Confirming Limbaugh's Prediction, CBS Ignores Study Casting Doubt on Global Warming

Photo of Brent Baker.

Two nights after NBC blamed hot summer temperatures on global warming, and on the very day a new scientific report cast doubt on a key assumption behind global warming forecasts, CBS on Thursday evening held global warming culpable for “oppressive August heat” that killed a man in East St. Louis. For an expert assessment, CBS reporter Kelly Cobiella turned only to the Weather Channel climatologist who last year suggested the American Meteorological Society should withhold credentials from any member who dares doubt the man-made global warming mantra: “Dr. Heidi Cullen is a climatologist for the Weather Channel, and sees a definite connection to global warming.” Cullen maintained: “The heat wave that we're seeing now is completely consistent with what we expect in a warmer world because all of our models show us that heat waves will become intense, more frequent, and they'll last longer.”

The CBS Evening News skipped, as Rush Limbuagh predicted the media would, a new study in which, as outlined in a press release, “the widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.” The posting on the university's site summarized the study published in a scientific journal: “Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

In highlighting the university's findings on Thursday, Limbaugh noted on his radio show that Spencer had received “no inquiries from the Drive-By Media” and predicted: “There probably won't be.” CBS has provided early confirmation.

On Tuesday's NBC Nightly News, as recounted in my NewsBusters item, Anne Thompson asserted that “global land surface temperatures in January and April were likely the warmest since records began 120 years ago, extremes scientists say are consistent with an increase in carbon dioxide, man-made global warming.”

On her blog back in December, Heidi Cullen created a bit of controversy when she suggested those who don't agree with her on the cause and likely acceleration of global warming should be discredited:

“If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.”

For more, check Marc Morano's January post, “The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics,” on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's “Inhofe Press Blog.”

In May, Morano posted “Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-Made Global Warming -- Now Skeptics; Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research.”

An excerpt from, “Cirrus disappearance: Warming might thin heat-trapping clouds,” a summary posted August 9 on the University of Alabama at Huntsville's Web site:

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

That was not what he expected to find.

"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."

The results of this research were published today in the American Geophysical Union's "Geophysical Research Letters" on-line edition. The paper was co-authored by UAHuntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

"While low clouds have a predominantly cooling effect due to their shading of sunlight, most cirrus clouds have a net warming effect on the Earth," Spencer said. With high altitude ice clouds their infrared heat trapping exceeds their solar shading effect.

In the tropics most cirrus-type clouds flow out of the upper reaches of thunderstorm clouds. As the Earth's surface warms -- due to either manmade greenhouse gases or natural fluctuations in the climate system -- more water evaporates from the surface. Since more evaporation leads to more precipitation, most climate researchers expected increased cirrus cloudiness to follow warming....

The only way to see how these new findings impact global warming forecasts is to include them in computerized climate models.

"The role of clouds in global warming is widely agreed to be pretty uncertain," Spencer said. "Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave in nature, it would substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades."...

When they tracked the daily evolution of a composite of fifteen of the strongest intraseasonal oscillations they found that although rainfall and air temperatures would be rising, the amount of infrared energy being trapped by the cloudy areas would start to decrease rapidly as the air warmed. This unexpected behavior was traced to the decrease in cirrus cloud cover.

The new results raise questions about some current theories regarding precipitation, clouds and the efficiency with which weather systems convert water vapor into rainfall. These are significant issues in the global warming debate.

"Global warming theory says warming will generally be accompanied by more rainfall," Spencer said. "Everyone just assumed that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That would be your first guess and, since we didn't have any data to suggest otherwise..."

"Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty."

Spencer and his colleagues expect these new findings to be controversial.

"I know some climate modelers will say that these results are interesting but that they probably don't apply to long-term global warming," he said. "But this represents a fundamental natural cooling process in the atmosphere. Let's see if climate models can get this part right before we rely on their long term projections."

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide this transcript of the August 9 CBS Evening News story:

KATIE COURIC: A layer of heat and moisture is hanging like a wet blanket over the Midwest and South. Heat advisories are up throughout those regions for what can be very dangerous conditions. We have two reports tonight, beginning with Kelly Cobiella.

KELLY COBIELLA: For the fifth straight day, Americans from Orlando to Indianapolis wilted under an oppressive August heat. Hundreds have been treated for heat-related illnesses since the weekend. In St. Louis, people are being urged to spend the day in shelters, a warning that came too late for 87-year-old James Irby, who died in his home [actually in East St. Louis, Illinois]. He didn't have air conditioning.

ALVIN PARKS, Mayor of St. Louis: When I got the news, it just hit me like somebody kicking me in the stomach. I just can't stand the fact that someone might have been saved.

COBIELLA: In Georgia and Alabama, where the heat index has been in the 110's, they've also recorded the highest demand for power in each state's history. Metro trains in Washington, D.C., were slowed from 59 to 45 miles an hour because of worries the steel tracks would bend in the heat. And just west of Memphis, hundreds of dead fish have washed ashore, killed off by a lack of oxygen in overheated lakes.

HEIDI CULLEN, The Weather Channel: There's a poker analogy that global warming stacks the deck for more extreme events.

COBIELLA: Dr. Heidi Cullen is a climatologist for the Weather Channel, and sees a definite connection to global warming.

CULLEN: The heat wave that we're seeing now is completely consistent with what we expect in a warmer world because all of our models show us that heat waves will become intense, more frequent, and they'll last longer.

COBIELLA: This heat wave should taper off in the East by the weekend. But in the Midwest, the misery will continue. Kelly Cobiella, CBS News, Atlanta.

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Another Paper no one is talking about....

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

"In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying
physical principles are clarified. By showing that A. there are no
common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and
the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, B. there are no
calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
C. the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a
meaningless number calculated wrongly, D. the formulas of cavity
radiation are used inappropriately, E. the assumption of a radiative
balance is unphysical, F. thermal conductivity and friction must not be
set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
"

 

I don't understand why no one has mentioned this paper? It just came out last month.

 

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Excellent Article

I thoroughly enjoyed the article.  Thank you.

There were a few grammatical issues (German tranlated into English) and the concepts were a bit duanting (I'm not a theoretical physicist), but it I think I got the gist:  Al Gore and his cadre of "scientists" are schmucks. 

It is worthy just to read from the conclusion forward to the end starting at page 90.  Very entertaining stuff.  Few words minced in debunking the non-science used to make nonsense AGW conclusions.  And the authors are very unhappy with the lack of transparency by AGW proponents in their research.

In the final paragraph of the paper, found in the Acknowledgement section, the sentiments of the authors are summed up nicely:

"The authors express their hope that in the schools around the world the fundamentals of physics will be taught correctly and not by using award-winning Al Gore" movies shocking every straight physicist by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the tropopause with the ionosphere, and by confusing microwaves with shortwaves."

Priceless!

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

Redundancy Is Sometimes Necessary To Make Things Clear

Better formatted text can be found on my blog: Point/Counterpoint

To our slightly challenged liberal friends. The great "anthropogenic" global warming myth is unraveling faster than a ball of yarn being batted around by a nipped-out kitten. New evidence being unveiled by the University of Alabama at Huntsville points to a
potential built-in cooling system in the atmosphere. Gee, I guess life
hasn't been around on this planet for 4 billion years for nuttin. It
seems that, in direct opposition to what climatologists have been
assuming in their models for the last several decades, warming in the
earth's atmosphere does not seem to lead to an excess accumulation of
heat-trapping cirrus clouds - the dreaded positive feedback system
colloquially known as "the Greenhouse Effect." Neigh. It appears that
Big Bad Mama Nature has that one licked quicker than a drunk Dixie
Chick. You see, positive feedback systems in nature are a pretty rare
thing; if they weren't, things would get out of control as fast as a
cheetah with tumors. As a matter of fact, unexpectedly, the evidence
points to a phenomenon where increasing temperatures lead to a
reduction of those pesky cirrus clouds, thereby letting ultraviolet
rays free to scatter amongst the stars.

In the article above is
another revealing poker tell that the left is not only hysterical, but
uninformed about their own dogma. According to theory (and common
sense), carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere become agitated by
UV rays, thus superheating and influencing warmer temperatures here
below. First and foremost, CO2 represents less than 3% of the so-called
Greenhouse Effect (hereafter, GE). The GE is actually influenced more
by water vapor in the atmosphere, comprising 95% of greenhouse gases.
Thus much like ourselves, the GE is 95% comprised of that
life-sustaining compound H2O. Secondly, if the uptick in temperatures
since 1975 was related to the GE, then you would see warmer air
temperatures where the CO2 particles in the air are being agitated by
UV, and we would be warming because of it. To the contrary, as implied
in the article, it is the surface temperature of the earth that is
heating more rapidly than the atmosphere containing the CO2 particles.
Again, there is no direct discernable cause of CO2 particles being
heated in the air, and causing surface temperatures to increase. This
has been confirmed by weather balloons, and by stratospheric tests. The
evidence more strongly points to the combination of extremely high
sunspot activity, which causes magnetic fields that block cosmic rays,
thus inhibiting cloud production and allowing more UV rays to penetrate to the earth's surface. So
info-babe Ann Thompson unwittingly debunks global warming own by
stating the empirical fact about global land surface temperatures rising (look for suspect phraseology in paragraph 4, including the obligatory appeal to authority for all those sheeple out there).
Precisely Ann! I'm so glad you agree with us that it is UV rays
reflecting off the earth and not CO2 particles that is causing the
warming. You get one of those scratch and sniff stickers saying "Grape
Job!" for the day.

So as much as liberals would like to believe,
the current upsurge in temperatures, primarily in the northern
hemisphere, has more to do with sunspot patterns, solar flares, and
Milankovitch rhythms than burning old dinosaur bones or feeding
flatulent bovine. Well, soon we'll be off to the new apocalyptic rage
of the left. Perhaps will it be - Global Cooling?

http://pointvcounterpoint.blogspot.com/

"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood."
--Thomas Jefferson

Great liberal world ending

Great liberal world ending man made catastrophes from the past: Global cooling, ozone layer, acid rain, AIDS virus, nuclear winter, DDT (I am sure there are more that I can't think of at the moment). Catastrophe fads in the same vein as hula hoops and pet rocks.

Yeah but somehow they never

Yeah but somehow they never think radical islam is any threat!

"I hired you to get some track laid, not jump around like a bunch a kansas city faggots" Slim Pickens

Global Warming

I note a definite nervousness amongst the GW crowd as they become increasingly defensive toward those who are refuting, almost on a daily basis, their GW religion.

Today, as a result of research by some bloggers, NASA had to correct their story that 1998 was the hottest year in history when, in reality, it was 1932. The story originated from a NASA scientists who, it was reported, has a vested interest in GW.

Heidi-Cullen-itis

What kind of a village idiot does it take to think that more cloudcover will result in higher temperatures?!!

Last time I checked the radiant energy of the sun is reduced by more than half when clouds are present.

Heidi-Cullen-itis : the inflamed condition of the human ego when PhDumbass follows your name.

I am a regular reader of

I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon effects and causes of Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.

}}---> Trolling junkatrunk

Once again, I know you don't answer posts so it doesn't matter how I respond to you.

Here just to leave a few droppings in this site, are you?

We are sorry your world is getting hotter.  Perhaps if I tell you that you don't look so well, you would begin feeling sick.

Negative suggestion works too, see?

Sorry

I don't quite gather your point. Would you provide some scientific (that is, reasoned and supported by verifiable empirical evidence) that supports your opposing argument?

"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood."
--Thomas Jefferson

Typical Spammer = Ban Him

This guy or his spambot is simply spamming his Blog with identical posts. Will an admin please Ban this guy.

Track tarunkjuyal

 

The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

Symptoms of AGW-ism: -

Symptoms of AGW-ism:

- Refusal to present evidence;

- Refusal to discuss the issue.

You have an acute case, friend.  The only cure is to adopt the scientific method, make a big bowl of popcorn and watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle".  Then come back and we'll all have a nice chat.

Global Cooling

I'm sorry about Mr Irby. But we also didn't hear about the people freezing in the Andies. And it's almost as warm as 1935.

However if we look at Warming and Cooling. A great example of global cooling was the year 535 and it's aftermath. The year without sun where the light of the mid day sun was likened to the light of the full moon.

It's effects.

  • There were days of darkness.
  • The plague swept around the world three times in about ten years.
  • There were seven years of crop failures.
  • Nations changed their religions.
  • Empires Fell.
  • In places great drought destroyed the land.
  • In other places floods brought chaos.
  • Tree rings didn't show normal growth for fifteen years.
  • I noticed at a NASA site that after major volcanic eruptions. Which probably is what caused the year 535's climate. Plague normally follows.

    We live with the potential for a sudden cooling. Though rare it happens. But if I had to choose between warmth and cooling. Give me warmth.

    "There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
    - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

    Krakatoa...535AD

    Krakatoa...535AD

    535 AD event

    "David Keys and others have postulated that the violent eruption of Krakatoa in 535 may have been responsible for the global climate changes of 535-536. Keys explores what he believes to be the radical and far ranging global effects of just such a putative 6th century eruption in his book Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization. Additionally, in recent times, it has been argued that it was this eruption which created the islands of Verlaten and Lang (remnants of the original) and the beginnings of Rakata — all indicators of early Krakatoa's caldera's size."

    Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.

    Get it hot!

    Like the 1963 song says, "It's like a heat wave."

    I get so feed up with UN sponsered new-age scientists giving bad ideas to the apocalyptic types in our society.

    We've had long hot summers before, Jimi Hendrix sang, "It sure was a long long long hot summer night." 

    Keep in mind, both songs were written when the media and scientists were predicting an Iceage. 

    Dr. Roy Spencer has more credibility than the so called concensus and the Cullen crowd. No Heidi, we don't deny that the world heats up. We just don't buy into your gloom and doom scenario that kills off the planet on the second page of your B movie script.

    Before the politico's at the UN edited their IPCC report this is what we would have read: "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate change system."

    In otherwords, Ed Woods movies would have been great if he'd just had a better editor. Hey, if Hollywood thinks Gore's movie was praise worthy, they can suspend reason along with disbelief. In fly-over country we call that being skeptical.

    "The Long Hot Summer", was

    "The Long Hot Summer", was produced in 1958. Based on Faulkners "Hamlet".  Written in the cool period between our hottest period in the 30's and todays warm period.

    If you listen to the news we're supposed to be wearing coats in August.

    "There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
    - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

    Thank You

    I have been trying to find that snippet from the IPCC report.  Thank you!!

    Turns out I had initially read it in a Michael Crichton speech on his website.  (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html)

    The fuller quote from that speech is:

    The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."

    As we are finding out now that the world's scientist's have been given time to study the IPCC report and Al Gore's AGW mewlings, the conclusions of some of the key components supportive of AGW are in fact based on garbage data, for instance the Hockey Stick graph and the exclusion of or inability to factor in Sun activity and water vapor (90-95% of all greenhouse gases) in their effects on climate. 

    The data and the modeling applications utilized are flawed in certain essential areas to preclude the notion of "settled" science or that governmental action necessitating billions to trillions of citizen's money should be initiated frenetically.

    Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

    More Controversy

    There is more to this "cleansing" of the IPCC report than first meets the eye.  Not only was it bad science, it was probably against the IPCC's own guidelines concerning scientific integrety, and, potentially malevolent, was that the censuring of the report may have initiated from the US State Department!

    From http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/KyotoAssessment.htm :

    10. The IPCC report itself also underwent some remarkable editing between the time it was approved in December 1995 and printed in May 1996 [Seitz 1996]. The "scientific cleansing" involves the surreptitious deletion of several phrases that had been approved by the scientists working on the report -- phrases that threw doubt on the idea of a "discernible human influence." [See Note 2] The international scientific journal Nature remarked in an editorial that governmental representatives made these later-discovered text changes so that the IPCC report would "conform" to the Summary, a politically negotiated document. This rather strange procedure, possibly illegal and certainly unannounced, was apparently made at the behest of the U.S. State Department. Nature mentions this letter, which indeed asked that the chapters be adjusted after the Summary had been agreed to [See Note3; Letter dated November 15, 1995 to Sir John Houghton, signed by Day Mount, deputy assistant secretary (acting)].

    Note 2: Phrases edited out of the IPCC Report

    1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

    2) "While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse-gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data-an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."

    3) "Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

    4) "While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."

    5) "When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, 'we do not know.'"

    Note 3: Excerpt from State Department letter to IPCC

    "…it is essential that the chapters not be finalized prior to the completion of discussions at the IPCC WG I plenary in Madrid, and that chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner following discussion in Madrid."

    signed by Day Mount, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Environmental and Development., November 15, 1995

    An Op-Ed piece entitled "A Major Deception on Global Warming" by Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, in the Wall Street Journal also discusses this salient but rarely heard issue - http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm . 

    "In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

    A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

    The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

    Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

    IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view. If they lead to carbon taxes and restraints on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.

    Another recap of the IPCC shenanigans can be read at JunkScience.com about 2/5 way down the page under the August 15, 2000, subsection "Re: Union of Concerned (Junk) Scientists" heading.  It is a more humorous approach to the topic.

    The profound irony of all this is that those leaders of the AGW movement, the ones that profess scientific integrity, are the actual heretics of science.  The IPCC report is from a political body with a political agenda.  The data and conlusions of the IPCC report were corrupted by politicians and certain supportive scientists (eg Mann, Hansen, Cullen).  Bill Clinton's own State Department officials may have been complicent in the corruption of the IPCC report.  The media and Al Gore push the AGW agenda and reap tremenduous financial gains.  Requests for data and methodology in order to replicate AGW conclusions, the cornerstone of scientific integrity being reproducibility, go ignored or condemned.  Those that question AGW are denounced, threated or ignored. 

    Does that sound like good science to you?

    Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

    Category Addition

     Brent, you need to add this to the Global Warming Category.

     

    The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

    Link to the Paper

    Here is a link to the Peer Reviewed Paper talked about in this article: 

    Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L15707, 2007)
    - Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, Justin Hnilo

     

    The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource

    Remember their 2006 predictions

    I'm sure that we remember foaming at the mouth by the usual "experts" of the horrific hurricane predictions of 2006 "based on our latest superaccurate Dr. Heidi-approved computer models...."  with a healthy dose of apocalyptic doom.  Unfortunately for these fools, their predictions were embarrassing to say the least and a catastrophic flop.

    The "experts" have already softened their hurricane prediction for this year to cover their butts.  But the esteemed Dr. Cullen, the great Weather Channel censorette, now links the August heatwave definitively to AGW, once again, based on her superaccurate computer models......and, predictably, the morons in the MSM run with the story to push their agenda. 

    I think they're a bit worried that more people just aren't buying this baloney by now.

    Read this morning on Drudgereport that the "experts" are already pre-warning us about 2009 where the climate finally turns that corner and the heat is really on.  Here's your big day all you apocalypse groupies! Just wait and see!  We'll be correct THIS time!  Guess all of us skeptics will be apologizing to Algore and his little buddy, Leonardo Retardo Dicapitatrio.

    I say that we should demand the resignation of any "expert" who makes Heidi Cullenesque predictions of doom like this which do not materialize! And they should pay for the medication needed by the general public for needlessly stressing them out with agenda-driven climate myths!

    Expert Predictions

    EXPERT

    EX = A HAS BEEN

    SPURT = A DRIP UNDER PRESSURE

    Any questions?

    one of the best

    This is one of the best anti-gw true science stories I have ever seen. And notice how the scientist didn't expect these findings. Awesome work!

    Oh come now. Like an

    Oh come now. Like an amoeba, global warming theorists will absorb this paper and move on. It'll take a couple of weeks to digest, but I almost guarantee that before the end of the year, this paper will be used to demonstrate WHY warming is getting worse. Increased warming (somehow) results in fewer clouds, thus increased radiation to the earth's surface, where there is now less water, so less evaporative cooling, so more heat. And since the process seems perhaps capable of accelerating itself, that makes it all the more important to control it NOW.

    The climatologists have learned well from biologists: determine your conclusion first, then fit the data in as best you can.

    CBS and low ratings.

     

    Twice, my heat came on overnight during the month of June!

    CBS as already determined that Man Made Global Warming is real. They have the same intellectual lazy producers that occupy most of the former mainstream media. Their failure once again to report on both sides of an issue is another reason why no one watches them any more.