CNN's Collins did not challenge CEI fellow's distortion of Gore's sea level claim
SUMMARY: During an interview with the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Marlo Lewis, CNN's Heidi Collins did not challenge Lewis' assertion that, in An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claimed that global warming would cause sea levels to rise "20 feet ... in this century." Lewis added: "That is science fiction, but Gore presented it as fact. It's scaremongering." In fact, Gore was addressing what could happen if the West Antarctic ice shelf or the Greenland ice dome "broke up and slipped into the sea" at an indefinite point in the future, not "in this century."
On the October 12 edition of CNN Newsroom, co-anchor Heidi Collins did not challenge the assertion by Marlo Lewis Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, that former Vice President Al Gore -- a 2007 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize -- in his film, An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), claimed that, because of global warming, sea level would rise "20 feet ... in this century." Lewis added, "That is science fiction, but Gore presented it as fact. It's scaremongering." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Gore was specifically addressing what could happen if the West Antarctic ice shelf or the Greenland ice dome "broke up and slipped into the sea" at an indefinite point in the future, not "in this century."
As Media Matters also documented, in a February 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that "[c]ontraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100," and that "[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.
During the CNN segment, Collins introduced Lewis only as "a critic of Gore's global warming claims," a "senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute," and the author of "A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth." She did not note that CEI has received funding from energy industry sources, including, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, more than $2 million from the Exxon Mobil Corp. since 1998. According to the weblog Think Progress, Exxon Mobil no longer provides funding to CEI. On the August 15 edition of NBC's Nightly News, NBC News chief environmental affairs correspondent Anne Thompson noted that "[t]he Union of Concerned Scientists says Exxon Mobil gave almost $16 million over seven years to denier groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute." Thompson aired a clip of Lewis claiming, "We don't take that position because they invest. It's the other way around, and any environmental group that is honest and has any familiarity with us knows that to be the case." In addition, as Colorado Media Matters noted, CEI has received funding from right-wing financiers and organizations, such as Richard Mellon Scaife, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the October 12 edition of CNN Newsroom:
COLLINS: Al Gore sharing the Nobel Peace Prize, but his concerns not shared by all. Marlo Lewis is a critic of Gore's global warming claims. The senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth. Thanks for being here. What was your reaction when you saw the announcement this morning?
LEWIS: Well, I was not surprised, but I was also displeased.
COLLINS: Why is that?
LEWIS: Well, I don't think that Al Gore's policies, which the Nobel committee celebrated and mentioned as one of the reasons for giving him the ward -- the award lead to peace. Rather, I think those policies lead to global instability and political strife within nations, between nations, because basically what Al Gore and the global warming crusade want to do is put an energy-starved planet on an energy diet -- and this is a recipe for poverty. And poverty does not lead to peace; it leads to conflict.
COLLINS: So, if he had gotten some other type of award for his work regarding global warming in particular, you would be OK with that?
LEWIS: Well --
COLLINS: As in, you know what I'm saying, the Nobel Science Prize of some type?
LEWIS: I wouldn't be OK with that, but for a different set of reasons, which is that An Inconvenient Truth is basically a lawyer's brief for a political agenda. It's completely one-sided. Gore only mentions or cites studies that supports his point of view. He then exaggerates, in many cases, the evidence that he presents.
In some cases, he's just plain wrong. For example, 20 feet of sea level rise in this century is not in any sense a scientific possibility. That is science fiction, but Gore presented it as fact. It's scaremongering.
COLLINS: Well, let me interrupt you just for one second, because for --
LEWIS: Yes.
COLLINS: -- the people out there, the average American who does not have the science background and is trying to really make sense whether or not this phenomenon is occurring, number one, and number two, whether or not man caused it to happen. How do I know what you're talking about? What evidence in particular -- what science is really behind your positions?
LEWIS: OK, I did not dispute that there is global warming or that mankind is causing a lot of the warming that we've seen in the last 30 years. That -- those are really uncontroversial positions -- or propositions. It's the fact that this means 20 feet of sea level rise or the claim that Gore made very heavy-handedly in An Inconvenient Truth that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina was driven by global warming. That really is a fabrication, and it's manipulative. It's a form of fearmongering -- and so, that's politicized science. That's not real science.
COLLINS: How should it have been written?
LEWIS: How should Gore have written it?
COLLINS: That particular point about Katrina?
LEWIS: Well, he might have pointed out that when Katrina made landfall, it was only a Category 3 storm, so the devastation that it caused, you -- there was no reason to think that it was because of some kind of extra oomph that it got from global warming because we've had Category 4 and 5 storms before the era of global warming. What he should have said was that there was 30 years of government failure to build adequate flood defenses for New Orleans, and that was the real root of the tragedy.
COLLINS: So, overall then, let's talk about the idea of global warming. Should people be concerned about it? Should there be someone out there that is getting dialogue to happen? That is one of the things that was said in the announcement this morning for the peace prize is that, you know, Al Gore is someone who has basically gotten people talking about this.
LEWIS: Yes, he's gotten people talking about it, and we can give him credit for that. The way he's gotten people to talk about it is manipulative and misleading. He has -- he is presenting global warming as a planetary emergency. In other words, this is a civilization-ending catastrophe that's unfolding, and that is simply not based on science.
And the tragedy here is that he is now diverting public attention, political will, and potentially trillions of dollars in global resources from much more urgent threats to human welfare like HIV/AIDS in Africa, malaria in Africa, malnutrition all around the world, water-borne diseases. These are lethal killers that are killing millions of women and children a year, and we could address those and actually save millions of lives for a fraction of what we are going to spend if we follow Al Gore down the Kyoto road.
COLLINS: Well, trying to give some equal time here to obviously an issue that is still very much in the forefront and still very hotly contested. We appreciate your insight.
Once again this will become the version that gets debated regardless of what Gore actually said. Cue the interminable discussions of what effect 20 feet of water in one century would have.
Luckily, in this case, we already have a finding of fact from the British courts:
British court case punches holes in Al Gore's fantasy climate movieAlan Ferguson , The Province Published: Thursday, October 11, 2007These were identified in court as follows:
Gore's claim: A retreating glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania is evidence of global warming.
Finding: The government's expert witness conceded this was not correct.
Gore: Ice core samples prove that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused temperature increases.
Finding: Rises in carbon dioxide actually lagged behind temperature increases by 800-2000 years.
Gore: Global warming triggered Hurricane Katrina, devastating New Orleans.
Finding: The government's expert accepted it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
Gore: Global warming is causing Africa's Lake Chad to dry up.
Finding: The government's expert accepted that this was not the case.
Gore: Polar bears had drowned due to disappearing Arctic ice.
Finding: Only four polar bears drowned, due to a particularly violent storm.
Gore: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, plunging Europe into a new ice age.
Finding: A scientific impossibility.
Gore: Species losses, including coral reef bleaching, are the result of global warming.
Finding: No evidence to support the claim.
Gore: Melting ice in Greenland could cause sea levels to rise dangerously.
Finding: Greenland ice will not melt for millennia.
Gore: Ice cover in Antarctica is melting.
Finding: It is, in fact, increasing.
Gore: Sea levels could rise by seven metres, causing the displacement of millions of people.
Finding: Sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimetres over 100 years.
Gore: Rising sea levels caused the evacuation of Pacific islanders to New Zealand.
Finding: The court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Canadian students who have been force-fed Gore's fantasy in classrooms across the nation may have some awkward questions for their credulous teachers in the wake of the British court case.
=======================================
Supporters of MMFA keep saying that they only interested in the "FACTS"...
Yahoo begs to differ.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=antarctic+ice+melt
this link says polar bears are being drowned in alaska, the first reports of that. and that polar bears in hudson bay area have dropped in weight from 650 [in 1980] to 507 pounds.
sorry. link:
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0907-polar_bears.html
maybe the "british judge" would like to read about this report on coral reef bleaching and global warming from last year. british researchers from the university of newcastle led a team that says it's the real deal.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060515232529.htm
The British courts ruling post-dates everything you guys are citing. Obviously, the court had that information. So if you want to counter what the British court has ruled, I suggest that you guys take the time to read the ruling and then try to counter what the court has said.
I have read the court's findings of fact and I can tell you that the decision is well reasoned, logical and sound.
as the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. and a judge can rule anything he likes. that does not mean he has any scientific knowledge. and the polar bear drownings are currently going on. the bears are drowning, it's a fact.
hmmm, and what have we here from 2001. "the leaders of tuvalu have conceded defeat in their battle with the rising sea...new zealand has agreed to accept all 11,000 citizens of tuvalu, with migration expected to start in 2002."
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/aut-op-sy/2001m11/msg00144.htm
Are these these same "courts" that knew where the WMD's were located? BBBOB, every rightiwng mouthpiece have been preaching this court report since the day Gore received the Prize. Until that time, it was an honest debate. Now, since a judge in England ruled differently, should we abandon the possibility that Global warming doesn't exist? I guess a judge, er, a Supreme Court Ruling that unwarranted eavesdropping is against the law and it entitles some people a Go To Jail card.
First, judges don't know squat about science. But if you trust this judge, why not note everything he said:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
More at Deltoid.
Poor Billybob. He puts so much work into it.
I would pity him, except he doeasn't seem to understand what's happening.
Thought you'd like to know BBJ someone stole your name and is ruining your rep on the previous thread by writing in a semi rational manor.
Either that or you've got a problem with your physcotrophics. See a good retro phrenologist to get that corrected. In the mean time stay off the roads.
Ok, looking a little closer I take it back. actual real things appeared again, I'm certainly amazed. The sources of information for the judges statements is not present however. This gives no traction for any further discussion digging deeper. Leading to a he said, he said variation. Of which I'm not much interested if your sources remain anonymous. A judge is not a source of information merely a conduit.
Still a visit to a good retphren would not be amiss.
ah yes...the trademark mmfa ad hominem. often used if you are making head way or not
BillyBob just has "argument from authority". We have more authorities. The end.
While responding to BillyBob's "an expert said it" post, I didn't see that he also professed a hunger for facts. So I found some.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php
The lawsuit in Britain is being hyped up to serve the climate denialists. The judge rejected the lawsuit and stated:
"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
The suit was in fact funded by mining corporations to try discredit Gore's movie.
and it's typical that they tried to initially hide that fact. i posted something on last friday's media matters column about the "south florida sun sentinel" running an opinion article by someone from the "natural resources stewardship project", questioning man made global warming. sounds like a real environmental group, right? turns out it's connected to a lot of energy lobbyists. see link:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project
to be clear, that was the october 5 media matters column.
Nice parsing of the court findings, try this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
or this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange
The ruling does not say what you present it as at all. In 3 of the "mistakes" the fact that environmental damage has occured at Mt. Kilimanjaro, Lake Chad and to global coral reefs is not disputed, the dispute is whether or not the damage is man-made.
The case did not find that changes to the Gulf Stream were "scientifically impossible," just less severe than the film indicated.
Mostly the ruling said that the film did have a tendency towards hyperbole but it was mostly scientifically sound and could continue to be taught in the British school system with some guidance required by the teachers in regard to the examples the court put forward.
It was hardly a wholesale dismissal of the film as junk science. But nice try.
"The ruling does not say what you present it as at all."
So, in efecct, Billiy lied. Imagine that, a right wing kook, whose name reflects a right wing Bible college, misrepresented and distorted facts in order to advance a "good for business/screw the earth" right wing agenda. Terribly shocking...
Oh yeah, wto more things. Ferguson was writing as a columnist, not a reporter for that piece. He also addressed ice sheet size changes in Antarctica. The latest science on that indicates that the interior is increasing in mass while the coastal areas are decreasing, the net result and how it may contribute to rising sea levels at this time is not known at this time. But none of that was in the court ruling anyway.
http://www.physorg.com/news4180.html
This article disputes the "inaccuracies" in AIT.
Right-wingers would just love love love to have this "warning label" here in every school and theatre and DVD box in the U.S., all the while hypocritically claiming that folks like Media Matters are trying to censor, attack and smear Rush Limbaugh by recording & printing Limbaugh's own words.
Actually, right-wingers would prefer to simply destroy all copies of Inconvenient Truth so that nobody could see it.
If there are exaggerations in the movie, then they should be explained if it is to be used as a teaching aid. That seems fair to me.
that depends on what you mean by exaggerations. could gore positively prove that global warming is melting the glaciers on mt. kilamanjaro? no. but is it a coincidence that glaciers all over the world are melting at a rapid rate? more rapid than would be expected if it were only natural?
Cue the interminable discussions of what effect 20 feet of water in one century would have.
These mind-numbing irresolvable (interminable!) arguments about the effect known as "global warming" or "climate change", are an exercise in futility.
What seems like several years now, of "Dr. He Said vs. Dr. She Said" back'n'forth bickering, looks like just more of the same, for years to come.
Interminable is the word for it.
And futile.
And the petroleum and automobile industries, and those who've hitched their exhaust-spewing wagons to those industries, they just love it this way: Keep the idiots endlessly arguing about the effect known as "global warming" or "climate change", while no new Regulations are enacted, or even discussed.
Regulations? What Regulations?
Why, Regulations of EMMISIONS, is what Regulations: EMMISIONS!
Not once in the above item is the word EMMISIONS found; nor is the word EMMISIONS mentioned even once, in this Competitive Enterprise Institute's clever video-ad (found here at Crooks and Liars):
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/13/open-thread-if-you-call-carbon-dioxide-life/
Because if folks hadn't already noticed that that's the strategy being taken by the industries I just named, a strategy of engaging head-long into an irresolvable debate about the Effect, at the complete and clever avoidance of ever mentioning the Cause (EMISSIONS!), then those folks will notice such a clever strategy... probably ten or twenty years down the road, all the while seeing no new Regulation of that Cause (EMMISIONS!): Which again is the whole point to the strategy...
Keep them arguing interminably about a difficult to measure and prove Effect (the effect known as "global warming" or "climate change"), and stay completely away from any and all talk about the Cause: EMISSIONS!
I mean that's only the thing we have a power to Regulate, by Law, EMISSIONS are...
I mean, we miss that point, and miss that boat entirely, by interminably arguing about the Effect, at the expense of talking about (and enacting new Regulations for) EMISSIONS, right?
It's a really clever strategy, and it's working.
Note the absence of the word EMISSIONS in the above item, and in the CEI ad, and in all the other pointless and bickering arguing you see and hear, over the matter of the effect known as "global warming" or "climate change".
At this rate, I'd rather see a Nobel Prize going to someone who could just stay focused and keep their minds on EMISSIONS (Isn't that what we need to deal with, EMISSIONS?)...
...than to see that prize going to the dreamy fools who persist in bickering about a difficult (near impossible) Effect to measure and prove, at the expense of discussing the Cause that not only threatens our Health and Public Safety, but which we have the power to Regulate:
EMISSIONS!
gore never said the seas "would" rise twenty feet. he said they could, if the greenland ice mass were to melt. the ice at the north pole has actually been melting faster than the estimates. of course, those estimates have been revised downward at the insistence of the bush administration. and lewis talks about fighting tropical diseases. those will be made worse by global warming. congratulations, al.
The media allows the hate toward Al Gore to continue, these people do not offer the truth, the former VP did. I was even reading the dreadful Drudgereport and he has this horrible link posted from the most conservative hatefilled paper in the Northeast the Manchester Union leader. The CEI official and anyone who disputes what has and is happening to our world have one goal , discredit Al Gore. The melting ice says it differently.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gore's+prize%3A+A+fraud+on+the+people&articleId=c55c0e3e-f569-4b50-83f6-8431bde279dd
Can someone tell me which college I can attend to get a degree in EXPERT?
Amazing how an expert reports to a judge and the entire "Who the Hell Cares About the World" crowd goes into a tizzy. But if an expert from the other side, or a thousand of them say the changes are coming, the WTHCATW crowd critizes them. Why not keep the debate alive and learn from one another. Or does money come into play? Biillbob, what is your cut for being a mouthpiece?
>>And the tragedy here is that he is now diverting public attention, political will, and potentially trillions of dollars in global resources from much more urgent threats to human welfare like HIV/AIDS in Africa, malaria in Africa, malnutrition all around the world, water-borne diseases.
Which are increased by rising temperatures. And isn't this the same crowd that attacked Geldof over Live 8?
copious has just repeated all the same arguments, which are nothing but interpretations of what the judge said. not what he actually said. what he did say was that the film was...get ready for it.....
"broadly accurate"
"political indoctrination"
We now interrupt John Gibson, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity for a Fox News special report: Political indoctrination: Can It Happen Here?
there have been other warm periods where the biggest disaster was a population boom. it seems as if no one is even trying to simulate feedback effects like albedo. its hard to consider the science when such an important factor is at least not talked about by 'top men'
This whole thread is a microcosm of why people are irate at the hype over Al Gore. THERE IS MUCH SCIENCE LEFT TO BE STUDIED before definitive conclusions can be drawn. However, even the mere suggestion that Gore is wrong is enough to get you killed these days. YES, the world is getting warmer... but we honestly don;t know if humans are statistically impacting this increase in temperatures.
It's all hype that leads to money. Follow the money. What's true for Bush is true for Gore.
uh, read again. even lewis in the above interview says he is not denying global warming or that mankind has been the source of a lot of it in "the last thirty years".
The majority of scientists and citizens and governments of the world agree humans are at the very least partly responsible.
The U.S. is behind everybody else in taking on this important issue, and the blame for this failure falls squarely on the Bush adminstration, his cohorts in Congress, and right-wing talk, its listeners and Fox News apolgists.
The real story here is that right-wingers never did like Al Gore because he's a liberal. In fact they loath Al Gore, much as they are disgusted by Carter, Kennedy, and Pelosi, for instance. It's out-and-out spittle-spitting hatred. They Gore long in advance of despisedInconvenient Truth.
Therefore the global warming issues Gore talks about and won a Nobel Prize for, must be trashed, the Nobel Committee questioned, the award discredited and Gore demonized even further.
Nothing you could say, no number of scientists, no facts in support of human-caused global warming are going to make any difference at all to these people. Nothing will change their minds.
- An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.”...
the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. -
one guy vs. how many on the other side? you can find people to say that second hand smoke does not cause cancer.
oh and i found where your "quote" came from and which you failed to tell us. it was a news release from oklahoma senator james inhofe, a global warming skeptic and representative of a state with a large oil industry. as someone said above "follow the money".
What, Wesley being dishonest for partisan purposes? But he's such a principled person...
and speaking of "follow the money", we all remember that this conservative think tank, partly funded by oil companies, offered $10,000 to scientists who would dispute the u.n. climate change report. see link:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/
It isn't really all that hard to find information these days. That makes lying about these issues a really bad idea.
The study you reference doesn't do that at all. Go look at it:
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
Now, it's really complex science and numbers there but digging through all that one does not find an earth shattering total refuatation of the work of the IPCC and the concerns laid out by Gore's movie.
What one finds is an exploration of the theory that the earth's climate has factors that attempt to achieve equilibrium and an exploration of how those forces may work if they do exist, how the interactions of various kinds of climate change causing forcings may interact, questions over the validity of the models used in exploring atmoshperic science and a lot of admitted uncertainty and calls for further research.
And this last sentence:The estimated increase in GMST by well mixed greenhouse gases from preindustrial times to the present, 0.7 ± 0.3 K; the upper end of this range approaches the threshold for "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system," which is considered to be in the range 1 to 2 K.
Does that sound like a happy ending to you?
The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. -
This paper has been thoroughly analyzed and some many VERY fundamental errors discussed on the climate science website, Realclimate.org Scroll down to their September 7th posting.
It claims a couple of papers have already been submitted for publication which challenge the concepts which are offered.
Schwartz is a respectable scientist but his arguments are being questions.
BTW this paper being challenged does not refute man made global warming as some have hoped. Schwartz calculates incorrectly that doubling CO2 will only raise world temp 1.1 degrees instead of the 2 to 4 degrees estimated by most other researchers.
Those who criticise Gore and try to argue that humans are not causing global warming must explain to their children and grandchildren why they did nothing in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence;
why they chose to nit-pick and argue instead of taking action. All for what?
- In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. - U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
That text, too, was copied-and-pasted from renowned Climate Scientist, Senator James Inhofe's (R). This time, it's Inhofe's "Press Blog", where you can also read such things as Inhofe's "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming".
But take note: you are not permitted be skepticalof Inhofe just cuz of his extensive ties to Oil.
1. Energy & Environment is not considered a prestigious scientific journal. In fact it is not listed in Journal Citation Reports which lists the impact factors of the top 6000 peer reviewed journals. It is only carried in 25 libraries worldwide. Here is a quote from it's editor: “It’s only we climate skeptics who have to look for little journals and little publishers like mine to even get published,” explains Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the journal’s editor.
With all that, it still declined to publish Schulte's research.
2. Schulte's research grew out of his analysis of global warming fear and anxiety among his patients. He has been accused of plagiarism of the original study that he claims to have updated. The original study has also been questioned, making his "update" even less reliable.
3. Inhofe believes that global warming science is a conspiracy and collects barrels of cash from the oil industry. Even with that going for him, his references contradict his own belief that there is nothing to worry about. If we take the Schulte paper as fact it still tells us that more scientists find credibility in global warming studies than don't and that a significant majority is unwilling to rule it out.
Do you have any research that wasn't done by Inhofe's staff?
- UN has cut sea level rise estimates dramatically since 2001 and has reduced man’s estimated impact on the climate by 25%. Meanwhile a separate 2006 UN report found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of the CO2 emissions from cars and trucks - Daily Telegraph
- Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well - Dr. Jim Renwick, lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report
The UN cow report does not support your position.
Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
Note, industrial pollutants not included in that comparison.
Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas.
Also not helpful for your cause.
Ranching, the report adds, is “the major driver of deforestation” worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.
Damn those cows for chopping down all the trees. We should never have shown them how to use axes.
Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.
And we never should have taught them chemistry.
Do you see the theme here yet? The damage done by livestock according to this UN report is man-made. We are the ones increasing the size of livestock herds, the cows are not doing this all on their own.
You can keep posting all night long, but the fact remains that as intelligent beings on this planet we have a responsibility to use it's resources wisely and strive to do as little damage as we can.
I'm not saying we should all give up our cars and become vegans wearing leaves in the forest. But we can all try to drive the most economical cars we can afford, recycle when we can, choose more environmentally friendly products when available and affordable and figure out ways to keep our environment healthy.
It is foolish to believe that polluting the planet can't have any effect at all.
- we can all try to drive the most economical cars we can afford, recycle when we can, choose more environmentally friendly products when available and affordable and figure out ways to keep our environment healthy. - moon
No complaint here...I agree with your statement...a very reasonable approach to our responsibilities.
However, I don't agree with those that spout hysterically about the coming climate calamities...and man being the main source.
Consensus is not science...and the fallacy of that argument has been proven over the centuries. Science is about following the evidence...without preconceived goals and bias towards the prevailing popular attitudes.
The so called consensus is falling apart...because it was not based on sound science but political motives.
I think you and I agree more than you think.
"However, I don't agree with those that spout hysterically about the coming climate calamities"
Who, exactly, is "hysterical"?
Yeah, I think we do. Gotta wonder why you use Inhofe as a source though. He would have us do nothing.
I do think Gore overstated the case and engaged in hype, but given that being environmentally conscious has become a "dirty hippie granola cruncher" thing these days it may have been necessary.
Big business has been winning in their battle to be irresponsible in their use and abuse of our natural resources and our government over the past 10 years or so has been complicit with them. I can recycle my trash and get my car emission tested and they should take efforts to reduce toxic emissions and clean up after themselves.
Gore's biggest error is in attributing the "fever" of this planet to a single cause and looking only at that. It is a complex problem and will require a variety of approaches in treatment, carbon reduction being just one of them.
I think the only real consensus today is that the earth's climate is a very complex subject...one that requires more study...again I agree.
I didn't cite Inhofe...I cited scientists that he references. You described Inhofe as a "do-nothing" denier...while also recognizing Gore's simplistic charges...fair enough.
It might appear that I don't believe in global climate change...and that's not the case. I post lots of anti-GW sources...to balance the majority of posters on this site...who claim that the debate is over...and it's all man's fault.
This from the Sydney Telegraph about Dr. William Gray:
- ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works"...
It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants." -
I think the only real consensus today is that the earth's climate is a very complex subject..
oops wesley your slip is showing.
There is REAL concensus that the earth is getting warmer. You forgot that one.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin(why a medical researcher, this is atmospheric reseach), will probably find himself surrounded by jolly rich men shortly.
The actual information, I hope it can stand up to bit of scrutiny. Energy and Environment has been onboard with global warming up to this point I assume. Big glossy industry fan mag, is that the one?
- Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists?
In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. -
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. - U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Another Inhofe press blurb.
Hey, genius: ever read anything besides InOil?
- Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades. - U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
- Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up...when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab - James Spann - meteorologist Jan07
could that be the same james spann who is on abc channel 33 in birmingham? by the way, he's predicting rain this week for the birmingham area.
http://www.alabamawx.com/
If it's him, there's unintentional hilarity further down the page:
"A Gradual Warming Trend Ahead... "
Oh, the irony.
Has the right wing suddenly and conveniently been afflicted with a fiscal epiphany?
One simply has to wonder where Republican monetary bloodhounds like Inholfe have been while we've been throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into a cauldron of endless Middle East war and political instability.
Inholfe's blog boy also conveniently fails to note that it's BUSH who allocated the $30 billion for climate research and alternative energy, according to his own link.
$30 billion for more study of global warming (which appears to be what the skeptics are crying out for in the first place) and exploration of alternative energy sources. This seems pretty "paltry" compared to $400+ billion for a bloody, no-bid contractor free-for-all in Iraq.
And Inholfe has the audacity to cite global warming as a "big cash grab"?
"Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab," -- James Spann the weatherman
WHAT ABOUT WHEN MONEY BECOMES THE MOTIVATION IN A LUST FOR POLITICAL POWER AND CONTROL OF ANOTHER NATION'S RESOURCES???
NOPE, NO PROBLEM AT ALL FOR THE "FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE" RIGHT WING!!!!
Oh, the irony.
- By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming...
The new ice core data shows that past warmings were not initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon...This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role - Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian governmen
The evidence is not currently conclusive either for or against any particular cause of global warming. I think that it is possible that carbon emissions are the dominant cause of global warming, but in light of the weakening evidence I judge that probability to be about 20% rather than the almost 90% as estimated by the IPCC.
The very same Dr. David Evans.
He doesn't deny global warming, he questions the cause. He also notes that carbon is a contributing factor and urges that we find inexpensive ways to reduce carbon emissions.
Thanks for fleshing out his position. He gives only a small percentage of probability to man-made actions... with atmospheric carbon...as a cause for climate change...in direct opposition to the IPCC.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with studying the climate and man's effect...yet I don't agree with the initial paranoia and grant farming by the alarmists.
The "consensus" was a sham to start with...and newer evidence points that out.
sure. and you'll quote some weatherman from a uhf station in birmingham as an expert.
Concerning Gore and Greenland...
- We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history...the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005.
The peer-reviewed study, which was published in the June 13, 2006 Geophysical Research Letters, found...almost all post-1955 temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower (colder climate) than the (1881-1955) temperature average - Petr Chylek, Los Alamos National Labratory Space and Remote Sensing Sciences.
and the explanation for that would seem to be black soot drifting to greenland from north american industry in those years, absorbing more sunlight, hence increasing temperatures. that's clearly explained in this link. it was not due to natural causes as you seem to want to imply.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/comment/reply/13897
Dr. Claude Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006.
Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!"
Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." - The National Post
There haven't been too many of these Global Warming threads lately. I'd forgotten how enthusiastic and gullible the cons are on this issue.
Invincible to the facts, as long as they can post just one more quote from a paid opponent of science.
I know many here don't get as big a laugh out of watching the mainstream conservative media as I do, but I caught a gem this morning. I think it was Fox News Sunday, the one with Brit Hume, Krauthammer amd Bill Kristol. Gores Nobel Prize came up, and it was hysterical.I can't remember which pissy junior-high girl said what but I'll paraphrase the following;
The Nobel Prize is by bloviators, for bloviators
It was awarded to Jimmy Carter (I believe I heard) the most disgraced President in history
The Nobel Prize is specifically awarded to anti-American, anti-Bush recipients
The Nobel prize is a far left award
It was high comedy, Kristol almost in tears, Krauthammer pathetically publicly melting down at the realization that his right-wing media monopoly is disintegrating before his eyes.
As if this weren't humiliating enough for the two of them (Hume was, as far as I saw, surprisingly quiet), the next segment was about "phony soldier" Ret. General Sanchez and his comments on Iraq, followed by Kristol's explanation of the "real story" on Iraq.
As hilarious as Sean Hannity explaining military strategy and history to actual military people.
This show may not warrant a mention on MMFA, as it wasn't so much misinformation as misinformed opinion,but it was a dazzling display of right-wing desperation and depression.
Catch it if you can. Krauthammer and Kristol, commenting on Gore, are so catty and unproffesional in their obvious hatred of the facts and realization of their dwindling empire, you would almost pity them, if they weren't so nasty.
HBL
I know from many of your past posts that you would have been completely in stitches if you had heard Hannity's radio show the day that Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Either that, or you would have been forced to pull over in order to throw up on the side of the road. He was, of course, totally incensed that a vile, evil, America-hating liberal elite like Gore would be awarded such an honer. If the Nobel Committee cared one whit about morality, he fumed, then why didn't they award the Noble Peace Prize to America's brave troops valiantly fighting against Islamofacists in Iraq & Afghanistan?
At this point I began to suspect that he may not quite understand the basic premises of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Then again, I've long suspected that he doesn't quite understand the basic premises to being a human being, the lying, dimwitted, money-worshiping pig.
Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books,
Gosh, one only has to type your references into the search box at Realclimate.org to quickly get your sources debunked.
Allegre made two glaring errors in his article in a weekly journal (not peer reviewed) last year. It was analayzed in Realclimate.org on October 6th 2006.
Allegre is a "decorated french geophysicists specializing in geochemistry and the use of paleomagnetism" who has never published on the subject of anthropomorphic global warming.
The point of Gore's movie was to show how fragile and precious the earth is, and that there may be ominous consequences to changing the balance of gasses in the atmosphere. We sit in our offices and cars and don't see the big "global" picture of the results of our way of life and we may be like the frog in the pot he mentioned. Borg pundits say we should be spending our money on space exploration because the earth is a lost cause. I don't want to live in some dome on the moon listening to their talking points, I love the earth and all its wonders, and we should be careful how we treat the source of all life. That's what he's saying, yet he's a hypocryte, a media hog, a shill, not a man following his vision. I mean, the earth always goes through cycles, 1 volcano produces more CO2 and poison than all the emissions man has ever produced, just as many scientists disagree with the GW theory, the glaciers are getting bigger, and Greenland used to be green. Have I left anything out? They keep saying "Gore want's me to pay more tax and stop driving my car and feel guilty cause I'm hurting the planet." When has he ever said that? His remedies would be a boon for the American and global economies. Maybe you deniers like the smell of hydrocarbons that lingers over Denver all winter but I would like a clean environment please.
The point of Gore's movie was to show how fragile and precious the earth is...
The earth is indeed a precious place, fragile no. The earth has been through many climate swings during its existence, the previous one before the current rise occuring in the 70's. I was an earth science student in 1974 when our class project focused on the current trend - global cooling. We poured through scientific journals, MSM publications, and National Geographic documentaries to collect data projections. Back then, as today, there was a consencus that change was happening and if governmental bodies did not act to make drastic changes in the way man was impacting his environment disaster was imminent. Cooling temperatures would expand the ice caps causing a greater differentail in ocean temperatures, resulting is intensified hurricanes, more tornadoes, smaller food supplies - blah, blah, blah. I've heard it all before!
Now today they look at the science of the 70's and say, we didn't understand blah, blah, blah, and we didn't know how to measure blah, blah, blah; and we couldnt properly chart the impact of ...well you know the rest. Trust me - thirty years form now they'll be looking back at 2006 and telling us why they got it wrong. Scientific theory is limited by the knowledge it has ammassed to date. It is a snapshot in time.
What I know is that the earth takes care of itself. The earth was created by a force we do not truly understand and to think that we are capable of destroying it's fragile nature is to give way to much credit to the impact of our selfishness. Mother Nature (aka God) knows what he's doing more than we could ever hope to. Does that give us the right to be wasteful and gluttonous with our resources - absoultely not. We are here as stewards of the environment, responsible for taking care of what has been given us and that is the reason for conservation. Not fear mongering based on questionable and limited science.
Who are we to say what the ideal conditions of the earth are to be at any given time? We think we know what they should be to support our current situation - but is that the ultimate goal? Without climate change throughout the earths history its present form would not be. Who's to say it should stop changing now?
"What I know is that the earth takes care of itself. The earth was created by a force we do not truly understand and to think that we are capable of destroying it's fragile nature is to give way to much credit to the impact of our selfishness."
Does the earth clean up pollution as fast as we can create it? Ever been to Lake Erie?
"Who are we to say what the ideal conditions of the earth are to be at any given time? We think we know what they should be to support our current situation - but is that the ultimate goal? Without climate change throughout the earths history its present form would not be. Who's to say it should stop changing now?"
"Our current situation" is our existence. We can say what the ideal conditions are because those conditions support human life. That seems to be a pretty reasonable goal to maintain that.
The bottom line here seems to be "don't worry, because the earth can take care of itself, and if it doesn't, then that's just God's will anyway". I'm sure you'll understand if those who aren't religious fanatics don't find that very comforting.
You seem to have overlooked my aformentioned swings in temperature and references to failed scientific theory - to which my reference that the earth takes care of itself was referring. It cools - it warms - it cools - it warms. All within the range that supports our existence. Those are scientific facts. Why it's happening is scientific theory. You don't have to be a religous fanatic to recognize the obvious.
Well, yes, that's what's happened so far. Certainly you are aware that just because it hasn't left that range as of yet, that doesn't mean that it can't happen. That should have been obvious to you.
The "religious fanatic" comment had to do with your assurance about God taking care of the earth and your suggestion that we aren't in any position to say what our conditions should be.
Well, back on the subject, there is no way Collins can not be familiar with this meme, that Gore vastly overstated the effect of climate change on sea levels in the Oscar winning film "An Iconvienent Truth". She sat there and let it slide. Either she is afraid of someone or something, or is as dumb as a fence post. She needs to get with whats her name that raked Brown over the coals post Katrina, now that was journalism. Soledad O'Brien, there you go, my memory just kicked in.
link if you need proof: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/02/ltm.01.html
of course Soledad has since been reassigned, can't have a national anchor tearing political appointees a new one, now can we? Would'nt want anyone to get the idea that the Republican machine is completely bought and paid for would we? Can't linger over the fact that the president of a horse club overnight gains the executive talent to run a critical goverment agency?