Quick Fact: Baier falsely suggested allegedly hacked emails dispute global warming science
On Special Report, host Bret Baier falsely suggested that a series of emails reportedly stolen from the UK's Climate Research Unit (CRU) creates a "basis for disputing global warming." In fact, the validity of climate science is not hinged on the contents of these emails, some of which conservative media have taken out of context; reports from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading scientific body for assessing climate change research, are the product of thousands of scientists worldwide.
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.
Fox News' Bret Baier falsely suggested emails create basis for "disputing global warming"
Baier stated Gibbs did not see basis for disputing global warming "despite" emails "seeming to portray" scientists "supress[ing] or discredit[ing] data." From the November 30 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BRET BAIER (anchor): Gibbs went on to say that he doesn't see any real scientific basis for disputing global warming, despite this large collection of emails seeming to portray leading scientists there scheming to suppress or discredit data and analysis that is contrary to their predictions about global warming. This continues to gain steam all over the place, especially on the Internet.
Fact: NASA scientist: Emails do not show that "global warming is a hoax"
NASA's Gavin Schmidt: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the RealClimate blog, which has stated that some of the reportedly stolen CRU emails "involve people" at RealClimate.
Fact: Thousands of scientists from around the world participate in IPCC process
IPCC: "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis." The IPCC, which is a scientific body established by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization, has established that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." The IPCC "reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide," and its reports are the product of contributions from "[t]housands of scientists from all over the world."
Speaking truth to/about progressives and giving a shout out to those poor, poor polar bears
I'm not asking for agreement, just noting that science moves forward in researching every subject. But when data is suppressed or modified, the integrity of results reflect personal bias, outside of science. There is enough uncertainty to forestall jeopardizing the economic and social hopes of generations via this 'settled science' and to see if this type of episode is just a small sliver of an event repeated thousands of times in the past billion years or so. I care about future generations of humans and want to see that they are not condemned to poverty and tyrannical rule by eco-political movements.
Also - this whole ice age argument is just a lot of BS. Show me the articles in scientific jopurnals saying there was another ice age on the way. I went to a pretty decent college prep, and my biology teacher was talking about climate change in 1973 - and he wasn't claiming an ice age was on the way. Only people who got their science from Popular Mechanics (and stupid science teachers who knew more about Jules Verne than they did about climatology) thought there was an ice age coming.
Okay, I know I was asking too much - you may continue playing dumb.
"Where were you when we needed that kind of insight in the 70's and were condemned to live in the next ice age?"
And just where did that idea come from? Scientists? Think again. The "popular media". And we're getting the same junk science today from the "popular media" like the conservative media outlets.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
The more their "proofs" keep getting knocked down, the more foolish they look. Then it gets into personal attacks. I leave them alone at that point & let others see them for what they are.
Here's another link on the global cooling myth:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw29_proceedings/Reeves.pdf
President-elect Obama’s new science advisor, John Holdren, was concerned about global cooling too. In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (1977: p. 686), Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Holdren stated:
“Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the beginning of a long and persistent trend in that direction—that is, an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic history.”
2. The e-mails from several of these scientists have said that they are having a hard to explaining why the globe is not warming.
3. The polar bear's have tripled in 10 years, so no they are not dieing off.
4. The fact that Gore will not debate a single person about climate change.
5. There are just as many scientist that say this is not happening as many as say it is, tells me this is not a proven fact.
6. That big ball in the Sky, called the Sun can control the temperature.
7. Common Sense.
Aside from that, converting to 'green' sources of energy, such as solar and wind power, is better for the air and cheaper to use, and we wouldn't have to worry about OPEC anymore. What do you have against accessing easily renewable sources of energy that cost less, are better for your health, and save us from protecting actual tyrants, such as the Saudi royal family?
Seems no one can answer this simple question. Oil companies are in the energy business to make money, if they could find other ways to make money in the energy world using green methods,do you not think they would? Almost all Major Oil companies have some type of Wind and Solar divisions, but seem to lose money, because the return on investment is low.
What resources would those be?
If you're talking about oil, there's only enough oil in US territories to sustain us for several years.
And - your lack of understanding of basic business models is telling. You really want to know whey Big Oil continues to produce oil instead of wind/solar power? Because they've already paid for much the infrastructure - you know, stuff like oil rigs, pipelines, tankers, etc.
ANWR has enough oil to sustain the U.S. for 50 plus year. Then we have the Bakken Reserves, again enough to sustain the U.S. and there is even more off the east and west coast. During that time we can find other means of energy. Fog, Tankers are mostly rented, not owned by Oil Companies, Pipelines can be used to transport more then just oil and natural gas when converted. Oil rigs can be used for wind farms. Fog, you need to think big picture.
I don't think so.
But I used the google and found that there is a probable 3.5 billion barrels in ANWR. But there is also a 5% chance there is 25 billion barrels.
http://www.anwr.org/Background/How-much-oil-is-in-ANWR.php
The US consumes 20 million barrels a day.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
So, if there is 3.5 billion barrels, there's enough oil for 175 days. If there is 25 billion barrels, there's enough for 1,250 days, or 3.4 years. Funny, but 3.4 years seems a lot less than 50 years.
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says there is 10.3 billion barrels - could be completely recovered (i.e. ignoring market pricing) the EIA estimates production of 60 million barrels a year. In comparison, US daily consumption is 20.6 million barrels a day.
So your Math is wrong, that is more then 175 days, but sure you went to public school.
Also the following - A new USGS assessment concludes that NPRA (ANWR) holds signicantly greater petroleum resources than previously estimated. Technically recoverable, undiscovered oil beneath the Federal part of NPRA likely ranges between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels, with a mean (expected) value of 9.3 billion barrels. An estimated 1.3 to 5.6 billion barrels of those technically recoverable oil resources is economically recoverable. Technically recoverable, undiscovered nonassociated natural gas for the same area likely ranges between 39.1 and 83.2 trillion cubic feet, with a mean (expected) value of 59.7 trillion cubic feet. The economic viability of this gas will depend on the availability of a natural-gas pipeline for transport to market.
So again Fog you are wrong, you always forget about the gas as well as other undiscovered oil and gas. So no we will have more then just 175 days of oil.
Also see you have ignored the other facts that I provided to you, but that would mean you would have to admit defeat.
So your question has no meaning.
You're right. 515 days is more than 175 days. I admit defeat.
So do you guys return to these chestnuts because you are dumb or because you are dishonest? There is a distinction between particle pollution and greenhouse gases. Which the smarty pants types understood in the 70s. And if you're looking at cycles of billions of years why are you hung up on what's happened in Boulder, Co since 1998?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Check out this video on "The Global Warming Myth - Dr Noah Robinson". Robinson's one of the originator's of the bogus petition.
Of course, he's presenting this at a Gilder-Forbes Telecosm.
http://www.gildertech.com/Telecosm2009/
The charts he shows have been manipulated so much, it's a joke! He wouldn't last 30 seconds at a real conference.
Example: He shows charts with 2 y-axes. But the scales are vastly different. On another chart, he deftly places a notation over the plot to hide the trend.
And these deniers accuse the climatologists of hiding data!
http://www.discovery.org/v/30
And once again you start with the insults, the last time I saw you do that you stated that corporate stock was closely held by just a few individuals such as the boards of theses companies. You insulted the person who disagreed. But YOU were the one who was wrong. You question the intelligence and education of others but don't even know what any teenager in high school knows about the stock market. I wondered how many active brain cells you used for that post. Then I realized you were using all you had.
You should try changing you user ID or perhaps resolve to bring a little reason to your posts. You sure do not show any to date.
By the way, since you respect scientists so much , what do you think about these opinions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Just go to this link, print a copy, sign it and send it in.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWPetition.pdf
Try it. I'll bet your name will show up on the list.
Now, here's the TRUTH:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/
Aristotle's "science" was not questioned vigorously for two millennia, and incredibly was still being taught in universities in the late 17th century. Knowledge suffered enormously.
Is this what we want? 157 years of (now massaged) observations will describe what has happened in the last 4 billion years while predicting what will be for the next 8 billion?
Oh yeah, I forgot; there's an excuse for that.
Questioning this science is absolutely the right thing to do, and for generations to come. Those who think it's settled are the ones with their heads in the sand. That's why the rest of us see only asses.
So, how do you rationalize the fact that the Pentagon has determined that Global Climate Change is the most serious national security issue facing our country?
Fog, where do you think their data came from? Wonder if it was from those that falsified the data?
That's right, mf. It's all a BIG conspiracy. Greedy scientists are only in it for the research money.
Tell me, what is the scientists' motivation to lie? Because, you know, science is usually based on some truth or theory of something being true. Do you hate science?
What money? Going to whom? From where?
You said THEY should all be put on trial. Who are they? And what did they do?
Yep...$79 Billion from the govt. in the last twenty years spent on climate change. No global warming means no govt. handouts for the career, grant-farming scientific community...that's the reason for them acting like sheep.
Additionally, carbon trading reached $126 Billion in 2008...with many predicting it to reach the trillions. No carbon boogey man...no need for carbon trading.
Sure 'nuff...it's all about the money.
Found that on what just might be my ALL-TIME favorite site that's not... well... this one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Or THIS ONE!
Of course they do:
-- It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity. -- NYTimes
-- Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?...As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless...It's botch after botch after botch. -- Toronto Sun
And this from one of the fiercest champions of AGW:
-- I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.
No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last. -- George Monbiot
Of course they have "created a basis for disputing global warming".
Information gained illegally, and carefully cherry picked, will be a treat in any court of law.
In the meantime emails have been asked for by congress from the previous administration. Will they ever be produced?
Thanks for the morning chuckle. The "court of law" has absolutely zero to do with the facts concerning global warming...science is not settled by a court of law.
But I'm sure that many are very comfortable in that cocoon of denial expressed so well by Monbiot.
Aside from the reliance of flatearther's talking points...thanks for another chuckle by adding the paper towel test.
Really lousy analogy on your part - but very funny joke. You are hiarious. A real parody. Kudos.
See, if those of us who believe in the truth of climate change are correct, it will mean sacrificing our temporary comfort for the future of the planet. Your cocoon means you get to stay warm and cozy and leave an environmental disaster for your children.
You can be proud of your grand spirit of sacrifice.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32122_Video-_Judge_John_E._Jones_III
Science is driven by facts, not beliefs.
Those first two quotes are meaningless without context. I've seen far, far too many quotes that refer to a narrow, limited bit of data misrepresented as having a much more broad application. I strongly suspect that that is what we have with those. The third quote is simply a journalist who has bought into the way those emails have been misrepresented.
I realize that it would be very hard for you to crawl out of your own cocoon to accept that reality.
Your effort is worthy...Keep digging...you'll find it.
You have my permission to disregard my comment...casually or otherwise...it makes absolutely no difference to me.
Those that are deniers of the damage caused by the emails showing unscrupulous methods to promote the agenda of AGW would have felt right at home with those that howled when old Chris dared to propose that you could get to the east by sailing west...uncurious flat earthers...comfortable in their cocoons of un-enlightenment.
The proponents of global climate change are Christopher Columbus, you loveable nutball.
You should have a show on Fox - you are far funnier than Beckerhead.
I'll agree that the emails have caused damage, but that is the result of dishonest portrayal of them, not anything that they actually contain. The damage is the result of lies about them, such as those you present through ignorance or dishonesty.
For the record, it's a myth that most people thought the world was flat in Columbus' day. Virtually all scholars, sailors, clergy and nobility of the time knew it was round. Belief in a flat earth was pretty much restricted to those with the lowest levels of education and wasn't even the majority view of them. Regardless, it's the denialists who have the most in common with flat-earthers.
You do understand that data and database are two different things, don't you?
He's saying that the stolen emails do not in any way support the wild claims that "global warming is a hoax". The right wing media has been running with the "these stolen emails prove that climate change is a lie" thing since it surfaced, and that is simply not supported by anything inside those emails.
I get what he's saying--because of the fact that climate scientists are constantly faced with rabid deniers, they have to be incredibly careful about protecting themselves from any possible distortion--careful to the point of cautiously choosing the words they use even in private emails, because there are fanatics out there so desperate to cast doubt on climate change that they will hack into your computer and steal your personal emails.
They discarded a portion of their data records a quarter of a century ago for reasons of storage space. They represent a lot of paper and electronic storage was a lot more expensive then. Regardless, nothing is gone forever. NOAA's NCDC still has the original data that CRU used. The data had been analyzed and there was no valid reason for
So, what we have is a copies of a very small portion of all of the data that has been accumulated was discarded a quarter of a century ago after better than 95% of THAT data had already been published in its raw form and was generally available. What that means is that, for a tiny portion of a tiny portion of the data used, a person would have to go back to NCDC's records.
Mountains out of molehills. Scientists can see this clearly. Your only hope is to fool the uneducated.
So what about all this data?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw
Oh, that's right. It's been manipulated. Right.
So that begs the question - what if it's found that all this "erased" data was backed up and recoverable, or it's located somewhere else? Oh, but I guess that would be manipulated also. Right.
This is a no-win scenario. No matter what evidence is presented to deniers, they'll just continue doing what they do best - deny it and continue to move the goal post, presenting no-win scenarios to "prove their point".
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
But, I'd prefer to go with the experts on this one.
Deniers still need that conspiracy thing to validate their views.
The problem with conspiracies, the more people involved, the more difficult it is to make them work.
To make the deniers conspiracy work, some nefarious cabal would have to convince ALL these educated people involved at NOAA, NASA, Florida State, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, all the organizations noted at USCUSA, etc. (links below) to be a part of some grand big lie.
And there has to be some motivation do be a part of it - which is? Just what is in it for them?
And this has to apply only to anyone associated with studying climate change. The conspiracy cannot apply to any other branch of science. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any of the technological advances we enjoy today.
Occam's razor seems to be the only solution here - the simplest explanation is there is overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change, and the world's scientists are in consensus about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
The pieces to the deniers claims just don't fit.
No, I think I'll stick with the simple explanation on the side of the experts and reality.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/climatechange.shtml
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=13366