Exposed: Glenn Beck's Climate of Distortion
On the May 2 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck aired an hour-long "special report" titled "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," which he promised would present the "other side of the climate debate that you don't hear anywhere." During the show, Beck and those he featured rehashed several falsehoods and misleading talking points in an attempt to discredit the scientific consensus on global warming and to claim that former Vice President Al Gore "exaggerate[d]" and misrepresented climate science in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, 2006).
Sea level
During the program, Beck put forth an apples- to-oranges comparison by suggesting that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report contradicts Gore's statement in An Inconvenient Truth, that if the West Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets were to break up or melt, "sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet":
BECK: Now, what about that really cool animation of Florida and Manhattan drowning? Ha! Cool, huh? You've seen these horrific scenarios everywhere, based purely on catastrophic hypotheticals that dramatically exaggerate even what the UN says. It's Al Gore's best supporting actor -- the word "if."
GORE [video clip]: If we have an increase of 5 degrees. ... If Greenland broke up and melted. ... If this were to go, sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet.
MARLO LEWIS (senior policy analyst at energy industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute [CEI]): Where he's misleading is that he gives the impression that this is something that is likely to happen. The likelihood of this is next to nil.
DAVID LEGATES (University of Delaware associate professor in climatology): The IPCC report is that the upper limit of sea-level rise by the year 2100 is going to be about 23 inches.
CHRIS HORNER (counsel for CEI and senior fellow): That's why Al Gore makes up 20 feet. The truth isn't scary.
BECK: Just look at the difference between Greenland's ice melt in Al Gore's scenario when spread out over a century versus what the IPCC projects.
JOHN CHRISTY (University of Alabama professor and director of its Earth System Science Center): To come up with 20 feet is really grasping at straws, I think. But it does make a dramatic image. It makes a startling announcement. And that is where, as I heard one commentator say, "It makes blood shoot out of my eyes."
BECK: Gee, I wonder who he could be talking about.
But Beck's depiction of the supposed "difference" between Gore's statements and the IPCC's relied on a false comparison. While the IPCC projected a maximum 23-inch sea-level rise before 2100 as a result of rising temperatures, Gore's statement predicted a 20-foot rise in sea levels if the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets were to melt or collapse at an indefinite point in the future. Indeed, while Beck purported to contrast the two scenarios, "when spread out over a century," even New York Times science writer William J. Broad -- who, as Media Matters noted, also set up this false comparison -- acknowledged that Gore cited "no particular time frame," in which the seas could rise by 20 feet.
Moreover, Lewis' claim that the likelihood of Gore's sea-level scenario is "next to nil" and Horner's assertion that Gore "makes up 20 feet" appear to conflict with the IPCC report. According to the report, "Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100," and "[i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet.
The IPCC report notes "new concern" with regard to the West Antarctic ice sheet's stability. Although it does not provide a timeframe for which the ice sheet may melt or collapse, it contradicts the claim that scientists know that the likelihood of such an occurrence is "next to nil":
Recent satellite and in situ observations of ice streams behind disintegrating ice shelves highlight some rapid reactions of ice sheet systems. This raises new concern about the overall stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the collapse of which would trigger another five to six metres [approximately 16 to 20 feet] of sea level rise. While these streams appear buttressed by the shelves in front of them, it is currently unknown whether a reduction or failure of this buttressing of relatively limited areas of the ice sheet could actually trigger a widespread discharge of many ice streams and hence a destabilisation of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Carbon dioxide and warming
During Beck's program, Tim Ball, the chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, argued: "We now know for certain that the temperature changes before the CO2. And one of the fundamental assumptions that Gore doesn't understand is that in the theory of global warming due to humans is, as the CO2 goes up, the temperature will go up. Well, the ice-core records show it's exactly the opposite." Later in the program, Beck asked Horner to name "one fact" in Gore's film that people should "Google." Horner replied: "Well, the cause-and-effect relationship of CO2 and temperatures. Obviously, temperatures go up throughout history. The scientific literature is fairly clear, fairly uniform. Temperatures go up; then, CO2 concentrations go up. CO2 does not drive temperature."
Gore said of the relationship between CO2 and temperature:
GORE: The relationship is actually very complicated, but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the other and it is this: when there is more carbon dioxide the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.
But despite Ball's assertion that "[w]e now know for certain that the temperature changes before the CO2," scientists and scientific organizations, including the Met Office -- which is the UK's national weather service -- offer a different assessment of the relationship between temperature and CO2. In fact, the Met Office lists Ball's and Horner's arguments as the top "myth" related to climate change. The Met Office states:
Myth 1 -- Ice core records show that changes in temperature drive changes in carbon dioxide, and it is not carbon dioxide that is driving the current warming
Only the first part of this statement is true. Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Concentrations of CO2 are now much higher and increasing much faster than at any time in at least the last 600,000 years. This should be a warning that what is happening now is very different to what happened in the past.
In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.
The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate (due to orbit changes for example) led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 is [sic] enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.
In a February 2007 article, Paul Fraser, chief research scientist at Australia's CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, wrote:
The panel concludes there is very high confidence that the warming is due to human activities, which are likely to have been at least five times greater than the impact of solar irradiance changes on global warming. In fact, they conclude that there is a greater than 90 per cent chance that temperatures are rising due to human activities.
These conclusions, supported by many hundreds of climate experts around the world, contradict Dr [Len] Walker's implication that increasing carbon dioxide levels do not cause global temperature increases, which he makes in his statement, "The fact is the Earth has cooled since 1998 ... despite ... increasing carbon dioxide levels."
Fraser added:
There have been numerous research papers and reviews published over the past 10 years, including several in prestigious journals such as Nature and Science, that conclude that the observed temperature changes over the past 100 years are consistent with the combined changes in atmospheric aerosols (volcanic and anthropogenic), land surface changes, variations in solar irradiance and increases in greenhouse gases. As a researcher in the field for more than 30 years, I am not aware of a single peer-reviewed paper or review, in a quality atmospheric science journal, that relates the temperature changes over this period to only natural causes such as changes in solar activity.
[...]
The fact that, in the long history of the atmosphere, temperature increases sometimes precede carbon dioxide increases simply implies that those temperature change are due to some factor, or factors, other than carbon dioxide increases; for example from changes in the Earth's orbit. This in no way precludes an imposed carbon dioxide increase (such as the current rapid increase from the combustion of fossil fuels) leading to an increase in global temperatures.
Eric Steig, an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle, similarly argued in a post on the Real Climate weblog:
[I]t is not as if the temperature increase has already ended when CO2 starts to rise. Rather, they go very much hand in hand, with the temperature continuing to rise as the CO2 goes up. In other words, CO2 acts as an amplifier, just as Lorius, Hansen and colleagues suggested.
[...]
In summary, the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what Gore says in the film.
Oregon Petition
Beck aired a clip of Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace, saying that Gore and others who speak out about the effects of global warming "completely ignore the fact that there's this thing called the Oregon Petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don't agree with the idea that we are causing climate change." As Colorado Media Matters noted, the so-called "Oregon Petition," drafted in 1998, "urge[d] the United States government to reject" the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to limit the production of greenhouse gases in an effort to curb global warming. The petition further stated that "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
The petition was sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which, according to PR Watch, describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and the molecular biology of aging." Arthur Robinson, who founded OISM, was the lead author of a paper accompanying the petition, which asserted that the effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide are "a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution." The Associated Press reported on April 30, 1998, that Robinson is "a physical chemist" who "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming." The New York Times reported on April 22, 1998, that the paper "was printed in a format and type face similar" to that of the journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) -- which subsequently disassociated itself from the paper, saying, "that the petition had 'nothing to do' with the academy and that the article was never published in the academy's journal," and clarifying that the petition "does not reflect the conclusion of expert reports of the academy."
Also circulated with the petition was a letter from Frederick Seitz, the former NAS president. Seitz's letter warned that "[t]he United States is very close to adopting" the Kyoto Protocol, which, according to Seitz, "would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds." Seitz added that "there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." A June 5, 2000, item in Business Week reported that "[f]or 28 years, Seitz was also a paid director and shareholder of Ogden Corp., an operator of coal-burning power plants that stands to lose financially should the Kyoto Protocol become law." Business Week reported that Seitz "sold most of his 11,500 shares" of Ogden in 1999 -- after promoting the petition in 1998.
Further, as Media Matters has noted, many of the signatures on the petition apparently belong to people who are not climate experts. In its April 22, 1998, article, the Times reported, "Of the 15,000 signers of the petition [at the time], Dr. Robinson said, about 2,100 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists and meteorologists, 'and of those the greatest number are physicists.' " According to a May 1, 1998, AP article, the petition at one time included the names, "Drs. 'Frank Burns,' 'Honeycutt' and 'Pierce' (Remember the trio from M*A*S*H?), not to mention the Spice Girl, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as 'Dr. Geri Halliwel' and again as simply 'Dr. Halliwell.' "
Nazis
Twice in the hour-long special, Beck asserted that those who question global warming are called "Nazis" or "Holocaust deniers." In one segment, he cited environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called Beck "CNN's chief corporate fascism advocate." And Beck ended the special by saying that scientists who are "just yelling, 'The debate is over, and these people are heretics or Nazis,' as loud as you can is not really the best way to advance science." However, Beck himself has frequently compared his opponents on this issue to Nazis. For instance, on the April 30 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Beck likened Gore's fight against global warming to Adolf Hitler's use of eugenics as justification for exterminating 6 million European Jews. On that program, Beck stated: "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government."
Beck continued: "You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming." He added: "Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did." Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham H. Foxman subsequently called Beck's remarks "outrageous, insensitive and deeply offensive."
In addition to his April 30 comments, on the March 22 edition of Glenn Beck, Beck likened Gore to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels for Gore's statement, during his testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, that he would initiate a "mass persuasion campaign" to urge Congress to act on climate change.
Further, on the June 7, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Beck compared An Inconvenient Truth to Nazi propaganda. Beck dismissed many of the conclusions drawn from the documentary, stating, "[W]hen you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. ... It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in 'and it's the Jews' fault.' That's where things get a little troublesome, and that's exactly what's happening" in An Inconvenient Truth.
From the May 2 CNN Headline News special, Exposed: The Climate of Fear:
LAURIE DAVID (producer, An Inconvenient Truth) [video clip]: No serious scientist, no peer-reviewed scientist is saying that, OK?
GORE [video clip]: Those who deny global warming are just flat-out wrong.
BECK: Ellen Goodman from The Boston Globe wrote, "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on par with Holocaust deniers."
LEGATES: Somebody says that whenever you get into Nazi connections, you've really jumped the shark.
BECK: No Nazi references? But how would these people even form sentences? Even I got to jump into the World War II of weather. Robert F. Kennedy called me "CNN's chief corporate fascism advocate." When asked why by The Washington Post, he recalled that I was voicing doubts about global warming a few weeks back.
LEGATES: When you have the science on your side, you argue the science. When you don't have the science on your side, you attack the messenger.
[...]
BECK: Lost among all the extreme rhetoric? Any semblance of balance. An Inconvenient Truth is a study in absolutes, a one-sided argument devoid of any gray area.
GORE [video clip]: There's not a single fact or date or number that's been used to make this up that's in any controversy. [...] Isn't there a disagreement among scientists about whether the problem is real or not? Actually, not really.
BECK: Attention: You're about to meet people that aren't really real.
ROY SPENCER (University of Alabama professor): Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there's a consensus now on global warming ,or the science has been settled. But you have to ask them, "What is there a consensus on?" Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I'm aware of is that it's warmed in the last century.
MOORE: They completely ignore the fact that there's this thing called the Oregon Petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don't agree with the idea that we are causing climate change.
[...]
BECK: Now, here's one of Al Gore's favorite charts, comparing CO2 levels and temperature.
GORE [video clip]: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer. Look how far above the natural cycle this is, and we've done that.
BECK: We? Meaning you and me? I guess it looks pretty convincing. Gore assumes here that CO2 levels are causing temperatures to rise, but, look, could it be the other way around?
BALL: We now know for certain that the temperature changes before the CO2. And one of the fundamental assumptions that Gore doesn't understand is that in the theory of global warming due to humans is, as the CO2 goes up, the temperature will go up. Well, the ice-core records show it's exactly the opposite.
[...]
BECK: Now, what about that really cool animation of Florida and Manhattan drowning? Ha! Cool, huh? You've seen these horrific scenarios everywhere, based purely on catastrophic hypotheticals that dramatically exaggerate even what the UN says. It's Al Gore's best supporting actor -- the word "if."
GORE [video clip]: If we have an increase of 5 degrees. ... If Greenland broke up and melted. ... If this were to go, sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet.
LEWIS: Where he's misleading is that he gives the impression that this is something that is likely to happen. The likelihood of this is next to nil.
LEGATES: The IPCC report is that the upper limit of sea-level rise by the year 2100 is going to be about 23 inches.
HORNER: That's why Al Gore makes up 20 feet. The truth isn't scary.
BECK: Just look at the difference between Greenland's ice melt in Al Gore's scenario when spread out over a century versus what the IPCC projects.
CHRISTY: To come up with 20 feet is really grasping at straws, I think. But it does make a dramatic image. It makes a startling announcement. And that is where, as I heard one commentator say, "It makes blood shoot out of my eyes."
BECK: Gee, I wonder who he could be talking about.
[...]
BECK: Chris, one thing that somebody could Google right now, and you watched the movie and you said, "Oh, jeez, I wish people would just Google this fact." In the movie An Inconvenient Truth, what would be the one fact they should Google?
HORNER: Well, the cause-and-effect relationship of CO2 and temperatures. Obviously, temperatures go up throughout history. The scientific literature is fairly clear, fairly uniform. Temperatures go up; then CO2 concentrations go up. CO2 does not drive temperature.
[...]
BECK: I can't tell you how many calls I've received from parents saying their kids are now being shown An Inconvenient Truth completely unchallenged. Not just in science class, but in art and math classes. A green hotel in California has just replaced the traditional in-room Bible with an in-room copy of An Inconvenient Truth. Isn't that appropriate? Al Gore's version of climate change has no longer become science. It's dogma. And if you question it, you are a heretic.
You'd think that scientists would look back at their history, when out-of-control churches locked them in towers to stop progress, and realize that just yelling, "The debate is over," and "These people are heretics or Nazis," as loud as you can is not really the best way to advance science. However -- and many have discovered -- that it is the best way to secure funding.
For now, all we can do is look for sober solutions in a world drunk on hysteria. The debate is not over. I have a feeling it's just beginning.
From New York, good night.
Finally, a critique of this program after it aired. This is progress.
SO basically they accurately predicted the content of the show? Was MMFA wrong in it's initial assessment?
Let's just say it is very doubtful that they would come back with a mea culpa and say Beck did a helluva job, great show.
They were not worried in the least about their preemptive strike, I would imagine.
The things is he didn't do a good job though and was predictable as usually and called it as they saw it.
Would they do a mea culpa had they been caught in a lie about the program, who knows. I'd like to think they would though. As it stands they were spot on about the special.
I PREDICT ... that the next time I see Sean Hannity, he will use a series of LOGIC FALLACIES ... such as "guilt by association" and "ad hominem" attacks ... and will challenge his guest to call for the condemnation and removal of a "liberal" for words that they spoke.
I may be going out on a limb here, but then ... I also predict that my dog will eat his Alpo when I serve it, and he has never disappointed yet.
So once again you complain about something you imagined that never happened? Your one-note symphony is getting a bit tiresome.
oh tommy-boy is always like that.it is what he is paid for after
all.
actually mmfa started criticizing the show before it aired, because, guess you forgot tommy, cnn released a press release several days before. so they knew what was coming. [sort of like tommy's posts]
CNN...good! Glen Beck....bad! Al Gore....good! Bill O'Reilly.....bad! Al Goreilla sure is making a lot of money off of his mith, and the light in the loafer crowd here, I am impressed.
Ok, so dig into the critique. Opinions? Counter-arguments?
To me, it seems that there are high powered interest groups that are madly spinning this every way possible (what a shock). The thing I would like to see in the MSM is real debate, a series even. Yearly reports monitoring progress, further study, new ideas, etc. Not a debate between Glenn Beck and Al Gore, but a real "politically neutral" this is what we DO ACTUALLY KNOW at this point, kind of thing. What are our options? What can we effect, what can we not? What are the projected effects of these changes? What is the best case senario? Worst case? What are the effects that this will have on the economy? Our standards of living? Food production? And so on and so on....
>sigh< As someone who strives to exist in the middle ground, the spin just gets so .... tiresome. I just hope that less idealogically (btw.....as much as I despise Beck, that doesn't mean I'm going to leap into Gore's arms either) driven minds will step up and start presenting solutions (or at least options).
I am afraid, however, that this will be similar to that scene in Jaws. Where we (humans) are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and bites us on the.... well, you know.
Ok....done rambling for a bit. Flame on!
what we DO ACTUALLY KNOW at this point, kind of thing. What are our options? What can we effect, what can we not? What are the projected effects of these changes? What is the best case senario? Worst case? What are the effects that this will have on the economy? Our standards of living? Food production? And so on and so on....
See, the thing is, we have this already. It's called "science."
Wow. That added alot to the conversation. Thank you. I am familiar with what science is. And if the case for climate change, its possible effects and our options for dealing with it was closed and airtight, then I guess I wouldn't have asked that question.
You didn't ask for "closed and airtight." You asked for a "this is what we DO ACTUALLY KNOW at this point, kind of thing." And all I'm saying is, we have this, and you don't get it from Gore or Beck. You get it from the published literature.
You're right. I apologize for being smarmy. I thought you were being smarmy.
No worries, I got a little drunk over in the Soros thread...
dont apologize. we dont know it all. we dont know how fast we dont know if solar radiation is on the rise. we dont know how to rplace fossil fuels as yet: solar, wind (when the neighbors allow), and conservation wont meet current needs let alone the future. oh yes and when we will we allow more dams?
one other thing we dont know: how much water will end up in lakes soil and the air
we dont know if solar radiation is on the rise.
Yes we do.
over what time scale? I assume valintinian your answer is that it is not? I remind you we have very sketchy measurements of all data before 1900. what was the radiation level then? how about 1500? how about in 1950? i sem to recall we only started space based measurement after we put instruments in space.
The contribution of solar radiative forcing is an order of magnitude less than greenhouse forcing, so unless we have a tenfold increase in solar output, greenhouse gases will be the dominant factor in warming our climate.
They are also the only factor over which we have control (that is, until we build a planet-scale sunscreen...), so it behooves us to act on reducing greenhouse gases while we continue to do the research, not later.
assuming the co2 models are accurate and that our data are accurate. I have grave doubts about the latter. As well i fail to see how the sun can be 1 tenth as large a driver as co2.
by the way how would you replace the energy form burning> I suggest nuclear.
but the true believers only seem to allow wind and solar
You might prefer nuclear, but the major energy companies have little to no interest in building them.
Wind power is a huge area for growth amongst energy concerns. Why not let the free-market decide which energy alternatives to build. In many ways it is already happening.
the market says coal with no controls. ill argue co2 but not mercury and so2
"As well i fail to see how the sun can be 1 tenth as large a driver as co2." --rrastro
I believe you are misrepresenting the argument. The sun obviously has a big impact on our temperature. What is being discussed is variations in solar radiation as a driver of climate change vs. CO2. According to Valentinian's link, CO2 levels are a much more significant factor of the two with regards to its effect on global temperature change.
an order of magnitude (valintinians claim) is at least 10 tomes in a base ten numerical system. if co2 is an order of magnitude higher is not the sun a tenth or less?
your link to noaa says we do not
How did you do that?
In science, there is no certainty.
Scientists are as certain of man-made global warming as we are of the theory of gravity! That's as certain as one gets in science.
We do know this.
If YOU don't know this, it's because you reject science. And you call yourself a teacher? Teachers are supposed to support learning and education.
I don't really know how you reached those conclusions about me, especially based off of one post. I'm glad to see though that skepticism is no longer a tenet of scientific thought. "Look out! He's asking questions! He must be anti-science! A denier! Shunnnnn the non believer!!! Shhhhuuuuuunnnn!!"
What a joke.
you say science like my mom says read the bible.
What do you rely on to inform your understanding of the physical world, if not science?
i dont rely on "science" as if it were settled fact for all things
Good, neither do I, or anyone I know.
and yet science is supposed to supplant discussion
No, science is supposed to inform discussion.
what we DO ACTUALLY KNOW at this point, kind of thing. What are our options? What can we effect, what can we not? What are the projected effects of these changes? What is the best case senario? Worst case? What are the effects that this will have on the economy? Our standards of living? Food production? And so on and so on....
See, the thing is, we have this already. It's called "science."
- - valentinian / Tuesday May 8, 2007 04:00:54 PM EST
- - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
sure look like your are saying science supplants discussion by the laity..er laymenThe thing is at least Gore is introducing ideas or suggestions that might help lessen man made global warming. Beck an people like him just pretend that there isn't a problem. I have yet to see Beck or people in his corner even acknowledge that there is a problem with the environment. I always get the impression that most global warming deniers are in fact anti conservation (NOt true for all, but impression I get from some.).
Whats so wrong with conservation? Why aren't they offering up ways to conserve while at the same time protecting their "interest" what ever they may be?
Ahem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
Telling statement: "The basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions,[2][3] and a few individual scientists also disagree with parts of them."
So when it comes to individual scientists, the one truth is the scientists on the list oppose parts of the study, most notably the discussion on whether natural variations are more significant than man made variations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
But don't confuse them with the skeptics!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Global_warming_skeptics
Snoop,
I like to use Wikopedia myself. The only drawback is it's open source when dealing with politically charged entries, (like this one.) It makes one question the bias of the entry when they include some of the comments like you provided.
But thanks for providing the links. If I get a chance, I'll take a look. I'd like to see the source of all those scientific organizations.
On a related note, most conservatives do not deny global warming, they are simply skeptical that it is primarily a man-made phenomenon. Most conservatives I know actually try to 'conserve'.
Thanks, AA. I had noted that as well. I think you will find this series of links appears very fair in it's pros and cons. enjoy!
"I like to use Wikopedia myself."
-----
You do? How do you find it, since it is actually called Wikipedia?
Wow, ETRW, I suppose you've NEVER made a typo in your life. Good for you. And how rewarding it must be for you to point out the short-comings of others. And all this time I thought you lefties were all about being tolerant of the imperfections of others. Silly me!
I love it when the intolerant accuse others of intolerance. They have perfected the art of projection. They should open a thirty-screen cineplex.
Of course I make typos. Sometimes I even find them before I post. The reason I pointed out this one is that you have displayed a pattern of ignorance and pontificating on things you admit you have neither seen nor read. So if you say you use "Wikopedia," I assume that is precisely the type of thing one would post who had never actually seen the site.
The disconcerting thing about AGW discussions in this forum is what a throng of imbeciles want to do in response to their cherished interpretation of the data: cede authority for dealing with it to a body with the stature and credibility of, say, the World Health Organization (world class joke), with equivalent result.
But O, what a feeling of community while it all plays out.
Let's get those jobs exported, and to hell with all those at the bottom rungs who'll get hurt--we gotta stop the ocean from rising two inches in the next century.
That may be what worries you. What worries me is something different.That critics of AGW continue to argue in this illogical manner. First you offer (without any real evidence) that the World Health Organization is "a world class joke". Is their stated agenda:
"the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health. Health is defined in WHO's Constitution as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."
covering some sinester agenda. What about the WHO is a "world class joke"? What evidence do you submit in support of the contention? Why you say this makes no sense at all unless yourintention is to suggest, by implication, that all scientific organizations that have come out in assent to the validity of science are also "jokes".
FYI that list would include, among others:
What about these organizations makes them "world class jokes"? Do you know something the rest of us don't? Is this all really about "cherished interpretation of the data"? May I submit it is really about rigorous application of the scientific method in support of developing logical conclusions based on careful analysis of the data? The peer review process makes it very difficult for a scientist to do sloppy work and maintain his or her reputation or credibility. However, if you have evidence that the methodologies are flawedor that the science has been dishonestly conducted jump into the fray. Write letters to the editors of these journals. Go to RealClimate.org and share your concerns with working climate scientists. I won't comment on your economic speculations (not really the subject of this thread) except to say allowing global warming to go unchecked may also have dire economic consequences. On that see this link.
'Tis pitiful indeed you are blissfully unaware of the political agendas of organizations you list.
Don't go all the way back through--the last one will do--World Wildlife Fund, indeed!!! Shoulda included PETA shoudn't you have?
Remove the entities you don't approve of. You still have a long list. Find me a comparable list of scientific organizations that endorse the contrary view. Oh wait there aren't any.
Tommy:
MMFA's pre-broadcast assessment is PROOF that MODELS DO PREDICT WITH ACCURACY.
The model in question here is that Beck is full of it and will continue to be full of it indefinitely.
Randy
lol Tommy
Who pays you to camp MMFA so you can get in the first knee-jerk neoconjob-apologist comment?
- [i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet. - IPCC
Beck was right on the money here...Gore has been fear mongering with the sea level. The pretty flooding graphics used by Gore show what could happen...over 2000 years from now.
Simple buffoonery by Gore.
Beck and his goons are NOT "right on the money". They are claiming that a 20+ foot rise is virtually impossible when in fact it IS possible, likely even.
And HAS IN FACT HAPPENED BEFORE, no not in historic times, but it is in the geology
meaning there is NATURAL variation unrelated to man
Of course there has been! You people keep saying that, like no one ever thought of that, or did experimentation to eliminate natural variability as a cause.
not enough experimentation considering this has been tossed around only since ttaps in 79. we dont know why in the past so how can we control?
You're right. We've only been studying this for twenty-eight years. What's the rush?
28 years. and we are talking 200o years plus or minus and major changes in the way people live. without coal power the united states and china can not create their electric baseload and in the case of china fuel trains. the solutions i have heard so far do not even address the non-ssue of global warming since if the theory is accurate we need to shoot for 1690 not 1990 co2 levels.
or did global warming begin when co2 levels crossed a threshhold in 1990? and slowing it down is not a solution its a band aid. more nukes are needed assuming that a major component is not co2 but calories expressed by human activity.
do we know what caused the little ice age? there were no major changes in technology to decrease fuel use. if it was a volcano that argues natural processes can and will precipitate sudden changes regardless of kyoto or tokyo or me.
what role does the reduction of soot form the switch away form solid fuel since 1900 account for lower soot levels and therefore lower albedo and higher radiation conversion play? as iunderstand it fog is less common and less hygroscopic particles also account for torrential versus steady rain.
Wow. So much confused thinking in such a small space.
slowing it down is not a solution its a band aid.
Correct. Slowing it down is not a solution. So you are proposing, rather, that we speed it up? There is going to have to be a serious shift in how we generate energy - that is, unless the science is totally wrong, and the only thing that can prove that is better science.
more nukes are needed assuming that a major component is not co2 but calories expressed by human activity.
I think we may end up having to make a devil's bargain with nuclear power, because there really may not be the political will to implement the amount of reduction in electric consumption that will be needed to cut CO2 emissions.
You are going to have to get back to me on the "calories expressed by human activity" bit. That means, what, anthropogenic global warming due to sweating?
do we know what caused the little ice age? there were no major changes in technology to decrease fuel use. if it was a volcano that argues natural processes can and will precipitate sudden changes regardless of kyoto or tokyo or me.
This is an utterly bewildering argument. Are you saying that we should just continue pouring CO2 into the atmosphere because maybe a volcano will erupt and we will have an ice age? It is true, something else may happen over which we have no control - but it just makes no sense to me to do nothing about the things we do have control over.
The last cluster of questions are all excellent subjects for research. I do not know that these things have not been studied - you can look on Google Scholar if you want to try and see.
At some point, though, a decision will have to be made - and make no mistake, refusing to make a decision is a decision in and of itself. The question is whether we as a society want to roll the dice that the science is completely, irreparably wrong, and that we have all the time in the world to dither.
if you heat a house it gets warm. then the heat leaves. where does it go? probably the environment.
im saying the science is woefully incomplete, science unwilling to accept that there may be correction mechanisms and that the situation will NEVER reach the level of al 'cassandra' gore and the combined academics fear laden warnings. 20 feet is not a lot of water.
The science is not incomplete, no more than the science is incomplete on the law of gravity (which actually has exceptions). Right winger denialists keep getting defeated in a scientific argument and then throw out this vague and meaningless assertion.
There have been no peer reviewed papers that show that the heating up of earth is not due to man made activity.
funny you read which journals? Im sorry i dont need a peer reviewed article to tell me that 150 years of accurate thermometer readings for some regions and considerably less for others is incomplete as well as insufficient knowledge of solar variation.
you panic and ill keep burning charcoal for my red meat
Panic? Coming up with clean alternative sources of energy that don't hurt the environment is panic? R - how long have we known that fossil fuels are a finite source and burning them causes pollution that has multiple effects (not just global warming) What signs are you waiting for before you agree that it's time to make a change?
He's waiting for God to come down and give him a good swift kick in the @ss before he'll budge. Funny thing is, God don't do that no more...
signs that co2 causes shorter growing seasons. btw i seem to recall that burning wood causes co2
im all for clean energy...more nukes and more dams in the mountain west
>>Im sorry i dont need a peer reviewed article to tell me that 150 years of accurate thermometer readings for some regions and considerably less for others is incomplete as well as insufficient knowledge of solar variation.
In other words, you won't let science or facts interfere with your idealogy. If you don't want to look at what studies and facts point to, your argument about "solar radiation" is complete nonsense.
complete nonsense> if solar out put has doubled in the last 100 years we would be hard put to prove it.
there have been wilder swings for which people deserve no credit and we have no better measurement than how often the thames and seine froze solid for measurement.
you go and abdicate your thought to top men. i wont
>>there have been wilder swings for which people deserve no credit and we have no better measurement than how often the thames and seine froze solid for measurement.
>>you go and abdicate your thought to top men. i wont
This makes zero sense. You are just saying anything at this point. Again, there have been no peer reviewed papers that discount global warming. That means there has been no science to bolster your argument. Absolutely none.
funny,
I wonder why there are no dissenting articles
any way peer review is the best way to monitor a magazine but its hardly proof of anything. If I start a magazine and have several scientist friend only print world is flat articles it proves nothing except the popularity of a certain pov
Good grief you are clueless. You are just posting anything without the least bit of thought. You quote from the right-wing *Telegraph,* which will publish any bs. For example, it published an article linking the anti-Iraq-war Galloway to Saddam Hussein. Galloway sued and won in court. The *Telegraph* will print anything. Have a look at this article:
http://norvig.com/oreskes.html
It is really simple how science works. If your data proves a case, then it gets peer reviewed and approved. No scientist has come even close to disproving the basis that man is behind global warming.
Of course, I know I am just arguing with someone who is not in the least bit serious, who is just throwing out one liners, and who rejects science itself. You already stated you don't need peer reviewed science. That says everything about you. You don't need facts and you don't care what facts say. You have already made up your mind that global warming is not real and will look for anything, no matter how stupid, to back up your point.
Once again, show me a peer reviewed article--real science--that disproves global warming and then I'll take your argument seriously. Or put this way, why should I believe some right blowhard over the best scientist in the world.
Rasto, you're blaspheming these folks' belief system (spelled r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n), so forget about it.
since you cant produce a single article 'proving' global warming with repeatable experiments i cant disprove. like wise you are so sure global warming is real, no evidence would make you change
RUN FOR THE HILLS, AITH!!!!
How exactly was Beck "right on the money?"
Gore's scenario says that over an indefinite amount of time the oceans could rise by 20 feet. The IPCC agrees that over about 1000 years this could happen. Beck takes Gore's claim and gives it a 93 year limit for it to occur, which is for a completely different scenario. Then he allows his guest to claim, while he agrees, that Gore "made up" the 20 foot number.
Gore didn't make up the 20 foot number and he didn't say it would happen by 2100. Beck claims he did both of those. Thus not only is he pretty far from "the money" he's outright lying.
Gore knows damn well the flooding charts he shows are unrealistic and are only hype for his agenda.
In fact the IPCC says it will take over 2000 years of sustained ice loss to increase the sea level to 20+ feet.
They also state "While these streams appear buttressed by the shelves in front of them, it is currently unknown whether a reduction or failure of this buttressing...could actually trigger a widespread discharge and...hence a destabilisation of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet."
There is nothing remotely similar to Gore's charts that is looming...in the way of a catastrophic rise in the sea level.
You and the other deniers assume that we fully understand everything about the behavior of the Arctic/Antarctic ice sheets. My guess is we don't, http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2274481.ece. There may be a few other things we don't know, for example what happens when all the permafrost thaws? What happens when tree destroying pests don't get controlled by winter anymore? What happens to ocean currents as their temperatures go up and more cold fresh water is added?
What is very likely is that things will not get better. Will the Arctic/Antarctic ice sheets melt in the next 50 years? Probably not. Will they melt in the next 200 years if nothing serious is done? Unfortunately, that might not be a bad bet.
- You and the other deniers assume that we fully understand everything - medina
Nope...that's not the case. I'm with you concerning the unknowns. There are lots of them.
The science on global warming is clearly not settled. The more we learn...the more we learn how little we really know...and our woeful attempts at predicting the future.
The argument is not about "do nothing or do everything" concerning climate change. We should continue to investigate and improve our knowledge of climate change and take steps that are useful...not some wild-eyed Algore schemes.
We know very little about the affects of clouds, rain, or the sun in relation to global warming...but CO2 is such an easy target.
Interesting... what are some of the "wild-eyed Algore schemes" of which you speak?
Isn't it L. Ron Gore?
There are a lot of things that are not well understood. The effect of increasing CO2 is not one of them. Over 10 years ago I was lucky enough to be working on a research vessel with Nick Shackleton, the guy who first understood the effect of the precession of the earth's orbit (and a bunch of other things) on climate. I asked him then about climate change - he said it was certain, they just needed to collect enough data to make a convincing argument. So, this is not new, and we don't know how long we have until the crap really hits the fan. So, as much fun as it is to pretend that the science isn't settled and we don't know if man is causing this or not, the clock is ticking on our kids and grandkids. And since most of us don't really have much in the pot, we shouldn't be gambling with their futures.
- he said it was certain, they just needed to collect enough data to make a convincing argument. - medina
That's what much of the "science" today is about...deciding on the results and then drumming up evidence. Did he also tell you that water vapor absorbs 80% of reflected energy...compared to .0008% for CO2.
That comes from a comtempory of Shackleton named Reid Bryson...who doesn't believe CO2 is the culprit. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment".
Just curious...was your friend Nick and relation to the famous Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton?
That's what much of the "science" today is about...deciding on the results and then drumming up evidence.
What evidence do you have for that incredibly broad sweeping accusation?
According to research scientist Gavin Schmidt at the realclimate.org site, CO2 accounts for anywhere between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect and water vapor plus clouds account for between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect. The CO2 numbers are derived from calculations and the uncertainty reflects the fact that some of the energy absorbed by CO2 and water vapor is at the same wavelength and the degree of overlapping spectral absorbance is not known. Water vapor and clouds absorb most of the longwave radiation reflected from the earth but CO2's spectral absorption bands are slightly different from that of water vapor and the effect of CO2 is very significant. Earth would be a ball of ice without CO2 in the atmosphere. It has been reasonably well established that a doubling of CO2 will result in a global mean temperature rise of 3 degrees C. +/- 1 degree C. That is quite significant since the earth was already near a relative peak in mean global surface temp. prior to the industrial revolution and climate data from the past indicates that this represents enough energy absorbed to eventually melt Greenland.
3 whole degrees? I think i can manage.
I am sure you will manage fine, but it is the rest of the ecosystem that concerns scientists. And it is not just "3 degrees" as you say. That is in Celcius. The range of 2 to 4 degrees Celsius translates roughly to about 4 to 7 degrees fahrenheit. To anyone who understands physics, that is an enormous amount of heat energy on a planetary scale.
Temp increases over land will be higher, up to 10oC in some places like sub-Saharan Africa. Yeah, we'll all be fine.
I don't want to leave the impression that I was Shackleton's friend, I merely happened to be working on that cruise when he was there - we were developing/testing a big software system to collect and manage all the data generated during a cruise. In my "spare time", I was helping him get data for some analyses he wanted to do and got to know him a little. It was either his grandfather or his great uncle that was in Antarctica. I also don't want to let the impression go that it wasn't settled in his mind, it was. He was more worried about the policy makers and the people like you. I think many scientists think that if they explain an issue properly in a technical way the public will agree with them. What really happens though is that a distressingly large fraction of people, especially the ones that really don't understand the subject and have an ideological axe to grind, never change their minds. That explains why a lot of top notch scientists really don't speak out much, they figure the hardheads aren't going to change and they would rather be doing science. The politically astute ones find better ways to change policy than try to convince the public. I think that was the genius behind getting Gore to do what he did, the deniers and wingnuts are never going to respond to reason so they did an end run around them and worked with Gore to get people with reasonably open minds to see the light. I tell you this from first hand knowledge, a lot of the advanced technology in use today (think NASA, Iraq) is built on a hell of lot shakier technical foundation than what underpins global warming.
a thousand year ago the climate was warmer, 500 colder. the chances of complete melt without greenland drifting are low and not of immediate concern.
Thank you for that wonderful assessment, Dr. Science.
"the chances of complete melt without greenland drifting are low and not of immediate concern."
Oh, good, I don't feel like draggging in the patio furniture.
----"a thousand year ago the climate was warmer, 500 colder. the chances of complete melt without greenland drifting are low and not of immediate concern."----
Well, that's it for ME. After rrastro's VERY compelling case, the debate is OVER.
And he did it without PowerPoint, without science, and with pointedly minimal word usage.
im sure nothing is enough for you dave. you have a chance to invoke magic to control others
Most bothersome to AGW fans nowadays is the defection of the faithful. Deprogramming has occurred, seemingly as a result of enquiring minds probing further into the data and finding AGW dogma to be strikingly similar to other faith-based movements, but without the staying power.
Documentation? And I mean peer reviewed articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals not articles from the Moonie Times.
Well, PLUS, as they cover in the Daily Howler, they are comparing Apples to Oranges... same as in this article, which people are forgetting. Gore's example and use of the '20 ft. rise' is assuming that the GREENLAND/ANTARCTIC ICE SHELF actually melts... this is explained better at the Daily Howler. The IPCC reports the '23 inch rise' if warming continues unabated at its current trend. In the Gore film, he also discusses the Atlantic ocean's climate 'pump' or whatever you want to call it, and talks about other catastrophic situations if that pump were affected. Very interesting stuff and scary. But these are all caveated in the film. It's just all taken out of context by the deniers, as people are calling them here. MAIN POINT: apples to oranges here. one happens with the melting of ice sheets (20 feet), one with no melting of ice sheets (20 inches). There is no Gore lying here. Just neocons not understanding nuance... or accidentally, on purpose not understanding... big surprise....
Welllll.....run for the hills--what are you waiting for?
If you're obsessed w/our policies effecting future generations, why not do something that IS in our power to manipulate: Social "Security" (shouldn't a buncha people be in jail for fraud?) What a Utopian joke.
Do you think your descendants are going to forgive you for being a part of this Ponzi scheme? The answer is NO.
Now start thinking about how you're going to answer THAT, rather than AGW fantasies and the fantasy solutions.
Gore never said it was going to happen next year, 20 years from now, or 1,000 years from now.
In fact, he didn't say it was going to happen.
He said it could happen "if".
You continue to show evidence that you are not yet up to the intellectual level of understanding even the most "simple" things.
IF in big letters. what if it never happens?
What IF it does?
Rut ro!
well use technology to cope,same as always
A green hotel in California has just replaced the traditional in-room Bible with an in-room copy of An Inconvenient Truth.
Oops.
Old Glenn is never one to let truth stand in the way of a good talking point, though...
Well, I'd hold my breath waiting for him to announce his retraction, but ... well ... I kind of like breathing.
Me too.. To bad it's full of CO2.
Full? At 383 parts per million? Breathe easy, dog.
FINALLY!
AGW assumes its rightful place--starting w/the green hotel in California.
AGW IS RELIGION!!!! Do you get it now?
I love it! Defend Gore's claim that the seas will rise 20 ft. by saying it could happen in some indefinite and unknown time in the future. Now there's some progressive hard science for ya!
Gosh now I'm worried. It may happen in the next one thousand or better yet, 1 million years.
And MMFA tries to defend that statement. Hahaha....
No. Sorry. Your outlook is way, way too farsighted.
We won't be around even 80 years from now. Why give a crap about any of it. Let's not worry about trash, pollution, resources, trees, rivers. Screw it all.
You're just way, way too forward-looking in your thinking.
The IPCC report supports Gore's assertion.
So does the MADD and the DMV (three or more initials give it credibility).
Did you only skim the article ? Note that the IPCC report supports Gore's assertion.
because that was his statement and it is a possibility?
When there's an actual scientific disagreement on a theory, those who object will say what's needed before they'll acknowledge the finding as a legitimate theory. A real scientist who has issues with man made global warming could and would say what additional data are needed before they'll acknowledge it. If someone can't set out what their criteria for acceptance are, that person is not worth listening to. viz. Glenn Beck.
Plenty have said as much and you don't have the requisite integrity to acknowledge the fact.
Interesting. I've lived in Oregon my whole life (over 30 years) and I've never heard of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM).
Well gee Pete. Since you never heard of it, that must mean that you learned something new about your wonderful and beautiful State!
Ain't life grand!
Not necessarily. Maybe it doesn't really exist.
The only paid staff person, however, is biochemist Arthur Robinson, the Institute's founder and president. None of its other "faculty members" actually work at the Institute on a regular basis. "They come up on occasion to do some work with us," Robinson told an interviewer in 1998.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
I see why you have your handle.
"The Associated Press reported on April 30, 1998, that Robinson is "a physical chemist" who "acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming."
No research. The lead author of the petition did no research.
Unbelievable, even by lowly wingnut standards.
Robinson's research for the petition used bad data as well from Christy and Spencer at UAH, which when (after it was corrected) actually indisputably showed surface temperatures AND tropospheric temperatures were both indeed rising contrary to Robinson's claims.
Absent an unending stream of public funds, no "scientist" is credible.
So thinks the majority on this site.
The majority on this site is ready to swallow hook, line, and sinker (pole and reel, also) any pronouncement by those slopping at the public trough, and never question WHICH "scientific" discipline the "scholar" comes from, as long as he is a true beleiver.
Questioning credentials? That's what they do with dissenters.
That could be because it's "located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction."
In other words, these are like hippies, but with oil money.
Cave Junction??? Talk about B.F.E.
I was thinking it was a wide spot on the road from Bedrock to Indiarockolis...
Beck: "[Gore uses] the same [Hitler] tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization."
The soldiers who defeated the Nazis 62 years ago today would get a good laugh out of the clueless, pathetic, milquetoast Beck.
I think they are mostly the demographic group that watches Beck... Oh wait, I think that is O'Reilley's group. Nobody watches Beck except two or three from MMFA. ;-)
"I think they are mostly the demographic group that watches Beck..."
If you mean the Nazi demographic, you may actually be right. For once.
"Even I got to jump into the World War II of weather."
Another example, abeit minute, of the moronic rightwing thinking that global warming is about weather. It's about climate. It always has been.
That does annoy me immensely. The willful ignorance of educated people, pretending that climate and weather are the same is shameful. Drudge does it all the time, where he will juxtapose an article on a global warming conference next to "Coldest winter in Duluth recorded", leading the reader to guffaw in their cornflakes, "Ha! Take that Al Gore and all you hippies you don't even know that its getting colder, not warmer!".
But to be fair "global warming" is a misnomer, climate change would be a better name.
Anyways....
I wouldn't take "global warming" to be a misnomer. Imprecise? Sure. But not a misnomer.
Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying weather is not related to climate?
dictionary.com
And no, I didn't say that.
No, you don't understand. You're stuck in your ideology so I won't waste my time explaining it to you.
I do not take Glenn Beck seriously
Nor should anyone. The guy is a liar and hater.
Oh ok. Thanks for that brilliant piece of progressive insight!
"Oh ok."
A devastating rebuttal, genius.
Lol! You used that line earlier! What a brilliant example of scripted, kneejerk responses!
No really.... j/k
So, yeah - did you look those two up? The differences are pretty evident. The other keyword to this mystery is "trend".
I find the Nazi/holocaust analogies kind of ironic ... in the early stages of Hitlers rise to power and attacks on the Jews, didn't the Germans initially try to convince the Jews that there was no danger ??
Kinda like the Leftopian position re: Israel.
Glad ya brought that up.
About Israel and her neighbors (who all just want to get along).
Some of these arguments remind me of a conservative article I saw years ago, arguing that lower teen abortion rates resulted in lower teen pregnancy rates. Think about it.
resulted or correlated?
My point exactly. They took a natural correlation and emphatically claimed that the lower abortion rate caused the lower teen pregnancy rate. Logic would indicate the exact opposite.
Beck should have had this lady on to explain what is really happening and why.
http://www.nctexasbirds.com/images/hot_news.jpg
If there are thousands more like her, then we as a country are in deep doo doo. ;-)
I'll bet she's the same person who went to her neighborhood association meeting to ask that they move the "Deer Crossing" signs to a safer location so that fewer deer would be hit by cars.
You are the recipient (hands down!) of today's "Best Laugh" award, Url Division.
I can only assume that Beck and his parrots on this forum missed this story:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-04-30-arctic-ice-melt_N.htm
assuming that 1953 was normal, the initial measurement was accurate, and that the trend has ONLY one cause
Yeah, and also assuming that those taking the measurements aren't freedom-hating libruls.
Yeah, I don't really watch Glenn Beck, but I did catch his show on the End Times, where he doesn't even question the fact that maybe, just maybe the bible is nothing more than the ravings of primitive lunatics.
While it was highly entertaining watching Glenn pose questions to the "I take the bible literally crowd" on how Iran and Russian were in fact Gog and Magog, like any thinking person, I realize that this guy is not actually a journalist.
And so really... how can anybody take a guy seriously who questions the findings of hundreds of scientific studies, when in fact he believes in mystical mumbojumbo?
The one thing that bothers me about the whole climate change debate is that Al Gore sounds EXACTLY like George W. Bush
Gore: Man is causing global warming, computer models are more advanced than ever and prove this point. We have to act now. We don't have time to wait. We've already seen Hurricane Katrina and the Tsunami in Asia. Are we waiting for some type of catastrophic weather event that will kill hundreds of millions of people? We need to act now before it is too late.
Bush: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, satellite is more advanced than ever and prove this point. We have to act now. We don't have time to wait. We've already seen September 11th and bombings across Asia. Are we waiting for a biological, chemical or nuclear attack that will kill hundreds of millions of people? We need to act now before it too late.
Haven't we learned anything about taking pre-emptive action based on what is likely before knowing all the facts?
The people in the best position to know tried to tell us that there were no WMD in Iraq.
The people in the best position to know are trying to tell us that AGW is happening.
You are right! The two situations are perfectly analogous
"The one thing that bothers me ..."
Al Gore relies on peer reviewed science and the subject matter is not classified. Any GW skeptic can get access to the facts and attempt a rebuttal of any aspect of the science.
George Bush had a great deal of control over the information getting to the public during the months preceding the war. The 2002 NIE on Iraq doesn't compare with peer reviewed science and the typical C.I.A. analyst isn't as smart as a typical climate scientist with an advanced degree. A C.I.A. analyst or chief can fudge the data and conclusions somewhat without being held accountable. A scientist who fudges the data will pay a price for making a mistake. Also, the claims made by George Bush were questioned by experts all over the world and within the U.S. but this fact was not covered well by the press. There is no similar doubt about AGW when one consults peer reviewed journals.
Terrific point, V, but one that I am afraid will go over the wingnuts heads. You see, facts don't have nothin to do with nothin. What you gotta do is follow yer gut. Their collective gut tells them there were WMD in Eyerak, so there were WMD in Eyerak. Their collective gut tells them there is no such thing as AGW, so there is no such thing as AGW (in this instance, gut is sinonymous with "dear leader").
Besides, those experts are all liberal elitist intellectuals anyway, and have no credibility.
"What a piece of work is man..."
Lets try to cut the use of energy by one seventh. Everyone rest on the Sabbath. Stop driving, buying, selling, milling, baking, and just rest. It might be too Jewish for some, but give it try. Works for me.
The Almighty has the answer again.
Forget it, samar! I will NOT give up my Sabbath milling !
Or my Sabbath milling about.
Nor I my thronging.
Let me try and convince you otherwise. Our life styles are better delivered by combustable engines burning fossil fuels. The cleaner fuels will not fuel our life styles to our satifaction.
So, rest on the Sabbath. Stop buying "stuff" so the sale clerks can rest. Stop traveling so the airport workers can rest. In turn we will all be better people and live in a better society. Sounds too easy? Try it. I'm a better person because of the Sabbath, you can be too.
Shalom
"I'm a better person because of the Sabbath, you can be too."
And so humble too.
As-Salāmu `Alaykum
as a consternative, Beck knows all about a climate of fear... that's what Bush has created and sustained to justify his ongoing power grab... and this pointless war...
Good job MMFA for the debunk!!!!
I don't think anyone here expected any real facts in Glenn's little special; I watched it and thought it was pathetic. Beck was grasping at straws pretty much the entire time, and NONE of his guests were independant scientists OR climatologists. He did have some corporate folks though....
I think the Germans already have this all figured out don't you?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481684,00.html
I say that we would be better off if we could just get them to ban this crap!
http://www.junkscience.com/nov99/bjpress.html
the product not the website......
I love that website. They originally started up with money from Big Tobacco to argue that smoking wasn't as bad for you as it seems. Now they get money from Big Oil, Chemical Companies and Rightwing thinktanks to attack environmentalism and say global warming isn't as bad as it seems.
Now they go after Ben & Jerry's based on one sample of their ice cream. Junkscience indeed.
I don't put much stock in the "research" made by "science conclusions for hire" outfits.
what makes you think that they have received money from all those groups that you named?
Here ya go:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=95
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html?welcome=true
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html (see right hand column)
Need more?--just let me know.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/may/business/pt_junkscience.html
mother jones is so unbiased te hee
And what specific factual misrepresentation are you alluding to?
no misrepresentations, just that anytime one may choose to be back to nuts and sticks or live a modern lifestyle mother jones insist on sticks and nature
Sounds to me like a personal problem. My condolences.
no problem i just turn the heat up in the winter
Good for you. Thermostats can be very complicated. But glad to hear you agree there were no factual misrepresentations in the Mother Jones article.
Ahhhh, "environmentalism"....pure as the driven snow.
Got a bridge in Brooklyn I'll make you a deal on.
And those "environmental" organizations....they're all NON-PROFIT...nobody even making a living there... they're all 501c3's, like churches.... no way could there be any corruption or untruthfulness...
Gotta bridge for ya, kiddies! Step up and put your money in the hat.
Why is it that global warming is generally accepted by most scientists, most scholars, and most respected public figures, Why do the right wing noisebags continue to assert that there is no such thing, just because Al Gore decided to talk about it it can't be true, do you think if dubbya or any of the other of the neocons brought it up you think that we'd be having this discussion?
Don't forget all the Social Scientists also slopping at the public trough.
Last time I checked, David Brock was a smearmonger and not a scientist. I would advise everyone to look into the facts for themselves and not take the word of a proven liar such as Brock.
I would advise everyone to look into the facts for themselves
No argument here. That's why I keep directing people to the research - all the concentration of personalities is beside the point.
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5736860
thanks for the link. i believe that this is a peer reviewed journal...even if of low repute
I doubt very much this is a peer reviewed scientific work. For one thing, the language sounds like a polemic. It is not science to call those who think that global warming is happening "alarmists." That is not the language of science, but the language of politics.
"I doubt very much this is a peer reviewed scientific work."
You are quite right about this. From their self description:
"The Electricity Journal is the leading policy journal for the U.S. electric power industry."
Google Scholar also indicates the article linked to: A dissenting view on global climate change has only been cited twice (once by Linden himself) since 1993. This means the article is not taken seriously as a scientific contribution. It is an opinion piece--what you would expect in this publication. Compare that with another article Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants (Nature. 2003 Jan 2;421(6918):57-60.) which has been cited by authors writing in peer reviewed journals 459 times since 2003 and you get the idea.
Despite the claims of RRastro and his band of denialist trolls the peer review process (though imperfect) does encourage investigators to meet standards of quality in their work. And for better or worse it has become a touchstone of scientific method. When an article submitted for consideration is not published the reason, with overwhelming frequency, is that it fails to meet those standards.
the or worse is what scares me. dogma and standards can be disturbingly similar
Not if you can tell the difference. It takes a little work but even you could do it if you tried.
and global warming looks like dogma
Stop likening AGW to religion, darnit!
Looks like we finally got Earp to show up (below).
Work a little harder.
Geomorphology of earth evolution is not static. There is a possibility that estimations based on ancient sea levels is not an accurate approach. The model must calibrate geologic period with radius expansion. The book is "Theories of Earth and Universe" by Warren S. Carey, the model is well evidenced in the solar system.
Wouldn't discussion of the applied models generating the debated figures be logical direction to settle the issue? The media is condescending toward the public's ability to compare and evaluate science issues--the other 'hot air' problem is just waste of time.
If it's not beer reviewed, it'll be discredited here...debunked also...was there ten cents involved--did he get ANYTHING as a result of that work? Automatic disqualification.
Of course, if he was/is on a public payroll, then he's OK.
my letter:
Mr. Beck, Journalists are supposed to challenge and so I guess when you challenge the reality of climate change you are doing your job. But are you doing your research? Your guests from the Competitive Enterprise Institute are funded largely by Exxon-Mobil, a corporation raking in record profits who does not want to change the way we live in order to help our the planet. Have you done any shows on their record profits and tax breaks? In fact, there is an excellent article on the CEI in last month's Vanity Fair, which tackles climate change skeptics point by point. It is well-researched--and actually very balanced in that both sides get equal consideration (yet scientific truth is not disregarded like in your report). I don't know where the American media got the idea that balanced means giving nonsense ideas equal time. This is a scientific issue. It's a done deal. What we could debate is how to change and solve the problem--that would be fine. But the problem already exists. There are numerous examples all over the world (from Alaska to Australia, from the Amazon to America). Why would you deny them? Whose payroll are you on and who are you serving with your reporting? What do you have against saving the planet for your children? Why does the media act like they need to devote 50% of air time to challenge climate change when 99% of peer-reviewed scientific studies prove it and a very solid majority of Americans believe it is real? Why does the media act like they need to devote OVER 50% of air time to pro-war pundits who never served in war, when almost 70% of our nation wants out of Iraq (not to mention Iraqis and U.S. troops too)? There is a difference between balanced and responsible--you are irresponsible and irreverent regarding your duty to investigate and tell Americans the truth about issues that matter. You could do so much better with the considerable platform you are privileged to have.can you please tell us where you got your statistics from?
Cynell,
hate to burst your bubble, but public institutions, their researchers and scientists are ALL recipients of large amounts of money from Exxon-Mobil.
Documentation?
I'm really getting tired of the 'gullible' patronizing Gore. He is a fraud .. adding to the hysteria maintained by those who use it for political advantage
Here's a short handy point-by-point debunking a few of Al Gore's fraudulent points, with references:Moon is made of green cheese [Bunny, Bugs, 1953]
Footnotes make BS appear scholarly [Coulter, 2003]
Deniers still have not a shred of peer-reviewed research backing up their claims [Valentinian, 2007]
Valentinian handsome, charming, beloved of women and small woodland creatures [ibid]
I'll give you another target. Ready, Aim...
The Greenland Ice is decreasing on the edge but increasing in the exterior. So let's not run to the hills in panic because of the ocean level. The ocean is swelling due to solar heating first and then ice melting second.
FIRE!!
Sorry, Increase in the interior.
"I'm really getting tired of the 'gullible' patronizing Gore."
Are any of these rebuttals an honest representation of the facts? I know that most of them are not. What you are presenting is pure propaganda. I would be like to know who came up with this deliberate list of disinformation.
man, you are on someone's payroll.
During Glen Beck's presentation it was claimed that the famous "hockey puck" graph does not apear in the IPCC report. The implication is that the graph of temperature and CO2 during the past 1000 years has been discredited. This is false. I know I read somewhere that the "hockey puck" graph appears in several places in the IPCC report. I know that the graph is as valid now as it was 5 years ago. Media Matters failed to mention this discrepancy.
Hmmm... that would be the famous "hockey puck" graph [Rickles, Don 2001]
;-)
In the spirit of the limericks that were posted on last Beck thread.
Beck's thoughts are usually lameGlobal warming in not quite a baneThis March was quite coldGore's a nazi were toldLogic hurts Beck's reptilian brain
Beck's thoughts are usually lame
Global warming in not quite a bane
This March was quite cold
Gore's a nazi were told
Logic hurts Beck's reptilian brain
If Back is such a moron, why are you so afraid of him? Why don't you go after real injustice and hate? What a waste
I think the real question is, "Why are you so afraid of us?" And I suppose you see no irony in the fact that you are here criticizing people who are working to reign in the use of taxpayer owned bandwidth by entities such as Beck and his corporate masters to promulgate hate, ignorance, and spin on a daily basis? Didn't think so.
"I think the real question is, "Why are you so afraid of us?" And I suppose you see no irony in the fact that you are here criticizing people who are working to reign in the use of taxpayer owned bandwidth by entities such as Beck and his corporate masters to promulgate hate, ignorance, and spin on a daily basis? Didn't think so." Blueneck / Thursday May 10, 2007 11:28:58 AM EST
So...you think Beck should be silenced? Perhaps censored? SO much for diversity of ideas that the left is so fond of.
Look, give me an example of hate speech from Beck. Don' t hold back - give me the WORST thing he's said. You don't listen to his show so you'll probably recite some line from MMFA taken totally out of context.
Let me tell you about context: It's not just a paragraph before or a few lines after - Context in this case means listening every day for weeks at a time to REALLY get the whole story of what he is talking about. I don't expect anyone here to do that because you only see what's put up on MMFA and you get blinded by your own prejudice and hatred of anyone on the right.
By the way, you DO have the power to not listen to him...turn the radio OFF.
Of Katrina victims:
"But the second thought I had when I saw these people and they had to shut down the Astrodome and lock it down, I thought: I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims."
Gosh he even uses the word hate here.
Of Keith Ellison:
"prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."
About Islam and Muslims:
"I believe that it is important for all of us to look evil in the eye and crush it;" "I believe there is a cancer that is radicalized Islam, and it must be cut out or it's going to kill all of us;" and "I believe it's Germany, 1938."
I could go on and on but forget it. I'm not going to spend the afternoon combing transcripts of Beck's show to satisfy you. You will just come back with some inane one liner about lack of context or a claim that how none of the quotes demonstrate "hate speech"(at least to your satisfaction).
This is a common troll trick make your opponent do the work while you sit behind your keyboard delivering baseless and irrelevant one liners. Witness the vandalism of Rrastro on this thread. Sorry I'm not playing your game. There is no context that makes this constructive discourse. I owe you nothing in the way of explanations--the evidence is there in abundance. What you owe us is an account of how you think this drivel informs and serves the public interest and why there should be no accountablityin connection with holding a broadcasting license. Stations are licensed--there is no right to a broadcasting license. To ask Beck's sponsors to reign it in is no more restraint of free speech than not allowing someone to drive drunk is restraint of their perceived rightto drive. Ultimately it won't be me that decides. It will be his sponsors. But don't tell me or anyone else we have no right to protest this abuse of publicly owned bandwidth.
Talk about restraint of free speech.
I'm not going to let this thread be hijacked by another right wing troll who wants to take us off the topic: the accuracy or lack thereof of Beck'sone sided, unscientific and politically motivated coverage of the global warming debate.
"This is a common troll trick"BlueneckA troll? Now you resort to name calling.
"What you owe us is an account of how you think this drivel informs and serves the public interest and why there should be no accountablityin connection with holding a broadcasting license." BlueneckOne man's 'drivel' is another's source of entertainment. First of all, I owe you NOTHING. I am making comments on this site like everyone else. If you don't like it...ban me.
"But don't tell me or anyone else we have no right to protest this abuse of publicly owned bandwidth." BlueneckI never said you don't have the right to do anything. I posted an opinion, you disagree
"Talk about restraint of free speech."BlueneckI'm not the one calling for radio stations to fire people.
"I'm not going to let this thread be hijacked by another right wing troll who wants to take us off the topic: the accuracy or lack thereof of Beck'sone sided, unscientific and politically motivated coverage of the global warming debate" Blueneck
More name calling!
Troll (v.): to deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a community forum, chat room, newsgroup and/or a blog in order to bait other users into responding.
Your remark:
"I don't expect anyone here to do that because you only see what's put up on MMFA and you get blinded by your own prejudice and hatred of anyone on the right."
Looks like trolling to me.
Your remark:
"Blueneck I'm not the one calling for radio stations to fire people."
Now you're getting hysterical. I didn't say that did I? What I did sayis that: "Stations are licensed--there is no right to a broadcasting license. "If Beck and his corporate masters choose to abuse this privilege by walking perilously close to that line Imus crossed there will be consequences.
I provided examples of Beck's hate speech. If you want to consider speech that incites hatred of racial or ethic minorities free speech that is fine by me (well not really but there is not much I can do about it). However if the public is offended by this behavior they have every right to approach Beck's sponsors for the redress of their grievances. How long do you think a radio program hosted by Chavez and Castro every afternoon would be on the air in this country--especially if they were routinely advocating theoverthrow of the US government--or even if they weren't. My point is there is a line you don't cross and while Beck has not yet advocated the overthrow of the government he likes to push up against the line Imus crossed. I predict that because he is such a sociopath and narcissist thet he will eventually hang himself or consign himself to irrelevance. That will require no effort on my part.
As I said there is no intrinsic right to a broadcasting license. When Beckgets arrested for talking the way he talks in a park or public assembly then we can talk about violation of his First Amendment Rights.
Your remark:
"I owe you NOTHING."
True, if you don't care about your credibility. Yet you acted as if I owed you examples of Beck's hate speech when they are there in abundance. I provided them yet you won't answer a simple question: how do you think Beck's dreck informs and serves the public interest and why there should be no accountablityin connection with holding a broadcasting license.
because Beck is spreading ignorance and hate--this website is media MATTERS