Hannity falsely claims that "global temperatures continue to plummet"
Continuing his attacks on the scientific consensus about global warming, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that "global temperatures continue to plummet year after year." In fact, several scientific organizations have concluded that 2009 was one of the warmest years on record and that the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on record.
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.
Hannity's latest climate change falsehood: "[G]lobal temperatures continue to plummet"
Hannity: "[T]hose that buy this hoax always use the phrase 'climate change' ... even as global temperatures continue to plummet year after year." From the February 9 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: Well, you know how even the most fervent global warming hoaxers know it's a hoax? If they really believed in global warming, they'd still call it global warming. They're just not calling it that anymore. But now those that buy this hoax always use the phrase "climate change," and that way, they can claim they were right, even as global temperatures continue to plummet year after year.
Fact: 2000-2009 was warmest decade on record
WMO: "2000-2009, The Warmest Decade." In a December 8, 2009, press release, the World Meterological Organization stated, "The 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)." WMO also stated, "The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850."
NOAA: "The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record." On December 8, 2009, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated that according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, "The 2000 -- 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F."
Met Office data also reportedly shows 2000-2009 was warmest decade on record. Bloomberg reported on December 8, 2009, "This decade is set to be the warmest on record though 2009 won't be the hottest year," and, "Of the 10 hottest years on record, nine occurred in the 2000s, according to the Met Office, which said it expected temperatures to keep rising as a result of greenhouse-gas emissions." The article further reported, "Global temperatures are expressed by the Met Office as an 'anomaly' from the long-term average. The 2000s were about 0.4 of a degree warmer than the 1961 to 1990 average, eclipsing the record 0.23-degree temperature anomaly of the 1990s, it said."
Scientists have identified a long-term warming trend that spans several decades. In a February 11, 2009, 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 based on less than 10 years of data are unreliable, "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."
Hannity has repeatedly used misinformation to attack global warming consensus
Hannity claimed 2009 was "one of the coldest years on record." In November 2009, Hannity repeatedly asserted that "this is one of the coldest years on record" to claim that climate change is a "hoax" or not "real." In fact, NOAA, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and Britain's Met Office have stated that 2009 was among the warmest years on record.
Hannity advanced falsehood about CRU email to claim scientists were "fudging" data. On his Fox News show, Hannity falsely claimed that emails reportedly stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) show that the scientists "were certainly fudging" climate data; as an example, Hannity read from an email from CRU scientist Phil Jones in which he employed the word "trick" to describe his methods. In fact, the word "trick" has been grossly misinterpreted and refers to unreliable tree-ring data, not actual temperature readings.
Hannity falsely claimed IPCC's Latif has "pulled the rug out" from under climate change consensus. On his radio show, Hannity asserted of Mojib Latif, a prominent climate modeler: "[O]ne of Al Gore's most prominent allies in this global warming hysterical movement has just pulled off -- pulled the rug out from the former vice president and now says the world more likely faces decades of global cooling." Citing Latif's World Climate Conference presentation, Hannity said Latif "argued that the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade, and that we are likely entering one or even two decades during which temperatures actually cool." Hannity later added: "The science is not unchallenged; it is challenged. And even leading environmental extremists that have been, you know -- you know, sending out these dire warnings, they're now contradicting themselves." In fact, Latif asserted that contrary to common "media" misperceptions of global warming as a "monotonic process" in which "each year is warmer than the preceding year," there are significant natural climate variations within the decadal timescale that do not change the "long-term warming trend."
Don't worry. Hell's coming to him, and to all of us, thanks to climate change.
It is too! It's 26 degrees down there! (as of this posting)
Oh, that's Celsius. You think the denialists know the difference - or want to know the difference? ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------
[/sarcasm]
BUT, I still don't get from a science point of view how you can claim the cause of graphs like this. The number of inputs into any climate changes is staggering. Proving what percentage each one contributes is nearly an impossible task for the scientific method. I've heard claims that man is responsible for ALL of the warming. Well then you have to prove that graphs like this would be flat or going the other way without humans on the earth. How do you do that? Without a control Earth without humans, I don't see a way to prove if man contributes 100%, 50% or 1% of the warming trend in that graph.
The argument about IF there is warming or climate vs weather is ridiculous and the right is clueless, Im with you guys on that. I wish there was more focus on what degree man influences the changes in climate as that degree should be directly responsible for our reaction and the scope of said reaction. If we really are causing 100% of it, it needs to be all out. If its 1% its not worth a massive amount of money and productivity loss to mess with. And I see no way to tell which may be the case with our current lack of knowledge in complex climate systems.
And NO climate scientist EVER tries to say exactly how much is the fault of humans, and I have NEVER, ever seen any climatologist who has said that it's 100% the fault of humans.
Just because YOU don't see a way to identify what is mostly causing GCC doesn't mean that climatologists can't identify what climatological events are causing the different factors that DO affect it.
And no, the exact degree that we're causing should not have ANY effect on how much we work to resolve the problem. It's significantly more than 1%
I don't believe you're an honest person here. Just because YOU don't see any way to tell how much we've influenced global warming doesn't mean that there's no way to come to the conclusion that we should do all we can to stop as much of our contribution as possible, and do it as soon as possible.
This is one of the first links you would have found.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html#How_do_we_know_that_humans_are_the_major
And in that report, here's just a little of what they say.
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: it is a greater than a 90 percent certainty that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century.”
How do you NOT know this and still you tried to convince us that it's not known if humans might have caused as little as 1% of it?
Or here's this, just a few paragraphs into it.
Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes we’ve seen. For a computer model to accurately project the future climate, scientists must first ensure that it accurately reproduces observed temperature changes. When the models include only recorded natural climate drivers—such as the sun’s intensity—the models cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming of the past half century. When human-induced climate drivers are also included in the models, then they accurately capture recent temperature increases in the atmosphere and in the oceans. When all the natural and human-induced climate drivers are compared to one another, the dramatic accumulation of carbon from human sources is by far the largest climate change driver over the past half century.
See, climatologists DO have a way to measure this. Just because you, as a non-scientist, don't understand HOW to do it doesn't mean that it can't be done.
How can you be someone who has looked into this (and therefore support your claim that you're a big science guy) and not know these basic facts.
And your inconsistencies is exactly why, when someone online tries to claim that their argument should get added credibility because they're a Democrat who objects to Democratic inititatives, or becaues they're a big science guy who simply wants to explain to us that we don't know enough about the exact amount humans contribute to global warming, it's always suspect.
And it actually gets you LESS credibility.
The degree to which we affect climate SHOULD be a difference maker. Someone peeing in your water glass is a bigger deal and has more negative affects than someone peeing in the city swimming pool. Its a matter of percents and measurable quantities. I don't see the data for them to back the claims of "humans cause most of it" in the sources provided. Unless you have ALL of the inputs nailed down in an equation you cannot make that claim scientifically. Without a control in a lab setting, you can't reach a solid conclusion. Putting a graph of CO2 emissions next to a graph of temperatures and saying they look similar does NOT prove they are related. There are plenty of graphs and datasets that look the same that have nothing to do with each other. You have to prove the relationship between the 2 which is very hard to do without the data. I feel like you have taken a Pascal's Wager on the subject which I detest in religion as well as any other belief.
Data is only a part of the picture. You have to understand the carbon cycle, and the effect carbon has in the atmosphere. You have to account for many other variables s well. Scientists have to create controlled experiments to study these things by watching how things relate to each other on a small scale, they can't just measure the current conditions and make assumptions based on data.
In the long run, it really doesn't matter exactly how much of it we are the CAUSE of, it does matter if we accelerate the process and ignore that acceleration as if it is a meaningless variation. Because you know what, the planet WILL find it meaningless. She will survive no matter what. Of course, she might survive in a manner that makes her quite a bit less habitable for US. But in time, some other species will rise to take our place if that comes to pass.
Skepticism is the default position of science as was stated in another similar thread. The data is there clear as day that its getting warmer and anyone who debates that or debates weather being the same as climate is silly. The data is NOT there for an equation that defines the increase in temperature relating to all of its variables. And until said equation exists and its variables defined, claims like "X is the main factor for determining Y" are not defendable. Y=AX*BY^a*CZ^b*... Just because you think you have X figured out does not mean you can determine Y or even X's relation to Y until you figure out what the other values are.
Using that analogy, taking ones foot off the gas is the first step in evaluating the situation. I think that is the equivalent of the study and effort that has been put into the climate and CO2 so far. After you take your foot off the gas and assess the situation, you now need to examine all of the factors to determine what to do next. Those factors determine your course of action. Is it icy out? Wet? How far away is the car? Do you need to brake severely? Or softly? Do you maybe need to swerve to avoid a collision? The course of action is not always the same, and I'd say the same is true based on our contribution to climate change. If we ARE causing the majority, we need to swerve. But do you swerve everytime you see brake lights? No, because that's not appropriate and I feel like that's what people want to do.
Of course everyone wants a better future, but its not always that simple. Its give and take. Is it worth a 1% better climate future if it means a 10% worse economic future?
Quit while you're behind, why don't ya? You're just making a fool of yourself now.
Like I said, and I have almost NEVER seen it to be untrue, when someone tries to gain credibility by claiming that they're an expert or qualified to make some conclusion to inform others, they are almost ALWAYS not telling the whole truth and should NOT be given any extra credibility.
Again, YOUR personal knowledge (remember, I've already documented that you don't apparently even have the basic knowledge to come to ANY conclusions on this topic) about this info is not relevant. There have been multiple studies done that have compared where the global temperatures would be given the inputs they can and DO measure all the time to actual observed temps, and without significant addition of human-caused warming, those measurements don't add up.
And you're totally, 100% wrong that you need a control in a lab or a parallel universe in order to figure this out. Totally wrong.
Outed as a concern troll who has no credibility.
Hate to break it to you, but the byproduct of most of these processes in question are H2O and CO2. H2O is a much more potent greenhouse gas, but it obviously doesn't stick around as long as CO2.
I get the science, I get the numbers. It is warming, its the hottest decade on record. I get all that. Its irrefutable, and people who refute *those* facts are nuts. I want to see the facts that prove what percent of the warming is man-made. You can't say 100% without first proving that the Earth would be cooling without us. You can't do that without a duplicate planet without humans to act as a control. So that's what I've always wanted to see "proven", and I say proven because I don't know how it can be done. Are we causing .1%, 50%, or 100% of the warming? And yes the answer is important as that should dictate what we do in answer and to what degree.
Then on this thread you said, on the first day the article was posted,
As a big science guy (and not heavily conservative or liberal) I get the data and what it indicates as far as where the year stands in records. I can see the data and agree that the temperature has increased a lot this decade. But as a a big science guy I also know that unless you can show mathematical PROOF that the earth's temperature would be staying the same or decreasing without humans present, there is no way you can attribute 100% of the warming to humankind. There is no way you can say if its 1%, or 10%, or 50%, or 100% is because of us. Not without a duplicate Earth with no humans to use as a control in an experiment.
Therefore the conclusion is that we do not have enough data. {my aside, not enough data, according to you, to come to any conclusions or decide we need to act or how, apparently.} Not having enough data in science invokes a position of skepticism. Its the same reason I am agnostic. You assume things, like fairies, do not exist unless shown otherwise. There is no way with the data we have right now that I can be shown that 100% of the temperature increase is on us as humans. It might be .1% just as easily.
If you compare global temperatures in relation to CO2 content in the atmosphere, there is a direct relationship. This doesn't "prove" that CO2 was the dominant factor in the past, but it certainly increases the likelihood that it was. Knowing this, we can predict that with the unprecedented increase in CO2 we have experienced will similarly lead to a rise in global temperature. When we experience said rise in temperature, we can postulate that at least some of it comes from the enormous increase in CO2 perpetrated by man.
"we can postulate that at least some of it comes from the enormous increase in CO2 perpetrated by man."
Absolutely. I've never argued or even thought contrary. But "at least some" is rather vague and again the amount matters for our future course of action! Would your recommended course of action and opinion on the entire concept of climate change not be altered if they WERE able to produce a % we contributed? Everything would be the same in your mind whether it was 1% or 100%? I find that hard to believe...
I posted THIS 4 hours before YOU posted the above. Don't you understand that we can TELL that you're posting nonsense AFTER the corrective info has already been presented to you? What a dum-dum!!!
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: it is a greater than a 90 percent certainty that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century."
Can you read that? It says MOST. Not 1%, or anything close to 1%.
Go crawl back into your hole.
I am new here and have been reading both yours and Jaap posts. I find that you both make good points but why do you say things like "Go back and crawl in your hole" Is it possible that th IPCC is not the ultimate authority on all things climate? If the earth has been changing for 4 billion years, are you staking your whole thought process on a .5 degree change in 150 years or a .000000000000015 data set? I don't have any anwsers but I am smart enough not to shout down perspectives from both sides of the debate
You almost never get 100% assurances of anything in life. A wise decision weighs not only likelihood but assesses possible risk in terms of consequences of acting or of failing to act. Waiting until you are absolutely certain is not a very wise way to decide what kind of earth our descendants will inhabit.
What he doesn't understand is that just because a certain segment of the religious fundamentalists have co-opted scientific LANGUAGE (without actually grasping the meaning in most cases) does not then make that language faith-based forever more. Risk/benefit analysis will always remain science, no matter how much the fundamentalists want to apply it to their faith.
And honestly, if you have faith because you are hedging your bets, is not really having faith at all.
Exactly... it is an attempt at a rational justification for following a religion. I have a hard time conceiving of an omniscient god being taken in by such hypocrisy ;-)
I just wonder if they think that if they repeat a lie over and over and over again that it magically becomes the truth.
I think your right. It's just too pat that all have the same talking points, especially since they all talk about the same things.
"I just wonder if they think that if they repeat a lie over and over and over again that it magically becomes the truth."
Yes.
What is bothersome is that they have managed to put the Obama administration on the defensive. So, I guess to those who listen to their tripe, over,over, and over again, it becomes truth.
32 people dead.
The right wing and their idiot minions are dumber than a heap of dog droppings.
Not that it would put a dent in Hannity. If he thought there was a way to score points with it I'm half convinced he'd be arguing the Earth doesn't turn--"Look for yourself! The sun rises in the east and sets in the west! If anything is moving it's the sun, alright!"
~
"Not that it would put a dent in Hannity."
No, it wouldn't. He's a denialist.
Denialists are more interested in ideological rants, than science.
Science just makes their weak minds hurt too much.
Hannity's going by the reading from that one thermometer stuck up his rear. ;-)
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Earths-Fever-Breaks-Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth
BTW, insulting language really does diminish the value of your arguments and observations. Please take a moment to think about manners and politesse. To paraphrase the old saying, "if you can't say something nice about someone, don't insult them. Particularly people you have never personally met".
Also, just because there are arguments on both sides does not make both arguments valid. You could argue that the Earth is flat, but it would still be ridiculous. When the vast majority of climate scientists agree with the global warming theories, that "side" seems to be more credible, don't you think?
But of course, my statement could be proved wrong in that it may suggest he had any intelligence to begin with.
Double standard.
Although I disagree with O'Reilly on several things (legalization of marijuana), I find him to be much more fair than Olberman or Chris Matthews.
Although I disagree with O'Reilly on several things (legalization of marijuana), I find him to be much more fair than Olberman or Chris Matthews.
C'mon, hannity like all the other conservative media lapdogs gets all his talking points from people like grover norquist. Even if he did believe it, his $20 million plus per year speaks much louder to him than his conscience ever could.
If fundamentalists still believed in evolution, they'd be calling it that. But they're not. They're calling it intelligent design, now.
[Insert anything else Hannity believes in]