Midknight Review has long objected to global warming commentary coming from the ranks of federal agencies and the military. Why? We all know of the crude thuggishness of Obama when "crossed" by his own members. Now, we have confimation of our suspicions:

Daily Caller:
There are government scientists and researchers who are skeptical of man-made global warming — they just won’t speak up about it, according to two seasoned climate scientists.
“There are skeptics in NASA and NOAA, a good number. But they are quiet. They know in this administration, they don’t speak out,” John Christy, a veteran climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told AL.com.
“These guys in government are not unbiased and they have pressures from above,” echoed Roy Spencer, also a climate scientist at UAH. “Those organizations, NASA and NOAA, they are part of the executive branch. So the White House has some influence over what direction they go. The heads are political appointees so you have political influence from the top down on scientists. And that’s a problem.”
Christy and Spencer sat down with AL.com to discuss their 25 years of using satellites to measure global temperatures, a method of monitoring the climate the two scientists pioneered more than two decades ago.
Satellite temperature measures have been crucial to the global warming debate, showing that temperatures have not risen nearly as fast as most climate models predicted. Satellite data also shows that global temperatures have been flat for the last 15 to 20 years. Trumpeting such data, however, has upset politicians and environmental groups and earned Christy and Spencer the label of “climate deniers.”
Keep Reading

7 comments:

  1. A prime example of how Smithson garners "proof!" for his delusions. He'll listen to anyone who will reinforce his delusions, despite the fact they've been discredited for a decade.

    The creationists Spencer and Christy have produced demonstrably bad science for years. You can find a string of articles debunking their sat temp research for a DECADE.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/07/new-study-disputes-satellite-temperature-estimates

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/05/22/202659/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is plenty of evidence that "global warming" has slowed to a near standstill for some 20 years. The three articles cited, above, are all published by very liberal, pro wealth redistributionist concerns, and, make no mistake, redistribution is not about saving the planet, it is about the transfer of wealth in the name of fairness . . . . . . . . folks in central planning who do not believe you built your businesses, and because of that "reality," have every right to take the profits from your hard work and do what they will.

      "Global warming" is a theoretical summartion of 50 to 100 mathematical "weather models." Each is different with different outcomes . . . . something the warming crowd does not want you to know.

      Second, ALL GLOBAL WARMING is "regional." there is no such thing as "global warming" except as "they" average all the regions together, as if there is a singularity to supposed warming trends. When this lying bunch of no-nothings average all regions together, they avoid having to deal with those regions that are normal or colder than normal, as they manufacture the warming crisis.

      The reader can go to my site on "global warming" for the latest in climate articles: http://midknightreviewpageseven.blogspot.com/

      California is in the midst of a drought and a 24 month warming trend, while the mid-west is having its coldest, longest winter in many years, and the Great North West (Washington State) is having one of its wettest years.

      Delete
  2. Smithson writes: "We all know of the crude thuggishness of Obama when "crossed" by his own members."

    Commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command under President George W. Bush, Admiral John Nathman, USN:
    "There are serious risks to doing nothing about climate change. We can pay now or we’re going to pay a whole lot later. The U.S. has a unique opportunity to become energy independent, protect our national security and boost our economy while reducing our carbon footprint. We’ve been a model of success for the rest of the world in the past and now we must lead the way on climate change.”


    Commander of the United States Army Materiel Command under President George W. Bush, General Paul Kern, USA:
    “Military planning should view climate change as a threat to the balance of energy access, water supplies, and a healthy environment, and it should require a response.”


    Army Chief of Staff under G.W. Bush, General Gordon Sullivan, USA:
    “Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world.”


    Chairman of the National Intelligence Council G.W. Bush, Thomas Fingar :
    “We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years"


    CIA Director underG.W. Bush, James Woolsey:
    “The combination of 9/11, concern about climate change, and $4 a gallon gasoline has brought a lot of people together"


    NASA administrator underG.W. BushVice Admiral Richard Truly, USN:
    “The stresses that climate change will put on our national security will be different than any we’ve dealt with in the past.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously, must I document the lies told to us in the name of "truth," coming from Central Planning? Obama is the worst of the worst, but Bush 43 lied to us about the abortion pill, his Dad about Project 21 and "no new taxes," and Nixon, who lied about everything . . . along the same lines as Hussein Obama. My posted article, above, simply documents the complaints of those who would tell the truth about "global" warming but are afraid to. Don't talk to me, talk to them. It is their complaint.

      Delete
    2. BTW, you, Mr.Big Government Anonymous Guy, you have no reason to dislike the term, "Central Planning" but that is exactly what we have at this moment in time. Obama has his mini government what with his 40 - 50 Czars, their staff, transportation vehicles and office spece, his decision for the past several years to diminish the function of Congress including members of his own party, and the hold he has over the IRS, the AFG, OSHA, and the EPA.

      "Central Planning," as I used the term is all about this radical Utopian dreamer we have in our White House, on the campaign/funding raising trail, and on the golf course.

      Delete
    3. The utopian dreamer that has lifted this country out of the Bush recession, ahead of schedule. Now we have a bunch of uneducated GOP governors trying to destroy healthcare and education. Real good party you have there.

      Delete
    4. first, I am not a Republican, but, having said that, I am no longer a member of the godless Democrat party, either. 4,000 local, county and state positions have "flipped" into GOP hands over the past six years. the GOP now owns 31 governorships compared to a 17 for the Progressive Marxists in power today, and gone from nothing, in congressional influence as of 2008, to one of the strongest political powers in American history during Obama's time in office. The people voted for this change.

      And the recovery, ahead of schedule? What on earth are you talking about. Housing starts are on the rise, but they are still 38% lower than in the Bush years. Our workforce is at its lowest levels in 34 years, and our GDP rate has averaged no more than 2.2% since Biden declared the summer of 2010, as the "Summer of Recovery." Average unemployment, under Bush was 4.6% with a workforce at record highs, on a par with workforce of the Clinton era. In fact, Obama promised 5.0% unemployment by 2013, fella (http://www.aei.org/publication/wheres-that-5-unemployment-rate-obama-promised-by-now/), so, again, what the hell are you talking about? Nuts just plain nuts. This is why you all have lost so much power . . . . . . . . . . . . the people get your failure.

      Delete