February 06, 2007

Climate skeptic criticized

Delaware State Climatologist David R. Legates (discussed here at Colossus) is now under attack because of his "ties" to "Big Oil" and a conservative think tank:

Shortly before the Paris climate change report emerged, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a study listing Legates among several scientists it described as "familiar spokespeople from ExxonMobil-funded organizations" that have regularly taken stands or sponsored reports questioning the science behind climate change warnings.

"I certainly think that Legates is a good example of someone who has chosen, for whatever reason, to have much of his work sponsored indirectly by ExxonMobil," said Seth Shulman, primary author of the Union of Concerned Scientists report.

Yesterday, WDEL's Al Mascitti also chimed in condescendingly against Legates, ripping him as if his associations automatically make his views incorrect, or at the very least suspect. Has anyone considered that Legates (and others) merely take(s) advantage of outlets that are willing to give a forum for his views ... because others won't? Is this an irrational action? Hardly.

Also not discussed by the News Journal's Jeff Montgomery (or Mascitti) are the millions in grant money that people who warn of impending [climate] doom receive to continue their studies of said apocalypse:

Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.

Meterologist James Spann adds:

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

* Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at "The Weather Channel" probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

* The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don't like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

Legates is listed as an adjunct scholar for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Yet, people must "question" the CEI and those who work/publish for them, while groups that are outspoken in their claims of impending-doom climate change should have their statements taken as gospel. What a laugh. Hell, Legates would make more dough by joining the global warming alarmist bandwagon!

But hey, maybe Montgomery and Mascitti can join in the fun and call for global warming skeptics to be treated as war criminals!

Elsewhere, Glenn Reynolds reports on the big international "Man-is-Responsible-for-Global Warming" conference. He writes:

I won't take it seriously until they ban private jets and stretch limos. No, seriously. A Gulfstream III releases 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour. How can we demand "sacrifice" from ordinary Americans when our leaders -- including those who call for the sacrifice -- are flying in jets like this? If commercial first-class isn't good enough, they should stay home.

Indeed. See also here. Remember, with the limousine libs, especially Hollywood, it's "Do as I say, not as I do."

Posted by Hube at February 6, 2007 03:42 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Meterologists organize data to predict the weather; they do not focus on the science behind the weather.

There is now a consensus of opinion in the scientific community that global warming is a fact and that human activities represent an accelerating factor in promoting this phenomenon. Therefore it is now imperative that we incorporate measures to reduce our contribution to global warming, for the sake of the generations that follow.

Why is this such a difficult concept for the Legates' of this globe to accept?

Posted by: Perry at February 6, 2007 07:53 PM

What is difficult for the Legates of the world to accept is the supposed degree of human involvement based on the myriad factors that go into determining climate. That, and the extraordinary economic effects (negative) that an overly burdensome "anti-warming" agenda will effect. Western nations can easily decrease GH emissions when they wish. However, tell China, India and other developing nations that.

'sides, fossil fuels are finite. Their use is on the way out. Cleaner fuel is an inevitability by at the very latest the end of the century (developed nations will have made the switch long before that, however).

Feel free to buy into the doomsday hype. I, OTOH, believe the earth is a lot more resilient than we give it credit, and that in the end, we (and the planet) will be just fine if we take sensible steps to eventually phase out many GH emissions. After all, recall when aerosols were supposed to destroy the ozone layer and render us all sterile 30 years ago? Well, gee, a funny thing happened: We eventually phased out aerosols and suddenly the ozone problem wasn't such a problem anymore.

Posted by: Hube at February 6, 2007 08:07 PM

Professor Legates is a PHD Climatologist (not a Meterologist) at the University of Delaware, the worlds leading university in climatological study..

Posted by: steamboat willy at February 7, 2007 01:00 AM

Hube, you're skewering me somewhat unfairly here. I was relating what was in the Montgomery story; I spent much of an earlier show casting doubt on the global warming alarmism, and did the same in the show you heard. Basically, the fact that temperatures have gone up is just that, a fact; the suspicion that human activity has contributed to it is just that, a suspicion, though one with some evidence to back it up (all that carbon up the smokestacks has to go SOMEwhere); and all the things humans have proposed to curb this don't amount to a hill of beans. So I'm hardly Al Gore on this issue.

Posted by: Al Mascitti at February 7, 2007 09:14 PM

You're right, Al. I probably am being a tad unfair to your overall position. You did indeed reflect a bit of skepticism in an earlier show about global warming and I for one appreciate that.

However, I think if you go back and listen to the beginning of that following day's show, the clear impression you gave -- intentionally or not -- was that just b/c the guy got funding from a "conservative think tank" it somehow automatically makes his views unworthy of consideration. You were snickering and guffawing without delving into any of the reasons why the guy may be assisted by such a think tank, or why the scientist even wanted the TT's assistance in the first place.

Posted by: Hube at February 9, 2007 08:43 AM