Jump to content

Shep's CNN - Meteorologist - Manmade global warming "arrogant"


Recommended Posts

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'

Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.


printfriendly2.jpg By Jeff Poor

Business & Media Institute

12/18/2008 11:02:44 PM




Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?



CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.



“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”



Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span.



“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”



“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.



Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.



“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”



Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man.



“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.”



Lehr is a senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute, an organization that will be holding the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 8-10.



Another CNN meteorologist attacked the concept that man is somehow responsible for changes in climate last year. Rob Marciano charged Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” had some inaccuracies.



“There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano said during the Oct. 4, 2007 broadcast of CNN’s “American Morning.” “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.”



Marciano also said that, “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we’ve seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.”



His comments drew a strong response and he recanted the next day saying “the globe is getting warmer and humans are the likely the main cause of it.”



Related Links:


A Special Report from BMI: Global Warming Censored




BMI's Special Report "Fire & Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can't decide weather we face an ice or warming"



Climate of Bias: BMI's page devoted entirely to global warming and climate change in the media.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the great article Cal. It's nice to see intelligent people post something that is unbiased. Unlike some posters who have to insult people constantly because they are inadequate in certain areas of their life. Keep up the good work. It is obviously a liberal ploy to say that global warming is caused by the big bad USA. All truly intelligent people realize this is just impossible. Later bro's. And remember, thank a Veteran for his courage and strength. They are the back bone of the country and should be honored. They are special.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Since someone deleted my posts, just let me restate that, whether you believe in global warming or not, quoting a Meteorologist is something that makes real scientists/halfway intelligent people chuckle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's CNN. The world expert media outlet in all things Sheply.


I'm fiercely proud of our vets.


There are some who diss our vets, simply because they can...


it's an elitist thing to do to gain power over conversations, and to

vent inherent anguish at the status quo of their lives.


It's sloth - inherent unhappiness inherent in one's existence.


More and more, scientists have come forward to complain that they


refuse to continue being represented by the man made global warming enforced "concensus".





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, cal, a meteorologist is not a real scientist.


You cannot get a degree in a real science from an online course whose ad you found in the back of Field and Stream magazine. So framing this dude as one of a "growing consensus" is, ahem, intellectual dishonesty.


As for your vets rant, I can say whatever I please, last time I checked. I reserve the right to call someone who is part of an organization that shoots unarmed civilians a coward if I please. Can't I? I mean, heroes like DH are fighting so gloriously for my American Freedoms, which my ranting is covered in if I'm not mistaken.


You need to step off of your high horse. We've all seen your act, cal. We know what you're about. Your attempts at keepng the peace are hilarious. After all, whom of of Bunker, T, et aloe going to disagree with any of the things you say?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science this:



Climate thought starters

*The earth today is not the warmest it has ever been. Global temperatures were 2 degrees centigrade warmer more than a few times including the Medieval and Roman Periods. chart 1, chart 2


*The warmest year ever recorded in the USA was 1934, link. The coldest, in the late 1970's, a period when many scientists and the press said the earth was heading toward the return of glaciation.


*Using just the US rural temperature data (not including temperature sensors near urban areas due to the urban heat island affect), today's US rural temperatures are cooler than those of the 1930's. (David Archibald)


*five of the ten warmest years in the US in the 20th Century were before 1940.


*The warmest decade in the US was the 1930s.


*Global temperatures declined from 1940 through 1980, yet his was a period of rapid industrial expansion and increasing CO2 production throughout the world. If CO2 and temperatures are linked, why did temperatures fall?


*according to the US Climate Agency which tracks weather in the US from 5,400 stations, temperatures in 2008 through October were .2 degrees below the 114 year average. The month of October 2008 was the 44th coolest in 114 years of record keeping. link


*The US Climate Agency reported that the Spring of 2008 was the 36th coolest in the USA in the 114 years of record keeping.


Warmest years in the USA from 1900 to today link 1934 1998 1921 1906 1931 1999 1953 1990 1938 1931


*the 20th Century temperature increase was .6 degrees. In 2007, world temperatures declined .7 degrees according to the 4 most respected sources of temperature tracking, HadCRUTT. RSS. UAH, GISS This is the fastest cooling ever recorded. The 20th Centuries global warming of .6 degrees was reversed in a single year.


*The increase in CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere since 1750 is only 1/10,000th, or (100ppm). link


*CO2 is a trace gas. It is less than 4/100ths of one percent of gases in the atmosphere. link


*of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enters into the atmosphere yearly only 3.2% is from human activity, the rest is from the oceans, volcanoes, and decaying plant matter. link


*After the Medieval Period the world cooled 4 degrees centigrade, causing the "Little Ice Age". This was a period of glacial advance from the mid 1400's to mid 1800's. Then the world began to warm once again. Many of the glaciers that are now retreating were ones that grew during this "Little Ice Age".


*The fastest global temperature change ever recorded was from 1696 to 1732. Temperatures declined 2.2 degrees centigrade, which is 4 times the rate of temperature change and three times the speed of the .6 degree change in temperature of the hundred years of the 20th Century.


*Antarctica's represents 90% of the world's ice and 70% of its fresh water. Antarctica's current ice volume is the largest ever recorded (2008)


*The October and early November 2008 the Arctic sea ice grew at the fastest rate ever recorded (43,804 square miles per day) link


*While it is true there has been generally less Arctic Ice in the past two decades this loss has been entirely offset by the growth of ice in the Antarctic. When you combine both poles, there has been no net reduction in global ice!


*The 2008 Summer Arctic ice melt was 9% less than the record of 2007. 1,700,000 square miles of Arctic ice did not melt this year. link


*There is evidence that the Artic sea ice completely melted at least four times before man first walked the earth.


*On Oct 15, 2008 Arctic sea ice had grown 29% larger than in the previous year. link


*recent studies have shown that winds have a larger impact on polar ice formation than does temperature. Changes in winds and sea currents at both poles have caused an increase in ice formation, even though there has not been significant temperture variation in this period. link


*There has been global warming in the second half of the 20th century but the temperature peaked in 1998 and it has been cooling since. Four of the five most active solar cycles since the 1600's were in this same period of warming. Active solar cycles historically have caused warming tempertatures.


*The winter of 2007-2008 had the most snow cover in North America, Asia, and Siberia in over 60 years.


*China had its worst winter in over 50 years in the winter of 2007-2008 link


*Many areas of the world experienced a harsh winter in 2007-2008. Quite a few had record low temperatures and it snowed in Baghdad the first time in a century (link), and Saudia Arabia experienced the coldest tempratures in 20 years (link)


*The Winter of 2007-2008, had most ice between Greenland and Canada in 15 years. link


*If all the floating ice in the world melted, what would happen to the sea level? Answer: The sea would not rise but could go lower, since ice has more volume than water. The melting of floating sea ice can not raise sea levels, no matter how much ice there is. link

*If land based ice, such as the 650,000 cubic kilometers of ice on Greenland melted the seas would rise considerably. But, in even the worse case, only one tenth of one percent of Greenland's ice could possibly melt in the 21st century. It would 10,000 years or more to melt under the worst scenarios. (since most of Greenland is 40 below in Winter, and most likely this melting would be interrupted by another Ice Age, don't worry, Greenland's ice won't melt like some say it will). link


*When the glaciers of the ice age melted the sea levels only rose one meter per century. If Greenland was to melt at the same rate today sea levels would only rise 4 inches per year according to Prof Morner. There is no possibility of coastal flooding from global warming. link

*There was considerable ice melt in Greenland during the Midieval warm period (this is when the Vikings colonized it), yet sea level did not rise higher than the sea level found today! How do we know this? The Tower of London was built at sea level in 1150 AD, the sea is the same level today as depicted in paintings from the time it was built. link


*The warmest temperatures ever recorded in Greenland were in the 1930's. link


*If all the land based ice melted, yes the seas would rise, but there would be about the same amount of liveable land than there is today since Antarctica and Greenland would become habitable. (but dont worry, this won't happen).*Solar winds are at 50 year low according to NASA, who says that the sun's output is at the lowest level ever recorded by modern instruments (announced on 9/23/2008) link


*Solar activity as measured by the number of sunspots (RI), Solar Influences Data Analysis Center S.I.D.C., shows recent dramatic changes in the sun. From 1991 to 2007 the average yearly sunspot total was 1,099. In 2008, through September, the yearly sunspot total annualized is just 56. There has always been cooling in periods with fewer sunspots.*CO2 is a trace gas, it is less than 4/100's of 1% of all gases in the atmosphere. Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enters the earth's atmosphere every year only 6 billion tons are from human activity, the rest is from natural causes (decaying vegitation, volcanic activity, and the oceans). Man only contributes 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere. If CO2 truly caused the Greenhouse Effect there would have been a catastrophe long ago. link


*CO2 only makes up 1/10,000th more of the atmosphere than in 1750, an increase of 100ppm. link


*CO2 is a small trace gas, there is not much of it. Of each one million molecules in the atmosphere only 380 are CO2.*The CO2 level in the atmosphere is 380 ppm. Before industrialization it was 270 ppm. CO2's increasing volume in the atmosphere has grown only 1/10,000th since the beginning of industrialization. Plants have difficulty surviving with a CO2 level under 200 ppm, so before industrialization mankind was close to extinction due to the lack of CO2*the oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, and it is at equilibrium. If this rate continues atmospheric CO2 can not rise substantially because the sea will absorb most of it.*people get sick at CO2 concentrations above 5,000ppm. There are no scenarios that CO2 will get anywhere near this high, no matter how much the CO2 is produced burning fossil fuels. Many say the high limit is 600 ppm, with nature absorbing the rest. Fossil fuels will run out before CO2 concentrations will get over this level.*during one ice age the atmospheric CO2 was ten times the level of today. Clearly CO2 did not stop this ice age from occurring. Either CO2 doesn't have much impact on climate or the sun's reduced energy caused the ice age, or both.


*plants grow up to 50% faster with CO2 levels of 1000ppm. They grow 15% faster with todays level of CO2, which has led to higher crop production.*Greenhouses use 1,000 PPM of CO2 to increase plant growth. Higher concentrations of CO2 increase crop production.*Plants in arid regions of the earth need less water to grow due to higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.


*the oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. This CO2 is given up to the atmosphere as water warms and it absorbs more CO2 as it cools.*Warming periods in earth's history have been ones where mankind has largely prospered due to higher crop yields. Cooling periods are ones where mankind has historically suffered, from lower crop yields, hunger, and disease.


If people had a choice between cooling and warming, wouldn't most chose warming?


*There was global warming in the late 20th Century (these temperatures are now falling). But it was no hotter than earlier periods, it was just less cold. The Summer's high temperatures were no warmer, the low temperatures were just not as low. The global warming was not on the high side of temperatures, it was on the low side of temperature ranges. (Patrick Michael)


*Land temperatures have increases (but this is probably the result of urban growth which have enroached on sensors) link. Upper atmosphere and sea temperatures have not increased. If CO2 was causing the higher land temperatures the seas and upper atmosphere should also be warming, but they are not. (Patrick Michael)*Solar Cycle 23 which will soon be ending will be the longest solar cycle since 1796 and solar cycle 24, which is now beginning, will most likely be very weak. This is a strong indicator that the earth will be cooling and this period will last at least 30 years or more. (this is based on 250 years of observing the relationship between solar output and temperatures.)


*using temperature date from the mid 1700's and early 1800's until the present, the current solar activity should cause temperature declines up to 4 degrees from the high in 1998. The temperature increase in the 20th Century was only .6 degrees, so the expected cooling will be much more severe than the warming.*The Polar Bear population is at a record high in 2008, five times more than in the 1950's. No matter how you count it, there are more polar bears today than at any time in recent memory.


*Over 600 polar bears are legally hunted every year.


*Polar Bears mate on land. Their favorite food besides seal meat is blueberries (also found on land).


*Polar bears, during the normal Summer Arctic ice melt, either migrate to land or further north where there is no melting.


*In the last 10,000 years Polar Bears have survived several warming periods when the Arctic had severe Summer melting, and most liklely melted entirely.*Polar Bear populations are thriving due to the abundance of seals, their primary food source. So long as seal populations thrive, so will the Polar Bears.


*There is a long and historic correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature. Short sycles have historically led to warming periods and longer cycles to cooling periods on earth. Solar cycle length has more impact on temperature than solar cycle amplitude (height). Solar cycles average 10.7 years in length but few are this long, most are either shorter than the average or longer. The solar cycles in the latter part of the 20th Century have been shorter ones, and thus the warming. 4 of the 5 shortest solar cyles since the 1600's were in the second half of the 20th century. But the current cycles are different. Cycle 23, which is now ending, is 12 years five months long (as of Oct 2008) and is likely to be well over 13 years long. The last time we had a solar cycle this long was 1796 when the world was plunged into the Doltan Minimum, a period of very cold temperatures between 1796 and 1830. The three solar cycles during that cold period were 13.6, 12.3, and 12.7 years long. If the past is a predictor of the future, solar cycle 23 and a weak solar cycle 24 will lead the world into another cold period similar to the Dalton Minimum. This period will last at least 30 years.*The yearly average number of sunspots per year from 1991 through 2007 were 1,361, (according to the S.I.D.C.). Through September of 2008, we are one pace for only 56 sunpots for the entire year.


*Changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 has always followed changes in global temperatures and not visa-versa. The Oceans are huge collectors of CO2, in warming periods they release CO2 to the atmosphere and in cooling periods the oceans absorb more CO2. Maybe warming caused by increased output from the sun has helped cause some of the higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. A cooling earth will cause more CO2 to be absorbed by the oceans and may impact CO2 density in the atmosphere.*water vapot is a much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. Water makes up 75% of all greenhouse gases, CO2 a very small concentration.


*today's atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is among the lowest in the last 600 million years*There has only been a 1/10,000th increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age. It is hard to think that this small concentration will melt the worlds ice. Suppose CO2 dropped by an equal amount, would it cause an Ice Age? I don't think so!*global CO2 concentrations in the late Ordovician Period were 12 times what they are today (4,400 ppm) yet this did not stop an ice age from occurring.*"To get to the truth of what drives global climate one must first separate politics from science."


*with all the evidence above, doesn't the theory of global warming appear similar to the Y2k fear?


*The number of hurricanes per year that hit the US 1901-1950 were 1.94, and only 1.41 from 1951-2001, 28% less. The 1901-1950 hurricanes were also more powerful on average. But property damage from coastal storms has increased due to overdevelopment, higher population density, and falling land levels such as at Gavelston TX, where land has sunk over 4 feet due to settling and fossil fuel extraction. (Patrick Michael)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cal, compiling that list must've taken you months. Or did you get it from Sean Hannity's Daily Blast...


Posting snippets of random data is shortsighted thinking. Thinking man has no negative effect on the global environment is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



No, that article came from isthereglobalwarming.com. Shockingly, the website answers no to that question :rolleyes:


It was written by Geoffrey Pohanka, whose main scientific qualification is being...a car salesman?



So you say the substance is false or that you just prefer ax ex Clinton toadie from Tennessee as the authority?




Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was written by Geoffrey Pohanka, whose main scientific qualification is being...a car salesman?


Alo, you did succeed in finding a profession less "scientific" than 'Meteorologist.' :)


Any cashiers you'd like to quote next, cal???


Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where this whole Populist trend needs to end. When we start believing car salesman over educated folks/scientists over anything other than the best way to get an extra 50 bucks for a '87 Tercel, you know something needs to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where this whole Populist trend needs to end. When we start believing car salesman over educated folks/scientists over anything other than the best way to get an extra 50 bucks for a '87 Tercel, you know something needs to change.



So Gore, who slipped into a senate seat on his old man's name and money and into the VP gig sine he was a right winger compared to Clinton (and since decided there was more money on the left) whose home uses more energy than a small town and was given a Nobel prize (as was Arafat) to stick it in the eye of the US, and has absolutely no scientific knowlege at all is your authority, correct?



And again is the article incorrect in any way or do you dismiss it since the author has no more scientific background than Gore?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gore was educated at Harvard and studied under Roger Revelle there. hate him if you like, but at least he has a foundation regarding the subject matter.


Climate change is an important subject that, undoubtedly, REAL scientists are studying and debating. There are scientists on both sides of the argument. I dismiss the article in question because it was written by a guy who probably received his "degree" from a cereal box.


Or were you referring to the car salesman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mz the pussy let it go, cal is not going to agree to our position anytime soon. Lets be 100% honest, there is not a 100% correct answer or theory that can be proved to be completely accurate.


Nothing on this or any other board is going to sway those who have already made up their minds based on whatever they have chosen to read or study. Cal and others who think like him are entitled


to their position just like I am to mine. The good news is that the people who CAN effect things on a large scale are not like Cal or Bush Jr. Obama is actually appointing a Nobel physist and actual intelligent qualified people who understand real science. Cal and his type are now marginalized to the minority percentages and out of power now so I would not really even care. Their will always be that percentage of any population who even faced with overwhelming factual data and realities will deny common sense in order to justify their destructive lifestyles even though it is at a cost to their children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had posted articles from scientists earlier, and it was ignored. This is just more information, that's all.


Can you dispute the information or not? Is it all you have to staunchly defend all silly things liberal, to diss

any source?


And if you can't diss it, you ignore it, and start another thread with the same assumptions that all scientists on

earth know man made global warming is fact?


It's far more baloney that you libs let on. Gore is your authority - last time I checked, he isn't a global warming scientist either.


but then, education doesn't matter THEN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He stood against the UC faculty being required to take an anti-communist oath during the Joseph McCarthy period.


Gore's goober warning hero went to Berkely. Is pro communist. He's a flaming liberal.


His education is impressive, his partisanship has driven his man-made global warming theory.


THAT is NOT impressive.


And trying to call people out because they don't have as much an education/degree as you, is really immature, and pointless.


You SURE you really want to be a constructive part of this forum?


Global warming-ers never talk about the destruction of millions of acres of rain forests, or vast forest fires that

have taken out giant areas of virgin timber, or too much pavement and not enough plant life in huge cities...


No, they just want to use Republicans' SUV's and anything else regular folks do as a control freak kind of thing, and, as a

political and financial boon to their own agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice diatribe. You stopped short of calling me a 'Pinko.'



You SURE you really want to be a constructive part of this forum?


Yeah, because this joint is anything more than a leper colony. Nothing more than a place to waste 5 minutes and see what the codgers are hypothesizing next.


It's like watching Jerry Springer.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call you a "pinko". That would be namecalling, and as such, a detriment to

the enjoyment of others on this forum.


And, it's more like 3rd Rock from the Sun around here. Goofy, but entertaining.


Come on, join in, have fun discussing stuff, and simply let others have differing views on things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice diatribe. You stopped short of calling me a 'Pinko.'




Yeah, because this joint is anything more than a leper colony. Nothing more than a place to waste 5 minutes and see what the codgers are hypothesizing next.


It's like watching Jerry Springer.



Jerry Springer is entertaining, its like watching all of those families in Pittsburgh. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...