Drudge déjà vu: Winter Storm + Cancelled Hearings = Global Warming??
SUMMARY: Matt Drudge featured a report on his website under the headline, "Gore Hearing On Warming May Be Put On Ice," stating that "Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the 'urgent need' to combat global warming. But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings." However, climate scientists -- including at least one who has disputed aspects of the scientific consensus on global warming -- completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather, let alone an individual winter storm in January, bear any relevance to the global warming debate.
On January 26, under the headline, "Gore Hearing On Warming May Be Put On Ice," Internet gossip Matt Drudge featured a "[d]eveloping" report, stating that "Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning [January 28] to once again testify on the 'urgent need' to combat global warming. But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings." Drudge's report quoted from an email it said it received from an anonymous "Republican lawmaker," which stated: "I can't imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside." One version of Drudge's report also linked to a live weather forecast for Washington, D.C. However, as The New York Times reported on March 2, 2008, climate scientists -- including at least one who has disputed aspects of the scientific consensus on global warming -- completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather, let alone an individual winter storm in January, bear any relevance to the global warming debate.
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, despite overwhelming evidence of human-caused global warming and warnings by experts that short-term weather conditions are not evidence for or against its existence, the Drudge Report, as well as media outlets, have previously suggested that winter storms are evidence against the existence of global warming. Indeed, on February 13, 2007, Drudge featured the headline, "House Hearing On 'Warming of the Planet' Canceled After Ice Storm." Drudge's report quoted from a "DC Weather Report" forecasting freezing rain, ice, and highs in the mid-30s for Washington, D.C., for February 14, 2007.
On February 14, 2007, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, as well as Fox News' Megyn Kelly and Brit Hume, reported on the cancellation of a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on climate change due to severe winter weather conditions in Washington, D.C., with both Blitzer and Kelly deeming the turn of events "ironic," suggesting that cold weather and snow in February cast doubt on the existence of global warming.
Other recent examples of media figures suggesting that short-term cold weather events in December and January cast doubt on the existence of human-caused global warming include the following:
- Introducing the December 18, 2008, edition of his CNN show, Lou Dobbs said: "And tonight, unusual winter storms are dumping snow in unusual places across Western states, and a huge snowstorm is headed toward the Northeast. This is global warming?" During his segment on the issue, Dobbs hosted Heartland Institute senior fellow and science director Jay Lehr without disclosing that Heartland receives funding from the energy industry and without challenging Lehr's assertions that "[t]he last 10 years have been quite cool" and that "the sun" -- rather than humans -- is solely responsible for climate change.
Dobbs introduced his "special report" on what current weather "means for a discussion of global warming" by discussing substantial snowfall in parts of the United States and adding, "Perhaps Al Gore now is considering global warming isn't such a problem, because it is unusually warm in his home state of Tennessee. The forecast there calls for a high of 64 degrees in Nashville. Mr. Vice President, be careful."
- On the December 22, 2008, edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, guest host Douglas Urbanski cited Dobbs' December 18 segment to support the assertion, which has been widely discredited, that "man-made climate change" is "one of the biggest lies of our time." During the segment, Urbanski cited "snow in Las Vegas," "weather every place," and "cold records being set."
- On the January 22 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, on-screen text read, "Global What?" while Kelly teased an upcoming segment by saying: "[F]reezing temperatures in the Deep South, an arctic blast covering much of the nation. So if the world is getting warmer, then why is it so darn cold? Some answers next." While Kelly was speaking, Fox News showed scenes of snow.
- On January 26, moments after describing proposals to deal with global warming as "a new way to pick your pockets," Fox News host Sean Hannity said: "By the way, did you hear that, for only the second time in history, it snowed in the United Arab Emirates this weekend? Global warming?"
As Media Matters has noted, the IPCC's 2007 "Synthesis Report" concluded that "[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level" and that "[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [defined in the report as a ">90%" probability] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations." The IPCC report specifically rebuts the suggestion that nature is primarily responsible for global warming in the last 50 years:
The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely [<5% probability] that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely [>66% probability] have produced cooling, not warming.
In comparing human-caused and natural "radiative forcing," (which is defined as "an index of the importance of [a] factor as a potential climate change mechanism"), the IPCC's February 2007 Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" concluded that since 1750, "it is extremely likely [>95% probability] that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely [<1% probability] that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF."
By 11:03 p.m. on January 26, Drudge linked to his report as the lead headline on his website:
From the Drudge Report:
GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE
Mon Jan 26 2009 17:59:26 ET
Al Gore is scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday morning to once again testify on the 'urgent need' to combat global warming.
But Mother Nature seems ready to freeze the proceedings.
A 'Winter Storm Watch' has been posted for the nation's capitol and there is a potential for significant snow... sleet... or ice accumulations.
"I can't imagine the Democrats would want to showcase Mr. Gore and his new findings on global warming as a winter storm rages outside," a Republican lawmaker emailed the DRUDGE REPORT. "And if the ice really piles up, it will not be safe to travel."
A spokesman for Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the committee, was not immediately available to comment on contingency plans.
Global warming advocates have suggested this year's wild winter spells are proof of climate change.
Developing...
And your friend Sean Hannity noted that it snowed in the UAE for the first time in many years. Then he asked "Global Warming?", and chuckled at the joke that only he and all of the other mental toddlers are in on.
Chuckling is often a defense mechansim of the American Blowhard. Some say Hannity chuckled at the habitat destruction and climate change that has disrupted migratory patterns for birds, such as the ones that took down US Airways Flight 1549.
Hannity also made his own waterfowl-related modest proposal in response to The Miracle on the Hudson®. All of those American aircraft destroying geese could be killed and fed to the homeless.He chuckled at his cleverness on this one too.
Again, the debate shouldn't be about whether or not Global Warming is happening. The debate should be about what to do about it.
Considering the fact that Global Warming really isn't observable in day to day life (it gets cold, it gets warm) I don't see any way to force the kind of change needed to reverse the trend. There isn't the will to do it.
The change will have to take place (in my view) because it is economically feasable to do so, the profit is there to create the incentive for the economy to universally go green. Even then, I'm not convinced that it would have enough of an impact to reverse what is occurring.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090127/ts_alt_afp/uswarmingenvironmentclimate_20090127132619
Global Warming Irreversable.
The author was just on NPR and is already trying to head off media and denier arguments that her study shows we can't stop it. It shows no such thing. Already some science blogs are taking her to account for the loose language of the title. In the story below she argues her study shows that AGW is not something we can turn around easily (because of the very slow ocean change). What we do now could still have an effect in 1000 years. This is only news, in that science has known that the life of added CO2 was hundreds of years. Now it is thought the oceans affects might make it much longer.
Her study shows that the warming we already have (about one degree so far) will stick with us a lot longer than we thought. Quick changes on our part will not change that one degree rise (and some more). If we do nothing we keep adding to the problem. The worse it gets, the longer we are going to have it.
Instead of 100 year dust bowl in Kansas it could be 1000 years, if we let it get that bad. (my paraphrasing).
Read the NPR story.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9988890
Once again the GWAs are predicting doom and disaster. Climate change is change, not disaster. The onle effects the GWAs are predicting are the negative ones. I can just as easily predict positive effects due to climate change but the gloom and doom press gets people who can't think for themselves into a self-induced tizzie. I have to comment on a short report by Schneider on CNN concerning Global Warming a while back. His monologue was confirming Global warming with, and I'm paraphrasing, "....and in the last few years we've seen massive hurricanes, flooding, heat waves, tsunamis---tsunamis?---this is the kind of misinformation that fuels the doom and gloom side of the climate change issue. MMFA missed that one!
What annoys me is that the real concern of the people denying GW is the creation of an economic disadvantage vis-a-vis China, Russia, India, etc. That's a legitmate concern. But why can't we have an honest debate about that? Instead they create a bogus issue regarding whether GW exists using paid-for minions of Exxon Mobil. The only explanation I can see is that fat cats will not make as much money if they have to re-tool.
Because that way, they can go beyond calling people who believe in global warming "Environmental Wackos" and proceed to calling us "Anti-Americans" who want the USA to fail in it's ecomomic competition with China, Russia, India, etc. It feeds too well into their long-standing "Liberals Hate America" theme.
Jerry Falwell even said the Global Warming crisis was a satanically inspired conspiracy. I hope it's hot where Jerry is nowadays...very, very hot.
I do not see you as a Wacko or as Anti American, you like every American can have an opinion. The fact that GW is not proven; there are just as many scientist that say yes to GW as many as so no. I just find it funny, that some countries are taxing farmers for Cow Farts, please. MONEY GRAB
It's not global warming - it's global climate change. Wider fluctuations in weather patterns leading to hotter summers, colder winters, and more intense storms.
Google the Antartic ice shelf, one that's been there for 1000's of years that's now hanging on by a thread.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm
I just ignore idiots like Mark, just like I would ignore idiots who claim the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it. Seriously, some people are not worth talking to.
They don't want to be convinced; they have their reasons for denying what every scientist not bought and paid for by the energy companies knows is real, and they are entitled to their ignorance. They aren't entitled to my time, however.
http://gristmill.org/skeptics
Even then, I'm not convinced that it would have enough of an impact to reverse what is occurring.
Even if you're not yet convinced it could work, the expenditure of 0.1% of GPD to give it a try is still worth it. Lets face facts. Nobody making the decision right now will know for sure for at least 20-30 years. Even more important is the possible affects 100 years later if we don't move now. How about we make an effort now? Maybe we fail. At least our grandkids won't curse us for failing to act
In my humble opinion, getting the country off of fossil fuels may be the best way to start. It would be a massive project which could create millions of jobs, which we could keep in the U.S.
If, in the end, Global Warming proves false, at least we'd be out from under the thumb of OPEC, and could let those douchebags in the Middle East wipe each other out if they wanted to. Does anybody really believe we'd be in Iraq if not for its oil? Really?
The only drawback is that it will be very expensive, and require a lot of deficit spending at first. But then, we're already doing that, right?
I'm not an expert on the subject and don't pretend to be. But the article I linked to below my initial post indicates the next 1,000 years are set in stone. If that's the case, then the deed is done.
I think the climate change crisis is real, but also remember that predictions of how long it would take to clean up Lake Erie, etc. were off. It wasn't as long as we thought. Here's hoping we are wrong about how long reversing or slowing climate change will take.
But the article I linked to below my initial post indicates the next 1,000 years are set in stone.
See my post above. Your link gives very only a little material. The study shows that what we have done so far, will last 1000 years. Not that that the future climate is already "set in stone".
Thanks for the clarification. We will naturally be moving to cleaner fuels as they become more economical and cost effective to do so.
That was my point based on the 1,000 year prediction, that it's not a huge deal to just wait until the technology catches up to the necessary changes we need to make. We can't "redo" an economy based on what will occur 5-10 lifetimes from now. It's a slow process.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
bruce is right, there is no political will. Not in this economic climate, not with people worrying whether or not their next paycheck will be their last for awhile, and you want some government massive spending program to tell us what we need to do? it won't happen, not now. it's called priorities, maybe for Al Gore it's a priority right now. for the rest of us we should be as green as possible and environmentally aware, but for liberals it's always about money, you always need money, more money. well I've got news for you, nobody has any, we're broke.
I think you've got a point, but sometimes money IS the answer, or an integral part of it.
I think this is the perfect time to totally overhaul our energy economy. If we do it right, we could simultaneously rebuild our manufacturing base, which the past two generations have allowed to evaporate. For the past decade or so, our smartest people have been working on Wall Street, building the house of cards that just fell on our heads. Let's put them to work actually creating something.
The private sector would have to get on board, but the government could lead the way. Will it work? Hell, I don't know, but we have to do something, or it's Mad Max time.
Well, in the interest of our moral purity we have to reign in this sort of thing...
It's a right wing breaking point! Contribute to a cause that you consider a fraud, or try to stop the perversion of society!
HA! That was funny. Does global warming also make women like that attracted to middle aged men with modest incomes?
DAWUSS: See what a benefit Global Warming can be?
It causes you to post pictures comparing Boston to Key West?
What Global Warming, The Hadley Centre for Climate Change, part of the UK Met Office, tracks global temperature and shows a big drop in global temperature anomalies since January 2007. Based on the HadCRUT3 system of observed temperatures, global surface temperature anomalies have been trending down since 2001. January 2008 had the coldest anomaly since 1995.UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature anomaly (HadCRUT) Dr. Phil Jones.
We've seen this before. That graph shows other time periods where little change or even cooling was observed. The overall trend is still upwards. (And it's still hotter than it's been at any point in measured history, excluding the peaks in the late 1990's.) You'll need about 10 more years on that trend before I breath easy about it. (And you'll have to explain why the NW passage is now open year-round and there's stading water at the North Pole.) Hey - I hope you're right, I really do. But the scientists who collect and interpret this data still disagree with you regarding CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
But his anomaly is still cold. He should put some more clothes on.
Eddie, I could give you a hundred scientist names that believe that Global Cooling is the trend, and no they do not work for Oil Companies or Companies that have ties to fossil fuel technology, but it would not change your mind. Eddie you could do the same and I would not believe you, because their is no proof to show one side is correct and vise versa. I am just afraid that our Government is taking one side with no proof and ready to tax Americans using this trend, not to save the country but use it as a vehicle for more tax dollars. Once they start to tax, they will never stop.
Actually, there is plenty of proof to show that climate change is happening at a faster rate than is naturally normal, due to the expulsion of CO2 and other gases that humans create. Nobody denies that the Earth has natural cycles of cooling and warming, it's just we're in a warming cycle, and it's getting hotter faster, because of what we eject into the air.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm
Funded by ExxonMobil.
Hey Mark,
Try citing someone who has actually done some research in the field that they are commenting on rather than just providing us opinion pieces by people getting paid by Oil Companies.
I just love how you all think Big Oil is the bad guy, anytime you do not like a document about GW, it is big oil.
I'll see you and raise.
http://www.skepdic.com/climateskeptics.html
Eddie, I could give you a hundred scientist names that believe that Global Cooling is the trend, and no they do not work for Oil Companies or Companies that have ties to fossil fuel technology.
Add to that the the requirement that they are actual CLIMATOLOGISTS that are ACTIVELY DOING GLOBAL CLIMATE RESEARCH and have PUBLISHED RELEVANT REPORTS IN ACADEMIC AND SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS... and I'll say, "I highly doubt it."
"Coldest anomaly?" Did you even understand the graph to which you linked?
If you're going to quote the Hadley Centre, you probably should be aware of what it actually says about climate change.
What Drudge and alot of the anti Gore people forget is that Global Warming destroys the atmosphere. It is not an issue of the winter getting warmer, it is irrelgular weather.
Pshaw...you an all that science stuff. ;>)
Casey, where has our Atmosphere been damaged? Weather has never been constant and it never will be in the future. We are setting recorded cold days, weeks and months that have not been seen this the late 1800's and Early 1900's. I guess it was all the Cattle!
We are setting recorded cold days, weeks and months that have not been seen this the late 1800's and Early 1900's.
Citations please.
Middle, do a search on Goggle for 2009 cold weather records. It is a simple search.
Mark,
What does that prove? So it's really cold today, that means nothing in the dicsussion of Global warming. I know people like you really don't have much capacity to think, but any single day, week, month or year does not a trend make.
Middle, do a search on Goggle for 2009 cold weather records. It is a simple search. - markbfoot199
Gee that looks simple. Let me give it a try. First I found this - Rice yields bolstered by record heat - Wednesday, 28/01/2009 - Rice yields could be 10 to 20 per cent above average this year, thanks to soaring temperatures in the New South Wales Riverina.
Oops, that doesn't look right. Maybe this - At 3 p.m, the mercury hit 82 degrees at the USC weather station, making it the ninth day in a row that temperatures have exceeded 80s. Monday's high should rank as a new January record, since Sunday broke the old record of seven days straight of 80-degree-plus weather.
Guess not. Perhaps this - Perth [Australia] has recorded its hottest start to January on record
I can't seem to get the hang of this. Here's another try - Record-breaking Interior Alaska heat wave comes to an end
Hmmm, I'm finding stuff about Argentinian heat waves, Buenos Aires droughts, record killers across Australia, more heat in Swaziland and other similar reports. I must be doing something wrong. Alaska, the US midwest, California, Australia, South America, Africa. They're all facing heat problems. Maybe I'll figure it out later.
Ah, bill, citing weather reports to support your argument! When a GWD cites cold weather in January as proof GW doesn't exist, you get excited and hyperventilate and then you go and cite hot temperatures in the southern hemispheres summer as somehow(sarcastically) GW does exist. What gives, bill?
Destroys the atmosphere? That's the biggest load of nonsense I have ever heard. Please explain the dynamics of that statement and then irony101 can back you up on that, too.
I don't understand how those libs can look at the snow outside my window and possibly believe it will be warm in August...
Must be that Kool Aid they're drinking, Wookie. It really messes up the logic gears.
zzzz.. do these Global Warming Deniers REALLY have to come out of their caves EVERY time it snows?
I wish they would all get back to their Earth-centered universe theory and let the grown-ups deal with Global Warming. They are making total idiots of themselves, but they aren't the worst- at least they are getting their pockets lined for shoveling their anti-science rhetoric at us. Far worse are the unpaid trolls who come on to sites like this to spread their manure for free.
JJ, I guess since your all grown up and having received your PhD in Atmospheric Science, you’re ready to present your slide show on GW. Trust me, you are the last guy I want to deal with this supposal issue.
How's the rainforest in Brazil? Remember back when that was the big scare?
It still is Dawuss,
The rain forest helps regulate the climate and also cleans the air we breath. I know it's tough for some people to think about more than one thing at a time, but try to be a little less stupid with your comments.
If I posted a picture of a hot chick amongst some tropical trees, would that lead you to think the rainforest is ok?
...that was meant as a replay to Dawuss.
Isn't the diminishing size of the rain forests contributing to the Global Warming problem? As I understand it, the root of the problem is too much CO2 in the atmosphere, which would be affected by the plant life in the rain forests.
Your right, jj. Opposing viewpoints are pesky elements we shouldn't have to trouble ourselves with, huh. Gets those dormant gray cells working, resulting in headaches and a constant state of malaise.
Uh, I'm pretty sure all Matt posted was that once again (as this has happened several times) as Gore is preparing to give a speech on GW that there will be a snow storm/ ice storm during his time in DC. If you read the whole post, nowhere does it challenge climate scientists on the notion of short term changes in weather. MMfA conveniently left that out. Got a hair trigger today?
The headline along with the fake Republican quote in Drudge's report is an attempt on Drudge's part to presume that since it's winter in DC this week, Gore's pending testimony is somehow adversely affected.
The headline along with the fake Republican quote in Drudge's report is an attempt on Drudge's part............ to get a gig with Fox News?
Ah yes, it's cold in January in DC. Global warming can't possibly exist...
An amazing number of people feel no need for a modesty of knowledge on the subject to prevent them from speaking loudly on the subject. Their knowledge begins and end with some talking points. Their motivation, to contest anything that might have a progressive componet to it.
The wonders and utility of ideological filters.
History has shown us repeatedly that large corporations will not hesitate to gamble with the public welfare in order to increase their profits. Why would Global Warming be any different?
A possible political inversion of the rock and roll meme,"Live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse."
"Ah yes, it's cold in January in DC. Global warming can't possibly exist..."
Excellent! Republican "logic" in a nutshell.
One of the things swept under the rug by the denial crowd is that global climate models start predicting what's happening today back in the '80s. The thing that has everyone looking sideways at one another is that the models predicted this woudl happen in the '30s, not now. Hmm..
The other thing is that, in addition to an increase in global mean temperature, there is an increase in the variance, or spread, of the temperature. So for a while, we will see more extreme weather. But, in a few decades, the spread will be completely on the warm side.
Take what's going on now in the Northeast US. The weather pattern is typical of a La Nina - 1994 is an example that was far worse. La Nina is part of a cycle known as the El Nino Southern Oscillation or ENSO. Basically, ENSO is a heat exchange between the western and eastern Pacific. As we pump more heat in to the system, the oscillation increases in magnitude, which screws up things all over the country.
This type of story is particularly disturbing as it represents a basic misunderstanding about the global warming issue. That is, all weather conditions (blizzards, snow, rain, cold fronts, heat waves) are a function of one thing: Heat. Instead of accurately reporting the unprecedented winter conditions as further evidence of the overall problem, they make the same old jokes. Who can we write to, to pressure news departments to be more responsible when vetting “experts” and researching stories?