Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 This may be the best story ever written in the BDT, I am shocked they tackled this story... Scientific data counters claims of global warming, fuels worldwide debate By JAMES H. "SMOKEY" SHOTT Bluefield Daily Telegraph Many of us accept as gospel media reports of scientists who warn that man’s activities are wrecking Earth’s atmosphere. Some of us go so far as to accept predictions of cataclysmic consequences if something isn’t done right this minute, and accept as part of the solution radical prescriptions to correct the problem, such as the dangerous provisions of the Kyoto Protocols. We have been told by scientists in Australia that, for example, Christmas lights are bad for the planet due to huge electricity waste, and that each bulb turned on in the name of Christmas will increase emissions of greenhouse gases. Bah! Humbug! At least these scientists are urging only the use of energy efficient bulbs, rather than suggesting we stop using lights altogether, or just cancel Christmas, as more radical advocates might propose. Spiked-online columnist Brendan O’Neill wrote the following: “Whoever thought that serious commentators would want it made illegal to have a row about the weather? One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial.’†This columnist wrote: “David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’†Let’s drink a toast to objective scientific inquiry. Some in the U.S. global warming lobby complain that the issue is simply too important to be left to the uncertainties of a democratic society, where people are free to not agree with them. These open-minded people argue that such odd notions must be dispensed with where global warming is concerned. But there are others who brave social, monetary and professional punishment to question these dire predictions and seek out the truth, which is far less easy to find than the abundant predictions of catastrophe. In 1975 Newsweek magazine ran this: “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.†Scary stuff, huh? But this article of 30 years ago warned not of global warming, but of global cooling! In February of this year California meteorologist Anthony Watts reported that all four major global temperature tracking outlets had recorded data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year, “and that the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree, ... a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down,†according to a Fox News story. The story went on to say that “some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.†How many of you have ever heard of Mr. Watts revelation? Not many, I’ll bet. The argument is less about whether the planet is warming than about the cause of it; warming and cooling periods are natural phenomena. Environmentalists insist that the activities of man, like producing electricity, driving cars and such, are increasing greenhouse gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone at a dangerous rate, and the abundance of these gases raises atmospheric temperatures, threatening both animal and plant life. But inconvenient truths and facts continue to pile up against the manmade global warming theory. Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer, who served as the director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, was fired by Vice President Al Gore in 1993. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,†he said. Dr. Happer is one of a substantial and growing number of scientists who disagree with the manmade global warming faction of the scientific community. “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,†he said recently, and has asked to join the more than 650 international scientists who have spoken out against manmade global warming fears in this year’s Senate Minority Report. “The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past …†Many of those who believe man is causing global warming think the situation is so dire that we don’t have time to debate the issue further, or to wait for sufficient evidence to produce a true consensus among climate scientists. But the liveliness of the debate tells us that we have a long way to go before a true consensus will be formed, and we should always be suspicious of causes too important to be held up to scrutiny. James H. “Smokey†Shott, a resident of Bluefield, VA, is a Daily Telegraph columnist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 This may be the best story ever written in the BDT, I am shocked they tackled this story... Scientific data counters claims of global warming, fuels worldwide debate By JAMES H. "SMOKEY" SHOTT Bluefield Daily Telegraph Many of us accept as gospel media reports of scientists who warn that man’s activities are wrecking Earth’s atmosphere. Some of us go so far as to accept predictions of cataclysmic consequences if something isn’t done right this minute, and accept as part of the solution radical prescriptions to correct the problem, such as the dangerous provisions of the Kyoto Protocols. We have been told by scientists in Australia that, for example, Christmas lights are bad for the planet due to huge electricity waste, and that each bulb turned on in the name of Christmas will increase emissions of greenhouse gases. Bah! Humbug! At least these scientists are urging only the use of energy efficient bulbs, rather than suggesting we stop using lights altogether, or just cancel Christmas, as more radical advocates might propose. Spiked-online columnist Brendan O’Neill wrote the following: “Whoever thought that serious commentators would want it made illegal to have a row about the weather? One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial.’†This columnist wrote: “David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’†Let’s drink a toast to objective scientific inquiry. Some in the U.S. global warming lobby complain that the issue is simply too important to be left to the uncertainties of a democratic society, where people are free to not agree with them. These open-minded people argue that such odd notions must be dispensed with where global warming is concerned. But there are others who brave social, monetary and professional punishment to question these dire predictions and seek out the truth, which is far less easy to find than the abundant predictions of catastrophe. In 1975 Newsweek magazine ran this: “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.†Scary stuff, huh? But this article of 30 years ago warned not of global warming, but of global cooling! In February of this year California meteorologist Anthony Watts reported that all four major global temperature tracking outlets had recorded data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year, “and that the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree, ... a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down,†according to a Fox News story. The story went on to say that “some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.†How many of you have ever heard of Mr. Watts revelation? Not many, I’ll bet. The argument is less about whether the planet is warming than about the cause of it; warming and cooling periods are natural phenomena. Environmentalists insist that the activities of man, like producing electricity, driving cars and such, are increasing greenhouse gases such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone at a dangerous rate, and the abundance of these gases raises atmospheric temperatures, threatening both animal and plant life. But inconvenient truths and facts continue to pile up against the manmade global warming theory. Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer, who served as the director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, was fired by Vice President Al Gore in 1993. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,†he said. Dr. Happer is one of a substantial and growing number of scientists who disagree with the manmade global warming faction of the scientific community. “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,†he said recently, and has asked to join the more than 650 international scientists who have spoken out against manmade global warming fears in this year’s Senate Minority Report. “The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past …†Many of those who believe man is causing global warming think the situation is so dire that we don’t have time to debate the issue further, or to wait for sufficient evidence to produce a true consensus among climate scientists. But the liveliness of the debate tells us that we have a long way to go before a true consensus will be formed, and we should always be suspicious of causes too important to be held up to scrutiny. James H. “Smokey†Shott, a resident of Bluefield, VA, is a Daily Telegraph columnist. GREAT article! Man, this could be the best article I've ever read from the BDT that wasn't an AP story. I don't have a bunch of time right now, but I'll go further later if requested. There are holes in the global warming theory I could drive a Bradley tank through. There is anything but a true consensus, and much of the debate on behalf of global warming is revenue-driven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JJBrickface Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 Al Gore is a loser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublue 939 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 ....adding more fuel to the fire......Dick and Jane are not the cause....sunspots are the culprits.... http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=315533893763712 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 (edited) There are so many things disputing Global Warming, yet so many people are saying its real and man made. Look, it may be happening, but stop wasting our money and time on trying to fix it until we know for sure. Politicians on both sides are not seeking the truth to this situation, and that is dead wrong. Edited January 1, 2009 by BEAVERTAIL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 The Global Warming agenda is strongly supported by it's proponents. Interestingly enough, these people who are so eager to learn more, DISCOURAGE scrutiny and opposing views. This is not science, but COMMUNISM. Everyone that supports this nonsense refuse to give any credence to a sound SCIENTIFIC argument that might oppose their views. This is very narrow minded and it reeks of collusion and conspiracy. The same can be said about the global scientific community, with particular interest in America, regarding the teaching of Darwinian Evolution as opposed to Intelligent Design. If a professor, scientist, teacher or any other leader in academia even suggests that Intelligent Design needs to be explored, they are labeled, funding is cut and often they are refused or denied tenure based on some bogus claim. Science which once thrived on gathering as much data as possible, questioning and proposing as many theories as possible is now relegated to destroying opposing viewpoints and holding up BAD SCIENCE in the name of an AGENDA. I highly recommend that everyone on this board go out and rent the newly released DVD EXPELLED, by Ben Stein, this video further illustrates the AGENDA of the scientific community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 If a professor, scientist, teacher or any other leader in academia even suggests that Intelligent Design needs to be explored, they are labeled, funding is cut and often they are refused or denied tenure based on some bogus claim. Really? I'm just interested where you got that information... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Really? I'm just interested where you got that information... I've listened to a lecture series by Pat Michaels, a UVA science professor that viciously attacks the (plausible) inexactitude of global warming. Having spoken to my science friends regarding Michaels' perception, I found out what I had assumed on my own: that he has a stigma about him that he's on the fringe. The Wikipedia article states it better than I could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I've listened to a lecture series by Pat Michaels, a UVA science professor that viciously attacks the (plausible) inexactitude of global warming. Having spoken to my science friends regarding Michaels' perception, I found out what I had assumed on my own: that he has a stigma about him that he's on the fringe. The Wikipedia article states it better than I could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels I wouldn't go as far as to call it a stigma, based on what I read in the Wiki article you provided. It basically had other scientists that disagree with his opinion, and then go on to say that he has done little in terms of publishing his own work, as well as being misleading and inaccurate in some of his statements. Michaels has hardly been labeled, stripped of funding, and not given tenure. Actually it is quite the contrary... he has been criticized (who hasn't), given at least $100,000 for research by one company, and was a Professor for 27 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I wouldn't go as far as to call it a stigma, based on what I read in the Wiki article you provided. It basically had other scientists that disagree with his opinion, and then go on to say that he has done little in terms of publishing his own work, as well as being misleading and inaccurate in some of his statements. Michaels has hardly been labeled, stripped of funding, and not given tenure. Actually it is quite the contrary... he has been criticized (who hasn't), given at least $100,000 for research by one company, and was a Professor for 27 years. Of course, Wikipedia isn't going to give the prevailing opinion in UVA's Environmental Sciences department, either. ;) I've heard words like "quack", "loon", and "thick-headed" thrown about. But he's far from a bust. He's quite successful. And having listened to him, his arguments are very compelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Of course, Wikipedia isn't going to give the prevailing opinion in UVA's Environmental Sciences department, either. ;)I've heard words like "quack", "loon", and "thick-headed" thrown about. But he's far from a bust. He's quite successful. And having listened to him, his arguments are very compelling. Of course...but people say the same things about Al Gore for his fervent belief in global warming. I think it goes both ways. Even though Gore probably deserves them a little more than Michaels. He is quite successful, and that is exactly my point. Bucfan made it sound as if someone who goes against a mainstream scientific theory will be automatically thrown out of the scientific community, and never allowed to conduct research again. I was just wondering if he came to that conclusion on his own, or if he had a source for the accusation. While he was talking about intelligent design rather than global warming, I would imagine both would have similar reactions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 But it does happen BBA. Go back to the first article that I posted and look in the bold. Thats the sad thing about science, politicians often fund it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 But it does happen BBA. Go back to the first article that I posted and look in the bold. Thats the sad thing about science, politicians often fund it. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. However, I think it is the exception and not the rule. Bucfan made it sound that it happens to anyone that rises up against a mainstream theory. There is no doubt that there is corruption in science, as there is in anything that involves a lot of power and money. I was just clearing up the point that it doesn't always happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublue 939 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 But it does happen BBA. Go back to the first article that I posted and look in the bold. Thats the sad thing about science, politicians often fund it. "Smithsonian scientist retaliated against because he allowed publication of an article favoring the theory of intelligent design in a biology journal" for more on the article see below: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/the_house_government_reform_su.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 a slightly off topic mention, how about this darn weather we're having. So much for that harsh winter that I and a lot of us expected. I wouldn't mind snow at all but day after day of this rain simply sucks. Not any other way to put it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. However, I think it is the exception and not the rule. Bucfan made it sound that it happens to anyone that rises up against a mainstream theory. There is no doubt that there is corruption in science, as there is in anything that involves a lot of power and money. I was just clearing up the point that it doesn't always happen. But look at it this way, one person gets canned in a scientific lab for finding results against lets say GW. That person gets fired. Do you really think anyone will go against GW now? But you may be right, it may not happen that much, but that it happens at all is wrong, and yes it doesnt always happen. But that one time can leave you questioning whether publishing something for fear of your job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) But look at it this way, one person gets canned in a scientific lab for finding results against lets say GW. That person gets fired. Do you really think anyone will go against GW now? But you may be right, it may not happen that much, but that it happens at all is wrong, and yes it doesnt always happen. But that one time can leave you questioning whether publishing something for fear of your job. I get exactly what you're saying...and it is definitely wrong. However, that happened in 1993...15 years ago, according to the article. There are still people conducting research against GW now, are there not? I'm sure it has happened more times since, and I'm sure it happens with all sorts of research in other fields. Edited January 7, 2009 by BigBlueAlum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublue 939 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 a slightly off topic mention, how about this darn weather we're having. So much for that harsh winter that I and a lot of us expected. I wouldn't mind snow at all but day after day of this rain simply sucks. Not any other way to put it. My in-laws live in Madison WI.....if you want harsh weather....they've got it. For the past month.....MAJOR snow (a record)....wind chills and actual temps BELOW zero and icy streets the other day that sent 177 to the 3 hospitals with related injuries from falls. Of course, they take it all in stride....they consider the 30's a "spring day". Was up there first of Oct. and we traveled up to Door Co. above Green Bay......and I wore a jacket with a down vest not being acclimated to that "early" chilly weather. As for the rain.....we, in GA welcome it b/c of the drought. We got over 3 inches two nights ago that raised Lake Lanier by 1 ft (source for ATL water supply) ....but still 14 ft. below norm. ....we're thankful for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzsawBeaver 12 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 My in-laws live in Madison WI.....if you want harsh weather....they've got it. For the past month.....MAJOR snow (a record)....wind chills and actual temps BELOW zero and icy streets the other day that sent 177 to the 3 hospitals with related injuries from falls. Of course, they take it all in stride....they consider the 30's a "spring day". Was up there first of Oct. and we traveled up to Door Co. above Green Bay......and I wore a jacket with a down vest not being acclimated to that "early" chilly weather.As for the rain.....we, in GA welcome it b/c of the drought. We got over 3 inches two nights ago that raised Lake Lanier by 1 ft (source for ATL water supply) ....but still 14 ft. below norm. ....we're thankful for it. odd how it's different extremes in different places huh, I guess if it were cold enough for all this rain to have been snow we'd be snowed in ourselves. I know the rain can be good for things to, but in winter I'd rather have it in the form of snow, especially seeing how muddy things are around here in places, it's just like slop in some places around our house here and in bastian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamerball 566 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 (edited) a slightly off topic mention, how about this darn weather we're having. So much for that harsh winter that I and a lot of us expected. I wouldn't mind snow at all but day after day of this rain simply sucks. Not any other way to put it. It goes through cycles most of the time. Looks like we're going to back a colder pattern now after this warmer stretch going into next week. Still got the rest of this month and then Feb. and March, where anything can happen, to go...maybe it'll turn around by then. Speaking of heavy and flooding rains, I seem to remember some years where good snows have followed weather like this. Edited January 8, 2009 by Beamerball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.