On Special Report, Baier promoted unnamed global "cooling" studies
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.
SUMMARY: On Special Report, Bret Baier promoted unnamed studies "showing" that "the Earth is actually cooling." However, climate experts reject the idea that relatively cooler global temperatures during the past 10 years are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist.
On the May 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Bret Baier claimed that "with a number of studies now showing there has been no global warming over at least the last 10 years, and that the Earth is actually cooling now, environmentalists are looking to rebrand their message." Baier then cited a New York Times article that reported that environmental group ecoAmerica is trying to "find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives" but did not assert or in any way suggest that such efforts were in response to "global cooling" studies. Indeed, Baier did not cite any specific studies showing that the Earth is "cooling," and climate experts reject the idea that the relatively cooler global average temperatures in several of the past 10 years are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist.
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly shown, global warming deniers in the media often misleadingly cite the fact that the average global temperature in 2007 and 2008 was cooler than it was in 1998. However, scientists have identified a long-term warming trend spanning several decades and attribute recent relatively cooler temperatures to normal climate variability -- including short-term variations in climate because of events like El Niño and La Niña. According to the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre website, in order to identify long-term climate trends, the World Meteorological Organisation "requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years," chosen "as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations."
In a February 11 op-ed in London's Guardian, Vicky Pope, the head of climate change advice at the Met Office, 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."
Media outlets -- and Fox News in particular -- have frequently repeated the myth that the globe is cooling.
From the May 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BAIER: And with a number of studies now showing there has been no global warming over at least the last 10 years, and that the Earth is actually cooling now, environmentalists are looking to rebrand their message.
The New York Times reports the group ecoAmerica thinks a change in the language should do the trick. The group's findings were leaked to the media, and that group was not too happy about it.
The Denver Examiner reports "global warming" was found to be too political and polarizing, so "climate crisis" is recommended. The group urges the use of "pollution" instead of "carbon," "new energy jobs" instead of "green jobs." And activists are advised to speak in patriotic terms like "American ingenuity" and "power of America" to sell their ideas, because, according the group, quote, "patriotism works."
The average temperature of Earth is increasing over time due to man-made influences. But the bad effects of that warming are the issue that needs to be confronted. That will be seen in climate changes that are extreme, and relatively sudden, and hard for many of the 6 billion people on our world to cope with.
People can't just move away from where they live, so if their farms become too inhospitable for grain or ranching, they can't simply move to other 'unoccupied lands that are becoming more hospitable - there aren't empty, unclaimed land masses any more.
People can't just move away from the coastlines - they can't just push everyone inland 100's of feet at a time, so that the people who live on the coast can continue to live on the coast if that shoreline moves inward as sea levels increase.
So, it's not global warming that's the problem. It's the climate change that will happen as a result of the global warming.
It may even get cooler in some places. It's the climate change, stupid.
One issue that hasn't been confronted: We know that the Earth goes through climate change naturally. Assuming for a second that humans have absolutely no affect on climate change, would we still try to evaluate and prevent the natural change from occurring, because "people just can't move away..."?
Personally I think the answer is "no", that we should adapt, and we should be as good stewards of the Earth as reasonable without attempting to literally control global climate.
The study physically inspected over 800 of the 1221 official temperature recording stations and found that 90% of them "fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source."
The report concludes "In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited."
Funny how flat-earthers automatically shun research...blaming the source rather than addressing the issue.
I have a little experience with scientific reports that don't pass peer review and are written by mediocre scientists with an agenda. It takes about five or six rounds of conversation to get to the bottom of them, but the real scientists end up winning.
For the past 20 years I believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now, after many months of research, I'm not so sure. It's looking more and more to be a natural phenomenon to me. My interest in energy policy is so great I launched www.energyplanusa.com where I take a common sense look at global warming and energy policy. I've waded through the wellspring of global warming theory, the United Nation's IPCC reports, and conclude they lack the 'smoking gun' that proves global warming is man-made. Moreover, I've come to realize that man-made global warming theory cherry picks facts and ignores contradictory evidence from reliable studies.
I'm dismayed that my own party, the Democrats, the thinkers, have turned a scientific issue into religious zealotry where faith trumps facts. I'm also dismayed that the American press seems content with publishing hearsay, without backing up conclusions and presumptions with facts and evidence.
Before we increase the cost of energy with cap-and-trade, I believe it's imperative that the United States establishes a non-political, scientific commission to review all facts and evidence surrounding global warming. The UN, a political organization, should not be determining our energy policy. The stakes are huge. If we respond to global warming incorrectly, our children and grandchildren will likely lead lives of increasing hardship and desperation.
You may be aware of this study by Don J. Easterbrook, which looked at climate change over the last 15,000 years, and specifically focused on the last 400 yrs. He found that over the last 400 yrs there has been a 30 year cycle of warming and cooling that is unrelated to "anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere". He attributes the cycles to solar activity and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). I found it to be very compelling.
You can find the full article (Nov. 2, 2008) on www.globalresearch.ca
Before retiring I studied ozone depletion and the ozone hole over the Antarctic. I examined the equations, reviewed the experiments and although the ozone depletion process is extremely complex involving multiple phase reactions, I came to believe that the predictions were largely accurate and that the ozone hole was produced by man made chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigerants. Two chemists deserved and received the Nobel prize for their excellent work showing this man made connection. So I am neither anti nor pro green propaganda, rather I try to sort out the facts by reviewing both sides of the issue. And this global warming issue makes ozone depletion look trivial.
I will not touch on climate station data accuracy, rising sea levels, increased storms, troposphere temperature changes, ice measurements, ocean acidification, etc, etc. But I will mention the one aspect of of the issue which changed me from an initial believer in AGW to a true skeptic. If any reader has an interest in the other issues mentioned above, just pick one subset like Antarctic ice measurements and examine it in detail for a few weeks, yes a few weeks, to see if the ice is being depleted throughout the subcontinent. You might be surprised, but you have to look at both sides carefully. The data is out there.
The one aspect I will touch upon here is AGW prediction methodology. Most AGW proponents, do not understand that the entire case for future warming predictions rests in some of the most complex computer codes in the world which must be run for days on super computers. If you believe in AGW, then by default you are saying that you believe those code predictions are correct or at least reliable enough to dictate political policy.
There are numerous codes out there with millions of lines of programming making such predictions. They do not agree, and their past performance has been dismal. Those codes require tens of thousands of inputs, and many random constants not grounded in real physics to make them agree with past data. You can look up the past predictions of such codes on the web, and note the new semi-industry generated by the billions of funding dollars in this arena. If the codes show that there is no proof of AGW then that industry and thousands of jobs would disappear. The money on this side of the issue swamps any contributions from big oil. In fact the oil companies now spend multitudes more on renewable energy than on trying to prove AGW is false. They don't want to be demonized more than they already are.
But how accurate do these codes have to be, 50%, 25%, 10%, 1%?? If I told you that water vapor was BY FAR the biggest contributor to global warming would you believe me? If I told you that CO2 contributes less than 10% to global warming would you believe me? And if I told you that mankind produces only a very tiny fraction of that CO2 compared to what's produced naturally would you believe me? Here are some real numbers: total CO2 amounts to only 0.038% (38 molecules per 100,000) of our atmosphere---but that is total CO2 from both nature and man. Mankind is adding on average only 1 more molecule of CO2 per 100,000 to the atmosphere EVERY FIVE YEARS, that is we are increasing the CO2 only 1/38 every five years or 0.5% each year. Personally I cannot believe that science can accurately or reliably model the physical effects of this minute increase on our climate and predict future climate change with credibility, especially when water vapor is much more significant.
The code writers of course have an answer to my skepticism which is positive feedback mechanisms which create more water vapor and thus more heating. So I examined that aspect of the problem and it leads to predicting rainfall, cloud cover, snowfall and their associated thermal and radiative effects. Yes predicting the weather with accuracy is where it leads. It will not happen in our lifetimes. And on the other side of the coin right now, I see numerous scientists predicting a continuing cooling trend based upon sunspot data. We shall see if we must buy coats or speedoes, I'll bet on the latter.