|So now we’re
Climate change alarmists sink to new lows in attacking those who doubt catastrophe theories
Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, where he directed research into the development and application of satellite passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring global temperature, water vapor, and precipitation. He currently is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.
see also: Hurricanes and Global Warming Interview with Dr. Roy Spencer by James K. Glassman -- Capitalism Magazine
and the parody http://www.ecoenquirer.com/
reprint from Eco-Imperialism - Articles -So now we’re Holocaust deniers
is virtually no disagreement in the scientific community any longer about
‘global warming.’ … The science that has been done in the last three to
five years has been conclusive.”
As part of the current media frenzy over the “imminent demise” of Planet Earth from global warming, it has become fashionable to demonize global warming skeptics through a variety of tactics. This has recently been accomplished by comparing scientists who don’t believe in a global climate catastrophe to “flat-Earthers,” those who denied cigarettes cause cancer, or even those who deny the Holocaust.
also posted this quote to the same blog:
comparison between global warming skeptics and Holocaust-deniers illustrates the
upside-down worldview that makes the public increasingly distrustful of the
media. The photographs, movie footage, concentration camps, artifacts, death
showers, ovens, human bones.
does manmade global warming have? The theory that mankind has caused the
globally averaged temperature to be 1 degree F warmer than it was a century ago.
(I’m sure holocaust survivors appreciate the minimization of their ordeal
through use of this analogy.)
you see any media statement that “the science is settled” on global warming,
you will observe that there is no mention of what exactly is “settled” about
global warming. If something specific were mentioned, the statement would either
be false, or at least it would not convey the necessary urgency that we much
“do something immediately about global warming.” Of course, it might also be
that today’s journalists cannot deal with that level of complexity. However,
for the time being, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt.
just what part of “the science is settled on global warming” is really
settled? Well, I would say that our current period of globally-averaged warmth
is pretty indisputable, though possibly over-estimated. I say
“globally-averaged” because some areas have actually cooled in the last 100
years. Furthermore, the majority of climate scientists would probably agree that
some part of that warmth is manmade. But in contrast to the warmth itself, which
has actually been measured with thermometers, attributing some or all of that
warming to mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions is only one possible explanation
A number of us would suggest that we really don’t know how much of the current warmth is manmade versus natural. I suspect we are the Holocaust-denying, cancer-ignoring, flat-Earthers who still think the Moon landing was staged.
Morano of Cybercast News Service recently reported on a curious teleconference,
in which environmental group representatives, members of the media and a
Democratic congressional staffer joined in bashing those who would stand in the
way of convincing the public that we should all “be worried, be very
worried” about global warming, as the Time magazine cover recently
intoned. One of those participating was Mark Hertsgaard, author of an article in
the recent Earth Day issue of Vanity Fair, which had a (literally) green
cover included environmental “experts” Julia Roberts, George Clooney, Robert
Kennedy, Jr. and (of course) Al Gore.
in the American media in the last six weeks have begun to say ‘the debate is
over.’ There is] a lot more coverage than we have ever seen of ‘global
warming’; a lot more pointed coverage than we have ever seen. It is very
striking that it is years behind the coverage in
“People in Europe talked about the ‘the climate loonies in the
once again, we apparently need to look to
the teleconference group derided “free-market think tanks.” Reporter Paul
Thacker offered, “I have often felt that these think tanks are kinda there
just to dissuade journalists from covering these issues effectively.” Yes, and
you know it’s a well kept secret that free-market advocates only exist to keep
everyone from learning how well socialism has worked throughout history. (Note
the free-market comfort from which a free speech-loving journalist in a wealthy
free-market economy can so freely bite the invisible hand that feeds him.)
Dr. Global Warming himself, James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute
for Space Studies – who participated in the same teleconference – cautioned
the others against pushing the rhetoric too far: “I am a little concerned
about this, in the sense that we are still at a point where the natural
fluctuations of climate are still large – at least, the natural fluctuations
of weather compared to long-term climate change,” Hansen said. This is good
advice – though it is a much more moderate musing than some of his recent
views, which include the warning that we might have only ten years left to turn
things around on the global warming front, or it will be too late.
I’m left wondering … why does the global warming issue seem so much more
important to the media than to the public – to the point where
“journalists” have do demonize skeptics with ad hominem attacks? Do they
know something we don’t know? I suspect it is more the reverse.
how, exactly, do the media make the jump from “global warming is real” to
“the warming is entirely manmade” … to the warming is “catastrophic”
… to the warming is the fault of the US government for not implementing policy
changes (Kyoto, McCain-Lieberman, Domenici-Bingaman) that will do virtually
nothing to help solve the problem anyway?
wasn’t a rhetorical question. I really do want to know the answer. Send
me an e-mail if you happen to know.
Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the