See B.S. From CBS CEO
“I think partisan news, hopefully, is not our future. It won’t be at CBS.”
Keep flucking that chicken, Les:
“I don’t think you have to succeed by being partisan. Obviously Fox and MSNBC have been successful by taking that road,” [CBS CEO Les Moonves] said. “God forbid that is the only news on television where everyone has decided that we are taking a side and that is the only way to go, and people will watch with whatever they agree with, and get the polls they only want to agree with. I think partisan news, hopefully, is not our future. It won’t be at CBS.”
– TV Newser, yesterday.
While most of the country was watching the Green Bay Packers play the New York Giants, CBS aired an hour-long, severely one-sided special about the threat of global warming.
The special was hosted by CBS’s Scott Pelley. In January 2007, Pelley was asked why he refused to include global warming skeptics in his reporting. He responded, “If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”
– Newsbusters, January 21, 2008.
Pelley is now the anchorman for the CBS Evening News, maintaining the fine, unbiased tradition of Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and Katie Couric.
“If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”
Actually, given the journ0listic (sic) establishment’s propensity to jump on the bandwagon of whatever leftish cause is in vogue (hey, the AP is now demanding that their propagandists call him the “Prophet” Mohammed) I would think the answer to this question would be “yes, you damn well better.”
This is the same CBS CEO Les who attended an Obama fundraiser, right?
Warmists cry out “the science is settled”. If so, then which of the 20 or so climate models is the settled science?
Who are the people who have determined that Catastrophic, Antropogenic (man caused), Global Warming is scientificall certain? They took a vote. They were appointed by governments across the globe to reach a certain decision, as members and contributors to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
80% of IPCC members have no “dealing with climate”
=== ===
Even IPCC worshiper William Schlesinger is now acknowledging that 80 percent of the IPCC membership have had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.
=== ===
Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT
Global Warming: How to approach the science (PDF 58 pages)
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Seminar at the House of Commons Committee Rooms
Westminster, London, 22nd February 2012
This is a careful, scholarly, clear, and readable presentation of claims and data. Global warming is not a hoax, but catastrophic, damaging global warming is a hoax not supported by evidence.
Prof. Lindzen points out that a doubling of carbon dioxide by 2050 would be expected to increase average world temperature by about 1 degree C (1.8 deg F). The alarmists pose that natural processes will multiply this warming to 3 deg C. Current data seems to give a multiplier of .5, giving .5 deg C of warming by 2050 (.9 deg F).
A major argument against an explosive, self-multiplying warming is that we are here to talk about it. If the Earth’s climate system had a multiplier (rather than a dampener), then prior much warmer and much colder periods would have spiraled to either a freezing or boiling extreme. Venus would be an example. Earth has been stable for 3 billion years.
=== ===
[edited excerpts] Lindzen: The debate is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should.
The debate is how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak, and are commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
The usual rationale for alarm comes from models. The notion that models are our only tool, even if it were true, depends on models being objective and not arbitrarily adjusted. Unfortunately, these are unwarranted assumptions.
However, models are hardly our only tool. Models can show why they get the results they get. The reasons involve physical processes that can be independently assessed by both observations and basic theory. This has, in fact, been done, and the results suggest that all models are exaggerating warming.
=== ===
A chart of IPCC predictions compared to satellite data – here.
The government-run IPCC predicted between .62 to 1.5 deg C of warming. Measured warming is .1 to .25 deg.
Who are you going to believe, the predictions of 20 certified climate models, or your lying physical measurements?