MSNBC needs to read Bill’s Blog

April 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pm by under Bill's Blog, Weather

MSNBC is running a four-part series entitled Future Earth. On their website they say you can “find out why Earth’s climate machine — the North Pole — is melting alarmingly fast. Learn about our planet’s future, and how you can stop its decline.” First, the North Pole is not “Earth’s Climate Machine”.  There is far more heat and area in the Tropics than at the North Pole.   Second,  YOU can’t stop it’s decline (assuming it’s declining)!  Nature is big – you personally are insignificant compared to nature.  Don’t you wish you had the power to control icecaps!  If you don’t mind some profanity, check out George Carlin’s take on “Saving the Planet”.  Third, MSNBC does not know “our planet’s future”.  The scenario they portray in this piece is about as remote a possibility in the near future (and more than likely the very far future) as the Lions going 16-0 next season.  The Antarctic icecap (which is much bigger than the Arctic icecap) has been growing.  In Sept. 1979 (first year of satellite data) the Antarctic icecap was 18.4 million sq. km.  In Sept. 2008, the Antarctic icecap was at 19.2 million sq. km. That’s a 30-year trend.  By comparison, Michigan is 151,586 sq. km, so that’s an increase in icecover of over five times the area of Michigan.  MSNBC could instead be doing a story on the trend of cooling in Antarctica and possible falling sea levels due to ice accumulation in Antarctica.  Keep in mind that if the Polar icecap (without Greenland) melted…it would hardly cause sea level to rise, because the icecap is currently displacing water in the Arctic Ocean.  The Antarctic icecap is over a land continent, not floating over an ocean.  Significant ice accumulation over the land of Antarctica would cause sea level to fall.  The Arctic icecap did decrease significantly (yes, very significantly) from 1979 to 2007.   To do a fair piece on Arctic ice…MSNBC or anyone would have to note this.   However, to also be fair…they should also tell what’s been going on in the Arctic since 2007.  Please, CHECK OUT THIS GRAPH from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.   Note that the current icecap has grown significantly and is now much closer to the 1979-2000 average than it is to the low level of 2007.  There are meteorological reasons for this increase (PDO – Pacific Decadal Oscillation going negative, etc.) that have nothing to do with CO2.  Some scientists predicted there would be no icecap this summer.  It’ll actually be bigger than last summer.   Al Gore predicted last year that “the icecap will be gone in five years!”.   I would be willing to not only bet Al Gore but also give him 100 to one odds that there will still be a polar ice cap in 2013.   One last point, MSNBC is owned by General Electric.  GE is already making money off the issue with their Carbon Credit Master Card (link from “Treehugger”, no less).  Here’s CNN’s story on the new credit card.  Interesting note:  In the fourth quarter of 2008 as GE/NBC stock fell 30 percent, GE spent $4.26 million on lobbying — that’s $46,304 each day, including weekends, Thanksgiving and Christmas. In 2008, the company spent a grand total of $18.66 million on lobbying.”  Reviewing their lobbying filings, GE’s specific lobbying issues included the “Climate Stewardship Act,” “Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,” “Global Warming Reduction Act,” “Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,” “Low Carbon Economy Act,” and “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.”  Do you think this “big business” is just concerned about the environment?  Well, check out this column from the Politico, which says:  “Several of the companies would gain a commercial advantage after a cap and trade was established.  General Electric has an “ecoimagination” line of green appliances and equipment.  Robert Stavins, a professor of business and government at Harvard University, said a cap and trade program would be fantastic for GE and other companies that sell products that consume power. He said that if energy costs go up as a result of the regulation — something he believes is likely — a wide array of products from appliances to power plants would become prematurely obsolete and need to be replaced with greener models.”   That would mean big money for GE (parent company of NBC and MSNBC).  Take a moment and read my previous post on polar ice…check out the graphs and charts…they speak for themselves.  ONE LAST ADDCheck out this website with pictures of submarines in open water at the North Pole.  Also:  The Weather Channel is now owned by NBC, so they will have a similar policy.

360 Responses to “MSNBC needs to read Bill’s Blog”

  1. Kevin says:

    For your information Climatologists are interested in identifying long-term climate phenomena and reporting on its possible causes and implications on the earth’s environment. They may prepare long-term forecasts for seasonal conditions and for climate change, studying records and conducting environmental tests as well as using advanced modelling software. There are some positions within the discipline of climatology which are available to bachelor level graduates (particularly those who have completed honours) these may include research and laboratory assistance roles. To take the title of “climatologist” however, and to complete independent research, post-graduate qualifications, usually at a PhD level are almost always required.
    As far as a meteorologist goes, meteorologist are a group of people that do stuff to warn people about stuff in the sky. A meteorologist must know how to read weather maps, climate maps, and must be good in math. That is it. I would agree that most mets wouldn’t get a job without a B.S. with an emphasis in atmospheric science.
    I believe this crushes your theory, demonstrating that the qualifications are vastly different. School teachers all need to be specialized in their fields. This was pushed through in the school systems with no child left behind. Professors, at most universities have a PHD in thier field, as most teachers now have reached a Masters degree in their field. The point is proven that they are indeed different fields of study. Just because they both teach, doesn’t qualify them to do each others job or lecture on it. The same, as I have proven to you, is for Climatology and Meteorology. What a ridiculous thing to waste my time with. You have no point here.

    1. eric says:

      how does that disprove his theory? just because u think he’s not as educated as the people who get PAID by the govt to release this so called research on global warming.. oh and by the way we all believed that iraq had weapons of mass destruction.. remember that hoax… now there is a bill that is taking more liberties away from the american citizens on how we use energy!! now remember al gore tells us to conserve energy but his estate uses enough energy to power a whole town… but go ahead trust politicians remember al gore also so called invented the internet!!! dumb ass

  2. Dan says:

    Ok! My turn, since you called me out in a post. I’m not saying this is bad only taking the chance because the comments were directed at me. I have not offered you a bet. I have made posts with several grammatical errors, there is no doubt about that! I have asked you questions through my observations to your posts. For some reason, you do not wish to respond. That is your right and I respect that but don’t you dare throw that out that I have not attempted to answer your questions. I think I have done that and I have tried to do that without resorting to name calling or passing judgement on you.
    Can you say the same thing? I don’t think I have ever said that humans have no impact on the environment. I think what I tried to say was the ratio of influence on the environment is the parallel that I wss trying to draw out. There are some quite knowledgeable people, just like you Kevin, that have posted here and you do not seem to want try to refute or rebut any of there questions back to you. It appears as if you are only attempting to hold Bill Steffen accountable for using his blog the wrong way (as you see it) and in the process you are smearing his name as a meterologist. I still think, its his blog he can do what he thinks is best. If you’ll go back to the orgin of this blog, its clear of what he is trying to do. I believe his credentials speak for themselves.

    1. Kevin says:

      Dan, I called you out in a post huh? I was only trying to include you my friend. I thought that you may have some insight that the others probably wouldn’t. Bill Steffon keeps offering me bets. Steve, I believe, was the English major. I thought that I have responded to you. But honestly, you do side skirt a lot of my questions, as many do. I only say this because 95% of my questions are not answered. I apologize about the name calling. It wasn’t directed towards you. I regret that post. I have tried to answer any intelligent and many unintelligent questions on this blog. I am willing to get past Bill Steffon’s judgements to deliberately take a side on climate change if everyone else is. It continually is brought up to me over and over, mostly by Missy. I still don’t agree on his credentials or his choices, but lets move on to bigger and better fish. I have really tried to understand what everyone’s points are stating, but many are so irrational that I have a hard time rebutting them. I am a very logical person that likes to look at the facts. I have heard over and over how many of people on here have proven me wrong. It is false conjecture to say the least. If it is repeated over and over, then it must be true seems to be the rational here. Also, you have taken a clear side with Bill on this subject. You have demonstrated that you agree with him all the way and that you 100% back his move. You have complimented him and praised him again and again, as if his ego needs another stroking. Lets face it, he and many others have said some irrational things here.
      You have made your point very clear on who’s side you are on by not stepping up to the plate to call anyone else out. From our previous discussions, I have a hard time believing that you agree with everyone on Bill’s side of AGW. If Ryan had said anything that I disagree with, I would have stated it. That is fair in an open forum. You have cherry picked and side stepped many brutal comments directed towards me, which, in my mind, puts you with everyone else. Sorry, but that is the fact. If you want to be respected in a credible debate by ALL, you must stand for what is right and wrong, not only what a political side says, no matter how wrong or violating it is. I have changed the way I talk with many people on this post. Sometimes, speaking at one’s level is what it takes to make a point. I apologize to you. I know that it is not necessary to do that with you and I have made a mistake. So, if you can accept my apology, let us please move past.

  3. Bill Steffen says:

    Hey Kevin – you said: “Al has 24 years as a politician. His degree is in government, but he also took classes in climatology.” The first part appears to be copied right from his Wikipedia article. Please explain his climatology courses and the instructors and we’ll see if the instructors that he supposedly had were in the same league with the instructors I had (Dr. Reid Bryson and Dr. Wayne Wendland). Having a meeting with is not a “course”. Also, you can’t seem to spell my name right. It’s “Steffen” not “Steffon”. And keep watching the graph…lines are getting real close:

    1. Kevin says:

      Honestly Bill, I really don’t care. It makes no difference.

      1. Missy says:

        Sure it makes a difference. Al Gore’s movie was presented to my son as scientific fact. Later it was proven that Al Gore’s movie was full of errors. Why did he make those errors if he had a background in climatology?

        1. Kevin says:

          Maybe you should pull your son out of the public school and place him in a private/Christian school or better yet, home school him. All teachers have points of view. You cannot control that no matter how loud you scream. Sorry, but it’s the truth. Curriculums are set at the state level. Teachers are forced to teach certain benchmarks. In science, evolution is one of them. Though you may not agree, you can’t change it. Go lobby to the state instead of crying on a blog. If it is really that important to you, do something about it.
          Peace Out

  4. Dan says:

    That is my point exactly. I’m not purposely choosing sides but because I’m not does that make me choose sides because I have refrained from calling others out? Does this somehow make me stand with them? This is what I was really trying to spell out clearly. We are trying to stick to the science and the data surrounding the issues of global warming, right? I have side stepped and cherry picked comments directed at you? You may have a point. The only thing that I see from my perspective is that many attempt to refute you and it appears that you either want to site someone else or bring another point. You are right I support Bill Steffen because he has experience and many years of experience. Experiences are always far better than ideas, theories, political beliefs, etc, etc.. His ego doesn’t need me to stroke it, thats for sure. I’m just making the point about experience is all. Its like comparing a first year teacher to a teacher that has been working for 30 years! Can also be like a rookie policeman that is taking his first job to a veteran police officer that has 20 years experience. The type of experience is what I’m also trying to make a point about.
    It seems many can somehow substitute an idea or what somebody said as experience like they have been through it. Do you agree with this point or not? If you have experienced it how can really have a reliable and/or credible opinion. Its part of the equation on what makes somebody an “expert”
    That my friend is the reason that I think Bill can post what he thinks is right!
    No problem, I understand. No apology needed! Although, I’m not quite sure you need to “move past” with me it may be others who have offered some fairly credible info that you may choose to continue on this discussion with, that is your choice. I’m not talking about people who really don’t want to listen to what you have to say, they have been around here too. You know who they are, its quite easy to see. I’m talking about the people who have made some good attempts to refute/rebut your points.

    1. Kevin says:

      Experience does count for something. However, I would not say that experience necessarily makes you better than someone without experience. I do agree with your point of siting a reference or body of knowledge and substituting it for experience. Bill is a good example of that with his continued ranting about his college professors from the 70′s. I believe your point of not experiencing things things will make you unqualified as an expert is false. We all have the blessing to use others data to learn from. Let’s take the study of whales for instance. I don’t live on the ocean, nor have I swum with whales, but I’ll bet that I could convince you that I was an expert on Cetations over a cup of coffee.
      I would disagree with you on the ego stroking. I think that a large group of people on this site, including yourself, feel that Bill is very sensitive and needs to be pumped up. Go back through the comments and you will see what I am talking about. I have shown what it takes to become a climatologist. I have also shown what it takes to be a meteorologist. Big difference.
      I have attempted to have a scientific discussion on this blog, but there are only a few people that actually want to discuss science. I have been accused of not siting my references, which is a lie. I have been told by many, including yourself that I don’t answer questions, which is also a lie. If one doesn’t understand my response, then ask me to dumb it down. Don’t tell me that I didn’t answer the question. I need to run for now, time for another cup of Java.
      Peace Out

      1. Kris says:


        You claim that you always answer questions. What about this one (copy below)? You completely side-stepped Missy’s question, “Why did he make those errors if he had a background in climatology?” and responded with suggestions about educating her son. Where’s your answer, if it’s a lie that you don’t answer all questions?

        “Missy says:
        May 9, 2009 at 6:55 pm

        Sure it makes a difference. Al Gore’s movie was presented to my son as scientific fact. Later it was proven that Al Gore’s movie was full of errors. Why did he make those errors if he had a background in climatology?

        Kevin says:
        May 10, 2009 at 9:53 am

        Maybe you should pull your son out of the public school and place him in a private/Christian school or better yet, home school him. All teachers have points of view. You cannot control that no matter how loud you scream. Sorry, but it’s the truth. Curriculums are set at the state level. Teachers are forced to teach certain benchmarks. In science, evolution is one of them. Though you may not agree, you can’t change it. Go lobby to the state instead of crying on a blog. If it is really that important to you, do something about it.
        Peace Out

  5. Dan says:

    I’m not a liar nor am I stupid. You comment about the whales, lacks substance and empirical data. There is whole more to the life of a whale than living in the ocean and swimming. Why do you think I would be convinced? Because you said it? There is whole lot more to this process than that, don’t you think? Also a point about your rebuttals to Steve W, is one case in point (April 29th post go back and look it up) He refutted all of your points about tornadoes, etc. I mean he went point and point, Kevin. Its hard to argue that he basically “kicked your butt” in that exchange because of the way he presented his rebuttal. Rather than tell him he is wrong because you think he is, show him with data (graphs, charts, cited sources) this is why it comes across as opinion rather than fact. Opinions are way to subjective and can change. Also, doesn’t mean I agree with Steve W just means that guy demonstrates the knowledge base on how to refute/rebut points with counterpoints and DATA. I’m not saying that you don’t. How about Judy’s comments about the Mother Nature, maybe she didn’t present the most scientific facts with data but she does have a point there, don’t you think?
    If we can agree to present discussion in a similar fashion, than wouldn’t agree that many would learn something and perhaps “form their own ideas about the issues being discussed.
    I hope you had a great cup of Java. I love that stuff!

    1. Kevin says:

      You should not inference stupidity out of lack of understanding. I have tried to commensurate many comments on this blog. I don’t link my questions to stupidity, nor do I yours. I do believe that there is an objective point of trying to sidestep the facts here. I did rebut Steve’s data. I also spent, way to much of my time, demonstrating that one of his main sources was not credible. One problem with the WWW is that we all can find, so called facts, to be twisted for one side of the other. I don’t find siting one source after another to be conducive to anyones point. I believe that you do, based on your previous responses. I would rather try to make a response of understanding, rather than the cut and paste method, which I admit that I have done too. This seems to be the know-all way of debating on this site.
      My point of Cetations was very simple. I could sit you down without any googling and show you how one demonstrates expertise on a scientific subject without reference or much physical experience. I obviously cannot prove this to you. It was only a follow-up to the comments of how Al Gore, and others have no training in Climatology. I suppose that I should have followed up with a long drawn out demonstration of what it takes to become a climatologist, along with a marine biologist.
      As far as Judy is concerned, could you please remind me of her point. I really don’t want to go back through this blog. I am a firm believer that the world was created, not for us, but is here for us to experience our travels through time. I don’t think that there is a magical being called Mother Nature that regulates the balance of life on Earth. Humans do have the ability to change the Earth. We are, for all practical purposes, a virus on this planet. We behave in much the same way. Many people think that we can molest the earth in any way that we want because we are too insignificant. Not to far off of a child messing his/her room without understanding that it will need to be cleaned up at some point.

      There are a few arguments that are thrown my way on this site:
      1. Al Gore and others are preaching fear/doomsday scenarios.
      A. I am not.
      B. Change is only made politically in these ways.
      2. Climate change is not Anthropogenic Global Warming.
      A. It has been proven that we have increased Greenhouse Gasses.
      B. Global temperatures are rising.
      C. Global ice has been decreasing at a massive rate in the last 40 years.
      3. Mr Bill Steffen has the unalienable right to preach whatever he finds fit on his, which is Wood TV’s, Blog site.
      A. The point has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but rather exemplifies the idea of responsible journalism.
      B. I would also agree that Bill should not push AGW, if he were so inclined.
      4. Humans are not responsible for change, but rather the great Diety controls all.
      A. This is not even an argument in the scientific community, and has no justification here. (Sorry Missy and Judy)

      All of the points above are arguable for either side and anyone can come up with web sites that PROVE it either way. My main point has been to propagate learning in the subject. We have taken a media based site and used it as a platform of learning, which I love. Most of the time spent has been to try to disprove AGW, which is fine. It has opened the doors for further learning on the subject. We have also used many tactics to draw in participation, which have been successful. Overall, this has been a positive submission, although I still believe that Bill Steffen has used his influential ability in the wrong way.
      Peace Out.

  6. Russ in GR says:

    This will probably be my final comment on the subject, after which I’ll be turning my attention to other matters. By the time I finish I will probably have said enough anyway. Since this isn’t my blog, I hope this entry isn’t inappropriate. If it is, well, I’ll hear about it or it will disappear.

    First, a brief response to Kevin’s comment where he defends the heroic efforts the “climate experts” are making to save the planet, although Kevin, I do have to commend you for eschewing the doomsday mindset that is being propagated by some of these “leading scientists”. As I recall, your admonishment was that we humans need to do a better job protecting the environment. I agree we should do all we can, within reason, and without undue costs to the consumer. Hopefully, we’ll be phasing out conventional power generating plants and replacing them with tokamaks sometime in the not too distant future. In the mean time, we’ve got to conduct our affairs as best we can.

    You mentioned mercury pollution at the lakeshore. If that’s the case, it’s not a good thing. I haven’t heard of that yet. At any rate, the topic of this discussion is AGW.

    Before I move on, I don’t have lobbyists helping out the big business. I think lobbying should be better controlled, and I also think that there is some lobbying and even funding coming from certain big business in support of the Cap and Trade legislation. I’ll elaborate on that shortly.
    By the way, I am ideologically neutral. I’m standing right squarely on the 50 yard line. From there I can see all points of view. I can be objective.

    Oh, and one last thing, Kevin. People have known the earth was round since ancient times.
    Ancient mariners noticed that the Big Dipper moved higher in the sky when they headed north, and retreated back toward the horizon when they sailed south. From that they knew earth was round. You mentioned 200 years. I don’t know if that was a typo or a brain fart or what.

    Now, I want to discuss the alarmist agenda, namely Hansen and his cohorts. ‘Scuse me while I bark up that tree for a minute, Kevin.

    A recent interview appearing in the New York Times Magazine featuring Freeman Dyson elicited a ferocious response. The alarmists, namely Hansen and Joe Romm, another physicist (but not a degreed climatologist), to put it mildly, were very disrespectful of one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century. To paraphrase: “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about; he needs to shut up, blah blah”. Now, REAL scientists do not insult other scientists whom they may disagree with. They maintain respect. Quack scientists, on the other hand, do blow a lot of smoke and make noise. They hope it masks their quack science. By the way, Dyson had been thinking and musing about AGW for several years, it wasn’t something he just blurted out. He probably knows more about the climate than the quacks do. By the way, Romm is affiliated with the Center for American Progress, described as “a liberal advocacy group” (can you say lobbyists?).

    Back to Hansen. Ph.D in astrophysics. He heads the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. I’m just wondering: Shouldn’t he be studying space? So far as I know, he has no formal education or training in climatology. At least Bill Steffen has studied under an eminent climatologist. In my mind that makes him far more qualified to examine facts, satellite images, etc. and come to an objective conclusion. Hansen is utterly consumed by the AGW issue he helped start.

    Now, Hansen is waging a bitter war on coal, and coal based generation of electricity. I don’t hear a lot about any war on petroleum (oil). Why is that?

    With mandated fuel efficiency standards looming, with hybrids and electric cars in the near future, we have a conundrum. Where’s all the electricity going to come from to power these hybrids and all-electric vehicles? Big Oil, OPEC, and the sleazy speculators and greedy hedge fund tycoons on Wall Street (who are responsible for running up the price of oil last year and again this year) CAN’T be too happy about losing market share to the electric companies. So – and this is my opinion and my opinion only – I bet Big Oil and other connected entities are lobbying FOR the cap and trade legislation, which, as I understand it, is directed primarily at coal. What they want to see is for electricity to be prohibitively expensive. People, at least people in the bottom two quintiles, will keep buying gas and the demand will remain high. I bet some of the oil money and money from Wall Street is funding a lot of this pro-AGW research. Their mission statement should read: Limit Coal So Our Funding From The Competition Keeps Rolling In. Again – my opinion.

    Here’s a thought. Reduce the speed limit to 55 MPG, and enforce it. That’ll cut our gasoline consumption down by 25%. Watch the bottom drop out of the oil market. And think about all the CO2 that wouldn’t be out there heating up the globe. And all that money that we’d save to spend on discretionary stuff and wouldn’t be sending to Wall Street, OPEC, and Big Oil. So I wonder, why don’t Hansen and his friends pontificate about our profligate gasoline consumption? Instead he’s brainwashing a bunch of politicians in Washington who don’t know s#$% from shinola when it comes to climate dynamics. He’s trying to convince them their number one enemy is coal and coal-fired power plants.

    With that, I bid you all farewell. It’s been a fun and informative discussion/dabate/argument.


    1. Kevin says:

      Thanks for your participation. See you soon.

  7. Missy says:

    Kevin, sorry, no. Nice try, but I’m not a practicing Christian and can’t afford it. But that’s not event the point.

    The point is, science is something he should be taught WITHOUT bias. Regarding Al Gore’s movie mistakenly presented as fact, my son’s teachers didn’t make any effort to present any other side of the debate. Apparently they’ve been thoroughly brainwashed by a politician; I know you find this acceptable, even desirable. After all, that’s what we vote them in for, right? Perhaps the middle school science teachers (like YOU) agree with Al Gore that there is no room in the public sphere for debate or another, opposing viewpoint.

    So, since you went to the trouble to portray Al Gore as having some kind of background in climatology, I’d like to know your opinion on the errors presented as fact in Mr. Gore’s movie, and the possible reprecussions of having this kind of propoganda presented as fact to the public.

    Surely your own scientific background decries this…especially knowing your viewpoints on the “harm” Bill Steffen has done to an unsuspecting public.

    1. Kevin says:

      Please tell what errors you have a problem with? The problem, from what I can tell is that you are pulling your political views into a classroom situation. I’m sure that you talked to your child about the problems with Al’s movie. So what else do you want? I have had many instructors teach me the wrong thing in classrooms. Teachers and Professors aren’t perfect. Your brainwashed comment is a little harsh. I don’t know your child’s teachers and cannot speak for them. I was also not there to hear what instruction was said prior to and after the showing of the movie.

      You will not please everyone in a teaching situation, especially parents. Like I said before, if you don’t agree with the benchmarks in public education, please home school or privatize your child’s education. Complaining, especially in front of your child, will only hurt him or her in the long run. Demonstrating a disrespect for an instructor is a very irresponsible thing to do to your child. You will result in causing conflict in his/her learning. If you don’t agree with the subject matter, then simply talk to your child about the other view point.

  8. Missy says:

    Kevin, whenever you get through sermonizing about my relationship to my son’s school, I wonder if you could just answer the question I’ve asked (twice, this makes it three):

    What do you think, scientifically speaking, of those who seek to present to the public only one side of this issue? Is this scientifically sound? Or is it brainwashing (which term, btw, you introducted into the conversation yourself and now call harsh)?

    You seem to think of politicians and now teachers as having every right to present pro-AGW views, now even going so far as to say criticizing the brainwashers will cause great harm to the young brainwashees/victims of misinformation. However, regarding Bill Steffen, you seem to hold the exact opposite view on both counts, even calling him irresponsible and, in your own words, still believing that he “has used his influential ability in the wrong way.”

    Clearly a double standard.

    1. Kevin says:

      What I said smart lady is that I wasn’t there to hear what your teacher said. Where you? You can make all of the inferences that you want about my beliefs of who can say what and where, but that fact of the matter is that I never said anything of the sort. It sounds like you may be making some inferences about what is taught in your son’s class, just like you are about what I have said.

      To answer your question, I believe that there is no brainwashing being used in your son’s case. I really think that the teacher was, IN MY EDUCATED OPINION, demonstrating the side of AGW by use of media. I don’t know that the teacher didn’t try to rebut anything or use only sections of the movie. I also don’t know if the teacher taught the theory of climate change as an opposition. How can I call anything brainwashing when all I hear is that your son saw a movie in his science class? That would be a giant leap. I think that you calling your son’s teacher a brainwasher is harsh, since you were not there. That is my point.

      I will ask you again, What part of the movie do you have an issue with??????? Could you please answer that.

  9. Dan says:

    Nice discussion going on here, I think. It is difficult to bring out a point clearly in this context (typing in blog leaves a lot open from the reader) The “brainwashing” is the elephant in room, like it not it goes both ways. My opinion, its just like the media hyping an event and people “running” with whatever is being hyped as it appears and sounds like fact. This issue was brought up in an earlier post and it has to do with looking what is fact and is opinion. Will people truly “do the homework” to see what is and what is not proven fact? My fear is that most will not. Also, how powerful is the influence (media, person of authority, politician)?
    I think, correct me if I’m wrong, is the part of issue from Al Gore’s movie is the data he used (from peer group review, scientists and climatologists) was not accurate, it was also quite outdated. Is that what Missy was referring too? My two cents, for whatever its worth.
    I’m kind of amazed that this discussion continues, I have learned a few things from it! Thanks all!

    1. Kevin says:

      Thanks for the reply, but I really want Missy to give her inclined opinion. She has propagated a rather harsh viewpoint on this subject and I would like to find out some facts from her. I sincerely didn’t want to get into this, but now that we are here, I would like her to explain herself. I do thank you for your spacious viewpoint on the subject at hand.
      Peace Out

  10. Missy says:

    Kevin, my point is really simple. The teachers presented the movie as fact, because they, at the time, thought it was based on fact. I provided a link for you many posts ago showing all of the factual errors the movie actually contained.

    The teachers did not address any skepticism or offer any opposing viewpoints to the class. I asked them. They did not at that time believe there was any reason to doubt that everything Gore presented was true. They did not question or welcome questions on the subject.

    You said that you were standing up to the “brainwashing” done by Bill Steffen who you feel is wrong to use the media to offer scientific rebuttals. Yet you do everything you can to defend Gore and teachers who attempt to do the exact same thing. Actually, what Gore and the teachers did is worse because they offered a premise without offering the opportunity for rebuttal, while Bill is rebutting the original premise in order to promote balance.

  11. Kevin says:

    You sound just a little bit crazy. Time to lay off of the prescription drugs.

    You still haven’t addressed what in the movie bothers you. I am not interested in any links. If it is so bothersome, then I am sure that you can site the falsehoods taught to your son without links. You also pointed out that the teacher(S) presented the movie, at the time, thinking it was fact. If they believed that it was fact, how can you blame them for not showing another side? If they believed it was fact, then the other side would be false in there eyes, correct? Though you refer to them as brainwashers. This makes no sense at all!

    You make mention over and over again about the teachers, being more than one. I am confused. How many teachers presented this movie? What points did you call them out for being false that they were teaching? I haven’t meet a teacher yet that will not listen to a parent about there complaints. It sounds to me that you never brought it up to the teacher, but rather complained to your son about the BS that the teacher is doing, based on your slanted political views. This is a very common situation, although unfortunate.

    You actually believe that I have done everything that I can to stand up for teachers and Al Gore? Get real! I have hardly touched on the subject.

    As to your final point, Bill is not offering any rebuttals. He is launching his slanted ideas through the media. By the way, how do you know that the teacher(S) didn’t offer any chance for rebuttal? Where you there for the lessons on global warming? The only advice that I can really offer someone of your mental caliber is to stop using your kid for your political opinions. You are only hurting him. Shame on you.
    To find some good in your actions, at least you are taking part of your son’s education. How is English, Political Science, PE, Math going for him? Any brainwashing on the best sports team or who invented applied combinatorics, or maybe if Haiku is a left wing form of poetry?? Sorry, I couldn’t resist!

    By the way, why don’t you try to answer just one of my questions this time. It may be a little easier for you.

  12. Missy says:

    Kevin, I’m not interested in answering your off-topic questions. I’m only trying to point out to you how unfair it is to blast Bill for doing what you refuse to see those on your side doing, even when what the alarmists are doing is far worse.

    That’s it. That’s the whole enchilada. You can’t refute that so you veer wildly around it.

    As for the teachers believing the movie was factual, well, they’re also (politically) liberals. Willfully blind, perhaps? And later that year when my son went to visit a local college campus, they were also showing the movie there! Of course, I’m sure you don’t see anything wrong with that.

    1. Kevin says:

      I figured that you wouldn’t have any answers as usual, just complaints. I think you’re the alarmist. “Teachers are trying to brainwash my child.” I’ve been on college campuses for years and I have yet to see an instructor play that movie. Curious that you have had multiple experiences with that. I have known many teachers, and not all of them are (politically) liberals or willfully blind, as you put it. It’s also funny that the movie is being shown where there are highly educated people.
      You should stop the stereotyping. It doesn’t help your cause at all. Just makes you sound ignorant.

      By the way, you are the one that chimed in on the Al Gore movie. It looks like there is more to your enchilada then you want to admit.

      Also, I’m still waiting for some answers from you. Anything??????????????????????

  13. Missy says:

    “Teachers are trying to brainwash my child.”


    Now I know you’re joking. You’re the one who thinks metereologists are trying to brainwash…not kids…wait for it…YOU! ROFL

    You say it’s funny they show Al Gore’s movie where there are highly educated people, but don’t forget, they’re highly educated libs for the most part so there ya go. I guess it’s funny in a way but mostly pathetic.

  14. Kevin says:

    Boy are you dumb Missy, Who cares what there political affiliation is. Quit bringing your politics into your sons life. That was a quote by you smarty pants. WOW!! Wake the &%#^%$* up. What am I waiting for, and what is ROFL?

  15. Bill Steffen says:

    For those of you with an open mind…here’s some data to refute Kevin’s claims in his 5/10 9:45 AM comment: 1) Kevin said: “Global temperatures are rising”. They are not…global temps. have been generally steady since 1998, and have decreased significantly in the past two years. Here’s the graph from the Hadley Center: 2) Kevin said: “Global ice has been decreasing at a massive rate in the last 40 years”. That statement is false. Please look at these graphs: a) This graph is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The extent of Arctic ice is very close to the 1979-2000 average. If the 40-year average were used 1979-2009, the Arctic ice would be HIGHER than the 40-year average. This April we had the 3rd least amount of icecap melt of any April in history. b) Now here’s the graph of Antarctic polar ice: You can clearly see that there is a 23-year trend of growing Antarctic ice. c) Now look at this graph: Look at the red line at the bottom. It’s above the zero-line (which is average). The amount of total polar ice today is ABOVE the 40-year average! ABOVE!! To anyone who looks at this issue objectively, Kevin’s comments are clearly false.

    I will also add that there are a number of factors that would lead one to conclude that there is a reasonable chance that global temperature may not increase in the near future and may actually decrease (cold PDO – the likely coming flip of the AMO to cold, the dimmer and spotless sun, an increase in volcanic activity, which has been relatively quiet since Pinatubo in ’91, etc.)

    1. Ryan says:

      Bill, my recommendation is that you should invest less of your time on ice extent/area. Total ice volume is actually the statistic more worthy of inspection.

  16. Kevin says:

    First of all Bill, you are giving misleading information again. Here is some information from 2008. Look closely Bill, it doesn’t back your steady theory.

    The December combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.86 degree F (0.48 degree C) above the 20th Century average of 54.0 degrees F (12.2 degrees C).
    Separately, the December 2008 global land surface temperature was 1.22 degrees F (0.68 degree C) above the 20th Century average of 38.7 degrees F (3.7 degrees C) and ranked 14th warmest.
    For December, the global ocean surface temperature was 0.74 degree F (0.41 degree C) above the 20th Century average of 60.4 degrees F (15.7 degrees C) and tied with December 2001 and December 2005 as sixth warmest.

  17. Kevin says:

    Bill, as far as your graphs of sea ice, 2008 was a positive year for perennial sea ice. There is no doubt about it. Although the graph of yours still demonstrates below average ice. We are talking about global ice, not perennial sea ice. You need to look at the big picture. Take a look at this link to learn a little something.

  18. Kevin says:

    Bill, the problem is that you are not looking objectively. To be objective, I would say that there has been some growing of global ice recently, due to warming oceans. The perennial sea ice, which melts every summer will melt again this summer. This gives the opportunity to skew the data, which you have done. Polar ice is not above the 40 year average. Lets take a look at these figures again in a couple of months and see what you have to say then. I guarantee that you will site references that use the end of winter figures to make your case. THIS IS NOT OBJECTIVE, RATHER SUBJECTIVE MY FRIEND.

    As far as the flipping of the AMO to cold, what do you think is causing the rapid changing of the AMO? To be objective, would you rule out cyclical norms? The amo should switch around 2020. Why do you think it is switching now? If you can answer that, you should publish your findings. By the way, the amo hides and highlights the effects of Global warming, making it very hard to ascertain a correlation between the two.
    Also, since you are use sun spots as a point, could you please explain how solar activity effects climate change? How long is it normal to have a solar minimum? Are there any signs of new sun spot activity?
    Looking at the data my past post, we can see that Bill’s comments are incorrect or FALSE as he would put it objectively.

  19. SteveW says:

    Sorry guys, haven’t been able to keep up with this blog lately, I’ve been way too busy. Haven’t had a chance to go back and look at some comments, but I did get a quick look at the last few here, since we have some data and references being presented.

    Here’s my analysis of the data being presented:

    1. Kevin, I read your data on the NOAA report. The data available to NOAA seems to be correctly presented. It looks like you just copied the highlights of the report there which is good, so I believe the reference. Although, I do believe the global temperature reporting as a whole, especially in the US, is flawed due to temperature reporting stations not meeting the USCHN standard (66% having the two lowest grades possible and 70% total surveyed). I posted that discussion earlier. If you can’t find it, let me know, I can get you that reference.
    A major difference that I can see between Kevin’s comment and Bill’s comment on Global Temperature is that Bill is reporting temps in his graph from 1988 to present and Kevin is reporting temps analyzed from December 2008 referenced to the 20th century. I believe that you are both right in this case with the timelines you both specifiy. It would be incorrect to say that global temperatures are rising currently, because of the recent 10 year snapshot of global temperatures falling, even with the flawed global temperature reporting data.
    2. Sea ice coverage: According to Bill’s data, it appears that Arctic Ice extent is slightly below the 30 year average, but trending towards that average as of recent. Also, Antarctic sea ice extent appears to be above the 30 year average by approximately 800,000 sq km according to Bill’s data. Overall sea ice extent appears to be slightly above the 30 year average. So, without any graphs from Kevin, it appears that global sea ice extent is slighlty above average.
    3. From Kevin’s reference on sea ice extent: I read through the page, and it had some good discussion about glacier facts. It vaguely references the “icecap” growing at 20 – 30cm per year. I’m not sure if this means global icecaps or the Greenland icecap, since the article talks about Greenland primarily. The page discusses the “1st phase” of glacier melt is acutally to not melt, since warmer temps will cause more ocean evaporation and fall on the glaciers, causing the “icecap” to expand. But, a quote from the page, is: “But in the end the meltingproces will dominate. (The normal situation is a balance; losses and gains compensate each other)”. Now, I didn’t see where any references are to this page that would help back-up this theory. I also didn’t see an author. So, I went to the “home” page of this site, and found that it was more or less a personal page of someone named “Ronald Kramer” who has traveled to Greenland, and wished to share it with whomever would be interested. He also shares some of his analysis of climate as we are doing here. But, again could not find any references that would back-up his claims. I couldn’t find anything on his knowledge base of sea ice extent or weather. As a whole, I would have to discredit this source as having accurate data, since it lacks any type of references for numbers and facts that it proposes is true. A time would also be helpful as to when this was written. The only thing I could tell as far as when this was written would be under the “Icebergs” link is the quote, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is working on a climate report, which will be issued in 2001.” The way this statement is worded, it would imply that it was written before 2001. If that is the case, this would be outdated information and the values given at this website I would consider to be outdated and suspect.

    This is a very good discussion, and I hope to continue it as time permits.

    ~Steve W.

    1. Kevin says:

      I didn’t realize that the post that I put up was a Netherland man on vacation. My Bad! I should have looked into it more. Here is a better site for you to try to pick apart.

      This site shows Bill’s graph and discusses why the information in his graph demonstrates the large degree of ice loss.
      Give that a try.

  20. SteveW says:

    I forgot to mention, in Bill’s graph on Global Sea Ice Extent in “c.)”. It appears that the “Daily Sea Ice Mean” for 1979-2000, the Blue Line, is highly periodic and oscillatory. I hope that someone has tried to create a Fourier Series model for that behavior. If one was created, it would be interesting to see the %error for 2000-2009. It would also be interesting to expand the timeline out further to try to predict the Daily Sea Ice Mean up to 2100 and compare that to NASA GISS predictions.

    ~Steve W.

  21. Kevin says:

    Steve W. and Bill,
    Enough with the cherry picking of data. 1988 to 2008 are the 2 best dates to skew data in your favor. Try these next few sites to show you how wrong you are.

  22. Dan says:

    Excellent discussion here! One question, I have is that with the links to the graphs you posted here Kevin. I cannot see the anomolies. It looks like you can still see swings in the tempratures, not drastic ones. In other words, for as long as you see the cold in the late 1800s you also see the warm temps. Am I missing something? It looks like if you put all the data together from those graphs, it looks like “average” temprature swings as opposed to anomolies, right?
    Also, did you catch Bill’s mention of the sun spots? He made some excellent observations on about the sun spots and how they relate to trends and/or weather effects from the sun spots.
    Overall, this is some excellent data being exchanged here!

  23. Kevin says:

    You are correct in your speculation of averages. I am not concerned with anomalies in this discussion.
    Please remind me of the sun spot discussion. I recently asked Bill some questions on sun spots. I admit that I need to read up on the subject, so I thought that Bill could enlighten me. He has used sun spots many times in his points and I want to understand how he knows that the are related to climate.
    Also Dan, can you see the dates that Bill has picked as his example to show temperature regulation? Notice how they are cherry picked to sell his point. This is why I have included graphs from over 100 years to show a longer term average. This helps to rule out cherry picking. Why not use all of the data that we have?
    I also see that Steve is referring to the sea ice mean, rather than average. Be careful in your wording Steve. Big difference between mean and average.

  24. SteveW says:

    I’m not trying to cherry pick data. Just for a second, going back to the global temperature comparison post on 5/13 @ 7:13am, you picked December 2008 Vs. the 20th century average global temperature. One month out of 1200 months? Maybe this was the best month to get your point across, but isn’t that cherry picking as well?
    I’ve only had time as of now to go through your post on 5/13 @1:34pm, sorry about that. I will continue to check out all the posts beyond that when I get some more time to look at it. Your reference using the National Snow and Ice Data Center appears to be a good one. I would consider that source to be legitimate. I would agree with you that the Arctic sea ice extent has trended downward at the 0.28% per year since 1979. Do you have analysis from this site for the Antarctic ice extent as well? That would be good to see too.
    A couple things to point out about the graphs, from my observations:
    I believe that Bill’s graph that is included on this website as “Figure 2″ and the graph of “Figure 3″ with the data and a linear best of fit line are the same data, just being presented in a different style. Just wanted to get that out there.
    Using a linear best of fit line, the data shows that there is a slight steady downward trend in arctic sea ice from 1979 to 2009. Intermingled in that downward trend are two arctic sea ice upward trends for short periods from 1996 to 1999 and 2006 to 2009, but overall I would agree that the trend is downward for that time period. I would have to ask the question, because of the recent upward trend in arctic sea ice extent, would it be better to use a 2nd order best of fit line? Here’s my reasoning for thinking this:
    If you look at the graph of Figure 2, they use a non-linear line to represent the average ice extent for the individual months from 1979 – 2009. Yet in Figure 3 from the website, a linear best of fit line is used for each year. Maybe this is a wrong thought, but I’d like to hear everyone’s opinion. I believe that at least a 2nd order best of fit line would more accurately represent the “average” line of Figure 2 by showing the more recent growth in arctic ice extent, which would also back off the decrease in yearly percentage of arctic ice loss.
    Would this mean that we are headed for more arctic ice in the future? I’m not sure, that’s debatable. With a negative phase AMO, less sunspot activity, and possible rise in volcanic activity, will this be the upward turn in the graph that holds for many years or will this be a repeat of the 1996 – 1999 period? I guess the one thing that would help give us a better indication would be for data on Arctic sea ice extent from before 1979, but I don’t think that data exists, hopefully it does somewhere.

    Anyways, it’s a good source and a good discussion. I hope to continue this later, but now its time for some coffee.

    One late add: Mean and average can be the same thing, but it also can not be the same thing. Arithmetic means are averages, but geometric means are not geometric averages. Arithmetic data that is more one sided will have a different arithmetic mean as compared to an arithmetic average. It would be interesting to see how the “Daily Sea Ice Mean” is calculated and represented. Thanks for pointing that out Kevin. We can stick with average for now, since we are on that analysis. Question for everyone: What is more accepted in the climate studies community, average or mean? I’m not sure, I’ll have to read up on it.


  25. Dan says:

    Good discussion with some excellent points being made! I do not have a lot of time either but I would like to comment some more! I wonder if this blog can push 1000 entries, like what happens when there is a Winter Storm on horizon.
    Here, in this discussion, it has been quite informational, I have learned a lot. I’m hoping to get back to this discussion as soon as possible. Great posts, EVERYBODY!

  26. kevin says:

    I believe that a best of fit line graph should be used if there is enough points. One anomoly can skew the data like crazy if you are, as I have said “cherry picking data”. This is why I have used a longer term for use of a scatter plot which would make the anomolies less obstructive. If you want to use a graphing calculator and go to town, I would welcome your results. Try using my temp data for the past 130 years. Do not use Bill’s 20 year data. It wouldn’t hold water. By the way, where has Bill gone in this discussion?
    Peace Out.

  27. SteveW says:

    Took a peak at your three links posted about Global Temp. Thanks for the raw data on global temps, I’ll be looking at that one more closely, and I’ll read that into an excel spreadsheet to look at a graph. One question though, the temperature data is for average mean and 5-year mean anomolies. I know we are looking at just average for Arctic/Antarctic Ice, so should we start looking at global temperature mean and average as well as global sea ice mean and average?

    On your 2nd and 3rd links on global temp, as I’ve posted before and I’ll post it again, I believe from research by the USCHN and Joe D’Aleo that the global temperature anomalies starting around 1980 to the present are suspect. This is the time period where global temps really spike. To anyone taking the data for what it’s worth, I would see reason to be concerned, especially when compared to the past 100+ years.

    Here’s from a previous post mostly copied and pasted so everyone doesn’t have to go digging for it:

    From the IPCC meeting March 8 – 10, 2009.
    A presentation was given to the IPCC by Joe D’Aleo titled “Data Integrity Issues, Natural Variability and Climate Change”
    The presentation can be found at:
    Go to Monday March 9th, Session III, time 2:15 – 3:45 and Find Joe D’Aleo’s name. The Powerpoint can be downloaded from the link.
    Here are some highlights of the analysis:
    ~Global Temperature Reporting Stations in mostly rural areas have had a dropout rate of approx. 66% since 1990.
    ~Missing Temperature data has increased 10x after 1990.
    ~Number of missing months from 110 Russian temp reporting stations has gone from around 25 to above 200, spiking around 225 around 1995.
    ~The United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) reports that a survey conducted of 70% of all US Global Temperature reporting sites as of 2/1/2009, only 11% of those passed a Station Site quality test, and that 69% of the surveyed were the 2 lowest quality grades possible; a CRN 4 & 5.
    ~Numerous Peer-Reviewed papers suggest that problems with global temperature reporting sites may account for up to 1/2 of the “warming” since 1980. Papers listed in Powerpoint.

    A major factor that tends to be left out of the debate is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO).
    ~ From the graphs on the power point presentation starting on page 35, the PDO is approx a 30 yr. cycle, which is now going negative according to the graph. Maybe that’s why I’ve heard reports of a 30 year cooling cycle?
    ~The AMO appears to possibly have reached its peak in 2006 in its positive cycle and now would appear going negative, further cooling would ensue since the AMO and PDO are both in negative cycles.
    ~Other topics such as Volcanic activity and Solar activity are also discussed in D’Aleo’s presentation.

    From my previous post, just wanted to further explain that a non-linear best line of fit may represent an acutal process much better. At least from my experience with physical characteristics, there are not many linear relationships that exist in nature, those usually only exist in the simple problems that don’t account for all the detail in textbooks.


  28. SteveW says:

    From my last post, found an article from May 13, 2009 that is from CBS affiliate WBZ-TV in Boston, MA. Talks alot about the points mentioned from the research and adds a few as well. If anyone is interested:


  29. SteveW says:

    Here’s another item if anyone is interested about Global Temps. I was curious if satellites were measuring global temperature, since global temp reporting stations seem to have issues. Satellites are used for measuring global sea ice as well, so why not the global temps. I found some interesting results from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center here:

    Apparently, the satellite data does not have as an agressive measurement of global temperature warming as does the ground stations. Research by Dr. John Christy, University of Alabama and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA Marshall provided some of their research from the link above. They discuss some of the dissenting viewpoints of using satellite data, but reassure that the data obtained is accurate. It also provides some insight on the water vapor negative feedback temperature regulator theory as well. The article is short, but provides links for extended study.

    Also important to note, this satellite data has been coming in for about the last 20 years. Kevin, I know you said something about Bill’s 20 year temp data; is this the data you were referring to?


    1. Kevin says:

      Really quick SteveW,
      The 20 year data that I was referring to wouldn’t hold water in a best of fit line graph as compared to a 130 year data stream. I would also agree that there is a controversy with temp data of the past 30 or so years. That is another discussion in itself to deal with. Also, the problem with satellite data for ice measurement is that it is not able to differentiate between perennial and old ice. The best data collection for ice is at the end of every summer after the inevitable perennial meltdown.

  30. SteveW says:

    For all interested in AMO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation, found a good FAQ from NOAA found here:

    Kevin, I believe you said that the AMO should be switching around 2020. According to the link, the AMO has been in the warm phase since the mid 1990′s and switches phases approx every 20-40 years. At the low end of that time duration, I guess we would be expecting a phase switch to the cool cycle around 2015. If it happens now though, it wouldn’t seem to me like it would be a huge time difference, maybe approx 5 years. The Earth’s natural cycles have shown that they can be a little early and a little late over time.


  31. goingwest says:

    To all of you out there reading this blog If science is correct and IF the earth is millions and or billions of years old and IF the earth has gone through between 3 and 7 ice ages THEN all of your points are skewed! It had to warm up between each ice age didn’t it? So how warm did it get? How much Ice was left? How long did it take? why did we have ice ages to begin with? You are dealing with 100 year averages in a million or billion year factor. This ain’t science here folks, its just speculation!!! This is a whole lot bigger than we can comprehend at this point, and you can be sure that money is at the bottom of it. Seeing the corprate and personal greed lately, I suspect folks are lining up to milk this cash cow til its empty also.

    1. Kevin says:

      Mr/Mrs. West,
      You can’t argue with the money argument, but the situation with the AGW is the speed at which things are happening. We have obviously had ice ages in the past and will have them in the future. What Science is demonstrating is that the human impact of climate change is having a negative effect on the normal climatic cycle. It is not saying that we can or can’t stop any ice ages. The correlation between the rising temps, melting ice and the deforestation and increased man made green house gasses is apparent. We are changing the climate. If an ice age is going to happen, we can do nothing about it, but if we are being careless, as we all know that we all are, then maybe we can change for the better. Core samples demonstrate the cyclical changes before and after a major climate change such as an ice age. We can compare those samples to the speed and effect of human impact to see if we are having an impact or not.

      1. goingwest says:

        Kevin Your words are empty of fact. Gore started his carbon credits business before he did his media splash movie. After 80 + years in weather science, the bunk you display as fact is just a transfer of rehashed stuff we presented in the 60′s when we sounded the alarm for a new iceage. I didn’t believe it then and FACT does not support it now You good sir have been snookered by media

        1. Kevin says:

          My good man, please present your proof. Your word is not good enough. References and facts only please. Thanks for the humble opinion, but it isn’t worth a bucket of spit.
          Peace Out.

  32. Bob Saget says:

    Nobody knows the future, quit trying to predict and prove all these points, you pretty much live on this blog, most of us have lives and we can’t argue ALLLLLL day on here like you, but I am sure you are always right.

  33. James says:

    I can’t stand this! I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Bill Stephen over the course of many years in Holland @ Tulip-time,
    he is a very intelligent kind hearted individual. One w/o an ego, one easily approached to talk to. Bill’s entire adult life
    has been dedicated to the study of climate & weather! And yes, there is Huge amounts of money to be made on the governance
    of political policies! What do you think the world players run on? Huge global policies, making them billions of dollars!
    I say this with NO detriment to those disagreeing with me, as we are all adults. I harbor no ill feelings for those who may now bash me for posting my first post on this forum. But I do know this, Mr. Al Gore is first a savvy politician, second an environmentalist. I don’t doubt he cares in his own way, but he IS a wealthy man, because of his policies, &
    political clout! And yes there IS HUGE amounts of money to be made by those corporations wilding the largest sword!
    So my friends, when Mr. Bill Stephen says these facts, which can be substantiated if you care, & dare to know the real unbiased truth, the truth will set you free! Thank you!

    1. kevin says:

      The whole problem with Bill’s posting on this topic is that he is slanting his observations toward the political right. He is doing the same thing as Craig James, which is influencing people, rather than showing both sides of a controversial subject. This is not unbiased broadcasting. This is where I have had the problem. Bill may be a great guy and a pleasure to talk to at Tulip Time, but he is crossing the line when he skews facts to influence the public with his very powerful podium. It is one thing to demonstrate the weather, but to blog about what he obviously doesn’t understand fully, as none of us do, is crossing the line.

      By the way, what truth are you referring to?

      Also, the only people bringing up Al Gore are the same people backing Bill Steffen. I am not here to bash you or Bill, but I think there is some responsibility that comes along with broadcasting that Bill is not taking regarding as important.

  34. Kevin W. says:

    Kevin, Your problem is your slant comes from the political left. This is biased thinking, the only one who can’t see you doing it is you. Like the typical leftist, you bash anyone who disagrees with you resorting to name calling and the like. You attack their credentials while presenting none of your own. As I have said in the past, I will tend to listen to a man with several degrees in the subject over a specialist in waste disposal with no degrees in the study of weather and its effect on the globe. Since your tirades back in may, a little noticed story came out of NASA saying that any warming there might have been can now be attributed to solar cycles and nothing more. SO I guess its ok now for Al Gore to continue to criss cross the globe burning his fossil fuels in his gas guzzling jets because he makes no difference whether he pollutes with his plane or mouth!

    1. kevin says:

      Kevin W.
      Thanks for clearing me up on my problem! The right wingers on this site obviuosly are not biased. And they including YOU, never resort to name calling or attacking credentials without giving theirs. YOU IDIOT, YOU JUST DID THAT IN YOUR POST. Are you really that ignorant? Sorry, but you are way off on the solar cycle theory. What they are saying is that the solar minimum is hidding some of the effects of global warming. Please don’t chime in with your insults and your so called facts if you don’t have a clue. By the way my friend, I am not a leftist. I have many conservative views, but thanks for the inacurate label. You obviously have no clue what your talking about.
      Peace Out

  35. Climatology is a complex multifaceted subject. But saying that it is complex does not mean that it is not understandable. For any global climate change theory to be robust, it should have support from several unrelated fields of scientific inquiry (e.g. fossil pollen, isotopes, actual climate measurements, plate tectonics, astronomy, etcetera). This is the type of information, which dovetails with historical climatology, informs the big climate models they use to predict global warming. I just don’t see the same level of support for an alternative theory among the global warming naysayers (I don’t think that they are really that interested in understanding how it all fits together).

    I reviewed this blog and found many references to sea ice extent. I is interesting to note that during the warming after the last ice age, the North Atlantic is thought to have had more sea ice due to the increased amount of fresh water on the surface (Delcourt, 2002,”Forests in Peril: Tracking Deciduous Trees from Ice-Age Refuges into the Greenhouse World”). According to this theory, this may have slowed the global ocean circulation “conveyor belt”, as the cold freshwater does not sink in seawater to feed the bottom return current. As a result, warm water from the tropics was not redistributed northward to melt the sea ice. So even if we were to have human-caused warming today, we may still get temporary feedback hiccups that would even cool the climate locally, temporarily. I am not saying that this is happening now, but I thought it was interesting to consider.

    1. kevin says:

      just wondered how and why you posted on this blog so long after the discussion was over? I appreciate your post, but doubt that many are keeping track so far out. I have bookmarked this entry to jump to the current wood site, otherwise I would have never checked again. It sounds like you may know a little something about the subject. Please feel free to join in with us on any other current discussions. I would love to have your input.
      Peace Out,

  36. Greg J Schmidt says:

    Sorry, I came to it rather by accident. I have not been in the Grand Rapids viewing area for decades, so it took me by suprise when I heard that the well-liked meteorologist was taking the minority position on the global warming issue.

Leave a Reply