Fox's E.D. Hill falsely claimed that "U.N. meteorologists" say "the planet may actually cool off for the 10th year in a row"
SUMMARY: On America's Pulse, host E.D. Hill falsely claimed, in a teaser for an upcoming segment, that "the U.N. says the planet may actually cool off for the 10th year in a row." Hill later asserted: "U.N. meteorologists now saying that we could have, for the 10th year in a row, a colder year, temperatures ... decreasing, not warming, getting colder." In fact, global mean temperatures, as measured in two widely used data sets, have not decreased in each of the past 10 years; further, according to those data sets' producers, the data continue to show a long-term warming trend.
On the April 4 edition of Fox News' America's Pulse, host E.D. Hill falsely claimed, in a teaser for an upcoming segment, that "the U.N. [United Nations] says the planet may actually cool off for the 10th year in a row." Later on, during a discussion of the issue with Greg Gutfeld, host of Fox News' Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, Hill similarly stated: "U.N. meteorologists now saying that we could have, for the 10th year in a row, a colder year, temperatures ... decreasing, not warming, getting colder." But Hill offered no source for her assertion that "U.N. meteorologists" say that temperatures could decrease "for the 10th year in a row," and in fact, global mean temperatures, as measured in two widely used data sets, have not decreased in each of the past 10 years. Moreover, according to those data sets' producers, the data continue to show a long-term warming trend.
Indeed, the annual mean global temperature data jointly produced by the United Kingdom Met (Meteorological) Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia shows that while that data set's record high temperature occurred in 1998, as shown in the table below, temperatures fell in 1999 and 2000, and then increased in all but one year through 2005 (the year with the second-highest temperature recorded in the data). Temperatures then fell in 2006 and 2007 to levels between those of 2001 and 2002.
|
HadCRUT3 global average annual series
|
||||||
|
Year |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
|
Temp Anomaly (°C) |
0.123 |
0.355 |
0.515 |
0.262 |
0.238 |
0.400 |
|
Year |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
|
Temp Anomaly (°C) |
0.455 |
0.457 |
0.432 |
0.479 |
0.422 |
0.403 |
Note: the Hadley Centre offers two global time
series; this is the one "[r]ecommended for general use."
Discussing the data, the U.K. Met Office lists as a "fact" that "[t]emperatures are continuing to rise," and states that "temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade":
The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years. This does not mean that next year will necessarily be warmer than last year, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures.
A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.
1998 saw an exceptional El Niño event which contributed strongly to that record-breaking year. Research shows that an exceptional El Niño can warm global temperatures by about 0.2 °C in a single year, affecting both the ocean surface and air temperatures over land. Had any recent years experienced such an El Niño, it is very likely that this record would have been broken. 2005 was also an unusually warm year, the second highest in the global record, but was not associated with El Niño conditions that boosted the warmth of 1998.
According to estimates from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the annual mean global temperature for 2005 was greater than that for 1998, which, according to GISS, is now tied with 2007 as the second warmest year on record. Indeed, according to a January 16 GISS statement announcing the 2007 figure, "The eight warmest years in the [global] GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990." The GISS further stated:
"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.
GISS produced this graph showing their temperature data and the continued warming trend:
While Hill did not attribute to any particular source her assertion that "the U.N. says the planet may actually cool off for the 10th year in a row," the Drudge Report had, earlier that day, prominently linked to an April 4 BBC online article, under the headline: "REPORT: GLOBAL TEMPS 'HAVE NOT RISEN SINCE 1998'..." That article reported that "UN meteorologists have said" that " [g]lobal temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific" and that, according to the BBC, "This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory." The article further stated that "[t]his would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world." However, neither those statements, nor anything else in the BBC article, supports Hill's claim that the U.N. -- or "U.N. meteorologists" -- are "now saying" global temperatures could decrease "for the 10th year in a row."
The above quotes are from what appears to be the first version of the BBC article. The BBC website has published at least two subsequent versions of the article -- this intermediate version and the current version (pdf) -- however, neither of them support Hill's claim.
In addition, the first version of the article reported that "[a] minority of scientists question whether this [that "temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world"] means global warming has peaked and the earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted" (the other two versions stated that they "argue the Earth has proved more resilient" [emphasis added]). All versions of the article also reported that the head of the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization, Michel Jarraud, challenged that assertion:
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he [Jarraud] said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
On America's Pulse, after Gutfeld noted that U.N. meteorologists "[are] blaming it on La Niña currents," Hill asked, "Did they sneak into the country too?" Gutfeld responded, "Exactly. There you go." Gutfeld later said that "the thing that I love is that now we're going to have a coming ice age. I've been getting used to the whole global warming thing, now I got to start buying fur again, and I was just getting used to the ideas of the polar bears disappearing, and now they're going to stick around."
From the April 4 edition of Fox News' America's Pulse:
HILL: And good news for polar bears, bad news for Al Gore. Why the U.N. says the planet may actually cool off for the 10th year in a row.
[...]
HILL: All right, something else that I just sat there and went, "Huh?" Because I hadn't heard about this, in fact, it's quite the contrary. U.N. meteorologists now saying that we could have, for the 10th year in a row, a colder year, temperatures --
GUTFELD: Yeah.
HILL: -- decreasing, not warming, getting colder.
GUTFELD: And they're blaming it on La Niña currents. But they that say this is like this -- we haven't had any warming --
HILL: Did they sneak into the country, too?
GUTFELD: Exactly. There you go. But the thing that I love is that now we're going to have a coming ice age. I've been getting used to the whole global warming thing; now I got to start buying fur again. And I was just getting used to the ideas of the polar bears disappearing, and now they're going to stick around.
HILL: Ah, that's very nice.
GUTFELD: Yes.
HILL: I like polar bears. Hey, Greg, thank you very much.
Didn’t you Chicken Lickens get the memo? It’s being referred to as “global climate change” now instead of “global warming”. That way you can run around crying about the destructiveness of the capitalists American swine no matter which way the temperature trends go.
No, denialists (like yourself) are trying to get people to call call it 'global climate change' in an Orwellian attempt to change the language, and thus distract people from understanding the urgency.
Actually, some people preferred the phrase "global climate change" to "global warming" because they felt the latter was not precise and could be confusing since while the world on average will get warmer, due to changes climate-driven weather patterns not every place will get warmer; some may very well get cooler.
But while scientists will still talk among themselves about "climate change," the phrase has largely disappeared from public discussion by those who know what they're talking about because it turned out "global climate change" was even more confusing for most people than "global warming."
No, Larry, the environmentalist whackos are using "climate change" hoping that it will be less noticeable when they change BACK to the "global COOLING" crisis.
And onle brain-dead dittoheads refer to people as "environmentalist whackos", Brainus Minimus.
Solon: “A situation YOU ought to be familiar with what being as stupid as you are.”
What does that sentence mean? “…what being as stupid as you are.”?
And who’s EJ?
The temperature trends are going exactly as expected so there is no need for that. Anyway you can always say it's God's punishment on gays.
U.N. meteorologists? Does the U.N. employ meteorologists? Besides, meteorologists aren't necessarily experts in climate - that's what climatologisist are for.
Plato,
The linked article had in it's title "UN Meterologist" I do believe.
That's why E.D. Hill mentioned it.
These charts are so outdated.
Errors with the meters.
No warming.
copiousdissent.blogspot.com wrote:
>>These charts are so outdated.
No they are not. And your first chart points to the temperatures in the US, not the world. Your second link is from a denialist website that gets the science wrong:
link
And since I'm not going to respond to any more of your crap, let me remind you that science is conducted by peer reviewed papers--by the scientific model rather than hype. I know that that disappoints the denailists, who will link to all the bogus science all day unless I tell them right off: Show us the *science* that refutes this:
link
When you can show us you have real science on your side, you can *start* the debate. Until then, you are spouting nonsense. Or, to put it another way, why should I believe copious conservative, an anonymous blogger, rather than the best science in the world?
FMP, You didn't mention Compliantconsents biggest goof. Calling evidence of a 10 year trend "outdated" because it doesn't reflect the isolated pattern of the past year. Sheesh.
But, CD, if you need any more reliable sources, I heard Michael Medveds fill-in wingnut offer his own study on the radio today; he's in Washington state, it's April, and it's cold.Now, if you could just get reality to adjust to the observations and understanding of the most simple-minded humans, we'd be calling you "Professor Copiuous".
And did I read the La Nina comment wrong about "sneaking into the country"? Did one of the Fox pinheads actually manage to work in some illegal alien scary in with the Climate change denying? Well done!
FMP, You didn't mention Compliantconsents biggest goof. Calling evidence of a 10 year trend "outdated" because it doesn't reflect the isolated pattern of the past year. Sheesh.
I dont know if i would call it outdated - but lets be real here. Earth has been here for millions of years, we only have decades of objective & subjective "data"....and now you're saying one year doesn't matter. Well no offense, but the same argument can be made that decades in comparision to millions of years can be considered null and isolated.
First, the earth has been here for billions of years, not millions. It's like saying San Francisco is inches from Philadelphia. It may be correct in the strictest form, but doesn't accurately reflect the scale.
True, there has been climate change in the past from a wide variety of causes. Those episodes are interesting and instructive, but many of the causes are irrelevant to our current state of affairs. Modern scientists are examining the CURRENT climate patterns and the CURRENT associated causes and effects. Historical events add to our knowledge of cause and effect but the mere fact that those periods experienced climate changes is not necessarily relevant to the conditions that exist today.
You misstated what the Col. said. He didn't say that the one year "doesn't matter." He made the very reasonable point that it doesn't negate what is indicated by the longer trend. Besides that, it isn't even a period of a year that bucked the trend. The more recent statistics compare individual months with the averages of those particular months in the previous year. They aren't representative of the entire year spanning those two months. As I recall, 2007 was still the warmest year on record on a global basis.
Thanks, Bill. I thought it was pretty simple.
And no offense taken, Columbus. You'll never offend me just by having a different opinion. As long as you don't lie, and aren't completely boring, I'm very fair.
That second one should read "No warming --- for ONE YEAR." That's quite the lengthy trend. One year of cooling vs. decades of overall warming.
Let us know when this cooling turns into a tangible, multi-year trend.
The BBC one did not say what you attributed to it. In fact, it said completely the opposite:
"The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record."
And the second NPR piece does not draw the conclusions you are trying to pretend that it does, either.
I cant believe you lied about the very articles you linked to. Were just hoping nobody would follow them or something?
I cant believe you lied about the very articles you linked to. Were just hoping nobody would follow them or something? - Ro
Ro, in CD's defense, I don't think he lied. He's just not very bright.
This woman, E.D. (Educationally Disfunctional) Hill has never said anything neating the truth since she has been on T.V. How did she get hired...Shall we guess?
She is a Babbler..babble, babble, babble without any real background information, sort of like, me.
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
...temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
From NPR:
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
...Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The science tells us that the earth has not been getting warmer for the past ten years.
Honestly, the global warming doomsayers are reminiscent of the old time soothsayers who would predict the future by "reading" chicken entrails.
Go Obama!!!
The BBC one did not say what you attributed to it. In fact, it said completely the opposite:
"The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record."
And the second NPR piece does not draw the conclusions you are trying to pretend that it does, either.
I cant believe you lied about the very articles you linked to. Were just hoping nobody would follow them or something?
Actually, I do something hope that people will follow the links and try to make what they think is a "clever" challenge. However, for people who really follow the news there is an interesting followup: The BBC's original story was changed due to the global warming fearmongers:
BBC Changes 'Temperatures Decrease' Article to Incite Climate Hysteria
Global Warming Activist Pressures BBC to Significantly Alter Article
So, when you get on your soapbox and accuse me of not accurately citing the BBC article, I can ask you which one? The fair and balanced article? or the one that was rammed up the BBC by the Global Warming freakazoids?
Oh, and you don't really say anything about the NPR story. Want to go at that one again? Or do you simply think that 3000 measuring devices over the past ten years simply cannot be trusted to accurately record that the oceans are NOT warming? (Oh, since the the earth is 2/3's covered by oceans, that IS a problem for the global warming hyterics.)
Nice try.
NAC,
Nice to see you here. Care to respond to my posts on the other thread? You told me you would be happy to after I explained the link. Any thoughts?
friedbergboy1422
I'm afraid that you caught me at a bad time. But I'm going to have that answer in the mail for you first thing in the morning.
Honest.
Actually, I do something hope that people will follow the links
Oh, I hope they do, too, as well as your Newsbusters links and read all of them all the way through - because if they do, they will realize just how bogus the kinds of arguments raised by those of your ilk really are.
The NPR story mentions several possible explanations for the data. Not one of them questions global warming. In fact, as the article makes clear to anyone who reads it without looking for a "Gotcha!" it is the very fact that there is such overwhelming evidence for global warming that there is a "mystery" to be solved.
Misinterpretation of data is an interesting possibility because just a few years ago the nanny-nanny naysayers were all over a report that satellite data showed a layer of the atmosphere was cooling instead of warming, as the models said it should. It turned out that the results were wrong: The analysts had failed to make an adjustment required by changes in the satellites' orbits. Once that was done, it turned out that the layer was warming just as the models predicted. That could turn out to be the case here; we'll have to wait and see.
As for the BBC article, I can see a good reason why the third paragraph was changed: It included a statement that is flatly untrue. It said that world temperatures have not set a new record high since 1998, "prompting some to question climate change theory."
No. Wrong. Nonsense. Bull. It has not "prompted" anyone to "question" global warming, it has been exploited by the denialist wingnuts to falsely claim warming has stopped. (A warming they previously denied existed, by the way. But it is so like them to airily acknowledge what they previously repeatedly rejected when the evidence is too overwhelming even for them to deny and to do so without every admitting that their previous claims have been utterly refuted.)
I also note that in the first Newsbusters link, the BBC article was cut off after the 3rd graph, omitting the fact that in the original article (found in the email exchange in the second link), what immediately followed was the statement "But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years."
Which means the oh my it's so horrible I can barely stand to type the letters change the Beeb made was to drop from the third graph the blatantly false claim that the data had "prompted" doubts about global warming and combined the third and fourth graphs into one.
Wow. With perversity like that running loose in the newsrooms of the BBC, it's no wonder they're one of the world's most respected news outlets.
Misinterpretation of data is an interesting possibility ...
Hey, LarryE , all you have to do to "interpret" the results is look at a temperature gauge. How hard is that?
When a cultish group of doomsayers is confronted with irrefutable scientific evidence that goes against their religion, all of a sudden the simple reading of a temperature becomes just an awesome mystery.
Sorry, Larry, but once again you simply demonstrate how much the cult of globaloney warm-mongering has become a religious fetish.
Hey, LarryE , all you have to do to "interpret" the results is look at a temperature gauge. How hard is that?
Hey, I just looked at the temperature gauge, and guess what? It's hotter n hell. There, irrefutable proof that global warming is real.
Hey, I just looked at the temperature gauge, and guess what? It's hotter n hell...
Well drink plenty of liquids and put you pants back on. (Must be hard taking you own temperature like that.)
RO meet Notanotherconservative, NAC works sorta to. And welcome to Argue with a Wingnut. Coupiousdissent (CD) is another you may meet and scratch your head afterwards going wtf?
You can meet alot of different opinions here from a wide political range. Some more logical and honest, but still maddening on the occasion. For which I thank a pastafarian god. Enjoy ;)
This is just another attempt by the blinkered nanny-nanny naysayers to find something, anything, on which to hang their irrational, anti-scientific refusal to recognize the reality of global warming due to their sheer lunatic terror that dealing with it might in some way inconvenience them.
In fact, it appears to be the latest attempt at a denialist meme: Just recently, another Murdoch outlet, The Australian, highlighted an interview of a representative of a right-wing think tank by a "radical libertarian" radio host in which said interviewee said the planet is in a cooling phase "if you take 1998 as your benchmark." Which is true in exactly the same way that the Boston Celtics have been in a period of decline since 1973 (when the team won 68 games), things like the intervening championships, the Larry Bird years, and having the best record in the NBA this year notwithstanding.
I also find it amusing that some of the same people who used to claim that 100 years of weather records was "not enough" on which to base an assertion of global warming are now claiming to have refuted the facts based on timescales of 5 or 10 years.
You all opened this door (at least it appears that way), and decided to make the all-important National Policy matter of the REGULATION OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS into a never-ending inane ridiculous and ultimately bores-you-to-tears agrument over the "climate", and "global warming"...
And so now you're sentenced to going through that door, again and again and again, endlessly arguing the difficult and vague ground you have staked out for yourselves... all the while saying nothing and doing nothing about the REGULATION OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.
If I sound a blaming or accusing note, as though I hold you personally reponsible for distracting the National Policy issue of the REGULATION OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS away, into a foolish argument about the "climate" and "warming", I should apologize, and make myself clear:
I mean instead to say that it is the petroleum industries, and the aligned automobile industries (politically powerful industries in the U.S.), it is they who bait you in these matters, and have you walking through that door (which you appeared to have opened) again and again and again, arguing inanely and foolishly about "climate" and "warming"...
And it is easy to see why they do this: Because they distract you from a matter of National Policy, and of Law and Regulation and Government, from the matter of the REGULATION OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS, into something as vague and disputable as "warming" and the "climate" (the "climate" being not under the Jurisdiction of Government, and not under the Jurisdiction of Regulations and Laws, as is the REGULATION OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS)...
They're doing this to you, so you're not as much as fault as I might make it appear.
And it's working by the way, they have succesfully distracted you from the REGULATION OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS (that they so oppose), by baiting you into an inane and endless agument about "warming" (which you started).
The UN's World Meteorological Organization has never said "the planet may actually cool off for the 10th year in a row." It says the opposite, that 11 of the past 12 years are the warmest on record. There are projections that La Nina could cause 2008 to be cooler than 2007, but despite this, global warming is continuing.
Coincidentally, Fox News Online has corrected its story on this issue, moving away from E.D. Hill's comments. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/naturalscience
Fox first based its story on an incorrect BBC story, which it too has corrected: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
The mistake was an understandable one, which once pointed out BBC did the right thing to correct, as did Fox, the Daily Mail in the UK, and others.
Like you say, 11 of the past 12 years have been the warmest on record, indicating continued global warming. La Nina is projected to cause a temporary cooling in annual temps for 2008 compared to 2007. But La Nina occurs independently of global warming. It is a natural variability. While it continues, global warming continues as a backdrop.
I remember the global cooling scare of the 70's - I'm not falling for this again. While these temp charts may show the earth is warming history shows it will correct itself.
I think the real indicator of the severity of this topic though is the disappearance of Al Gore. There is no place better than the White House to imlpement real climate change policy that will lead the world. With the trio of fools now running for POTUS, and as close as Al came in 2000, he should be a shoe-in for the office. Instead he chooses to work from behind the scenes and preach change as opposed to actually doing something to enact it. Boo Al, boooo.
I remember the global cooling scare of the 70's - I'm not falling for this again. While these temp charts may show the earth is warming history shows it will correct itself.
I concur with that as well. The big problem is when you have a group of people fully against big oil, suv's, etc...and then come out with a "global warming" propaganda that targets those things, it tends to be very suspicious of a hidden agenda.
The global cooling scare is a myth:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/
Let's recap. You tossed out a talking point. Crimson presented a link demonstrating that your talking point is based on mythology. Then comes the funny part. Unable to refute the factual basis of Crimson's response, you used your fortune telling ability to look into the future and predict the current science will be debunked.
And in your world that passes for wisdom?
My wisdom is based on knowing that science can only base it's assumptions on what it knows today. It is very easy for a scientist to go back thirty years and prove others wrong because thay know things today they didn't know back then. Thirty years ago the same "concensus" that today sees global warming as a pending threat warned governments to change their ways else the new "Ice Age" cometh. Blah Blah Blah. I am predicting that thirty years form now we will hear again how others got it wrong.
As I noted history shows the planet goes through climate swings. I have much more faith in nature continuing to take care of itself than I do in scientists predicting the sky is falling.
Anyway - the main point of my original post was that if this is as serious as many scientists would have us believe - whay has Al Gore abandoned the most effective way of implementing change - becomming POTUS?
You are out of your mind. There was nothing anywhere near a consensus about Global cooling. That is ludicrous. There were a few articles talking about it. Preliminary science. LONG before it got to the hundreds of peer reviewed studies to back it up point, which is where we are now with Global Warming it was shown to have no basis and science let it go. ONLY rightwingnuts DESPERATE to say anything about what IS a scientific consensus are regurgitating the NONSENSE that there was a scientific consensus based on a few articles. You are flat out wrong.
Solon - I have no knowledge of your age but I was a college student in 1977 doing much research in Earth Science because of the climate change issue. I experienced it (research) first hand - I've lived through this before. I will not so easily fall for "the sky is falling" again - but if you can - enjoy the ride.
"whay has Al Gore abandoned the most effective way of implementing change - becomming POTUS?"
That is hardly the most effective way to implement change...Especially since Bush is leaving this country in such a mess that whoever the next president is going to have their hands full dealing with everything else. Gore can be much more effective in the Private sector.
BS. The freemarket will accomplish all of that largely on its own. Gore can do more good there. The public simply does not want to change their lifestyle. Do you think cheap gas will last forever? Do you think we will revert to cave-dwelling when the oil runs out?
The scarcity of oil will force everyone to find something else. It has happened with many technologies before and it will happen again. No one has any idea what it must have been like to win the popular vote, but lose the election to what can only be seen as the biggest imbecile to be president. It is silly to judge Gore's conviction on this issue by whether he runs for president or not. By that reasoning, we should all doubt your own sincerity - unless you are currently running for that office yourself.
It is silly to judge Gore's conviction on this issue by whether he runs for president or not.
I threw the topic out there for debate and you have your opinion - I respectfully disagree. The measure of a persons commitment to a cause is evident in their actions, not their words. Leading the US down a path of environmrntally friendly polocies would go much further to advance his stated principles than presenting a fear mongering documentary.
Now for your whining about him loosing after winning - who cares. You fall off the bicycle you get back on. I am no supporter of McCain but I give him credit - he lost time and time again but he kept running - and now he's actually in a position to win. I thnk Gore could win easily against McCain - unlike Clinton or Obama.
Why don't you run for president if you feel so strongly? Until you do that, I am sorry, but I just don't trust your conviction.
Thirty years ago the same "concensus" that today sees global warming as a pending threat warned governments to change their ways else the new "Ice Age" cometh. - Dems_Sol
That's the problem, the basis of your claim rests on a myth, as Crimson showed. There is no way to compare the consensus of climate scientists today with the tiny number of "Ice Age" proponents of thrity years ago. That position never came anywhere close to a consensus opinion. Trying to compare the two is either dishonest or ignorant. There are no other options.
I am predicting that thirty years form now we will hear again how others got it wrong. - Dems_Sol
So you ARE basing your wisdom on your ability to forecast the future. Who could possibly argue with that?
I have much more faith in nature continuing to take care of itself than I do in scientists predicting the sky is falling. - Dems_Sol
There have been any number of ways in which humans have had to alter there actions to avoid damaging the environment that supports us all. The attitude that nature will take care of itself is selfish and ignorant.
Anyway - the main point of my original post was that if this is as serious as many scientists would have us believe - whay has Al Gore abandoned the most effective way of implementing change - becomming POTUS? - Dems_Sol
So, your main point is something that you never came close to actually saying? So now, in addition to your ability to see the future, you think you have the ability to telepathically transmit your "main point" without actually even hinting at it?
Wow. What incredible "wisdom."
Bill - this was from my original post - did you miss it?
I think the real indicator of the severity of this topic though is the disappearance of Al Gore. There is no place better than the White House to imlpement real climate change policy that will lead the world. With the trio of fools now running for POTUS, and as close as Al came in 2000, he should be a shoe-in for the office. Instead he chooses to work from behind the scenes and preach change as opposed to actually doing something to enact it. Boo Al, boooo.
OK - now that that's done I am lamenting the fact that Al has abandoned the opportunity to INVOKE change rather than TALK about it.
While I do not believe that rising global temperatures are the result of human activity I do beliieve as stewards of the planet we should be leading the way in conservation, sustainability, and alternative fuels. What I object to is having those ideas forced down my throat by scientists who one year believe one thing and the next year believe something else. WISDOM - (the combonation of knowledge and experience) has taught me to think for myself and served me quite well in making decisions for my future. Instead of reading some apologists paper on the science of the 70's do some research yourself. Then compare it with what you read today. Just because you have 10 times more people shouting it doesn't make it any more valid. I't all seems too familar to me. If you want to believe in it - enjoy! :-)
I am lamenting the fact that Al has abandoned the opportunity to INVOKE change rather than TALK about it. - Dems_Sol
Obviously he feels he can be more effective as a private citizen. Possibly he no longer has the hunger for the office of president and the distractions that go with it. Who are we to question a personal decision of that nature? I think it takes a huge leap of logic to conclude from that decision that he's not taking this issue seriously anymore.
What I object to is having those ideas forced down my throat by scientists who one year believe one thing and the next year believe something else. - Dems_Sol
Doesn't it mean anything to you that you're basing that characterization of scientists on a myht?
WISDOM - (the combonation of knowledge and experience) has taught me to think for myself and served me quite well in making decisions for my future. - Dems_Sol
Maybe not as well as you think it has.
Instead of reading some apologists paper on the science of the 70's do some research yourself. Then compare it with what you read today. - Dems_Sol
I've done the research and actually remember the supposed Ice Age scare from the 1970s. I recall very clearly that it was roundly disparaged by most of the scientific community at the time. It was never given much credence at the time. That's why it vanished from most people's memories until recently when GW denialist have dredged it up to put forth a case based on false equivalence. Most know they're lying, but a few are simply ignorant.
Just because you have 10 times more people shouting it doesn't make it any more valid. - Dems_Sol
If it were 10 times more I might retain a higher degree of skepticism. The level of consensus on GW is many, many times higher than that little non-scientific blip in history you're comparing it to.
Wanting to believe it doesn't factor into the equation. It's a matter of respecting the volume of evidence, and not being inclined to disregard it based on a desire not to believe.
Bill,
It would be interesting to see how many scientists were even interested in the whole subject of global warming/cooling back then. Although I didn't pay it much attention, I remember the Time article and the talk of the day.
Of course this is before global warming/cooling was cause celebre of the intelligentsia on the left.
It really doesn't matter if 1000 or more agree if they are incorrect. How many believed the eight Haditha Marines were guilty of cold blooded killings? Murtha for one. Since then five of those charged have had charges dropped or were acquitted. (I think the other three are still awaiting trial.)
Science encourages naysayers, skeptics, and proponents. Each performs a valued function at getting toward the truth.
"Since then five of those charged have had charges dropped or were acquitted. (I think the other three are still awaiting trial.)"-AA
None of us can really know what happened at Haditha. From what I have seen of the investigation and trial, I wish I could share in your confidence that Murtha was wrong. I don't.
"Science encourages naysayers, skeptics, and proponents. Each performs a valued function at getting toward the truth."-AA
I could not possibly agree more. However, I fail to see where that statement applies at all to dems_sols' argument which consists scantily of a myth and the irrelevant fact that someone is not running for President. There is a difference between well-reasoned skepticism/dissent and simply baying at the moon.
Open - I'll spell it out for you more clearly - perhaps Al's reluctance to put himself in a position to really do something meaningful in climate change policy is an indicator the he himself has doubts abut the severity of this issue. Al talks a big game but as POTUS he could really DO something.
perhaps Al's reluctance to put himself in a position to really do something meaningful in climate change policy is an indicator the he himself has doubts abut the severity of this issue.
And perhaps it isn't. You've presented no evidence at all to support your thin premise, and given your track record. probability says you're dead wrong about this, also.
Solon- your two previous posts pul an exclamation point on something AA refers to in his post further on down the thread. That there is a religous aspect to the global warming believers. There is enough science out there refuting man-made global warming to leave it for free thinkers to decide for themselves. I respect your choice to believe - let's leave it at that.
The global warming controversy isn't as simple as looking at a thermometer and reading the temperature.
So much of it is based on assumptions and data projections, (which are nothing more than computer programs which inherently make assumptions.) The model may work flawlessly, but if the underlying assumptions are wrong, then the projections are also wrong.
When one compares tree rings from a few mountainous regions to determine temperatures 400 years ago, it is understood that those could very well be inaccurate. Scientists have no method to measure the historical temperature of the oceans. It is all guesswork. The computer models are imperfect because they do not contain all the variables. They only contain what is programmed into them. Uncertainty about the sun's influence is not to my knowledge, even part of the equation.
With all that, reliance on the projections, both in the past and the future require a willingness to accept, without certainty, that those projections are accurate.
AA,
I do agree with you that there is some uncertainty with the science. That uncertainty exists in nearly every aspect of science. AGW may be wrong for any number of scientific reasons. For those reasons all science should be looked upon with a healthy skepticism.
It should also be noted that it has been amply proven that some financially interested and vested parties have tried to exploit and exaggerate that natural uncertainty to make the issue more murky than areas of science that are comparable in their degree of uncertainty.
I think anyone who regards the existence or non-existence of AGW as an absolute fact is simply a fool who does not understand the limits of science. I wish this did not turn into such a partisan issue on both sides.
I'll have a margarita and some SPF 50 please.
It appears you expect the other side to consider they are wrong, but you appear resolute that you are right. Seems every bit as "religious" -if not moreso as you have not offered a hint of a substantial rebuttal as of yet.
If you expect others to check their opinions it is only honest to at least consider checking your own.
Open - I don't believe you have been paying attention to my posts. My position is that the science is flawed. The "myth" that is touted in regards to cooling during the 70's was not a myth back then. I contend that the "Warming" we experience now will be looked upon in 30 years as a "Myth" as well. There is plenty of science on both sides of this issue for the debate to remain open.
Human impact on temperature swings is a theory based on many assumptions and computer models. I choose to be environmentally friendly for other reasons besides the "myth" of man-made global warming.
The "myth" that is touted in regards to cooling during the 70's was not a myth back then.
Yes, it was. And it's even more of a myth now.
In the end, we are pretty similar. I believe in being green for many reasons - probably the least being AGW. That notwithstanding, much of what you say is not a reasonable attack on AGW. You are just regurgitating what the vested interests have been putting out in a non-scientific way.
We know what greenhouse gases do. We know how they trap heat at varying rates and that humans produce these gases - although the majority of it has been and will be produced naturally. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore that producing any greenhouse gases beyond the natural production would likely have some sort of consequence towards the environment's baseline.
Yes, other factors are likely to be involved - most of them are natural processes. My question is why not try to achieve a point where we minimize the variables in the equation that we are a part of (even on a personal level)? In my opinion, that is just being a good steward of the Earth - not even getting into the strategic reasons we should be doing this.
A CHURCH that relies on peer reviewed science? You do know that is just plain stupid dont you?
-- There is not a single peer reviewed scientific paper that refutes the consensus. -- jimmycraghorn
Dr Madhav Khandekar has published a listing of 68 peer-reviewed papers that are critical of the IPCC methods and results on global warming.
All 68 refuted findings of the IPCC on global warming...which does away with the old chestnut that there are no peer-reviewed papers disputing those findings.
The global climate has changed...warming and cooling...countless times. The issue at hand is whether mankind can control the cycles.
And what if we can? Many posters like you Wesley (not saying you), agreed that going into Iraq was a great idea if there was a chance, however small, that they were involved with 9/11. They thought if there was even a 1% chance of the war preventing another attack, it would be worth the bloodshed and resources that it has cost.
Now, with this issue, there is considerably more evidence, backed up by a large consensus worldwide that man is worsening the problem, but the same people who fear terrorism won't even make the slightest of sacrifices when doing something could save our planet. Why?
Hello. You still haven't met the challenge. Refuting "findings" is not the same thing as refuting the "consensus" on AGW. You are arguing a strawman.
I guess by not answering my question honestly, you did answer the question. Thanks, Wes.
Pease link to a peer reviewed article, by a climatologist, that supports your confident mannor on this DS.
Our opinions may have some effect, but it's small in comparison to the effect of say, insurance companies. They believe it will cost them too much money. In the early 70's they believed that muscle cars were costing them to much money. With the help of a fuel crunch, the muscle cars died.
I suggest you start beating on them as they will have a large part in the response to rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
If your still alive 30 years from now I'll take it as further proof thats god loves and takes care of idiots.
If your still alive 30 years from now I'll take it as further proof thats god loves and takes care of idiots.
No need to wait years for that Ewston - you can see that every day in your mirror if you so desire.
I'm all for science helping us determine what impact humans have on the climate. After all, humans have caused the extinction of many animals and plants. It make sense to me that these factors can indeed be aggregated and have a global impact. The extent of that impact is a different issue as far as I'm concerned. I wish this hadn't become a conservative vs liberal point of contention. It needn't be that way. (I don't care to blame either side. Lets say both are guilty of polarizing the issue.)
I am skeptical of some of the methods used by global warming experts to measure the mean temperature and the methods used to measure weather in the past. However we must start somewhere. I've decided I'll let the scientists battle that out. I think naysayers are good for the debate. They make the GW proponents, through their critiques, refine the methods and analysis that are used to measure the earth's temp.
While I am skeptical of the extent and consequences of global warming as stated by the U.N, I do think it raises issues that we need to take a look at as stewards of the earth and make us consider changing the way we consume our natural resources.
Unfortunately getting to the answer of how we minimize our impact on GW is as complicated as the factors that go into global warming. After all, on a micro level most of still need to drive to work and We still need to heat our homes in the winter. We still need electricity to post messages here at MMFA. :-) I think the market economy helps us consider alternatives by the rising price of oil which makes alternative fuels more competitive.
I for one am tired of the whole global warming debate. I think their are enough other related issues such as conservation, economics, pollution, ecology, etc., that are as important to our planet whether we are warming up or cooling down in order to actively look for alternatives that aggregated will minimize human beings effect on global climate.
Dems,
You have a good point. Can anyone explain to me in simple terms, (after all I am a conservative,) what the heck Energy Credits, (like those Al Gore buys/sells) actually do? I do proclaim ignorance, but it sounds like a scam to me.
Thank you for a thoughtful post. It's unfortunate that many conservative posters rather troll than think in this forum. Isn't it much nicer to have a dialogue?
Well, there are two different ideas that some people call energy credits, one more personal and one corporate.
1) Carbon offsets. This is basically an investment into cleaner energy. You calculate your "carbon footprint" and pay the amount of money that it costs to generate that same amount of energy (or whatever amount you want) via wind and/or methane farms. So while you may not have access to the energy created yourself, you pay for it to be created and it takes the place of fossil fuel energy in the electrical grids of the regions that have it. For more information see http://www.nativeenergy.com/
2) Carbon credits. I'm not as fluent in describing this one, but basically the idea is to cap the overall carbon output and limit what individual corporations are allowed to output. Then, an energy efficient company that outouts less than their limit can sell the difference to another company that is over. So it has the economic incentive to be under your limit to make extra cash and avoid having to pay extra, while the overall pollution output to the air is the same.
Chicat
Great post, AA. I would argue that, as opposed to "naysayers", skeptics are always healthy in any scientific debate. There is a monumental difference, in my opinion. A true skeptic will not just dismiss things that he disagrees with or are uncomfortable to him. He will, instead come to the debate with real concerns about the evidence and will conduct honest research to bring to the table. In the current debate, however, the naysayers are not engaging in honest debate. First, they are not engaging in the scientific process by any stretch of the imagination, and they are not honestly discussing the limitations or problems with any of the current research. What I see are arguments about certain aspects of research that have been repeatedly refuted, with those refutations ignored by the people with originally brought the argument. That is not debate, it is propoganda and it stifles true scientific discussion and education.
I would not argue, however, that advocacy groups on the other side of the debate do also stretch scientific research to fit their needs, which also stifles true scientific discussion.
As to your other point, I would also argue that government assisstance into alternative energy research and development is far more effective than solely relying on "free" market economics to change our energy infastructure. It is comparable to saying that personal injury litigation is the best way to ensure that products are safe for consumers, as opposed to proactive regulation ensuring safety.
Jaw,
I think part of the problem between naysayers and proponents is that the science is pretty much out there, problems with inaccurate and often incorrect measurements, assumptions that are presented as givens, relying on statistical formulations, data exceptions, regression analysis, and other methods not to mention that historical temperatures on the past are based in part on tree rings. The skeptic in me, being a layman, makes me doubt the certainty of the almost religious like acceptance by proponents on the left as gospel even though most of whom are not global climate scientists.
I think the problem is not only with the skeptics but the proponents. So many come across as so dismissive of any critique or evidence to the conventional wisdom that they look as deceptive to the skeptics as the naysayers do to the proponents. I have seen how the proponents have stacked the IPCC report and read how conclusions have been formed to advance the man made global warming agenda. I've read how dissenting analysis of various contributors has also been ignored. So in my view the proponents also are guilty of not being truthful.
We are in agreement with regards to government research regarding alternative fuels. I'm all in favor of public funding. How that funding occurs is another subject. Some research requires too much capital for any private enterprise. Government incentive though tax policies however will go a long way to help make private investment in research feasible.
ps. I just made arrangements to acquire a bicycle. :-) I could possibly ride it to work (3 miles) except I have to get out on two lane highways that have little or no shoulders. So I need my township to provide bike paths before I risk my life for a gallon of gas a week.
So I need my township to provide bike paths.
Why not just wait for the free market to provide them?
Jimmy,
I am not opposed to free markets providing for them. I have seen developers include sidewalks linking their developments to towns. I also believe it is a legitimate role of government, (as you can see is in the Constitution, which mandated to the Federal Government to post roads for the mails) to build roads.. which I would interpret to include bike paths.
Anyway, I like the fact that you saw an opening and took it. :-)
AA wrote:
>>I think part of the problem between naysayers and proponents is that the science is pretty much out there, problems with inaccurate and often incorrect measurements, assumptions that are presented as givens, relying on statistical formulations, data exceptions, regression analysis, and other methods not to mention that historical temperatures on the past are based in part on tree rings. The skeptic in me, being a layman, makes me doubt the certainty of the almost religious like acceptance by proponents on the left as gospel even though most of whom are not global climate scientists.
You are simply spouting the most ridiculous BS ever. The science of global warming is based on--gasp!--science! Real science, which has yet to be shown to be the least wrong. So your answer is to throw up some vague terms about assumptions, statistical regression, etc. That is just pure nonsense, and you know it. Having been unable to prove the science wrong, you attack the science itself!
And then you have the audacity to claim that those who understand the science are like fundamentalist following the gospel--and then, in the same post, accuse *us* of being closed minded.
Science is tough when it is not on your side, isn't it, AA? I will put the same challenge I put to you last time, the one you were unable to answer. There are 535 scientific studies proving global warming. When you can even begin to show the level of proof of these 535 studies, then you can *start* the debate.
Until then, you are blowing hot air, trying to wish away facts with rhetoric.
Put up or shut up, AA.
Funny,
I provided peer reviewed journals that countered your contention last time. You simply refused to accept it. Also Wesley referred to about 68 of them in his posts above. I think that answers your challenge. Time to move on.
I have stated that I am not an expert but looking at the way the IPCC report was put together, I see that it was just as much an agenda driven report as a scientific one.
I have been around long enough to know that "science" can indeed be wrong. Global Warming Proponents do use a lot of assumptions regarding temperatures in the past and use computer programs to project into the future. I remain a healthy skeptic because I have seen, like the hockey stick graph, that calculations can be wrong. I found it very interesting the reluctance of the researcher who devised the graph to provide skeptics with his data so that the results could be verified. (I'm not sure he ever did but I could be wrong.)
So your reliance on the term "science" is in my opinion, overly accepting.
I think the IPCC report and Al Gore's movie were good in that it brought the issue of GW to the public's attention. Proponents, like you, should welcome naysayers and skeptics as they keep the proponents on their toes and help the "science" by finding the flaws.
AA wrote:
>>'m all for science helping us determine what impact humans have on the climate.
And then wrote:
>>I am skeptical of some of the methods used by global warming experts to measure the mean temperature and the methods used to measure weather in the past.
And then you start your long, dishonest nonsense in which you do the opposite--in which you attack the science because you don't like the conclusions it leads to. Since you hate science so much, AA, next time you are sick, please don't go to a hospital. Please don't get on a plane.
But please, don't expect anyone paying attention to believe you are the least bit open minded on this issue. You have already made up your mind to minimize the conclusion of science, not accept it.
Funnyman,
Even though I am skeptical of the methods and assumptions used to create the IPCC report, I am not against science. As I stated earlier, I'll leave it up to the scientists to continue the debate. If you want to accept the IPCC as gospel, go right ahead.
Even though I am a skeptic, I am in favor of developing alternative sources of energy, conservation, recycling, and protecting the environment. I also am in favor of economic growth, freedom for all, and the American Way. :-) (cue Lee Greenwood.)
AA,
It is good that we can agree on that. I wish we could all concentrate more on this area of major agreement between liberals and conservatives.
It seems we are all a bit too easily manipulated by the people that don't want us to unite for whatever reason.
HILL: All right, something else that I just sat there and went, "Huh?"
I have a feeling she does that a lot, and not in an ironic manner...
He and his hired speech makers attacked those who stated that there were many public health and environmental problems. "Those lead pipes that carry water to your homes have raised your standard of living and are perfectly safe," reported Blovius maximus. "Anyone who says differently is just attacking our way of life and is an unpatriotic enemy."
Dissenter Albus Gorius gave many speeches about returning to the use of the aqueducts that had even purified the water; however the emporer declared that the science was still up for debate.
If you liberals really cared about "global warming", then instead of trying to split hairs on E.D. Hill's report, how about you do something about politicians in Democrat controlled legislatures refusing to allow wind farms because they "hurt the view"? How about you do something about Al Gore travelling around everywhere in private jets and limousines, and living in a home that uses twenty times more energy than the average home in America? Instead of just using "global warming" as a cash cow wedge issue, how about you start practicing what you preach?
You are just plain silly. It is perfectly acceptable to refer "Democrat controlled legislatures" just as it is perfectly acceptable to refer to Democrats as "Democrats".
Oh.. and I noticed you didn't have an answer for Hotwings. Nice try at sidestepping but it didn't work.
Oh.. and I noticed you didn't have an answer for Hotwings.
I also noticed Hotwings didn't ask a question that wanted an objective answer.
Answer me this: Have you stopped beating your wife? The only valid answers are "yes" and "no."
Ob,
Just a small point. Did you know that Admundsen sailed the Northwest Passage about 100 years ago in a wooden ship? Did you know that a couple of Canadian ships also sailed the the NW Passage during WWII?
From what I've read scientists have only been tracking the Arctic Ice since 1973 and only tracking it by satellite since 1979. It is quite possible that period (1973-79) was a time when the ice shelf was at it's apex. I'm not saying it was, but only that there is a cycle where ice in the arctic is growing and retreating.
Congratulations on your foresight to buy beachfront land in Colorado. Perhaps you'd be interested in a certain bridge in NYC? ;-)
It is a very indirect way of right-wing of acknowledging that 1998 was the warmest year on record (for past 100 years)
Not long ago they were attempting to argue 1998 wasn't all that hot at all.
"U.N. meteorologists now saying that we could have, for the 10th year in a row, a colder year, temperatures"
Rule #1, whenever a FOX News person's lips are moving = lying.