Tyler News Director Goes on Rant about Climate Change, Calls Global Warming "Laughable"

NealBarton.JPG
Tyler, Texas, which has produced many yellow roses and U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert, is also home to Neal Barton. Barton is the news director of KETK, the local NBC affiliate, who occasionally takes the liberty of delivering a bombastic on-air op-ed. Think Dale Hansen, minus the humor and self-awareness.

On Friday, he delivered a stemwinder of an op-ed in which he dismissed climate change as "laughable," "all bunk" and an "unsubstantiated hypothesis."

KETK, alas, does not allow "Neal Barton's POV" to be embedded. Best we can do is a similar rant from 2012 Think Progress posted to YouTube:

They do, however, provide a transcript of Friday's monologue. It's astounding:

Recently, a UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its first report in seven years on the now widely accepted phenomenon known as 'climate change'.

But one teacher says it's all bunk and you won't hear this on the mainstream media. So I'm glad to serve equal time.

House of Commons Science and Technology committee publishing a report, damning the media for confusing 'fact' with opinion and pushing the message that, in terms of freak weather, 'the worst is yet to come'.

Yeah ... sure it is.

Emeritus Professor Les Woodcock goes against the grain and when a reporter asks the former NASA scientist about 'climate change' and 'global warming', he laughs.

He says "the term 'climate change' is meaningless. The Earth's climate has been changing since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of 'man-made climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth's surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences..

He says "there is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.

"The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.

But surely most of the world's leaders, scientific community and people in general can't be wrong can they?

Prof. Woodcock hits back: "This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it's not up to me to prove it does not exist, Its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory."

Amen sir.

(h/t Forrest Wilder)


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
48 comments
notmadeomoney
notmadeomoney

I wonder if anybody has bothered to ask KETK's meteorology staff what they think about meteorology.

joshua
joshua

why would Cow flatulence produced methane be worst than Buffalo produced farts?  What kind of "device" do the tree huggers propose to strap onto Cows to stop methane production from farting cows?  Who will build, monitor, repair, and install such devices, and will beef or milk taste differently from "fart controlled cattle"......these idiocy driven non-fact based scare tactic liberal mind wandering issues are just BORING...as are the bloviation driven "elite-wannabe-pseudo-intellectual internet keyboard floggers.

cajunscouse9
cajunscouse9

The weatherman can't accurately predict what the hell is happening in my 7 day forecast, so why would I believe someone telling me we're all gonna burst into flames because cow farts are causing global warming?

By the way, whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Is it not fashionable anymore?

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

It is interesting to note that this professor of chemical thermodynamics, who apparently studied and researched the underlying reactions that cause the temperature fluctuations is being flogged.  This IS what the man did, what the man studied; if he says there may be an error in the science (and he's not the only prominent climate scientist to make this claim), people should at least give him a listen.

I mean, we give credence to entomologists who predict widespread famine and overpopulations "...The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate .." first line in The Population Bomb, Thomas Erlich, 1968.


Why can't we give an actual climate scientist some credence when he makes a statement in his field of specialization?

JohnSmallBerries
JohnSmallBerries

"there is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."

That statement is plainly idiotic. 

roo_ster
roo_ster

Yeah, the East Anglia data drops holed the warmist arguments below the waterline in the minds of anyone paying attention, the willingness to examine data, and any familiarity with code writing.

Bobtex
Bobtex

He used to do weather for one of the local tv stations, so I am sure that his knowledge is superior.

dingo
dingo

So its Neal Barton's 'opinion' that the professor stated "laughable," "all bunk" and "unsubstantiated hypothesis" or did the UCLA guy actually say that? 

As I read it, the op-ed is merely re-stating what the expert stated.


But Unfair Park paints a different reality. 


Astounding.

annff69
annff69

Regarding "the now widely accepted phenomenon known as 'climate change'", it was widely accepted that the world was flat. Turns out they were wrong too. Imagine that. 


ChrisYu
ChrisYu

Although it would surely disrupt their economy, I'm quite certain that China will heed the call for emissions reduction. I'm also quite certain they are putting teapots in orbit.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

Luckily for him, neither the liberal fascists nor the climate holocaust community have a lot of clout in Texas, he'll likely suffer no ill consequence for his blasphemy.

notmadeomoney
notmadeomoney

@joshua  


Pseudo-intellectual counting and estimation skills, I suppose.


There's a lot more cows being raised than there ever were buffalo roaming the plains.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@cajunscouse9 That was part of the global cooling campaign.  dammit if the climate just refuses to cooperate with all those liberals who keep trying to preserve it!  They say it's cooling, it gets warmer, they say its warming, it levels off.  The kicker is, in both scenarios, the exact same things were causing the climate change.


I can't wait for some scientist to come out of one of these conferences, and in a rare fit of candor, throw his hands in the air and holler "We don't know what the fuck the climate is doing."

Cliffhanger
Cliffhanger

@RTGolden1 Maybe because he hasn't bothered to publish it in an actual scientific journal?

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@RTGolden

Not when The Debate Is Over.

PlanoDave
PlanoDave

@JohnSmallBerries Putting it into the context (as I read it), I think he meant that there isn't any scientific evidence that the CO2 increase we have seen over the past 100 years is, in fact, an anomaly or an aberration over the full history of the planet.  That is actually a quite valid statement.  In geological terms, we haven't been keeping records for a statistically significant time.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@bvckvs

There is no missing plane in Malaysia. If it's in Malaysia, it's not missing.

PlanoDave
PlanoDave

@bvckvs What, you didn't check The Daily Show for your news, too?


Because the only available sources of news come from local TV news and the Dallas Observer...

joshua
joshua

@dingo It is liberal enthusiastic elitism to make fun of ANYONE in East or West Texas as ignorant and pointless...heck, the brilliance must be in Houston, Dallas, Austin, or San Antonio!!     lol snarf snarf....

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@TheRuddSki  

The least Mr. Nicholson could have done was put up Kilgore's rebuttal.

cajunscouse9
cajunscouse9

Not sure about that "Pretty damned accurate" thing. Where I'm at the local forecast was for a 10% chance of light showers. It just poured like a double twatted cow pissing off a bridge onto a flat rock.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@Cliffhanger @RTGolden1from what I understand, it is difficult at best, and career ending in some cases, to try to publish anything that doesn't push the anthropomorphic climate change agenda.

MikeO
MikeO

@PlanoDave -- They have studied the CO2 content trapped in the gas bubbles in ice cores drilled in the poles (or somewhere similar) so they do have CO2 records going back millions of years (I believe -- at least thousands of years, I ain't looking up the exact dates, but I know what I know). 

So yeah, man's fossil fuel burning has definitely been causing the troubles. There are graphs at NOAA or the EPA (somewhere) that prove it beyond an idiot's doubt.  

And just to address this kind of silliness, the climate is FLUCTUATING due to the problem, so just because it is colder than usual at one time or another does not refute global warming (I, for one, am not afraid to use that term). 

Everybody should look into the Earth's polar reversal (or flipping) if you really want a shock. That will put all of this climate stuff to shame.

JohnSmallBerries
JohnSmallBerries

@PlanoDave @JohnSmallBerries  With your disclaimer, the most generous reading might improve from idiotic to just plain wrong although I don't think your disclaimer is warranted in the first place.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@holmantx

"The debate is over", so we can just drop it now, can't we?

notmadeomoney
notmadeomoney

@cajunscouse9  


You dumb, cajunscouse.  U R RLY DUM


If the forecast is issued for a broad area and 10% of the area sees rain, then the 10% chance of rain was a perfectly accurate forecast.  "Downpour" is a subjective term too, check your rain gauge and you might find that a 5 minute downpour doesn't really amount to much rain at all.
Your kind always thinks they're smarter than educated professionals though, so I suspect trying to educate you will only make you more stubbornly stupid.

cajunscouse9
cajunscouse9

Yes, my math skills must be flawed. That forecast of a 10% chance of light showers becoming a downpour shows my ineptitude.

Imbecile.

So, back to that "hole" in the ozone layer. Is it fixed? Patched over with Flex Seal? Maybe the fundraising for a fix dried up and something more attractive was needed so cash can be made from a new scare tactic? Would you like that back as an issue? I'll help by riding a farting cow while spraying cans of Aqua Net in the air.

#YeeHaw

gaseti
gaseti

@PlanoDave @MikeOWow! And now, all of these centuries later, scientists are once again saying they believe the Earth is at the center of the universe.

JohnSmallBerries
JohnSmallBerries

@PlanoDave @JohnSmallBerries  "The studies, however, seem to have an agenda of making a connection between man-made output of CO2 and climate change."

Well if you believe that then there is little point in discussing this. If you think nerdy climate guys are out there trying to "make a connection" for some unknown reason, then I have no idea what to say. If you say that they want government grants then you have no idea how scientists work. You would be impugning the integrity of an entire field and ignoring the obvious flaw that climate scientists could get bigger grants from private industry if they could refute any theory of climate change. So if they were only in it for the money and grants they would run to private industry

In any case, none of this has anything to do with the claim I criticized which, in fact, would seem to be the very type of oversimplification that you want to criticize. The statement about no evidence is the "a 
simplistic conclusion... being drawn" that you should "have doubts about." So I would expect you to criticize it.

PlanoDave
PlanoDave

@JohnSmallBerries  My point is that this is an exceptionally complex issue and I have doubts about the simplistic conclusions that are being drawn.

For example, I have not seen any of the studies address the changes in farming and crop rotations over the past couple of decades.  Remember, plants take in CO2 and put out O2.  The changes in our farming and pest/weed control could have a play here.  God forbid that anybody in DC should ever cross Monsanto, though.

The studies, however, seem to have an agenda of making a connection between man-made output of CO2 and climate change.  It appears that the tactic is to say "here's the problem and here's the proof" and, of course, the solution is increased government regulation.

Because the pollution in China stays in China.  Right?

JohnSmallBerries
JohnSmallBerries

@PlanoDave @MikeO  "man's scientific intelligence told us that the earth was in the middle of the universe."

Science said no such thing. What we call science did not exist in its refined form when those types of claims were common. 

You are correct in saying "beyond an idiot's doubt" is not helpful to the conversation. Even so the original claim of this thread (that the statement about CO2 levels being reproducible is idiotic) still holds. The statement was idiotic. 



scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@MikeO mikeO, they have done that, and lo and behold, this present concentration isn't that far off.  Further, they've gone back just 2000 years and we've had higher CO2, hotter weather, and cooler weather.  CO2 wasn't a causal factor.  So, no, it is not shown that man's use of fossil fuels has caused anything.  In science, you make predictions, and then test them.  Well, none of the tests have matched the modeling.  So, then you have to conclude that these scientists don't know what they're talking about. 

MikeO
MikeO

Arguing over this is just silly. There's not much that we can do about it anyway -- the damage was done long ago.

And I actually believe that with CFL bulbs and LCD TV's and higher MPG vehicles we have made a small improvement (its amazing how a million little things can add up), but our fate is set in geological time.    

I just hope that you at least recycle. No scientific "hoodoo" about that, is there?

PlanoDave
PlanoDave

@MikeO Again, at a previous point in history, man's scientific intelligence told us that the earth was in the middle of the universe.  If you believe that we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge, good for you.  For me, I don't think that very many things this complex have been proven "beyond an idiot's doubt".

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@MikeO Another naturally occurring event that is going to be blamed on SUV's?

JohnSmallBerries
JohnSmallBerries

@RTGolden1 @JohnSmallBerries @PlanoDave  I am choosing to avoid the question for the reason stated above. It is a fallacy known as "plurium interrogationum." That is explained above. There are multiple lines of independent evidence that are used to determine past and present CO2 levels.

They do not always agree by the way. It is not limited to "100 years of record keeping." To imply that or say it is false.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@JohnSmallBerries @PlanoDave...in other words, you're choosing to avoid the question, either because you don't have an answer for it or you know the answer doesn't support your previous statement.

JohnSmallBerries
JohnSmallBerries

@PlanoDave @JohnSmallBerries  No. They went out and said, "Look. It is flat can't you see? All you have is an abstract theory and some math. That is crazy." The idea of independent lines of evidence that are testable comes much later in intellectual history. 

PlanoDave
PlanoDave

@JohnSmallBerries

I think that the people who believed that the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth made similar statements....

JohnSmallBerries
JohnSmallBerries

@PlanoDave @JohnSmallBerries  
I won't respond to "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" type questions.
The evidence of CO2 increase exists in multiple independent lines of evidence and not "100 years of record keeping."

PlanoDave
PlanoDave

@JohnSmallBerries

Just to clarify, you are saying that you believe that 100 years or record keeping is statistically significant in measuring global weather patterns?  Or am I misunderstanding your position here?

James080
James080

@Daniel @holmantx@TheRuddSki 

Actually Daniel, they were not exonerated. They destroyed the raw temperature data provided from weather stations from around the world, so all that was left to examine was the "value added" data. The two separate investigations of East Anglia found in one instance "no proof of intentional misconduct," and the other found that Dr. Jones violated of GB's FOI laws, but prosecution (of Jones) was barred by statute of limitations. Nonetheless, Berkley's BEST project largely confirmed EA and NOAA records of a warming rate of .4C/century until about 1998, when the rate of temperature increase was 0.2C/century. Of course, you can play with the baseline centering or start date and get higher or lower rates of warming. 

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

@Daniel

Dude, what part of The Debate Is Over did you not get?

Just cancel that New Orleans vacation, plant your garden earlier, and quit worrying about it.

You'll miss all that nice weather when the next big-ass volcanic eruption plunges us into the next ice age, believe me.

Daniel
Daniel

@holmantx @TheRuddSki  Except East Anglia wasn't caught cooking the numbers. In fact, they were explicitly exonerated of same. But once you're invested in a narrative, it can be hard to let go of it, eh?

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

@TheRuddSki  

the debate was over the day East Anglia was caught lying on the numbers.

Just like the President on Obamacare.

Unfortunately, these losers just can't drop anything

except the next election.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...