I read the same article earlier today and thought I posted it, but I guess I didn't.
"a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members"

So shut up if you want to remain employed? Not the best way to get innovative - is it?

Here's a quote I found this morning.

" Here is the real point -- and I will quote one of the top climate scientists in the world:

"We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored."

This scientist is so credible that I am very fearful for my future. I agree, that scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly, and must be censured. There is too much at stake. I think we should start by outlawing the burning of fossil fuels altogether, as this eminent scientist argued.

One little detail I should point out --- this scientist was quoted in 1972, and was talking about the horrors of the coming ice age, caused by human activity, which was responsible for global cooling. And these beliefs were held by the eminent climatologists of the day -- Dr. Reid Bryson, Dr. S.I Rasool, Dr Steven Schneider, and others, and reported in peer-reviewed journals.

Here's the important point: what are the common threads between the climate debate in 1972 and the climate debate today? 1) The solution is to punish producers of, and users of energy -- to put an end to the evils of capitalism and free markets, and 2) scientists who didn't agree were marginalized by the true believers.
True Believer | January 22, 2007"

That's been the worrisome thing all along. The first folks to embrace GW as real were those with other agendas. If it really is a problem folks need to sell it in a way that doesn't attack human progress. That is why I'm looking at the energy security issue. That is a good reason to shift away from fossil fuels and results in an economy not wedd to freeing co2.

Which means nuclear fission as well as windmill farms.

fortunately blue staters tend to hang out by the coast lines. he he he.

Are there any more details, like the name of the scientist, or the rest of the article?

Reminds me of the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the Ark is wheeled into a huge warehouse just after the CIA assures Indy that "top scientists" are studying the Ark, but won't name them.

Climate expert Heidi Cullen

Global Warming

She's the one from 1972?

Yep, that's the AGW-Taliban...

Fearmongering

by Walter E. Williams
Jan 23, 2007






Political commentator Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) warned that "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." The Weather Channel has taken up that task with its series "It Could Happen Tomorrow."

The Weather Channel started its "It Could Happen Tomorrow" series in January 2006. The program includes episodes where a tornado destroys Dallas, a tsunami destroys the Pacific Northwest, Mount Rainier erupts and destroys nearby towns, and San Diego is devastated by wildfires.

They omitted a program showing a meteor striking my house, for it, too, could happen tomorrow. Of course, any one of these events could happen tomorrow, but I'm reminded of a passage in Shakespeare's "Macbeth," where after Macbeth listens to the predictions of the witches, Banquo warns him that "Oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray us in deepest consequence." That is, gain our confidence with trifle truths to set us up for the big lie.

The big lie, conceived by the Weather Channel in cahoots with environmental extremists, is to get us in a tizzy over global warming, and they're vicious about it. Dr. Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel's climatologist, hosts a weekly program called "The Climate Code." Dr. Cullen advocates that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming, according to a report by Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.

Dr. Cullen has had a lot of help in demonizing skeptics of catastrophic manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News "60 Minutes" correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers," and former Vice President Al Gore calls skeptics "global warming deniers." But it gets worse. Mr. Morano reports that on one of Dr. Cullen's shows, she featured columnist Dave Roberts, who, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg." (See the Morano report at: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568.) He didn't say whether the death penalty should be administered to those found guilty of global warming denial.

The environmental extremists' true agenda has little or nothing to do with climate change. Their true agenda is to find a means to control our lives. The kind of repressive human control, not to mention government-sanctioned mass murder, seen under communism has lost any measure of intellectual respectability. So people who want that kind of control must come up with a new name, and that new name is environmentalism.

Last year, 60 prominent scientists signed a letter saying, "Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. . . . Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

They added, "It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas." These scientists have probably won The Weather Channel's ire and might be headed toward a Nuremberg-type trial.

Dr. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist, former chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, and author of More Liberty Means Less Government

We need to cut down on CO2 emmison whether or not we are causing global warming. It will create an industry within itself so I don't know why you are complaining.

How are the scientists controlling us anyways? You don't seem to take them seriously anyways.

Ron, thanks for posting that. I read it the other day and couldn't find it when asked for it.

I heard and interview about corn produced ethanol and some other alternatives - does anyone have a link about the ratios between the loss in gas mileage vs. the gains in reduced emissions. I mean if I have to use, say 20% more ethanol to travel the same distance, do I still produce less negative emissions? How much less. . .?

I really believe if there would have been any real advancement in alternative fuels or methods... the capitalist would have jumped on it long before now."They Are Only In It For The Money".

Sugar ethanol is a good alternative but we don't use it because we tax imported sugar to protect our industry. I believe Brazil uses sugar ethanol.