Are they still trying to say that the world is cooling or that the world would be nice with a little more warmth? Can the FCC shut them down for comitting fraud with their anti environmental rhetoric?
Dr Jello
Favorite Answer
Exactly! So-Called "Global Warming" is a political issue, where a pseudo science is being used to 'swift boat' and muzzle political opponents.
There is no desire to debate the science, to look for new information. Believers eyes are closed for new data. The Earth is flat they claim, and they use the UN as their church for their Inquisitions.
This - This post is EXACTLY why "global warming" needs to be shut down, stop the funding of the politics. The science and politics is too intertwined to be objective.
Whats Up Doc
Actually Rush Limbaugh and the like are the ones exposing the lies about global warming. Even the founder of the Weather Channel said its a hoax. Lets see 30 years ago it was Global cooling. That was a lie. Now global warming is being proven a lie. What will they come out with next. Global moderate temperatures. Or will they go back to global cooling.
Anonymous
Rush is on some kick about some wind pattern in the northern hemisphere is creating a slight change in the global climate. We humans have nothing to do with it.
He is still blaming it on the Sierra Club and Liberals who are using the issue simply for political gain.
The FCC can do nothing as he is protected by the 1st Ammendment. Im sure Rush would say that his mad ramblings act as a "redress of greivances", using language from the Bill of Rights.
Anonymous
You should be asking what the skeptical scientists are saying now.
Anthony Watts is working on improving the quality of surface stations because poorly sited stations cause a warm bias.
http://surfacestations.org
Roger Pielke has said man is changing the climate but it is land use/land cover changes that are most responsible for recent warming, not CO2.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/09/02/summary-conclusions-of-climate-science/
Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab recently published a peer reviewed paper showing that climate sensitivity is not nearly as great as we once thought and will not be catastrophic.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
Roy Spencer observed a new negative feedback not known before but hypothesized by Richard Lindzen. This will change the way the GCMs run but will not increase the predictive power of the GCMs.
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
And now Craig Loehle has just published a new 2,000 year reconstruction without using tree ring data (the National Academy of Sciences has said strip bark data is not a temperature proxy and should not be used). He found that temps were 0.3C higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today.
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
mission_viejo_california
The United Nations' Nobel Prize-winning panel on climate change approved the final installment of its landmark report on global warming on Friday, concluding that even the best efforts at reducing CO2 levels will not be enough and that the world must also focus on adapting to "abrupt and irreversible" climate changes.
Man can’t change what man didn’t cause