Hume ignored climate experts to assert significance of purported global cooling trend
SUMMARY: Fox News' Brit Hume asserted that "climate alarmists certainly did not foresee the cooling trend of the past decade" and, therefore, the Obama administration is premature in implementing cap-and-trade policies to curb global warming because it is merely a "scientific consensus" and "something that is not yet a fact." In fact, according to climate scientists, the temperature data continue to show a long-term upward trend in global surface temperature, and a cooling trend would need to last longer than a decade before it could be distinguished from the natural variability in the Earth's global surface temperature.
Appearing on the March 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report, senior political analyst Brit Hume -- who is not a climate expert -- acknowledged that "[t]here does seem to have been some increase in the average Earth temperature during the last part of the 20th century" and that "there are computer models that say this trend will continue with profound effects on the way we live." He then asserted that "[t]he problem with these models is that when data from the past have been plugged into them, they have had trouble predicting today's temperatures. The climate alarmists certainly did not foresee the cooling trend of the past decade." As a result, Hume suggested, the Obama administration is being premature when it "press[es] for a so-called cap-and-trade system to curb carbon dioxide emissions." In fact, according to climate scientists, there has not been a "cooling trend in the past decade"; the global surface temperature data continue to show a long-term upward trend, and a cooling trend would need to last longer than a decade before it could be distinguished from the natural variability in the Earth's global surface temperature. Indeed, Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), recently stated, "The major trend is unmistakably one of warming."
As Vicky Pope, the head of climate change advice at the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre, explained in a February 11 Guardian op-ed, the fact that "[i]n the past 10 years the temperature rise has slowed" does not show that global warming has stopped or slowed down, "since natural variations always occur on this timescale." She continued, "1998 was a record-breaking warm year as long-term man-made warming combined with a naturally occurring strong El Niño. In contrast, 2008 was slightly cooler than previous years partly because of a La Niña. Despite this, it was still the 10th warmest on record."
Similarly, in a January 11, 2008, post on RealClimate.org, Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote that "short term comparisons" of weather and climate are "misguided." According to Schmidt, "the climate system has enormous amounts of variability on day-to-day, month-to-month, year-to-year and decade-to-decade periods. Much of this variability (once you account for the diurnal cycle and the seasons) is apparently chaotic and unrelated to any external factor -- it is the weather":
Some aspects of weather are predictable -- the location of mid-latitude storms a few days in advance, the progression of an El Niño event a few months in advance etc, but predictability quickly evaporates due to the extreme sensitivity of the weather to the unavoidable uncertainty in the initial conditions. So for most intents and purposes, the weather component can be thought of as random.
If you are interested in the forced component of the climate -- and many people are -- then you need to assess the size of an expected forced signal relative to the unforced weather 'noise'. Without this, the significance of any observed change is impossible to determine. The signal to noise ratio is actually very sensitive to exactly what climate record (or 'metric') you are looking at, and so whether a signal can be clearly seen will vary enormously across different aspects of the climate.
Schmidt wrote that "if you start to take longer trends, then the uncertainty in the trend estimate approaches the uncertainty in the expected trend, at which point it becomes meaningful to compare them since the 'weather' component has been averaged out. In the global surface temperature record, that happens for trends longer than about 15 years, but for smaller areas with higher noise levels (like Antarctica), the time period can be many decades."
Moreover, contrary to Hume's assertion, such short-term trends are not inconsistent with climate models' projections of global warming. Addressing an "ill-informed buzz about very short time scale tendencies," Schmidt wrote in a May 11, 2008, RealClimate post that "[c]laims that a negative observed trend over the last 8 years would be inconsistent with the models cannot be supported. Similar claims that the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] projection of about 0.2ºC/dec over the next few decades would be falsified with such an observation are equally bogus." Similarly, in analyzing criticisms of climate models, Schmidt wrote in the January 11, 2008, post:
Are people going back to the earliest projections and assessing how good they are? Yes. We've done so here for [NASA Institute for Space Studies director James] Hansen's 1988 projections, [RealClimate contributor] Stefan [Rahmstorf] and colleagues did it for CO2, temperature and sea level projections from IPCC [Third Assessment Report] (Rahmstorf et al, 2007), and IPCC themselves did so in Fig 1.1 of [[AR4]] [Assessment Report 4,] Chapter 1. Each of these analyses show that the longer term temperature trends are indeed what is expected.
More recently, Schmidt stated in a December 16, 2008, post -- after average temperature data for meteorological 2008 became available -- that "[t]here will undoubtedly also be a number of claims made that aren't true; 2008 is not the coolest year this decade (that was 2000), global warming hasn't 'stopped', CO2 continues to be a greenhouse gas, and such variability is indeed predicted by climate models."
In addition, Hume said global warming activists in Washington, D.C., were "protesting warming temperatures in a city going through its coldest winter in recent memories -- a city in the midst of a snow emergency and sub-freezing temperatures" and that "they were also doing so on a planet that has seen no average warming for the past 10 years. But climate change alarmists are not easily fazed." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, climate scientists reject the notion that natural weather variations -- such as snowstorms -- provide any evidence for or against the existence of climate change, and scientists have concluded unequivocally that the Earth is warming.
From the March 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: Hundreds of demonstrators pressing for laws to curb greenhouse gas emissions descended on a Washington power plant that heats and cools the Capitol today. The activists braved frigid temperatures in a massive snowstorm that pummeled much of the Northeast.
The weather was so bad that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] was forced to cancel her appearance because of flight delays. Lawmakers have tried to clean up the plant, but it still burns coal and accounts for a third of the legislative branch's greenhouse gas emissions.
And now, senior political analyst Brit Hume is here with his thoughts on the meaning of this protest. Hi, Brit.
HUME: Hi, Bret. Well, you have to give those global warming activists credit for pluck. Not only were they were protesting warming temperatures in a city going through its coldest winter in recent memories -- a city in the midst of a snow emergency and sub-freezing temperatures -- they were also doing so on a planet that has seen no average warming for the past 10 years. But climate change alarmists are not easily fazed.
Just the other day, Doctor Steven Chu, the new Obama energy secretary, worried out loud that global warming could wipe out California's farms and vineyards by the end of the century and he feared for that state's cities as well. Now, there does seem to have been some increase in the average Earth temperature during the last part of the 20th century, and there are computer models that say this trend will continue with profound effects on the way we live.
The problem with these models is that when data from the past have been plugged into them, they have had trouble predicting today's temperatures. The climate alarmists certainly did not foresee the cooling trend of the past decade. No matter.
The Obama administration is pressing for a so-called cap-and-trade system to curb carbon dioxide emissions by, in effect, taxing them. Even the administration agrees that the public will end up paying for this in the form of higher fuel prices. That may not help an economy in the midst of an acute recession, but perhaps it will make Doctor Chu feel better about California -- Bret.
BAIER: So, Brit, what is the science saying today?
HUME: Well, the science is saying a lot of things, but the thing you should listen for is when leading scientists say that there is scientific fact concerning man-made global warming. What we've had instead is something called scientific consensus, which I guess is what you have when you don't have fact. And of course science is about fact.
So what you basically have is a widely held opinion -- though not universally held -- that says we've got a global warming emergency and it's caused by man. That's a small thing, I would think, on which to base a massive change in the way we order our economies and our lives -- a huge change on something that is not yet a fact.
BAIER: All right, Brit. Thanks.
Didn't Brit retire?
Actually they tried to cryogenically preserve Brit Hume near the frozen North Pole...but the damn ice kept melting for some strange reason. ;>)
God that is dumb! I know Brit Hume could say some stupid things, but this statement makes him sound like Sean Hannity. Does he just not know what he is talking about or does he just not care?
Both.
They said the same thing about asbestos. In the end it turned out to be true and yet those affected still have to use the courts to get compensation for asbestos related injuries...
How can a rational discussion of the impacts of Global Warming even begin when one side denies, either ignorantly or dishonestly, its very existence?
You could start. You, yourself, could put forth the notion that all is not as gloomy as some would have us believe. Most people, Hume included, realize warming and cooling trends are part of the earth's natural cycles. It's the percieved notion that humans are the exclusive culprit and that unless the warming trend is curtailed, by human intervention, then the earth will no longer be able to sustain life as we know it. It's the catastrophe or else rhetoric that allows for the people like myself to question the motives of the alarmists. Have you ever, and be honost, stopped to consider the benefits of a warming trend? If you have, then a discussion should follow that allows for that element. If you have not, then an honost reflection is in need. To entirely dismiss the benefit side of global warming is not rational.
If what we're experiencing is completely natural, then why should anyone consider the benefits? It's not like there would be any decision involved.
Why not report some of the benefits involved rather than always referring to the detriments? Why does contemporary news have to be one sided and negative driven? I think the reason is as I stated earlier, that in order to make capitol on any situation, the greatest leverage comes from a dynamic that stifles the argument. If there are no benefits, then the only recourse is to make sure, somehow, global warming is villified to support a single, myopic viewpoint. If tomorrows headlines were to read, "The world reaps huge benefits from global warming", the hysteria and fear would subside, somewhat, and the effort from environmentalists would be diminished. Environmentalists have a huge stake in global warming being a disaster and nothing more.
"Why not report some of the benefits involved rather than always referring to the detriments?"
Because it has the potential to be catastrophic. And even if it's beneficial in some places, that doesn't mean that it won't be detrimental in other places that are warm enough as it is.
"If tomorrows headlines were to read, "The world reaps huge benefits from global warming", the hysteria and fear would subside, somewhat, and the effort from environmentalists would be diminished."
And if I won the lottery things would be a lot different as well. It's not very likely, so it's not anything to base an argument on. As it is, it appears to be a huge risk, therefore it should be treated as such. It's really just that simple.
Natural cycles? OK, honeymoon's over. Time for school...
Objection: Current warming is just part of a natural cycle.
Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.
First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.
Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?
The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?
Is this graph a candidate for explaining today's warming? A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now -- and indeed we were gradually cooling over the length of the pre-industrial Holocene, around .5C averaged over 8,000 years.
Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing.
So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we're now witnessing.
In short: No.
Please have your homework assignments ready for tomorrow. School's out.
P.S. there is not one liberal out there suggesting humans are the exclusive culprit. Scientists report there are multiple factors at work, and they are stating loud and clear that the human element is the only one that can be controlled. The only issue is how much bang will we get for our buck.
The carbon increase follows the warming, the carbon does not drive the warming.
Your chart does not show sunspot activity. The chart leaves out the most important "driver" of heat.
So predictable!
Objection: In glacial-interglacial cycles, CO2 concentration lags behind temperature by centuries. Clearly, CO2 does not cause temperatures to rise; temperatures cause CO2 to rise.
Answer: When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.
Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. This remarkably detailed archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for rising temperatures, while also revealing it can be an effect of them.
The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (the Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is a small forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north, which changed the albedo. This change -- reducing the amount of white, reflective ice surface -- led to further warmth, in a feedback effect. Some number of centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise, which amplified the warming trend even further as an additional feedback mechanism.
(You can go here for a discussion of exactly this question by climate scientists, with greater technical detail and full references to the scientific literature.)
So it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely contributed to them -- and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.
This raises a warning for the future: we may well see additional natural CO2 come out of the woodwork as whatever process took place repeatedly over the last 650K years begins to play out again. The likely candidates are out-gassing from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils, and methane from melting permafrost.
What is your source for this and your previous post that had "objection" and "answer" in it also?
I applaud your patience in explaining reality AGAIN.
and did it occur to you that you are trying to pick a "trend" of perhaps a decade or three out of a graph that is based on hundreds of thousands of years in its timesacle representation? That variance ALONE is enough to dismiess yoru graphic case. ever hear of somthing called "granularity"? and your data points only reflect what you WANT to consider in the equation. you are not accounting for other particulates that act as green house gases, solar activity periods, precessionof the earth relative to the sun in that vast span of half a million years.
You people are like the guy who's lost in a helicopter.. he yells to someone on the ground "Where am I?" he gets the answer "In a Helicopter"... that has to mean you're hovering over la la land. The facts may be true, but totally useless in the context of determinng the answer.
And if the guy in the helicopter knows MissDeeMinus, he will immediately know where he is. He will be over her house, because her answers, while technically correct, shed no light on nor add substance to any subject whatsoever.
I'd like to interject one important point about the word "greenhouse" and how the greenhouse effect cannot be strictly applied to the earth's atmosphere. A greenhouse relies on restricted air movement so that solar radiation can warm and maintain that warmth through trapped air. The earth's atmosphere doesn't allow for that. As a matter of fact, the upper atmosphere is thinner and outside of the atmosphere is a vast void and any physicist will tell you, heat travels to cold. With a dynamic air mass that is driven by the earth's rotation and the jet streams, etc., air is constantly moving up, down, and sideways ensuring a mixture of upper and lower masses that as the warmer air rises or is forced upward, the energy levels in that warm mass are dispersed into space. Also, during the night cycle, the same thing happens at an accelerated rate because of many factors, such as less ionization of the upper atmosphere. Long story short, the greenhouse effect cannot be applied in the same fashion to the earth's atmosphere as it is to a solid structure.
Where did you plagiarize this from?
Long story short, the greenhouse effect cannot be applied in the same fashion to the earth's atmosphere as it is to a solid structure
Yeah, and the skies over Mexico City of Beijing are clear and blue.
I didn't plagerize anything. I guess if I state something from the encyclopedia britannica, I'm guilty of plagerizing? The skies over any town with a pollution problem and no appreciable air movement will certainly be polluted. I thought we were talking about global warming, not a local phenomena.
>>Most people, Hume included, realize warming and cooling trends are part of the earth's natural cycles.
That is just flat out wrong. The science shows that global warming is man made.
link
I like the way you think.
I see great benefits from global warming too. I live five miles from the ocean and about a half a mile from the bay. I have no preference for ocean front or bay front property. Either will do.
I will miss my neighbors as their properties are swallowed by the ocean (or the bay), but this could be a great benefit to me personally.
How about we all ratchet back the global warming promoting or denying? Why not leave it to those who know what they're talking about? And I don't mean Brit Hume or Glenn Beck.
As of today, those who are knowledgeable about such things, and not drawing a salary from the energy industry, seem to be in agreement that we're partially responsible for a gradual warming.
As for me personally, I don't have a degree in Climatology. Anyone, who denies the earth is warming due to man's influence, without a similar degree, is making a lot of noise about something they know nothing about.
Would you consult with Brit or Glenn if you needed surgery?
Do you really need a college degree to figure out you are being scammed?
Explain to me how the scientists who claim the earth is warming are benefitting?
Those scientist paid for by big energy have a vested interest in denying Global warming.
I wouldn't consult with either if I needed surgery but if either reported about the pros and cons of a certain medical procedure, I would be inclined to listen and then ask a physician the particulars. There is nothing wrong with a reporter or pundit talking about or giving their opinion of any story. That's why they are there. Global warming is a big story inclined to invoke perspective from many sides of the story. We can take the given information, put them all together and try to make a more informed opinion. When the information becomes overwhelmingly in favor of one viewpoint, it is then, we should act accordingly. At this point, I don't see the oceans rising at all, much less a thraetening scenario like you presented.
You conveniently forgot that our own defense department said not al queda, not Mexican drug lords, not commies, not fascists, not socialists, but rather global climate change is the MOST serious national security threat.
If it's global warming, then it follows it would be a global security problem rather than a national security problem.
Not necessarily; just because it is a worldwide problem does not lessen the severity of the difficulties the US will face because of global warming, nor does it mean that we should not deal with it.
I didn't suggest we shouldn't deal with it, only that if it affects the world as it would the United States, most other countries would have a greater security issue than we would. If I might ask, what security concerns are you and others referring to?
It can't ..esp when the other side dogmatically, even with a religious like tenacity clings to a notiiontha tmakes them feel politically good ("bad humans! bad USA!") and won't even recognize tht Brit Huem is right in that plugging in recorderd data of the past into simulation models doesn't even "predict" what we see today. You ignore this fact, place your "faith" in these models and fail to realize that the variability is so complex that no one can say anything other than "we dunno". but you make the answers fit your ideology. that's why no rational discussion occurs. as soon as you hear any contrary evidence, considered opinion from someone who knows something (not Al Gore) you put your fingers in your ears, your heads in the sand and get flatulent.
It's pretty funny to hear the charge that people accept what the scientific community says because they hate America, and then the complaint that there's no rational discussion going on.
Truly and totally psychotic.
MissDee's views are comparable to the guy that chopped down the last tree on Easter Island.
I think the reason that potential benefits are not discussed is because we're not talking about a damn thermostat you can turn up or down at your whim. If you let it go too far, the ice caps melt and the sea level goes up twenty feet. Considering that conditions were never really that bad before, changing them is not worth that risk.
Interesting argument though. We could have an environmental catastrophe of historic proportions, or we could save a little bit on heating oil in the winter. Why do people always insist on focusing on the negative?
Since we can only control 3.4% of the thermostat and cannot control 96.6%, it seems fairly obvious that we have no chance of controlling the climate.
How do you figure that?
This 20 foot rise in sea level if the ice caps melted will have to be calculated. A rough calculation doesn't support that. Remember all of the dynamics if the caps melted. I believe a colder air mass, overall, would ensue!
A rough calculation? So if it's only a 19 foot rise, that's not a problem, or what? I don't think the residents of Manhattan would care much about the colder air mass.
More like 6 to 9 inches, maximum!
That's tantamount to discussing a health care issue and only discussing how much the doctor will be paid for the procedure, completely ignoring the patient and their recovery. There are two sides to every issue but when the global warming story crops up, we only hear gloom and doom. why is that?
I don't see the basis for that comparison.
I wish I had a better memory on this one, but there was an old cartoon where someone was assigned a topic for debate, and they got "acid rain". The punchline was "are we for it or against it?" Obviously the question is what you do about it, and that's where "two sides" comes into play. I never thought I'd actually see someone argue that an environmental problem really might be a positive thing.
Right out of the box you refer to global warming as a problem. That, in itself, negates any arument that there would be benefits from global warming. A shift in the global climate, warmer or cooler, doesn't have to be viewed as a problem. Humans are highly adaptable, but until I see some proof of impending disaster, instead of a relatively minor increase in global temperatures, then I would have to view it as a challenge that can be met with optimism, rather than impending doom.
If it's a positive thing, then why is it a "challenge"?
I think most people are optimistic that things can change. The "doom" you're speaking of reflects the simple fact that letting it get out of hand could be catastrophic. Since the potential disaster is so tremendous, of course that's going to be central to a discussion of why it needs to be addressed.
So much nonsense in one jumbled paragraph.
There is scientific consensus, the best one can get, that the global warming we are experiencing is mostly man-made, and not simply cyclical warming. That's the first thing.
You use hyperbole to mock legitimate concerns. The Earth will continue to survive for millennia. However, much of human civilization will suffer dire consequences, and those not directly affected will be indirectly harmed. The bad things will greatly outweigh the good things. Why? Because although rainfall might increase in some areas, societies live in areas where rain falls now. Because global warming might make less temperate regions more tropical in feel, those areas currently support an ecology that will suffer greatly during that changeover, and almost all the humans living there will also suffer.
This change is likely going to be too rapid for human culture to be able to adapt. Vast coastal communities will be under water. We cannot afford to build dikes for all of our coasts, much less for the emerging nations around the world. Billions will have to move, many of them from land they own, and they will become homeless, landless, and penniless nomads that even their most generous countrymen won't be able to provide for.
Blind partisans like you look at local events instead of the overall picture. You confuse weather with climate, and you confuse warmer weather with better weather. Our cultures around the world are based upon a climate that we've enjoyed for decades, and even recent changes in climate, like the Little Ice Age, really caused a lot of problems. Looking with a balanced view does not mean giving local weather changes the same weight and importance as global warming!
Funny you should mention the Little Ice Age. given that it started in the 13th century and givne man's energy technology at the time conssisted of little more than burnign dung in the fireplace for heat in the winter, the norhtern hemisphere cooled rapidly within a mattter of decades, causing glaciers to spread, years with no summer, horrific weather for over 500 years, and abruptly stopped with a rapid warming to near current levels in a matter of adecade... Obviously you have a case where rapid, dramitc climate changes occured without any possible contribution by man becuase of technology limitation and populations that were vastly smaller than today, yet you fail to recognize that this could be the same trend now. Consideratios of convenience to support an ideology only. Not science.. nto fact.. but interpretive agenda support only. The problem is far too complex and far too variable in nature that anyone,even the most learned, can say exactly what the cause is and exactly how to fix it.
The problem is far too complex and far too variable in nature that anyone,even the most learned, can say exactly what the cause is and exactly how to fix it.
OK, let's say we ignore best available, consensus scientific opinion that say failure to act will have dire consequence in preference for the "exact" answer. Who will that come from? How long do we wait? And what will make "their" conclusion valid in your mind?
I'll try to simplify it. (1) any climate "model" that fails to take into account that giant ball of fusing hydrogen that's been bathing the earth in radiation for 4 billion years is probably suspect; (2) any proposed "solution" to the "climate crisis" that recommends shutting down the entire industrialized world, forced migrations of populations away from coastal areas ala Kampuchea, and the essential condemnation of 2/3 of the world to a miserable death from starvation and disease (the stock in trade of many a prominant AGW fanatic) is also suspect. So...if we can get past those things, what shall we do?
Your evidence is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Your saying, basically, well we didn't cause it then, so we couldn't be causing it now. That's just nonsense. The hypotheiss of AGW has been tested and passed. No alternative hypothesis has withstood scrutiny. The nonsense just keeps getting repeated by RW talking heads with a financial interest is continuing to counfuse the ignorant.
I'm not mocking legitimate concern. As I read your post, the thing that strikes me is the hyperbole you express. The dire, horrific consequences. The suffering. This debate has been going on for two decades now. Recently, it's been ratcheted up several notches by environmentalists, yet the dire predictions have yet to expose themselves. Ice, breaking away from ice shelves is nothing new. The polar caps shrink and expand. If the ice caps are melting at such an accelerated rate, where is the rise in sea level that is threatening the coasts? Where are the dust bowls we experienced in the first part of the 20th century? The one, single biggest boost to our fear of climate and change, is our 24 hour news cycle. 30 years ago, we got the nightly news, for 30 minutes, highlighting national news and then some world news. Today, the weather channel can keep you updated on all of the dismal weather throughout the world. The perception is that the weather is somehow worse than it was 30 years ago and it is not. With all of the climate change stories, 24/7, the perception is the climate is changing at a rate never witnessed before, and, it is not. It's a human frailty we have to comprehend. If i'm bombarde with the same news over and over, my anxiety levels rise. If I hear the same story once or twice a month, my perception of the story is different.
Where are the dust bowls we experienced in the first part of the 20th century...
For your information, the dust bowls were mainly caused by improper farming techniques. It was a man-made ecological disaster. And that also supports luv's "hyperbole" of mass migrations. How many "okies" took Route 66 to California? Ever read The Grapes of Wrath?
Improper farming techniques led to crop failure along with lack of rainfall and irrigation. The land was not rotated, as we do today, but the main problem was very little rainfall for extended periods of time.
The problem is we have to know the worst case senerrio so we can prevent that or it more than likely will happen.
If we caused it, we have a chance to reverse it. If we didn't, good luck. Of course you are right in that it is better to be prepared, but it's the hysteria over this story that I take issue with.
Why would anyone take Hume seriously on an issue concerning science? He is a pundit. He simply lacks the needed background knowledge to make an informed statement concerning current scientific research on climate change. Hume is not a scientist, does not understand the scientific literature. He is merely a pundit and should not be taken seriously on issues that are beyond his educational background. He has no background to evaluate the literature in an intelligent way. He is merely ignorant.
He's horsebrit hume for cryin' out loud. He never had any credibility to lose.
A dartboard would have as good of a chance at predicting future climate changes as a climatologist would. The history of predicting climate change by scientists is horrifically dismal. The science is simply too young to be worth anything more than coffee discussion, not deciding on spending trillions that could be used for the betterment of mankind rather than flushing it down a toilet.
Have you read the IPCC Synthesis Report? Is your statement informed by anything other than your own beliefs?
Theory is based on evidence. The AGW hypothesis has been tested and has passed the test. For your nonsense to be worth a damn, you would need an alternative hypotheisis to be stand up to the same scrutiny. (That would be PEER REVIEWED, PUBLISHED RESEARCH.) Your side has not one leaf of published paper that could stand five minutes of academic scrutiny. This kind of nonsense is all that the college drop-outs on your side of the equation have.
Funny stuff. You'll forgive me if I do not take your opinion on "the science" seriously. I would be curious about you lit review for your claim. And I mean a scholarly lit review.
Yet you accept what Al, the penultimate money grubbing poltiican says? Where is AL's scientific pedigree anyway? I think you need to rethink your statement above in terms of the pols who are out there screaming GLobal warming.
Dee, you really have to try harder. We're not believing GORE, we're accepting what the SCIENTISTS he refers to, WHO ARE ACTIVELY RESEARCHING THE TOPIC IN QUESTION, have CONCLUDED.
Your lot OTOH is listening to HUME himself, who (in this case) quotes... NO ONE. He just interprets the data himself, and his conclusion IS statistically invalid. Anyone with even a basic understanding of how STATISTICAL TRENDS work will know this. (And MY OWN understanding of statistics, if your wondering, is a PROFESSIONAL one.) And whenever a "scientist" on your side of the issue does step forward, in EVERY SINGLE CASE it has been someone who (1) IS NOT a CLIMATOLOGIST, (2) NOT doing active research, (3) and HAS NOT published ANY RESEARCH / FINDINGS on the matter in ANY peer-reviewed scientific journals. You are listening to INDUSTRY HACKS who's "hypothesies" (and that's being generous) the mainstream scientific community have debunked COUNTLESS TIMES OVER.
You assume bias on the part of the scientists, the UN, academia, etc... Without any understanding of how the process works. You believe this only because they disagree with your conclusion. But it HAS to be bias, doesn't it? I mean... you couldn't POSSIBLY be wrong, could you? And you support this judgement (of bias) with false statements and nonsense (or ignorance) about how science and academia work. You get a failing grade and you blame it on bias, rather than your own shortcomings. The ignorance on your side of the "debate" is shameful. The intellectual dishonesty is criminal.
Snoopy said:"So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we're now witnessing."
Oh, but this is not true. The PDO describes a 60+ year cycle which does just what we see. And you fail to recognize that we have been cooler for the last 65 years than the previous 45 years. The solar cycles and the failure of solar ccle 24 to start bodes even worse cooling. To claim that CO2 is the driver means that you have not really addressed the fabricated case that the IPCC has created against CO2.
There is just too little CO2 to do what they say. A thermodynamic constant had to be falaciously increased 12-fold and a water vapor illegitimately considered a positive forcing factor to make their case, not to mention the false CO2 curve and the Hockey Stick mess.
I have it detailed out at http://realscienceworld.blogspot.com/ .
It took me a while to understand why every claim of the alarmists turned out to be bad science, incomplete anecdotal evidence, bad and flawed models, or human mismanagement of resources (such as Tuvalu). Why could I not find anything supporting global warming as a scientist? Because we are cooling. Even the earlier Spring blooming of the flowers is caused by the CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere allowing plants to be more temperature tolerant and bloom earlier. Warmer temeperature is not required.
Examine the science, the science they claim is in and done is only the partial and illegitimate science they want you to consider.
Respects, Capt Higley
Hume has no background to make an informed analysis. He is a pundit. Nothing more. No one should trust a pundit like Hume for any serious information about climate change. There is serious scholarship on climate change. Hume and Will do not qualify as serious or informed people on science. They simply lack the background.
I would say, how can you debate it when one side insits without foundation that the thing exists.