Apparently, the Arizona Republic cannot discuss the work of globaloney skeptic Robert Balling of Arizona State University without constantly pointing out that his "peers" think he is an idiot that has been bought off by "industries." The paper cannot write a story about his career without constantly suggesting that he is a "fringe" scientist and that he is "criticized" by those who imagine global warming is the biggest threat humanity faces today.
What's more, the Republic finds his personal life filled with "surprising contradictions" because this climatologist has a green lifestyle, as if any global warming critic must automatically believe in poisoning our waters and polluting our skies. Apparently the Az Republic thinks it's impossible that a man can be interested in safeguarding the environment but also believe that global warming is a sham. And, even worse, the Az Republic seems aghast that Rush Limbaugh has quoted from the man's work.
In "Outspoken ASU prof draws ire", Az Republic writer Corinne Purtill just doesn't get Robert Balling. He seems such a mystery to her that one can imagine that she feels he should be placed in a zoo where all can come view him as the odd creature he surely must be. In short, clipped sentences sure to be written so even the dumbest of Arizonans can follow her tale, Purtill tells us the odd story of a man who "attended the premiere of Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth" and who "bikes to work and eats organic food," but who is hated by environmentalists. Why do they hate him?
Balling, 54, has spoken and written extensively against the widely held scientific view that the documented rise in global temperatures is the result of human activity and that serious consequences will result.
HERESY, I tell you! Balling also informs Purtill that he believes that "even if humans are warming the planet by causing the buildup of greenhouse gases... the doomsday scenarios forecast by many climate scientists may never happen." Oh, he's digging his grave with the Az Republic, now! But, she assures us, it isn't so bad for the good professor, because he is awash with money from "industries with a stake in debunking the large body of research that supports a link between human activity and global warming." Even more outrageous, Rush Limbaugh found his work of interest.
Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh began quoting the book. Sales took off. An invitation to address the directors of a coal company followed.
The NERVE! Purtill seems confused by our friend, Mr. Balling, however.
Despite his notoriety as a hero of the skeptic crowd, Balling's research and lifestyle contain some surprising contradictions. He's a registered independent and lives a lifestyle that the hardiest environmental activist would recognize as green.
But, we can ignore his green lifestyle because he is "on the fringe" and is "criticized" by global warming believers whose research she never once questions might be as influenced by the money they get from forces interested in providing support for global warming as she so carefully pointed out could be true for Balling's work funded by those eeeevil "industries." All in all, this report in the Arizona Republic is condescending to both the reader and Robert Balling and represents the sort of treatment reserved for the strange and unusual instead of an attempt to inform the public of a dissenting view.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
More proof that name-calling
November 14, 2007 - 07:27 ET by sarcasmoIs far-easier than actual debate. "Fringe" or "kook" really mean "don't think for yourself about agreeing with this person."
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> The hypocrisy
November 14, 2007 - 07:37 ET by Cool ArrowHe's a registered independent and lives a lifestyle that the hardiest environmental activist would recognize as green.
The Az Repub sees a disconnect between junk science and one individual's concept of responsible living?
edhenry Notice that the
November 14, 2007 - 08:10 ET by Edhenryedhenry
Notice that the others at ASU are more interested in grant money than an honest debate.
You might be surprised...
November 14, 2007 - 10:20 ET by heldmyw...at the common misconception that every Republican drives a Hummer, SUV or Diesel Dumptruck every where they go.
We also don't recycle, have a garden, or make conscious choices to clean up, and conserve.
And, even though it is a tenet of much-maligned Christiantiy, the idea that we might be a good steward of the planet is incomprehensible.
We just tend to do it without rushing about annoying other people.
Exactly, helemyw. I'll stand my "green" lifestyle against
November 14, 2007 - 15:59 ET by RJANY of the whining "man-maded global warmists" that come on these threads....
Ducks Unlimited
November 15, 2007 - 19:33 ET by azholmesDU blows liberals minds. How can those "redneck gun nuts" possibly do more for the environment than most "caring" liberal environmental groups (unless you count talking about doing stuff)?
An interesting comment by
November 14, 2007 - 09:20 ET by danboAn interesting comment by John Christy on observations at an IPCC meeting.
Source
"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
Catty AZ Republic
November 14, 2007 - 11:02 ET by SeptemberDespite his notoriety as a hero of the skeptic crowd, Balling's research and lifestyle contain some surprising contradictions. He's a registered independent and lives a lifestyle that the hardiest environmental activist would recognize as green.
They are surprised. It blows their teeny-tiny little world to not have everyone fit into a little box that they can carry around with them everywhere.
How much better and open-minded this story would have been if they had approached it from this angle: that skeptics care about the environment too.
The Evil Funders
November 14, 2007 - 11:52 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistHuston says, "But, we can ignore his green lifestyle because he is 'on the fringe'
and is 'criticized' by global warming believers whose research she
never once questions might be as influenced by the money they get from forces interested in providing support for global warming."
Hmm. Who are those evil forces pumping money to the thousands of "alarmist" climate scientists? Oh yeah, it must be compact flourescent bulb makers and solar collector manufacturers. They just have so much money lying around, after all. Forget the oil and coal interests when they come up against those guys.
Or could it possibly be that the mainstream scientists are receiving money from foundations that simply support what is generally recognized as good science?
Even the article makes it
November 14, 2007 - 13:24 ET by RainsfordEven the article makes it pretty clear that alot of this is being pushed by companies such as GE who want to be able to sell their "enviromentally friendly" light bulbs for twice the price of regulars. And imagine if they can get government money to subsidize their manufacturing (from our tax dollars, of course) and make even more money!
I also guess you missed the train about the whole James Hansen getting hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from George Soros. Imagine the outrage if Rupert decided to donate money to one of these guys.
" I also guess you missed
November 14, 2007 - 17:00 ET by ckc1227" I also guess you missed the train about the whole James Hansen getting
hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from George Soros"
I suspect he has missed a lot of things on this issue.
"Or could it possibly be
November 14, 2007 - 17:11 ET by ckc1227"Or could it possibly be that the mainstream scientists are receiving
money from foundations that simply support what is generally recognized
as good science?"
Or maybe it's coming from foundations that want global warming to be real in the minds of the ignorant masses, and they're ready, willing, and able to give money to any scientist who will tell them it is.
The taxpayers are forced at
November 14, 2007 - 18:41 ET by NL207The taxpayers are forced at the point of a gun to provide infinitely more resources to politically motivated researchers than the energy companies could ever afford or be allowed to provide.
"Thousands of "alarmist" climate scientists", you say? Another blundering piece of ignorance. The total number of pro-AGW alarmists in the worldwide scientific community likely does not number more that 600. I challenge you to count them.
The vast majority of scientists do not even agree with the premise that man is causing the lion's share of the modest warming observed over the last century, much less accept the much more radical hypothesis that that human induced change is dominant, significant, and harmful, all of which must be true before any political actions of the sort proposed by the alarmists and their allies should be attempted.
The AZ Republic - aka "rag"
November 14, 2007 - 13:10 ET by habbyguyAs an new Arizona resident, I subscribed to the AZ Republic until I actually read a couple editions. Yikes. This rag gives the NY Times a run for its "all the news we see fit to print" approach. And happily, like the NY Times, the circulation is dropping like a rock as their supporters on the left wonder why we don't all adopt their paranoid, illogical world view.
The one really good thing about all this GW hoopla is how silly its practitioners and high priests are gonna look when the consensus swings back to the much more likely "coming ice age"...
The AZ Republic - aka "rag"
November 14, 2007 - 18:04 ET by CarlosSMy pet cockatiel wouldn't even ..., er..., "use" the AZ Repulsive
I haven't subscribed to it not read it in years.
Hey!
November 14, 2007 - 14:31 ET by Wildcatter1980I have my share of compact fluorescent light bulbs. I am concerned about that kind of fuel economy I can get in my car. I do not keep an excessive number of electrical or electronic items on if I do not need to. I do not keep my house very warm in the wintertime and use my A/C as judiciously as possible.
Do I do these things because I believe I need to to save our planet from global warming? HELL NO! I do them because I want to save as much money as I can so that I can invest and/or spend it on other things!
This is just another example of how the "twue bewievas" think of anyone who opposes them. They would rather attack the person in an effort to belittle, diminish and marginalize them than engage in intellectual debate for fear that the lack of factual scientific basis for AGW will be exposed.
Just my $0.02
"The Az Repub sees a
November 14, 2007 - 17:06 ET by ckc1227"The Az Repub sees a disconnect between junk science and one individual's concept of responsible living?"
Why wouldn't they? Al Gore has already said it's okay to lie to further the global warming scam..., er, "cause".
Known affectionately as
November 14, 2007 - 19:20 ET by RevolvrKnown affectionately as "The Arizona Repugnant," Arizona's bleating newspaper.
Their circulation is down double digits in a city growing by double digits.
_____________________________________________
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
So why pick on the Republic?
November 14, 2007 - 19:24 ET by jesmeBasically, this seems a good, fair story. There's a bit of a tendentious flavor in parts--the "golly gee, he rides a bike to work!" stuff, as if global warming critics all drove Hummers. But as a conservative and a journalist, I really can't see why you're picking on this story. To me the most interesting thing about it is the dismay of university officials that they've got a skeptic running loose on campus. You almost imagine his colleagues wanting to call in a SWAT team, or maybe just guys with white coats and butterfly nets, to take this troublemaker down. The idea that a university is supposed to be a place of intellectual diversity doesn't seem to have sunk in.
It's not a good article, it
November 15, 2007 - 00:26 ET by zfIt's not a good article, it implies his opinion does not matter because he is on the fridge of the GW debate (which is hilarious because it's the GW is mostly man-made and will kill us all is the real fringe) and that he is some unprincipled stooge for industry. That's why it's being criticized.
While I personally find the
November 15, 2007 - 00:23 ET by zfWhile I personally find the extreme "green" lifestyle a dangerous movie toward primitivism, self-denial and being a slave to "nature" I respect his right to live that way and would point out that his lifestyle makes his skepticism MORE compelling, because for this guy to say GW is a joke really tells you something. But let's not extol his "lifestyle" because of his stand on GW, personally I don't think riding a bike to work and eating organic food does anything to help the earth or makes him better than a meat-eating SUV driver. Also, pollution is inherent to nature and a certain amount is necessary to sustain human life on Earth, for instance the fire early man used to cook his food and warm his cave. And an animal who dies and falls into a river will containimate and poison it more than any any trace amount of a chemical from human existence will.
P.S. The Bible says Man is supposed to "rule" and "subdue" nature, cover the whole planet, and condemns nature worship, which is the exact opposite ot the creed of far too many "enviromentalists" who think WE should be under NATURES thumb.
Balling IS a nut; he says about HALF the warming since 1975
November 19, 2007 - 02:44 ET by BlindSightcan be attributed to greenhouse gases.
It is not particularly puzzling that you overlooked this, but if the AZ Republic accurately summarized him, Balling hardly seems like the globaloney skeptic you make him out to be.
I leave with some observations by Pres. Bush and his climate negotiator:
Pres. George Bush: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.
Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, November 13, 2007:
Climate change is a serious problem, and humans are contributing to it. We are at a critical moment. Addressing this global challenge requires substantial global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And we are committed to doing our part.
Our deliberations will be guided by two considerations: a post-2012 framework must be environmentally effective and economically sustainable.
Emissions are global and the solution, to be effective, will need to be global. We want the worlds largest emitters, including the United States, to be part of a global agreement. An approach in which only some are acting is not environmentally effective.
We can work together to develop a long-term global goal for emissions reductions. We can identify national plans that will put us on the path toward this global goal, with each country designing its own mix of binding, market-based, and voluntary measures.
Show how Balling is
November 19, 2007 - 02:49 ET by NL207Show how Balling is wrong.
None of your quotation speaks in any way to what fraction, if any, of the observed warming since 1975 was caused by greenhouse gases.
Balling's statement stands. Nor have you impeached his mental competence. Therefore we can discard your nut label on Balling as well.
You look like a fool.