Wash. Post's Own Meteorologist Counters Paper's Claims! 'I wince when hearing...science is 'settled' -- Climate 'hysteria' may be 'another bubble waiting to burst'

WaPo's Andrew Freedman Ducks TV Debate with Climate Depot's Morano - Demands Separate Taping

Thursday, September 10, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

[Climate Depot's Editor's Note: The Washington Post's Andrew Freedman has his hands full. After declaring on September 1, 2009, that “increasing climate change skepticism among the public is troubling” because “it flies in the face of most of the scientific evidence,” Freedman now faces a fellow Washington Post “Capital Weather Gang” member -- Meteorologist Matt Rogers – who is openly rebelling from Freedman's stated climate views. Just days after Freedman's public feud with Climate Depot over climate science, the Washington Post's Rogers declared his strong climate skepticism on the paper's “Capital Weather Gang” site on September 10, 2009, titled "A Skeptical Take on Global Warming."

Freedman had attacked Climate Depot as being “anti-science and anti-science journalism.” But after two lengthy rebuttals from Climate Depot, Freedman threw in the towel and refused to defend his climate views any further. Freedman appears so afraid of defending his global warming assertions, that he refused a TV news program's offer to a one-on-one debate with Climate Depot's executive editor (me, Marc Morano). Freedman refused to debate on Clean Skies TV, even though I instantly agreed to the one-on-one debate invitation. Freedman instead demanded to appear on the TV show separately on a completely different day than my appearance. (Sadly, most --but not all -- global warming fear promoters duck scientific debates. See: Morano debates former Clinton Official Romm - April 6, 2009 & Flashback 2006: Morano Debates IPCC's Chairman Pachauri at UN Conference in Kenya - November 14, 2006 )

Freedman had written that he is so convinced of the alleged “consensus” about man-made global warming fears that he declared not acting to prevent a climate catastrophe “would be a stunning act of defiance against the climate science community that has firmly concluded that mankind is disrupting the climate system.” [See: 1) Shock: Wash. Post Blames Obama For Failure of Global Warming Movement! President's 'mistakes may cost the planet dearly' – September 1, 2009 - 2) Wash. Post Fires Back: Accuses Climate Depot of having 'an anti-science and anti-science journalism agenda!' -- Climate Depot Responds – September 2, 2009 – 3) World-Wide Reaction to Climate Depot's Public Climate Clash with the Washington Post – September 4, 2009 ] But it now appears that instead of attacking Climate Depot for its reporting on the latest climate science, Freedman will be forced to respond to his own “Weather Gang” team members. End Editor's Note.]

Wash. Post's Own Meteorologist Counters Paper's Claims! 'I wince when hearing...science is 'settled' -- Climate 'hysteria' may be 'another bubble waiting to burst' – September 10, 2009

Washington Post Meteorologist Matt Rogers, co-founder of the Commodity Weather Group, LLC, and previously Director of Weather for MDA EarthSat Weather, referenced Freedman's recent assertions about the man-made global warming issue being “settled.” “I respect Andrew Freedman and his beliefs. We have had a number of discussions both publicly and privately regarding our differing viewpoints, and he has been nothing but respectful and professional,” Rogers wrote on September 10, 2009.

Key Excerpts from Washington Post Meteorologist Matt Rogers: There are numerous reasons why I question the consensus view on human-induced climate change covered extensively on this blog by Andrew Freedman. [...] Several times during debates individuals have told me I should not question the "settled science" due to the moral imperative of "saving the planet". As with a religious debate, I'm told that my disagreement means I do not "care enough" and even if correct, I should not question the science. This frightens me. [...] My belief is that they are over-estimating anthropogenic (human) forcing influences and under-estimating natural variability (like the current cold-phase Pacific Decadal Oscillation and solar cycles) [...] To be blunt, the computer models that policy-makers are using to make key decisions failed to collectively inform us of the flat global land-sea temperatures seen in the 2000s. [...] The argument that the air we currently exhale is a bona fide pollutant due to potential impacts on climate change flummoxes me. CO2 is also plant food. [...] As a meteorologist, verification is very important for guiding my work and improving future forecasts. The verification for global warming is struggling. Three of four major datasets that track global estimates show 1998 as the warmest year on record with temperatures flat or falling since then. Even climate change researchers now admit that global temperature has been flat since that peak. [...] The coincident timing of major solar minimums with cooler global temperatures (such as during the Little Ice Age) suggests that maybe the sun is underestimated as a component for influencing climate. [...] Indeed, recent research has suggested the solar factor is underestimated (here and here). Perhaps one day, we'll have a different version of James Carville's famous political quote...something like "It's the sun, stupid!" [...] Does climate change hysteria represent another bubble waiting to burst? From the perspective of the alarmism and the saturation of the message, the answer could be yes. [...] I believe that predictions of human-caused climate change will continue to be overdone, and we'll discover that natural factors are equally and sometimes even more important.