About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media promote claims of global cooling despite overwhelming consensus to the contrary

March 30, 2009 6:09 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Despite the scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is real and is negatively affecting the planet, the media have repeatedly provided a platform for critics who argue that the Earth is in a period of "cooling" or that the issue of global warming does not need to be addressed.

48 Comments

Despite the scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is real and is negatively affecting our planet, those who disagree continue to receive a significant amount of attention from the media. A recent example was the March 29 New York Times Magazine cover story about physicist Freeman Dyson, who argues that global warming is not a significant problem. More broadly, throughout the past year, the media have repeatedly provided a platform for critics who argue that the globe is in a period of "cooling," while often failing to challenge their suggestion that this shows that global warming is a myth. These critics often misleadingly cite the fact that the average global temperature in 2007 and 2008 was cooler than it was in 1998, echoing an April 4, 2008, BBC article, which reported that "temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world." Other times, the claim is made by media figures themselves; for instance, syndicated columnist George Will wrote in his widely criticized February 15 Washington Post column that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization [WMO], there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade" -- despite repeated statements by the WMO and its representatives the Earth remains in a warming trend.

In fact, climate experts reject the idea that the relatively cooler global average temperatures in several of the last 10 years are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist. Scientists have identified a long-term warming trend spanning several decades that is independent from the normal climate variability -- which includes relatively short-term changes in climate due to events like El Niño and La Niña -- to which they attribute the recent cooler temperatures.

In a February 11 Guardian op-ed, Vicky Pope, the head of climate change advice at the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre, explained that claims about the pace of global warming require more than 10 years of data, "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."

According to the Met Office website, the WMO "requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years," which was chosen "as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations."

In a letter to the editor of The Washington Post published on March 21, WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud responded to Will's column, writing that "[i]t is a misinterpretation of the data and of scientific knowledge to point to one year as the warmest on record ... and then to extrapolate that cooler subsequent years invalidate the reality of global warming and its effects." Jarraud wrote:

Data collected over the past 150 years by the 188 members of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) through observing networks of tens of thousands of stations on land, at sea, in the air and from constellations of weather and climate satellites lead to an unequivocal conclusion: The observed increase in global surface temperatures is a manifestation of global warming. Warming has accelerated particularly in the past 20 years.

It is a misinterpretation of the data and of scientific knowledge to point to one year as the warmest on record -- as was done in a recent Post column ["Dark Green Doomsayers," George F. Will, op-ed, Feb. 15] -- and then to extrapolate that cooler subsequent years invalidate the reality of global warming and its effects.

The difference between climate variability and climate change is critical, not just for scientists or those engaging in policy debates about warming. Just as one cold snap does not change the global warming trend, one heat wave does not reinforce it. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has risen 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit.

Evidence of global warming has been documented in widespread decreases in snow cover, sea ice and glaciers. The 11 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years.

While variations occur throughout the temperature record, shorter-term variations do not contradict the overwhelming long-term increase in global surface temperatures since 1850, when reliable meteorological recordkeeping began. Year to year, we may observe in some parts of the world colder or warmer episodes than in other parts, leading to record low or high temperatures. This regional climate variability does not disprove long-term climate change. While 2008 was slightly cooler than 2007, partially due to a La Niña event, it was nonetheless the 10th-warmest year on record.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-sponsored by the WMO, has confirmed through observations and increasingly sophisticated and realistic models that regional variability has increased and will continue to increase as global surface temperatures rise. This is likely to result in more weather and climate extremes, such as droughts, floods, storms and heat waves. Responding to these challenges will require the collaborative efforts of all countries and of scientists in multiple disciplines to develop adaptation strategies to reduce the risk of disaster. This topic is scheduled for discussion at the World Climate Conference-3 beginning Aug. 31 in Geneva.

Further, the April 2008 BBC article that reported that "temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world" also reported that Jarraud disputed the notion that "this means global warming has peaked."

From the revised version of the BBC article:

Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average -- and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

[...]

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he 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."

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."

Nonetheless, media figures have, on numerous occasions, advanced this falsehood or allowed it to go unchallenged:

  • On the March 26, 2009, edition of CNBC's The Kudlow Report, anchor Larry Kudlow asserted that "global warming ... is now being disputed for global cooling."
  • On the March 2, 2009, edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity, while referring to "environmental nut cases," said, "Every time they have a global warming summit or -- it snows." Former McCain presidential campaign adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer replied in part: "[I]t's hilarious, 'cause when you talk to the scientists, they said, 'you could make the case just as much for global cooling,' and then, you know, that they're -- that this stuff has just run amuck."
  • Appearing on the March 2, 2009, edition of Fox News' Special Report, senior political analyst Brit Hume said the Earth "has seen no average warming for the past 10 years." Hume 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." But 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."
  • On the February 2, 2009, edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock touted climate change skeptic Martin Hertzberg's assertion that global warming is not occurring because, in Murdock's words, "the Earth temperature has gone down 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since 1997." Murdock was referencing the following quote from Hertzberg that Murdock included in a February 1 column: "[T]he average temperature of Earth's atmosphere has declined over the last 10 years. From the El Nino Year of 1998 until Jan. 2007, it dropped a quarter of a degree Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit). From Jan 2007 to the spring of 2008, it dropped a whopping three-quarters of a degree Celsius (1.35 degrees Fahrenheit)."
  • On the January 6, 2009, edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Heidi Collins said, "New research is heating up the global warming issue once again. The data suggests a split on whether the planet is truly in peril." Then, in a report, CNN correspondent Ines Ferré said, "A confusing picture of our world's climate: Three independent research groups found that 2008 was the ninth or 10th warmest year since 1850 when record-keeping began, but it also was the coolest year since the turn of the 21st century." Ferré then aired a clip of Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D'Aleo saying "We are too short-sighted or certainly the -- those who believe in it are not looking at all the big picture, which needs to include other factors than natural cycles in the ocean and of the sun that are the real drivers."
  • On the January 5, 2009, edition of Special Report, anchor Bret Baier said: "Despite dire warnings from global warming alarmists ... former nuclear scientist and energy expert Michael Fox writes in the Hawaii Reporter that 2008 was, quote, 'another grim year for the global warmers. ... 2008 marked the tenth consecutive year of no global warming. ... The Earth has been cooling for the last six years.' "
  • Lou Dobbs said during the introduction of his December 18, 2008, CNN show: "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, who at one point during the interview said: "We've been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period, and now we're back into a cooling cycle. The last 10 years have been quite cool. And right now I think we're going in to cooling rather than warming, and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man."
  • In a November 25, 2008, Politico article, Erika Lovley wrote that "[c]limate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation." As evidence, Lovley quoted D'Aleo saying, "Recent warming has stopped since 1998, and we want to stop draconian measures that will hurt already spiraling downward economics."
  • In a June 17, 2008, column, former Washington Times editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden falsely claimed that "the earth has been measurably cooling for the last decade, despite everything [former Vice President] Al [Gore] and his followers have done about it."
  • On the August 21, 2008, edition of Special Report, Baier said, "Finally, the World Meteorological Organization says the first half of 2008 was the coolest in at least five years. It expects 2008 will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average." He continued: "The United Kingdom Meteorological Office Hadley Centre for Climate Studies says data shows worldwide temperatures have declined since 1998. A scientist with WMO says, quote, 'We can expect with high probability this year will be cooler than the previous five years.' Climate scientists differ about whether the cooling temperatures undermine the case for man-made global warming."
  • On the April 4, 2008, 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, 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."

By contrast, during an interview with Christopher Field, the director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, on the February 17 edition of CNN's American Morning, co-host John Roberts said that "some people have been pointing this -- to this in recent days, a graph from NASA tracks temperature data from 1880 until this year. And in 1999, there was a real spike. There was also one that looks like it was about 2005 or so. But the overall trend from 1998 on has been down, and some people are suggesting that the world is actually cooling as opposed to getting warmer. What do you say about these data from NASA?" Field replied: "It's important to remember that the world's climate system is incredibly complex with a whole bunch of internal dynamics. The internal dynamics are such that, for several years at a time, you can see the average temperature go in a direction that's different from the long-term trend. The fact of the matter is that all of the recent years have been among the very hottest on record, and there is abundant evidence that, over the long run, the planet is continuing to warm, and it's highly likely that this is a consequence of the greenhouse gases that are being released by human activity."

From the March 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: Number two: Every time they have a global warming summit or -- it snows.

PFOTENHAUER: It snows. Right.

HANNITY: You like that, coach? It cracks me up.

LOU HOLTZ (former football coach): I knew where you were going. I'll tell you what. Hey, I'm just walking over here; I don't have a coat. I'm freezing, there's eight inches of snow, and I said, thank God for global warming. I'd have really been cold.

HANNITY: Now it's the new ice age. Yeah, exactly.

PFOTENHAUER: You're right. You're exactly right.

HOLTZ: Wow. Am I lucky?

PFOTENHAUER: Well, you know, it's hilarious, 'cause when you talk to the scientists, they said, "you could make the case just as much for global cooling," and then, you know, that they're -- that this stuff has just run amuck. But I'll tell you what: With Carol Browner in that White House, buckle up.

HANNITY: And Doug, by the way, [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] couldn't make it 'cause of the snow.

From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the January 6 edition of CNN Newsroom:

COLLINS: New research is heating up the global warming issue once again. The data suggests a split on whether the planet is truly in peril. Our Ines Ferré has a story from New York.

[begin video clip]

FERRÉ: A confusing picture of our world's climate: Three independent research groups found that 2008 was the ninth or 10th warmest year since 1850 when record-keeping began, but it also was the coolest year since the turn of the 21st century.

New data from the University of Illinois says ice levels are roughly the same as those seen 29 years ago. But after decades of ice melt in the Arctic, that may be of little comfort. The increase is because of the formation of thin ice, which melts easily once the winter is over.

Even so, one climatologist, skeptical of global warming, feels the entire debate is muddled with selective data.

D'ALEO: We are too short-sighted or certainly the -- those who believe in it are not looking at all the big picture, which needs to include other factors than natural cycles in the ocean and of the sun that are the real drivers.

FERRÉ: NASA scientists report that more than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, the Arctic, and Antarctic have melted since 2003.

Some farmers fear future regulations on greenhouse gas emissions could include what it could amount to a cow tax. The United Nations calculates livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.

PAT MICHAELS (Cato Institute senior fellow): Extremism in the pursuit of climate policy is certainly no virtue. And what's really going on is we have rather a moderate increase in temperature, so why would one jump off the bridge and take money away from people?

From the January 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

BAIER: Despite dire warnings from global warming alarmists, DailyTech online reports global sea ice levels are now equivalent to those seen 29 years ago.

Satellite data from the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center indicates the rate of global sea ice increase in the last four months of the year was the fastest rate of change on record.

Meanwhile, former nuclear scientist and energy expert Michael Fox writes in the Hawaii Reporter that 2008 was, quote, "another grim year for the global warmers. ... 2008 marked the tenth consecutive year of no global warming. ... The Earth has been cooling for the last six years."

From the August 21, 2008, edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

BAIER: Finally, the World Meteorological Organization says the first half of 2008 was the coolest in at least five years. It expects 2008 will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average.

The United Kingdom Meteorological Office Hadley Centre for Climate Studies says data shows worldwide temperatures have declined since 1998. A scientist with WMO says, quote, "We can expect with high probability this year will be cooler than the previous five years."

Climate scientists differ about whether the cooling temperatures undermine the case for man-made global warming.

From the February 17 edition of CNN's American Morning:

ROBERTS: All right. So, scientists and environmentalist talk about a threshold, the certain number of parts per million in greenhouse gases beyond -- which they call a tipping point -- beyond which it may be impossible to reverse global warming. This new data that you have been talking about -- these new data -- does that change that tipping point? Does it accelerate it? Might we already be there, as some scientists are suggesting?

FIELD: One of the critical important goals for climate research is to figure out where these tipping points are. The fact of the matter is that we can't be 100 percent confident. There is abundant evidence that these threshold conditions are out there somewhere. It's an active area of research. And I think what we're calling for is caution about approaching them too quickly, given that we don't know exactly where they are.

ROBERTS: You know, I'm holding in my hand, and some people have been pointing this -- to this in recent days, a graph from NASA tracks temperature data from 1880 until this year. And in 1999, there was a real spike. There was also one that looks like it was about 2005 or so. But the overall trend from 1998 on has been down, and some people are suggesting that the world is actually cooling as opposed to getting warmer. What do you say about these data from NASA?

FIELD: It's important to remember that the world's climate system is incredibly complex with a whole bunch of internal dynamics. The internal dynamics are such that, for several years at a time, you can see the average temperature go in a direction that's different from the long-term trend.

The fact of the matter is that all of the recent years have been among the very hottest on record, and there is abundant evidence that, over the long run, the planet is continuing to warm, and it's highly likely that this is a consequence of the greenhouse gases that are being released by human activity.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (March 30, 2009 6:20 pm ET)
      2  
      Yeah. Global temps haven't risen in the last 10 years. And Rush Limbaugh hasn't gained any weight.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by BISHAMON (March 31, 2009 6:56 pm ET)
        1  

        "Global cooling." Brought to you by the same ignore-the-facts mentality and irresponsible attitude that brought us a global financial meltdown. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (March 30, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
      1  
      talk about " scientific consensus ' and you show a picture of brett naier ( FOX News ) ?????
      Report Abuse
    • Author by zamfir273114 (March 30, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
         

      Think of it this way.  How does television, radio, print and most of the internet news-based companies make money? Advertising.  Who are a lot of the advertisers? Big business.  Who pollutes the environment or sells products that pollute the environment? Big business.  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (March 30, 2009 6:44 pm ET)
        1  

        Mt Redoubt is doing a heck of a fine job right now.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by oscar the grouch (March 30, 2009 7:36 pm ET)
             

          But I heard the Mt. bought some ad time on MSNBS (or was it CNBC?)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wolf kotenberg (March 30, 2009 10:29 pm ET)
            1  

            and made an ash of himself ( couldn't resist, just couldn't )

            Report Abuse
            • Author by thejbomb65 (March 31, 2009 10:44 am ET)
              1  

              you are committing neo con blasphemey by calling Sarah Palin Mt. Redoubt......wow thats a really good nickname come to think of it....

              Report Abuse
      • Author by BISHAMON (March 31, 2009 7:00 pm ET)
           

        Who benefits from global warming? The oil companies who will gain cheaper access to Arctic oil and gas? Those interests who would benefit from the shorter shipping route of a Northwest Passage? ("Let the oil companies bail out the auto industry!")

        Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (March 30, 2009 7:30 pm ET)
      1  

      But...... but....

      Just look at all that pretty snow in Texas and Oklahoma...

      If anything proves that global warming is fake... its all that snow in late March...

      IN TEXAS!!

      And not just snow... 2 whole feetvof snow!

      Of course... the name global warming is misleading... but regardless... changes are occurring to the Earth...

      If we as a species are to survive... we better start learning to adapt...

      Somehow, I seriously doubt Mother Earth will give much of a damn if all humans were to die off!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (March 30, 2009 7:38 pm ET)
           

        You are probably correct in your assessment of "Mother Earth".  This planet has gone through many deaths/rebirths in its time in existence and a few more may be in the works before the Sun dies.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (March 30, 2009 7:57 pm ET)
          1  

          How many re-births occured in 10,000 years? I heard the earth isn't that old...

          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (March 30, 2009 9:14 pm ET)
            1  

            10,000 years is a bit of a stretch Snoop. The earth was created on Sunday 23 October 4004 BC.

            I'm not sure of the exact time of day, but my guess would be during daylight hours, since there were no artificial lights.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (March 31, 2009 8:25 am ET)
              1  

              It was probably created early enough so God could make his tee time. After nine, you don't have to be a Deity to get to the first black hole on the Milky Way course, and He didn't want to have to mingle with the hoi-polloi.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by thejbomb65 (March 31, 2009 10:46 am ET)
        1  

        you ever see the movie War Games.....its got matthew broderick.

        the one scene where he find the programer who made this computer that is prepareing to take over the US nuclear missile arsenal says this

        "these amazing animals died off, nature just gave up and started over"

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (March 30, 2009 8:52 pm ET)
      1  

      I would encourage MMFA to get these stories out sooner in the day so the thread can fill up to 450 posts- 425 making sound reasoned arguments against the 25 that think science is so imprecise that THERE IS NO WAY ONE CAN PREDICT ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING!!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (March 30, 2009 10:07 pm ET)
      1  

      Guys, we shouldn't be too hasty about jumping to conclusions on all this global warming stuff. Let's do the reasonable thing and wait 50 or 100 years and see what happens. In the meantime, let me tell you about the Gulf of Mexico beach house I'm building for my grandchildren...in Arkansas.  ;>)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Tbone Slickens (March 31, 2009 9:09 am ET)
           

        Yeah, I'm all for it!  By my calc's if the ocean rises as advertised, then I have ocen front property by the time I retire! 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (March 30, 2009 10:33 pm ET)
         

      Wait is MMFA going to do Wednesday?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by the Grey Path (March 30, 2009 11:14 pm ET)
      1  
      Ok ... Let's vote: Who wants to take the risk that global warming isn't real? Of course, if you're right that there's no warming, you won't be around to gloat ....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (March 30, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
           

        Why not? terminal halitosis is uncomonly leathal. Plays hob with your bite though.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Goodfella57 (March 31, 2009 2:10 am ET)
           

        Oaky...What if it IS real and there is nothing e can do about it? Like it's caused by sunspots or something.

        Don't you think we should be focusing on adapting to the change, rather than trying to slow or stop something that is ultimately inevitable? 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mr. l (March 31, 2009 3:28 am ET)
             

          Or we all could just pull a Nick Cage and, after being rejected by pedophile aliens, just hang on tight to our baptist family and wait for the fast approaching end.  

          Sorry- just saw 'Knowing'... big mistake.  It was horrible.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (March 31, 2009 8:27 am ET)
               

            I knew it would be as soon as I saw the name Nicholas Cage.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by Goodfella57 (March 31, 2009 2:04 am ET)
        1

      "Scientists have identified a long-term warming trend spanning several decades that is independent from the normal climate variability"..MMfA

      I think you guys made this up. How can one possibly assert "normal climate variability" when reliable records only go back 180 years? Look at the last 10,000 years, or 1 million years - you'll see serious warming and cooling.

      Look - Global Warming hysteria has NOTHING to do with science, It has eveything to do with redistribution of wealth and liberal socialist aganda. Here's an intersting item from your friends at NewsBusters.   

      DON"T BELIEVE THE HYPE.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mr. l (March 31, 2009 3:31 am ET)
        1  

        I'm not normally one to comment on peoples' looks... but the author of that *article* looks suspiciously like the missing link that so-called scientists have been searching for...

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brishon (March 31, 2009 4:15 am ET)
        1  

        "How can one possibly assert "normal climate variability" when reliable records only go back 180 years? Look at the last 10,000 years, or 1 million years - you'll see serious warming and cooling."

        So you say we can't look back past 180 years reliably, then you tell us to look back 10,000 years to 1 million years?

        Typical wingnut proving yourself wrong within the same sentence.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (March 31, 2009 10:35 am ET)
          1  

          that was my reaction to goodfella's post.  he says "reliable records only go back 180 years", but then goes on to say let's "look at the last 10,000 years, or i million years-you'll see serious warming and cooling".  uh, what?  pick one side.

          he also said in an above post, "what if it is real, and there is nothing we can do about it?  like it's caused by sunspots or something."   then he says we should be "adapting to the change" because it's "ultimately inevitable".  but who said it was inevitable, because there is no proof it's caused by sunspots. 

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (March 31, 2009 8:30 am ET)
        1  

        Look - Global Warming hysteria has NOTHING to do with science

        I agree. hysteria has nothing to do with science, which is precisely why scientists are not hysterical. You, however, in your response to reason and peer-reviewed studies, are about as hysterical (in more than one sense of the word) as one can be.

        And "Newsbusters" isn't anywhere near a reliable source of information. Not even in the same universe as one.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by powerstack8091 (March 31, 2009 4:32 am ET)
        2

      I've heard the term "Overwhelming consensus" a bit too often when it comes to the alleged "climate change" crisis. Why isn't there a worldwide referendum, asking the people (not their representatives - who might well be corrupt - ) directly in a poll whether they would prefer a carbon tax / cap n' trade or prefer to let the climate run it's course whatever it may be.

      I dare to say most people (since most people i talk to confirm that) would rather wait and see what the climate does, and especially the effects of it. Maybe there won't be as much ocean levels rising despite higher temperatures. After all, most of the world's ice is below water, so melting it would actually lower the sealevels (water is larger sized when frozen).

      The point is not so much whether its global "cooling" or "warming", the point is why in the World would anyone even *try* to influence the climate, unless there's an easy way to do it. But limiting carbon - one of the major gases of the earth , involved in virtually each and every chemical process - is not just not easy, it's a job of gigantic, superhuman proportions. You might just as well try to move mountains...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (March 31, 2009 10:45 am ET)
        1  

        no, most of the world's ice is above water, in antarctica.  greenland's glaciers also contain a substantial amount, above water.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by rlasker3 (March 31, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
        1  

        The problem with this is that Climate Change is basically like a slowing train. You can apply the brakes but it doesn't stop for a long time. What we put into the atmosphere now takes hundreds of years to cycle out. By the time we notice the problem it's already to late to fix it.

        I'm also very sick of the "Sun spot" people. The Sun is the most heavily monitored and measured object in the Universe. We have Satellites that do nothing but point directly at the sun and monitor it's output 24/7. To think that somehow scientists are unable to account for it affects on our climate is ludicrous. The IPCC reports fully talk about the suns affects of climate forcing.

        Lastly, scientists care nothing about consensus. That isn't how things work. A consensus would indicate a merging of opinion. But in the scientific world there is only what the data tells you. Data determines your hypothesis and it must include predictions that validate the hypothesis. No information is considered without this very strict requirement.

        The data is telling us climate change is real and observations are validating it. Wake up.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by riverdog (March 31, 2009 9:07 pm ET)
             

          data says its real but guessing on how much, and can anything really change it

          Report Abuse
    • Author by wizbor4654 (March 31, 2009 8:04 am ET)
        1
      scientific consensus IS NOT scientific evidence. You cant fool mother nature mm.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brishon (March 31, 2009 8:08 am ET)
        1  

        So now the fight against GW is that the scientific consesus doesn't matter anymore?

        You deniers just keep struggling to grasp a coherent thought.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (March 31, 2009 8:32 am ET)
        1  

        scientific consensus IS NOT scientific evidence.

        Actually, if it is actually scientific consensus, then by definition it has to be scientific evidence. The wingnuts who know nothing about the scientific method love to lie. Show me any independent peer-reviewed study that supports your point of view.

        Hint: there aren't any.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wizbor4654 (March 31, 2009 12:16 pm ET)
            1

          Since you cant comprehend what your saying you might want to learn more about "Peer-Reviewed" "Scientific Consensus" mumbo jumbo your spouting.

          http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963

          Report Abuse
          • Author by skeptical (March 31, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
            1  

            So Wizbor,

            We should turn to an Economist for our definition of Scientific terms and protocols?  That sounds right to me!

            Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (March 31, 2009 6:34 pm ET)
            1  

            >>Since you cant comprehend what your saying you might want to learn more about "Peer-Reviewed" "Scientific Consensus" mumbo jumbo your spouting.

            The article does not state that "Scientific Consensus" is "mumbo jumbo," as you assert. As Skeptical points out, an economist is hardly an expert on what happens in *scientific* journals. For example, the author states "If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it will prove very, very difficult for you to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a “top” journal." That is most likely false in the field of science. You only need to remember that Einstein was not even a practicing scientist when he got his paper on special relativity published, and Mendel, who started the field of genetics, was a scientist, not a monk.

            The author goes on to state "Modern biological and physical science is, overwhelmingly, government-funded science. If your work, for whatever reason, does not appeal to the relevant funding agency’s bureaucrats and academic review committees, you can forget about getting any money to carry out your proposal." That is a generic fallacy.The author attributes sinister motives to climatologist. In fact, anthropogenic climate change was not an orthodox. It took a long time and a lot of science to now reach the current consensus. If the author was right, how could an outside theory prevailed?

            It is not true that the scientists get funded only if they support the theory of global warming. An explanation that countered this theory would create huge excitement and generate lots of grant money.

            Last, rather than presenting an honest critique on the peer review process, the author throws in enough catch phrases ("Can you say 'earmarks?'") that have nothing to do with his toopic, but do show he is a political hack.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by skeptical (March 31, 2009 3:15 pm ET)
        1  

        Huh Wiz?  You don't make any sense!  Consesus in Science is based on scientific evidence/results/data!

        Do you have any clue as to what you are discussing?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by roninkannushi1711 (March 31, 2009 10:10 am ET)
      1  

      I am positive humans contribute to global warming;Man made pollutants.   Nature has its cycles.  Volcanic ativity can, within a short period of time, dramatically change weather patterns.  The suns activity, sun spots.  What if, by chance, meteors were to strike? Scientist have theorized the earths magnetic poles, have and will change, in a longer time window.  We contribute and the tsunami of industrialization is relentless.  Imagine, for a moment, that mankind stops all pollution, ceases clear-cutting forests and goes totally green.  Nice thought.   Nature is the house we are gambling with.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by diogenie27611 (March 31, 2009 11:54 am ET)
      1  
      Don't you guys see how reasonable and sound the right wing argument is? There is a vast conspiracy that goes straight to Stalin and Marx. The scientists, particularly those in atmospheric studies and meteorology, are trying desperately to enact their socialist agenda. They fake experiments and data collection to convince the public that human activity is making the Earth warmer. Silly public. Then, in cahoots with their Marxist friends in Cuba and Venezuela, they begin to suggest unreasonable socialist edicts like energy conservation and reforestation and, I don't know, maybe driving a car that's smaller than elephant. This of course will topple the capitalist pigs and we will all live in the new Marxist Utopia. It is so clear!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by llph9993736 (April 01, 2009 1:10 pm ET)
        1

      I wonder which species on the planet contributed to the melting of the glaciers?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (April 01, 2009 3:10 pm ET)
         

      Wait... I'm sorry... don't the point to the (mistaken) elief in global cooling (that didn't really exsist anyway) in the 1970's as an example of how scientists can get it it WRONG?  Implying that they were WORNG then... Meaning... (they're right now?) NO!  They're STILL WRONG, even though they're saying the opposite of hwat they were saying the last time the were WRONG.  But now that they are saying the SAME thing that was (supposedly) WRONG in the 1970's, NOW... They must be RIGHT!

      Conservalogic so makes my head hurt.

      And this is kind of the opposite of HypfoxcrisyThat's when you condemn today somthing you said, or were in support of, yestserday.  This is the opposite, they are supporting somethig today that they said was wrong yesterday.

      These people are sofa king stupid that they don't even realize just how stupid they are.

      Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.