Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Time after time, the Obama White House has demonstrated a desire to control the message and flow of information, whether it's issues on health care, the economy, bailouts and the latest - climate science.

With cap-and-trade legislation waiting in the wings that would come at an estimated cost of up to $200 billion, or $1,761 per household, according to the Treasury Department, the federal government recently announced a new service to "help businesses adapt to the impact of climate change."

But AccuWeather.com's chief long-range and hurricane forecaster Joe Bastardi, who appeared on the Fox Business Network's Feb. 9 "Cavuto," warned there are other implications with the government having an expanded role in climate forecasting. According to Bastardi, it could lead to an effort to shut out other opinions.

"What I'm trying to say is there are a lot of other non-governmental opinions in this debate that have been shut down," Bastardi said. "So I'm asking myself, well, is it going to be like NOAA? They get to say whatever they want and influence things? And then folks that have other opinions aren't allowed to say anything about it or are pushed off to the side?"

Bastardi showed where long-range climate models diverge and explained three factors that are causing the earth to cool.

"Science and Public Policy Institute - take a look at this graph here - since the satellite era, you can see temperatures have been going up," Bastardi continued. "The computer models are up even higher, but we've leveled off in the past 10 or 15 years. The question is, with the natural reversal, the solar activity, the volcanic activity, what I have labeled the ‘Triple Crown of Cooling,' are we simply, in 20 or 30 years, going to be back to where we were 20 or 30 years ago.

And as Dr. William Gray, a hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University, has predicted, Bastardi said changes in the ocean are going to play a significant role in the cooling trend, as he had forecasted.

"Yes, I think that is the answer," Bastardi said. "Part of the reason we got this winter forecast right -- and again I'll show you this winter forecast - is I knew that with the Pacific cooling, we are getting back toward those times in the '60s and '70s. That's where winters are going to go. When the Pacific cools, the Atlantic cools, guess what happens? You cool those big bodies of water, you are going to cool the atmosphere around it. The models aren't capable of handling this. Look at the forecast or the guidance that came out of NOAA for the month of February. At this time, when this came out, we were forecasting brutal cold in February and a top 10 cold February for the United States to my clientele."

Bastardi explained the importance of having accurate weather and climate data and not have a monopoly on a government that could favor a certain policy measure. For example, he explained how this data is used in the private sector.

"I'll give you example what that means," Bastardi said. "You get this kind of guidance, someone that's a retailer, well we don't need any snow shovels; no big deal. Another company, say one of my companies, actually purchased more snow shovels this year because they felt it was - they trusted the forecast. So they made money."

However, with the federal government's entrance into the climate forecasting business, Bastardi said he fears the government would push out competitors and regulate thought.

"But when you get situations like this - and I'm not saying that this isn't guidance that people can use. I'm not saying that. When you start having it so a government agency is literally in some way, indirect way, regulating what people are thinking, then you push other people out that may be people of goodwill and want to compete."

http://www.outloudopinion.com/2010/...l-climate-service-effort-to-shut-down-debate/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,039 Posts
:agree: This debate has become political rather than factual. Green spin and governments have set the table and shaped the debate and reporting. Various motives are at work. Oposing science exists but gets shut out. :down: IMHO nothing has been PROVEN.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
On Monday's The O'Reilly Factor, FNC's Bill O'Reilly hosted a debate between global warming skeptic Joe Bastardi of Accuweather, and Bill Nye of PBS's Bill Nye the Science Guy, known for recently declaring that it was "unpatriotic" to dispute global warming. Bastardi argued that recent winter weather patterns are connected to El Nino, not global warming. He also linked sunspot activity to warming and cooling trends. Bastardi:

You want to bring up the CO2 argument. Why don’t we just look at the sunspots back here – back in 1750 – and notice that they’ve been coming up – and along with it the temperatures. Basically, it comes down to this: If you look at the strength of correlation to warming, and this is courtesy of meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, CO2 since 1895, you can see the .43, the sun .57, the oceans .85, but since 1998 CO2 has gone next to nothing because the Earth’s temperature is flatlining and CO2 is coming up.

He went to sum what he believed to be the implausiblity of the argument made by those who believe in global warming theory:

So what you have to believe, folks, is this: That the sun plus the oceans plus the volcanic activity plus natural reversal has less effect than the yearly human contribution equal to the width of a hair on a one-kilometer bridge of a trace gas needed for life. So if you want to believe that, you can go ahead and believe that. Seems kind of hard to.

BILL O’REILLY: "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight, another global warming study debunked in the journal Nature Geoscience. A study was printed that showed the ocean’s rising because of global warming. Well, now the magazine says, "Sorry, the study was flawed." Just another in a long line of global warming problems, including the resignation last week of the U.N. warming guy. Joining us now from Los Angeles, Bill Nye the Science Guy, who believes in manmade global warming, and from State College, Pennsylvania, Accuweather meteorologist Joe Bastardi, who is skeptical. So, Joe, give me your best shot. Why are you dubious about this global warming business?

JOE BASTARDI Well, first of all, let’s take a look at what happened this winter because there are a lot of people trying to now say that all the cold and snow that we had was because of global warming. This was our forecast issued in July, and then I reissued it again in October. Notice the cold and snow in the mid-Atlantic states, snow down here in Texas, warm and dry up here, wet in California. Now, how did I come up with that? Was it global warming? No. We have an El Nino and a state of the ocean in the Pacific similar to the 60s and 70s when Bill O’Reilly was growing up and there was all that snow. The solar cycles are doing something that is reminiscent to colder times, and, amazingly, amazingly, the very thing that John Holdren opined on last year, blasting soot into the high altitudes over top of the Arctic, actually happened naturally with volcanic activity last year, led to a lot of blocking over the poles this year.

O’REILLY: All right, so, once again, you have a meteorological explanation for what happened.

BASTARDI: Oh, yes.

O’REILLY: Now, Bill, why do you believe – and Joe doesn’t believe in manmade global warming – why do you believe in it?

BILL NYE: Well, the evidence is overwhelming. Do you agree, Joe, that in 1750, the world’s carbon dioxide was about 280 parts per million? Do you agree with that?

BASTARDI: No, you don’t want to go here. You know why? Because I’m going to show the CO2 correlation.

NYE: Wait a second, do you agree?

BASTARDI: Yes, I agree.

NYE: Well, see, so you agree-

BASTARDI: I also agree-

NYE: Do you agree that the planet Venus is warm because it has a lot of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere? And when I say warm, warm enough to melt lead on its surface. Do you agree?

BASTARDI: I don’t believe we have the proper measurements of Venus from over 10 billion years ago, so I can’t tell the relationship with the Earth, but maybe you can.



NYE: I think you’re throwing a red herring in there.

BASTARDI: Oh, I am? I wasn’t around at the time of creation.

NYE: So, if you look at these two, this is the carbon dioxide, this is the carbon dioxide in 1750 in parts per million, as represented by fountain pen ink. This is it today, even though it’s a very, very small fraction, 4/100 of a percent, it’s still quite noticeable, and it effects the world’s climate. About your explanation with volcanoes, you know, this is a study done by the IPCC, and this is a timeline and it depicts volcanic activity. And one of the great revelations ... where they showed that there was a correlation between volcanic eruptions and the Earth’s cooling because particulate matter gets high in the atmosphere. Well, it’s only true of volcanoes near the Equator. Mt. St. Helens hardly had any effect at all. And you can see ... when you extract the trend from this data, the world it getting warmer. It’s continually getting warmer. And these data are so compelling that they overwhelm any effect that might have come from this winter.



NYE: That has sort of nothing to do with it.

BASTARDI: That’s simply not true, Bill. When you blast SO2 into the atmosphere over top of the Arctic, what happens is, it absorbs sunlight, warms the stratosphere, which depresses the troposphere underneath, and cools the troposphere. That can be documented from what happened back in 1912 if you went back and looked at the following winters. But look at this-

NYE: That’s exactly what happened, Joe.

BASTARDI: You want to bring up the CO2 argument. Why don’t we just look at the sunspots back here – back in 1750 – and notice that they’ve been coming up – and along with it the temperatures. Basically, it comes down to this: If you look at the strength of correlation to warming, and this is courtesy of meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, CO2 since 1895, you can see the .43, the sun .57, the oceans .85, but since 1998 CO2 has gone next to nothing because the Earth’s temperature is flatlining and CO2 is coming up, so what you have to believe, folks, is this: That the sun plus the oceans plus the volcanic activity plus natural reversal has less effect than the yearly human contribution equal to the width of a hair on a one-kilometer bridge of a trace gas needed for life. So if you want to believe that, you can go ahead and believe that. Seems kind of hard to.



NYE: Actually, Joe, Mr. Bastardi, the last 10 years are the warmest on record.

BASTARDI: Since we started measuring with satellites.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top