Fox's Napolitano mischaracterized NASA report to deny humans cause global warming
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: Andrew Napolitano cited a DailyTech article headlined, "NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming," to deny that humans are causing global warming. In fact, the article itself noted that NASA does not dispute that human activities are responsible for global warming.
On the June 5 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, guest host and Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano mischaracterized a year-old NASA report on solar variability to deny that humans are causing global warming. Claiming that NASA "made a remarkable discovery," Napolitano referred to a June 4 DailyTech article headlined, "NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming," and said: "So, basically -- are you ready for this? -- the sun heats the Earth." However, as the DailyTech article itself acknowledged, in its May 7, 2008, report, NASA does not dispute that human activities are responsible for global warming. In fact, it said the opposite, noting that while "[t]he sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate," greenhouse gases now have a "significant influence on Earth's climate."
The NASA report also stated that "Earth's climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate." It then quoted Thomas Woods, a solar scientist at the University of Colorado-Boulder, saying that "[g]reenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation that emanates from Earth." The report continued: "The resulting imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation will likely cause Earth to heat up over the next century, accelerating the melting polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and increasing the probability of more violent global weather patterns."
The NASA report also quoted Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, as saying that "[f]or the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," and that "[t]he major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."
From NASA's May 7, 2008, report:
The sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate. The sun also delivers an annual and seasonal impact, changing the character of each hemisphere as Earth's orientation shifts through the year. Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth's climate.
"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
[...]
Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004. Earth's climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate. Around 30 percent of the solar energy that strikes Earth is reflected back into space. Clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, sand, ocean surface and even rooftops play a role in deflecting the incoming rays. The remaining 70 percent of solar energy is absorbed by land, ocean, and atmosphere.
"Greenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation that emanates from Earth," Woods said. The resulting imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation will likely cause Earth to heat up over the next century, accelerating the melting polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and increasing the probability of more violent global weather patterns.
[...]
Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth's climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago.
"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene," said Cahalan. "Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."
The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. "We don't know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now," said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. "It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth's climate."
Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun's output over hundreds of years. During this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1 C than they are today.
Since then, there seems to have been on average a slow increase in solar activity. Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years.
The DailyTech article Napolitano cited reported that "[s]ome researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes." The DailyTech article then asserted that "a new research report" from NASA "may help to lay this skepticism to rest," reporting: "A study from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution." The article linked to a ScienceDaily.com May 12, 2008, article adapted from the NASA report. The DailyTech article concluded:
While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.
From the June 5 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
NAPOLITANO: Hello, America. This is tonight's hot list. These are the stories that the mainstream media is not covering but should be, or they're following, but they're not doing a good job. You know how that works.
The Washington Times reports that, so far, there aren't any states willing to house Gitmo detainees if the prison should close. President Obama intends to close the prison on January 2010. But even those who want to close Gitmo are basically saying not in my backyard.
NASA's Goddard Space Center made a remarkable discovery. The headline from the DailyTech is -- you're not going to believe this -- quote: "NASA acknowledges solar cycle, not man, responsible for global warming."
So, basically -- are you ready for this? -- the sun heats the Earth. The real question is whether Al Gore's NASA guy, Dr. James Hanson, will give up on trying to say "people heat the Earth" and "people cause global warming," or if the man who produced the report will get fired for going against the green -- I mean, against the grain.
You'll notice that Napolitano reported the headline accurately. He then posed questions.
Where is the misinformation?
There you go. Classic inference.
I always know I've made my point when libs cannot stay on topic.
Your comprehension skills are lacking my friend. You didn't mention the fact that you simply repeated the thread. This is the third time I have had to tell you that.
Ignorance is NOT a point of view.
-- Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910-1940 and 1970-2008) by a significant 1940-1970 cooling period... the Arctic warming from 1910-1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970-2008 warming... --
"Climate-change" is the "hey we got away with it" predecessor to "create OR SAVE 600,000 jobs", etc.
-- The simple fact is, is that climate change -- the climate change crisis is a real one...and, again, honors our faith that God created this beautiful planet, and we must save it. -- CQ Politics
Could it be that big business/industry (i.e. Republicans) are against this because being able to pollute increases the bottom line?
Deniers come in three varieties.
Hyper-Christians who think that Jesus is coming anyway, so why worry about a hundred years down the road
Industrialists/rich people who only care about the quick buck and figure they'll be rich enough to buy land in the North or higher up if need be
Anti-science ignorant folks
There is some overlap between the groups, as well.
Republicans who are anti-green only because most Democrats are pro-environment.
Could it be that big business/industry (i.e. Republicans) are against this because being able to pollute increases the bottom line?
That's a load of baloney. Most who doubt man's influence on climate change are not opposed to cleaner air, water and good stewardship of the planet.
Opposing the belief that greenhouse gases produced by man are the driving factors in global climate change does not mean that we believe in polluting and/or destroying the planet for future generations.
Perhaps you could explain how it creates jobs?
(CNSNews.com) – According to an analysis of climate legislation performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the cap-and-trade system favored by President Barack Obama and many congressional Democrats could potentially damage the U.S. manufacturing sector and force jobs to move overseas.
The policy, under certain scenarios, for example, “can cause domestic production … to shift abroad,” reads the EPA analysis, and result in greater greenhouse gas emissions in countries that do not have similar cap-and-trade rules.
Further, the EPA’s Apr. 20 preliminary analysis of the bill, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), shows that the plan would reduce U.S. manufacturing capacity 0.3 percent by 2020 and by nearly 1.5 percent by 2050.
Had the bill not been revised late last week after negotiations between industrial state Democrats and Waxman and Markey, U.S. manufacturing reportedly would have shrunk 0.9 percent by 2020.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48552
Talk about a baloney sandwich. That's an oxymoron.
AA wrote: Perhaps you could explain how it creates jobs? followed by a link to CNS wingnut news service. Sorry, no sale.
Try this on for size:
http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/1300598.html
Maybe you didn't read this little tidbit in your article?
"The report offers no insight on the total number of jobs that could be created from green technology..."
In other words, it is all hypothetical bunk made up by liberal professors working with the unions... or maybe you didn't notice that either?
Oh yeah. I noticed they also quote Obama's meaningless numbers as sort of a last ditch effort to give some cred to the article. Talk about circular reasoning.
Hahaha...
By the way, CNS claims it no longer stands for Conservative New Service. They are such wimps they decided to hide the nature of their site by pretending to be a unbiased source.
Classic.
Thanks for confirming...I agree. In fact the entire organization known as the IPCC has a political agenda.
That's why the final reports are edited by politicians and not the scientists themselves...making the entire report suspect.
Don't be so obtuse. [or is that like telling a fish not to be so wet?] Izrael's agenda is the denial of human influence on global warming. It's Izrael's conclusions that are made suspect by his allegiance to Putin.
-- During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists.
First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. --
Recap. I pointed out that Izrael has an anti-AGW agenda. You dishonestly clipped my post to suggest I conceded some political agenda on the part of the IPCC. I repeated my point that Izrael's political agenda is against the consensus of the IPCC. So you respond with some silliness regarding someone else entirely that had nothing to do with what I had pointed out.
In other words, you used a classic "Hey, look over there" approach.
You pointed out that Izrael has an anti-AGW agenda and therefore you find his statements suspect.
I pointed out that many of the "experts" on the IPCC have an agenda that is pro-AGW and I find them suspect.
The only thing "classic" is you trying to have it one-sided in the bias issue.
Somebody is for warming the Earth? Wow. What a douche.
There are two sides in this debate. Science and anti-science. I'll stick with science every time.
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.
I stopped at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies headed up by Dr. James Hansen. You'll have to do better than just cite organizations.
Speaking about Hansen, his old boss, Dr. John Theon at NASA wrote in January of this year:
“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote.
...Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
Yes, too bad that is completely false. Theon was *never* Hansen's boss. He is simply a quack, and and quacks can spout any opinion they want. Significantly, Theon has never published any peer reviewed article on AGW. Hansens has published dozens. What does that tell you about who is right? Do you trust science or office gossip?
And I would like to know how we can do better than citing the best scientific organizations in the world?
and depends on three and four decimal place
accuracy to substantiate global warming? I don't.
The weather model Hansen is using can't even
predict the weather next week. If any of the
parameters is off by as much as 1% the future
changes drastically. This is an example of a
scientist who published something and is now
involved in the politics of defending his work.
For me to believe the work, there should
be some way to verify the weather model.
There isn't. In fact, it has not predicted
the global cooling that has "very likely"
been going on since 2001.
No one on this list, including myself,
understands the weather models, so arguing
about them is pointless. Almost everyone
who thinks that AWG exists has simply chosen
to believe just like people who go to church.
I have nothing against these people, they
should just not inflict their beliefs on me.
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), has recently said that the IPCC's
evaluation of climate sensitivity must now
be revisited.
You need to check your sources. Here is some correspondence to Marc Murphey from John Theon.
Marc,
It is absurd that Hansen denies ever meeting me. We have met on numerous occasions. This just demonstrates that Hansen has a poor memory.
I worked with Hansen from about 1983 to 1994 during which time he was at GISS in NYC and I was at NASA HQ in Washington DC. I retired from NASA in 1995. I had completed 37 and 1/2 years of federal service (civilian Navy, USAF, and including 33 years with NASA.)
The money came through me. We were in the Earth Observations Program which later became the Mission to Planet Earth Program. I visited GISS at least once a year to review and evaluate the GISS work. When I visited NYC, to review the research that GISS was funded to do out of the program for which I was responsible, Hansen was most cordial. When I asked him to give a lecture in Japan, he complied.
It was what it was, and no amount of denial will change that.
I repeat what I wrote to you in January: “I was, in effect, Hansen's supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation.”
Regarding some of the other attacks that have been aimed at me: I am truly appalled at the backbiting, vitriol that is sent by people who have nothing better to do than try to smear other people's reputations because they do not agree with their own thinking. To them, I recommend that they get a life.
John
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/02/hansen-strikes-back-more-on-john-s.html
Also, another scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer weighed in on Hansen and Theon on January 29, 2009:
“And now my old boss when I was at NASA (as well as James Hansen’s old boss), John Theon, has stated very clearly that he doesn’t believe global warming is man-made…and adding ‘climate models are useless’ for good measure.” See: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/another-nasa-defection-to-the-skeptics-camp/
Theon now also supports what I have repeatedly said over the years. That NASA’s James Hansen routinely ignored NASA policy, and said whatever he wanted to the press and to Congress without getting approval first. The reason why everyone at NASA looked the other way was that we were trying to get congressional funding for satellite missions to study climate. I personally don’t think we needed Hansen’s extremist views to get that accomplished, but it probably helped to some extent.
I asked NASA managers at the time, how can Hansen get away with saying whatever he wanted to? The answer was, “well…he’s not supposed to”.
You might think it’s OK for the lone scientist to warn everyone of impending planetary doom. But I consider it much closer to someone who makes a habit of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Forcing expensive energy on people will lead to death and suffering. These are very real threats, not theoretical like manmade global warming, and they exist today. I personally don’t care where our energy comes from — but I do care that a maximum number of people can afford it.
In truth, it wasn’t Hansen who was muzzled, but it was me in the Clinton-Gore years, who was asked to keep my mouth shut about my skeptical views. That was fine…if a little annoying. At least the flap Hansen caused has managed to force NASA to say that their scientists no longer have to march in lock-step on scientific issues. That’s a good thing.
It doesn't matter what Izrael (who has a history of spreading pro-pollution propaganda) writes; it matters what the science says. There are virtually no peer-reviewed articles refuting global warming, and over 690 of them supporting it. Science, rather than the opinions of people, shows that AGW is real.
From your link, emphasis added:
I don't believe that there were any climatologists who were claiming that the changes were entirely anthropogenic. The second part seems to also make reference to the reality that anthropogenic global warming is a reality and simply ponders how the natural variability in the Arctic will influence that.
So, what was your point?
As the report you showed stated...man's effect may even make the Arctic less vulnerable to global warming.
-- whether natural climate variability will make the Arctic more or less vulnerable to anthropogenic global warming --
As I pointed out from the report, it grants the REALITY of global warming and human influence on it. Nothing in that report casts doubt on that at all.
Also, the issue with the Arctic is that it has its own natural cycle and right now it's unknown whether that cycle will increase or lessen the effect from the REALITY of anthropogenic global warming on the Arctic.
The Arctic is not the world. It's one region of the world and whether the cycles they examined magnify or decrease the effect of AGW means NOTHING with regard to whether AGW is a world wide reality. Their report accepts that fact. To expand projections of what might occur in one region to the rest of the globe is simply dishonest or idiotic. It's like the clowns who saw the average temperatures in the US upgraded for the 1930s and thought that meant something with regard to worldwide averages. The US is only about 3% of the world's surface area, just as the Arctic is only a small portion.
Really, should this have to be explained to you?
If he hasn't gotten it yet, is there any chance that he can absorb that info? Because really, it's not that difficult to understand, and I've seen it explained here multiple ways in the last 6 months.
So, if he needs this explained to him, then I think a reasonable conclusion is that he's a lost cause.
The other option is that he's purposefully ignored this information and the prior explanations, and if that's the case, then he's also a lost cause. Someone who closes their minds to reality is a lost cause.
In conclusion, it would seem, this shouldn't need to be explained to him, and won't do any good if you do.
Weather is not climate. Some areas of the world will cool down if there is global warming. And disputes within scientific circles are not about IF man-made global warming exists.
The report link provided by Wesley does not in any way prove that there is anthropogenic global warming in the arctic.
The study shows that the the Atlantic current is the causative factor for the variations in Arctic temp. When the article says that arctic warming, "...may not be entirely anthropogenic", it does not state to what degree, if any, is caused by man.
Just because the writer makes an assumption that arctic warming may include anthropogenic causes, he clearly states that the issue is not settled and that more study of "models" need to be undertaken in order to postulate such a theory.
The REALITY is that this scientist is arguing anthropogenic causation has not been proven in Arctic temperature variations.
So I guess it's a good thing that I didn't claim it did. What's your point?
Not quite. The study shows that those cycles are a factor. The report also concedes the influence of AGW.
Again, not quite. What it states is that the actual cumulative effect of the Arctic cycles along with the effect of AGW is yet to be determined.
You can't point to anything from the report that justifies that conclusion. Please feel free to show where the study makes the argument you claim. There is no support for you there.
Bill wrote: So I guess it's a good thing that I didn't claim it did. What's your point?
Bill also wrote earlier: As I pointed out from the report, it grants the REALITY of global warming and human influence on it.
Bill perhaps you can explain "it grants the reality of global warming and human influence on it" with "I didn't claim it did". The subtlety escapes me.
It's not really that complicated. The Arctic circle report DIDN'T HAVE THE PURPOSE of proving AGW. That wasn't its goal. It did, however, make reference to the REALITY of AWG as evidenced by other research done by other scientists.
You stated that they didn't prove AWG in the report. I stated that they didn't claim to do so. If you think my statement about granting the reality of AWG means that they sought to prove it, your reading comprehension skills are even worse than I'd previously thought.
It's not subtle. It's a clear difference so glaring that it's apparently blinded you.
Really? So when a meteor hit earth and wiped out the dinosaur, that wasn't man's doing? Did we really need someone to point out this obvious nonsense?
No one ever claimed humans were the driving force behind all climate change. We claim they are the driving force behind AGW, as science has shown.
The new study pokes a hole in that theory. It reports that the Artic warmed faster from 1910 - 1940...than the current increase from 1970-2008.
Not in any logical way. The research indicates that one small geographical region experienced more rapid warming for one period in the past than it is experiencing today. We're supposed to take that and conclude that it refutes AWG? Nope, not in any logical way can that conclusion be made. You're simply showing your willingness to warp narrow research in order to support your broad wishful-thinking preconceptions.
Preservation of the status quo and various, coroporate bought, noble lies seem to be all that they can percieve as relevent.
There's a sucker born every minute. Pielke is notorious for using pushing bad science. When other scientists point out his errors, he ignores them and continues spouting his nonsense. Go over to realclimate.org and see some of his antics.
The study is not a peer reviewed study. It is a letter and has not even been accepted yet. Further, as pointed out below, the conclusion, even if correct, does not in any way undermine AGW.
Another one bites the dust