William Gray, the well-known Colorado State University hurricane forecaster, routinely uses the annual National Hurricane Conference as a platform to bash global warming. In a statement to Florida Today, Gray argued that the scientific consensus on global warming is bogus — and “a mild form of McCarthyism has developed toward those scientists who do not agree” that mankind is in danger.
“We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore’s alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background,” Gray wrote.
UPDATE:
Think brainwashing is too strong a word? Perhaps you should read this before you answer. Via commentator Tom.
Were the IPCC not dedicated to spreading fear, it would admit its climate models, on which much of the global warming madness is based, are flawed. While pandering politicians, media sycophants and Hollywood dupes desperately seeking significance have lectured us about our carbon monoxide emissions, real temperature changes measured over the past 30 years have not matched well with increases predicted by the IPCC’s models.
This is not some gas-guzzler’s fantasy but the finding of a credible study published last year in the International Journal of Climatology. Looking at the data, four researchers concluded “the weight of the current evidence . . . supports the conclusion” there is no agreement between the models and the observation temperatures.
Let’s repeat that for clarity. Supports the conclusion that there is no agreement between the models and the observation temperatures. Why is it when things are cooler than normal, it’s attributed to variability and called weather. But when it’s warmer than normal, it’s proof positive of this thing called climate change.
One point is valid, however - changes in planetary temperature should be evaluated over long periods of time. 150 years does not qualify as long from a planetary standpoint. That accounts for just 0.000003% of the planets total life - not a very big window to decide that the world is in peril, especially lacking hard observational evidence. That’s equivalent to a little over 1 minute of a 70 year old person’s life - a unit of measure that can’t be reliably used to judge the relative health of an individual over the full 70 years.
Does it bother you that the strongest statement the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been able to make about the causal relationship between humans and warming is:
“the balance of evidence suggests human influence on global climate.”
Well, yeah - we undoubtedly have some impact on global climate - things would probably be a bit different if we weren’t here as a species. But cause catastrophic global warming? Again - show me the observational evidence. Does this, from an IPCC lead author, make you feel any better?
The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: “We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans.”
We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don’t have thermometers marked with “this much is human-caused” and “this much is natural”.
So, I would have written this conclusion as “Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change.”
So, computer model output, which has not been able to mesh with observational data, was used to reach the IPCC conclusion in its 2007 final report. Not the hard observational data of what is actually happening, but computer models that match what gloabal warming alarmists want to happen. Does it bother you that the above referenced statement on human causality of global warming is that weak, despite considerable effort on the part of the IPCC to crush dissenting opinions?
· The IPCC’s consistent refusal to entertain any dissent, however well researched, which challenges its assumptions, is profoundly unscientific;
· Although its now famous “hockey stick” chart of temperatures over the last millennium, which inter alia featured prominently in the UK Government’s 2003 Energy White Paper, is almost certainly a myth, the IPCC refuses to entertain any challenge to it;
Read all of Lord Lawson’s testimony to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
One final thought - why did the vikings name it Greenland?
Reactions to the script from the biographers were mixed. They said specific scenes are largely based in fact but noted that the screenplay contains inaccurate and over-the-top caricatures of Bush and his inner circle.
…
Jacob Weisberg (”The Bush Tragedy”) was skeptical about Stone’s claim that he wants to make “a fair, true portrait” of Bush. “His saying he is going to be fair to Bush is like Donald Trump saying he is going to be modest,” Weisberg quipped.
One wonders what will happen if Stone does release his Bush-bashing masterpiece before November. Does it demoralize, or energize, the Republican base? Assuming, of course, more than 1,000 people nationwide actually pay to go see it.
Vacuous little prat. However, it’s even worse than I thought. Our dear Dr. Suzuki believes that people who turned their lights off for Earth Hour displayed the same kind of courage as Rosa Parks. It is a messianic complex, with adherents believing that they are engaged in some noble, sacred task rather than meaningless acts of self gratifying foolishness.
Who can ever forget Rosa Parks, who became an icon of civil rights by refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in the segregated south?
Who can forget the lone Chinese protestor in 1989 who bravely showed the world his courage by refusing to move from oncoming tanks in Tiananmen Square?
And who can forget Terry Fox, who continues to inspire thousands around the world to take part in the non-competitive run that bears his name each year? All this, even though this brave young man didn’t live to complete his own cross-Canada journey.
As single acts, in and of themselves, these actions aren’t all that special. Certainly noteworthy, but not earth shaking. Yet, in a sense, these simple acts became larger symbols, succeeding in shaking up our thoughts about racism, authoritarian regimes, and cancer research.
So, in Suzuki’s mind, being a lone chinese protestor standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square is not that special. Possibly giving up one’s life for an ideal, such as that protestor or Rosa Sparks, rates no special mention except they sparked broader protest movements. But somehow, being brave enough to do without electricity for an hour equates with those history altering moments. I should have added pompous and pedantic into the description somewhere.
Sustainable energy is a great idea - how about nuclear? Doing reasonable things to curb greenhouse gas emissions - sure, why not? Crippling global economies with nothing but feel good Green dogma to guide us - not so much in favor of that. Having to listen to people congratulate themselves for being brave enough to go without lights for an hour - no thanks. Those of us who didn’t participate in Earth Hour, running the risk of being screeched at by unhinged Greenies are the real heroes of the story. Just like Rosa Parks.
