So much for Global Dimming « Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change
It’s certainly possible for natural changes in aerosols to impact the climate (again, I mentioned volcanic eruptions above) but its hard to believe that hum-drum annual changes could lead to a cooling from 1940-1975 or from 2002-2012. Something else is probably at work like solar/cosmic ray changes.
Why Don't TV Meteorologists Believe in Climate Change? | InsideClimate News
"When they don't mention climate change while reporting on another set of record high temperatures or unprecedented severe weather," Souweine continues, "it is like a news reporter talking about a string of murders and not mentioning there is a suspect in custody."
Posts
1 comment:
I left this comment at the warmist article about meteorologists not being in agreement with AGW:
There's talk about the "problem" of meteorologists not going along with the supposed consensus. Yet you could just as easily see it as a problem that climate scientists, or at least the younger ones, are like a solid, virtually unanimous block in their support of AGW. No deviation, marching in goosestep. This unanimity is puzzling, considering the richness of the debate, and how easy it would be to play devils advocate.
The problem is that far from being unbiased and impartial, climate scientists, at least the post 1990 vintage, had to agree with the AGW theory in order to be acccepted into their doctorate programs. So, today, climate scientists represent little more than a rubber stamp for AGW.
Thus the inescapble conclusion is that climate scientist cannot be considered an independent, unbiased, credible source of information... on climate.
Post a Comment