Newsbusters:
The “science is settled” liberal media don’t want people to know there are scientists, even award-winning ones, who dispute the idea of catastrophic global warming.
Because outlets ignore and censor such scientists, curious individuals must turn to other sources such as English journalist James Delingpole’s columns or podcast, the Delingpod. On the July 25 podcast, he interviewed award-winning, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist Dr. Rex Fleming about his conversion from global warming alarmism to skepticism.
The scientist also discussed manipulation of data within NOAA, accusing a few individuals of “fiddling” with ocean and atmospheric data under the Obama Administration. He also brought up the prominent scientific organizations’ censorship of viewpoints by refusing to publish skeptical scientific papers.
Fleming admitted that for years he supported and “funded projects” by scientists attributing global warming to carbon dioxide in spite of “having doubts” while working for NOAA.
“Eventually I just read enough to realize it’s a totally wrong direction,” he said. “And so, in the past ten years, I’d say, I’ve been on the other side.” His shifting views made it far more difficult to be published though.
Although Fleming holds an undergraduate degree in math and a Ph.D. in atmospheric science, he could not get published by prominent U.S. scientific groups. He is also the author of The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change.
more here
Even if man-caused climate disruption is real (it’s not), can anyone point to an example of the federal government ever fixing a noteworthy problem?
Poverty, drugs, education, crime, corruption? Not even close!
And if they can’t fix the relatively small problems, how in the hell are they going to fix a “global” problem?
So regardless of the validity of anthropogenic climate disruption, why would anyone think the government could possibly fix it?
The whole scam falls apart when you realize the solution being proposed is completely, and absolutely UNACHIEVABLE because the government can’t even solve very minor problems by comparison.
Why, dear Lord, are some people so unbelievable stupid?
If the climate study were purely scientific inquiry there would be no censoring of views. The fact that opposing studies and valid findings go unanswered should be a warning that a fraud is being perpetrated.
The democrats rabidly support the theory and that should send up the warning flares for any reasonable person.
Gee Wally, they always said: “never let a good crisis go to waste”.
Yeah Beave, don’t have a good crisis? Just make one!
Not only that Wally, but so far this has been the biggest one ever that, Oh, by the way (just a coincidence, I’m sure) has Trillions of dollars tied to it!
No kiddin Beave, that’s why they call it the Green Movement.
Oh – I thought that wuz sumthin you had to go see a doctor for…
The greenhouse effect of CO2 can be compared to H2O by noticing: TIMES AND PLACES W/O H2O LOSE HEAT RAPIDLY – deserts at night, high altitudes, clear nights.
CO2 disperses evenly in the air, H2O doesn’t.
For example, at airliner heights it is always bitterly cold – this is because only CO2 is stopping heat from radiating to space, and that ain’t much of an effect.
AGW theory relies heavily on a ‘positive feedback effect’ to posit that increased CO2 will cause increased water vapor from evaporation and methane from permafrost. Buuut, convection is a big negative feedback, conveying heat to the upper air in a much larger cooling effect than radiation directly from the surface (~2x).
To me, the fact that AGW explanations don’t mention convection and ‘positive feedback’ is a sign of deliberate obfuscation. The popular explanations are just ‘you folks are too dumb to understand’ – scammers avoid explanation, create confusion if pressed, and use abuse to stop opposition.
Quick comment why don’t CLOUDS show up as a factor in ANY IPCC Data sets?????? Simple Clouds TOTALLY DESTROY the GLOBAL BS WARMING HYPOTHESIS.