tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2725250747099235754.post4549464607911694423..comments2023-10-22T09:24:28.009-04:00Comments on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood: Rogers decides pollution is bad but there is no such thing as global warmingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2725250747099235754.post-25936789343608183792007-02-26T14:46:00.000-05:002007-02-26T14:46:00.000-05:00It's even worse than you imagine. From the Press ...It's even worse than you imagine. From the Press & Argus' article...<BR/><BR/><I>"The U.N. is probably not the best scientific body," said Rogers. "It's driven, unfortunately, by politics, a lot of what they do. You can find science on both sides."<BR/><BR/>The ability to find support on both sides of the argument is evident in the interpretation of a 2005 document from the U.S. Geological Survey, which Rogers quotes as saying, "it is not known whether the (Antarctic) ice sheet is growing or shrinking."</I><BR/><BR/>A) The IPCC report was the product of the global climate science community, and wasn't written by politicians (your biggest hint is in the title of that report "Summary for Policy Makers").<BR/><BR/>B) The 2005 survey of Antarctic ice said no such thing. In fact, the original author made a very public plea that his research, which he said supported global warming, was deliberately taken out of context by skeptics (probably the only exposure Rogers has to this was last year's roundly mocked report in the National Review, where the errors were given legs). His report found two things ... 1) That ice on the coasts is shrinking, which we know (the giant breakups of the ice shelves always draws huge headlines), and 2) that the interior is seeing more precipitation, which makes sense if you understand that snow and ice cease to fall below a certain temperature (the moisture remains locked up in the clouds) and only falls when it gets warm. Thus, the fact that the interior of the Antarctic is seeing more precipitation is evidence that it is warming.<BR/><BR/>So, for Mike Rogers to repeat these things is evidence that he not only doesn't understand the science of global warming or even what constitutes good science, but that he's not even trying real hard to educate himself.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03217030157423745537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2725250747099235754.post-85443909705597451352007-02-25T14:11:00.000-05:002007-02-25T14:11:00.000-05:00Interesting. A few weeks ago, CQ Politics took a p...Interesting. A few weeks ago, CQ Politics took a poll of members of Congress to gauge each party's belief in the existence of global warming.<BR/><BR/>http://syndication.nationaljournal.com/images/203Insiderspoll_NJlogo.pdf<BR/><BR/>The results were starting (but not surprising): 95% of democrats believe in manmade global warming, whereas 83% of republicans do not believe the science behind global warming.<BR/><BR/>I sent an email to Mike Rogers (who participated in the poll) to see how he voted on February 7, and shock of all shocks... never got a response.<BR/><BR/>So, I can't say I'm surprised that he doesn't believe in global warming. When you look at the list of his campaign contributors, and see all the money he's received from heavy-hitters in the energy industry, it's not surprising that he's "skeptical" about the science behind global warming.BZPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09371687142248453292noreply@blogger.com