On Mar 11, 10:02=A0pm, "00NBZ" <00...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "columbiaaccidentinvestigation"<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
w=
rote in message
>
> news:7e56a849-c6c2-46c5-9b3c-7a55df1f85b1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 11, 9:42 pm, "00NBZ" <00...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lorne Gunter, National Post
>
> > March 10, 2008
>
>
>http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=3Db6301dfc-7ee1-4c9b-..=
..
>
> > Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, not a science award.
>
> > Just how pervasive the bias at most news outlets is in favour of
> > climate
> > alarmism -- and how little interest most outlets have in re****ting any
> > research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy -- can be seen in a
> > Wa****ngton Post story on the Nongovernmental International Panel on
> > Climate Change (NIPCC), announced last week in New York.
>
> > The NIPCC is a counter to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on
> > Climate
> > Change, or IPCC. The group was unveiled this week in Manhattan at the
> > 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, along with its
> > scientific re****t claiming that natural factors -- the sun, El Ninos
> > and
> > La Ninas, volcanoes, etc, -- not human sources are behind global
> > warming.
>
> > The Wa****ngton Post's first instincts (not just on its opinion pages,
> > but in its news coverage, too) were cleverly to sew doubt of the
> > group's
> > credibility by pointing out to readers that many of the participants
> > had
> > ties to conservative politicians, such as former British prime
> > minister
> > Margaret Thatcher, and that the conference sponsor -- the Heartland
> > Institute -- received money from oil companies and health care
> > cor****ations.
>
> > That's standard fare, and partly fair, so that's not what I am talking
> > about.
>
> > The insidiousness I am referring to is the unfavourable way the Post
> > compared the NIPCC re****t to the IPCC's famous re****t of last year.
>
> > After reminding readers that the IPCC and former U.S. vice-president
> > Al
> > Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work on climate
> > change, the paper then, sneeringly, added: "While the IPCC enlisted
> > several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over
> > five years to produce its series of re****ts, the NIPCC do***ent is the
> > work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."
>
> > First of all, the IPCC and Mr. Gore won the Peace Prize, not a science
> > prize, which only proves they are good at politics. They didn't win
> > the
> > Physics Prize, for instance.
>
> > Also, while the former vice-prez may have invented the Internet (by
> > his
> > own admission), he is demonstrably not a scientist. Yet in the same
> > paragraph as the Wa****ngton Post lionizes Mr. Gore for his work saving
> > the planet, it backhands non-scientists for meddling in the climate
> > change debate, never once showing any hint it recognized its own
> > hypocrisy.
>
> > And the paper displays its utter lack of intellectual curiosity, too.
>
> > Hundreds of scientists may have contributed bits and pieces of work to
> > the IPCC's gargantuan re****t, but just 62 wrote the chapter said to
> > "prove" that man is behind global warming -- not that many more than
> > the
> > 23 from the new NIPCC who the Post so snidely dismiss as
> > inconsequential
> > in number. And just 52 people -- many of them the kind of
> > non-scientists
> > the Post would have us believe have no business passing judgment --
> > wrote the IPCC's "Summary for Policy-makers." That's the publication
> > that gets all the ink and drives the climate alarmism because it
> > contains the most provocative statements about the certainty of
> > manmade
> > warming.
>
> > The bias is that whatever the IPCC and its defenders claim, the
> > Wa****ngton Post and most other outlets re****t without scrutiny.
> > Meanwhile, the motives and sources of all sceptics are instantly
> > suspected and derided.
>
> > There's nothing wrong with scrutinizing the motives of people engaged
> > in
> > a dicey debate. The subjectivity arises from scrutinizing only one
> > side
> > and always with a preconceived notion of what you are going to find.
>
> > Such bias is typical, though, of the climate debate, and not just
> > among
> > re****ters and editors.
>
> > Two weeks ago, I wrote a column that was provocatively titled, "Forget
> > global warming:Welcome to the New Ice Age." In it, I explained that,
> > far
> > from being warming activists, some solar scientists see the recent
> > downturn in solar activity as harbinger of a coming Ice Age.
>
> > I wondered how come we don't hear about that in equal measure with the
> > claims of an impending meltdown?
>
> > I received over 1,800 e-mails, most of them complimentary. A large
> > number, though, were as hysterical and vicious as any I have received
> > on
> > any subject in almost two decades in journalism.
>
> > How could I not believe? Was I being dishonest or just stupid? How
> > much
> > had EXXON paid me? Until I could write in favour of the warming
> > theorists, I should "go back into your oil company-funded bubble. You
> > @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hack."
>
> > And that was from a climate scientist at a major university.
>
> > At last week's Manhattan climate conference, delegate after delegate
> > related stories about how they had been denied tenure, shut out of
> > scientific conferences and rejected by academic journals because no
> > matter how scrupulous their research, their conclusions disagreed with
> > the prevailing orthodoxy of the Climate Change Pharisees. They spoke,
> > too, of colleagues too afraid for their jobs even to turn up at the
> > conference.
>
> > I don't believe we are headed for an ice age any more than we're
> > hurtling towards a meltdown. But we are in the midst of overwhelming
> > bias in favour of the meltdown side.
> > --
>
> > Warmest Regards
>
> > Bonzo
>
> > Get The TRUE Facts At
> >http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
>
> > Excellent Links At
> >http://www.warwickhughes.com/
>
> > "...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
> > anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
> > panic us"
> > Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
> > National Academy of Sciences
>
> > "What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
> > only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
> > Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
> > [most of the current alarm over climate change is based on]
> > "inherently
> > untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
> > forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
>
> already posted on this group
> ********
>
> BUT WORTH A REPEAT!
>
> --
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
> "In scientific circles, C02 is referred to as a `trace gas' that, for
> hundreds of thousands of years, has remained at or below five
> ten-thousandths of the atmosphere by volume. =A0Even among the so-called
> `greenhouse gases' (GHG), C02 accounts for less than 4%, with water
> vapour being by far the most significant GHG. =A0C02 is clearly a
> miniscule component of the massive mechanisms that create climate and
> cause climate change."
> Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Steward****p Project
> (NRSP.com), Former Professor Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg-
Hide =
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
not really.... best regards.....
|
