On Thursday, NewsBuster Amy Ridenour reported the hysterical protestations of the liberal blog Think Progress concerning conservative websites like ours having the unmitigated audacity to share with readers the global warming skepticism of The Weather Channel founder John Coleman.
Our crime against humanity (emphasis added for your amusement):
The right wing should check Coleman's credentials before touting his "scientific" work. As Coleman admits, his "expertise" is in weather - not climate change science. In fact, he "has been a TV weatherman since he was a freshman in college in 1953."
Oh my goodness. You mean that someone who's been professionally reporting on the weather for over 50 years shouldn't be allowed to comment about the climate, but a political blog that's been in existence for less than three years should?
Adding insult to absurdity, take a look at the bio for the Think Progresser that wrote this ridiculous critique (emphasis again added for your amusement):
Satyam Khanna is a Research Associate for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress. Satyam holds a B.A. in Biology and Political Science from Washington University in St. Louis. Prior to joining the Center, he worked as a field organizer for Jeff Smith's Missouri Senate campaign and a researcher for Claire McCaskill's US Senate race, both in St. Louis. He is also an alumnus of the Washington Leadership Program of the Indian-American Center for Political Awareness.
So, Satyam, what's your background in climatology and/or meteorology that gives you climate expertise superior to Coleman's?
In fact, looking at the entire Think Progress staff, there isn't one person with any technical science degree or background related to climatology or meteorology. Yet, in its less than three year existence, this blog has published 390 pieces with the words "global warming" in it, and 246 with the words "climate change."
Using the logic that only degreed experts should be allowed to comment on this issue, isn't Think Progress employing the standard liberal practice of "Do As I Say, Not As I Do?"
Of course, as Ridenour pointed out Thursday, this blog loves to cite the words of global warming alarmists regardless of their lack of degrees or related scientific backgrounds. For instance, TP has published 79 articles which included the name Al Gore and the words "global warming." It's also posted 47 articles including the name Al Gore and the words "climate change."
So, Satyam, what degrees does Al Gore hold in meteorology or climatology, hmmm?
Or how about "An Inconvenient Truth" producer Laurie David who's featured in three TP posts which include the words "global warming." What are her scientific credentials, or musician Sheryl Crow's who has also been written about by TP concerning her global warming opinions?
In reality, the hypocrisy in this position on TP's part is multi-faceted, as journalists can't possibly hold degrees and have professional backgrounds in all the fields they cover. If such was the case, Katie Couric would only be qualified to report on English and history, and Brian Williams wouldn't be allowed to discuss anything because he never graduated from college.
For the record, I didn't take one college course specifically related to climatology or meteorology. However, much like Al Gore, I have read voluminous papers and studies concerning the matter, more than enough in fact to feel qualified to report on this controversial issue especially when specifically citing the work of experienced professionals in the field.
And, as Mr. Coleman has been involved in weather reporting since well before most Americans were born, his views on this matter should be welcomed rather than chided as it is further evidence that the claim of a "consensus" regarding anthropogenic global warming is a canard of epic proportions.
In fact, what made Coleman's article at ICECAP was not in the science being conveyed, but instead that such a high profile member of the weather reporting community would make such statements, especially one with a prior connection to a cable channel that has made climate change activism an expressed mission in recent years.
Such was clearly lost upon the good folks at TP.
Yet, this is the typical liberal disqualifier for anyone that says anything that goes counter to their dogma even though folks who support their positions don't need to live up to such standards.
Maybe even more hypocritical, the bar concerning expertise and the lack thereof can also be a shifting one at TP, for it had no problem citing the hurricane forecast of Colorado State University professor William Gray in April in a post that also referred to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Yet, when Dr. Gray spoke skeptically of manmade global warming and ill of Al Gore a few weeks ago, TP went on the attack:
In May 2006, a Wasington Post [sic] magazine article quoted Gray directly comparing Gore to Hitler:
Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.
As such, degrees and expertise are a red herring here. All that matters is whether or not your views are consistent with TP's, for if they're not, regardless of your background, you have no right to utter them, and journalists have no right to quote them.
Do you folks really think this is progress?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Guess no Jesus quotes now either
November 10, 2007 - 18:51 ET by Lame CherrySince Jesus was not Oxford theology trained, Columbus never attended the Soviet Naval Academy and George Washington never attended a Democratic leadership conference.........we can't quote them either.
Ever notice how the really big advances in human invention never come from trained people with degrees but are given by God given Wisdom.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
And Noah never attended
November 10, 2007 - 20:13 ET by misterbee241And Noah never attended shipbuilding school. But the builders of the Titanic did - there's some irony there.
One of the Comments from the "Progress" site asks...
November 10, 2007 - 18:55 ET by aerovelo"Why do conservatives hate our planet?"
Yes, thats right, tree-huggers we conservatives hate Mother Earth.
?!?!
From under what rock do get your information? Conservatives love this planet as much as any pachulli smelling, birkenstock wearing, wild-eyed, liberal. We just dont believe that humans are causing global warming and we dont believe that we should move to the moon just to let the Earth turn back into its "Natural" state. Humans are natural, everything we do is natural and I would bet there are civilizations all over the galaxy that have prospered for thousands and thousands of years by using their planet's resources wisely, extracting energy from the earth and sky just as we do.
So, remember, long after humans have all died out or evolved into seals or moved to other planets, this planet will still quietly spin around the sun. No matter what you say or do, this will be the case. Stop crying about Earth and spend some time thinking about how many unborn humans your kind kill without a second thought.
-out
Ask yourself: Do I want a good paying job, or do I want a government hand out. Its that simple!
Wait a minute
November 10, 2007 - 18:56 ET by totalkaosdaveTotalKaosDave
Now wait a minute. With my B.S. in Organization Management, an MBA with a concentration in HR, and 2 classes away from my doctorate in business administration, if I worked for Think Progress, I could be king...oh, but I never worked for a democrat...and I think critically...and I believe in capitalism...oh nevermind...
TP?
November 10, 2007 - 19:23 ET by MBConservDid Sheryl Crow make her comments about TP on TP? LOL
No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests." Fred Thompson
The straight poop
November 10, 2007 - 19:47 ET by acumenBut one must acknowledge the concern for the environment shown by Think Progress in limiting their combined eco expertise to fit on just one "square."
Here are their 'Experts'
November 10, 2007 - 20:08 ET by PopularTechEducation of the Alarmists:
Politicians:
Al Gore, B.A. Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degree)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, B.A. Government, J.D. Law (no science degree, 'recovered' Heroin addict)
Celebrities:
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout, B.A. Drama (no science degree)
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout + College Dropout
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
-
November 11, 2007 - 08:32 ET by dahliatraversDamn. And the only celebrity we have is Dr. William Gray.
You Don't Need a Weatherman...
November 10, 2007 - 20:36 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistKhanna's point, of course, was that Coleman is an expert in weather rather than climate science, so he is hardly the best person for conservatives to turn to for a contrary opinion on global warming. There are, of course, a few real expert climate scientists whose positions depart from the mainstream on this issue, and conservatives like Mr. Sheppard love to push them forward to prop up the myth that there is robust disagreement in the scientific community. In fact, all those scientists prove is that there is seldom 100 percent uniformity of opinion about anything.
As for Al Gore, he has never claimed to be anything more than a popularizer of what mainstream climate scientists are saying about global warming. Usually he gets it right, sometimes he gets it wrong. And sometimes conservatives distort what he says even when he does get it right.
It's interesting how
November 10, 2007 - 21:02 ET by danboIt's interesting how warmers want to claim the science is settled then run and hide or just cover their ears and claim it's settled.
If the science were so settled. And warmers so secure in their science they' sit down with theose who disagree and point out real science and allow others to point out their real science. Not try to silence others.
If you're so secure in your science/ Go claim the $125,000 at Junk Science.
"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
No, no, no...
November 10, 2007 - 22:00 ET by heldmywYou just shout "consensus"!
Then all the heretics burst into flames (from Global Warming).
Sometimes the magic doesn't
November 10, 2007 - 22:08 ET by danboSometimes the magic doesn't work. And if you keep screaming consensus, over and over again. And us mean old heretics don't burst into flames....
"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
Dear
November 11, 2007 - 04:23 ET by NL207Dear agrarian-ignoramus,
There are indeed few "climate scientists" who depart from the mainstream on this issue. There is an OVERWHELMING consensus that the influence mankind is having on the Earth's climate is tiny in comparison to natural forces.
If you weren't so ignorant and could read the science yourself, you'd find out that the extremist you and Al Gore are listening to are a small minority. Most of the responsible scientists in this field project the next century will see at most, no more real climate change than did the last century. The numbers for the last century keep getting changed, ostensibly 'corrected' for changes in measurement technique, but I think much more likely to conceal the hype. Even the IPCC, who are the most pessimistic in their appraisal, agree that the last century saw a total change in climate from all causes combined that was no greater than 0.6-0.9 degree kelvin. The National weather service says it was 0.6. That is 0.6 degrees on a base of 288 degrees Kelvin.
If you could read the science you'd find out that (1) The sun is computed, based on a black body radiator model to account for about 255 of those degrees. and (2) the sun is not constant. You'd also learn that the atmospheric contribution to the near surface temperature of earth is 95% the result of water vapor. That is 95% of the remaing 33 degrees. All the remaining greenhouse gases [including CO2] account for the remaining 1.7 degrees of warmth.
These are all facts easily verified by googling. Now.... where do you think the 3.4-10.4 degree C projections of global warming due to CO2 are coming from? Even the IPCC's lowest projection of 1.7 K looks to be a stretch if the real data are considered. I'd say the extremists that Gore is listening to are pulling these numbers straight out of their collective asses.
Excellent
November 11, 2007 - 06:35 ET by NofNot that AG is going to do any research on the matter. There mind has already reached "consensus". How bout another angle on this debate, utilizing my finite but not worthy knowledge.
Think of the Earth broadly as a heat engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle
What is the heat input? The Sun, internal nuclear decay/Geothermal. We shall focus on the Sun
What is the pumping action? The air, ocean currents. There's to many to list.
What is the work done? Air currents, Storms, Ocean Currents, plants hence animals (us). Pretty much everything organic that lives within the influence of solar energy. All that nice oil, coal, N-Gas is stored solar energy locked up for X number of years until we burn it. I could go on an on, but lets think in broad terms here as there are many specific examples that could be used.
Whats the Heat sink? The giant black void known as space.
So using all that...take away the Sun as our primary heat source. What happens to the planet? Giant ice/rock ball, with a few volcano's. I don't see the few dozen active volcano's keeping the familyroom warm, nor all the dioxides, monoxides...whatever helping trap the non-exsistant heat.
The atmosphere serves to retain a fraction of the energy put down by the sun. As stated before most of it is retained by water vapor. That remaining component is tiny in comparison. So using that logic the more clouds the more heat is retained, BUT the more clouds the more energy is reflected into space.
Its very obvious that much more reliable study needs to be done on all this. There is no consensus. Our input to the eqaution is relatively insignificant IMHO.
"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat" R. Reagan
-
November 11, 2007 - 08:26 ET by dahliatraversVery well said, NL207.
Excuse me, but...
November 11, 2007 - 10:09 ET by Seabeach4348When was the last time Algore got something "right"?
Was it when he invented the internet?
Was it during the 2000 presidential election? (which he lost because he didn't get enough votes)
Was it in 1993 when he, as VP, cast the deciding vote in the Senate for the big Clinton tax increase?
Was it in his schlockumentary "Inconvenient Truth" which contained 9 (or is the lastest number 35??) glaring errors and misrepresentations just to scare the pants off of the naive and school kids into believing that the earth "has a fever" and that we're all gonna die if we don't do what he says to do NOW?
Was it when he said that "the science is settled"? or "the debate is over"? or "there is no room for dissenters"?
I'm curious. When was he "right"? My take: even if Algore had a degree in science, he'd still be damaged goods.
Emotions
November 10, 2007 - 22:19 ET by acadia1755But they have on their side something way better then science.
** EMOTION **
That list says way to much silicone.
http://www.friendsof...
Lefty mind games
November 11, 2007 - 00:23 ET by nkviking75Did you hear the one about the loon who created a phony global warming website? David Thorpe put up a site claiming to debunk global warming. He was trying to draw out global warming opponents so he could discredit them. Apparently the concept of straightforward, honest debate is lost of these people. "Gotcha" is so much more fun. (Hat Tip: American Thinker)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
the loon who created
November 11, 2007 - 08:28 ET by dahliatraversthe loon who created a phony global warming website
How embarrassing. Get a life, pal.
Debate - Are you nuts?
November 11, 2007 - 01:13 ET by Mike From CanmoreIf the warmongers had something to stand on, after the Intelligence Squared debate where majority of audience opinion shifted from "warming is real" to "warrming is a sham", the response out of Real Climate was, and I paraphrase, "we really shouldn't do these things". If they had a leg to stand on, it would have been, "we need to better prepare our arguments and try and win next time". The run and hide is a sure sign of a huckster.
*Argue for your limitations and sure enough you will achieve them.
A burr under the saddle of AGW loyalists
November 11, 2007 - 04:01 ET by SeptemberIn fact, what made Coleman's article at ICECAP was not in the
science being conveyed, but instead that such a high profile member of
the weather reporting community would make such statements...Such was clearly lost upon the good folks at TP.
I'm thinking different, Noel. It's not lost on the TP folks. They may not consciously realize that Coleman's high profile-ness (and his skepticism of AGW) bugs them but it does bother them or they wouldn't take time to critique the man or pooh-pooh his experience. Or they do know it bugs them but would never admit it. It's so much easier to discredit a man than to listen to him. Even Gore deserved that in the beginning but unfortunately he has used exaggeration and deliberate, misleading tactics to force his beliefs upon us--and he's a hypocrite as well.
Speaking of Al
November 11, 2007 - 09:43 ET by danboSpeaking of Al Gore.
Steve McIntyre doesn't spend much time discussing him. However he recently wrote about Al and his chart of reconstructed climate history. Gore's hockey stick.
He pointed out some interesting things there. And part 2 there. Parlor tricks?
"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
Think Regress
November 11, 2007 - 12:48 ET by Dave R...looking at the entire Think Progress staff,
Noel, I went to their site and did exactly that. They appear to be yet another collection (as if we needed any more) of mal-contented, educated-beyond-their-intelligence libs with an agenda, or should I say, a political axe to grind.
Then I scanned the top of the page and read this:
The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization.
Now that is funny.
Dave R
November 11, 2007 - 19:10 ET by SeptemberRE: "The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization."
Interesting. I suppose the next question would be how do they define nonpartisan.
September, liberals remind me of Alzheimer's patients.
November 11, 2007 - 19:40 ET by Dave RIt will be something to the effect that they have none of those pesky "partisan" conservatives aboard. After all, most liberals do not see themselves as being partisan. Only conservatives are partisan. -Kind of reminds me of Alzheimer's patients. They see themselves as normal. It is everyone else around them who are losing their minds.
danbo
November 11, 2007 - 20:14 ET by SeptemberParlor tricks?
I don't know. Perhaps in Gore's need to make a name for himself and in his greed he and those who helped him produce AIT got sloppy. Personally, considering some of Gore's statements which essentially condone the idea of the ends justify the means I would say that they knew perfectly well that that particular graph was not Thompson's but Mann's (and full of errors, at that). Hey, it's all in the name of SAVING THE WORLD! people.
Gore is unbelievably bold and fallacious. I see that a poster at CA warns McIntyre that his blog entry will incite more skeptics to make fun of Gore--poor baby. I hear this complaint often but Gore does not need anyone to defend him; he's a big boy. He like all of us bears the consequences of his actions.
To me it wasn't just who's
November 12, 2007 - 08:20 ET by danboTo me it wasn't just who's chart. Though Mann's has been shown to be wrong. Especially for comparing proxy data to surface air data. Which Mann himself said was wrong.
It's also the shift from using ten year averages to yearly averages. And once deciding on a base line average to hike the average up to not just the average but to +.5. To make it look dramatic.
As my old stats instructor used to say. There are three ways to lie. 1. Tell a falsehood. 2. Don't tell all the truth. and 3. Statistics.
"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
Dave R
November 11, 2007 - 19:56 ET by SeptemberAfter all, most liberals do not see themselves as being partisan.
I would agree. I have a liberal in my family who seems unaware of how her work environment has shaped her political opinions (she's a Hillary supporter, by the way). It's only in talking to her calmly that I realize how shallow her arguments are on many issues. She's never really bothered to challenge her belief system with a little research. Come at her from too many angles and she comes back to a "feeling" to defend her views.
Oh, well, I'll keep whittling away. ;)
Good luck.
November 11, 2007 - 20:04 ET by Dave RYou're gonna need it.
dave
November 11, 2007 - 20:14 ET by botgforget luck we need to pray that Seppi will be incredibly persistant and patient
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Thanks
November 11, 2007 - 20:21 ET by SeptemberIf you've ever had the experience of catching someone in a factual error and suddenly realizing how pathetic their thinking processes are you'll realize how one can come to feel sorry for some milder libs.
Like taking candy from a baby.
Say what?
November 11, 2007 - 23:55 ET by acadia1755Look at the answer I got after proving someone wrong on another site.Smart or what? :-)
"rushie neocon - DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS !"
http://www.friendsof...
acadia
November 12, 2007 - 00:52 ET by SeptemberWow. That lib is lazy!
It just seems to me we can't lump all libs together. They are as varied as conservatives. It's prudent to be flexible in dealing with them considering these differences. Some do know their facts so it's like the Boy Scouts of America used to say: Be Prepared.
acadia
November 12, 2007 - 01:03 ET by botgwhere's the quote your link goes to the homepage
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
'take away the Sun as our
November 12, 2007 - 04:21 ET by Cooltom'take away the Sun as our primary heat source. What happens to the planet? Giant ice/rock ball, with a few volcano's. '
That actually happened 500 million years ago. The cause was not the sun but the creation of Central America blocking ocean currents. The oceans were covered with 2-mile thick icesheets. It was overcome by volcanic activity caused techtonic plate shifting.
As for 'settled science' I was watching a History Channel doc about the Big Bang theory in which one science basically said that "the stuff we haven't figured out yet" would fill a gigantic warehouse.
I disagree on the " would
November 12, 2007 - 08:28 ET by danboI disagree on the " would fill a gigantic warehouse". A "gigantic warehouse" is way too small. Maybe an Ocean or far more. Warmers think they're smarter than they are.
"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