FOXLEAKS: Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science
December 15, 2010 8:08 am ET by Ben Dimiero
In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
The directive, sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record."
This latest revelation comes after Media Matters uncovered an email sent by Sammon to Fox journalists at the peak of the health care reform debate, ordering them to avoid using the term "public option" and instead use variations of "government option." That email echoed advice from a prominent Republican pollster on how to help turn public opinion against health care reform.
Sources familiar with the situation in Fox's Washington bureau have expressed concern about Sammon using his position to "slant" Fox's supposedly neutral news coverage to the right.
Sammon's orders for Fox journalists to cast doubt on climate science came amid the network's relentless promotion of the fabricated "Climategate" scandal, which revolved around misrepresentations of emails sent to and from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.
At the time of Sammon's directive, it was clear the "scandal" did not undermine the scientific basis for global warming and that the emails were being grossly distorted by conservative media and politicians. Scientists, independent fact-checkers, and several investigations have since confirmed that the CRU emails do not undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet.
Contrary to Sammon's email, the increase in global temperatures over the last half-century is an established fact. As the National Climatic Data Center explains, the warming trend "is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change" and "is also confirmed by other independent observations."
* * *
On the December 8 edition of Happening Now, one of Fox News' daytime straight news shows, Fox White House correspondent Wendell Goler delivered a live report from Copenhagen and was asked by host Jon Scott about "U.N. scientists issuing a new report today saying this decade is on track to be the warmest on record."
Goler accurately reported that, indeed, 2000-2009 was "expected to turn out to be the warmest decade on record," following a "trend that has scientists concerned because 2000-2009 [was] warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s." Goler went on to explain that "ironically 2009 was a cooler than average year in the U.S. and Canada," which, he said, was "politically troubling because Americans are among the most skeptical about global warming."
When Scott brought up the "Climategate" emails, Goler explained that although people had raised questions about the CRU data, "the data also comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and from NASA. And scientists say the data of course across all three sources is pretty consistent." Watch:
Less than 15 minutes after the segment, Sammon sent the following email to the staffs of Special Report, Fox News Sunday, and FoxNews.com, as well as to other reporters, producers, and network executives, instructing them to "IMMEDIATELY" include objections of "critics" when reporting on climate data:
From: Sammon, Bill
To: 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 036 -FOX.WHU; 054 -FNSunday; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers; 069 -Politics; 005 -Washington
Cc: Clemente, Michael; Stack, John; Wallace, Jay; Smith, Sean
Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009
Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data......we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
That night's Special Report with Bret Baier -- Fox's flagship news program -- featured another report by Goler on the Copenhagen conference. Anchor Bret Baier introduced the report by saying that as "'climategate-fueled skeptics continued to impugn global warming science, researchers today issued new and even more dire warnings about the possible effects of a warmer planet."
Goler's report featured a clip of Michel Jarraud of the World Meteorological Association explaining the recent finding that 2000-2009 "is likely to be the warmest on the record."
Appearing to echo Sammon's orders, Goler immediately followed this by saying that "skeptics say the recordkeeping began about the time a cold period was ending in the mid 1800s and what looks like an increase may just be part of a longer cycle."
After running a clip of American Enterprise Institute scholar Kenneth Green questioning the "historical context" of the WMO's climate findings, Goler then brought up the climategate emails:
GOLER: Meanwhile, the hacked or leaked e-mails from East Anglia University pushed the U.N. to once again defend its data. Scientists say it's consistent with that from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, and the U.N. secretary general says nothing in the e-mails cast doubt on the basic scientific message.
BAN KI-MOON, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL (video clip): That the climate change is happening much, much faster than we realized and we human beings are the primary cause.
Watch:
That night, on the same Special Report broadcast, correspondent James Rosen advanced the wildly misleading claim that climate scientists "destroyed more than 150 years worth of raw climate data."
By the time Sammon sent his email on December 8, it was already clear that "Climategate" was not only overblown, but also had no bearing on the validity of scientific theories about climate change.
- In a letter to Congress sent four days before Sammon's memo, 29 prominent scientists -- including 11 members of the National Academy of Sciences -- stated: "The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming."
- On December 2, the prestigious science journal Nature stated: "Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real -- or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails."
- On November 25, the American Meteorological Society released a statement saying: "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true -- which is not yet clearly the case -- the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."
- On November 23, Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a "lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report" by the IPCC said: "[O]ur understanding of climate science is based not on private correspondence, but on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge often represented in the dry and factual prose of peer-reviewed literature."
Several subsequent inquiries into the climategate emails did not find evidence of scientific malpractice that damages the credibility of CRU's climate science and also cleared the scientists of deceptively manipulating climate data.
Shortly after Sammon's memo, numerous media outlets, including the Associated Press, FactCheck.org, and PolitiFact.com also analyzed the emails and concluded that they did not undermine climate science.
Nonetheless, Fox's news and opinion programs relentlessly hyped the supposed scandal in order to cast doubt on the scientific case for climate change, both before and after Sammon's memo. Some lowlights:
- Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace repeatedly pushed climategate distortions, both before and after Sammon's directive.
- On December 3, America's Newsroom host Bill Hemmer falsely claimed the emails showed scientists hiding "evidence of a decline in global temperatures."
- Online, Fox's website Fox Nation characterized the emails as "Global Warming's Waterloo."
- Neil Cavuto, Fox's "Senior Vice President of Business News" and host of Your World with Neil Cavuto, interviewed a filmmaker dressed as a polar bear during the Copenhagen conference and joined him in promoting "Climategate" distortions.
A month after Sammon sent his memo, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies released data confirming that 2009 was the second warmest year on record and marked the end of the warmest decade on record.
After spending weeks hyping the Climategate non-scandal, Special Report never mentioned the NASA report.
Media Matters contacted Sammon and Fox spokespeople for comment and we have not received a response.
Jocelyn Fong and other Media Matters staff contributed to this report.

















Freakin left wing wackos
If you're just another right wing dimwit lecturing people about science, while showing that you don't have an elementary school-level understanding of the use of quotation marks, disregard this request.
This is an example of the echo chamber. johndaviset posted a supposed quote. Another wingnut will swallow it as the truth and rinse, lather, repeat, voila a right wing FACT.
Global warming is a religion, not a weather trend.
Well bravo - you almost got it right.
Fox gives them simple explanations that fit their preconceived notions.
It's interesting that the ship is beginning to develop these leaks. I doubt it will affect them much, though. They'll track down the leaker and fire him or her, most likely.
It's a real problem for the network for dead enders !
Where journalism goes to die.
You gotta feel for them, getting paid all that money and getting told to not be journalists. Oh, wait, that's why they signed up.
I used to just call it Fox Entertainment, but for now, I'll call it Skid Row.
"Ho! Ha ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust! <Whack>
"Ouch!"
Confirm your sources
Disclose conflict of interest
Adhere to your organization's code of ethics
Make sure you know how to spell when on national television
Congratulations, Mr. Williams is on your team now. Let his wisdom wash all over you like the rest of the Oligarhy at Fox.
LOL this is such a joke. Fox has no problem pushing their 'facts' down people's throats.
Such anal control over language! Anytime you see something like that you should IMMEDIATELY be suspicious. Unless you are lazy and can't think for yourself, which I guess is most of Fox's audience anyway.
About 500 years ago, I bet the catholic church was saying the same thing about Columbus and Galileo too.
"...such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question." ?
...too...much...opportunity! Must...not post...snarky examples...meant..to.......expose......stupidi.....ty...(head rolls over, mouth foams, eyes glaze)
I wonder if Sammon was able to keep a straight face as he referred to the Fox employees as "journalists".
They're not allowed to report facts that contradict Fox dogma if one person on the planet questions those facts.
But, for facts that support the GOP/Fox line " Some people are saying..." is as good as a worldwide consensus.
The only solution if you absolutely must see any Fox (Entertainment, News, Business or otherwise) property is to download it from the internet, maybe eztv or thepiratebay and watch it without commercials.
We have to starve the beast.
Are you really that stupid?
So, yes, watching any Fox network is supporting them through ad revenue. Considering how strong you came on, I would've thought you knew that.
Is your tv wrapped in tinfoil to prevent them from knowing how much porn you watch?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Broadcast
Financially and ratings-wise what benefits one company does not directly benefit the other.
SANE PERSON: Um.. it's December... In Maine...
FOX DRONE: Snow! And it's 10° out! Global warming, ha!
And then during a 90+ degree heat wave in April or October, you ask them about the heat and it's "just cyclical".
Now to the informed person, daily and weekly fluctuation in the weather indicates very little. We know the heat waves in early spring and late fall aren't proof of global warming, but merely small indicators. We also know it gets cold in the northeast and upper mid-west in the winter, global warming, climate change or not.
It's very difficult to inform people who are more concerned with their side "winning" politically then in learning facts. What does it benefit these working class Fox news consumers to shun science in the interests of the polluters and energy industry giants who are only interested in keeping a paradigm alive that benefits only them to the tune of massive profits and an ability to gouge the public?
Double points of working against your own best interests for the avid hunters and fishermen in the Fox news audience.
The problem began when the government declared CO2 a pollutant. That was the same as if a bunch of trees got together and declared oxygen a dangerous pollutant.
Oxygen is not a pollutant to trees, it is rather a necessary gas so your attempt at being clever doesn't work on any level.
I suggest you read a little bit on biological science. I am far from an expert, but you show stunning ignorance of the basics.
Sure was weird how god created multiple "generations" of dinosaurs and mammal life uniquely adapted for a gradually changing climate, only to have them all die out within decades or centuries.
Well you don't have to look very hard to find the denier spokesmen, they are a handful of contrarian, industry funded scientists and many non-scientists, who are loud and persuasive and whose arguments were mostly disproven 10 years ago.
If you are really a curious independent, take it from a layman who has invested about 3,500 hours on the subject over the past 3 years,
the skeptics don't have a scientific leg to stand on.
They habitually misrepresent other scientists work, twist the science, misquote other scientist or the IPCC, fake graphs of sea ice, temperature etc, cherry pick almost always, and repeat arguments that are already disproven by the science. Here's a place to get an idea of what really happens in the global warming debate.
The article in question will come up.
http://energysolutionswecanbelievein.blogspot.com/
I would kindly suggest going to Skeptical Science website and looking up any argument you have heard. They cover them all. The comment section is sometimes the best part, no BS, just science. This site is the best place on the internet for laymen to learn something about the science. They now have basic and advanced explanations.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
The evidence is overwhelming, with several lines of evidence all showing the same thing. AGW is the most thoroughly peer reviewed theory in the history of science. The real skepticism is among the actual scientists, because that's how science works. 97% of working climate scientists agree on AGW. My next post will have a couple of lists of scientific organizations agreeing and disagreeing on AGW.
I also recommend reading the following books.
"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway
"Climate Cover-Up": The Crusade to Deny Global Warming"
by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore
"Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change"
by Clive Hamilton
He outlines the decade-long, coal-industry funded campaign in Australia to deny climate science.
"Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate"
by Stephan H. Schneider and Tim Flannery
A court has categorized CO2 as a pollutant which is necessary for life. Do you count CO2 as a pollutant? Shouldn't we get a consensus on CO2 being a pollutant like global warming instead of relying on a possible activist judge? Maybe the scientific community should be making this decision? Not just the scientists that get their funding by politically motivated groups.
I keep forgetting if the correct term is global warming or climate change. Since either term has been happening since the beginning of the earth without man, either term is a natural occurrence. It seems like every time there is a UN global warming conference somewhere in the world there is record cold. (Like Copenhagen, New York, Poznan, record cold in US and Europe during the latest conference in Cancun.). As for asthma cases, what study has been made to separate exposure to pollution within buildings which can be much greater concentration of toxins than to that of the outdoors? The air in US major cities is significantly cleaner today even with many more cars than in the 1970's due to change in fuel composition and much less auto emissions. In fact, people had to fight the government to reduce MTBE in our gasoline which creates formaldehyde when burned.
Your last statement that if we get rid of pollutants, it will affect climate change. Where is the proof? Will more pollutants make the earth's atmosphere warmer or cooler? The greatest item affecting climate is not even a part of the computer models for weather. That item is water vapor. Scientists haven't figured out how to add water vapor to the computer models and it is over 80% of the gasses. Maybe the court should make water vapor a pollutant. Then man could work on banning clouds.
Notice, the EARTH bounces back.
We do not fare so well.
So, I will agree with you, because, in the end,the Earth will still be here.
Fortunately, stupid people will not.
Notice, the EARTH bounces back.
We do not fare so well.
So, I will agree with you, because, in the end,the Earth will still be here.
Fortunately, stupid people will not.
There is the essence of the practice: misinformation, anti-journalism, lies.
Then there is the effect of it: mass death, homicide.
Out West where I come from we incarcerate or terminate murderers.
Like witches who cast incantation spells people die from: We lynch 'em.
-
Nothing especially funny about allusions to lynching.
It is their place as "journalists" to report facts when they are facts, even--or especially--when people publicly disagree with said facts.
I must assume that when you wrote "the increase in global temperatures over the last half-century is an established fact", you did so knowing full well that "fact" is considered a four-letter word at FOX NEWS.
I thought so.
Almost every decision Murdoch has made including investing in the most vapid, unqualified media whore as a potential presidential candidate is calling into question this man's own diminishing mental faculties.
Fox News lives in a land of twisted illusions, lies, falsefronts and manufactured histories. In an age of unparalleled information dissemination the mask of a lie can be unveiled as fast and easily as a phonevideo can be posted on Youtube for the world to see.
In three words: they are doomed.
oh wait, I'm liberal. So I mean, from your lips to karl marx's ear.
;)
This is FOX after all.
There's a Hall of Famer. Thank you, audiojam. There's a lot of Denial Cult stupid on this thread, but you just ran away with it.
BTW, Miss Cleo agrees that the sun is getting bigger, but she also advises that I don't get involved in a serious relationship until Al Gore gets rid of the meat industry.
Bless your little hearts.
- Ummmm, already factored in but thanks!
Oh jeez, I think you mean an astronomer And you'll find all these scenarious are factored into the science. An expanding sun is not necessarily a hotter sun you know. Furthermore, you do know about orbital variation right? and varistion in the plane of the ecliptic right? Or what about....... I'll let you in on a little secret. Every little thing you can think of regarding climate variation has been suggested, investigated and analyzed by scientists the world over. You need to do ALOT of reading before you state things like...
The big cancer on all news these days is this demand, which is practiced in all TV and print media, to include an 'instant' criticism, even if it is a massive stretch to find any disagreement. I recall one of the worst was the NYT report on the stately funeral for Teddy Kennedy. In the article, the reporters note that 'he had his critics.' They then cite Ann Coulter who said that he was a 'drunken fat slob.'
If that is 'criticism' then they have entirely lost the meaning of the word. And all it ever does is muddy the issues. There are many many things that cannot be understood in their complexity, let along have instant criticism in one blow.
"This latest revelation comes after Media Matters uncovered an email sent by Sammon"
Where is the actual email Media Matters? Oh are we supposed to just take your word that this phoney baloney email pasted here is the real deal. It's funny how Media Matters quotes data from sources supporting the Global Warming conspiracy theory but inconveniently fails to report both sides of the debate. Umm I wonder how deep Media Matters dug to get to the bottom of Climate Gate?
Neither Sammon nor Fox News responded to requests for comment.
And this site dug very deeply into the "climategate" scam, probably as much as any source I've seen.
Try using the Googles before you post, it might save you some embarrassment.
It's not just a quirk among far-right wingers, but the rule. Not only are they not embarrassed by the things that would shame normal humans ( constant failure, ignorance, racism, gullibility, general confusion), but they seem to take pride in it.
They actually seem to grow more impressed with themselves in direct proportion to how pathetic they are. Like a couple of wires are crossed.
Baier: "Despite the news that over 500 kids have died after eating Fluffy Rabbit Cereal, skeptics dispute that these kids are actually dead and raise the possibility that they are just really tired."
Fox News - You Can Trust Us (if you have enough money)
Fox news reminds me of Michael Palin's pet store owner, insisting that what is clearly is a dead parrot is not dead because he doesn't want to give John Cleese's character a refund.
Funny how the same outlets are publishing wikileaked cables when they can damage Bush.
Then we find out that temperatures are going up because the temperature sensors were moved closer to heat sources.
If I was boss of Fox I would issue the same order. I would not want to be liable for spreading lies.
I'm assuming the heat source would be the sun. Strap yourself to a lawn chair covered with helium balloons and take it up to 15,000 or 20,000 feet. Let me know what the temperature is like as you get closer to the sun.
take a dive in the ocean some time. Coral reefs are extremely sensitive to temperature change. Coral bleaching is near epidemic proportions. Probably just happening because of all the people peeing in the ocean, right? That's the only logical conclusion.
Thanks for the laugh though!
And aren't those all man made objects increasing temperatures?
His source is most likely surfacestation.org or someone quoting them.
NASA addressed their findings HERE. The most pertinent section is the last question on page two and the graph on page three.
Hey, at least they're recycling something.
This site is a pretty good one-stop for debunking a lot of the Denial Cult propaganda.
I linked to the page specifically dealing with the Urban Heat Island BS, but the Grist site addresses most of the Cult's hit parade.
Nothing they hate more than one source that neatly neutralizes their whole bag of tricks.
By using multiple recording sites, you are able to identify minimize the effects of sites that are outliers from the overall data set.
What about sites where a building now constantly has the temp sensor in the shade?
No rational arguments, just hearsay and propaganda.
Where is the proof of these relocations?
Check out the rest of the thread, even after the heat sensor thing is debunked, Jose just keeps chugging along on it, insisting that everybody accept his premise that was a tired joke a couple of years ago.
There's the hypnotic suggestion-
And a blatant request that others simply concede some fiction-
It's blind faith, don't try to reason with it.
You are outright making things up. That is completely false.
Here is a story for you...
Your text to link here...
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years.
We know very little about the deep ocean, let alone temperature trends @ depth. They said they are puzzled by the data. If it was a great conspiracy, wouldn't they have suppressed the data?
I just went diving and saw the effects of warmer surface water. plenty of dead coral from bleaching due to approx. a 2 degree higher than normal surface temp over the last few years. Coral, not unlike redwoods, takes hundreds if not thousands of years to grow. All gone with a flash of hot water.
Shouldn't "conservatives" be working to "Conserve" our planet? Nope, It's all about the dollar bills.
Personally, I'd much rather live in a shack on a pristine beach, than a billion dollar mansion in a barren wasteland.
There are literally thousands of temperature stations. Pointing to a few poor ones shows nothing except your rank dishonesty. Ironically, when a prominent denier site (I think it was Watts up with that), a scientist took the initiative to factor in the poorly placed stations. When he filtered out these bad stations, he found the temperature was actually *higher* than otherwise! He thanked the denier site.
So please spare us your brain dead denier talking points.
(My qualifications: BS Physics, MS Sys. Mgmt., Asst. Dean at Post Graduate school.)
lol! And my qualifications are I'M BATMAN!
But I WILL make you tap out! It may involve something from my utility belt. But Robin will distract the ref so I can force you to submit and the championship will be mine!
So are there folks who put their "heaters" outside? How would you warm up the inside of a building with the heaters outside? I have lived in cold climes and honestly have never seen a "heater" (where I come from they were called furncaes) outside. They were all inside buildings. Or do you think the sensors were placed inside buildings?
False. The number of weather stations have not decreased; there is a lag time between when the temps from these stations record and report their data.
>>temps taken at one place averaged with others is going to skew the results.
False. Temps are not simply averaged. But as I stated above, if you take away the poorly cited stations, you get a trend that shows even more warming. Likewise, the satellite record shows the same trend.
If you really have a BS in physics, you might want to actually check what the peer reviewed science says rather than spout a bunch of knowledge.
Some people will never believe a certain thing until it's too late to do anything about it.
It seems that none of them ever ask themselves why other countries are taking actions to deal with the effects of climate change. It also seems that they would get a clue and realize that other countries wouldn't be taking these steps if climate change was a scam. Contrary to what they're thinking, America will not be exempted from the effects of climate change.
Here in GA, the headlines are noting that temperatures have reached the lowest point in recorded history, and some of the natives are still making jokes about global warming. They have no idea that what is happening in the U.S. this year is exactly what some of the scientific studies show will happen. It's not even winter yet, and we're having weather that few have seen in their lifetimes. I'm over 50, and I've never, ever known it to be 18 degrees in GA in the fall.
Interesting!
Mainly, conservatives cannot READ. They pounce on a single word here or there and then beat it to death without understanding a single thing about how it is used.
Please be aware that there is no climate change, evolution, or any other of the many things that so-called scientists have said that goes against the conservative (and thus, correct) ways of thinking here at Fox. Apparently some linguistic readjustment is in order to better align the news reporters with the factual, fair, and balanced image that we would like to project:
When discussing evolution, you are to add the phrase "originally set forth by that godless heathen Darwin and supported currently by people who believe in drowning kittens."
When discussing Islam, be sure to work in the essence of the following: "a religion that has encouraged terrorists from John Brown to Tim McVeigh and doesn't like puppies." If you can add something along the lines of "We love all Muslims and want to introduce them to Jesus and Bugs Bunny," that would help.
When talking about President Obama, use "with his questionable American citizenship and terrorist Muslim communistic socialist leanings and Elmer Fudd’s foreign policy."
When talking about the healthcare law, be sure to add "replete with death panels and Wylie Coyote contraptions."
On administrative matters, we will raise the salaries of everyone at Fox who makes over $200 k per year by 20%, and reduce the salaries of everyone making less by 53.2% to fund that raise. Our salary policy will reflect the tax policy that we want to promote. We will continue to administer electric shocks on a random basis to employees until morale improves and the problem of leaked emails ends.
idaho "weather pattern"
and I saw nothing to substantiate your claim.
Watch the Arctic. It is the key. It is warming 2-3 times faster than the rest of the world. Go to the University of Washington's Polar Science Center website and view the Artic Sea Ice Volume chart. It is alarming, to say the least.
We are living through a period of global warming associated with natural cycles with periods lasting eons. How easily we forget: a few centuries ago the world was locked in a period lasting on the order of thousands of years that is now known as the "little ice age". The "little ice age" was associated with weather extremes that caused global famines that eradicated whole civilizations and pushed mankind to the brink of extinction. Our slow recovery from the little ice age saw the decline of numerous more civilizations in equatorial desert regions across the world that did not end until approximately the time frame of the American Revolution, and the blossoming of new civilizations at higher lattitudes on previously ice-locked lands. As a negative, the Sahara desert grew in what was once the cradle of man, the deserts of Persia grew in what was once the fertile crescent, and the Aztec civilization collapsed under the strain of climate change. But nonetheless the worldwide family of man flourished on the whole in response to the climate improvement as the little ice age faded.
That the National Academy of Science claims "The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming" is poorly supported. It is based largely on a confusion of cause and effect. Global warming is not occurring simply because mankind's population growth has a warming effect on Earth. Mankind's population is growing in response to improving conditions due to global warming. And the conclusion that human activity is the cause of global warming is primarily based on the coincidence that human activity and global warming are occurring together in the present rather than a comprehensive understanding of cause and effect.
We need to remember clearly that mankind did not fare well during the little ice age -- global warming should be welcomed if the alternative is a return to the icy conditions of the recent millenia. If sea level rises ten feet, would that damage mankind more than if crops failed worldwide and Europe and the USA were to be covered in ice?
We are living in a golden age of man. Mankind is in bloom, but man is not presently in bloom because conditions for our survival are in decay. Our population expands today not simply because we have attained civilization, but because the worldwide conditions for the growth of civilization improve with global warming. While we may fear change, we have more reason to fear a future cooling trend than a warming trend.
Our response to global warming must not be a headlong rush into global economic collapse caused by our fears. We must continue to feed our population and adapt to changing conditions to the best of our ability.
Your text to link here...
You might want to check on the sources for your information. If you go to the actual NASA article, you see that the article talks about general forcings, not about the current state of the earth. When you click on the link right above that article, you get the following:
The NASA article is a bit outdated on the effects of clouds, as well. Clouds will most likely provide positive, not negative feedback. You might also want to rethink what you claimed about the albedo effect and volcanoes. The albedo effect will only decrease with AGW (another positive feedback), and particles emitted from volcanoes are short-lived and can only cool the earth temporarily, having no effect on the long term warming of our planet.
Try reading ( carefully) the NASA report, without the intro and closing comments from the columnist. He's leading you by the nose.
And you might want to give up on the Urban Heat Island angle, most of your fellow cult members made fools of themselves on that one years ago.
The following is from your link;
I'm assuming you consider your own source credible.
The Tucson Sun columnist simply bolded the part of the NASA report that he wanted you to focus on. You fell for some very low-level misdirection-type propaganda.
If you're happy with your faith, I won't expose you to any more reason.
Good luck.
“MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age” The New York Times, September 18, 1923
“The possibility of another Ice age already having started… is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specifically qualified to speak.” The Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
Global Warming:
“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” Time Magazine, Jan. 2, 1939
“America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise” The New York Times, March 27, 1933
“Permafrost in Russia is receding northward up to 100 yards per year.” Time Magazine, 1951
“Winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing.” U.S. News and World Report, Jan. 8, 1954
Global Cooling…. Again?
“Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” The New York Times, May 21, 1975
“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another Ice Age.” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
“North Atlantic sea temperatures declined, and shipping routes were cluttered with ice. Furthermore, the permafrost in Russia and Canada was advancing southward.” The New York Times, December 29, 1974
“There is very important climatic change going on right now… It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth—- like a billion people starving. Fortune Magazine, from Reid Bryson, February 1974
Back to Global Warming…..Confused Yet??
“About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades.” Al Gore, from ‘Earth in Balance” 1992
“Billions will die,” says Lovelock, who tells us he is not normally a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a “broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords”, and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot, where a few breeding couples will survive. The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
“Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” Time Magazine, April 9, 2001
“Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming” The New York Times, December 27, 2005
Your text to link here...
Nothing further.
But I guess that's what you get from a government education.
Those few temperature sensors and temperatures from them are a miniscule amount which should have little or no affect on the average obtained from worldwide sensors. To to prove your point, you would have to survey of all of the temperature sensors in the entire world and show beyond a doubt that they are all being influenced by local heat sources. Therefore, the points made do not contradict the overall assertion that the world is warming.
Using statistical and measurement techniques, scientists have concluded that the earth is warming. Many conservative radio and TV personalities say that the earth is not warming or that if it is warming it is as a result of natural phenomena. However, they cite no evidence. Some of them have looked out their windows and found cool temperatures and concluded that the world is not warming. In other words, they're taking an observation that occurred on one day or in one week, month, or year as evidence that scientific observations that have occurred over 50 years from most parts of the world are incorrect. This way of downplaying global warming is totally ludicrous, and no scientist would ever make that claim, because to do so is actually a demonstration that their scientific knowledge is minimal or nonexistent.
If they accept the idea that global warming is occurring, they then assert that it could be a natural phenomenon. Again they supply no evidence. It is further evidence that people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage show a disdain for science because they do not understand it or its methods. They assert their their beliefs for which there is no evidence whatsoever other than what they personally have seen in their own small parts of the world.
The assertion that the world is warming as a result of normal fluctuations that could last thousands of years has a little more merit. It could be that the activities of human beings have had little effect on climate, but evidence suggests otherwise. Scientists can measure the amount of carbon dioxide that comes forth from automobiles, coal burning plants, and most every operation that produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct. As a result, they can estimate the amount of carbon dioxide that goes into the air every year. From those measurements, they can conclude that human activity is having an effect on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Scientists have been able to measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and they have shown a correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide and the rise in temperature. Looking for causes and checking out models, they have concluded that the rise in temperature is a result of increases in carbon dioxide caused by human beings.
Scientists are conservative in nature; they do not accept assertions unless there is indisputable evidence, and even then if counter evidence appears, they review it with great scrutiny. Unlike resources that you quote, they rarely make blanket assertions. The idea of global warming is an outrageous assertion; however, because scientists can supply evidence on an international scale and in such massive amounts, the assertion of global warming must be accepted as true.
One other issue is that agreement among a lot of people does not make an assertion true. For example, there was a time when most everybody believed that the earth was flat. When more and more evidence came in from better, more precise instruments measuring the curvature of the earth, eventually, that belief had to be given up. There were a few people who held out until they died, but they were relegated to a small corner of the world and ignored by everyone else. Unfortunately, there will probably be a similar group of people who do not agree that global warming is taking place or that human beings are causing it even after the sea rises and inundates many of the coastal cities.
An international group of scientists, from many parts of the world, who have taken measurements independently and have come together to talk about them have concluded that global warming is serious, dangerous to the future, and should be acted upon immediately. They agreed because of the massive amounts of evidence. All during the scientific debates, other scientists have tried to find problems with the evidence. When those problems were found reasonable, scientists change the procedure so that those problems would no longer exist.
The methods of science may be slow, counterintuitive, and painstaking but they lead to truth.
Climate science is as grounded as evolution or relativity.
You cite an editorial, but science is not run by editorials, but by peer reviewed science:
link
I have no idea what you are talking about, and either do you.
Nice, winning the argument against yourself.
Your reference to the NASA article--here is the complete sentence that you and DuHamel harvested:
That has to do with the earth's axial precession, a process that takes 26,000 years--13,000 to go one way, 13,000 to go the other. Tell me how thousandths of a degree the earth will cool in 13 years by that process. As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon."
Are you one of those critics that Sammon mentioned, calling data into question? I hope so. Who's the other one?
Danged oligarhy tripped me up.
Please, cite the reports and fraudulence incurred.
How much do the "fraudulent air temperature reports" skew the standard deviation and confidence interval of the entire sample size and distribution, and what is the sample period?
And are all of these data used for climate analysis, or just some? What climate analyses employed these data?
Don't let the Oligarhy trip you up either.
Don't we want the news to tell us facts and if the facts are in dispute, then state what one side says and then report what the critics say?
The reporters and editors are supposed to report the news, not interpret and report based upon their personal convictions.
I prefer to think for myself and not have some people I have never met tell me what I should be thinking about a given topic.
I wonder if that's what Fox employees said about Sammon's directive.
Let's get this global warming debate settled once and for all. A national or world debate with 10 scientists from each side go at it on tv for a week. All data must be submitted three months in advance with no new "evidence" at the last minute without both sides agreeing. Full disclosure of the money and supporting organizations for each team in advance. Many of us have not seen the proof of global warming being actually man-made. It is more of an untested hypothesis fostered by those seeking political gain.
You should really start questioning the source of your info when you post nonsense like this. For the real status on AGW, see:
link
http://www.climatepolicy.org/?p=20
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/#reality
http://www.climategate.com/
http://www.climatedepot.com/
By the way, if you look at NAS web site, there are 2100 members and 350 foreign associates. Only 29 are sited as being pro man-made global warming (there could be considerably more, but only the 29 are recognized). As you will see looking at the above sites, there is considerable opposition to the idea of man-made global warming. The debate is not over and true science is not closed minded to accept only views that are the prevailing consensus. It has been a community where peers can look at the data and repeat the experiment to confirm the hypothesis with consistent results before becoming a theory. Instead, the IPPC has based its reports on missing raw data, creative statistical analysis, personal attacks on skeptics, and denial of peer review.
As I stated above, I don't reach a conclusion on how many web sties someone can link me to. Again, the peer-reviewed science shows that the science refuting AGW simply doesn't exist.
The rest of your post is seriously confused. AGW has backed up its hypothesis. There is no missing raw data, the statistical analysis behind AGW is sound, and there has been no denial of peer review. If you really want to understand the science behind AGW, you might stop looking at the sites that pass on this bogus information. As far as the personal attacks on the skeptics go, the attacks mostly come from the other side, unless you count the personal frustration in private emails as attacks.
Unless we're talking about the bible, the health care bill or the fact that Obama is a Kenyan
Fourier calculates colder earth without an atmosphere (1824)
Tyndall discovers relationship between CO2 and long-wave radiation (1859)
Arrhenius calculates global warming from anthropogenic CO2 (1896)
Chamberlin models global carbon exchange including feedbacks (1897)
Callendar predicts global warming increase catalysed by CO2 emissions (1938)
Revelle predicts inability of oceans to sequester anthropogenic CO2 (1958)
from "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart
the greenhouse gas effect was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, proven to exist by John Tyndall in 1858, and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
But for FOX Noise, Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans and tea baggers, Global Warming is just an agenda cooked up by Al Gore and other liberals.
by Stacy Feldman - Feb 26th, 2010
Nicholls, a professor at Monash University in Victoria, Australia, said the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment report was subjected to several rigorous tiers of review. The study cites over 10,000 papers from the scientific literature, "most of which have already been through the peer-review process to get into the scientific literature."
The report went through four separate reviews and received 90,000 comments from 2,500 reviewers, all of which are publicly available, along with the responses of the authors, Nicholls said.
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100226/climate-scientists-defend-ipcc-peer-review-most-rigorous-history
But for deniers, there's no evidence.
Myron Ebell, the non-scientist right-wing lobbyist who Faux News turns to as an 'authority' on global warming.
Another of Fox News' favorite climate experts is Steve Milloy. He's a scientist, but a professional PR man, and a registered and paid lobbyist for fossil fuel interests. Has Fox ever disclosed this to viewers? I doubt it.
Milloy's foundation has been involved in both the campaign to deny that tobacco is a health risk, and the global warming denial PR campaign. He runs the denier website Junk Science, which is very aptly named.
It's obvious that science isn't the only thing you have trouble understanding. But, please, feel free to keep digging that hole you're in, I can still see the top of your head.
Don't feed it, let it die. That way it doesn't get its check.
I don't think repeatedly making them look stupid makes it harder to separate fact from fiction, I think it makes it more obvious that they're full of crap.
They may not be affected by facts, but I always consider that there may be some recovering Foxbot, some right winger with enough intellectual curiosity that they're starting to notice the lies. Seeing a fellow traveler flounder like that might just be what they need to cure them.
What Sammon actually said: "we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."
Well AK, to use the term you so frequently use to describe me: LIAR! Sammon simply wants his people to be impartial on the AGW debate. I realize this is really tough for you far lefties to accept anyone who actually offers a fair and balanced approach to any subject. After all, leftists are never wrong! Right?
Except that the scientific community really isn't debating the issue much, anymore. They reached a concensus years ago. Most of their discussions have to do with the amount of impact that Climate Change is having, and how quickly we will reach a tipping point. What Sammon is doing is trying to make it seem that the scientists are still disputing Climate Change at all. That approach isn't fair, balanced, or impartial, it's fraudulent. So, which term do you prefer for yourself: disingenuous or lying?
It's interesting, though. It's one thing for a typical Fox viewer to absorb the calculated propaganda that they get through the tv. This is an opportunity for them to see something "behind-the-scenes", not meant for public consumption, that should give them a little insight into how Fox manipulates them.
Some of them are so well-trained that they still can't see it, even with this much help.
The difference is, some of us understand what he's saying, and some of you don't.
Keep up the good work.
This would have been an awesome place to post a link to that more complete quote that you read somewhere.
I will say this until I'm blue in the face. Sammon and the rest of the senior producers are getting their marching orders from their boss. Go after Bossman Ailes.
An opinion piece in The Australian is actually one of the sources DanPoole uses in his blog he links to below, along with other Denier Cult blogs, and a pdf of another opinion piece from a LaRouche publication.
Murdoch has done a pretty good job of creating an international network of confirming sources.
But if you want to see a really funny blog still arguing things that were debunked years ago, check out Poole1Dan's link.
Tell me where I'm wrong instead of fallaciously claiming the arguments I made have been debunked.
Besides, there aren't really a lot of "arguments" there, just the same flawed logic and linking to other Denial Cult blogs and opinion pieces that make up a thousand other blogs exactly like yours.
I don't mean to discourage you from your hobby, if you still haven't caught on to the "climategate" scam, have a ball. Just don't expect other people to spend a lot of time joining you on Memory Lane.
No I'm not. You claimed that my arguments have been debunked without providing ANY evidence whatsoever to back up that claim. That's a fallacious argument. Anybody can say 'you're wrong!' That doesn't win you the argument.
Again with the fallacious arguments. Why is my logic flawed? What are you proving by smearing my sources as 'denial cults'? And where is the opinion in saying the earth cooled by 0.7 degrees in 07 and 0.6 in 08?
Good grief! As I explain below, this thought is so incredibly stupid, it is hard to find the patience to refute it. Do you even understand the first thing about statistical significance?
I got a 3.1 in a political statistics class back in my sophomore year of college, so yes, I do have a rudimentary knowledge about the subject. Moreover, I know that when temperature drops over a 2 year span wipe out the temperature gains from the previous 80 years, there is no global warming, much less man made global warming.
You're wrong:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/earth_temp.html
You're wrong:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
And you're wrong:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Hansen_etal.pdf
Show us where the -0.7 in '07 and -0.6 in '08 came from. You can't. It's completely made up. Your citation of that Michigander in turn lists four organizations that pronounce the fake numbers, and guess what--without citation, because it's fluff. Don't depend on him, look up the GISS reports yourself. You can do it, just one click away.
No yearly global temperature change in the past decade was over 0.3 in either direction. And 2000-2009 is the warmest decade in the past 130 years. Your numbers are from thin air, and that's air that's a little warmer these days.
Really, what a complete waste of time your link is. If March 13 is 20 degrees warmer than April 20, is the Earth not heating up? But I'm sick of playing the denier games, in which deniers post one absolutely stupid piece after the next. There is no end to that game, because as soon as we refute one point, the denier just posts another bogus argument, of which there are hundreds.
How about actually posting a link to a peer reviewed science article that backs up what you say.
This position is dangerous for the U.S. both environmentally and economically. It stiffles innovation and entrepreneurship here and we are already in a position where we are trying to catch up with other countries like China for example.
That is the memo MM posted. Seems to me it is directing them to not assert a position, one way or the other.
By the way, the science is based on flawed data.
The critics are wrong, plain and simple. It is a journalist responsibility to point this out. There is no factual basis for the critics claims, just as there is no factual basis to claim the earth is flat, no matter how many critics claim this, or how loud they raise their voice.