he MUST be in the pocket of big business. Actually he probably wants to promote the book he is going to publish. So he definitely is in it for the money.
Also, he selectively quotes results, while omitting contrary findings. Just a few aspects from the artikel:
While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean....
Why is east Antarctica getting colder?" It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. Other sources present a completely different picture:
'The greatest temperature rise on Earth over the past five decades has been found on the Antarctic peninsula, which stretches north from the continent towards South America,' said Dr John Turner. 'Temperatures have risen 5C on the peninsula.' That figure is 10 times the average global temperature rise for the same period.
In addition, researchers reported last October that in just over a month, an entire Antarctic ice shelf, bigger than Gloucestershire, had disintegrated and disappeared, with its loss directly linked to man-made global warming. Also, why does not he mention the fact that the original Svensmark paper has been disproofed? His claim
But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism. He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. is simply wrong:
See Damen and Laut, 2004, available at
http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf
An update with the correct data (from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Program,ISCCP) shows that the development of total global cloud cover since 1992 has been in clear contradiction to the hypothesis proposed by the authors So decide for yourself how unbiased the author is.
You make the issue look way too simple. Please read the quote of the original statement of that meteorologist:
"The subject of global warming definitely makes headlines in the media and is a topic of much debate. I try to read up on the subject to have a better understanding, but it is complex. Often, it is so politicized and those on both sides don't always appear to have their facts straight. History has taught us that weather patterns are cyclical and although we have noticed a warming pattern in recent time, I don't know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data. That's all I will say about this."
Do you call this scientific discussion? I don't. The guy admits he has no understanding of the scientific issues, but feels free to add his comments nevertheless. Also note that the American Meteorolgical Society is actually endorsing someone by its AMS Seal of Approval. Should they be allowed to withdraw that, because that guy does not understand the issue, but still feels the need to question AMS's position on air?
Do consider, for example, that guy stating: "I believe Bush attacked Iraque soley for control over its oil" as part of the news. I guess that would get him in trouble, if he could not back it up by facts. Would you call that censorship? While I do not agree with Dr. Cullen's call, IMNO this is not an issue of censorship in climate science, but of work ethics for TV journalists.
Slashdot Mirror
"The subject of global warming definitely makes headlines in the media and is a topic of much debate. I try to read up on the subject to have a better understanding, but it is complex. Often, it is so politicized and those on both sides don't always appear to have their facts straight. History has taught us that weather patterns are cyclical and although we have noticed a warming pattern in recent time, I don't know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data. That's all I will say about this."
Do you call this scientific discussion? I don't. The guy admits he has no understanding of the scientific issues, but feels free to add his comments nevertheless. Also note that the American Meteorolgical Society is actually endorsing someone by its AMS Seal of Approval. Should they be allowed to withdraw that, because that guy does not understand the issue, but still feels the need to question AMS's position on air? Do consider, for example, that guy stating: "I believe Bush attacked Iraque soley for control over its oil" as part of the news. I guess that would get him in trouble, if he could not back it up by facts. Would you call that censorship? While I do not agree with Dr. Cullen's call, IMNO this is not an issue of censorship in climate science, but of work ethics for TV journalists.