On Mar 11, 10:31=A0pm, "00NBZ" <00...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "columbiaaccidentinvestigation"<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
w=
rote in message
>
>
news:1635d8ed-0427-4d56-b76d-0dccaf806351@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 11, 10:02 pm, "00NBZ" <00...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>=
> > wrote 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. Even among the so-called
> > `greenhouse gases' (GHG), C02 accounts for less than 4%, with water
> > vapour being by far the most significant GHG. C02 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...
> *************
>
> YES, REALLY!
> --
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
> The Fourth Re****t of the IPCC might just as well decree the
> suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our
> schools with press communiqu=E9s. ... Day after day, the same mantra -
> that 'the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As
> 'the
> ice melts' and 'sea level rises' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer!
> Without realizing it, or perhaps without wi****ng to, the average
> citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, and lulled into mindless acceptance.
> ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the
> position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ...
> Marcel Leroux
>
> It should be abundantly clear by now that the AGW hypothesis is
> contradicted by the facts/measurements/observations and should
> therefore be abandoned and be substituted by a hypothesis which
> better matches the facts.
> - Hans Labohm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
of course it's not...
|
