ABC, CBS Exclude Scientists Critical of Global Warming for More Than 1,300 Days

[badrose]

Like a simple parlor trick, the networks are able to make skeptical scientists vanish, at least from the eyes of their viewers.

In some cases, the broadcast networks have failed to include such scientists for years, while including alarmist scientists within the past six months. ABC, CBS and NBC's lengthy omission of scientists critical of global warming alarmism propped up the myth of a scientific consensus, despite the fact that many scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed studies disagree.

See more at: http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long/cold-shoulder-abc-cbs-exclude-scientists-critical-global-warming-more-1300-days#sthash.YDzd1Zzh.dpuf

[CitizenBBN]

Global warming, and specifically it's direct connection to the US economy and resource use, is the greatest hoax played on the nation and the world ever. It's truly incredible.

Funny b/c Obama et al have now called us skeptics "Flat Earthers", when I would argue the "settled" science that we are massively changing the Earths' climate is exactly the kind of pseudo-science that we saw when people predicted sailors would fall off the edge of the Earth if they sailed too far.

That too was 'settled' and conclusive and anyone who disagreed was mocked as insane. It was upheld by institutions who saw it as in their best economic and political interest long past the time that real science was poking holes in it, and people were even persecuted and imprisoned and killed as the establishment powers of the State and the Church tried to hold back the truth that we are one little marble in a vast sea of marbles.

I have NO doubt the Earth's average temperature is in a state of flux. We know this b/c we've had warm spells and ice ages even within recorded human history, and we have evidence going back farther that there were even wider fluctuations than we have seen in recorded times.

That I think is pretty "settled". what is NOT settled is the degree to which human activities are impacting those naturally recurring fluctuations, and what is in even MORE dispute his what difference just changes in the US and even the western world would make. It's also in dispute what the negatives would be if temperatures warmed by a given amount, and if the earth would compensate for that warming in some other way.

in fact we've already seen the failures of the models that are the basis for this "settled" science, which have gotten it wrong for 15 years running. Their primary answer has been that the ocean is storing this increased heat, but why wasn't that accounted for in their models? B/c they had and have no idea how the oceans or any other part of the ecosystem will truly react. They now say the oceans will release that heat. Why? What's your evidence? You were wrong about their ability to absorb it but now it's "fact" what they will do next?

The global warming mantra has become THE ticket for the Leftists to transform this nation into something far less free, far less powerful and far less independent. It's their ultimate wet dream cause. Anything bad that happens like a storm or dry spell can be attributed to it without any scientific evidence, which connects it to people directly and wins supporters, anyone who disagrees can be persecuted in ways the Church of Galileo's time could only dream about, and it justifies regulation of every single aspect of our existence.

There is FAR from true scientific consensus on this, but there is a TON of iffy science and people getting grants paid for by governments who aren't going to give you more money unless you find out global warming is disastrous and we're the cause and we must take draconian steps NOW. The few scientists who stand up against this are chastised and de-funded and silenced.

It reminds me of when I was young. The theory on dinosaur extinction at the time was that it was a natural event of the Earth. A few (like 3) scientists were proclaiming it was caused by a meteor impact, and they were summarily dismissed as lunatics. I remember reading the articles b/c I loved astronomy and paleontology at the time. Well guess what, after more than a decade of them being called everything in the book by the scientific community the evidence was finally assembled to show they were dead right. it was "settled" that we weren't hit by a meteor, that was absrurd sci-fi nonsense, until we then changed and now it's "settled" that's exactly what happened and it was this crater and it's once again 'settled'.

There is not a ton of evidence that we are causing these fluctuations, and there is even less (read NO) evidence that if we ban coal tomorrow in the US that we will make ANY impact on global CO2 that are significant enough to change the Earths' temperature in any meaningful way. With China and India and other parts of the world bringing on a new coal fired plant every week anything we do here will only impact us economically, it is unlikely to be able to offset growth elsewhere enough to save us from some unspecified global catastrophe.

One thing we do know: the earth's natural cycles are bigger than anything we have caused to date, since it has been warmer as recently as the 1500s when there was no industrialization at all, and of course far colder as well. Yet the planet has snapped back from all of these cycles, but somehow the smaller fluctuation we may cause will ruin it all. that's simply not proven. And somehow if it gets that warm again we're all doomed, yet people in the 1500s got by just fine other than for the fact that they were dominated by the State and that level of state control led to suffering and ignorance throughout Europe, and was why people started looking to go elsewhere and be free, like what would become the US. At least until now.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW I should say I'm all for reducing pollution in the US and protecting the environment. What I'm not for is draconian economic restrictions that will make us a 3rd rate power unable to defend ourselves or the free world from tyranny and allow our people to suffer unnecessarily while the rest of the world pollutes away and makes our sacrifice meaningless.

there is no point to going hungry if the food you don't consume doesn't go to feed others. This is the same unilateral disarmament called for in the 80s. That was to be military disarmament where we destroy all our missiles and hope the other side is inspired to embrace freedom and future generations and do the same, and this is economic disarmament where we cripple our economy and hope that power hungry repressive nations across the globe are inspired by our example to also cripple their growing economies in the cause of future generations and the not quite precise threat to them.

Both are shockingly naive, and just as military disarmament wouldn't have stopped military aggression in the world neither will economic disarmament lead to lower CO2 levels and prevent global warming. The globe will be just as warm as it was going to be (within such a small margin as to be irrelevant), but we will simply be weak and fragile and poor along with it.

[KeithKSR]

BTW, I have yet to see any of the news networks indicate that among those that are included among the "experts" on climatology are guys that are in completely different fields, like psychology.