By Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters
Fortunately, most people will likely be watching the Giants-Packers game Sunday evening (on the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field with sub-zero temperatures), and will therefore miss the one-sided hysteria. However, for those that mysteriously don’t switch channels after the Chargers-Patriots game, CBS will offer a special about global warming this Sunday instead of “60 Minutes.” How marvelous. The CBS News website hysterically described this installment of “The Age of Warming”.
Nowhere is the evidence of global warming as striking than near the earth’s poles. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley’s report brings him to the top and the bottom of the world, where scientists point out the effects of the warming trend. He also speaks to NASA’s top scientist studying climate, who says the Bush administration has restricted what he can say about global warming. This teaser raises many important questions. For instance, will even one of the over 400 scientists that don’t believe man is responsible for global warming be interviewed by Pelley? Or, will he exclusively talk to folks that are involved in advancing this yet unproven theory? Will any of the scientific studies concerning historical ice levels in the Arctic and the Antarctic be sited, or just the satellite data for the past thirty years?
Assuming the top NASA scientist Pelley will be speaking to is the controversial head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies James Hansen, will he be asked about his connection to George Soros? Or that the GISS predicted an ice age back in 1971? Or that Hansen’s organization made a huge error in calculating temperatures this decade that was uncovered by Climate Audit’s Stephen McIntyre?
And when Pelley speaks to Hansen about the Bush administration supposedly restricting what he can say about global warming, will Pelley mention the RealClimate website and blog that Hansen is involved with? Or reference all of the articles that Hansen has written concerning this subject while he was supposedly being silenced by the White House?
Finally, will Pelley ask Hansen about his connection to Al Gore, and how the Nobel Laureate’s film has been found by a British court to be filled with scientific errors? Or, will this installment be exclusively filled with one-sided information on this controversial subject with not one shred of balance for the viewer? Yes, sadly, these were all rhetorical questions. Read more here.
By Miguel A. Guanipa in the Canada Free Press
The recent U.S. Senate committee report listing 400 scientists who last year openly disputed Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming claims does indeed appear to yield a consensus. But their consensus is not based in the dubious assertion that a plenary rise in the earth’s temperature described as Global Warming is a settled scientific theory. Neither is this consensus grounded in the bogus claim that the polar bear population is at risk and should be declared an endangered species due to the threat posed by Global Warming; or the incorrect thesis that hurricanes and Global Warming are indisputably linked. It is also not based on the claim that due to Global Warming, the earth’s glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate, which, defying basic laws of chemistry and physics, will eventually cause a massive deluge of coastal sections of the United States, Canada and perhaps other countries, the likes of which have not been heard of since biblical times; or on the purported claim that the most advanced computer models, which are famously incapable of duplicating the legion of natural and artificial variables that regulate even local climate, are fully adequate to forecast the impending global doom so ominously predicted by Al Gore in his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”.
And most emphatically, this consensus is not rooted in the infuriating declaration that Global Warming skeptics comprise only a half a dozen or so misguided sell outs to the oil industry, barely outnumbering the few remaining members of the Flat Earth Society, as has been disdainfully stated by the guru of Global Warming hysterics himself.
According to the collective assessment of this eminent group of scientists, no such testimonials meet the most rudimentary standards of good scientific inquiry, or have any basis on fact; therefore no consensus is to be found among the 400 scientists that are listed on this report , other than the nearly unanimous agreement that the claim of Global Warming as a legitimate threat to humanity is more an ideological juggernaut than a proven scientific certainty, fueled predominantly by the politics of fear from the left, and amply lavished with the continued financial support from unwitting governments and moral support from the main stream media. This diverse assembly of Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics (or Holocaust deniers as Ellen Goodman from the Boston Globe would call them) include experts from the fields of paleontology, chemistry, Chemical engineering, Mathematics, Physics, Agriculture, Astrophysics, Oceanography, Atmospheric Science, Geology, Meteorology, and Economics, to name a few. Many of them are also recent converts who once called themselves staunch believers in A.G.W. A good number of them are former draft reviewers of the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change report they have now happily disowned as dangerously speculative, as it portends to mandate drastic policy measures for signatories from world governments in order to stop the impending catastrophe presumably looming in the horizon. Their collective body of work on the science of Global Climate consists of thousands of research studies and peer reviewed papers in myriad reputable scientific publications and academic institutions. Read more here.
The Polish Outlook
Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn’t increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.
The idea that global warming is a problem provides many great ways to make money, make political points and gain competitive advantages. But to the economies of Europe, it may have some disadvantages. Former New York Mayor Ed Koch slams Al Gore and points out how the idea of Global Warming is an economic tool being used against Europe and the US by developing countries in an article called, Does Gore Know What He’s Talking About?. Koch points out: “The argument offered by China, India and other developing countries is clear and direct. Said Lu Xuedu, the deputy director general of the Chinese Office of Global Environmental Affairs, “You cannot tell people who are struggling to earn enough to eat that they need to reduce their emissions.” China’s intent is to put the United States and Europe in a difficult economic position where standards of living will be reduced until developing countries rise to the standard of the U.S. At that point the developing countries will be required to reduce their emissions.”
With countries, powerful business interests and journalists behind selling global warming as fact, Polish politicians will be under pressure to do something politically correct as the people are fed a continual stream of warnings. If they look at the data, they may make a reasoned decision. But then they might just take the simple approach being taken by Norway - just pollute and put tax zloty in some global warming dependent company’s coffers. Norway’s emissions soar. And then look out the window to see if it is getting warmer or colder. As it stands now, if 2007 is indicative of the future, it is likely to get colder. Read more here.