Cavuto's flawed "global warming alert": "It is freezing across the entire globe"
On his Fox News show, Neil Cavuto introduced a segment by saying, "This is our Fox News global warming alert for you," and falsely claimed that "[i]t is freezing across the entire globe"; guest Ben Stein later suggested that "maybe all this talk about global warming needs to be rethought" because of recent cold weather. In fact, contrary to Cavuto's suggestion, it is not colder than average across the entire globe, and climate scientists reject the notion that short-term changes in weather bear any relevance to the global warming debate.
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.
Cavuto falsely claims, "It is freezing across the entire globe"
From the January 9 edition of Fox News' Cavuto on Business:
CAVUTO: All right. This is our Fox News global warming alert for you. It is freezing across the entire globe. We've got frost in Florida, it's 50 below in the Midwest. You got deadly snow in London. Beijing seeing it's coldest temperatures in 40 years -- Red Square more like "white square" -- the whole nine yards. When all of this is bad news for heating bills right now, but you say the record cold spell could save us money down the road? Ben, what's going on here?
STEIN: At some point maybe somebody in the government will wake up and say, "Hey, it's colder. It's not hotter." Maybe all this talk about global warming needs to be rethought.
Contrary to Cavuto's claim, many parts of globe experiencing temperatures "above normal"
Christian Science Monitor: "Look around and you'll find plenty of warm spots on the planet." In a January 7 blog post, The Christian Science Monitor noted that "[s]ome parts of Northern New Zealand are sweltering in record breaking heat this week. And oddly enough, so are some places in Bulgaria, where a hot spot over the Black Sea has warmed one town to a pleasant 72 degrees. Not bad for a city at the same latitude as Portland, Maine." The Christian Science Monitor also noted, "On Christmas Day, the Australian Weather Bureau reported that Central Pacific Ocean temperatures are now at their warmest in more than a decade. For Australia itself, 2009 was a scorcher, the second hottest year on record after 2005."
U.K. Met Office: "It is not cold everywhere in the world." The U.K. Met Office Hadley Center noted in a January 6 press release that "it is not cold everywhere in the world. North-east America, Canada, North Africa, the Mediterranean, and south-west Asia have all seen temperatures above normal -- in many places by more than 5 C, and in parts of northern Canada, by more than 10°C."
Met Office: Cold weather "doesn't tell us anything about climate change"
Met Office: Cold snap "doesn't tell us anything about climate change." The Met Office said in its January 6 press release that "current cold weather in the UK is part of the normal regional variations that take place in the winter season. It doesn't tell us anything about climate change, which has to be looked at in a global context and over longer periods of time."
Globally, 2009 among warmest years on record. A January 5 U.K. Independent article reported: "The Met Office's Barry Gromett said December and January's cold weather was 'within the bounds of natural variability' within a global trend of rising temperatures -- in which 2009 is set to be the fifth warmest year on record."
WMO: "2000-2009, The Warmest Decade." In a December 8 press release, the World Meteorological Organization reported that "[t]he decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990-1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980-1989)."
Climate scientists: Short-term changes in weather have no relevance to global warming debate
NASA climatologist: "Weather isn't going to go away because of climate change." A March 2, 2008, New York Times article reported that climate scientists -- including at least one who has disputed aspects of the scientific consensus on global warming -- completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather bear any relevance to the global warming debate:
Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted weather patterns, less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air.
"The current downturn is not very unusual,'' said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a private research group in Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose findings have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. He pointed to similar drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.
[...]
Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said that any focus on the last few months or years as evidence undermining the established theory that accumulating greenhouse gases are making the world warmer was, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, a harmful distraction.
Discerning a human influence on climate, he said, ''involves finding a signal in a noisy background.'' He added, ''The only way to do this within our noisy climate system is to average over a sufficient number of years that the noise is greatly diminished, thereby revealing the signal. This means that one cannot look at any single year and know whether what one is seeing is the signal or the noise or both the signal and the noise.''
[...]
Some scientists who strongly disagree with each other on the extent of warming coming in this century, and on what to do about it, agreed that it was important not to be tempted to overinterpret short-term swings in climate, either hot or cold.
Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and commentator with the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, has long chided environmentalists and the media for overstating connections between extreme weather and human-caused warming. (He is on the program at the skeptics' conference.)
But Dr. Michaels said that those now trumpeting global cooling should beware of doing the same thing, saying that the ''predictable distortion'' of extreme weather ''goes in both directions.''
Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan who has spoken out about the need to reduce greenhouse gases, disagrees with Dr. Michaels on many issues, but concurred on this point.'
"When I get called by CNN to comment on a big summer storm or a drought or something, I give the same answer I give a guy who asks about a blizzard,'' Dr. Schmidt said. ''It's all in the long-term trends. Weather isn't going to go away because of climate change. There is this desire to explain everything that we see in terms of something you think you understand, whether that's the next ice age coming or global warming.''

















"We are trying to discuss in the media a highly complex issue. Nobody would discuss the problem of [Einstein's theory of] relativity in the media. But because we all experience the weather, we all believe that we can assess the global warming problem."
Latif doesn't seem to understand, and neither do you, that there is a difference between observational science and absolute mathematics.
Observational science always needs to be questioned. Edwin Hubble knew that better than anyone. And he was right. Look it up, Dolly. Find a chance to get off your dead horse.
Also, while I don't know the context of Latif's quote regarding the media, I take that to mean it's extremely difficult to discuss weather and climate (two different things!) in the media precisely because people think they can make confident assertions about CLIMATE (over long time periods) vs. WEATHER (short-term events).
Finally, I don't even know what you're talking about with your "difference between observational science and absolute mathematics". The difficulty of climate science is that it's extremely complex, and absolute mathematics are very difficult to apply WITHOUT observations. This is the entire point of models: to attempt to find causal relationships among OBSERVED EVENTS, and possibly even to confidently predict future events. You don't seem to understand this at all.
I'm honestly baffled by your postings, and if I've misinterpreted, please feel free to clarify. As it stands, the only "dead horse" here seems to be sitting at your keyboard.
You obviously have no knowledge whatsoever of the scientific approaches taken by Edwin Hubble and Albert Einstein. Might be a good Google for you, just to bone up for the future. Who knows? It may be on a job application some day.
Hubble challenged thousands of years worth of "observational science" which had been peer-reviewed, cataloged, and "settled". Except it wasn't, and he proved them all wrong. Yes, he had the poison arrows aimed at him, same as today, but he prevailed. I think there may be an observatory named after him...
Einstein used mathematics to explain relativity, not observations, although subsequent ones have proved him right.
The "respected German" (an oxymoron since 1939) Latif believes that mathematical models built to justify observations are relevant, even though "they cannot predict the temperature next week" (Anastasios A. Tsonis, look it up). Such models are built to prove a point, not to prove any science. It's obvious that they did not predict the current (and decades-long) cooling trend within the larger model of warming, which makes all such models defenestrated. Yeah, you'll need to look that up as well.
Sorry...
As of this writing, this Winter, there are record snowfalls and record shattering frigid temperatures globally from China, W. Korea, Romania, Spain, Czech Republic, Nepal, Finland, Austria, Norway, Seoul, Germany, Bangladesh, France,The United Kingdom, Texas, Iowa, Massachusetts, British Columbia, Scotland, to Florida, and our "experts" have gone underground because apparently Hell is freezing over. And it appears to me that we have been duped by possibly one of the greatest hoaxes of all time, leaving the believers scratching their heads scrambling to find rationale where there is none.
What I don't understand is why the right is so focused on debunking anything to do with global warming, or more actually calling it climate change. While I can understand the debate about the causes, ma-made or not, I can't understand their refusal to admit its existence. What's in it for them?
They have a "I've got mine" mentality.
I suspect that more of it has to do with "identity politics" in which the knee-jerk regurgitation of ideological tripe is a requisite of those persons' own concepts of their selves as selves.
http://patternsthatconnect.blogspot.com/2006/02/conservatism-as-identity-politicssome.html
http://patternsthatconnect.blogspot.com/2006/02/conservatism-as-identity-politics-pt2.html
http://patternsthatconnect.blogspot.com/2006/03/rightwing-authoritarianism-and.html
One cannot look at any weather in isolation to determine if climate change is happening or not! How can smart people like Ben Stein not know this?
Ben Stein may be financially secure, well-dressed, and well-spoken, but none of that has much to do with being 'smart.'
Ben Stein is an idiot.
His behavior is something he controls. His IQ is something he was born with. He's a smart guy.
Secondly, if this cold snap means something about the falsity of global warming, then the excessive heat down there should mean something about the truth of global warming, right?
But lastly, and most importantly, did you read the freaking headline here?
Someone ELSE said that it's freezing across the entire globe. But, in fact, it's excessively hotter than normal down there.
Come back when you have a clue, dum-dum!
History will curse each and every one of you for TRYING to lead us to war against this environMENTAL WMD CO2 mistake and false enemy of climate variation.
I want news editors and Al Gore arrested for treason.
EnvironMENTALism Causes Global Warming
Al Gore is the Bernie Madoff of Climate Change
Stop scaring my kids you climate cowards.
History will laugh.
It's been in the 70s duirng the day where I am, basically since Xmas. Of course, I'm not stupid enough to think that short term weather observation proves anything about climate change.Can I have my own TV show yet?
Sorry, the first part precludes the second.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.
Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.
He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.
Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.
'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cJNvx9a9
I agree that we need to do more to take care of our planet but why use scare tactics. The Government has used scare tactics in the past and I don’t believe its right. If you take the time to look at the other angles you will see where “those conservatives” are coming from. For example:
“Professor Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start… Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.”
Please don’t just believe everything you are told. Be better than that, smarter than that - Research it for yourself.
*Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cHFwGlaV
What's in it for the oil companies? Simple. A little cash. These are some real short sighted folks. They knew more than a decade ago that global warming was caused by oil comsumption, but they ddn't start developing new products for the energy industry, because of the "bottom line mandate." (Watch "The Corporation" on Netflix or get it at Cinemalibre.com). Their bottom line mandate makes them short sighted.
Now let's look at the oil company involvment in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the expense of every taxpayer and civil right in this Nation, they urged people to think in the Extreme Right, with the help of the media and others, and off we went to the Middle East to destroy any good will we could have possibly had in our time of economic crisis, which was created by the wars and the banking industry. I think I am being very generous to call that short sightedness, especially since, along with the wars and banking problems, every ounce of coal in West Virginia is now shipped over to the very same Country that just took our place as the world's leader in exports.
Corporations exported our jobs, shut down our factories, lobbied our government for every possible disparity against the People, turned around and gave our jobs and economy to other Countries because they have no loyalty, then involved us in those wars for oil, then busted our Real Estate market, and when that didn't cripple us, raided the stock market until TARP was created, which is nothing more than a government-mandated ponzi scheme at taxpayer expense.
They oil industry was, and still is, too busy causig mischief to think long term. They see no mistake in what they have done economically, politically, or otherwise.
Please, let's not use bad science from a disaster movie to try to explain why it is cold out this winter.
Personally I say do what we can to protect ourselves and the world.
6.5 billion people in the world today, 9 billion by 2050. If weather patterns change, for whatever reason, enough to adversely affect food production people won't be debating the weather or oil. They will be debating how to secure enough food sources for themselves.
(Hey, new disaster movie plot line)
And we are currently in the bottom of the solar cycle, meaning the earth is receiving the lowest amount of radiant energy that it can expect in the eleven year solar cycle.
One volcanic eruption causes more effect than man can create in 100 years.
Although there is some debate on it, most scientist calculate that current volcanic output of CO2 and sulphur dioxides is less than what man is currently outputting into the atmosphere.
We need to be smart on doing what we can but we don't have to have our lives controlled to do it.
Well, at least you said one thing that I agree with.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laughing Hyenas are both smarter AND funnier than these clowns.
In the meantime, feel free to wallow in your paranoid persecution fantasies.
I saw an acquaintance on Facebook the other day had joined one of those pointless "groups", I believe their goal was One MIllion Americans Against Obama ( or 2% of the group that actually voted against him).
I went to the page to check it out, and most of the "research" was based on anonymous right wing emails. The first one was about a newly discovered, or underestimated, oil reserve in the U.S. (quickly debunked with a few clicks over to Snopes), that included the speculation that environmentalists are funded by OPEC and terrorist-lovin countries.
For such simple-minded folks, wingnuts sure do look for complicated explanations for certain issues.
History and Statistics FAIL.
--------------------------------------------------
Try again
If it's not in the bible it must not be true. Go back to your magical bible-thumping land where Pi is 3 and leave the science to scientists.
Yes, it is summer in new zealand, just like it is winter in new york.
To say that the fact it is hot in new zealand proves global warming is just as wrong as saying the the cold in new york disproves it.
BTW, if you don't mind rounding error Pi does round up to 3
One way to debunk that is to prove that it's not freezing all over the globe, nor is it even cooler than normal in the southern hemisphere, and that weather isn't climate.
It's amazing how many of you fools didn't get this. Just amazing!
Take it easy on the nails, huh?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Well done.
I would suggest we have much to learn yet and to start with the Sun cycles impacts on cosmic rays which help create our clouds depending on the solar winds strengths. We are in a low sunspot activity cycle which allows for more clouds which create the cooling we are experiencing. Warmth and CO2 has always had a positive impact on life. It is the cold and glaciation that has always been the threat to life.
Neal, leave the scientific discussion up to those trained in science. Get on a plane and go check out the summer weather somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere. Show yourself that the entire globe isn't "freezing". This trip will be very enlightening. A course or two in atmospheric science may also help.