Promoting new book on O'Reilly Factor, Stossel again downplayed global warming
SUMMARY: On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, ABC News 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel trivialized global temperature increases, stating "[t]he globe is warming, but it's one degree." In fact, scientists have determined that the approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit * increase in global temperature during the 20th century has adversely affected several ecosystems and that a continuation of warming trends could be detrimental to humankind.
On the May 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, ABC News 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel downplayed the significance of global warming while promoting his new book Myths, Lies & Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel -- Why Everything You Know is Wrong (Hyperion, May 2006). Stossel stated that "[t]he globe is warming, but it's one degree." In fact, scientists have determined that the approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit * increase in global temperature during the 20th century has adversely affected several ecosystems and that a continuation of warming trends could be detrimental to humankind.
In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), concluded in its "Third Assessment Report" that "[r]ecent regional changes in climate, particularly increases in temperature, have already affected hydrological systems and terrestrial and marine ecosystems in many parts of the world." According to the IPCC's Key Findings:
Examples of observed changes in response to 20th century warming include shrinking glaciers, thawing permafrost, earlier break-up of river and lake ice, lengthening of mid- to high-latitude growing seasons, poleward and altitudinal shifts of plant and animal ranges, declines of some animal and plant populations, and earlier tree flowering, insect emergence and egg-laying in birds.
The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) also noted that, if these global warming trends persist as predicted over the next century, the impact on human systems could be catastrophic. "Projected adverse impacts" of climate changes, according to the IPCC, include:
- "[R]eduction in potential crop yields in most tropical and sub-tropical regions for most projected increases in temperature" and "in most regions in mid-latitudes"
- "Decreased water availability for populations in many water-scarce regions, particularly in the sub-tropics"
- "An increase in the number of people exposed to vector-borne (e.g. malaria) and water-borne diseases (e.g. cholera)"
Additionally, the IPCC noted that "simple extremes," such as "[h]igher maximum temperatures; more hot days and heat waves over nearly all land areas" -- which are deemed "very likely"-- could result in some of the following:
- "Increased incidence of death and serious illness in older age groups and urban poor"
- "Increased heat stress in livestock and wildlife"
- "Increased risk of damage to a number of crops"
- "Increased electric cooling demand and reduced energy supply reliability"
The IPCC also asserted that "[m]ore intense precipitation events" are "very likely over many areas," resulting in:
- "Increased flood, landslide, avalanche, and mudslide damage"
- "Increased soil erosion"
Stossel has previously claimed that global warming is "another foolish media-hyped scare," as Media Matters documented. In a December 10, 2004, 20/20 segment, Stossel reported on novelist Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear (HarperCollins, 2004), to present a one-sided view on the significance of global warming. During the segment, Stossel portrayed skepticism about global warming as just as scientifically valid as respectable scientific research and opinion showing that the climate is changing; misleadingly suggested that projections of the future global climate are comparable to a local news channel's "weather forecast"; and highlighted Crichton's claim that climate scientists have an incentive to exaggerate global warming in order to win grants.
From the May 10 broadcast of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Personal Story" segment tonight. As you may know, ABC newsman John Stossel has made a career of bursting myths, telling hard truths that some people don't want to hear. In his new book Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity, Mr. Stossel continues that tradition. He joins us now. OK, global warming. This is going to get you in big trouble. This is -- you know that, Stossel, right off the bat. Tell me what you think about global warming, and I'll tell you why you're going to get in trouble.
STOSSEL: Well, I rudely put it in the myth chapter with psychics and astrology, which is unfair. But it's become a religion.
O'REILLY: It has.
STOSSEL: For people.
O'REILLY: It has.
STOSSEL: The globe is warming, but it's one degree. Man probably has an impact, but we don't know for certain. But the hysteria, "We're all going to drown soon and Alaska's going to melt." This is the alarmist scientists who always get the most play in the media, and most scientists don't agree with that.
In fact, the global temperature change over the past century has been approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit, though this number is disputed. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Scientists concluded that, since the late 19th century, global temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0 degrees Fahrenheit (approximately 0.3-0.6 degrees Celsius). However, the IPCC found the global temperature increase to be somewhat higher, from 0.4 to 0.8 degrees Celsius (approximately 0.7-1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century. Media Matters for America regrets this error.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
You can count on your body the number of qualified scientists who don't belive that climate change is a product of human behavior.
We need to start licensing journalists, so we can pull their permits when they say things like this.
---"the hysteria, "We're all going to drown soon and Alaska's going to melt." This is the alarmist scientists ..." - Stossel
Take THAT, all you unnamed, imaginary scientists!
But ever since he singled out my hometown over its elected regional planning government, I have pretty much lost all respect for him. His philosophy is that urban sprawl, crowded highways, lack of urban greenspace and a lack of local farmland are all good things. While he makes sense on a few things, he's a certifiable idiot when it comes to others. All the prestige he’s gained with the retirement of Hugh Downs has really gone to his head.
The next IPCC report is due may 2007 from what I have read. The IPCC report they cite, the last one, is from 2001. The equipment and the scientists themselves have gotten much better at predicting the effects of GW. I believe in being a skeptic, but there are serious issues that need to be addressed due to GW that can only be done on a national or world level. Also there is a difference in average world temp and rises in temp in regional zones that are critica such as the artic where you have the permafrost melting and polar bears drowning.
The globe is warming, but it's one degree. Man probably has an impact, but we don't know for certain.
The above comment is completely factual and no one should have a problem with it. The one degree rise could be a natural planetary cycle. Mankind has only existed on this Earth less than 1/10th of 1% of the entire existance of the Earth. We have no way of knowing.
But the hysteria, "We're all going to drown soon and Alaska's going to melt." This is the alarmist scientists who always get the most play in the media, and most scientists don't agree with that.
This is where he is EXACTLY right. There's a saying "Environmentalists have predicted fifty of the last two environmental catastrophes." That's because the scientists that make the most hysterical predictions are the ones the media will cover because a sensaltionalist headline is what the media always wants. Remember how we were all going to die of SARS.
Strange, liberals always need proof when it comes to religion yet man made global warming hasn't been proved and yet they all immediately accept it as fact and jump on the mindless bandwagon. Not that I care so much. Anything that gets the US to stop driving SUVs is a good thing but I still find it funny.
I couldnt disagree with you more, but I wont be able to change your mind. I think the press has failed you. I agree with you that fossil fuels are a rarer commidity now and should be conserved. However the science is now becoming overwhelming on GW. The first drafts of the new IPCC are being released. Nicolas Kristof said it best in his April 18 article in NY-"The White House has used scientific uncertainty as an excuse for its paralysis. But our leaders are supposed to devise policies to protect us even from threats that are difficult to assess precisely -- and climate change should be considered even more menacing than a nuclear-armed Iran." He concludes, "The best reason for action on global warming remains the basic imperative to safeguard our planet in the face of uncertainty, and our leaders are failing wretchedly in that responsibility."
Not important in the sense that if the hysteria causes people to pollute the air less; who could be against that?
The White House has used scientific uncertainty as an excuse for its paralysis.
There's blame to go around on all sides here as far as the paralysis. Many want to rely more on nuclear energy like France does. But everytime it's brought up Greenpeace and other organizations yell "Three Mile Island" and the politicians run for cover.
I'm all for it.
Let's put the first reactor in your backyard.
No? You're not an "environmentalist," are you?
Fine, put it there I'm not worried about it. France uses it and it's been safe for them with fewer greenhouse emissions to appease the GW crowd.
Gee, you really thought you trapped me there didn't you. :(
You say that global warming hasn't been proven yet most of the scientists in the field of climatology are concerned. All of the indicators point to our climate getting warmer. I'm not a scientist, but I'm willing to listen to someone more knowledgeable than I am. As far as religion goes, all religion is based on one thing, FAITH. It can't be proved or disproved.
I'm not religious but i something cannot be proved then believing in it is based on faith. Many feel that the universe didn't just happen from nothing and that's their belief. Many feel that it has to be man that has caused the recent 1 degree increase in temperature; there's really no difference as neither can be proved.
Nice job with that "Butters" thing.
The above comment is completely factual and no one should have a problem with it. The one degree rise could be a natural planetary cycle. Mankind has only existed on this Earth less than 1/10th of 1% of the entire existance of the Earth. We have no way of knowing.
You know, when conservatives pretend to speak authoritatively on that which they know nothing about, I can always feel my heart pumping through my eyelid for some reason.
We understand the forcings and feedbacks of climate change quite well. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are the only way to explain it.
Check that out, it's a bingo sheet that you can play on when you hear global warming denialists rant in the media. It's also a great resource as it contains links to refutations of all the arguments on it.
You know, when conservatives pretend to speak authoritatively on that which they know nothing about, I can always feel my heart pumping through my eyelid for some reason.
Well I'm not a conservative so you're already wrong. Stossel's statement was true; man made GW hasn't been proven, it's a theory, that's the reality. If you aren't aware of that then it seems it is you who know nothing about this subject.
We understand the forcings and feedbacks of climate change quite well. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are the only way to explain it.
Well then submit your proof to the scientific community and let them analyze it. If you have indeed proven it you will certainly be a nobel prize contender. If you haven't proven it then I'm not interested in your posts because I am not denying it I simply acknowledge that it is a theory.
I find the majority of liberals believe in a "higher power" to some extent. However, most liberals are open-minded and understand that their beliefs are just that.. their beliefs. I know atheists that vote Republican. I should also mention that most of them are pretty well-off financially, so maybe that has something to do with it.
Secondly, whether or not you "believe" in global warming is a moot point. You don't need to "predict" a hole in the ozone, a rise in cancer or smog. It's already here.
I think that's part of the problem. You can't deny smog in California. You can't deny the deformations of wild life in areas that are exposed to pollutants. If Democrats campaigned more on these issues, I think global warming could be stopped or halted substantially.
Watch your pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves.
I'll say this yet AGAIN. I never said I don't believe in global warming. I simply said that it is not a proven fact (and it isn't) and I believe it has been exagerrated by some scientists who know that wild predictions will get them media attention and name recognition from a media that loves sensationalist headlines.
Environmentalists have been over stating their causes for decades on issues like this. How many time in the early 70s were they saying that by the year 2000 the sky would fall, they got attention, the press got a headline and people like you believed it when the truth ended up being far less dramatic.
I'm not denying global warming. I hope you grasped that this time as I've repeated it endlessly now.
M'kay. you're right, global warming hasn't been proven beyond a doubt. There are very few scientific facts that have been proven beyond a doubt, including gravity. But I'll trust those experts in the field, who tell me that if I jump from the top of a tall building, I'll be dead when I land.
Science is continually being redefined by peer revue. Things do change. Theories are disproved, and new ones take their place. Every theory in science is held up to scrutiny all of the time. As of today, the people who know the most about climate say that the earth is warming. They also say that human's are responsible for some of the warming. I'll take their word for it.
of Scientists believe in Global Warning, and also disagree with Intelligent Design.
Saying that Global Warming is just a theory makes as much sense as saying that evolution is just a theory.
Or gravity, for that matter.
But you probably doubt that too.
Saying that Global Warming is just a theory makes as much sense as saying that evolution is just a theory.
Ummm....lasst I checked evolution was a theory. I didn't say GW was a theory. I said MAN MADE GW was a theory and it is. Again find someone who has proven it to be true; you can't.
Or gravity, for that matter.
Yes no one has proven that there is gravity on the earth; wonderful comparison.
But you probably doubt that too.
Just as I doubt that you will ever pry your head out of a certain area.
I think youmissed the "just" a theory part.
You see, people that are ignorant say and write things like "evolution is just a theory", like, say, Ronnie Reagan, simple do not understand what "theory" means in science.
I think the point is that nobody actually knows what gravity is, exactly. It is a 'force'. Great. What generates it? Dunno. Yet few would deny its existence.
Well I'm not a conservative so you're already wrong. Stossel's statement was true; man made GW hasn't been proven, it's a theory, that's the reality. If you aren't aware of that then it seems it is you who know nothing about this subject.
I'm the one who knows nothing about this subject? You aren't even aware of the scientific use of the word "theory". It's different than the common vernacular. A theory is a unified explanatory framework in science, as opposed to it's everyday use which means speculation.
Well then submit your proof to the scientific community and let them analyze it. If you have indeed proven it you will certainly be a nobel prize contender. If you haven't proven it then I'm not interested in your posts because I am not denying it I simply acknowledge that it is a theory.
Newsflash: the scientific community has already come to overwhelming consensus that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. The National Academy of Science has come out in the affirmative, so has the American Geophysical Union, so has the American Meteorological Society, so has the American Association for the Advancement of Science. If you want information on this, you can actually look at my link and read the wealth it directs you too. Otherwise you go to blogs like Realclimate.org and read news on it daily. Or you can read SciAm, Nature, Science, SEED or any other respectable science magazine for info. But hey, you don't want info. You just want to bloviate about that which you clearly know nothing about.
A theory is a unified explanatory framework in science, as opposed to it's everyday use which means speculation.
Wow, I'm impressed. Now find me one respected scientist who will say that man made global warming is a proven fact.
Newsflash: the scientific community has already come to overwhelming consensus that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. But hey, you don't want info. You just want to bloviate about that which you clearly know nothing about.
Newsflash: the scientific community has agreed that it's a strong possibility but since it has not been proven and really can't be proven man made global warming is NOT a reality. But hey you don't want info. You just want to bloviate about how things are proven when they aren't.
I'm not even denying that it may be true I'm merely saying it hasn't been proven which IS A FACT. So please stop menstruating on over the board.
Now find me one respected scientist who will say that man made global warming is a proven fact.
First, very little in science is a "proven fact," but that doesn't mean that a theory isn't testable and repeatable and predictable.
Anyway, your assertion is clear. So I ask you, do you honestly believe that more qualified people DON'T belive that climate change exists, is dangerous, and is a product of human behavior?
Your answer will label you as ignorant or informed.
I'll say this again...I'm not denying GW may be true. I'm merely saying it hasn't been proven so basically I have the same position as the scientific community as opposed to the hysterical MMFA crowd who can't deal with contrary views without having hissy fits.
First, very little in science is a "proven fact," but that doesn't mean that a theory isn't testable and repeatable and predictable.
Fine, then you acknowledge it's not a proven fact....that's...all...I ..was....saying.
So I ask you, do you honestly believe that more qualified people DON'T belive that climate change exists, is dangerous, and is a product of human behavior?
I'm sure many do. Just as I believe in things that I cannot prove.
Your answer will label you as ignorant or informed.
Your post has already labeled you as the former.
When you say, "I'm sure many do," you mean "every scientist, with a few dubiously-qualified exceptions," right?
Assertions or implications that climate change might not be happening, or might not be human-caused, or might not be danerous, etc., are irresponsible, wrong, and dangerous. No one with a brain makes them.
I mean that virtually NO ONE in the scientific community thinks that there is any doubt or debate about climate change and it's causes.
You seem to be deviating from that, which strikes me as odd.
"since it has not been proven and cannot be proven, man made warming is not a reality". that is the sum of leopoldstoch's argument. reality is melting ice caps and glaciers, the strongest hurricane season by far on record, and rising temperatures. the fact that all these things are happening exactly as the vast majority of scientists have predicted means nothing to leopldstoch [ i guess he ran out of credibility posting as wesley on this subject]. you cannot "prove" gravity either. just because that glass falls to the floor this time.... the blind leading the braindead.
reality is melting ice caps and glaciers, the strongest hurricane season by far on record, and rising temperatures. the fact that all these things are happening exactly as the vast majority of scientists have predicted means nothing to leopldstoch
No it does mean something to me as GW is a fact. I'm just openminded enough to understand that we've been on this earth less than 1/10th of 1% of it's existance and know nothing about it's cycles so claiming man did it isn't provable. So I'm not going to simply be a robot and believe what even the scientists themselves concede hasn't been proven. I'm also aware of how the media works and how they will seek out the scientists that will give them the most armageddon predictions to sell newspapers and magazines (Maybe if Fox news started endorsing man made GW you wouldn't believe it as much.)
guess he ran out of credibility posting as wesley on this subject.
Whatever that means. Think whatever you want...fine I'm that person.
the blind leading the braindead.
How does it feel to be both?
a poor man's Geraldo. Same smarmy fake sincerity and attitude that delivery equals substance.
Oh, and leopold has shown he does not know the meanings of both theory and fact. Sad, very very sad for you leo...
Stossel is wearing blinders. The scientific evidence for man-made global warming is overwhelming and is accepted by knowledgeable scientists with nearly the unanimity accorded to evolution. Recent research indicates that the effect may be much stronger than anyone had previously thought. (Particulate pollution apppears to a cooling effect by reducing solar radiation and masking the full greenhouse-gas warming effect.) To write this off as hysteria is just plain ignorant as well as dangerous.
A one-degree Celsius change in temperature worldwide, ridiculed as "just one degree" by Stossel and his supporters here, would cause a disruption of human life on this planet without parallel in the past two centuries and could easily be a greater threat to the security and wealth of this country than any human enemy. But Stossel, Bush, and Co. would have us continue to belch carbon into the atmosphere without limit, while waving ther red, white, and blue and singing the national anthem. History will not be kind to them.
I remember when Stossel's type made their fortunes in exposing con men, price gougers and faulty consumer products.
Now he works his ass off to make America stupider.
Way to go, jerk.
are news anchors and novel writers experts on global warming, which include a detail knowledge of physics and system analyses?
Michael Crighton got called to the white house to discuss this same topic.
had a hour meeting with crichton and praised his global warming skeptic book. another reason why this country is run by a whacko. and the country saw four years of this and said give me four more.
it's unlikely that Dubya actually READ Chrichton's book.
But he may have flipped through it if it has pictures.
...like the arrogance of the ignorant.
"Hey, Mr. Scientist, with your fancy book learnin' and whatnot, what makes YOU so smart, huh? Global warming isn't a FACT, so I can ignore it!"
The media has turned large segments of our electorate into sheep. They are incapable of judging the lack of validity of Stossel's reports (his idiocy on schools from a few months ago is another excellent example), largely because they believe just about anything that comes out of the tube as long as it supports their world view
"Journalists" like Stossel are the most serious threat we face in building an informed electorate.
Stossel is not a journalist, he is a merchant. He is also a plagiarist; "Everything you know is wrong" is the title of a 1974 album by the Firesign Theater.
those who say gw is real: right on everything predicted. those who doubt gw: totally underestimated the effects.
in Stossel's book? Guess I'll have to go out and purchase it to see what other "lies" he may be exposing. Climate change is occuring (and GW scientists would be better off peddling it as climate change, IMHO). But then climate change has been occuring since the earth began, hence the disappearance of dinasours, trees in the Sahara, etc. How much is natural and how much is man made? How much of it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels in internal combustion engines as opposed to the burning of fossil and other fuels for the sustaining of life in other areas of the world? If man has a 50% impact, then all that could be accomplished is a prolonging of the inevitable, until the next cycle of cooling comes forth.
the electorate tends toward skepticism. I recall in the "70s the learned opinion was that the earth was cooling from an increased albedo arising from human activity.
Acid rain was another bugaboo that had some shrill predictions of global disaster.
It seems like we should keep the science and politics separate. I sense progressive opinion seizes on global warming to further their agenda of social change, a social change I don't see as lessening global warming.
The right is condemning the left for their belief that the climate is warming due to human activity. Yet:
The right insists that Intelligent Design be considered along with Evolutionary Theory in science classes.
The right insists that terminally ill, brain damaged patients be declared wards of the state over the objections of the family and the doctors treating them.
The right places political hacks in positions at NASA, NIH and other government scientific agencies, to over rule the scientists and to promote the religious beliefs of their base.
A New Record has been set. There have been 40 posts in this thread. So far not one has mentioned the name of the host or of the program where the misinformation came from. I won't ruin the streak by mentioning him.
I remember seeing Stossel do bits on things like frivalous lawsuits on 20/20 years ago.
Then I remembered the time that he "confronted" a professional wrestler, accusing him and his profession of being 'fake'. The wrestler gave Stossel a slap and poor Johnny fell to the ground, got up and like a typical chickenhawk right-winger ran away... Only later to - of course - sue the guy.
He's a chump.