not continue?
If you believe the earth will continue to warm up, then it’s time act like it will. Regardless of the reason, man-induced, man-augmented, or purely natural, there are steps to be taken to ease the changes that will follow.
Let’s all agree on at least this much. No one should be confused that Global Warming is real, and it’s happening right now. For everything else, let’s at least use scientific principles and civility to come to some sort of agreement.
January 19th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Regarding the “buckets o’ money” charge (which is actually true of the energy lobby, not the environmental lobby – the energy lobby has tons more), all of the agreed studies on global warming are peer-reviewed, i.e., they’re fact-checked by other scientists to avoid the sort of bad science or corporate influence Mr. Spann is charging them with.
As I’ve shown, Spann is clearly an ideologue who will pretty much regurgitate whatever the right-wing’s party line is on global warming, because he believes Jesus is a Republican.
Pretty sad, actually.
This guy would get laughed out of pretty much any newsroom outside of Alabama.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
To Thomas Lee Elfritz,
Please don’t stop posting! We need your inciteful wisdom and intillectual prowess to deliver us (Alabama residents) from the dark ages. However, I am glad you are writing this because if you were speaking it would be a complete waste of CO2 production. Just think how much cooler our planet would be if you didn’t speak, or breath for that matter, at all.
Also, you never did state where you were educated. I am still betting on a GED from prison.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
#75 mitch2008
It’s really convenient that you and the man-made-global-warming advocates don’t pin down exact predictions so that you can mold current weather patterns to your agenda. From your post, ” Some scientists would see this as a confirmation of the erratic weather patters predicted by Global Warming”. So, Mitch, the whole idea of how global warming manifests itself is open to debate?! Why, I thought it was proven and fully understood! So if it cools extra here, but warms extra here, that COULD be global warming ‘according to some scientists’. Doesn’t sound to me like there’s a lot of certainty there.
I could say that the changeable weather patterns are PROOF that there isn’t any man made global warming. The earth is BILLIONS of years old; thinking that our little snapshot of weather patterns qualifies us to make such grand predictions is ludicrous and arrogant. It’s like seeing one one frame from a two hour movie and deciding that you know the entire plot!
There has been erratic weather since WELL before the world began widespread use of fossil fuels, and there will continue to be some, regardless of what we do. For example, in 1888 there was a sudden blizzard in the plains one afternoon that caught dozens of kids off guard (the morning was quite mild, they didn’t bundle up to go to school), and killed scores of them. If that’s not enough, what about the storms in Europe in 1570 (All Saint’s Flood) and the 1588 storms that battered the Spanish Armada?
These older events are spectacular, ones that affected many people and merited mention during a time when there was no Weather Channel and regular tracking of daily patterns.
I urge you to keep an open mind, mitch2008.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
[...] James Spann is meteoroloog voor TV-zender ABC 33/40. Al 27 jaar presenteert hij het het weer, en gedurende die periode is hij diverse keren onderscheiden als beste weerman. James Spann houdt een blog bij, en daarop stonden vandaag een aantal opmerkelijke uitspraken te lezen. [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Mr. Spann impeaches his entire argument by using two long debunked notions. One is that we’re simply rebounding from the last ice age. This has been accounted for in current theory, and the OBSERVED warming in the last few decades is at a far greater pace than should ever be expected over that span if we were simply coming out of an ice age. Another is that the pace of warming in the last few decades is the same as the pre-industrial age. That is, the “hockey stick” warming figure shown by the IPCC is wrong. The hockey stick has been upheld in the literature a few months ago yet again – the skeptics have been once again debunked. Variations in the temperature records from solar cycles, the urban heat island effect, balloon soundings, satellites instruments, etc. have all been accounted for in the hockey stick, yet it still holds up. We’re warming at a far greater rate the last few decades than before, and global high temperature average records keep falling year after year. That’s a fact, unless Mr. Spann wishes to submit some evidence to the contrary into the literature. I expect silence, because I suspect he has no such evidence to offer.
Of course, he uses the old “conspiracy theory” that all these scientists doing this work are really just in a government funding racket. How arrogant of the guy living in a TV bubble in the armpit of America to wave his hand and belittle the work of hundreds of PHDs around the world. The fact is, and as a meteorologist I know this, there is FAR FAR FAR more personal profit available to people who go into the anti-GW think tanks. Follow the money indeed – ALL of these skeptic$ have a direct link to oil interests who have a vested intere$t in creating doubt among the uneducated policy makers. On the other hand, the literature is filled with climate change articles from a variety of funding sources around the world, governmental, academic and private… who have no vested agenda.
It’s too bad James has decided to position himself in the middle of this debate using these long debunked notions. I’m sure he knows what he’s saying is BS, but something tells me he doesn’t mind all the attention he’s suddenly getting from those paragons of truthful intellectual discussion, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. For that he’s no longer a scientist in my eyes, but a right-wing shill. And right wing shills pushing long-debunked notions and pseudo-science don’t deserve certification from a scientific organization as neutral broadcasters. Not because he doesn’t toe the line on the human effects of global warming and what to do about it, but because he’s a sell-out.
You have the right to hold the seal based on your own analysis of the facts, Mr. Spann. But you can’t have your own “facts” based on pseudo science and a personal agenda and still call yourself a scientist.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Thank you James for publically standing up against the global warming claims. “Follow the Money” is spot on.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I see you removed my post. What a dickhole. I guess that’s why you are the weatherman for Alabama’s ABC affiliate.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
[...] For me, this raises the question: What’s in it for the Weather Channel to be in league with Al Gore? I know the surest ways to find the answer to a political question, which the dogma of man-caused global warming surely is, is to follow the money. Fortunately, there are AMS members willing to speak out and lead us to it: ABC 33/40 Weather Blog » “The Weather Channel†Mess [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Well “a meteorologist” if you feel so comfy in your statements why don’t you step up to the mic and identify yourself by name instead of hiding behind an internet mask. At least James has the strong notion of at least coming out and letting his opinion be known with a name? So who are you and what credential you have that make you the all knowing. Is this Al Gore??? lol. gimme a break! and as far as us being in the armpit of America- sounds like your head very well might be up your- well…
January 19th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Ah, personal insults–the core of so many liberal rebuttals…
Let me just say that anyone using the terms “all scientists” or “everyone agrees” is by definition mistaken. Thus the cause of the argument–stripping academic credentials of someone who disagrees with you–is incredibly flawed and reminiscent of the Catholic Church and Galileo.
Even anti-GW studies are peer-reviewed. Let everyone speak, and time and studies will sort out the facts.
Remember: “If you’re not part of the solution,
You’re part of the precipitate.”
January 19th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Folks, just remember. Alabama gave us George Wallace and Brother Dave Gardner.
Pointy-headed intellectuals just don’t stand a chance down there.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
You are pandering to the Christian masses again, James. Guess it’s working, judging by the number of knee jerk anti-science comments. Is it sweeps week again?
If you want the truth, people, turn to the Locust Fork News and Journal – the only real liberal-minded news organization in Alabama with the facts on global warming on a regular basis…
Glynn Wilson
Editor & Publisher
The Locust Fork News and Journal
http://www.locustfork.net/news/
http://www.locustfork.net/blog/
January 19th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
[...] IF you’re a meteorologist, you’d better believe (cross your heart and hope to die) that man’s activities are causing malignant global warming or else lose your accreditation. This service brought to you by no less than The Weather Channel. Says Melanie Morgan at WND: 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. [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
[...] In any regards, James Spann, a television meteorologist on his blog provided a perfect rebuttal to Ms. Cullen and the global warming advocates, where he basically states that the myth is based solely on money and research grants, that if there is “No man-made global warming, the money dries up.” Money, as it turns out, just may be the “root of all evil”, with politics a very close second. Technorati Tages:global warming, heidi cullen, the weather channel, james spann, meteorology, television, science [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Let’s look at this whole ordeal first on a cosmic/solar system level for the big picture, then scale it down to our own planet’s level. First off, the sun is expanding. Yes, that’s a scientific fact. As it expands, greater heat will reach the earth until our planet, sometime in the distant future, will be pretty much engulfed by the sun and scorched. Ice and water on Mars has diminshed, and no, it’s not because of the horrible pollution of our explorers roving that planet’s surface.
Now, let’s get to Earth. Earth has seen cataclysmic environmental changes since it’s birth, whether it be from changes in it’s rotation around the sun, to massive impacts with asteroids and comets, etc. Volcanic eruptions later provided much change to our atmosphere, and still does, as a large eruption will cause a *global* 2+ degree change in temperature. During our cosmic voyage, there were times where tropical plants grew in a region that is covered with ice…Antarctica. That’s a scientific fact, for all you liberals who claim to love facts. You can’t dispute that. Our planet’s global climate has changed radically in times where we weren’t around, so our SUVs and industrial waste weren’t the cause.
In more recent times, such as the 1970s, all scientists were afraid of an impending ice age, and were writing grants for millions of dollars to study the phenomenon and find some sort of “solution”. That’s all in print, for you liberals who love the truth. Newsweek even featured it on the cover of one of their weekly magazines (there’s nothing more satisfying than using liberals’ own words against them).
Now, in looking at weather trends in the past century, I’ve noticed that the 1930s were a very warm time…warmer than now, on average. Many record high temperatures come from that time, as well as the 1950s. Yet the temperature cooled, and an “ice age” was on the brink of arrival. Why didn’t it come? No, not because of our pollution. See, we’ve reduced total emissions since the industrial revolution in this country, which occurred in the mid to late 1800s. Pittsburgh, PA, a place I will mention several times, is key in this: in the 1950s and 60s, one would leave their home in a white shirt, and return home with it being grey in color due to the pollution. No longer. So for all you enviro-libs and America haters, which pretty much includes all liberals, we’re not polluting nearly as much as we did back then, as we’ve improved waste disposal technologies.
Pittsburgh was graced with snow this mid-October. Guess what? That had not occurred since about the 1970s. Global warming? Nope. June 2005: for one week, the average high temperature in Pittsburgh was in the mid 50s to low 60s. Warming? No. And stop trying to talk about wild temperature swings being a part of global warming, enviro-nuts. You’re full of it. Albequerque, N.M. has had the second highest amount of snow in recorded history thus far this winter. Warming? Really? Last I checked, it needs to be somewhat cold for snow to fall in large amounts. All of what I’m stating here is scientific fact. You can look it up for yourself on weather service web sites and see for yourselves. I’m sure some slithering lib will make some personal attack, slur, or insult towards me as a response, as they never have the actual numbers or facts to support their GW baloney.
Now, let’s say that man’s waste products are *possibly* a minor factor in the “GW phenomenon” (not yet proven, nor even a theory, just a left-wing hypothesis). Go after the major offenders, then, like China, India, and Al Gore. Yes, liberals, your own hero, Al Gore. His family made it’s fortune with strip mining in Tennessee, and he owned many shares of Occidental Petroleum. Hmmm…a hypocrite? A liberal? Noooo… Furthermore, consider this: he’s burned over 100,000,000 gallons of fossil fuels while flying all over the country and world to promote his sorry little movie, often being driven around in the very SUVs you little libbies claim to despise (while driving them). He could have simply done one feature webcast and been much more energy efficient.
Research scientists have to struggle to get grant money, and often have to overhype certain “problems” or ideas in order to get the necessary funding to study the “problem”. This is no different in the field of climatology. I’m sure the people hyping the ice age made millions in the 1970s with their grants for federal money, and the same is occurring today with “GW”. I was a part of the research science community, so I know how the money machine works (published in the November 2000 edition of Surgery).
The bottom line: There may or may not be a warming trend occurring worldwide, but it’s highly unlikely that human activity is a driving force. For you liberals who think that we humans are behind the unproven trend, then do us a favor, tie a concrete block around your ankles, and jump into the ocean. It’s the most biologically safe way of disposing of yourselves and thus reducing the harmful influence of humankind on this earth. Think of it as doing a favor to Mother Earth, and to the other humans who have to tolerate your senseless prattle.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Dear “A Meteorologistâ€:
You Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) advocates can’t even get the facts straight.
To wit: Fresno State earth science professor, Steve Lewis was quoted by ABC affiliate KFSN on global warming, “There’s not a single glacier that isn’t receding.”
( Read the whole story at http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=local&id=4946238 )
Well, according to US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 001-03, Hubbard Glacier is only one of eight glaciers in Alaska that have been advancing for the last hundred years. In the last 16 years, it has closed the entrance to Russell Fiord twice.
(Read the report at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/ )
Obviously, Professor Lewis is mistaken. Every single glacier is not receding.
Signed,
“An Atheist Libertarian Aerospace Engineerâ€
January 19th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
[...] In response, a weatherman from Alabama who has also been studying the climate for almost 30 years blasted Dr. Cullen. [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Good for Mr. Spann! It is not easy going up against a large entity like the Weather Channel but they have decided to take an unfortunate stance and the young doctor needed to be called on her preposterous position.
How sad that even the Weather Channel has become involved with this silliness that passes for science.
Keep up the good work!
January 19th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
MOVE-OVER.org SNATCHED A DRAFT COPY OF OBAMA’S STATE OF THE UNION
WE’RE SAVED.
OBAMA’S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
1/27/09
Thank you all. Mrs. Speaker, Vice President Dean, members of Congress, members of the Supreme Court, and diplomatic corps, distinguished guests, and comrades:
I first wish to commend the Senate for helping me head off a constitutional crisis, with their quick confirmation of the five new Supreme Court Justices who sit with us here tonight. The FBI and Capitol Police continue to investigate the circumstances which surround the tragic automobile accident that took the lives of Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas when the Toyota Prius, in which the were carpooling, was T-boned by the SUV, driven by Justice Kennedy, on their way to my inauguration. Adding further to the tragedy was Justice Kennedy’s impalement on the SUV’s steering column when the vehicles’ airbag failed to deploy. Justice Kennedy was not wearing his seat belt, a clear violation of law. The departments of Justice and Transportation are also investigating the auto manufacturers.
As I promised in my campaign, we will always look for new and progressive ways forward and I believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton, serving as the first husband and wife team on the Court, demonstrates my commitment to that promise. I’m sure that Justices Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Breyer, join their new associates, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Franken in wishing the Clintons well as Co-Chiefs.
My fellow comrades, I have been informed by the NSA, as authorized by FISA, and other intelligence gathering agencies of the government, that there is considerable telephone and internet traffic suggesting a possible conspiracy in the death of the Supremes. It is imperative that this cease now. The executive orders which I issued to the FCC, under the “Fairness Doctrine†to halt “Talk Radio’s†sedition could be extended to individuals if we don’t get refocused on our two global emergencies immediately.
I outlined in my inaugural address that my administration will focus on two issues and two issues only: global warming and full global employment. I am again grateful to Congress and to Speaker Pelosi for shutting off debate and passing the enabling legislation quickly so that we can begin tomorrow morning.
The “Full Employment†treaty with the United Nations, which the Senate ratified yesterday, coupled with congressional passage of the “Full Employment†bill will once and for all bring peace and prosperity to the entire globe. Key components of the treaty and legislation consist of: elimination of the minimum wage, establishment of a 40% flat income tax, without exemptions, for all non-government employees and the establishment of a non-partisan commission to set government employee’s pay rates. Replacing the private sector minimum wage is a maximum wage that will be initially set at $11.00 per hour. This rate will be locked in until we reach full global employment.
The “Global Warming Reduction†initiative, also a joint program of the US and the UN, will generate the jobs necessary to reach the goal of full universal employment. Administered by the GSA, Government Services Administration, the program will turn the entire global economy into a giant construction contractor. In keeping with its long standing policies of private sector involvement, the GSA is reviewing lists of “Affirmative Action†qualified construction management firms. One will be selected to be the “global program director.â€
The first mission of the “global program director†is to implement the measures required to halt “man caused†global warming. All fossil energy consumption will be reduced by 50% by year end 2010.
The second mission of the GPD is to contract for the construction of the necessary infrastructure to stop global warming. My GW Czar, Al Gore, will advise the GPD and their UN counterparts on the surface and sub-surface projects which will be required.
Czar Gore has informed me that along with the cuts in fossil fuel use and rapid construction of wind and solar projects, coupled with the behemoth projects to cap continental and sub-ocean volcanoes, we can whip this global warming thing by 2020.
Comrades, my predecessor, George W. Bush warned you that the war on terrorism would be long. Well, the war on global warming may be long too. But with brothers and sisters, of all faiths, busy shoveling rocks into volcanoes, isn’t it great to know that there’s no time for killing. I really feel good vibrations here.
I know that you’ll sleep better tonight knowing that we’re here looking out for you.
I would ask for your consideration on one matter. Due to the security concerns of the office that I hold, I need to be exempted from this fuel reduction thing. I need Air Force One and my bullet proof customized Navigator.
Peace Be Upon You
BHO
Transcribed By:
Mike Sharq
January 19th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
James says that the weather channel went past a political line where he refuses to go, but he went there with this snarky little piece. To refer to “the global warming hype” shows a political bias for Mr. Spann who is right in his assertion that this debate is driven by money – ON BOTH SIDES! How many oil companies are in the neo-con men’s pockets to have them hide and alter the results of government funded studies which do indicate that fossil fuels are contributing to the global warming phenomenon. Philip Cooney, Bush’s science policy advisor on global warming, has no formal scientific training, and is a former petroleum industry lobbyist. Is Mr. Spann aware of that?
Why is it that the US is the only industrialized country who refused to ratify the Kyoto protocols? These weren’t designed to fill the pockets of people on the weather channel who want to have a special on the air. These were agreed upon by the industrialized world based on mountains of scientific evidence that we are accelerating and augmenting a natural cycle which will prove detrimental to this world.
Mr. Spann, where’s your evidence for the allegations you make? This is a highly volatile topic of debate in this country, an arena which you claim to refuse to enter. Take a look at the comments your blog has produced – do you think you’ve steered clear of crossing that political line?
I’ve been watching Mr. Spann since I was a child, growing up in rural Alabama. I go to Hunter Street church with the guy. He has never appeared to be the shill that he looks like here. I used to have respect for James Spann, but that’s been seriously damaged by these comments. My family will not be watching him or ABC33-40 any more.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
to #349 Brad
You go try to get money for studying “global cooling” and you will find out where the money ain’t!
You don’t have to have a phd in Climatology to see through the socialist lies and global warming hype.
Why was China and India excempted from the Kyoto protocols. If we had ratified Kyoto, you would not be driving to work in a gas powered automobile, but rather a bus or bicycle. Mountain of evidence is more like a man-made pile of dirt.
Someone has to stand up to the lies, half truths, and smoke and mirrors of the socialist GW types. And Mr. Spann certainly has a right to do so. I think it is protected by the first amemdment to the constitution of the US. Or haven’t you read it. That’s what started all this anyway; the attempt to shut dissenting voices. That is Nazism (nationalist socialist, not nationalist conservative)and is perpetrated by most who get political power. Right now it’s socialist (otherwise called liberals) who control most political dialogue.
You don’t respect Mr. Spann because he expresses his belief that all this GW hype is based on lies and is politically motivated? You should live by the principles that your church teaches. A “shill”? Really now!
January 19th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
To all who are absolutely convinced that GW is occuring, that it is occuring at a rate that will place life on earth in mortal jeopordy in five to ten decades, that man is resposible for it and that if we do not change our way of life we are doomed I have a few questions for you.
1. What proof do we have that the scientific community has identified every variable that influences Global Climate; the number of influences; can account for every action and interaction; ; their quantitative importance; and all the permutations from their interactions are calcucable now. I’m not asking for specifics. Is there any widely accepted literature by climate scientists that a lay person can read on either side of the issue.
2. I have read and heard that the Computer Models that are used to predict the future climate change have never been able to predict from the known to the known in our recent (150-250 years) global climatic history. I haven’t heard or read any such claim, but there may be some. I would suspect if anyone had a model that could accurately predict even a few such would be a world wide mega news story.
If you have affirmative answers to the above questions I will have to change to my point of view. If not, please answer my last question.
3. Upon what do you base your absolute conviction that models that are unable to predict from the known to the known and appear to fail in short term predictions (hurricane forecast for 2006) are right about this and we should wreak havoc with peoples lives by restricting energy use to a level that could cause wide spread suffering and probably death for millions in undeveloped countries.
I have asked these questions many times and have only gotten answers that are insulting to my parents and me.
Anybody? Please.
Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie
January 19th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Let us all not forget that some of these same global warming fearmongers are also blaming cow flatulence. Imagine that! Cows causing global warming. Give me a break!!
January 19th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Way to go James! I agree with James on the global warming issue and disagree with Dr. Cullen on TWC. However, the point here is not whether you think global warming is natural or man-made. The point is that Dr. Cullen is suggesting that we pull someone’s AMS certification if he/she doesn’t subscribe to and promote global warming as a man-made phenomina. This is very chilling and disturbing. And this is not by any means the only example. There are movements and people out there who want to silence those who have opposing views to theirs.
Do I want to silence Cindy Sheehan…No, I just wish she’d shut up.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
[...] http://www.jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=650 [...]
January 19th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
The global-warming hype is another example of moronic parrots repeating whatever their fashionable feel-good-saving-the-wold gurus feed them. They’ve driven me to put a “Nuke the Whales” bumpersticker on my car. Keep telling truth; sooner or later someone will hear you.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
So many of you can’t understand how humans can change the atmosphere and influence the climate.
Try this: Get in your car and drive about 3 miles. Then visualize that distance going straight up into the sky. That is apx the part of the atmosphere with enough oxygen to support life. I don’t know exactly how many miles it would be to straight through the earth, but it is apx 10,000 or so.
With those numbers in your mind you can see that the atmosphere is very, very thin; sort of like an egg shell covering a beach ball. but even thinner.
When you put many tons of co2 into the atmosphere every minute or so it simply has to alter the air. Combine this with the warming trend happening anyway and it seems like common sense that we need to control emissions.
This not a liberal or conservative issue. Perhaps it has become that way because political parties want to further polarize the public. Ignore politics and look at scientific studies. In the last two years the quality of these have become much better.
I was finally convinced in November. 2005, by the results of a European Union Antarctic ice core study. They were able to give very accurate numbers going back 650,000 years. Air bubbles trapped in the ice were analyzed. They can measure the CO2 in the air and they look at Oxygen isotopes to see the temperature. That’s where Gore’s “hockey stick” comes from. He just uses that study. The conclusion was that there is more CO2 in the air than there has been in apx 650,000 years. The temperature follows the level of CO2, exactly. The disturbing thing is that in the last part of the 20th century CO2 levels have shot straight up on the graphs. It is way above what the matching temperature should, leading to fears that some unbelievable heating is right around the corner. In other words , the temp hasn’t caught up with CO2 levels.
IMO. we should build nuclear power plants as fast as possible. There may or may not be a bad accident; but with coal plants we know for sure we are screwed. This is the position of some leading enviromental scientists, chemists, etc.
My friends, don’t get emotional on this issue; look at it objectively and see the level of risk if we do nothing.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
so Michael, how are we going to stop a volcano from blowing up that puts as much co2 and pollution in the atmosphere that man has in the past 100 years?
January 19th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Some who have responed here seem to think that all true scientists agree with the global warming hype. For a more balanced oppinion from a legitimate scientist check this web site. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
January 19th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Jeff,
Stopping volcanoes is plan B; we’ll have to wait for Mr. Gore to tell us!
I don’t know how much a volcano puts into the air. All volcanoes aren’t created equal so I guess it depends on how big the blast is. But I doubt it equals 100 years, plus it depends on which 100 years you’re using. Remember that energy use is increasing at over 2% a year. That means in about 25 years we will be putting twice the amount of pollution into the air. Big eruptions are not that common. Krakatoa was big. Sumba had a volcano blow about 200 years ago that killed almost everyone on the island and gave us a few years without summers! I used to live in Indonesia and climb volcanoes. The one in Sumba didn’t have much left of it. I flew over it.
But just because a volcano puts CO2 in the air doesn’t give humans a pass on how we affect the air.
January 20th, 2007 at 12:00 am
the heads of the Weather Channel need to feel the heat of off-the-mark statments made by on-air personalities. Not watching or shutting off the WC doesn’t stop the message. Folks must put pressure on the WC to stick with the weather and leave the rest alone, or be faced with less companies willing to purchase air-time for their commercials. Hitting them in their pocket will get the heads to reconsider allowing their folks to make outrageous demands. Write to or E-mail the companies and advise them not to do business with the WC, lest you choose not to purchase their product any longer.
on a sidenote, people want to know what their weather is going to be like in their area and consider it intrusive when they get more than the local forecast!
January 20th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Wow, look at all the hate here. Way to go, Spann.
January 20th, 2007 at 8:16 am
James! You’re the man! You can thank News Busters for providing me with the link to your blog. You’re right on the mark…you’re one of the few meteorologists that mention Ice Ages/Tropical Ages. Keep up the great work. And regarding the AMS Seal…if they take it away, well, I’d consider that a badge of honor. Keep up the great work!
January 20th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Hear! Hear! Mr. Spann!! Amen and amen…
PLEASE keep working to get the SCIENCE back into climate discussions, and the politics (i.e. money) and emotion out…
It is so amazing that professionals with little or no evidence of their position actually call for STIFLING of dissent…I know of nothing that is more UNprofessional…
January 20th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Global Warming is a perfect example of the old saying…”If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough it eventually becomes the truth.”
January 20th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Thank you for your opinion. As a pilot, I long ago realized that forecasting the weather is an inexact science. When NASA released the fact that the Martian atmosphere is heating as well as the Earth’s, it was little reported. More recently, it was reported that there is evidence of flowing water between a series of photos.
The belief that man could alter the Earth’s atmosphere required far more blind faith than I could muster. Good luck with your newfound notoriety.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:09 am
your unbelief in our new religion will damn you to a career change! in the future, unbelievers will be taken out and hung with an organic hemp rope!
the new “fairness” doctrine will probably have some provision for forcing climate guilt down the sheeps throat as well.
the commies do not yet own our thoughts, they just wish they did.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:12 am
I teach env. Engineering at Unv of MD-Balitmore county
I deal mostly with water/wastewater treatment but I would like to read more about weather the increase in temp
Is caused by manmade activities. AL Gore is coming to speak on campus and I want to be prepared
Suggested reading list?
January 20th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Ed…
if you are a professor of Environmental Engineering, I dare say you have been LONG PREPARED already for the likes of Al Gore!!!
Other than being the “inventor of the internet,” what credibility does he have at all in the true professions of science and engineering???
January 20th, 2007 at 9:30 am
What I find most interesting about the pundits who believe that man has created recent temperature trends and that a crisis looms is the fact that they do not live consistent with their beliefs. Those that I know are driving SUV’s not bikes and living in large, harder to cool or heat, houses. If you truly believed that the end was coming and man was the cause would you not adjust your own life style to do whatever you could to slow the process??
I just don’t get it. Thanks for being a voice of reason on this issue.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:35 am
To Heidi:
Bill Engvall has an appropriate response we can use in response to your thoughts:
“Here’s your sign”
January 20th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I enjoy when someone says…this is the warmest it’s been in 150 yrs.
and I respond with…OH! interesting, it was actually warmer than this 150 yrs. ago! Wow!
what morons
January 20th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Amen, Paul…
let them try to sell that “…warmest it’s been…” line in California right now…
January 20th, 2007 at 10:11 am
[...] As Dennis Prager pointed out on this subject, the Left is prone to hysteria. The problem is our centers of higher learning have become the last bastion of the Left. And so seemingly intelligent people like Dr. Cullen no longer question what they’ve been taught. But is this ignorance accidental or could there be another reason? Alabama ABC-affiliate meteorologist James Spann writes: 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 “toleranceâ€, huh? [...]
January 20th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Finally the voice of reason. If humans are responsible for this edition of global warming, who is the culprit for the previous global warming events that ended the Ice Ages. No SUV’s. No hairspray cans. No freon from air conditioners. No B.S.
How did all of those millions of square miles of thick ice melt by themselves?
Once again the Left’s motto is “Our way or the highway”
From someone in New Jersey, keep up the good work.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Follow the money. Truer words could not be spoken. Following the money leads you to a large group of people that revel in the idea of limiting human behavior to only what they want to see.
It’s probably fair to say that nobody knows for sure whether there is a significant human impact on climate changes. What we do know is that one side of the debate is trying desparately to silence the other side by saying this is scientific fact. We desperately need people like yourself to keep speaking out and reminding us that there is great debate on this issue. Thanks and keep up the good work.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Mr. Spann,
I grew up in Gadsden watching you report the weather in the early 80′s, felt sad when you left to go to Dallas, and happy to see you once more on the air in Birmingham as a teenager. There is no question in my mind that you have a gift as a meteorologist because there is much you could teach the TV guys I have worked with in several different markets. As a fellow UA alum, I left the TV game several years ago, but you can still deliver the weather in a way that shames the folks here in Charlotte.
With that said, I was very disappointed to come across this whole mess on al.com this morning. You say, and I quote, “I have nothing against The Weather Channel, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.†Please tell me where do you think you are going, sir? You say the main issue you have is with Miss Cullen’s suggestion of taking your AMS seal away if you didn’t agree with her statement, but that makes up less than one line in your response to her. Every one of us is entitled to our views, but it is very disingenuous to believe that scientists, even yourself, are able to put aside their own personal beliefs as you displayed in your own response to what Miss Cullen wrote LAST month on her own blog. I guess you still lack enough hours in the day to get to things like that in a more timely fashion. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that you welcome and want to see an open forum of discussion, but another to assert how many of your fellow TV meteorologist agree with you but none of them were named. And with good reason. Most people can see that even the public views of most TV anchors are not above being dictated to by what the news director “thinks†the common beliefs of the viewer could be. Obviously not an issue that you have with your own news director, but why kid ourselves when people in the industry know the power you weild at your station. You only have to read between the lines of Mr. Tracey’s doublespeak on the issue of global warming to know that his own news director wanted no fallout from what can be yet another religious/political hot potato in Alabama. As much of a native Alabamian as you are, I know that being in the Bible Belt sets the stage for the way things are covered there and in many other southeastern states. Yet another example for those of us who have left the state on the lack of true discussion on any issue that might ruffle some feathers of area congregations.
Reading the posts of the people who support your stance shows there is no place for an open minded discussion on an issue where the decision of how it is viewed has already been made in their own minds. So what’s the point of the empty gesture of suggesting it? I find it troubling that you left out in your comments to the papers the slamming posts made by your supporters on this issue, too. If you truly want to be a part of a debate on this issue then put the discussion above the politics of the two programs you are set to appear on Monday evening. The Republican president has now FINALLY acknowledged global warming after years of denial. And Mr. Gray, regardless of his ability to predict hurricanes and his intelligence, was one of only two or three scientists that the administration kept jogging out for the media to argue on their behalf before experiencing their own epiphany on global warming.
I remember the flap that was created when you left Channel 6 citing the immense conflict FOX’s programming presented to your own personal beliefs to move to a station that aired NYPD Blue, arguably one of the most controversial shows of its time, too. You have entered into the same waters you accuse The Weather Channel of entering in to first. I applaud anyone with conviction, but caution that deception does not only come to the non-believer. However, I guess I am just another product of a liberal arts education even though I see your faith being no stronger than my own. I just don’t have the soapbox that you do.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:01 am
In Today’s news… obviously more kooks weighing in on the subject.
New Warnings on Climate Change
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: January 20, 2007
The main international scientific body assessing causes of climate change is closing in on its strongest statement yet linking emissions from burning fossil fuels to rising global temperatures, according to scientists involved in the process.
In fresh drafts of a summary of its next report, the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has said that it is more than 90 percent likely that global warming since 1950 has been driven mainly by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and that more warming and rising sea levels are on the way.
Some scientists involved in drafting the report confirmed and clarified details but asked not to be identified because it was not finished.
In its last report, published in 2001, the panel concluded that there was a 66 to 90 percent chance that human activities were driving the most recent warming.
The shift in language in the current draft, while subtle, is substantive. If it remains in the final version, scheduled for release in Paris on Feb. 2, it will largely complete a quest that lasted decades to determine if humans are nudging the earth’s thermostat in potentially momentous ways.
Drafts of the report project a most likely warming of 4 to 8 degrees if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rises to twice the 280 parts per million that it averaged for many centuries before the Industrial Revolution.
The carbon dioxide concentration is now roughly 380 parts per million, and many climate experts say it will be extremely difficult to avoid hitting levels of 450 or 550 parts per million, or higher, later this century, given growth in populations and fuel use and the lack of nonpolluting alternatives that can be exploited at a sufficient scale to replace fossil fuels.
Because the panel works under the auspices of the United Nations, dozens of officials from governments around the world have been critiquing drafts, and details inevitably begin to slip into the press in the weeks preceding the formal release.
Snippets of earlier drafts have leaked to some newspapers in recent months and some sections of the latest draft were first published in The Toronto Star yesterday.
Scientists involved in writing the report said the leaks were damaging and potentially misleading, mainly because the final statements are likely to go through further changes.
“The language is far from final,†said Kevin E. Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who is a lead author of one section. “You can’t say what the I.P.C.C. says until it actually says it.â€
More Articles in International »
January 20th, 2007 at 11:09 am
WHAT CAUSED THE ICE TO MELT AT THE END OF THE LAST ICE AGE ABOUT 20000 YRS AGO , PEOPLE?
January 20th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Michael Says:
“I was finally convinced in November. 2005, by the results of a European Union Antarctic ice core study. They were able to give very accurate numbers going back 650,000 years. Air bubbles trapped in the ice were analyzed. They can measure the CO2 in the air and they look at Oxygen isotopes to see the temperature. That’s where Gore’s “hockey stick” comes from. He just uses that study. The conclusion was that there is more CO2 in the air than there has been in apx 650,000 years. The temperature follows the level of CO2, exactly. The disturbing thing is that in the last part of the 20th century CO2 levels have shot straight up on the graphs. It is way above what the matching temperature should, leading to fears that some unbelievable heating is right around the corner. In other words , the temp hasn’t caught up with CO2 levels.”
Well Michael, There are only 2 problems with what you said:
First, the “Hockey stick” temperature rise is a complete fraud. It is based on cooked data.
Second, Algore’s presentation of CO2 verses temperature in his film is a lie. The rise in CO2 occurred 100′s of years after the rise in temperature. In other words, the CO2 rise did not cause the rise in temperature. Why don’t you look at the data.
Why would Algore lie?
He wants to punish the United States for not electing him President.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am
that is correct the program that produced the hockey stick was rerun using many differing random number sets, NO MATTER what numbers were input the program produced a hockey stick.
correct the arming in the 20th century was almost all before 1950, there was actual cooling from 50 forward(causing the claims of the coming ICE age)….when co2 wasnt so high temperatures were going UP, AFTER a rise in co2 levels the temps went DOWN.
NOPBODY has explained what i asked long ago in this thread…..IF co2 has the property of blocking heat from leaving the surface, how is it possible for heat to pass through on the way to the surface?
January 20th, 2007 at 11:47 am
“Man-made Global Warming†is only one of the propaganda tools that Multinational Corporations use to dominate the governments of the various nations. The most powerful of the Multinational Corporations that use propaganda to dominate the marketplace of ideas is the General Electric Corporation. GE’s Propaganda Division, NBC, has promoted the political careers of various politicians. It promotes the careers of both Democrat and Republican politicians. It has favored crooked politicians such as Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has rewarded GE with authorization to sell nuclear technology and nuclear plant equipment to North Korea. Although GE’s propaganda division has been unfair to the Bush Administration, GE controls more Republican politicians than President Bush. The Bush Administration has given GE authorization to sell nuclear technology and nuclear plant equipment to India.
General Electric does not own the Weather Channel. The Weather Channel is owned by Landmark Communications, Incorporated. Landmark is a Norfolk, Virginia corporation that owns various other corporations. One of Landmark’s properties is a newspaper, The Virginian-Pilot, which spins Democrat Party propaganda every day of the year.
Today, January 20, 2007, the Weather Channel has an article by John Cristoffersen featured on its web site called “GE Forms Partnership to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissionsâ€. That article discusses GE’s new partnership with another Multinational Corporation, AES. The same article also mentions politicians that agree with GE. The article says, “The partnership comes a week after potential presidential rivals John McCain and Barack Obama joined Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman on a plan they say would reduce annual global-warming gases by two-thirds by mid-century.â€
Dr. Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel, John McCain, the General Electric Corporation and GE’s propaganda division, NBC, are in agreement on man-made global warming and on the need to limit the political speech of any corporation (or individual scientist) that disagrees with their desire to control America’s use of various forms of energy.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:47 am
to Charla Parton…
it’s called “professionalism”…
no true professional ever calls for the censure of a dissenting professional..
James Spann is…and rightfully so…chastising that practice by the very UNprofessional Heidi Cullen…
January 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I agree with you James. The only correlation between the Earth’s temperature and something else that I have seen so far, was between the temperature of our ever growing sun (in both size and heat output) and the Earth’s temperature.
January 20th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Let me see if I understand Mr. Spann correctly. He wants us to believe that the 6 BILLION people, millions of vehicles, and hundreds of CO2 spewing industries are having little impact on the planets climate. He also seems to allude to a kind of “conspiracy theory” among climatologists and other scientists interested in money to be gained from such a theory. This same meteorologist probably thinks other nefarious scientists got together to try and pull one over on the general public with the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Gravity as well.
Of course the sun and other natural phenomena play a role in climate change,but to think that billions of people are having no impact on the climate or the environment is simply ridiculous!
January 20th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I can tell this has been linked to by right wing sites like Drudge. First of all I think Dr. Cullen was wrong to say that the seal of approval should be stripped from dissenters, but I am sure most of the detractors would be even more incensed at the Bush Admin. silencing scientists, right? http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183 Global Warming is a fact of life, maybe humans are not the sole cause, however it has been proven time and again we are a facilitator for speeding up the process.
The dissenter camps are growing smaller and smaller by the day, even Exxon has given up on trying to convince people global warming does not exist. President Bush is rumored to admit humanity’s fault in Global Warming in the State of the Union. I am sure you will all then chastise the beloved President for this statement if he does in fact make it.
The President has commissioned several reports on Climate Change then flatly ignored them when it shows humanity’s culpability. The AMS concluded that we as humanity of conducting an uncontrolled global climate experiment.
Will there always be dissenters? Sure there will and they should be welcome to a point. There will come a time in every debate where dissension will rival on absurdity – case in point the few cooks who think cigarettes are possibly good for you or that the health effects are not certain. Will that ever happen in this case? Question is on which side will the absurdity fall on – If the sea levels rise and hurricanes get more powerful, prolonged droughts etc, then the dissenters will lose this round. OR if none of this happens the majority will have egg on their face – but hey least we’ll have a society to live in.
To those who scream politics you make yourselves look even more foolish. You obviously have no concept of politics – EVERYTHING is politics, everything from your local trash pickup to your kid’s school. Global Warming is an issue that threatens the world, even the Pentagon realizes it calling it the greatest national security risk to our country.
January 20th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
So, has anyone written to Weather Channel and voiced their displeasure with their “climate expert”? I have.
January 20th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Wow. I read about the controversy in this morning’s Bham News and had to come see what the reactions were. How low we’ve come in this country when we can tolerate no man’s opinion but our own! Since when does it become okay to deprive a man of his professional certification (and with that his ability to earn a living) because he disagrees with your opinion? This debate has provided an opportunity for lots of opinions to be put forth, but the sanest comment I’ve read was No.376 above: “What caused the ice to melt at the end of the last ice age about 20,000 years ago? People?” Keep up the good work, James. We’re glad to have you in bad weather. That’s all that matters. Weather channel lady just wants her 15 minutes.
January 20th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Hi James,
I’m so glad you spoke your mind on this subject !
I can’t wait to see your interviews on CNN’s Glenn Beck and FoxNews’ Hannity and Colmes’ programs this coming Monday !
I recently saw an article stating that cattle are the most to blame for methane in the atmosphere than vehicles !…
Help the environment and eat more Beef !
(I can only eat so much by myself !!)
Ms. Cullen at the Weather Channel is obviously a bit full of herself……maybe all this will take some wind out of her sails.
I don’t even like the Weather Channel….never use it myself.
I use Accuweather.com for local weather …..
Since we have satellite tv, our weather is not from local stations, it is from a hundred miles away or so (central TX)…..and I don’t particularly care for them.
Accuweather is great.
Keep speaking your mind, James !! …..so nice to see you’re not a slave to the “herd mentality”.
Sincerely, Suzan S. (College Station TX)
January 20th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
For Bob Ross:
I do read the data; I don’t BS or make it up. I never put up a post without being able to back it up with at least one source. Copy and paste the following link and you can read a short excerpt below.
Bob, I understand that people don’t trust everything they hear but we get so many lies from politicians and corporations. You’re right to question it. But, man, the amount of evidece is overwhelming.
Here’s the link:
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html#aaas
Read it. It has graphs abd charts that I couldn’t copy. It will confirm the relation between temp/CO2. Also, Gore is not part of a vast conspiracy to ruin our country. A conspiracy of thousands of scientists would never be kept secret. One of my oldest friends, from Mississipi was there when the research team was. Conditions were horrible and these guys weren’t getting some huge salary.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
New evidence extends greenhouse gas record from ice cores by 50 percent, adding 210,000 years
American Association for the Advancement of Science release
24-Nov-2005
Today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are highest in 650,000 years, Science studies say
With the first in-depth analysis of the air bubbles trapped in the “EPICA Dome C†ice core from East Antarctica, European researchers have extended the greenhouse gas record back to 650,000 years before the present.
This figure shows the variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years. Throughout most of the record, the largest changes can be related to glacial/interglacial cycles within the current ice age. Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles), these changes also influence the carbon cycle, which in turn feeds back into the glacial system.
Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years. This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming.
This 210,000-year extension of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane records — encompassing two full glacial cycles — should help scientists better understand climate change and the nature of the current warm period on Earth. The record may also aid researchers in reducing uncertainty in predictions of future climate change and help to clarify when humans began significantly changing the balance of greenhouse gasses in Earth’s atmosphere.
EPICA is the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica. The new ice core, initially described in 2004, is from a site in East Antarctica known as EPICA Dome C. This work represents a long-term European research collaboration and appears in two studies and an accompanying “Perspective†article in the 25 November 2005 issue of the journal Science, published by AAAS the nonprofit science society.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
If I have to hear another left coast californian’(sp?) Complain and moan about our man-made global warming, enforcing excessive emissions regulations, then turn arround and claim 500 Million dollars worth of damage due to unseasonably cold temps, as they stoke the fires of smoky walnut shells I’m going to puke.
Call me “Cold†but crap happens its the weather.
We’ll be watching!
In reply to a previous post.
…Freestateofmind… … What do you believe has more impact, the SUN or you? I’m sorry but the sun has a bit more energy, than all of us combined. to think that we can even come close to competing with the suns effect on weather is simply rediculas.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Right on brother, Rock and Roll. It is amazing how a comment can change the world. Keep up the good work, and remember you speak for the normal. Good luck Monday night.
James Spann for President!
January 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
As an established 84 year-old scientist in the field, I can say that I have never once met another scientist who believes that present-day global warming is NOT being caused by human actions. Please, everyone, go to your nearest library and look through the last twenty years of scientific journals and magazines. You will not find a single scientist who says that present-day global warming is NOT caused by human behavior. The scientific community is in almost 100% agreement. Mr. Spann is way off the mark and out of the mainstream on this one.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Kory Dwyer, it seems you wish to “think away” all of the CO2 we humans put into the atmosphere. Yes most certainly 6 billion people have a considerable impact. Like I said previously, of course the sun plays a large part in global warming. But do you think all of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere magically dissipates into out space or is taken all up by the ocean or forests? NO. Unfortunately it is not. You can’t just “imagine” its not there and that its not doing anything. And to think its not having any affect on the climate is like saying you will close your eyes as you drive your vehicle over a cliff, because not seeing the cliff in your mind makes it not real. Better buckle up.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
It is an unusual statement to require a litmus test on all TV meteorologists for AMS certification. But, on the other hand all these denials, predominantly by conservatives, on human caused climate change is a lost cause; already some evangelical churches and even Exxon seem to have changed their alliance recently. The National Academy of Science, with the best and brightest scientists, in the U.S. and the national academies of other G8 nations, and that of India, China and Brazil all agreed that the scientific justification of human caused global warming is strong enough to take actions (of course, Kyoto agreement was bad). James Spann’s opinions are hardly strong enough to counter this point. There is a huge difference in the thinking process as well as in the knowledge level between an average TV meteorologist (who probably has an undergraduate degree) and an average researcher in climatology with significantly higher education and research experience in the field. A TV meteorologist predicts local weather, probably using a software, that someone else had written, with data supplied by national and regional weather centers and with some knowledge of local terrain. That is very different than the capabilities required from a researcher in climatology who has to deal with data and phenomena in a wider time scale as for a wider region. Studies of global warming is a multi-disciplinary effort, requiring specialized knowledge in chemistry, physics, fluid mechanics, etc. Global climatic change is caused by the complex interactions of sun becoming hotter, increase of CO2, methane, HFC-23 (mainly from China and India) etc, volcanic eruptions, growth and errosion of mountains, dimming of sun from suspended atmospheric particles, etc. Mr. Spann is probably a good weatherman, his opinion or that of the dozens and dozens of meteorologists he knows does not come to the same level of scientific rigor or validity compared to that of the National Academy.
The money trail argument is a very simplistic way of looking at the problem. Research proposals are pier reviewed and they are funded based on the merit of the proposal. It doesn’t have to support man-made global warming for obtaining funding. But since many experts in the field have already come to the conclusion that part of the warming is human caused, it would be difficult to get a good rating from them unless the proposal has enough data to justify another conclusion. There is nothing unfair about this, the level of justification required should be sufficiently high to show the prevailing scientific conclusion to be wrong. There is no conspiracy among the scientists to publicize global warming for the allocation of government funds. Similar money trail argument (on a stronger level) could be applied to opinions of TV meteorologists as well: some corporations and other organizations who support the TV news may not like a TV meteorologist supporting human made global warming. If the advertisers are unhappy then the meteorologist does not have a position there. This is also true in a region where majority of the TV viewers are hostile to the human caused global warming theory. So, this type of argument goes in both ways.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Dear Kory,
After reading your post, I think I would be more in agreement with freestateofmind because he at least can spell r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s and does not have the grammar of a 4 year old. I also think it is absolutely absurd to think that people can’t understand how 6 billion cars and huge power plants have an affect on the environment. Yes, the power of the sun is great, but our atmoshpere is very delicate and if you pollute it, the power of the sun can no longer work like it used to.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
My most sincere apologies for my lacking grammer and spelling skills. But sometimes we get ahead of ourselves.
Atmoshpere is spelled “ATMOSPHERE”. Thanks BTW for the spelling lesson.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I appreciate you speaking out for those of us who believe in dialog and exchanging viewpoints. Those that support the political correct view that the debate concerning Global Warming is over are in for a rude surprise. There are a lot of educated and well informed people who can think for themselves. I for one will continue to fight for the right of opposing viewpoints to be heard. Hopefully you can debate The Weather Channel on this issue and begin a true dialog. Thanks for being there.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
“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.”
AMS
January 20th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Hello Rory,
Of course the sun has a huge influence; no one disputes that. But we are changing the atmosphere, not the sun. The atmosphere is very thin. Look at pictures of earth from space and you’ll see.
January 20th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
James,
Thanks for having the courage to speak the truth about intolerant political correctness about Global Warming. It is so refreshing.
January 20th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Several posts claim that Big Oil is funding anti-Global Warming research.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
Big Oil gives out negligible money for such things.
Its the Government and private foundations that hands out the money, and they give large amounts of money to the pro-Global Warming crowd.
When scientists attend a scientific convention, the number one topic is not what new advances have been made in their field.
It is who is giving out grants and what are they giving out grants for.
The grants are typically given out to advance Global Warming!
If you are a scientist whose life work is the study the Gold-naped Finch, you know to prepare the request for a grant to study “How Global Warming is affecting the mating habits of the Gold-naped Finch”.
And you understand that you better show a good relationship between your Finch and Global Warming or you wouldn’t get funding next year.
This is how professors/scientists make their money.
Would a scientist lie in order to support his family?
You Bet!
Would a scientist fudge the truth in order to become a media star?
You Bet!
You might be surprised to learn that scientists are alot like other people.
January 20th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Someone PLEASE tell all those in Dallas, freakin’ hot Texans that there is global warming coming soon! Yahoooooo!
Way to go James! Keep up the good work.
God is in control…………..
January 20th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Michael….
the atmosphere is “thin”?????
say how….
how long does the space shuttle stay in re-entry conditions??
enlighten us please….
January 20th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
still waiting for a “scientist” to explain how co2 traps infrared heat radiating from the earth but does NOT block the SAME heat as it comes in?
dr heidi, please explain how hydrogen cars the have water vapor as exhaust fumes wont be causing global warming by adding the number ONE greenhouse gas to our atmosphere?
inquiring minds seek knowledge.
what role do the many superheated underwater volcanic eruptions that occur 24/7 have in warming the oceans?
common sense isnt very common anymore.
January 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
In the 1970s, General Electric lost money due to its investment in the nuclear reactor construction business. The reason for their loss was not their lack of technical ability or financial ability to be the best corporation in the nuclear reactor construction business. The reason for their loss was anti-nuclear propaganda by the news-entertainment industry. In the 1980s, General Electric purchased its Propaganda Division, NBC. Currently GE also owns the Telemundo and Universal Pictures propaganda assets. GE is back into the nuclear reactor business with a worldwide effort. Climatologists who praise nuclear energy should not expect any adverse reaction from GE’s propaganda divisions. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, “Nuclear energy is the largest source of clean-air, carbon-free energy in North America. Nuclear power plants produce no controlled air pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases. The use of nuclear energy, along with other energy sources, helps to keep the air clean, preserve the Earth’s climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation and prevent acid rain.†However, if a meteorologist does not believe every bit of the man-made global warming hype that is being spewed by GE’s propaganda divisions, he needs to be a very brave man to express an opinion.
January 20th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Oh my gosh! I just got it. I saw the video of the interview of Dr. Cullen by a meteorologist and the controversy of science vs. politics. (It’s on the Weather Channel – One degree http://climate.weather.com/?ref=184f042fafb8affbbf2f17ab105760ba435ba9d9
watch all the videos AFTER the commercials – 95% of the videos are about GLOBAL WARMING —-DUH!)
That is really not climatology, not weather, not discussion, not politics and not even predictions and warning people, though is it? It’s called “controversy produces more ratings and therefore more money for the station because more people will either watch or blog or something.” OMG! Oh wow, this is free publicity – good one! It’s like the “Paul is dead…miss him miss him!” (I bought the album right after that didn’t you?)
January 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
James thanks for your bold and insightful criticism of the politicized global warming hype. There are many of us who agree with you, yet, we get no air time. Stay strong! Thanks to ABC 33/40 for allowing this discussion to continue. I vote that you get a raise!
January 20th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
The idea that there is actually still much of a debate (among those who actually study the issue) about the human influence on global warming is a popular misconception.
A quote from Jim Baker while head of NOAA (the scientific agency responsible for most of the measurements related to global warming) sheds some light on this point:
“There is a better scientific consensus on this issue than any other…with the possible exception of Newton’s Law of Dynamicsâ€.
A study of every PEER-REVIEWED (essential for scientific publishing, as opposed to opinion) science journal article on global warming found 928 articles over the previous 10 years at the time of the study. Of the 928 articles exactly zero were in doubt to the causes of global warming. However the popular press tells another story. A survey of the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and the Wall Street Journal reported that in the last 14 years some 636 articles appeared concerning global warming. Of those 636 articles 53% were in doubt to the causes of global warming.
Due to this inconsistency it is no wonder we continue to have “debates†on blogs such as this. It is no wonder the general public is so confused about the issue, as most of these opinions are more likely to influenced by the popular press than by peer-reviewed scientific journals.
I question the point of debating opinions.
January 20th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
“I question the point of debating opinions.”
I particularly question the value of debating opinions with a bunch of bible thumping brain dead zombies from Alabama.
January 20th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Elifritz, you probably question it because you don’t know of anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion. That’s probably a good thing, Elifritz.
January 20th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
There is no discussion here, just a bunch of ignorant bible freaks who think their opinions trump science. The fact that most of them are from Alabama is mere entertainment. And you’ll just have to take my word for it that reading through these posts is entertaining. Tragic for America, but entertaining nevertheless.
Let me reiterate my fundamental point : Religion has no place in government or science. Your equating science with religion is ludicrous.
January 20th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
BRAVO!! May I have the honor of adding a paraphrase of your brilliant insight about the role of money to what I call the Flawed Foundations of the Global Warming Hype, to wit:
1. Presume the desired conclusion to be true.
2. Ignore dissenting analysis and contradictory data.
3. Offer incomplete data.
4. Present computer projections as authentic and verifiable data.
5. Play to emotions, particularly fear and the fascination with the sensational, rather than to logic and common sense.
6. Sell the desired conclusion rather than honest scientific research, because that’s where the money is.
January 20th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Bravo, James Spann! Some day, people will look back on the “global warming” hysteria with the same derision as we do with “flat earth” and “the earth is the center of the universe.”
“I particularly question the value of debating opinions with a bunch of bible thumping brain dead zombies from Alabama”
Oh, wow. Strip certifications in ANY field from the brain dead zombies from dumb ol’ Alabama! Why? Because we think everyone from Alabama is bassackwards and unsophisticated! Credentials and education mean nothing, if you have a southern accent!
Elifritz, you are an ignorant dullard. Nice to know that your entire defense of “global warming” is based on geographic stereotyping! It seems to be the prevailing argument on your side: Global warming is scientifically proven fact, and those who disagree are ignorant rubes. LOL. Stick to what you know something about, Elifritz, like posting idiotarian flames on blogs; obviously, science, logic, and debate are not your areas of expertise.
I just knew the Chicken Little moonbats would be here making these sort of “defenses” of global warming, because it MUST be an Alabama thing. (eyeroll) You clowns are so predictable it’s amusing.
Read “Characterization of Quack Theories.” I did and laughed at the “global warming” hysteria, because it fits perfectly.
http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/Quack.html
/just another ignint Alabamian…durrrr…
January 20th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
GLOBAL WARMING ON MARS! Check out link below this article, too. Very interesting.
Mars=no people. no factories. no suv’s. no cows. Yet indications of global warming!
Earth=people. factories. suv’s. cows. Yet indications of global warming!
Mars & Earth’s common denominator….the SUN!
Global Warming… On Mars
Jamais Cascio
Mars Global Surveyor, which went into service around the Red Planet back in 1997, has outlasted its original mission spec, giving planetologists a chance to view longer-term changes on Mars. One discovery with some Earthly implications — the Martian climate is changing. The carbon dioxide ice cap at the south pole has receded each of the last three years, indicating that the planet is gradually getting warmer; NASA researchers are still working on precisely what is triggering this climate shift.
This is an excellent example of why the space program (particularly automated probes) is an important tool for building the Bright Green future. Determining what natural forces are at work warming Mars can help pinpoint the levels to which the same natural forces could contribute to Earth’s climate disruption. Human activity far outweighs the effect of solar variation, for example, but it’s important to measure just how much of an effect the Sun does have, so as to better determine what level of change to human activity would be required to pull us back from the brink (more solar influence=more work we have to do to bring the human influence down).
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/CO2_Science_rel/index.html
January 20th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Ooooohhh, I get it. I looked at Elfritz’ blog and see that everything revolves around his nihilist, hate-filled ideology. He advocates ejecting people who have any religious beliefs (especially Christian, he notes) from the government and elsewhere. It doesn’t matter that the person’s religion is entirely separate from their science or other occupation; the point is, in his words, “What the f*** is wrong with these people?” Or in the case of a NASA engineer,
“Is this really the guy that you want to be designing the next generation of rockets for the United States of America?
This church attending freak of nature? I don’t think so.
What the fuck is wrong with these people?”
No wonder he springs to the defense of Ms. Cullen. Totalitarianism is the name of the game! Let the pogroms begin!
January 20th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Al Gore is at it again: First he invented the internet and now man-made global warming. You go, Al!!
January 20th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
It appears to me that the subject of this debate is freedom of speach, freedom of opinion, and Ms.Cullen seeks to suppress any opposing ideas she does not agree with. I wonder if Ms. Cullen and the others supporting her position on global warming drives a gas guzzler or if they practice re-cycling their garbage or do they simply talk-the-talk but don’t walk-the-walk. Personally, I am not convinced about global warming. Also, I don’t see the point of bringing Mr. Spann’s religion into the discussion–nor calling the people of Alabama Bible-thumping brain-dead zombies (that in in itself is not a very intelligent comment and this person must not have anything to do except watch the Weather Channel and blogs about what people in Alabama are like). As far as whether our meteorologists on the local news programs should include comments about global warming with the evening weather report, I am not interested. Personally, I agree with James Spann: we don’t need suppression of ideas or opions in order to qualify for certification as a Meteorologist. Heidi Ho!
January 20th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Relieving meteorology of their AMS accreditation when they espouse crank theories is not relieving them of their freedom of speech. After all, meteorology is a science. It just removes the AMS seal of approval. They are still free to espouse their crackpot theories, just as you are free to do so here; even more so, as this is a personal blog, subject to censorship. However, Dr. Cullen proposes that the AMS no longer tolerate quackery under their good name, which is eminently reasonable.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Science has an amazing ability to weed out you religious nuts. However, I propose removing religion completely from government, as dictated by the constitution.
What you believe on your own time is your own business, but you religious nuts have demonstrably damaged America, and the time for that to end is right now.
So tell me, how’s that Vietnam war going. Figured out how to pay for it yet?
January 20th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
this person must not have anything to do except watch the Weather Channel and blogs about what people in Alabama are like
I’d say maybe he watches TWC, but he sure doesn’t read Alabama blogs. My guess is that he’s never met, read, or spoken to anyone from Alabama. He’s just like the rest of the ignorant self-described “elite” with their delusions of grandeur.
Elifritz, I have to say that you calling doubt in man-made global warming as “quackery” indicates YOU haven’t truly educated yourself on the science of global warming. Nor have you educated yourself in even the most basic facts, beginning with the basic fact that it is NOT an established scientific FACT that global warming is caused by humans. You seem to believe it is as certain as the fact that humans breathe oxygen. And you call yourself a scientist (I’m just guessing you are, based on your blog)? LOL! It looks to me like you’re an impostor!
January 20th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I just watched the “interview” you conducted, and suggesting that educated people are blaming global warming for aberrant weather here in the U.S. is a complete farce.
No one is suggesting global warming is responsible for a hurricane or a warm winter; the concern is clearly how increased greenhouse gases are effecting the environment as a whole over the long term – melting ice caps, permafrost, etc.
The “debate” is over – and for Mr. Spann to claim there is one and that religion has something to contribute to climatology is obviously ridiculous. The only thing religion is affecting is Mr. Spann’s poor judgment.
A meteorologist should never be confused with a climatologist; the woman at the AWS was wrong to make an issue of it, and a bible-believin’ weatherman certainly has no business calling himself an expert.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Well, Beth, if you knew anything about science, you would understand that science is based upon evidence, not facts, and doesn’t prove things, it just demonstrates them. Mathematics is the domain of proof. Facts are generally regarded as singular statements that everyone agrees to label as true, so that discourse can proceed. In mathematics they would be called axiom. They are statements of convenience.
What you propose is generally regarded as absolutism, and went out of vogue long ago. I’m really so sorry that reality doesn’t conform to your simplistic worldview, but there isn’t much I can do about it, and invoking God doesn’t solve many problems in science. Religion is generally not considered to be a credible scientific method.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
The reason they want to decertify Meteorologists is the same reason any fraud uses threats, because once you look under the hood, the jig is up. These Orwellian Nazi tactics are sure to cause a Global Warming backlash. If teh science was sound, they would have nothing to fear with people looking at it. Anthropogenic Global Warming is like the Wizard behind the curtain, once you look behind it, the fraud is obvious. If you want to see a good review of the science to see what a fraud it is, watch this video. It covers all the issues skeptics discuss from A to Z.
Live Presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkvvEhLfPZw
Live Presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm19gUWUaXA
Powerpoint Presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ3EM2a1Qjg
Other GW Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8A5CD5E0B9FBF3AF
January 20th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
To disagree with the theory of global warming is not quackery and what you and Ms. Cullen are suggesting is curtainling freedom of speech and freedom of ideas that are different from yours. Gallileo was persecuted for refuting “scientific” of his time, as were others. To disagree on global warming is not quackery. Can you prove global warming as opposed to cylical weather patterns? As I see it, comments on other peoples religion have nothing to do with the right to express an opinion on the subject, but when one cannot come up with an intelligent answer one always reverts to bashing another’s beliefs and religion. Too bad-not very scientific.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
In response to the high and mighty individuals who have mocked the people of Alabama for their failure to believe in Climatology as if it were a religion, I suggest that you read an article written by Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. His article, “Climate chaos? Don’t believe itâ€, is available at the web address as follows:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
January 20th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
If Alabamians are such stupid, religious nuts, why do you, Thomas, continue to waste your time trying to change our opinions? You must have some part of your brain that believes in God, but because you can’t find scientific proof, you won’t let the rest of your brain believe it. It’s a thorn in your side, isn’t it? You want people to assure you that your thinking is right and logical, but you’ve picked the wrong crowd. You’re wrong- global warming is up for debate, but believing in God isn’t. If you aren’t trying to get us to side with you, why do you continue to blog? Are you bored? Do you need a life? You don’t have friends? And please, if you can’t reply without profanity, save it. How come people who don’t believe in God have such bad language? You don’t have morals? Seems to me that morals come from God. You need God. You will never be at piece until you realize that their is a higher power. Don’t believe me? Try it.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Now you’ll make fun of us because I didn’t spell peace correctly.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
To disagree without credible evidence to back up specific disagreements is crackpottery. Everything I’ve seen fielded here thus far has ranged from laughable to thoroughly debunked. Galileo was persecuted by the church on religious grounds, and his evidence has withstood the test of time. The general theory of carbon dioxide induced global warming and climate change has thus far also withstood the test of time, and your objections to it here are thus far pure nonsense. I just pointed out to you that science isn’t about proof, it’s about evidence, and the evidence most of you have presented here is for the most part juvenile thinking, and it would be a waste of my time to address them.
However, Mr. Spann’s invocation of religion represents a clear and present danger to America, and I would be remiss in my duties as an American not to comment on that, as is my right as well as yours.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I’m not wasting my time trying to persuade you of anything, since it is clear that you are lost to science. However, Mr. Spann, by making a complete fool of himself, has broadcast his beliefs far and wide, and this forum is now nationally syndicated on the newsfeeds. Many people are reading this. Yesterday, I couldn’t hardly access this site. Only now has the traffic fallen off. These comments are archived and have been distributed throughout the world. Yes, there is a world outside of the bible belt. Thus, it is well worth my while to confront you and your idiotic religious belief systems.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
In repsonse to the writer “Theo”–Are you suggesting that a person who believes in the Bible cannot be a weather expert? Can you tell us when it was first WRITTEN down that the earth was a sphere? Can you tell us when it was first discoverd that there was a “hole” over the northern axis of the earth? I am shocked at the vitriolic comments about religion in this discussion of James Spann’s disagreement over global warming with Ms. Cullen. So much for tolerance for those who disagree because they believe in God as well as science.
January 20th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
LOL @ “Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley”.
Gee, he *sounds* smart. 
Fancy title there.
The guy edited a Catholic newspaper in the UK and was a Conservative in Thatcher’s regime.
Oh, and not a climatologist. At all.
Quoting one of the limited number of quacks out there doesn’t make him right.
Here’s a query for all the people here taking the anti-GW position:
Even if you don’t “believe” in global warming (as if it were another question of faith), what is wrong with reducing emissions, polutants, etc. that your children breathe?
Is a free market without regulation so important to you that you’d sacrifice people’s health?
(By the way, there’s a booming market out there in “green” technologies – if you were really good capitalists, you’d invest in it, like I have.)
January 20th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Al Gore invented the weather!
January 20th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Well, according to you, Thomas, why would anyone believe a man from Alabama anyway? You might have more people listen to you if you didn’t come across as a lunatic yourself. We all need to practice common sense about our natural resources, so let’s just talk about that and the rest will fall in place.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
“In repsonse to the writer “Theoâ€â€“Are you suggesting that a person who believes in the Bible cannot be a weather expert?”
Not at all.
As Mr. Spann himself demonstrates, it is quite easy to be accredited as a meteorologist. No long stints of studying at college necessary, unlike being a climatologist.
Clearly, you can hold any profession and believe in the Bible.
However, people partition their brains just like a hard drive, and religion usually doesn’t inform science, or vice versa.
It’s this new insistance on the part of the Christian right to merge religion with *every* of life that’s poisoning science, politics, and religion.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
To “Thomas”: Gallileo was attacked by “scientists” for his scientific beliefs. He claimed that using a telescope proved that all heavenly objects did not go around the earth, refuting Aristotle. Aristotle had to be right according to Gallileo’s opponents or all scientific beliefs would be cast into doubt. The Church supported the pro-Aristotle scientists. In fact all most all new scientific evidence has been demonized by other scientists at the time. Thus, Pasteur, Lister, etc. all have had problems with the ESTABLISHED scientific community. Freedom of expression of ideas is the true basis of science and the only basis for finding evidence as well as facts. Scientists are notorious for any ideas that contradict their own. No one should advocate the supression of ideas or the right to express them in any forum.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Religion is generally not considered to be a credible scientific method.
Will you PLEASE tell me what the hell Spann’s chosen religion has to do with this in the first place?
Apparently you know less about science than lil’ ol’ me, since you believe that Spann’s (and probably my) opinion is based on religious belief.
Astounding logic you’ve got there. It fits with your laughable stereotyping of people different from you (like Southerners or religious believers–and I can only imagine what other stereotypes about still others color your thinking).
But if it makes you feel better to throw up strawmen so you can burn them in effigy, have at it!
January 20th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I’m sure Aristotle would have been thrilled to learn of Galileo’s research.
Clearly Mr’s Spann’s blog entry qualifies as a ‘rant’, his belief’s notwithstanding.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Will you PLEASE tell me what the hell Spann’s chosen religion has to do with this in the first place? Apparently you know less about science than lil’ ol’ me, since you believe that Spann’s (and probably my) opinion is based on religious belief.
I think religion does color your (and Spann’s) opinions, indirectly.
You associate religion with the right-wing, and thus you gravitate toward their positions, even when they fly in the face of religious belief (war, poverty, etc.).
I also think that if you believe in an all-powerful, all-seeing Creator who affects everyday events, you’re much less likely to believe that man is capable of destroying an all-powerful creation, even when there’s evidence to the contrary. (Say, the nuclear bomb.)
There’s a whole other set of evangelicals now who don’t make that same association, who are pro-environment; “creation care”, I believe they call it. Are they communist hippies, too?
January 20th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Theo:
Even if you don’t “believe†in global warming (as if it were another question of faith), what is wrong with reducing emissions, polutants, etc. that your children breathe?
First of all, it’s not a question of “believing in” global warming. It’s the question of whether it’s man’s fault or a natural occurrence.
To answer your question, I ask you a question: Why do you believe anyone is FOR pollution? You are gravely mistaken.
For example, I am ALL FOR finding alternative energy sources, and a whole lot of others on “my side” are as well, although we may have (some) different reasons for it. I’m willing to overlook the fact that you may see GW as caused by man, but your “side” appears to want to simply dismiss anything your opponents on GW have to say. The point is, if you’d stop demonizing your opponents, you might find we could actually DO SOMETHING by working towards solving problems. Instead, you shoot yourselves in the feet by politicizing science.
It’s this new insistance on the part of the Christian right to merge religion with *every* of life that’s poisoning science, politics, and religion.
The “Christian right?” *snort* What?? You DO realize that it’s you all who are politicizing science, claiming that OUR thinking is completely influenced by religion, politics, or ignorance, don’t you?
Don’t you realize how silly and simple that makes you all look? And you expect people to listen?
January 20th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Theo, excuse me while I laugh.
I think religion does color your (and Spann’s) opinions, indirectly.
BWAHAHAHHAHAAAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Oh, OK. BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
January 20th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
First of all, Theo, I haven’t got the foggiest idea what “the religious position” is on global warming. I can’t even imagine that there would be one.
I’m sure you also believe that all who believe in God are creationists, too. LOL!
January 20th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
God gives us free will to do as we chose. If God protected us from all of our self inflicted problems, there would’t be AIDS, birth defects, sober people killed by drunk drivers, etc. I don’t think James believes that people don’t affect our world by wasting & polluting, his stand is that global warming is not man induced, but nature induced.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
The point is, if you’d stop demonizing your opponents
I’m not religious; I can’t demonize my opponents.
To assert that “demonization” is a one-way street in politics is ludicrous, especially coming from people who believe in demons.
And Beth – wow, thank you.
“BWAHAHAHA” certainly adds a lot to the discussion.
I don’t know why I would ever question your debating skills.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
I think the biggest chance man would have had to contribute to global warming was if they’d listened to the scientists alarm in the 70′s and coated the polar ice caps with soot in an effort to stave off global cooling.
Imagine if we’d listened to the cries of “there’s not enough time to wait for more study… the catastrophic climate shift is at hand now! We must act and use this drastic measure now!”
Funny how science can cycle back and forth from cool to hot, but the global climate can’t!
January 20th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
In science one looks at words, images, numbers, equations and instruments, for truth, not the person. It’s a global, collaborative and self correcting effort, that spans both time and space. Hypotheses are generally falsifiable at the outset. We literally want to be wrong. It’s very difficult to defeat this type of system, but the individuals that make up the system are uniformly delighted to be defeated after the work is over. And the work is never over. Religion can’t possibly compete with science in the real natural world. If there were just 500 million people on this planet lounging around eating fruit and weaving cotton, religion would be great, but that is simply no longer the case. The world was almost a virgin paradise just a few thousand years ago, and even back then religion caused all manner of horrible problems for humanity, it’s far worse today, and isn’t going to get any better. With soon to be nine billion people on the planet, a science oriented secular society will be mandatory if humanity wishes to survive. I’m so sorry you all find reality so inconvenient, but I am not the least bit surprised or disappointed, because I have science to show me the way, and a spirituality that would not even begin to be able to comprehend. I’ve come here to help you, and you still don’t even have a clue.
So good luck with the paying for all your wars thing you’ve got going.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I’m sure you also believe that all who believe in God are creationists, too. LOL!
No, I don’t – but that is the church’s position, isn’t it?
I’m trying to keep the discussion about institutions, not individuals.
Institutions take group positions; individuals are well, individual.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Well, when you say something as ignorant as “I think religion does color your (and Spann’s) opinions, indirectly,” the appropriate response IS to laugh.
I didn’t realize using the term “demonization” was an indication of religion, either. It’s just a word. I will, perhaps too charitably (whoops! that sounded religious, too!), that you understand as much and were just being flippant.
But thank you; you’re doing a HEAVENLY (lol) job of proving my point in #437.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Scientology? Tom Cruise, is this you? Get beemed back up to your spaceship and fly away.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
No, I don’t – but that is the church’s position, isn’t it?
Beats the hell (oops!) out of me; I don’t go to church. Nor do I know which church you’re talking about, either. Nor do I sense that you know which church believes that and which doesn’t. I do know that the Catholic Church doesn’t reject evolution or science, but hey, I’m not the religious expert here.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Theo=Point of theology for you. In the Bible God , the all-powerful creator, states that He will shorten the days of the earth because man has the power to destroy himself and the earth. Global warming is not on the level with the threat of nuclear wars and to state that a Christain is not concerned with these things is ridiculus. It shows lack of knowledge in the subject of God, the Bible and its truths and prophecies. If you are going to have anything to say about a subject, it is better to do a little research first. For your information, I try to protect my own environment by recycling, keeping my car in peak perforance, not using pesticides and chemicals, etc. I don’t where you get your information on Christains, their beliefs and how they live, but you are really into stereotyping them it seems.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
For Michael:
I stand by my post.
First, the “Hockey stick” temperature rise is a complete fraud. It is based on cooked data.
The “Hockey Stick” was evaluated by a panel of independent scientists because its validity had been challenged by other scientists in a scientific journal.
If you want to read their conclusions, go to:
Wikipedia
Temperature Record of the Past 1000 Years.
External Links.
Ad hoc committee report on the “Hockey Stick” global climate reconstruction.
Second, Algore’s presentation of CO2 verses temperature in his film is a lie. The rise in CO2 occurred 100′s of years after the rise in temperature. In other words, the CO2 rise did not cause the rise in temperature. Why don’t you look at the data.
When I say look at the data, I mean look at the data.
Not an article that is full of opinions and not data.
I repeat: The ice cores show the rise in temperature came 100′s of years before the rise in CO2.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Anybody need a laugh break? Do a quick Google search of Thomas Lee Elfritz. Pay close attention to what he does for a living and the physical description of Tommy the Troll. You’ll hurt yourself laughing.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
I’m sorry you’re having trouble comprehending this, Beth – but there is a “method” the right-wing often uses when it defends its positions;
it’s just not the scientific method.
The scientific method starts with the facts and uses them to make hypotheses, theories, and conclusions.
The right-wing, or faith-based, method starts with the conclusion (like, Saddam Hussein has WMD) and then cherry-picks or outright creates “facts” out of context to fit that conclusion.
One look around Baghdad will give you an idea which method is the more prudent one.
January 20th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Again, Carol – I’m not personalizing this;
I don’t know you nearly well enough to know how your positions differ from your church or your party.
It’s the church’s and party’s stated positions I have to take issue with, OK?
January 20th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Do a quick Google search of Thomas Lee Elfritz.
Thanks, basenji. I won’t bother addressing the nasty thug any more. Yeccchhh.
(I wonder, does he hate Jews so much because they also believe in God, or because he believes them to be inherently inferior?)
January 20th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Theo-Can you cite any official positions by any religious denomination or political party in regard to global warming?
January 20th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
I don’t hate jews or christians nor even muslims. I don’t even hate religion. I don’t hate anything. I just try to observe what I can, analyze it with the scientific methods and instruments and tools that I have available to me at any given time, and then comment on it, as is my right, and with 6.5 billion people living on the planet, my duty. My observations are that organized religions are uniformly bad for civilized society, and science and individual, personal and private spirituality is uniformly good for it. There are deviations from this general trend, but those are my observations. One on one I might criticize you, more broadly I might criticize an entire state or nation, but nature and reality always has the final word. Really, we are so sorry that you all find nature and reality so inconvenient, but it’s not as if we scientists haven’t at least tried to fill you in on some of the more pesky little details you need to know to live comfortably on a rapidly changing planet. If you have problems with the science, then your only recourse is indeed with a higher authority.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Theo, your ignorant generalizations are getting tiresome, and I’m obviously wasting my time responding to the willfully ignorant, but here’s one last shot:
I’m sorry you’re having trouble comprehending this, Beth – but there is a “method†the right-wing often uses when it defends its positions;
it’s just not the scientific method.
Do you have ANY idea what the right-wing believes at all? Seriously. And when did “right wing” become the same thing as “faith-based?”
I’m sorry you’re having such difficulty with this whole concept, Theo; I suppose that when you don’t actually listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with you, it’s understandable. Annoying, but understandable. TRY.
The right-wing, or faith-based, method starts with the conclusion (like, Saddam Hussein has WMD) and then cherry-picks or outright creates “facts†out of context to fit that conclusion.
So far, you’ve failed to address any of the points I have tried to politely make to you, such as 1) the common ground that DOES exist, 2) the fact that religion does not color every believer’s opinions, and 3) not all believers are creationists or pro-pollution. And now, you assert that only the left, presumably, uses the scientific method. You further assert that right-wing = faith-based.
For someone who claims to use the scientific method, you are relying almost exclusively on fallacies and outright lies or at best, groupthink.
P.S. I wasn’t aware that the Clinton administration and innumerable Democrats were also “right-wing” until now, since they also insisted Saddam Hussein had WMD. Nice try. And that’s all I will say about that now, because that already approaches thread-hijacking.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Elfritz, you sell greenhouses for a living and that qualifies you as a scientist? Sounds like reality left you behind a long time ago.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
From the GOP’s 2004 platform:
http://www.gop.com/
Global Climate Change
Republicans are committed to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by relying on markets and new technologies to improve energy efficiency. These efforts will help reduce emissions over time while allowing the economy to grow. Our President and our Party strongly oppose the Kyoto Protocol and similar mandatory carbon emissions controls that harm economic growth and destroy American jobs.
Color me unimpressed, Carol.
Although they do use the phrase “long-term gloval climate change”, something I think most of you here wouldn’t.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Now let’s approach this scientifically. Exactly what evidence do you have that I sell greenhouses for a living? Because you read it on the usenet?
January 20th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Theo, your ignorant generalizations are getting tiresome, and I’m obviously wasting my time responding to the willfully ignorant
Yes, you are.
Talking to you clearly is a waste of time.
Now, shhh – Carol and I are trying to have a conversation at the adult’s table.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Carol Sofronk:
Theo-Can you cite any official positions by any religious denomination or political party in regard to global warming?
No, he can’t. But if he were to Google “Catholic Church” and “global warming,” he might be in for a surprise.
(Sorry, I just looked up the Catholic Church because their official positions are easier to find.)
January 20th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
First comment is being moderated, probably because I included a link to the GOP’s website. Here it is without it:
From the GOP’s 2004 platform:
Global Climate Change
Republicans are committed to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by relying on markets and new technologies to improve energy efficiency. These efforts will help reduce emissions over time while allowing the economy to grow. Our President and our Party strongly oppose the Kyoto Protocol and similar mandatory carbon emissions controls that harm economic growth and destroy American jobs.
Color me unimpressed, Carol.
Although they do use the phrase “long-term global climate changeâ€, something I think most of you here wouldn’t.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Whatever, Theo.
I tried, but you chose to not have a dialogue at all, only bleating your politically-charged preconceived notions. What’s the matter, did you click my name and find my politics too “right-wing” for you?
Typical. Y’all never let me down with this predictable routine. Good luck with that.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Mr. Elifritz: Condescention is not a flattering method of civil discourse. In looking at several websites in which you participated your comments reveal a distinct coarseness with arrogance which indicates a lack of confidence in your ability to communicate your ideas. Simply put, just because you think you are correct in your thinking leaves you no room to entertain new learning concepts. You might want to rethink your delivery approach in future.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
LAST WORD…James Spann is an excellent Meteorologist and his service to the viewing community is outstanding.. no one does it better. Thank you James Spann for all your hard work on the public’s behalf. I defend your right to express your opinion on global warming, which I totally agree with.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:02 am
When it comes to the science, very few of the ideas are mine. Science is broadly the work of billions of individuals spanning centuries, I am only a single individual. However, I am well enough read, and have extraordinary tools of research at my disposal, which includes supercomputers on my desk, a global high speed network, and a vast global networked database, so I can almost instantly find out what I don’t know. If you think you have an idea that will instantly overturn all of this knowledge, it had damn well better be good, because I have been a research professional long before any of these modern new research technology existed, and I still know how to find things out the old fashioned way. If that appears condescending to you, then so be it, but I will remind you that you too have these same scientific research tools at your disposal, so you really have no excuses for your ignorance, beyond your inexperience. Should you wish to further educate yourself through these modern research tools at your immediate disposal, the knowledge is ‘out there’. It’s entirely your choice, as god meant it to be.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:04 am
Theo-Thanks for being interested enough to look for an official position on global warming. However, this should impress you since you would consider the Republican Party right-wing and even though they don’t want to participate in the Kyoto Protocol, they seem to be interested in making an effort in the direction of reducing perceived global warming. Now, I would really be impressed if you would research my former questions on the first written comment on the shape of the earth and the empty space over the north. This was not written by a “scientist” but somehow had this information. You seen to be a person who is interested in finding the truth and discussion of ideas is an excellent way to learn, as well as teach.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:18 am
Mr Elifritz: Thank you for encouragement to further educate myself. This is something I am daily engaged in. When I need answers, generally all I have to do is ask my husband, whose B.A. in History, an M.A. in History, and a Doctorate in Education, so the need for a super computer is unnecesary. I have found that it is a mistake to believe everything you read as most material is tinged with the author’s personal biases, and so I read and form my own opinions. Never would I presume to be an expert on anything as I am sure there is always someone who thinks that they know more than I do. Usually, they are wrong. Socrates said he was the smartest person because he knew that he did not know everything and everyone else believed that they did know everything..thus he was smarter than they were.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:21 am
Let me leave you with one final simple analysis, because this is getting old. I only came back in here when the blog software recovered from the bandwidth spike.
Mr. Spann’s objections to anthropogenic global warming and climate change are purely philosophical and/or religious, they have no credible basis in science.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:46 am
[...] UPDATE: James Spann, an Alabama weatherman hits back hard (HT Drudge; bolds are mine) – 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? [...]
January 21st, 2007 at 2:01 am
With all due respect, while Mr. Spann does not depend on grants, a post such as this sure does increase traffic to his *commercial web site*.
I try and appreciate the sincerity of his position, but after months of promising, has yet to engage a Global Warming proponent (other than tentative interview requests to Al Gore) on the merits of either position. Instead, regularly beats on straw men, with a few favored ‘experts’ that echo the party line.
It’s a shame that The Weather Company has taken a reactionary stance on this issue, instead of diving into the minutae with the passion and curiosity that makes their local weather coverage so compelling (even if their prognostics are often askew
Ah well, at least Mr. Spann has hit the big time in the right-wing media. Hannity? Drudge? Must feel real good…
January 21st, 2007 at 4:58 am
“I particularly question the value of debating opinions with a bunch of bible thumping brain dead zombies from Alabama.”
You’re not very intelligent, I see.
January 21st, 2007 at 7:52 am
H.L. Mencken says it best: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and thus clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
What is the true, but unspoken agenda, of the “global warming is caused by humans and its a terrible threat to humanity” advocates? It is not to save the world; instead, it is to be used as justification for draconian governmental control of all aspects of the economy – down to the very last penny in your pocket.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
— C.S. Lewis
“Throughout recorded history, without exception, it has been the sole accomplishment of organized government to deprive their populations of liberty and of their property.”
— John C. Calhoun
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers …. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
— _Atlas Shrugged_, Ayn Rand, Part II, Chapter 3.
January 21st, 2007 at 7:52 am
New York Times: August 8, 2006: “In the last year, religious organizations, including some representing evangelicals, have made global warming a priority.
In the poll, a large majority (79 percent) said there was “solid evidence†of global warming, and 61 percent said it was a problem that required “immediate government action.†But white evangelicals and mainline Protestants were more skeptical about global warming than Catholics and secular Americans were, and more likely to say that it is the result of natural causes, not human activity.”
Bible thumping is not the problem, but the other one probably is.
January 21st, 2007 at 8:57 am
Attention Advertisers! You too, can reach this prime Cracker demographic. Put the power of Alabama’s ABC 33/40 sales team to work for you. We can help bring crackpots just like these to your business everyday. Give us a call at 205-403-3340. Ask for Jim-Bob Auhshucks
January 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am
Mr. Spann; I congradulate you on your courage to stand up to a politically correct bully. Though I am not a metrologist, simply a student of history & science, I have come to realize that the so called “Science” behind global climate change, the name they call global warming now, is nothing more that scare tatics. I live the Town of Okotoks, Alberta. A scant 7 miles west of us is a glacial erratic called the “Big Rock” or in the Native Blackfoot language “Okotaks”. This erratice and its smaller siblings were left way they lay by retreating glaciers from the last ice age. The erratics, from what geologists say, come from Jasper National Park, some 250 miles North North West of here. We are told, through the science books, that some 12,000 to 22,000 years ago this area and much of North America, Europe & Norhern Asia were coverd by glaciers. Since then those glaciers have retreated to either mountians or the high Artic.
The question begat then is how and why did the glaciers retreat to their present locations. The answer is of course Global Climate Change. Something the fear mongers seem to forget, as I have yet to hear that an archeologist has found evidence of Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon Man SUV’s or coal fired electrical generators! The great global warming that began 12,000 years ago was & is a natural phenonmon.
Again I congradulate you on your courage to speak up against the bullies of global climate change.
Yours Truly
Douglas R. Swanson
Okotoks, Alberta, Canada
January 21st, 2007 at 10:01 am
Thomas Lee Elfritz, Lets approach this scientfically. What concrete evidence do you have that you do NOT sell greenhouses for a living?
January 21st, 2007 at 10:32 am
Congratulations James for standing up for what is right. Not many meteorologists or scientists have the courage to speak out against the global warming scam. You are right, there are a lot of people making money by scaring others into thinking that global warming is manmade. The Weather Channel keeps its ratings up because of its marketing of fear. Even if Cullen thinks that global warming is really caused by humans, and who knows if she really buys into it or is just profiting from it, she went too far to suggest that opposing opinions should be silenced.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:38 am
STILL WAITING for just ONE of you “scientists” to explain how co2 blocks infrared readiation at night but allows that SAME infrared rays to pass during the daylight hours?????
the POINT is simple co2 also BLOCKS heat on the way in just like clouds in the daytime make cooler day time temps, and clouds at night make warmer temps.
co2 blocks infrared FROM the sun during the day and blocks infrared radiation back out at night.
NET EFFECT of co2 = almost NOTHING when it comes to global temperature!
January 21st, 2007 at 11:03 am
[...] Apparently not satisfied to argue this topic on the merits of the evidence, Ms. Cullen has suggested that if an AMS certified meteorologist does not take the party line on global warming, perhaps the AMS ought to consider withdrawing that meteorologist’s certification. Mr. Spann has taken the debate to his blog at http://www.jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=650 [...]
January 21st, 2007 at 11:18 am
BOB ROSS:
Thank you for the link to the Wikipedia article. I appreciate that you have sources to support your views. I respect your opinion.
It reviews a 1998 study. The study I referred to was more recent; 2004 or 2005. The more recent study shows that there can be a lag time between CO2 and temp and that either one can lead the other. But over 650,000 years they always stay close together. Always.
The article you refer to seems to be of shorter duration. I’ll close with a quote from a link in the link you gave me:
“It is the consensus of the climate research community that the anomalous warmth of the late 20th century cannot be explained by natural factors, but instead indicates significant anthropogenic, that is human influences… More than a dozen independent research groups have now reconstructed the average temperature of the northern hemisphere in past centuries… The proxy reconstructions, taking into account these uncertainties, indicate that the warming of the northern hemisphere during the late 20th century… is unprecedented over at least the past millennium and it now appears based on peer-reviewed research, probably the past two millennia.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:55 am
Bill Taylor: Not exactly, Co2 absorbes IR radiation from sun, but allows raditions of other frequency to pass through which also account for the total energy received by earth, and when some of this energy is reflected back at night as longer wave length radiation and Co2 absorbe that as well. The net effect is an increase in temperature. The mechanism is more complicated than the simplistic formula you present.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:57 am
I have been following you for years and to my knowledge you are one of the most intelligent meterologist in the field. When they interview you, think about including the information on the amount of ice at the SOUTH pole, It seems that to support their (global warming)theory, they always show the stats for the NORTH pole, It would seem that since the earths axis is slightly off (13%?) that this could explain the reduction of ice in this region. However. when taken into consideration the ocean currents role in climate and its saline content (and dispersal), and from what I understand is an increasing of the ice mass at the south pole, also adding core ice sample data (north and south) one could conclude that what we are seeing today is a mere adjusting of the earths climate. When this event is put in a ten thousand year frame instead of a much shorter braket that these people are using to attempt to support their theory, it then takes on the possibility that actually, the earth is in a cooling trend instead of the global warming that we all have been a’squaked by. I also believe that there are a LOT more meterologist out there that dosen’t believe the GW issue either. But like most of the people in this nation currently,they would rather settle with their livelyhood than deal with the truth. It is good to see someone make a stand. More should, and frankly all will, when the “boiler wash” reaches epic proportion. Oh yeah, instead of weather brains, you ought to go with WEATHERHEADS……folks around here have nicknamed you the “weatherhead” for years and quite frankly you have earned it! lol keep up the good work James……May the Christ of God richly bless you and your family.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
soory but that explanatuion made no sense….the “longer wave” you refer to IS infrared….co2 does NOT absorb the wave, it BLOCKS the path, same on the way in or out…the heat wave is the infrared wave.
that is what infrared cameras do, they “see” the heat given off my various objects.
one thin we can agree on the weather/climate system is indeed FAR MORE COMPLEX than the SIMPLISTIC explanation your side gives, that human generated co2 is THE CAUSE of any warming that may be happening.
YOUR SIDE ignors the multitude of other factors involved, such as heat from volcanic eruptions under the oceans they are going on 24 hours a day EVERYDAY!
YOUR side cant account for the impact of clouds on the weather.
YOUR side cant come up with a computer model that matches the KNOWN past weather.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Michael:
We are just going around in circles.
As I see it, this Global Warming thing is being pushed by computer models that predict Global Warming.
I was in College when computers were first coming into use.
We learned a valuable lesson back then:
“Garbage in, Garbage out”
The modern world seems to not understand this concept.
Computers are excellent tools for crunching numbers and storing and retrieving information.
They are useless for predicting the future.
It has always amazed me in my career how otherwise sane sensible people will reverently believe things that come out of a computer.
If you want to sell a concept, have a computer spit it out.
The computer that predicts the future only puts out the prejudice of the designer of the computer program.
It is no better or worst than the opinion of the designer.
If you want to know if global warming is real, save the computer time and just ask the designer. You will get the same answer.
The difference is that people will question the credibility of person, but they typically will not question the credibility of the computer.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
People who are reading this blog should find the article, “Will Al Gore Melt?†interesting. The article is by Flemming Rose and Bjorn Lomborg. The Sunday, January 21, 2007 article is available online at the WSJ website.
January 21st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Just for those interested:
Religion is man trying to reach God or some state of “I know it all. I am a higher person that knows it all.” (hmmm. think I’ve heard that before) It never works. Looks good on paper or to others.
The constitution does NOT state that there should be “separation of church and state” (please research this so y’all won’t appear to be either dumb or quoting someone else).
Man cannot understand all the knowledge in the world/universe. But God can because He actually IS all knowledge (Omni-science). He is the author and creator of science – He controls it. You do not have to believe this – you have volition. God is a gentleman – He lets you believe what you choose to believe.
Christians (those who have accepted the Way, the truth and the Life – Jesus Christ) understand that God has a plan for each person and also the earth. Yes, we must be responsible for our own area and not be lazy and slothful. However, if the plan is for earth to have some cataclysmic occurrence(s) and/or dilemmas, all of mankind put together cannot stop this – even if they tried 110%. That falls under the “God is all powerful – omni-potent” part.
This will not make sense to those who are calling Christianity a “religion”, which it is not. It’s a relationship.
Now as for GW, it could possibly be categorized as a religion…..hummmmmm.
Oh, Bible is spelled with a capital “B”. At the beginning.
January 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Again, Sorry Bill Taylor (484), there are only two ways of blocking the path of radiation, either absorbtion or reflection (if it is transmission, it is not blocking), either way it is bad. It would be nice to use some basics of electromagnetic wave propagation theory in these types of discussions.
All the other things you mentioned are other complications that one needs to add, which most of the scientists who deal with such issues incorporate in their work (otherwise, they won’t get their papers published in journals).
January 21st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Here is an example of the absorption spectrum of CO2 (http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html), it is not blocking, it is absorption. One can find other spectra as well (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,4338075350454b5452554d5f7375626b6174092d09436172626f6e2b64696f786964655f434f32093a095350454b5452554d5f6b6174092d09436172626f6e2d6f7869646573093a095350454b5452554d5f73746f66666e616d65092d09636172626f6e2b64696f78696465/Spectra/Catalogue_1m4.html)
January 21st, 2007 at 6:09 pm
“STILL WAITING for just ONE of you “scientists†to explain how co2 blocks infrared readiation at night but allows that SAME infrared rays to pass during the daylight hours?????”
Because energy emitted from earth is at a longer wavelength than the energy coming in. co2 “blocks” in the longer wavelength. So it doesn’t “block” energy coming in as much as it “blocks” energy going out.
January 21st, 2007 at 6:10 pm
YOUR side cant come up with a computer model that matches the KNOWN past weather.
This model does just fine:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf
btw climate is not weather
January 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Let me say that I think Global Warming is real. Folks, there is way too much evidence to ignore it. Just because a lady on TWC is making a big salary does not mean it is not true. Come on, if that is the case Bill O’Reilly on Fox News is a democrat! He makes more than Cullen!
Glaciers are melting, you can’t deny that. World average temperature is up 2 degrees.
The solution to the problem is to slow down the use of fossil fuels. Facts!
January 21st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Eric B… It’s one thing to say, “I believe global warming is real.” It’s quite another to claim that humans are causing it when we had nothing to do with any past episodes of global warming, and something quite egregeous to state that anyone who doesn’t believe global warming is caused by man needs to have their right to speak (authoritavely, as a weatherperson) revoked.
The fact is that there IS NO “consensus” that global warming is caused by human activity, and quite a bit of evidence that the sun itself is warming (temperature records of the sun, plus previously mentioned global warming on Mars and Pluto, and also, for the record, Jupiter). Further, the sun has been going through a record-setting solar storm period, blasting the Earth with billions and billions of tons of superheated matter. Do you think THAT doesn’t affect the climate? It effects the atmosphere enough to activate the Northern Lights into kaleidoscopes of brilliant color. So what else is it doing to the atmosphere? We haven’t seen sunspots (in some way related to solar flares, still under investigation) in our current numbers since the period known as the Medieval Warm Period. This is why it has been so egregeous for “scientists” to tell each other that they somehow have to make the MWP “go away”. The MWP is the closest thing we have to a period like the current one, and it is precisely what should be studied most carefully.
PS: We aren’t even CLOSE to the warmth we had during the Medieval Warm Period. When we see Mediterranean grapes growing in Scotland again (as they did during the MWP), then we can say we’re getting warm. Until then, I’m not particularly worried about it.
January 21st, 2007 at 7:58 pm
James, hang in there under the hot lights of the press. Ther is an agenda that motivates the “sky is falling” crowd. I can remember back in the 70′s that the world was cooling and we may see a new ice age! I am sure and many others remember it also. It would be fine if people would just preach and practice good stewardship and moderation of the use of our resources things in our lives but there always has to be a radical fringe moving their agenda forward.
Thanks for speaking your mind.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:44 pm
BOB ROSS
In a way, the computer models don’t really predict warming. To test how good a program is, known information from, say, the last hundred years, is fed in. Then they see what the program “predicts”. If it’s conclusion matches the current conditions they figure it might also predict futuer conditions. If it’s way off, they get rid of the program.
That’s a simplified explanation, but you get the gist of it.
As for programs and results reflecting a bias, to some extent it may be true, perhaps, but since we don’t know the thousands of people working on this that is only an opinion reflecting your bias.
But there are many many independantly developed programs reaching the same conclusions in countries around the world. That is why so many governments are signing on to the GW concept. It looks like like it’s happening and gaining speed fast; they are freaked out.
General Electric, DuPont, British Petroleum and other multi nationals also agree.
Global oil consumption was 15 million barrells per day in 1955; it was 81 million in 2005!! A 450% increase. And people say we aren’t altering the atmosphere? Wow! 25% of the total is America. We also produce 25% of the world’s GDP, but we need to take responsibility.
Increasing effiency and lowering energy use means you use less energy per unit of product produced. After the oil shocks of the 70′s, Japan, Western Europe and America responded by doing just that. The Soviet Union did not. The rest of the industrialized world left them behind and the Soviet Union does not exist anymore. Hmmmmm?
The Pentagon is saying that GW may be a bigger threat than terrorism.
Bush may address it in his State of the Union speech. Maybe he’s changing his opnion, too.
On and on and on. Evidence everywhere you look.
I was at the University of Texas when we had to wait for days to use the computer, so I remeber it just like you. Everything is so evolved now; data, software, etc. It’s a different world. Even in “old days” of the 1960′s and 70′s, the future could be predicted. My father was an economist for SWBell. He used an ancient computer that filled a room and predicted how many new phone lines were needed, how many new facilities were needed, how an AFB closing would affect telephone use, etc. He never missed and loved his computer. You just need the right people and the right programs and good data to predict the future of climate change, too.
I absolutely guarantee that every 12 months will see more refined results.
Good trading opinions, but your right, we;re going in circles.
Have a great week, and, please…..be reasonable and see it my way!! (just kidding)
January 21st, 2007 at 9:49 pm
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!
I am Sick of these Liberal Hack, Junk Science, “experts”, Spewing their Foul Mouthed hatred of those who will not blame Humans for what the Sun is doing, and the Earth itself is doing.
If they were not so enamored by the money that those who want to Force “Man-made” Global Warning Blame on Humanities shoulders, maybe we would SEE what is Really Happening and what we can do about it, instead of this Weatherman/woman Bashing that Heidi Cullen and her Ilk are becoming famous for.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Kudos James! Thanks for being the voice of reason that represents the scientific masses and not the controversial, headline-making, ad-selling few. It is so true what you suggest that public fear about global warming is good business for the weather channel. It’s bad enough they have stooped to the level of CNN-like antics of sensationalizing and personalizing what should be purely objective scientific, “news”. That is when they loose their credibility with the masses.
At what point did forecasting and reporting weather evolve into sticking some personality out there in the ditches of various natural disasters. All the while telling the masses to stay out? Argh! They drive me crazy.
Thanks again James. Great Job! Keep up the good work.
January 21st, 2007 at 10:14 pm
My goodness… I never thought there is so much to discuss on a such an issue. The International Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) is about to present their report stating that it is more than 90 % likely global warming is caused by Co2,(see New York Times, Jan 20), a very large majority of scientists at National Academies (US and G8 nations) as well as the AMS support it. Other than very few scientists and many ideologues, who keep bringing up the same issues that were already addressed over and over again, it is pretty much a settled topic – it is impossible to get 100 % agreement on anything anyway. I guess one could live in denial, as or do something to address the problem to change the course.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Wow… when you people don’t agree with something you surely do bash the heck out of it. Fact is that the same bunch people that think Global Warming is a hoax is the same bunch that thinks that God created the earth in 7 rotations of the planet and that fossils were planted by ancient liberals in an attempt to cast a dubious shadow on George W Bush.
you know i am not sure if global warming is happening, but a lot of fact points in the direction of affirmative. Much more fact than that of Iraq causing 9/11. So if we have to live cleaner in order to prevent a disaster that may or may not be looming on the horizon, then what is the harm? everything gets cleaner and everyone benefits. but, by outrightly dismissing it, you are all as pathetic as your complaints about those who believe in it.
January 21st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Mr. Spann, Thank you for speaking the truth. You are now in the spot light and will have the opportunity to put forth the facts instead of emotional consensus science. My thoughts and prayers are with you for your television appearances. Keep cool and just present the facts. Don’t lower yourself into their arena of emotions and personal attacks. Regards Bob Retsch
January 21st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
CO2 gases is not pollutant, in fact it is a very important for life that earth have it.
January 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 am
When it comes to the question about Global Warming, why is it nobody looks at the other end for an answer? Perhaps the heat output from the Sun is not so consistent. If the Earth is warming, maybe the Sun is just getting hotter? I really don’t think people, who’s presence isn’t even visable when looking at the Earth from a short distance away, have the power to materially change the atmosphere of an item so massive as the Earth by lighting a few fires.
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:06 am
James,
Living here in “Old Europe” where anthropic GW hysteria is at its top upper peak, I can authoritatively tell you’d be fried for expressing a contrarian view.
So keep defending freedom of opinion… while you are lucky enough to do it without risking your job.
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 am
Wow that Heidi is a smart one… CO2 is used by plants to generate oxygen. Plants are a natural filter for supposed greenhouse gasses. Coincidentally plants also give off 30% of so called green house gasses. Now to say that man can dramatically change our global temperatures is pretty arrogant. Just one major volcanic eruption does more than we could ever do as an entire population.
These same crazy people are the ones that was hollering about a global ice age coming in 1975… you hit it on the head. They are out for the funding and delivering junk science in return! BTW it got down to 14 degrees in tehran.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:33 am
Global Warming is just a subset of SOLAR SYSTEM Warming. Recent events can be verified from many sources.
1.Comet McNaught was the brightest comet in a long time. It was so bright it could be seen in the day.
2. Pluto is getting hotter.
3. Mars is warming, causing permafrost to melt, giving fresh signs of running surface water on Mars.
4. The Mars Rovers are running years after they were expected to die, they are getting more power than was expected when they were designed.
If human activity with SUVs, power plants or jet planes has caused Pluto to get warmer, then we are gods.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:09 am
>>>>CO2 gases is not pollutant, in fact it is a very important for life that earth have it
>>>> CO2 is used by plants to generate oxygen. Plants are a natural filter for supposed greenhouse gasses. Coincidentally plants also give off 30% of so called green house gasses.
It is a pollutant as far as warming is concerned. Trees are not growing taller near the roads because of the availability of Co2, nor are they growing faster compared to 150 years ago – they had enough CO2 to grow then. Of course we are destroying plants and forests too – let us wait for a volcanic eruption to save us from this, that would be a very smart strategic plan! The global cooling theroy is still there, if there is enough small particles in the atmosphere preventing sun’s radiation from reaching earth’s surface(the particles we produce is actually bringing the temperature down, otherwise it would have been even higher). But too much particulates in air, people are going to get sick with lung problems. We are involved in a major experiment with the planet, without knowing the outcome. Unfortunately, we are in it, we are not simply observing it.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 am
>>>Jim Macklin Says Pluto is getting hotter.
Nobody is denying that the sun is becoming hotter. Which means we have to reduce CO2 even further to compensate for that. As James Lovelock said in his “Gaya”, if the sun is going to get hotter at this rate, CO2 must be reduced constantly, and at some point trees have to grow at zero CO2 concentration. We are doomed one way or other eventually, the only question is how long can we actively prolong the existence of humanity.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 am
I suggest that Global Warming is possible. I suggest that Global Warming may not be occurring. I suggest that Global Warming, if it exists, may occur in part due to Man’s action. I suggest that Global Warming, if it exists, may mostly be due to actions outside of Man’s control.
However, I do support individuals who choose to car pool or ride their bikes to work (or walk or use public transportation). I believe conservation of resources is an admirable goal. I believe that Hybrids or Electric cars could be helpful, assuming the waste is not more of a problem (batteries or Nuclear-generated electricity alternatives to fossil fuels).
I do believe that funding from corporations, individuals, and government do have an impact on those researching. These individuals may recognize what the desired “proof” is for continued funding, if even on a sub-conscious level. There are few people who will try to put themselves out of work. I believe that there is far more funding from Government and individuals who are concerned with Global Warming than funding trying to disprove Global Warming.
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 am
So let me get this straight. The planet was covered with ice and glaciers a LONG long time ago. Somehow, the planet warmed up enough WITHOUT humans driving cars and making plastics to cause teh glaciers to pull back, expose a few canyons and to allow me to sit on a warm beach in some months and snow ski in others. This “Global Warming” nonsense is just another ruse to stir up the ignorant so that they can throw away MORE money on yet another junk science joke.
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Scott Says> The planet was covered with ice and glaciers a LONG long time ago.
Of course it goes through natural cycles, earth was becoming warmer even before the industrial revolution. But we cannot control those natural cycles – we can only control our activity from making it any worse. In other words, the stability of the system is necessary for such a cyclic process to continue, if it become unstable with our additional activities, it could result in a run away warming process, with no chance to come back.
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 am
WHY WOULD THESE CORPORATIONS WORK TO LOWER CO2 EMISSIONS IF THERE WAS NOT A LINK BETWEEN OUR ACTIIVTIES AND GW???
READ ON
**************************************
**Breaking News**
Ten Major U.S. Companies Join Environmental Defense and Others
to Endorse Mandatory Limits on America’s Global Warming
Pollution.
Watch press conference live this morning on CSPAN at 11:30am
Eastern.
Read more:
http://action.environmentaldefense.org/ct/xd1YsD61hmuq/
**************************************
This morning, ten major U.S. businesses and four national
environmental organizations issued a joint report, A Call to
Action, which calls on the federal government to quickly enact
strong national legislation to cut global warming pollution.
You can watch the press conference live this morning on CSPAN at
11:30am Eastern. You will also be able to watch it online at
CSPAN.org:
http://action.environmentaldefense.org/ct/sp1YsD61hm7C/
The companies involved in today’s announcement are well-known
Fortune 500 corporations: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke
Energy, DuPont, Florida Power and Light, General Electric,
Lehman Brothers, Pacific Gas & Electric, and PNM Resources.
They have joined Environmental Defense, the World Resources
Institute, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and Natural
Resources Defense Council to form an unprecedented alliance -
the United States Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP).
In today’s announcement, the partners pledged to work together
to support six recommendations for national action:
1) Account for the global dimensions of climate change – the
U.S. government should become more involved in international
agreements to fight global warming;
2) Recognize the importance of technology – the cost-effective
deployment of existing energy efficient technologies should be a
priority;
3) Be environmentally effective – establish a mandatory cap that
guarantees emissions will be cut and other measures to
facilitate reaching the needed targets;
4) Create economic opportunity and advantage – a climate
protection program must use the power of the market to establish
clear targets and timeframes;
5) Be fair – global warming solutions must account for the
disproportionate impact of both global warming and emissions
reductions on some economic sectors, geographic regions, and
income groups; and
6) Encourage early action – prior to the effective date of
mandatory pollution limits, every reasonable effort should be
made to reduce emissions.
This unique cooperation of business and environmental leaders
sends a clear signal to Congress: legislative action to cut
America’s global warming pollution is urgently needed.
Environmental Defense is thrilled to have played a role in
building this unprecedented partnership and will look to take
full advantage of the added momentum this brings to our efforts
to pass meaningful global warming legislation this year.
For more on this announcement, go to our website:
http://action.environmentaldefense.org/ct/xd1YsD61hmuq/
Our work to fight global warming is made possible through the
support of our dedicated members and online activists. I cannot
thank you enough for your tremendous support.
I look forward to working with you as the 110th Congress begins
to debate global warming and moves to enact the mandatory caps
we need to cut emissions. This will be the test of this Congress
on the top environmental priority of our generation.
Sincerely,
Fred Krupp
President
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 am
Tom sez:
“Taking away AMS certification may be a little severe, but on the other hand, clearly anyone who refuses to believe that humans have any affect on the weather is no one anyone should listen to about anything.”
Can you prove that we DO have an affect?? That’s what the whole debate is about Tom!
Have another swig of that Kool-Aid and straighten up your tin foil hat.
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:17 am
Sany sez:
“if it become unstable with our additional activities, it could result in a run away warming process, with no chance to come back.”
Again, you have no proof of this possibility. What “additional activites” are you referring to??
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
I would like to note the hatefulness in the posts from the Algore proponents here in this very thread.
Seems be they Socialist, Atheist, or PCite, folks get riled when you challenge their unbridled dogma and emotionalism.
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 am
gotta love those “expert” responses…..thank you for informing me that the heat waves going back are “long wave” that would have impressed me except for one thing, those waves as they comes in are also LONG WAVES…infrared(heat) is a LONG WAVE.
as to absorbtion again that would impress me IF the co2 could hold that heat forever BUT to reality is it releases it in time so again, STILL WAITING.
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 am
Jim Baker whelped…
“So if we have to live cleaner in order to prevent a disaster that may or may not be looming on the horizon, then what is the harm? everything gets cleaner and everyone benefits.”
Ah yes, for the “common good” mantra. Regardless of evidence you LOVE to spend others’ money. Typical of the hanky-twisting bedwetters that make up the Chicken Little camp. Ever have an original thou8ght or idea, Jimmy Boy??
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 am
I’m not a climatologist or scientist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night! (And I have 2 bath towels, an ash tray, and a smoke detector to prove it)
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:51 am
It is ignorant to say plants will use the extra C02 given off by the fossil fuel combustion when they can only use so much. I bet you are a smoker in denial that it is harmful for your lungs. Go figure.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
The link above is the executive summary on climate change as written by the American Meteorological Society, where tv meteorologists get accredited. Please read it. It says that global warming is happening, it is man made, and it is a problem for the future. I am not a climatologist or meteorologist. However, I believe the AMS if they go through the trouble of writing this page. I would like someone to explain how Spann says that no tv meteorologists believe in it, if it is on the AMS website, which is the licensing body of tv meteorologists? Was the site hacked by a loony liberal? Either Spann is wrong… or the Meteorological Society is wrong. Which is it? This blows his statement about no tv meterologists believe in global warming. Is he lying or just misinformed?
January 22nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Since nobody has responded to my message, I guess you all agree with me. Cool!
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Bill Taylor writes:
“gotta love those “expert†responses…..thank you for informing me that the heat waves going back are “long wave†that would have impressed me except for one thing, those waves as they comes in are also LONG WAVES…infrared(heat) is a LONG WAVE.”
Most incoming radiation from the sun that reaches the earth is at a shorter wavelength than IR.
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/plank_e_sun.html
The radiation from the sun in the visible light spectrum can pass through the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and warm the earth.
The heat radiatiated from the earth’s surface however is at a much lower wavelength (IR light), and that cannot so easily pass through.
Essentially the greenhouse gases act as a gate allowing short wave radiation through, but partially blocking long wave radiation. The key to the greenhouse effect is that the energy earth emits is at a lower wavelength than the energy it recieves.
“as to absorbtion again that would impress me IF the co2 could hold that heat forever BUT to reality is it releases it in time so again, STILL WAITING.”
It doesn’t hold the heat indefinitely, it re-emits it in all directions. Some goes upwards, some goes downward. The extra downward radiation is effectively an amplification of the intial solar energy, and the earth is about 33C warmer because of the greenhouse effect.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/greenhouse.GIF
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Chris,
You said, “It says that global warming is happening, it is man made, and it is a problem for the future.†I checked the web site that you cited. I do not agree with your interpretation of the document. Their document seems to be a mere summary of the status quo. I see nothing in the document that suggests that meteorologists who are members of their organization may not express an opinion about the relative amount of man-made versus non-man-made contributions to global warming. The web page that you cited does acknowledge that the global warming issue might result in governmental decisions that result in restriction of America’s use of natural resources.
People who call themselves “progressives†seem to feel a need to restrict both free speech and to restrict America’s ability to compete in the world market place. Multinational Corporations such as General Electric agree with those “progressive†views. Greater financial reward is available for Multinational Corporations in developing countries such as China and India. The various schemes that the UN has generated have involved limiting America’s use of natural resources in order to free resources for the use of Multinational Corporations in developing countries such as China and India.
America’s universities have been taken over by “progressives†who punish (through peer review) professors who do not follow the party line. However, there are some professors such as Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology who have tenure and therefore still have free speech. The trend for eliminating free speech of professionals (such as meteorologists) through the governing body of their professional societies is the natural outgrowth of control by “progressives†of universities, charitable foundations, government bureaucracies and the news media.
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
The earth has gone through long-term (in human terms) warming and cooling trends in the past. In fact, there are at least two in fairly “recent” history: In the 10th through the 14th centuries there was a warming trend – called the “Medieval Warm Period” – so much so that Vikings built settlements in areas of Greenland that eventually died out (or, more accurately, were frozen out) when temps returned to normal. In the 1500′s through the 1800′s there was a time referred to as the “Little Ice Age” when snow fell and crops froze in the middle of summer.
Current “evidence” to support the “global warming” theory is based upon approximately 100 years of research, but much of the research done now could not be done 50-100 years ago because the technology did not exist. In addition, the two climate changes mentioned above lasted for approximately 400 and 300 years, respectively, and I have no doubt that the changes didn’t happen overnight but there were periods of transition before and after. Are people so short-sighted as to really think that there would be no changes to the earth’s weather patterns and temps just because this is what we think of as “modern times” and that whatever changes are happening is all our fault? If so, that’s contrary to all the historical evidence.
Yes, we need to be good stewards of our physical resources, and we need to use these resources with care and compassion, but let’s “get over” ourselves….
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
sure thing that visible light passes right through those greenhouse gases, that is why is it just as BRIGHT on cloudy days as on sunny days with no clouds, that is also why it gets just as warm on cloudy days as it does on sunny days.
common sense, co2 is LESS than 1% of our atmosphere, seems like 99% of the heat both ways coming in or out doesnt really get affected much by co2…..sorta like a cigarette filter that blocks .5% and claiming this filter will protect you from ALL the harmful things in smoke!
it AMAZES me that people claim such a tiny part of the equation has such hugely CAUSAL effects, while discounting increases from the source, the SUN?
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
“sure thing that visible light passes right through those greenhouse gases, that is why is it just as BRIGHT on cloudy days as on sunny days with no clouds, that is also why it gets just as warm on cloudy days as it does on sunny days.”
Sunny days without greenhouse effect would be colder than sunny days with it. Same with cloudy days – warmer because of the greenhouse effect than without it. On average the Earth gets an extra 33C extra warmth from it’s greenhouse effect.
“common sense, co2 is LESS than 1% of our atmosphere, seems like 99% of the heat both ways coming in or out doesnt really get affected much by co2″
It’s also a matter of how much bang per buck a co2 molecule gives as well as how much of it there is. Small quantities can have significant effects – a single tablespoon of salt can be enough to change the taste of a whole bowl of soup for example.
“it AMAZES me that people claim such a tiny part of the equation has such hugely CAUSAL effects, while discounting increases from the source, the SUN?”
The sun hasn’t increased in intensity significantly for the last 50 years, yet in the last 30 we’ve seen about half of last centuries warming. The sun can explain the warming in the 1930′s but no solar model has been able to replicate the recent warming. So it’s not discounted for nothing.
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
LOL, thank you, cant find it in a computer “model” so that means it isnt there?
the sun has been extra active in a little longer than the last decade, and you attribute warming in the 30′s to the sun, but you dont mention any weakening of the sun after the 30′s, so you are saying the sun was responsible for the warming in the 30′s BUT wihtout any change in the sun any continued warming(after the cooling of the mid part of the century) was caused by humans.
doesnt sound likely when laid out.
IF we humans have so much control why are those lasy people in colorado and oklahoma not outside building a FIRE, afterall with DIRECT adding of heat by humans in that area clearly they should be able to melt that snow and ice in a few hours!
IF we humans by adding a small amount of co2 could WARM the entire globe so substantially so easily, obviously those folks in the midwest can melt that ice in that little local area just by adding a FIRE in each backyard!
remember folks i am not talking about some subtle trapping of heat, I am talking about ADDING directly an huge amount of heat concentrated in a small area, come on folks SHOW ME we humans are in control!
or get over yourself and dont buy the utter arrogance involved in human caused global warming.
PUT UP or shut up, warm ONE 10 square mile area by 10 degrees and maintain that for one week.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
“LOL, thank you, cant find it in a computer “model†so that means it isnt there?”
Computer models are just a quick way of doing calculations which could also be done on paper and pen. When you do the calculations taking into account the solar trend over the 20th century, the amount of extra energy that would give over time, and the observed temperature trend seen, noone has currently been able to explain the last 30 years of warming with such calculations.
“the sun has been extra active in a little longer than the last decade, and you attribute warming in the 30’s to the sun, but you dont mention any weakening of the sun after the 30’s, so you are saying the sun was responsible for the warming in the 30’s BUT wihtout any change in the sun any continued warming(after the cooling of the mid part of the century) was caused by humans.”
The very slight cooling in the mid part of the century correlated with a period of no change in solar activity. So up till then the correlation was good. But then between 1970 and today temperature rose again, about as much as it did between 1900 and 1940, but this time there was no rise in solar activity like there was in the early part of the century. But this was the period where greenhouse gas increases were the most significant.
The position of agw is not that man has caused all of 20th century warming. It’s that the sun likely caused most of the 1900-1940 warming, and human activity likely caused most of the 1970-today warming. It’s based on trying to attribute the warming to different factors and finding the likeliest cause.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
it was still cooling through the 70′s dont forget YOUR group was warning off the looming ice age at that time.
so IF we look back we see 30 to 40 year warming followed by 30-40 year cooling followed by warming, beginning to see a pattern?
seems to me the earth warms and cools in cycles, just like james spann said.
YOU already admitted an increase in solar energy and NEVER even after me mentioning claimed any reduction in output.
NOBODY has produced one shred of evidence that there is anything other than a natural cycle of the earth’s climate!
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
a hint about logic….when you attribute the warming of the early 20th century to the sun, after som