Expert Warns of 'Climategate' Conspiracy

Friday, 22 Jan 2010 09:24 AM

By: Jim Meyers

Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray tells Newsmax that a possible new conspiracy regarding global warming has been uncovered in the U.S.

He also said environmentalists, socialists, governments and businessmen are trying to take advantage of climate change concerns for their own benefit, and declared that cap-and-trade legislation would do “very little” to improve the climate.

Dr. Gray is a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes and a critic of the theory of human-induced global warming. He is a professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at the university’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

Gray told Newsmax.TV’s Kathleen Walter about a new report out of San Diego calling into question the accuracy of “the data that they’re basing global warming on — that this is the second or third warmest month or year of the last 100 years and that sort of thing. [Investigators have] been digging more and more into the data bases and they’ve been finding that there are inconsistencies there.”

Manmade global warming proponents in the government “are handling the data in ways to obtain data that shows the globe is warming more than it really is.

“They drop certain data out of their averaging, and the data they’ve dropped out tends to make the globe cooler. You’ll probably be reading a lot about this in the next few weeks or so.”

Gray called the new findings “Climategate U.S.A.”

Climategate refers the scandal that began when hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. The e-mails suggested that data that didn’t support the global warming theory was being altered or ignored.

With many people suffering through a very harsh winter, reports have surfaced that a mini-ice age is on the way, Walter noted. She asked Gray: “What should we believe?”

He responded: “I think we should believe that the climate is not changing much. There’s not an ice age coming for perhaps many thousands of years.”
The climate moves in decades-long cycles “that I think are driven a lot by global ocean deep circulation currents, and we’ve been in kind of a warming trend from the middle 1970s to the turn of the century,” he continued.

“From about 1999 on there hasn’t been much of a warming trend. Some reports have shown that the earth is beginning to cool. But in my view this is natural . . .

“In the last two or three years we have been seeing around the globe slightly colder winters and I think that’s an indication that human-induced global warming that’s so talked about is really not progressing.”

Gray, who has previously called claims of manmade global warming “the greatest scientific hoax of all time,” added: “Humans are probably doing something [to affect climate] and the CO2 may be warming [the globe] a bit but it’s not doing near what the alarmists have been telling us — that the Greenland ice cap is going to melt, the sea ice near the North Pole will not be there in another 20, 30 years. All these wild claims, there’s no basis for. The ice cap is not going to melt in the next 20, 30 years.”

Walter asked why global warming alarmist Al Gore and his allies refuse to consider any contrary evidence and insist that human-induced global warming is a fact.

“They want to use this to push other hidden agendas they have,” Gray said.

“The environmentalists want to push environmental things and people will become more sensitive to the environment if they think the globe is really warming. There are socialists who want to push a leveling of living standards around the globe. There are governments that want to control peoples’ lives more. There are businessmen who want to get into the new renewable energy. They want to make money on this.

“There’s a whole set of people out there who don’t know much about how the atmosphere ticks but see how they can profit from this global warming hypothesis, and they want to convince the world that this is true.”

He also noted that “those who are advancing global warming get better grants and get well funded by our federal government compared to us who are skeptical.”

Gray declared that there is absolutely no connection between global warming and more frequent and powerful hurricanes, as some alarmists claim.
He also said cap-and-trade legislation restricting C02 emissions, which is supported by President Obama and many Democrats, would do “very little of significance to improve our climate, and we will pay an enormous economic price for it.”

Cap-and-trade will drive up the price of energy, he added, and “the standard of living in the Western world will go down. No one is going to agree to that in the belief that the climate will get slightly better.”



Newsmax.

(01-23-2010 09:59 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Expert Warns of 'Climategate' Conspiracy

Friday, 22 Jan 2010 09:24 AM

By: Jim Meyers

Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray tells Newsmax that a possible new conspiracy regarding global warming has been uncovered in the U.S.

He also said environmentalists, socialists, governments and businessmen are trying to take advantage of climate change concerns for their own benefit, and declared that cap-and-trade legislation would do “very little” to improve the climate.

Dr. Gray is a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes and a critic of the theory of human-induced global warming. He is a professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at the university’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

Gray told Newsmax.TV’s Kathleen Walter about a new report out of San Diego calling into question the accuracy of “the data that they’re basing global warming on — that this is the second or third warmest month or year of the last 100 years and that sort of thing. [Investigators have] been digging more and more into the data bases and they’ve been finding that there are inconsistencies there.”

Manmade global warming proponents in the government “are handling the data in ways to obtain data that shows the globe is warming more than it really is.

“They drop certain data out of their averaging, and the data they’ve dropped out tends to make the globe cooler. You’ll probably be reading a lot about this in the next few weeks or so.”

Gray called the new findings “Climategate U.S.A.”

Climategate refers the scandal that began when hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. The e-mails suggested that data that didn’t support the global warming theory was being altered or ignored.

With many people suffering through a very harsh winter, reports have surfaced that a mini-ice age is on the way, Walter noted. She asked Gray: “What should we believe?”

He responded: “I think we should believe that the climate is not changing much. There’s not an ice age coming for perhaps many thousands of years.”
The climate moves in decades-long cycles “that I think are driven a lot by global ocean deep circulation currents, and we’ve been in kind of a warming trend from the middle 1970s to the turn of the century,” he continued.

“From about 1999 on there hasn’t been much of a warming trend. Some reports have shown that the earth is beginning to cool. But in my view this is natural . . .

“In the last two or three years we have been seeing around the globe slightly colder winters and I think that’s an indication that human-induced global warming that’s so talked about is really not progressing.”

Gray, who has previously called claims of manmade global warming “the greatest scientific hoax of all time,” added: “Humans are probably doing something [to affect climate] and the CO2 may be warming [the globe] a bit but it’s not doing near what the alarmists have been telling us — that the Greenland ice cap is going to melt, the sea ice near the North Pole will not be there in another 20, 30 years. All these wild claims, there’s no basis for. The ice cap is not going to melt in the next 20, 30 years.”

Walter asked why global warming alarmist Al Gore and his allies refuse to consider any contrary evidence and insist that human-induced global warming is a fact.

“They want to use this to push other hidden agendas they have,” Gray said.

“The environmentalists want to push environmental things and people will become more sensitive to the environment if they think the globe is really warming. There are socialists who want to push a leveling of living standards around the globe. There are governments that want to control peoples’ lives more. There are businessmen who want to get into the new renewable energy. They want to make money on this.

“There’s a whole set of people out there who don’t know much about how the atmosphere ticks but see how they can profit from this global warming hypothesis, and they want to convince the world that this is true.”

He also noted that “those who are advancing global warming get better grants and get well funded by our federal government compared to us who are skeptical.”

Gray declared that there is absolutely no connection between global warming and more frequent and powerful hurricanes, as some alarmists claim.
He also said cap-and-trade legislation restricting C02 emissions, which is supported by President Obama and many Democrats, would do “very little of significance to improve our climate, and we will pay an enormous economic price for it.”

Cap-and-trade will drive up the price of energy, he added, and “the standard of living in the Western world will go down. No one is going to agree to that in the belief that the climate will get slightly better.”



Newsmax.

You righties crack me up.

does anybody really think cap and trade will help the environment?

0% chance.

You righties crack me up.
[/quote]

So just because you say that man caused global warming is real it then moves on to become a fact even though most rational people don't believe it to be true, but when an opposing opinion is brought forth it's fiction.

(01-23-2010 09:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-23-2010 12:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

You righties crack me up.

So just because you say that man caused global warming is real it then moves on to become a fact even though most rational people don't believe it to be true, but when an opposing opinion is brought forth it's fiction.
[/quote]Actually, it isn't "rational people". It is "uneducated people".

Quote:

(01-24-2010 03:47 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-23-2010 09:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-23-2010 12:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

You righties crack me up.

So just because you say that man caused global warming is real it then moves on to become a fact even though most rational people don't believe it to be true, but when an opposing opinion is brought forth it's fiction.

Actually, it isn't "rational people". It is "uneducated people".

So a professor emeritus of Atmospheric Science at CSU is uneducated in your mind??

I'm not saying the guy is right... but scientists keep telling me that there IS no right on this topic anyway... merely likelihood/probability.

May I ask what your qualifications on the subject are?

(01-23-2010 09:59 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Gray, who has previously called claims of manmade global warming “the greatest scientific hoax of all time,” added: “Humans are probably doing something [to affect climate] and the CO2 may be warming [the globe] a bit but it’s not doing near what the alarmists have been telling us — that the Greenland ice cap is going to melt, the sea ice near the North Pole will not be there in another 20, 30 years. All these wild claims, there’s no basis for. The ice cap is not going to melt in the next 20, 30 years.”

This, I believe, is the general scientific consensus. Global warming is real, part of it is man made, but it's not a crisis of epic proportions.

(01-24-2010 06:21 PM)jh Wrote:  

(01-23-2010 09:59 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Gray, who has previously called claims of manmade global warming “the greatest scientific hoax of all time,” added: “Humans are probably doing something [to affect climate] and the CO2 may be warming [the globe] a bit but it’s not doing near what the alarmists have been telling us — that the Greenland ice cap is going to melt, the sea ice near the North Pole will not be there in another 20, 30 years. All these wild claims, there’s no basis for. The ice cap is not going to melt in the next 20, 30 years.”

This, I believe, is the general scientific consensus. Global warming is real, part of it is man made, but it's not a crisis of epic proportions.

I was going to highlight the same thing. However, if you admit that we are affecting the climate to a measurable extent, I would consider it still an issue that needs to be addressed, even if it isn't going to be catastrophic as quickly as some are saying.

(01-25-2010 12:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-24-2010 06:21 PM)jh Wrote:  

(01-23-2010 09:59 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Gray, who has previously called claims of manmade global warming “the greatest scientific hoax of all time,” added: “Humans are probably doing something [to affect climate] and the CO2 may be warming [the globe] a bit but it’s not doing near what the alarmists have been telling us — that the Greenland ice cap is going to melt, the sea ice near the North Pole will not be there in another 20, 30 years. All these wild claims, there’s no basis for. The ice cap is not going to melt in the next 20, 30 years.”

This, I believe, is the general scientific consensus. Global warming is real, part of it is man made, but it's not a crisis of epic proportions.

I was going to highlight the same thing. However, if you admit that we are affecting the climate to a measurable extent, I would consider it still an issue that needs to be addressed, even if it isn't going to be catastrophic as quickly as some are saying.

The question is are you willing to spend trillions of dollars that will only affect temperature in a negligible way? When that money could be used to help humanity?

No one is saying we should not try to clean up our environmental pollution of the planet.

For some reason, meteorologists tend to be somewhat skeptical of the conclusions being made by climate scientists. A recent survey of meteorologists found that only 25% agree with the conclusions reached by the IPCC in its latest report.

The response from climate scientists to this skepticism has been interesting; basically, their response is that meteorologists are not educated in the scientific areas necessary to understand climate change.

Apparently, not only does weather NOT equate with climate, they say, but they aren't even closely related...

I suppose meteorologists know how hard it is to predict the weather, and so would be skeptical of predictions made about the climate. Climatologists would of course have more experience looking at factors that affect the entire world or large areas of it, instead of just the Unites States or a part of it, e.g., or Western Europe. I would like to see/hear some conversations between climatologists and meteorologists.

(01-25-2010 12:25 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-25-2010 12:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-24-2010 06:21 PM)jh Wrote:  

(01-23-2010 09:59 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Gray, who has previously called claims of manmade global warming “the greatest scientific hoax of all time,” added: “Humans are probably doing something [to affect climate] and the CO2 may be warming [the globe] a bit but it’s not doing near what the alarmists have been telling us — that the Greenland ice cap is going to melt, the sea ice near the North Pole will not be there in another 20, 30 years. All these wild claims, there’s no basis for. The ice cap is not going to melt in the next 20, 30 years.”

This, I believe, is the general scientific consensus. Global warming is real, part of it is man made, but it's not a crisis of epic proportions.

I was going to highlight the same thing. However, if you admit that we are affecting the climate to a measurable extent, I would consider it still an issue that needs to be addressed, even if it isn't going to be catastrophic as quickly as some are saying.

The question is are you willing to spend trillions of dollars that will only affect temperature in a negligible way? When that money could be used to help humanity?

No one is saying we should not try to clean up our environmental pollution of the planet.

Well, there have been a lot of posts about humans not affecting the climate but it appears even the skeptics don't doubt that we are at least having some kind of impact.

To answer your question, no, I wouldn't spend trillions of dollars, if that's how much it would cost. I'm not optimistic about cap and trade. I think more money should be spent on researching alternative fuels so we don't have to keep pumping huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Many of them would result in less pollution too. We'd possibly save money on trying to protect oil supplies too, eventually.

(01-25-2010 12:25 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-25-2010 12:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-24-2010 06:21 PM)jh Wrote:  

(01-23-2010 09:59 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Gray, who has previously called claims of manmade global warming “the greatest scientific hoax of all time,” added: “Humans are probably doing something [to affect climate] and the CO2 may be warming [the globe] a bit but it’s not doing near what the alarmists have been telling us — that the Greenland ice cap is going to melt, the sea ice near the North Pole will not be there in another 20, 30 years. All these wild claims, there’s no basis for. The ice cap is not going to melt in the next 20, 30 years.”

This, I believe, is the general scientific consensus. Global warming is real, part of it is man made, but it's not a crisis of epic proportions.

I was going to highlight the same thing. However, if you admit that we are affecting the climate to a measurable extent, I would consider it still an issue that needs to be addressed, even if it isn't going to be catastrophic as quickly as some are saying.

The question is are you willing to spend trillions of dollars that will only affect temperature in a negligible way? When that money could be used to help humanity?

No one is saying we should not try to clean up our environmental pollution of the planet.

Absolutely 100%. And THIS is the crux of the argument... If you can't tell me how big the problem is, how can you tell me that it is worth millions or billions or trillions to "solve"? You (the scientific community) can't even tell me that it CAN be solved. If the solution is to cut global population by 50%, then it isn't going to happen, unless we find a new globe.

(01-25-2010 12:52 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  For some reason, meteorologists tend to be somewhat skeptical of the conclusions being made by climate scientists. A recent survey of meteorologists found that only 25% agree with the conclusions reached by the IPCC in its latest report.

The response from climate scientists to this skepticism has been interesting; basically, their response is that meteorologists are not educated in the scientific areas necessary to understand climate change.

Apparently, not only does weather NOT equate with climate, they say, but they aren't even closely related...

Scientific nuances... Meteorology deals with what is... science with what could be. Practice versus theory. Meteorologists don't project years forward, much less decades or eons... but they are very good at predicting days or weeks forward and they're good at predicting short term weather patterns and interpreting past data.

Stock pickers are the same way. You don't get printed (or paid) by saying that stocks are going to increase by 5%/year for the next 10 years... you get paid and printed by saying we're going up or down by 50% over some fairly short period. People pay for panic, and that is what these people are doing. Newspapers and TV are the same way. Tiger had an affair, on page 3... Tiger fathered a baby with an alien, page 1... if it bleeds, it leads.

Bottom line.. there's no way man doesn't influence the environment... in good and bad ways... mostly bad... I mean, we kill millions of ants and roaches and rodents... Nature intended for them to be here... some consequences are unintended... like having to re-introduce wolves to Yosemite... but roaches and wolves ALSO impact the environment, and they don't do a darn thing to make up for the cost of their actions. It's what happens in nature... and nature has managed.

Americans pay the Chinese and others for their products. If they price it cheap because they ruin the environment producing it, we don't owe them to clean it up... they can charge more for their product and clean it up themselves. That's what WE did. Let THEIR economy bear the burden as they got the jobs benefit while we lost them.

Relatively speaking, we are a very clean country... but we also consume a lot. We've spent trillions since the 70's fixing the ills from the previous 100 years of mistakes. We should continue to stay as clean as possible, but it is not our responsibility to pay "reparations" to other countries or clean them up. Kyoto and the UN fiasco are an insult and a joke.

(01-25-2010 06:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-25-2010 12:25 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-25-2010 12:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-24-2010 06:21 PM)jh Wrote:  

(01-23-2010 09:59 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Gray, who has previously called claims of manmade global warming “the greatest scientific hoax of all time,” added: “Humans are probably doing something [to affect climate] and the CO2 may be warming [the globe] a bit but it’s not doing near what the alarmists have been telling us — that the Greenland ice cap is going to melt, the sea ice near the North Pole will not be there in another 20, 30 years. All these wild claims, there’s no basis for. The ice cap is not going to melt in the next 20, 30 years.”

This, I believe, is the general scientific consensus. Global warming is real, part of it is man made, but it's not a crisis of epic proportions.

I was going to highlight the same thing. However, if you admit that we are affecting the climate to a measurable extent, I would consider it still an issue that needs to be addressed, even if it isn't going to be catastrophic as quickly as some are saying.

The question is are you willing to spend trillions of dollars that will only affect temperature in a negligible way? When that money could be used to help humanity?

No one is saying we should not try to clean up our environmental pollution of the planet.

Absolutely 100%. And THIS is the crux of the argument... If you can't tell me how big the problem is, how can you tell me that it is worth millions or billions or trillions to "solve"? You (the scientific community) can't even tell me that it CAN be solved. If the solution is to cut global population by 50%, then it isn't going to happen, unless we find a new globe.

(01-25-2010 12:52 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  For some reason, meteorologists tend to be somewhat skeptical of the conclusions being made by climate scientists. A recent survey of meteorologists found that only 25% agree with the conclusions reached by the IPCC in its latest report.

The response from climate scientists to this skepticism has been interesting; basically, their response is that meteorologists are not educated in the scientific areas necessary to understand climate change.

Apparently, not only does weather NOT equate with climate, they say, but they aren't even closely related...

Scientific nuances... Meteorology deals with what is... science with what could be. Practice versus theory. Meteorologists don't project years forward, much less decades or eons... but they are very good at predicting days or weeks forward and they're good at predicting short term weather patterns and interpreting past data.

Stock pickers are the same way. You don't get printed (or paid) by saying that stocks are going to increase by 5%/year for the next 10 years... you get paid and printed by saying we're going up or down by 50% over some fairly short period. People pay for panic, and that is what these people are doing. Newspapers and TV are the same way. Tiger had an affair, on page 3... Tiger fathered a baby with an alien, page 1... if it bleeds, it leads.

Bottom line.. there's no way man doesn't influence the environment... in good and bad ways... mostly bad... I mean, we kill millions of ants and roaches and rodents... Nature intended for them to be here... some consequences are unintended... like having to re-introduce wolves to Yosemite... but roaches and wolves ALSO impact the environment, and they don't do a darn thing to make up for the cost of their actions. It's what happens in nature... and nature has managed.

Americans pay the Chinese and others for their products. If they price it cheap because they ruin the environment producing it, we don't owe them to clean it up... they can charge more for their product and clean it up themselves. That's what WE did. Let THEIR economy bear the burden as they got the jobs benefit while we lost them.

Relatively speaking, we are a very clean country... but we also consume a lot. We've spent trillions since the 70's fixing the ills from the previous 100 years of mistakes. We should continue to stay as clean as possible, but it is not our responsibility to pay "reparations" to other countries or clean them up. Kyoto and the UN fiasco are an insult and a joke.

Meteorology IS a science, no difference. Climatology and Meteorology both look at what is and try to make predictions from that. Meteorology is just the easier game since you're talking shorter timeframes and therefore has more immediate practical use.

Part of the reason this country is cleaner is that almost all the manufacturing has gone overseas. Now if we can just get the Chinese to stop putting lead in everything they're selling to us.....

We got cleaner because we got wealthier. When you get wealthier, you can afford to care and do something. Poor countries don't give a damn about pollution, they're focused on eating.

(01-25-2010 06:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Meteorologists don't project years forward, much less decades or eons... but they are very good at predicting days or weeks forward and they're good at predicting short term weather patterns and interpreting past data.

Your weatherman is a lot better than my weatherman.

(01-23-2010 12:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-23-2010 09:59 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Expert Warns of 'Climategate' Conspiracy

Friday, 22 Jan 2010 09:24 AM

By: Jim Meyers

Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray tells Newsmax that a possible new conspiracy regarding global warming has been uncovered in the U.S.

He also said environmentalists, socialists, governments and businessmen are trying to take advantage of climate change concerns for their own benefit, and declared that cap-and-trade legislation would do “very little” to improve the climate.

Dr. Gray is a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes and a critic of the theory of human-induced global warming. He is a professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at the university’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

Gray told Newsmax.TV’s Kathleen Walter about a new report out of San Diego calling into question the accuracy of “the data that they’re basing global warming on — that this is the second or third warmest month or year of the last 100 years and that sort of thing. [Investigators have] been digging more and more into the data bases and they’ve been finding that there are inconsistencies there.”

Manmade global warming proponents in the government “are handling the data in ways to obtain data that shows the globe is warming more than it really is.

“They drop certain data out of their averaging, and the data they’ve dropped out tends to make the globe cooler. You’ll probably be reading a lot about this in the next few weeks or so.”

Gray called the new findings “Climategate U.S.A.”

Climategate refers the scandal that began when hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. The e-mails suggested that data that didn’t support the global warming theory was being altered or ignored.

With many people suffering through a very harsh winter, reports have surfaced that a mini-ice age is on the way, Walter noted. She asked Gray: “What should we believe?”

He responded: “I think we should believe that the climate is not changing much. There’s not an ice age coming for perhaps many thousands of years.”
The climate moves in decades-long cycles “that I think are driven a lot by global ocean deep circulation currents, and we’ve been in kind of a warming trend from the middle 1970s to the turn of the century,” he continued.

“From about 1999 on there hasn’t been much of a warming trend. Some reports have shown that the earth is beginning to cool. But in my view this is natural . . .

“In the last two or three years we have been seeing around the globe slightly colder winters and I think that’s an indication that human-induced global warming that’s so talked about is really not progressing.”

Gray, who has previously called claims of manmade global warming “the greatest scientific hoax of all time,” added: “Humans are probably doing something [to affect climate] and the CO2 may be warming [the globe] a bit but it’s not doing near what the alarmists have been telling us — that the Greenland ice cap is going to melt, the sea ice near the North Pole will not be there in another 20, 30 years. All these wild claims, there’s no basis for. The ice cap is not going to melt in the next 20, 30 years.”

Walter asked why global warming alarmist Al Gore and his allies refuse to consider any contrary evidence and insist that human-induced global warming is a fact.

“They want to use this to push other hidden agendas they have,” Gray said.

“The environmentalists want to push environmental things and people will become more sensitive to the environment if they think the globe is really warming. There are socialists who want to push a leveling of living standards around the globe. There are governments that want to control peoples’ lives more. There are businessmen who want to get into the new renewable energy. They want to make money on this.

“There’s a whole set of people out there who don’t know much about how the atmosphere ticks but see how they can profit from this global warming hypothesis, and they want to convince the world that this is true.”

He also noted that “those who are advancing global warming get better grants and get well funded by our federal government compared to us who are skeptical.”

Gray declared that there is absolutely no connection between global warming and more frequent and powerful hurricanes, as some alarmists claim.
He also said cap-and-trade legislation restricting C02 emissions, which is supported by President Obama and many Democrats, would do “very little of significance to improve our climate, and we will pay an enormous economic price for it.”

Cap-and-trade will drive up the price of energy, he added, and “the standard of living in the Western world will go down. No one is going to agree to that in the belief that the climate will get slightly better.”



Newsmax.

You righties crack me up.

Ya know, it's the concise, informative way that you really go right after specific points in a particular discussion that makes all of us respect your credibility as an informed american.

(01-25-2010 06:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Meteorology IS a science, no difference. Climatology and Meteorology both look at what is and try to make predictions from that. Meteorology is just the easier game since you're talking shorter timeframes and therefore has more immediate practical use.

Part of the reason this country is cleaner is that almost all the manufacturing has gone overseas. Now if we can just get the Chinese to stop putting lead in everything they're selling to us.....

I didn't mean to imply it wasn't a science... but they aren't dealing in theories. They deal in practical application. People will know if they are correct because their "predictions" will generally happen (or not) in a measurable period. Meteorologists who continually make wrong predictions will be dismissed. "Climatologists" can predict whatever gets them attention/print/money because nobody now alive will be alive then to contest their conclusions. Soon after they said it was cooling in the 70's it started warming... soon after they said it was warming in the 90's it started cooling, so in 2010 they simply say "change".... and nobody can contest them.

As to shipping jobs, while that is true, we didn't clean up our lakes and rivers, not to mention tainted land by shipping jobs overseas. In fact, shipping jobs overseas to places where they didn't have to pay to clean up their past, OR their present is part of how they beat us on price... and now they want us to pay to clean up the messes they made to attract our factories overseas by not making them be clean?? We're paying 3 times for the same goods and the problems they cause... and in the end, the jobs will get shipped to a NEW place that will rape the environment and then try and make us pay to clean it up for exploiting them... yeah, that's fair.

The world thinks we have "SUCKER" written across our foreheads.

(01-25-2010 11:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-25-2010 06:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Meteorology IS a science, no difference. Climatology and Meteorology both look at what is and try to make predictions from that. Meteorology is just the easier game since you're talking shorter timeframes and therefore has more immediate practical use.

Part of the reason this country is cleaner is that almost all the manufacturing has gone overseas. Now if we can just get the Chinese to stop putting lead in everything they're selling to us.....

I didn't mean to imply it wasn't a science... but they aren't dealing in theories. They deal in practical application. People will know if they are correct because their "predictions" will generally happen (or not) in a measurable period. Meteorologists who continually make wrong predictions will be dismissed. "Climatologists" can predict whatever gets them attention/print/money because nobody now alive will be alive then to contest their conclusions. Soon after they said it was cooling in the 70's it started warming... soon after they said it was warming in the 90's it started cooling, so in 2010 they simply say "change".... and nobody can contest them.

As to shipping jobs, while that is true, we didn't clean up our lakes and rivers, not to mention tainted land by shipping jobs overseas. In fact, shipping jobs overseas to places where they didn't have to pay to clean up their past, OR their present is part of how they beat us on price... and now they want us to pay to clean up the messes they made to attract our factories overseas by not making them be clean?? We're paying 3 times for the same goods and the problems they cause... and in the end, the jobs will get shipped to a NEW place that will rape the environment and then try and make us pay to clean it up for exploiting them... yeah, that's fair.

The world thinks we have "SUCKER" written across our foreheads.

Actually, they use "change" because global warming can cause various changes in cloud cover, rain, drought, etc. These then cause changes in climates.