Phew...I considered TWU for my JD. Sounds like I made the right choice not going there.

Most scientists don't know dick about climate change unless they're climatologists.

One thing about Baptist pendejos: they breed faster than us Mexican pendejos.

Is Texas Weslyan even accredited?

When you hear him speak about matters of law in the lege, he sounds as ignorant as when he speaks about science. I almost laughed out loud in a committee hearing listening to him give an analysis of Texas and US Supreme Court law. Either stupid, purposely misleading or could it be.....lying? You make the call.

He's a douche who wouldn't know bad science if it kicked him in the balls. I hate political types weighing in on matters of science with their cherry-picked "data" and talking points from dubious sources.

And "most scientists" know at least enough to trust the research of their Nobel-laureate colleagues, and know at least enough to look at data in reputable journals to draw the appropriate conclusion. That conclusion being the opposite of whatever the fuck dribbles forth from the mouths of the world's Phil Kings.

*spits on the ground in disgust*

You people disgust me. I can't believe you are ragging on Phil King. Someone (and it wasn't himself either) sent anthrax to his office two years ago, for God sakes can't you give this man some peace.

Phil King knows as much about science as you people know about reality.

anon - someone sent anthrax to his office? I must have missed that, much like Rep. King seems to have missed the peer reviewed work of thousands of scientists who say that global warming is a real threat.

McTool,
I guess it really doesn't surprise me that you missed it, it was a big story. To be fair; I'm guessing it didn't run in any gay men's magazines so how would you have seen it? They never found out who sent it but you can bet King didn't send it to himself, no, that just wouldn't make any sense whatsoever.

anon- Oh, now I remember. You'd be surprised how much is written in the rags about Republican politicos... it's in a section usually called 'Newbies'. Men Magazine did a piece on that but I got distracted from it by Enrique, the too-hot gardener.

Which reminds me... where ARE the hot landscapers today? The people that take care of my yard are gross so I'm naturally looking for new ones.

methinks anon is posting ironically

Congrats TehT, I guess you're not as slow as McTool

Anon - No, I got it... why the hell do you think I was going on about gardeners.

McTool
God knows.

In case you missed it, a Birmingham meteorologist has taken on the doomsday crowd over the issue of global warming.

James Spann, chief meteorologist at ABC 33/40 in Birmingham, has taken strong exception to the fear-mongering being done by those who believe human activity is the primary cause of global warming. He is particularly upset with Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel’s resident expert on global warming.

Cullen, who hosts a weekly program called “The Climate Code,” angered Spann by advocating that meteorologists who believe global warming is a natural phenomenon be decertified by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). In a web blog written in December for the Weather Channel, Cullen stated, “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them the Seal of Approval.”

In other words, silence the skeptics; silence anyone that might have any credibility with the people. And James Spann definitely has credibility with his audience.

Spann did not take Cullen’s call for a global warming inquisition lightly. He responded by pointing out that he has been in meteorology since 1978 and that he knows dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists nationwide and does “…not know of a single TV meteorologist that buys into the man-made global warming hype.”

Moreover, many, if not most meteorologists reject the global theorists idea that global warming is producing more numerous and more powerful hurricanes.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2006 Atlantic hurricane season forecast is an example of the imprecise link between global warming and hurricane activity. NOAA predicted an 80 percent chance of an above-normal hurricane season for 2006 with four to six major storms. Even though 2006 temperatures were higher than normal, the hurricane forecast was a complete dud. As the Associated Press reported in December 2006, only five hurricanes formed last year. Of these, the only two considered major did not strike the U.S.

Spann and other TV meteorologists are not the only skeptics. In his rebuttal to Cullen, Spann referenced Dr. William Gray, Colorado State University meteorology professor emeritus, who calls global warming “…a big scam.” Gray says the earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling and points out that over the last 740,000 years there have been eight cycles including four ice ages.

Another skeptic is hurricane specialist Dr. Chris Landsea, the science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, who disputes that there is a link between hurricane activity and global warming. Landsea, who was a student of Gray’s, resigned from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because he believed the scientists had a preconceived agenda that was not based on science.

Worldwide there are thousands of scientists, including weather and climate experts that believe global warming is primarily the result of natural causes and is cyclical. In fact, some recent scientific studies indicate that the earth is nearing the end of a warming cycle and is about to enter a cooling cycle that could last several decades.
Dr. Nigel Weiss, professor emeritus of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, says that while man-made greenhouse gases have contributed to global warming, the effect is primarily the result of natural forces such as changes in solar activity with “…increasing evidence that earth’s climate responds to changing patterns of solar magnetic activity.” Weiss is among those that believe we are about to enter a period of global cooling.

Another recent study draws the same conclusion. According to an article by James M. Taylor of the Heartland Institute in Chicago, researchers with the Russian Academy of Sciences have also concluded that global temperatures correspond with solar cycles. In a report released last November, Russian scientists project that the next decade may be the last one of relative warmth and beyond that point we will be entering a 60-year period of conditions similar to the Little Ice Age.

With so many reputable scientists supporting the premise of a natural cycle of global warming and cooling, why is global warming being pushed down our throats?

As James Spann points out, it starts with the money.

Spann wrote, “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon.” He added, “For many, global warming is a big cash grab.”

While there are true believers that are convinced human activity is destroying the planet, much of the hype and hysteria is driven by money. But it is also about control and power. And nothing helps government expand its power like widespread hysteria that leads the public to except more government control over their lives. In my unscientific opinion, that is really what the global warming issue is all about.

Who said this?

''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''

The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?

No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.

Who said this?

''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''

The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?

No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.

HA! James Spann. That's f'ing hilarious. I know him. He's a weatherman in ALABAMA for Chrissakes. If that's your source for rebutting global warming you're just as stupid as Phil King. AWESOME!

Hey,
Whose using my anon name?

Except for Tubby Troy Kimmel - weathermen (weatherpersons??) have about as much credibility as Boogie "I'll Support You in the Morning" Whitmire's word to a contributor.

Bravo. The science is there. Let's hope Congress will stop TXU.

In reply to the post by 'anon' on January 26th, Professor Weiss of the University of Cambridge does NOT 'believe global warming is primarily the result of natural causes and is cyclical'. That is a slanderous allegation, probably derived from an inaccurate article by Lawrence Solomon in the Toronto National Post, which has spawned various unfounded arguments in blogs all over the internet. Mr Solomon got his facts wrong, which is unsurprising as he didn't even interview Professor Weiss himself. Weiss' research into solar activity has shown that it may have an effect on climate change, but that this is MINIMAL and insignificant compared to the global warming that we are already experiencing - and very small compared to what will happen if we continue to burn fossil fuel at the present rate.

In his own words (I know these as Professor Weiss is my father):

"It has been established from satellite measurements that during the 11-year solar cuycle the solar irradiance drops by about 0.1% from sunspot maximum to sunspot minimum, corresponding to a drop of around 0.1 degrees Celsius in global temperature. There might be a similar fall in temperature in a Grand Minimum. Such modulation has occurred several times in the last thousand years and may have been associated with climatic variation -- but we know that global temperature has only varied by about 0.2 degrees Celsius during that period (though fluctuations in local climate have been more severe). That is a small effect compared to the changes that we have experienced in the last half-century, and is much smaller than the changes predicted for the future.

It would, of course, be very interesting to experience a Grand Minimum, and it would be satisfying to be able to calibrate the influence of solar variability on climate. But I have always been careful to maintain that this does not affect the issue of global warming, which is caused by greenhouse gases, and that the concentration of CO2 is rising owing to burning fossil fuel."

For further information, please see his webpage at http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/.

As my father is on holiday, we, his children, are defending his scientifc reputation on his behalf. It makes us all very sad and angry to see his research being used to such bad ends by ignorant deniers of Global Warming.