| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant' |
| 2008-12-19 |
| Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate. Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather? CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming. “You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.” Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span. “But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.” “We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued. Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century. “If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.” Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man. “The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.” Lehr is a senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute, an organization that will be holding the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 8-10. Another CNN meteorologist attacked the concept that man is somehow responsible for changes in climate last year. Rob Marciano charged Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” had some inaccuracies. “There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano said during the Oct. 4, 2007 broadcast of CNN’s “American Morning.” “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.” Marciano also said that, “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we’ve seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.” His comments drew a strong response and he recanted the next day saying “the globe is getting warmer and humans are the likely the main cause of it.” Related Links: A Special Report from BMI: Global Warming Censored BMI's Special Report "Fire & Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can't decide weather we face an ice or warming" Climate of Bias: BMI's page devoted entirely to global warming and climate change in the media. |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #9 In 50 years "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Reefer Madness" will be a boxed set. Young man you have won an Internet. Please be careful using it. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-12-19 16:33 |
| #8 There is warming, but it is natural as we are lead into yet another Ice Age. However, Ice Ages recede. As for a human cause: 99.999% of CO2 emissions are from the oceans. |
| Posted by: Harcourt Glomogum3991 2008-12-19 16:13 |
| #7 Wonder what the Weather Channel's own Dr. Heidi has to say about this guy. She is still spewing her GW propaganda. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2008-12-19 13:47 |
| #6 Damn! I was hoping it was a fact after digging out my driveway and sidewalks this morning. |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2008-12-19 13:28 |
| #5 The climate got warmer in the 20th century. Hansen/Gore has used that fact to sell their pet CO2/let's tax carbon program. Today, most people mindlessly parrot this nonsense. The warming is over. The earth is cooling even as CO2 continues to rise. And the global warm mongers will become increasingly unhinged as many defect from the established meme. It will be fun to watch. In 50 years "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Reefer Madness" will be a boxed set. |
| Posted by: Minister of funny walks 2008-12-19 12:13 |
| #4 Anyone that parrots about CO2 being THE cause of global warming and they have no idea about CO2 and absorption to extinction of IR frequencies needs immediately shot. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2. Heinz Hug* showed that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances. But humans could not double the CO2, because they only put 3% of the CO2 in the air. If they put twice as much in, it would do whatever it does in 9.7m instead of 10m. If humans stopped putting any CO2 in the air, it would do whatever it does in 10.3m instead of 10m. In other words, nothing humans do with CO2 could be of the slightest relevance to global warming, even if oceans were not regulating it. (The weaker peaks and shoulders of the peaks absorb in longer distances. While strongest absorption occurs in 10m, weaker absorption for CO2 occurs in about 300 meters. But a 3% increase in CO2 is still only a 3% reduction in the 300m distance for the weak absorption areas.) For the rest of the science nitty gritty. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-12-19 11:10 |
| #3 All I ever think about is how these models are built on essentially the same techniques used by econometricians. And the human economy is less complex than climate. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-12-19 11:05 |
| #2 I think it is quite true that man generates CO2 and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that greenhouse gasses cause global warming. But I don't think any of the models that try to quantify the theory are even close to correct. There are clearly large solar effects; there are numerous buffering effects in the environment; there are almost certainly some re-enforcing effects in the environment; there are other greenhouse gasses (which may be decreasing or increasing). By accepting an immature theory as dogma of a new world religion true scientific investigation of global warming was suffocated in its cradle. That said, I still think we should reduce our fossil fuel consumption, because it is a finite and valuable resource (and because the theoretical models could be close enough to correct to make me have to answer the question "How long can you tread water?") |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-12-19 10:35 |
| #1 He is right. All of mankind could disappear from the planet, and the planet would never know it. I myself am insinced by being told that we control the environment with out tailpipes. All scientists who say so should be decertified. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-12-19 10:06 |