Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Do people actually fall for this think-tank derived crap? :lol:

I especially liked the ad for Ann Coulter's book at the bottom of the page on the last site. lmao Such ignorance would be funny if people like her had no influence.

 

The fact you linked both articles together is rather suspect as are most articles posted by skeptics in this forum.

I recognize some of the names fromyour ICECAP experts list though.:

Robert C. Balling

Education:

1974: AB, Wittenberg University
1975: MA, Bowling Green State University
1979: PhD in geography from the University of Oklahoma
Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. [1]

His views have led to his enthusiastic adoption by various members of the free-market extremist Atlas Economic Research Foundation network. He writes regularly for the Cato Institute, Tech Central Station and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

His writings find him regularly in the company of other prominent climate change sceptics, including Sallie L. Baliunas, and S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

In August 2004 Balling told Business Week "I'm convinced there will be engineering schemes that will allow our children's children to have whatever climate they want".

Sallie Louise Baliunas received her M.A. (1975) and Ph.D. (1980) degrees in Astrophysics from Harvard University.

She is Enviro-Sci Host for James K. Glassman's Tech Central Station, and a astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Baliunas received in 1997 the Petr Beckmann Award for her "devastating critique of the global warming hoax." [1]

Until January 1, 2003, she served as Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Institute. [2]

She sits on the boards or committees of:

George C. Marshall Institute
Greening Earth Society <.. remember this gem?
Scientific Alliance
Statistical Assessment Service

Robert (Bob) Carter, is "a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University", Australia [1]. In a byline with an op-ed published in the Sydney Morning Herald in September 2005 he was described as an "experienced environmental scientist" [2], but a March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [3] He is a well known climate change skeptic.

Carter could well be described as 'a prominent research geologist with a personal interest in the issue of climate change', from his list of research papers. He has extensive experience of paleoclimatic research, including participation in Ocean Drilling Program Leg 181 in the southwest Pacific which described the benchmark 4 million year-long, mid-latitude climate record from Site 1119 [4]. In 2005 Carter was appointed by the Australian Minister for Environment, Ian Campbell, as a judge for the Australian Government Peter Hunt Eureka Prize for Environmental Journalism. [5]

In January 2006 Carter told the Australian newspaper that "atmospheric CO2 is not a primary forcing agent for temperature change," arguing instead that "any cumulative human signal is so far undetectable at a global level and, if present, is buried deeply in the noise of natural variation". [6]

In March 2007 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that "Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday [March 14th 2007] the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research. "I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence." [7]

Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [8], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs


It would be a good idea to steer clear of anyone representing or in collaboration with CEI.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 7 2007, 10:49 PM) [snapback]536626[/snapback]</div>

Since you have posted things like this before I would have assumed you were used to the format used by "SourceWatch" by now.

As for Al Gore, why do I care what he has to say? I do not base my opinions on him. I actually read scientific journals.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 7 2007, 10:09 PM) [snapback]536605[/snapback]</div>

I've read Icecap. While there are some interesting things there, it unfortunately does not nearly rise to the standard of the exceptional, but now retired Climate Science blog. The biggest problem I have with IceCap is there is a lot of opinion there from unknown writers without apparently strong scientific background, although sometimes there are occasional exceptions and they sometimes link to interesting journal articles.

A great site is Climate Audit. It gets some pretty interesting topics going. It is running a close second in Best Science Blog voting, for whatever that is worth.

A lot of folks like Real Climate, but I have heard enough complaints of censorship to make me question their integrity over there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 8 2007, 01:55 AM) [snapback]536629[/snapback]</div>

I've heard those complaints, too. But I don't think it's censorship, I think it's called editing. Just like one would "censor" articles saying "the Holocaust never happened" in a World War II website.

 

Yawn. More screed by people opining outside their fields of expertise. For discussion of the facts of global warming by climatologists and atmospheric physicists see
http://realclimate.org

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 8 2007, 12:27 AM) [snapback]536617[/snapback]</div>

Their "mission statement" contains grammatical errors.
They probably could use an English major on their board...

 

Myth or fact, unacceptable or acceptable, it doesn't matter if global climate change is genuine or not. When you double your efficiency (fuel economy), you cut your cost by one-half.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 8 2007, 06:54 AM) [snapback]536682[/snapback]</div>

Your example is not analogous, particularly since you are only speculating about what they have edited. My question is, why edit at all, unless it is offensive? If you aren't allowing people to express their views, then it fits the definition of censorship.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 8 2007, 12:56 PM) [snapback]536778[/snapback]</div>

The one thing I've never seen censorship of is global warming deniers. All they have to do is call Fox and they're guaranteed TV time. :blink: For real censorship, you just need to remember the way Bush flunkies rewrite science reports to remove Global Warming.

 

Just looking at the subject, I thought, global change isn't about weather -- it's about climate. Sure enough looking at what this guy wrote, he doesn't seem to get that:

Climate change is most certainly not meteorology. It is climatology. Meteorology focuses on weather processes and forecasting, where weather is defined as relatively short period phenomena. Hours to days. Climatology is the study of long period phenomena, which can be described as the short period phenomena averaged over long time intervals. The ability to make short-term predictions of phenomena provides no insight whatsoever into the long-term motions of the climate.

Climatology is most definitely not this fellow's field of life-long expertise.

That doesn't mean he can't read the stuff about climate change and make intelligent observations and analyses of what has been done, even if he's not a climatologist by trade. However he presented nothing of the kind in his rant.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 8 2007, 01:54 AM) [snapback]536628[/snapback]</div>

Uh huh... And I suppose those who write those so called scientific journals which purport AGW are written only from the goodness of their hearts... And their salaries and grants can never be traced to any organization, including any governmental organization (which BTW stands to make quite a bit of money from the AGW scare by fuel "carbon" taxes, carbon trading schemes, etc.) or any other individual who may have some fiduciary interest in seeing a certain political party elected because "they truly care for our children's future and the well being of the environment".

No no, say it ain't so Joe...

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Nov 8 2007, 02:44 PM) [snapback]536825[/snapback]</div>

so you're saying that the entire field of climatology is without merit, without ethics, they are all self-interested little jerks who only care about getting more funding... sure there are some disingenuous scientists who push their ideas as far more important than they really are but the peer review process usually wrings them out.

do you understand how difficult it is to get funding even with a project that is of major interest to government organizations? my NIDA grant was VERY well received conceptually but they found just enough reason to not fund me that had nothing to do with the merit of the applicant, the sponsor, the application, or the research plan (ie, not enough in the budget.)

nobody would put themselves through that kind of work and repeated rejection unless they really cared about what they were doing. we have had to reevaluate a lot of things here even, and i'm though i'm sure you can find something self-serving about studying drug abuse, developmental and gender differences, and parkinson's disease... we do it because we feel there is reason to keep on. that is it.

if you want money, and you have a phd, there are far more profitable ways to go than academia. i'm just so sick and tired of hearing the claims that academic scientists are in it for the money therefore they are just making all this up. because really, you've gotta be clueless or just $%^&ing kidding me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 8 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]536831[/snapback]</div>

Nope, didn't say anything you stated above. I did not start the child like name calling or paint the entire field of climatology as one without merit. What I was trying to convey is BOTH sides of the AGW debate are funded in one way or another. Each and every dollar comes ultimately from a source which could very well be argued as having a bias as to which way the research results are to be presented.

Every scientist knows this and will try to do his or her best to "tell the truth attractively". Those who are "weeded" out as you say are those who simply lie and present false results.

Imagine a scientist working for a large oil corporation or coal cooperative tasked to research AGW. Now, how far do you think that scientist would go with the large oil corporation if he or she insisted on presenting results supporting AGW and a CO2 connection? Can you say unemployment?

Let's reverse the role. Take another scientist working on project for the Sierra Club to research AGW. Again, how far do you think that scientist would go with continued employment with the Sierra Club if he or she insisted that no positive connection can be determined in his or her professional opinion regarding AGW and human produced so called greenhouse gases. Damn, unemployed again.

AGW is indeed a "gray" science at best. It is not absolute as is the science of nuclear physics or quantum mechanics. Couple that with with taxes based on AGW, political connections, grants, and large corporations who have and interest in either side of the issue and you WILL have competition from scientists on both sides looking to seek employment in the AGW field.

Rick
#4 2006

 

i meant to edit my post to add/clarify that i was talking mostly about government research funding and not specific organizations. i got caught up explaining a method to our rotation student and helping an undergrad.

anyway, i think a lot of the privately funded stuff should be carefully considered. think of a paper discussing the dangers of splenda funded by the sugar industry, the benefits of beef over chicken sponsored by the cattleman's association, etc. this is universal.

the government identifies specific areas of interest through RFAs and PAs but cannot direct the results of said research. we've seen instances of results being hidden or otherwise obscured or not acted upon in government run labs, yes, but funding lent out to PIs at academic institutions is not contingent on whether the results will be "pleasing" to a certain group of people. it is contingent on coherent, logical plans and a direction of research that fits the RFA/PA. i can't tell you how many "the results should be very interesting/contribute greatly to the field" comments i got from my reviewers, but nobody commented on how the results should, say, stand behind the war on drugs.

there are certainly chances for unfairness in government grants, but they seem to lie more among reviewer-author competition or bad blood and less among vast government conspiracies to tax more for co2 production.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Nov 8 2007, 11:44 AM) [snapback]536825[/snapback]</div>

Sure there are biostitutes out there (just read half of the names listed in a climate skeptics post) but they usually go where the big money is. Hell if I was going to sell my soul I'd sign up with the oil companies, car companies, tabacco companies, and the Templeton Foundation. The scientists I know do not make big money nor do the care too. They care about science and doing the right thing. Guess I hang out on the right side of the fence and don't see all these greedy grant driven scientists that you guys keep talking about. When given the chance to itern with a environmental consulting firm I turned them down when I learned of their shady practices concerning vernal pool mitigation techniques. So I basically ended up homeless for a time since I had no other jobs lined up. Yeah, ethical science is that important to me and I know a great many others that feel the same.