Guest Editorial
BY MARILYN HAYDEN | APRIL 30, 2014
Some little known facts about “Global Warming”
A recent survey listed 20 concerns voters have. Almost at the bottom, #19, was Global Warming (GW). Why this lack of concern? Maybe people are learning that our earth has not warmed in 17 years!
It's understandable, however, that it has taken so long for the public to be doubtful of the GW alarmists when the media is so biased. They promote the belief the earth is warming at a dangerous rate; or, as they often say now, the "climate is changing." (Of course, the climate changes constantly!) Rarely do they allow scientists who are skeptical of global warming to speak on radio or TV, nor do they publish their articles. For example, CBS and ABC have not included such a scientist on their programs for well over three years! But they frequently promote advocates who espouse GW.
When a manipulated series of emails by scientists at University of East Anglia in England was exposed internationally, the US media was forced to cover it, minimally at least. Although these scientists denied altering their material, an implication remains that they had agreed among themselves not to publish or email data that did not comport with their predictions.
There are different methods of collecting data. Most of the proponents of GW use computer models, while the skeptical scientists gather their information from satellites and weather balloons. Which method would you trust more to deliver an accurate temperature of the earth?
In 2012 and 2013 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) closed approximately 600 temperature stations after it was documented how flawed the results were. Incredibly, many of the thermometers at these stations were found to be adjacent to heat-emitting locations such as an asphalt parking lot, a trash burn barrel, and even under a large light bulb. Obviously results from these temperature stations would reflect a contrived heat number.
Readers might be surprised to learn there have been climate conferences in the past six years attended by skeptical scientists from around the world. These meetings were held in the United States – New York City, Washington, DC and Chicago – and in Sydney, Australia and Munich, Germany. Attending were physicists, geologists, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, climatologists, etc. Science professors from prestigious universities such as Stanford and MIT were in attendance. You may wonder why you haven't read about the hundreds of scientists gathering at these conferences. The answer is they were the "skeptical scientists!" The polarized media ignore those who do not agree with them on GW. (It should be noted most of these scientists do not deny that human activity can contribute to a slight warming, but they believe it is minimal.)
Although the skeptics are willing and eager to debate GW alarmists, such as those who claim the ice caps are melting (they are getting thicker in places) or that polar bears are decreasing in numbers (they are increasing), or hurricanes and tornadoes will be increasing (they are at lowest levels since 2000), there are rarely any takers – they do not want to debate. Instead they frequently use ad hominem attacks on opponents and claim there's a "consensus" (not even a legitimate word in the science field). End of discussion, they say!
When a reporter for GW says, "scientists agree that ..." one must question who are these scientists? Do they have the appropriate educational background and experience? And where does their funding come from? Many of them are supported by GW advocates whose goal is to convince the American people it is happening and getting worse and we must spend lots of money to combat it. Global Warming is a billion dollar+ industry! Remember the adage "Follow the money?" Promoting GW is seen as a major means of collecting and redistributing money from taxpayers. It is no wonder President Obama, a strong advocate of redistribution, is promoting global warming fear and preparing us to spend billions to "eliminate" GW.
John Beddington, chief scientific advisor to the British government, points out the complexity of climate science. He thinks it's time to stop circling the wagons and throw open the doors. Good advice. Let's have media coverage of both sides. Readers are urged to write to their newspapers and radio/TV stations and request they allow both the skeptics and alarmists to have their say. There's much to be learned about this subject. The public should be able to learn about GW from the skeptics as well as the alarmists and then make up their minds.
