As NewsBusters reported, Newsweek published an absolutely disgraceful cover-story Saturday calling manmade global warming skeptics "deniers" funded by oil companies and other special interests making them as bad as folks who misled people about the dangers of cigarette smoking.
In fact, the article was so thoroughly offensive that it has received an angry response from Sen. James Inhofe's (R-Okla.) communications director.
Writing at the Senate Environment & Public Works minority blog, Marc Morano made his objections to this article early and often (emphasis added throughout):
Newsweek Magazine's cover story of August 13, 2007 entitled, "The Truth About Denial" contains very little that could actually be considered balanced, objective or fair by journalistic standards.
After an introduction, Morano first went after the authors' continued reference to global warming skeptics as "deniers":
The use of this terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. "The phrase ‘climate change denier' is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,'" Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006 (LINK)
"Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system," Pielke, Jr. explained.
As someone with family members who died and were imprisoned during the Holocaust, I fully agree. And, as I mentioned in my Sunday article on this subject, Newsweek owes every global warming skeptic an apology for their use of this epithet.
Morano next set his sights on the fact that Newsweek only wrote about moneys going to skeptics, and completely ignored the scope of funds financing global warming alarmism:
Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $19 MILLION by comparison.
Unlike Newsweek, Morano presented actual hard dollar numbers contributed by various groups to fund global warming research and the advancement of climate change hysteria.
How was this information ignored by Newsweek which presents itself as a member of the media, and not a political action group?
This question is especially relevant given the article's contention that global warming skeptics are being used by industry to obfuscate the truth.
Isn't this position completely made moot when it is obvious that Newsweek was omitting pertinent facts on this issue in order to prove its point?
Of course, this appeared unimportant to Newsweek as Morano noted:
Journalism students across the world can read this week's cover story to learn how reporting should not be done. Hopefully, that will be Newsweek's legacy -- serving as a shining example of the failure of modern journalism to adhere to balance, objectivity and fairness. Anyone who fails to see this inconvenient truth is truly (to borrow Newsweek's vernacular) a "denier."
I quite agree, and highly recommend the reading of his entire analysis.
In the end, this piece of detritus belonged in the op-ed section of Newsweek, and had absolutely no business being presented to the public as a comprehensive article on this controversial subject.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Inhofe FTW
August 6, 2007 - 10:35 ET by AtheistRepublicanI'm sorry but any time Inhofe is mentioned I must state how much pride I have in my state. Isn't Oklahoma wonderful for electing such a great man? I wish he would run for president... he is articulate, intelligent, and a strong conservative.
Amen AR. We did good when
August 6, 2007 - 10:44 ET by bassndudeAmen AR. We did good when we elected Inhof dident we? He sure makes me proud to be an Okie....
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
AR -
August 6, 2007 - 11:49 ET by drillanwrI agree. Sen. Inhofe is tops in my book. I love how he has stuck to his guns on this, and called out the deception and evasion that is the GW Cult. I hope he remains strong in fighting and trying to get the stupid public to understand they are only being given one twisted and carved side of climate change ... and the fact that it is NOT a phenomenon, but has happened since the Earth was formed ... and will do so until the planet blows up.
Stupid?
August 6, 2007 - 13:00 ET by ThisnThat"...to get the stupid public to understand..." Perhaps ignorant public, or duped public, or mis-led public. But not stupid. One would apply stupidity in those individuals who, upon hearing both sides, choose the side based upon the prettiest propgandists, or handing out the most candy, and too dumb to tell the difference.
Then, you have the willfully malignant, such as the politicians, hollywood types, and MSM who are either looking at their self-interests, or who are actively trying to destroy others for ill-gotten gain, revenge, or just plain spite. Those are the dangerous ones.
lunatics
August 6, 2007 - 11:57 ET by iveseenitallIn "jounalism" today, the lunatics are running the asylum. Even more to the point -- the uneducated, ignornant lunatics are running the asylum they call the MSM. And this does point to the failures of our "educational " system which allows this kind of thing to go on in our classrooms around the country year in and year out. Unfortunately, the Newsweek report would get an "A" from many lefty professors.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
The government wasted $50
August 6, 2007 - 10:46 ET by dscottThe government wasted $50 billion dollars of tax payer money on AGW research over a 20 year period, money that should have been spent on the roads, bridges and dams or curing a KNOWN disease. That's $4,756 a minute when you do the math. (as opposed to the lame agrument about $4,000 a minute spent on Iraq over 4-5 years) They diverted huge sums of money from known problems to study a problem that literally doesn't exist. Five people died in MN from a bridge collapsing with eight people unaccounted for, yet we have the loons proclaiming it's Bush's fault. If they can reach for indirect effects to blame Bush, then I can directly blame Al Gore for the deaths of those people from the bridge collapse. Our new slogan needs to be: Gore LIED and people DIED.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
The Holocaust of AGW...
August 6, 2007 - 10:53 ET by Army BratSo...the "denier" tag is supposed to equate those who doubt AGW, with those who deny the Holocaust. I personally don't see the moral equivalency here. My folks were stationed in Germany during the occupation, and the tales they had to tell...OMG.
To equate one with the other...how sick. Happy Trails...
As if "denying" a historical
August 6, 2007 - 12:02 ET by taznarAs if "denying" a historical event with witnesses still living today is equivalent to "denying" the accuracy of an untestable prediction made by a computer model. The word "idiotic" comes to mind, but the truth is they're intentionally being intellectually dishonest.
Count the pages
August 6, 2007 - 10:54 ET by Captain RepusNewsweek and all the other supposed 'news' magazines have become nothing more than liberal rags. Their reader base has been reduced to mostly the cement dwelling sluts and metrosexuals of New York and DC. Their page count is dwindling to not much more than the cover, a few cheap-shot articles and a handfull of ads.
Government Gravy Train
August 6, 2007 - 10:55 ET by ChasvsNothing is going to stop these idiots who want to suck the Government Teat for Global Warming Prevention dollars! just one more piece of the Liberal move to a Socialist Society!
The Money Angle
August 6, 2007 - 11:30 ET by mattmThe Leftists have most of the money, and they get alot of it from taxpayers, through research grants. Right (libertarian/republican) causes have to work twice as hard for half the money.
There is a nationwide push for a Liberal voting scheme called Instant Runoff Voting - Libs, funded by George Soros' group are fanning out all over getting petitions signed etc. etc. When you see Liberal protesters on TV, half of them are paid activists. Many of the beggars with "will work for food" signs are fakers using this tactic to raise money for liberal causes. (I saw this first hand)
And that's exactly what the Global Warming Alarmism is all about. It's just scam to raise money and weild control over the rest of humanity. You can't object to it because if you do, you're a holocaust denier, or you hate poor people, or you're anti-education, or whatever...
I used to try to give Liberals the benefit of the doubt based on good intentions, but over the past several years, especially, they have so aptly demonstrated their hatred, their deceit and their greed for power that I can only conclude that they are either evil or they're inexcusably ignorant.
Both
August 6, 2007 - 12:05 ET by iveseenitallMattem:
Liberals are both evil and ignorant--a dangerous combination. And you are right to not give them the benefit of the doubt; their motivation is insidious.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
$19 MILLION is that all?
August 6, 2007 - 11:31 ET by general companyFor a subject that only "received a paltry $19 MILLION" , they sure have made the most out of their subfunded research. What other subject has been funded so "poorly" but has been taken so seriously? These jokers are getting more funnier with every artical.
"Journalism students across the world can read this week's cover story to learn how reporting should not be done."
So when the Earth cools, then what? Never mind I aready know, you will freak them all out about "Global Cooling".
On the other hand, global
August 6, 2007 - 12:16 ET by taznarOn the other hand, global cooling would actually be something to freak out about. Moderate warming (despite the fearmongering) would actually be beneficial. Glaciers several km deep covering the upper part of the US would really make food scarce. Especially since the most fertile land in Europe and Asia would be similarly impacted.
Global warming = increased biodiversity, increased biomass -> good for life.
Global cooling = mass extinctions, decreased biomass ->only the strong & adaptable survive.
But then
August 6, 2007 - 12:25 ET by dscottBut then again, several km of ice on the land means a reduction of sea level and hence more land area. The ocean level dropped close to 450ft during the last ice age. http://discoverourearth.org/student/sea_level/sea_level1.html The size of Florida literally doubled and the Bahamas were huge, it's called the Blake plain. Of course it would suck to be a Canadian, they would have to permanently move south and become US or Mexican citizen.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Oh No
August 6, 2007 - 13:04 ET by ThisnThat"...they would have to permanently move south and become US or Mexican citizen". You mean all those libs that are moving North -- they would return to the U.S.??? OMG. Go global warming; stop global cooling.
Though there would be more
August 6, 2007 - 13:19 ET by danboThough there would be more land area. As during prior glaciations. The Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean would probably become land locked dried up sea beds. Like the Great Salt lake. So there would be a lot more desert.
“Eppur si muove!" (And yet it moves!) Galileo Galilei
The Deniers:
August 6, 2007 - 12:10 ET by PopularTechScientists Disputing "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory:
August H. Auer Jr., AMS Certified Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Calgary, Canada
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus, Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Michael Crichton, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard S. Courtney, PhD. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert M. Carter, Geologist, James Cook University, Australia
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sami Solanki, Ph.D Astronomy, EHT Zurich, Switzerland
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Founding Director International Arctic Research Center, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Gray, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland
Organizations Disputing "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
American Association of State Climatologists (Noncommittal)
Cato Institute
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Center for Science and Public Policy
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Cooler Heads Coalition
FAEC - Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology
Fraser Institute
Friends of Science
Frontiers of Freedom Institute
George C. Marshall Institute
Global Climate Coalition
Greening Earth Society
Heartland Institute
Heritage Foundation
High Park Group
Hoover Institution
Hudson Institute
Independent Institute
Institute for Energy Research
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project
International Policy Network
Maine Heritage Policy Center
Media Research Center
National Center for Policy Analysis
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
New Hope Environmental Services
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Pacific Research Institute
Property and Environment Research Center
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Science and Public Policy Institute
The Scientific Alliance
Tropical Meteorology Project
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
The Lists Don't Help
August 6, 2007 - 12:33 ET by takingmyconstitutionalYou're not exactly helping your argument with those lists. That's a paltry number of scientists compared to the thousands who take climate change seriously. And a number of the organizations you list (e.g., George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute) are well-known purveyors of conservative and/or libertarian ideology rather than mainstream scientific organizations or organizations that are open to the views of scientists with positions held by the vast majority of climate scientists.
In other words, you increasingly represent a fringe position, based more on wishful thinking than scientific backing.
Actually they do
August 6, 2007 - 12:52 ET by PopularTechCan you provide me with one of these lists of thousands of scientists? Because I have yet to see one. The point of the organizations is simply to show that organized opposition exists and a Consensus does not.
The only fringe position in science is one that cannot be verified via the scientific method ala "man-made" global warming.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Not that the length of list
August 6, 2007 - 12:47 ET by danboNot that the length of list are important. As it only takes one person with the right answer.
But as you're obsessed with the numbers.
List your's.
“Eppur si muove!" (And yet it moves!) Galileo Galilei
So you admit there is no
August 6, 2007 - 12:48 ET by dscottSo you admit there is no concensus, i.e. there are many dissenting scientists? This is not an exhaustive list, just as you can't provide an exhaustive list for pro-AGW scientists. A battle of lists does not prove consensus but in fact proves there isn't one.
And you admit this divide in view over AGW is mainly ideological? conservative/libertarian vs liberal? Shouldn't that be a red flag to you that there is a problem with AGW? Not to mention world average temperatures have been falling since 1998????????? Those nasty inconvenient facts...
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
That argument is no argument either
August 6, 2007 - 12:53 ET by mattmYou may be right that lists like that don't help, much. But if you hold to that opinion, you have to admit, also, that the "fact(?)" that the "vast majority" of "scientists" ... "take climate change seriously" is no argument for the APGW side either.
Let the facts decide - not polls of scientists (who could just as easily be wrong as right, and are just as susceptible to political and fiscal influence as anyone else might be) The APGWers refuse to let the facts decide because, as they so unscientifically claim, "the debate is over."
The facts point to climate cycles which operate independently of the activity of human civilization. The earth has been colder and hotter than at present over the past few thousand years at least. That is the inescapable FACT that blows the APGW argument out of the water.
And when you follow the money, and look at the political proposals and who benefits from them at whose expense, it's obvious that this issue is politically motivated fear-mongering - the science is just being used (abused) as a tool...it's like the old time snake-oil dealers, only now the peddlers want political power, not just a few extra bucks.
It shows the gullible
August 6, 2007 - 13:10 ET by drillanwrIt shows the gullible public (that the GWC is playing on) that there is other information out there by other people in the field of study ... that is being squelched by the side getting all the publicity. That the whole climate change/global warming issue, subject, whatever has been hijacked by one side ... and people need to know this, via evidence such as opposing lists of credentialed people in the scientific community, and then the people must demand why this side of the debate is being buried.
The GWC has turned this into a public trial. The other side, although a list, is evidence ... witnesses for the other side. While their names are important, their testimony (and the silencing thereof) is even more important.
This is probably why AGW's
August 6, 2007 - 14:46 ET by Hero SquadThis is probably why AGW's needed $50 billion to try and prove their theories, whereas anti-AGW's only needed $19 million for same.
It doesn't cost as much to prove the truth.
*****
"Some people have a way with words. Other people, er, I don't know. Not have way, I guess." - Steve Martin
...and why they help
August 6, 2007 - 12:55 ET by PopularTechIf these lists did not help then the believers would not be so quick to try and dismiss them. The point is they let people know there is no Consensus and legitimate scientists have real problems with man-made global warming theory.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Ideology
August 6, 2007 - 13:10 ET by ThisnThat"are well-known purveyors of conservative and/or libertarian ideology". Yeah, right, and Al Gore is a well-known centrist and scientist extrodanair. Al Gore is on you list, right?
Al Gore's Credentials
August 6, 2007 - 13:32 ET by PopularTechAl Gore only has a B.A. in Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degrees)
The Education of Al Gore (The Washington Times)
"Mr. Gore's high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 "terrible," St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 "He didn't do too well in chemistry," Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.
As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al "earned" a D in Natural Sciences 6 in a course presciently named "Man's Place in Nature." That was the year he evidently spent more time smoking cannabis than studying its place among other plants within the ecosystem. His senior year, Mr. Gore received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.
At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited "Limits to Growth," which formed much of the foundation for "Earth in the Balance." It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record."
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
PT -
August 6, 2007 - 14:30 ET by drillanwrYeah, but then there was Love Story ...
700 years ago, the belief
August 6, 2007 - 15:57 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love700 years ago, the belief that the earth was round was a "fringe position".
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
The Earth is frigin' round?
August 6, 2007 - 16:01 ET by MightyMouthThe Earth is frigin' round? When did this happen! :-P
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yeah MM, and I'm afraid
August 6, 2007 - 16:02 ET by The Wicked ConservativeYeah MM, and I'm afraid it's a consensus.
You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.
It's more of an oval, n'est
August 6, 2007 - 16:03 ET by balboaIt's more of an oval, n'est pas?
Oh yeah?
August 6, 2007 - 16:11 ET by MightyMouthI'm telling you guys, I just went outside and looked both ways as far as I can see... and IT'S FLAT!! At least in Texas it is! Flat I tell ya!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
psst...MM...you're not
August 6, 2007 - 16:19 ET by The Wicked Conservativepsst...MM...you're not alone
Don't click here unless you can handle the truth...
You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.
Mighty... Who ya gonna'
August 6, 2007 - 16:20 ET by bigtimerMighty...
Who ya gonna' trust....the so-called know-it-all's or your own eyes?
LOL!
Funny, now that this
August 6, 2007 - 16:26 ET by dscottFunny, now that this mentioned I noticed the other night the moon was round like a ball, just like the sun... and the OT mentioned the Earth was a circle Isaiah 40:22, nah, couldn't be...
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
don't burn me at the stake, I'm just speculating...
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Then how in hell aren't we
August 6, 2007 - 16:21 ET by drillanwrThen how in hell aren't we all tumbling around and falling off?
Are yunz guys sure?
'tis not an oval still
August 6, 2007 - 16:24 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love'tis not an oval still 'round'?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
True, true. 'Twas merely
August 6, 2007 - 16:27 ET by balboaTrue, true. 'Twas merely extrapolating 'pon yonder thoughts of circularity.
Either way Ye both will be
August 6, 2007 - 16:44 ET by drillanwrEither way Ye both will be drawn and quartered for it ...
You boys are a month early
August 6, 2007 - 16:47 ET by RJYou boys are a month early for International Talk Like A Pirate day....
Nay, 'twas not a
August 6, 2007 - 17:02 ET by balboaNay, 'twas not a buccaneer's tongue I did strive, but more twixt the parlance of the Scarlet Pimpernel and the Earl of Sandwich.
Ahhh ... Yeah ... er ...
August 6, 2007 - 17:08 ET by drillanwrAhhh ... Yeah ... er ... Yea, I say! It be ... er ... It be that, indeed, kind Sir.
For takingmyconstitutional
August 8, 2007 - 00:14 ET by UnsaneThen why call it "climate change"?
Oh, that's right. Because your goal is to make the United States into a Fourth-World nation, due to your being consumed with guilt.
Besides, if you are so willing to question the ideologies of those organizations who cast doubt on this theory, why are we NOT allowed AT ANY COST to DARE question either the funding sources or ideological bents of those who believe in GLOBAL WARMING theory as religiously as you do?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Y`all-
August 6, 2007 - 13:02 ET by drillanwrPopularTech's list, in and of itself, completely knocks down the first, and possibly, primary claim of the GW Cultists: That there is a consensus ... Once presented with a list of equally, if not better, scientists, if the Global Warming Cultists still insist on cemented conclusions and a full consensus then, anything they (GWC) has to say after that would then be taken with skepticism, or the proverbial grain of salt ... and even as a bald-faced lie. I notice PT's list doesn't include any Hollywood celebrities from the University of Know-It-All. Gee ...
Global Warming is a theory
August 6, 2007 - 12:52 ET by tymanLike many other scientifice theories i.e. evolution, higher being, etc. The bottom line is this. You can have 100 scientists in a room and 60% believe in something and 40% don't. Does that mean that the theory becomes a fact based on a vote? I think not. Find me one study that can absolutely positively prove on paper that we are the cause of GW and I'll believe it. You can't do it because there isn't any, this is all about feelings, not fact. That's why there are soo many liberals that believe it no matter whether there is proof or not. It's just they feel that they are helping everyone because most people (conservatives) are ignorant and they must save us from ourselves.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.
A Study that says we are not the cause
August 6, 2007 - 12:59 ET by PopularTechFalsification 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."
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Excellent paper, I love
August 6, 2007 - 15:08 ET by dscottExcellent paper, I love this quote under the summary at the end:
The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the definition of appropriate dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann once said to his young collaborators: "If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will fly."
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Seems the GWCultists are
August 6, 2007 - 15:57 ET by drillanwrSeems the GWCultists are working on a sixth free parameter ...
The elephant would crap gold.
Shu-shah!
August 6, 2007 - 22:36 ET by dervishWhat a fascinating paper. I can follow just enough of the math to keep my head above water, but mostly I feel like Jessica: "Ah toadally doan' know whut it iyez, but I wont it." Takes an axe to the very roots of the AGW theories.
Ah, but don't let the intricate math and severe German logic fool you: the authors reveal themselves to be conservative, perhaps even libertarian, and by the calculus of "takingmyconstitutional" above, they are therefore eliminated from the debate. Exhibit A:
"In greenhouses or glass houses this effect is put to use: the ecologically friendly solar energy, for which no energy taxes are going to be levied even in the distant future, is used for heating."
I would say that this
August 7, 2007 - 08:24 ET by dscottI would say that this means that there is hope in saving Europe from Socialism as the Germans have figured out the whole thing (AGW) is smoke and mirrors.
The comment demonstrates the German sarcastic sense of humor, since the square footage (or rather square meter) land area of private property is taxed by the amount of potential rainfall upon it. I kid you not!
The one weakness of the paper is that it did not raise the issue of night time clouds keeping the land warm at night. The true greenhouse type effect is demonstrated by this phenomenon and thus refutes back re-radition arguments (greenhouse effect) during the cloudless daytime. Any dolt realizes that clouds during the daytime result in cooler temperatures because the clouds reflecting the light back into space (due to the high albedo of the cloud being white on top) thus never reaching the ground to warm it.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Noel - just super context.
August 6, 2007 - 13:14 ET by Gary HallNoel - just super context. If every person who read this typical Newsweek posturing, were to also set down and actually read Morano's last couple of responses, and reflect for a moment on his links (simply read the titles), the debate would at least begin - perhaps, be over with. This simple thought should apply to journalists as well, but I suspect that is asking too much. (;~> gh
In opening lines of the Newsweek's "The Truth About Denial," Sharon Begley offers up:
and then..
So we consider the power of this "denial machine's" throttle with it's $19 million funding supporting it, to the nuclear power of the alarmist's powerhouse machine with an unlimited $50 billion behind it. Mark Morano went on to reference:
Damn... I'd told them that for a coke.
$50 billion. Imagine. Fifteen cents would buy a good meal for for a child in most 3rd world poverty stricken regions of the globe. Three and a third trillion meals for children could have been provided. What are the liberals thinking about? Oh - the smell of manure! Vote for who?
Well said, Gary.
August 6, 2007 - 13:17 ET by drillanwrWell said, Gary.
Thanks drillanwr
August 6, 2007 - 14:56 ET by Gary HallThanks drillanwr .. just "drilling" the point home! (;~> gary