Reprint from ACCURACY IN THE MEDIA ------

     M E D I A  D E C E P T I O N  O N  G L O B A L  W A R M I N G

         By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid
                    June 26, 2001

        When the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on global warming
   on June 6, responding to questions posed by the White House, the news media
   gave it big play. A long story in the New York Times included only one brief
   quote from the summary of the report by eleven atmospheric scientists. It said,
   "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human
   activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to
   rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising."

         That gave the impression that even Dr. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T., a
   prominent global warming skeptic, had suddenly flipped and endorsed the
   theory that human activity is causing the earth to overheat. CNN said the panel
   agreed unanimously. Dr. Lindzen denied this in a column in the Wall Street
   Journal. He said the Academy had asked that the report present a range of views,
   and that there was no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term
   climate trends and what caused them.

         That same day, the lead story on page one of the New York Times claimed
   that the U.S. has fallen behind Europe and Japan in our "ability to simulate and
   predict long-term shifts in climate." It said that our researchers have to go abroad
   "to find computers capable of handling their most ambitious climate analyses."
   This was an obvious plant by U.S. climatologists who want the government to
   give them more money to carry out their efforts to prove that we are all in grave
   danger if we don’t take immediate action to slow down the rise in the earth’s
   temperature.

         None of the stories we saw mentioned that eighteen months ago another
   panel of climatologists convened by the National Research Council had issued a
   report with mixed signals. It said that in the last two decades the rise in the
   earth’s temperature was greater than the average for the past 100 years. But it
   also said that the temperature of the atmosphere extending six to nine miles
   above the earth’s surface showed little if any warming. The global warming
   theory does not allow for differences in the temperature trends on the surface
   and in the upper air. Both are supposed to heat up together.

         The panel admitted that this was a serious problem for the believers in global
   warming. It said: "Major advances in the ability to interpret and model the subtle
   variations in the vertical temperature profile of the lower atmosphere" are
   needed. In other words, they need to figure out how the earth’s surface can be
   heating up while the middle layers of the atmosphere are not.

         The same problem was discussed in Germany by scientists from the world’s
   leading climate research centers. A German newspaper said they had been unable
   to figure out why there was a clear warming of the lower atmosphere while
   satellite measurements showed a mild cooling of the middle air layers. The most
   comprehensive climate model of the famous Max Planck Institute could not
   explain the differences between surface and satellite data. And they still can’t,
   despite their supercomputers.

          Here’s a simple answer:

          The satellite data are more comprehensive and more  accurate. The earth is not overheating!!

BEJO'S COMMENTS:

  Four years ago, Publisher Franklyn and Stone Wahl devoted two major articles to the Global Warming claims by Socialist nuts like Al Gore, and Carol Browner. His conclusion was the same as that shown above. So let's try to put this matter to rest and continue to monitor the situation without politicians trying to arouse the scientifically inept American Public. Science and Politics should never be mixed!