Global Warming: "Hogwash" Says Weatherman

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf

"In 2005 I upgraded the AMS seal of approval to the new "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" designation. The CBM is the highest level of certification from the AMS, and involves academic requirements, on-air performance, a rigorous examination, and continuing education.Official bio here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/talent.hrb?i=188

The Weather Channel Mess
January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

There are a lot of meteorologists that disagree with the man made causes for global warming. Many think it is because of the money involved rather than true science that the global warming thing is.

They can't predict weather out beyond 7 days, and even then it is not always all that accurate, how can they predict what is going to happen over the next few decades?

It's much more complicated than that, and while the problem is definitely exaggerated to attract attention, it is real and the man-made impact is undeniable - how much this man made impact is actually affecting the environment and how long we have before the shit hits the fan, that's very vague and up for debate. Watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" there's like 20 minutes about his life which is a little boring but most of the movie is quite informative. You don't have to agree with the guy, but it's a good overview of the whole situation.

There is NOTHING man made about "global warming". NOTHING.

Algore ranks right up there with Moore for modern day propaganda. Goebbels would be proud of them.

If it is as you say, popov, that global warming is from man made sources, how do you deal with the following?
1. Volcanoes put out over 100 times the amount of "green house gases" than cars do. When they errupt it causes the "hole" in the ozone layer to shrink. How can it be that the same gases that are produced from cars cause it to get worse, yet a larger amount from a natural source causes it to shrink? Where is the scientific explaination for that?

2. Given that greenhouse gases, a big source of which is petroleum, is so very bad for our environment, then we should have seen devastating effects of those gases caused by the first Gulf war where they lit all those oil fields on fire. Yet, air quality, ozone hole, were unaffected. It produced no measurable change. So how does one begin to equate that with our production hurting the environment when a massive amount delivered in a relatively short interval of time didn't? There should have been some kind of spike from that, yet there wasn't.

3. Oil seeps from the ground if it is not tapped. That is a natural occurance that has been happening since the beginning of the earth... whenever you believe that to have occurred. Weither it was for millions of years or thousands of years becomes a moot point. If oil polution of the waters kills everything off, then how did we survive? It also begs the question, if oil is a fossil fuel, how does more of it get into wells that have dried up, and how does it accumulate more and more of it so it seeps out of the ground?

1850 was the end of the little ice age.
From 1850 to 1900 the average temperature went up about 6 degrees F.
From 1900 to 1950 it actually went down about 2 degrees.
And from 1950 to present it's up about 3 degrees.
Many experts expect global temperatures to begin to decrease as we enter another downard cycle.

The earth has had changing temperature cycles since it began. The influence of man is for all practical purposes: Zero

That is my take on it, though of course I am no expert.

I am all for taking care of our planet, I love the great outdoors, I want to have areas where my children and their children can go to appreaciate God's creation. I just hate the wackos who have hijacked the principals and turned this political. It's housekeeping for Pete's sake. No conservative I know is for dirty poluted water.

Ok, honestly, my boss would be able to counter those points but I never got a good enough education on the matter to know the right answers. Al Gore is a politician, so yeah, he's gonna be biased, but that doesn't mean his film is full of crap. Moore is biased, and his films aren't all bs either. There is undeniable harm being done to the environment daily by the by products of modern life. Whether it's the crap factories put in surrounding water sources worldwide, or the CLEARLY VISIBLE amounts of smog in big cities (LA is a great example), there are evident signs that man made pollution is having nasty effects on our environment.

If you want to sit back and pretend that people wear cloth masks to filter dirt from their air in Bangkok just for fun, or if you want to evoke minimal instances (volcanoes and burning oil) as oppose to billions of people using CO2 emitting transportation, and hundreds of thousands of factories and plants and whatnot emitting all kinds of crap on a daily basis, go ahead, that's your choice.

The fires in Kuwait were reported to be of such volume that they were putting out the equivalent of years worth of polution each week they were burning. Remember, that is unrefined oil, so it is far more potent than what is used in cars and factories.

You are also ignoring that there are far more plants and forest areas in the world today than ever before. The US has more forest areas than when we first came here.

I didn't say ignore the problems, but it is so far overblown to the point of rediculousness. Propaganda relies on putting some facts together with untruths. That is what the real danger of putting any credibility toward Mooreon or Gore, you can't separate fact from fiction, they present things as facts that are opinions or set up.

Popov wrote:Ok, honestly, my boss would be able to counter those points but I never got a good enough education on the matter to know the right answers.

If only I had a dollar for every time a moonbat used THAT argument!

In other words, you have no argument.

all I'm saying here is that the problem exists and needs to be dealt with, if you want to deny its existence and leave it to the next generation that's on your conscience. I don't think Gore has a lot to gain from telling viewers to use greener fuels and recycle, he's not gonna win a presidency by making people more environmentally friendly.

THere is no human cause to the temperature cycle.
No proof of it has ever been presented. Just a bunch of socialist wish lists and pseudo science.

Make your case that HUMANS cause the temperature to change.

Funny thing is now we are seeing all kinds of defections from the religion of global warming. What happened to the slam dunk? Especially now when the UN has this group think bunch of "scientists" who are all claiming that this is a man made problem, so the US will have to pay up?



This shows why anything in science that is driven by a consensus is just junk science.

Global Warming is just another socialist fad. They have short attention spans.

Global warming has become their rallying cry, it is one of the tenants of their religion. Now that it is starting to fray, as the light of reason shines on it, they are looking for new grand cause that they can use to milk society for cash.

I got a course today on weather by a Staff Weather Officer, or SWO, and he says all this Al Gore Global Warming crap is just that...crap. For the next few days I'm going to be taking a weather course as a part of my training. I'll write more on this as I read the book

Gore will be shown to be the absolute boob that he is. Watch, the next few years will show that the average temperature is going down. Then it will be GLOBAL COOLING! Another ICE AGE! Gotta use SUVs to help out.