Disappointed in CT&L

[badwing]

I really liked this mag and paid for a two year subscription. I'll continue reading my remaining issues but wont renew. There's just too many other good reads out there without the annoying and innaccurate Bob Friel leftist spin. That's not why I buy a travel magazine. This months issue points out that nearly 100% of your paying readership took issue with Bobs politically motivated innacurate global warming rant and what does Bob do? He responds by attacking the readers intelligenceand CT&L prints it. Then Bob goes on the forum and links to a bunch of websites and articles theat justify his view. Never once even considering that he could be wrong.

Here's some links for you, Bob.. Reputable sources also, no ?

Research is now showing a warmer Earth produces less hurricanes!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070418-hurricanes.html?source=rss

Energy saving light bulbs contain Mercury.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2007-03-28T010748Z_01_N27448

Top hurricane forecaster says Global Warming is NOT man made
http://www.comcast.net/news/science/index.jsp?cat=SCIENCE&fn=/2007/04/07/630369.html&cvqh=itn_gore

Mars warming equally as fast as Earth.. Martians must cut back on their CO2 use !!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[SCChuck]

Badwing,
Anyone who disagrees with doctor Bob is biased and uses psuedo-science. Anyone who agrees with doctor Bob is reputable, intelligent, accurate, etc.

What kills me in all this is the hypocrisy of so many of the alarmists. Al Gore makes millions off his "sky is falling" movie but spends $30,000 a year on gas and electric. John Travolta talks about the importance of using alternative fuels yet owns 5 jets and produces 800 tons of carbon emissions annually. Doctor Bob calls a Senator a Butt Ostrich because he questions manmade global warming and insults our intelligence for doubting the whole thing yet promotes the tourism industry that requires boat or plane travel and....

ahhh, what's the use? At least Sheryl Crow is doing her part by only using one square of toilet paper. That's making a difference.

[CTLBob]

Hi Badwing,

Glad to hear you read CT&L. However, nothing said that "nearly 100% of CT&L's paying readership took issue" with my rant. It was talking only about the six letters we'd received by that date... Six letters out of 152,000 paid readers.

Apparently people who didn't have a problem with my story didn't feel the need to write in. Now that we've run a few negative letters, though, it's more than 2-to-1 in favor of the piece.

"Then Bob goes on the forum and links to a bunch of websites and articles theat justify his view. Never once even considering that he could be wrong."

Who said I never considered I could be wrong? That's part of the process of vetting the information and the studies for yourself... which I did and had to follow the legitimate science to the logical conclusions as I've mentioned. And the "bunch" of websites and articles include the most unimpeachable, objective experts on the earth's climate.

"Here's some links for you, Bob.. Reputable sources also, no ?"

Well, yes and no.

Research is now showing a warmer Earth produces less hurricanes!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070418-hurricanes.html?source=rss

Yes, that's a very interesting story. A lot of the basic research on wind shear effects on hurricanes was done at my alma mater's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. And your reason for posting this? To help my argument? This actually takes as fact that there IS global climate change. This story is part of what I described as science moving on beyond the "does it exist" question, which is answered. Here they're trying to model some of the the complex effects that global warming is having on atmospheric circulation. This data suggests that global warming may create more wind shear, which could serve to rip apart hurricanes as they form. So, again, it's global warming that's creating that extra wind shear.

Energy saving light bulbs contain Mercury.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2007-03-28T010748Z_01_N27448

OK, another good story. Yes, there's an issue with compact flourescents having some mercury in them... and that they have to be disposed of properly... and that it won't be until LEDs are perfected for home lighting that we'll see a real across-the-board improvement. And your point that this somehow refutes something I've said is what exactly?

Top hurricane forecaster says Global Warming is NOT man made
http://www.comcast.net/news/science/index.jsp?cat=SCIENCE&fn=/2007/04/07/630369.html&cvqh=itn_gore

This link led to a story about pigeons being put on birth control. I assume it was just a changing home page for Comcast. And I assume the original story was about William Gray of Colorado State.
Have you read Dr. Gray's paper that refutes (kind of) global warming? I have; here's a link: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/107533.pdf. He has agreed that there's global warming and even concedes that man might be responsible for some of it. His main theory, though, is that it's all about the Gulf Stream's thermohaline circulation, and all this global warming biz will blow over and the earth will start cooling again in a few years.
Here's the big thing you have to look at when citing papers by scientists: Is it published and peer reviewed? If not, then it's just an idea, just an opinion that's not been put to any rigorous objective tests which are the standard for credible research. Gray's hasn't; he hasn't offered his theory up for official peer review (like, for instance the studies looked at by the climate scientists of the IPCC). Climate researchers have, however, gone ahead and reviewed Gray. Let's forget the real weirdness of a scientist beginning a paper with a political quote (holy cow, what a coincidence: Gray uses Inhofe's "hoax" line, just like I did in my story). And the even weirder use of a quote from a representative from the oil industry as his closer... not so strange bedfellows there. And let's just focus on how the climate scientists are saying that Gray has based his theories on beliefs about ocean circulation, tropical upwelling and evaporation that are 50 years out of date. The new data, the real data says Gray is all wrong.


Mars warming equally as fast as Earth.. Martians must cut back on their CO2 use !!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html[/QUOTE]

The top of this story says:
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

So again, not sure if you're trying to help my side of the argument or not.

And for this story, your reputable source is: Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia. But you're not willing to believe NASA's top climate scientist, right? Because you know they've got the real facts over there at Pulkovo, and NASA doesn't know anything? Even after a few drinks, the folks at NASA know how to read data (and the data shows man-made global warming is a problem).

In this same story, another scientist talks about your reputable expert and his theory like so:
"Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

And as to the whole "it's the sun" thing that ran its course not long ago: The observable, measurable fact here on earth is that variances in solar radiance are accounting for, at most, about a quarter of the increase in our global temperature. The much bigger factor is us.

[badwing]

Amazing really.. In the very first paragraph of your reply to me you wrote

"Glad to hear you read CT&L. However, nothing said that "nearly 100% of CT&L's paying readership took issue" with my rant. It was talking only about the six letters we'd received by that date... Six letters out of 152,000 paid readers. "

When actually what your magazine wrote (verbatim) was

"Bob Friel's eco-themed Q&A, "Global Warming: Does It Mean I Can Wear White Year-Round?" (July 2007), has attracted the most responses in recent CT&L history. So far, 100 percent of the letters have been anti-Bob"

Thats your magazine I'm quoting.. I guess since I disagree with your opinions I must be confused.