Post-ClimateGate, perhaps now is good time to review some of the GreenFearTM spread in the St.Catharines Standard this year.
Perhaps the Standard's revered Green Team can re-examine their corporate-Canoeist-colleague Vivian Song's "Green Planet" story in the Apr.15, 2009 St.Catharines Standard, "Weather vs. Climate".
Song does a great job of spreading climate fear by pretending, with 'smug condescension' , that she's not (...y'all got that?!).
Song lectures us on the difference between climate and weather; wow - what's next? A lecture on a note's place within a symphonic score? A letter's place in the alphabet? A word's place in a book? A book's place in a library?? An Al Gore book's place in pile of crap?
Song's article, sub-headed "One snowstorm or heat wave does not prove or disprove climate change" interestingly/strangely spins the 'climate change' story without ever mentioning its relationship to AGW, man-made global warming: which is the spin preferred by the GreenFearmongers.
'Climate change' has become a subliminal synonym for AGW, conveying an underlying (yet unproven) message that there is a causal link; as if climate change couldn't and didn't occur prior to the ascent of man. (We all know, don't we, of the standard greenshevik dogma that George Bush personally caused Hurricame Katrina; yet, that Obama had nothing at all to do with the December blizzard on the American east coast?!)
Song writes her story as a supposed "public-service announcement", attempting to establish the idea that snow-storm or heat-wave weather extremes shouldn't be grounds for "climate-change-related discussion". Hm... well, this kinda sounds good - until you read the rest of the story!
Song helps trot out the usual dire predictions/warnings/fear/given truths (??!) that "warmer temperatures mean more moisture and evaporation - fuel for storms", based on blusterings from Environment Canada's David Phillips --- yes, Canada's Cagey Climatologist!
Song calls Phillips "loquacious and perhaps the most passionate climatologist in Canada", which perhaps, might be the problem in basing an entire story solely on Phillips' climate/weather interpretations.
Being' loquacious', Phillips apparently is more than pleased to let Song report that we should 'expect more tornadoes, drought and flash flooding, extreme weather patterns that afflict the U.S. which we're likely to inherit.'
So: how'd that inheritance work out?
[When was this likely to occur? How likely was this to occur? Song doesn't mention asking Phillips that.] Will Song or the St.Catharines Standard bother to do a follow-up story examining Phillips' climate claims?
When Song writes of cold-snaps being used as "ammunition that climate change is a hoax", what is she actually saying: that 'climate change' - defined as AGW - IS man made; and therefore, cannot be a hoax?
Is this Song's underlying presumption?
Will Song now revisit her assumptions of what constitutes a hoax in light of the CRU ClimateGate scandal?
Is the often-sourced Dave Phillips the only go-to-guy in Canada for 'climate-change' explanations/predictions?
Is a climatologist, whose idea that weather (or is it climate?) is a "crap shoot" (see here), really a good sole source of information?
Has Song, or anyone, actually bothered to examine Phillips' record on the issue of AGW, around which, of course, the entire political question of "climate change" revolves?
Song writes: "A warmer climate will also bring more "wildcards" in the weather system, Phillips says, or increased variability"; yet Song doesn't quite get around to asking Phillips to cite his scientific sources.
"Increased variability"?
Where are Phillips' citations??
Are "wildcard" and "crap shoot official climatologist lingo, dumbed down for the Joe Niagaras of the world?
Is the wildcard crapshoot climate gospel of Phillips simply proof in itself?
And what is it a proof of, anyway?! Certainly not of AGW - or are we we supposed to assume this confirms AGW by subliminal GreenFearTM osmosis?
Song writes "Canada can expect to see an increasing frequency of "high impact" incidents, Phillips says".
"High impact" eh? Compared to WHAT, exactly???!!! Based on what? When? Where, exactly?
The 'reporter' Vivian Song DOES NOT REPORT these details!!'
"One of the things climatologists used to say is that the last 100 years of weather data will be the story of our future since weather repeats itself" Phillips says.
Song doesn't report which climatologists Phillips was referring to.
"But I don't believe that anymore," Phillips says.
Eh?!
Cagey David Phillips 'doesn't believe' WHAT?? In the last 100 years of "weather data"? Or that weather repeats itself? Or that past patterns are - or are not - the story of the future?
What DOES Phillips believe? What is he actually saying?
Song doesn't report asking him.
Does Cagey Climatologist David Phillips now believe in what - a thousand-year trend of weather-data? A ten-year trend? A ten-day trend? WHAT?
A trend sourced where?? From the loquacious, deck-stacking, wildcard crapshooters at the CRU?!
"Changes are happening so rapidly" says Phillips.
"So rapidly"?
How rapidly? When? At what rate? Based on what data?! Have rapid changes in weather never occurred on earth?!
Song doesn't report asking Phillips about that.
What exactly is Canada's supposed-SENIOR CLIMATOLOGIST actually saying in Song's interview, for Gore's sake?!
Song doesn't quite ask. Just quoting whatever drips outta Phillips' mouth is enough, apparently.
Has anybody from Sun Media, or from the St. Catharines Standard, bothered to ask Mr. Senior Climatologist Phillips lately to comment on the GreenSCAMTM revelations of ClimateGate?
Conveniently, depending on what you might glean from Phillips' glib statements, maybe AGW is 'climate change', maybe it isn't!!
It would be helpful to know what scientific evidence does Canada's Senior Climatologist David Phillips have to show that AGW is directly linked to 'climate change'?
(Is it the same "science" which is still-not-yet-revealed by climatalarmist TM (here) Liberal MPP Jim Bradley?!)
Song launched an offensive, all right... what's overdue is a frank post-Jokenhagen, post-ClimateGate follow-up with Phillips, minus the snowjob.
*
Perhaps the Standard's revered Green Team can re-examine their corporate-Canoeist-colleague Vivian Song's "Green Planet" story in the Apr.15, 2009 St.Catharines Standard, "Weather vs. Climate".
Song does a great job of spreading climate fear by pretending, with 'smug condescension' , that she's not (...y'all got that?!).
Song lectures us on the difference between climate and weather; wow - what's next? A lecture on a note's place within a symphonic score? A letter's place in the alphabet? A word's place in a book? A book's place in a library?? An Al Gore book's place in pile of crap?
Song's article, sub-headed "One snowstorm or heat wave does not prove or disprove climate change" interestingly/strangely spins the 'climate change' story without ever mentioning its relationship to AGW, man-made global warming: which is the spin preferred by the GreenFearmongers.
'Climate change' has become a subliminal synonym for AGW, conveying an underlying (yet unproven) message that there is a causal link; as if climate change couldn't and didn't occur prior to the ascent of man. (We all know, don't we, of the standard greenshevik dogma that George Bush personally caused Hurricame Katrina; yet, that Obama had nothing at all to do with the December blizzard on the American east coast?!)
Song writes her story as a supposed "public-service announcement", attempting to establish the idea that snow-storm or heat-wave weather extremes shouldn't be grounds for "climate-change-related discussion". Hm... well, this kinda sounds good - until you read the rest of the story!
Song helps trot out the usual dire predictions/warnings/fear/given truths (??!) that "warmer temperatures mean more moisture and evaporation - fuel for storms", based on blusterings from Environment Canada's David Phillips --- yes, Canada's Cagey Climatologist!
Song calls Phillips "loquacious and perhaps the most passionate climatologist in Canada", which perhaps, might be the problem in basing an entire story solely on Phillips' climate/weather interpretations.
Being' loquacious', Phillips apparently is more than pleased to let Song report that we should 'expect more tornadoes, drought and flash flooding, extreme weather patterns that afflict the U.S. which we're likely to inherit.'
So: how'd that inheritance work out?
[When was this likely to occur? How likely was this to occur? Song doesn't mention asking Phillips that.] Will Song or the St.Catharines Standard bother to do a follow-up story examining Phillips' climate claims?
When Song writes of cold-snaps being used as "ammunition that climate change is a hoax", what is she actually saying: that 'climate change' - defined as AGW - IS man made; and therefore, cannot be a hoax?
Is this Song's underlying presumption?
Will Song now revisit her assumptions of what constitutes a hoax in light of the CRU ClimateGate scandal?
Is the often-sourced Dave Phillips the only go-to-guy in Canada for 'climate-change' explanations/predictions?
Is a climatologist, whose idea that weather (or is it climate?) is a "crap shoot" (see here), really a good sole source of information?
Has Song, or anyone, actually bothered to examine Phillips' record on the issue of AGW, around which, of course, the entire political question of "climate change" revolves?
Song writes: "A warmer climate will also bring more "wildcards" in the weather system, Phillips says, or increased variability"; yet Song doesn't quite get around to asking Phillips to cite his scientific sources.
"Increased variability"?
Where are Phillips' citations??
Are "wildcard" and "crap shoot official climatologist lingo, dumbed down for the Joe Niagaras of the world?
Is the wildcard crapshoot climate gospel of Phillips simply proof in itself?
And what is it a proof of, anyway?! Certainly not of AGW - or are we we supposed to assume this confirms AGW by subliminal GreenFearTM osmosis?
Song writes "Canada can expect to see an increasing frequency of "high impact" incidents, Phillips says".
"High impact" eh? Compared to WHAT, exactly???!!! Based on what? When? Where, exactly?
The 'reporter' Vivian Song DOES NOT REPORT these details!!'
"One of the things climatologists used to say is that the last 100 years of weather data will be the story of our future since weather repeats itself" Phillips says.
Song doesn't report which climatologists Phillips was referring to.
"But I don't believe that anymore," Phillips says.
Eh?!
Cagey David Phillips 'doesn't believe' WHAT?? In the last 100 years of "weather data"? Or that weather repeats itself? Or that past patterns are - or are not - the story of the future?
What DOES Phillips believe? What is he actually saying?
Song doesn't report asking him.
Does Cagey Climatologist David Phillips now believe in what - a thousand-year trend of weather-data? A ten-year trend? A ten-day trend? WHAT?
A trend sourced where?? From the loquacious, deck-stacking, wildcard crapshooters at the CRU?!
"Changes are happening so rapidly" says Phillips.
"So rapidly"?
How rapidly? When? At what rate? Based on what data?! Have rapid changes in weather never occurred on earth?!
Song doesn't report asking Phillips about that.
What exactly is Canada's supposed-SENIOR CLIMATOLOGIST actually saying in Song's interview, for Gore's sake?!
Song doesn't quite ask. Just quoting whatever drips outta Phillips' mouth is enough, apparently.
Has anybody from Sun Media, or from the St. Catharines Standard, bothered to ask Mr. Senior Climatologist Phillips lately to comment on the GreenSCAMTM revelations of ClimateGate?
Conveniently, depending on what you might glean from Phillips' glib statements, maybe AGW is 'climate change', maybe it isn't!!
It would be helpful to know what scientific evidence does Canada's Senior Climatologist David Phillips have to show that AGW is directly linked to 'climate change'?
(Is it the same "science" which is still-not-yet-revealed by climatalarmist TM (here) Liberal MPP Jim Bradley?!)
Song launched an offensive, all right... what's overdue is a frank post-Jokenhagen, post-ClimateGate follow-up with Phillips, minus the snowjob.
*
No comments:
Post a Comment