Environmental "Chicken Littles" have come home to roost at the AP

As if we don’t have enough to worry about already, Associated Press editorial science writer Seth Borenstein has thrown together a global warming scare piece that reads more like a press release from AlGore.com than an intelligently researched news article. According to Borenstein, the planet is already doomed because we did not act soon enough to stop global warming, and there is so little time left that even the divine efforts Barack Obama may not be enough.

Borenstein claims:

Since Clinton’s inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton’s second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.

“The ten hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton’s second inauguration.” Really? I’m going to nominate this statement for “Most Obvious Example of Talking Out of One’s Ass” for the year 2008. Borenstein seems to be referencing the widely-quoted NASA/GISS chart showing that four out of the ten warmest years since 1900 occurred after 1997, and that 1998 was the warmest year of the Twentieth Century. But that chart has since been debunked, and the resulting corrections show that only three of the ten warmest years since 1900 occurred since 1997, and 1934 was actually the hottest year of the twentieth century. Conclusion: Borenstein has no idea what he is talking about.

The article continues:

Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding “tipping points.”

“We’re out of time,” Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. “Things are going extinct.”

Wow. Just like they have been for the last billion years or so. If I were going on a cruise with Al Gore on his new solar powered boat, I would be worried about “tipping points” when Gore stepped on board. Otherwise, not so much. Man can heavily damage environments on a local scale, but globally? The Earth is really, really, big, and man simply doesn’t control the power necessary to do it.

Care to read a little more?

Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government’s machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it’s thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

Amazing thing, that Global Warming. When the Earth warms, it’s Global Warming. When the Earth cools, it’s Global Warming. Place your bets on Global Warming, and you’ll come out a winner every time.

The rest of the article talks about domestic and international initiatives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. To his credit, Borenstein actually admits that China’s emission of CO2 has doubled since 1992, while the United States has increased CO2 emissions by 20% during the same time. Borenstein has high hopes that new international agreements can stem the tide of increased CO2 production before it is too late:

In December 2009, diplomats are charged with forging a new treaty replacing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set limits on greenhouse gases, and which the United States didn’t ratify. This time European officials have high expectations for the U.S. to take the lead.

Well, here’s a little secret: what the US and Europe does won’t mean diddly unless China, India, Indonesia and other growing nations in the Pacific Rim, and Mexico are all on board. The reasoning behind Kyoto’s exemption of these nations was based on “legacy” — nations emerging from poverty weren’t “legacy” polluters, so they should not be held financially responsible for the 20th century’s legacy of pollution. But the 21st century emissions levels of these nations, especially China, threatens to dwarf the pollution emitted by much more environmentally-conscious nations in the West. And unless they are forced to do something about it, all the “carbon credits” surrendered by the West will be nothing but a colossal waste of money.

Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel, once an aggressive green advocate, has finally been smacked in the face by the fiscal realities associated with burdensome and lop-sided carbon emission reduction schemes. Merkel previously supported the EU’s so-called “20-20-20″ targets — “20 per cent cut in emissions by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, combined with 20 per cent of fuel to come from renewable sources and a 20 per cent improvement in energy efficiency” — but she now fears “carbon leakage” from the German economy; that is, the relocation of carbon emissions-producing industries to other non-EU nations that do not subscribe to the 20-20-20 plan.

And can Americans really afford draconian restrictions on coal-fired power plants like the ones Barack Obama seems to support?

Maybe Seth Borenstein doesn’t believe any of this stuff either. Maybe his piece is just part of the grand post-election effort by the MSM to cusion Barack Obama’s inevitable fall from the wobbly pedestal of false messiah-hood. But his outright distortions are inexcusable. Shame on the AP for publishing this completely worthless piece of environmental wacko trash.

Realted: Newsbusters – “Scientists Denounce AP For Hysterical Global Warming Article

Shortlink:

Posted by on December 15, 2008.
Filed under Global Warming.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Clay

    Well, it’s snowing here, unaccustomed as we are in the high-desert of southern Utah. The man on the street wishes he could share a chuckle with –or at– Al Gore.

    Global warming indeed.

  • Dennis Smith

    A number of years ago, I was working for a consulting/facilities management firm with a number of sites around the country, including in the western US. They sent around a survey to find out if anybody, at the other sites, had certain IT experience for the different systems. On of them was the “Bovine Feces Management Control System”. My take is Al Gore is the Systems Manager or Department Head for this system and Seth Borenstein is his deputy.

  • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

    31000 scientists can’t be wrong.
    ;)

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    Thanks for the link Rodney.

  • JLawson

    One of the things that’s amused me re GW – we’re ‘warming’, right? (Um, I realize that physical evidence is decidedly to the contrary – work with me here…)

    So, what’s the temperature we’re supposed to be trying to maintain?

    It’s a simple question – yet pretty much guaranteed to shut down any adherent to the GW doctrine. You can argue that global warming is cyclic, from the time Greenland was actually green and the Romans were growing grapes in Britain, to the little ice age where they were throwing river parties on the frozen-over Thames – but somehow it seems that any possibility of ‘warming’ is blown into a ‘We’re all gonna boil!” fantasy that doesn’t seem born out in the geological record – even when temps are much warmer than they are now.

    Warmer weather = larger latitudes for growing crops, longer growing seasons, higher energy usage to stay cool.

    Colder weather = reduced crop areas and shorter growing seasons, higher energy costs to stay warm, more people dead of cold.

    Heck, ask the folks up in Montanta today. Think they’d be willing to see some global warming right around now? And it looks like we’re in for a cold winter!

  • bill-tb

    Isn’t it customary for those putting forth the AGW hoax to have to prove it?

  • DJ Drummond

    Mike, AP often prints things because they are worthless pieces of trash.

  • Mac Lorry

    U. S. Senate Minority Report (12/15/2008): More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.

    Once the Al Gore / IPCC man-made global warming scam is totally debunked, the next step should be to put systems in place that guard against future junk science scams. Part of that system should be to remove from positions of power and prestige those who perpetrated this scientific fraud. Privateers like Gore should forfeit the profits they made from this scam.

    There’s a long established methodology for doing real science and that methodology should be protected so that aberrations like the IPCC can never again “control” the science.

  • Dave Noble

    Michael,

    You assert that NASA has admitted they were wrong about the relative warmth of recent years. Accordingly, I would expect a link to the NASA website. Instead I get a link to Watts Up With That, a blog whose scientific authority is not immediately evident. That site contains a link to a page of figures purportedly representing NASA’s corrected figures based on McIntyre’s challenge.

    And yet if you Google “NASA warmest years on record” you get the following:

    Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century.

    The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth_temp.html

    This is currently on NASA’s website, although you claim this analysis has been “debunked” and that they have conceded their error. It doesn’t seem to me that they’ve conceded their “error.”

    Please explain.

  • cirby

    Dave:
    Just because something’s been debunked, you can’t assume the debunkees will admit it.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    Neither can you dissuade the people convinced by the scammers. I mean seriously – “While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.” – they’re looking at sub-zero cold in the northern states and midwest as proof that the world is WARMING?

    Warming through sub-zero cold. Yeah, buddy!

    Where the hell do they want the thermostat set, anyway?

  • http://yinyangtree.blogspot.com Joe Yangtree

    “The ten hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton’s second inauguration.” Really? I’m going to nominate this statement for “Most Obvious Example of Talking Out of One’s Ass” for the year 2008. Borenstein seems to be referencing the widely-quoted NASA/GISS chart showing that four out of the ten warmest years since 1900 occurred after 1997, and that 1998 was the warmest year of the Twentieth Century. But that chart has since been debunked, and the resulting corrections show that only three of the ten warmest years since 1900 occurred since 1997, and 1934 was actually the hottest year of the twentieth century. Conclusion: Borenstein has no idea what he is talking about.

    Dave Noble has already made this basic point, but I think I can add some detail. When Borenstein says, “The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton’s second inauguration,” he is referring to global temperatures. The debunking article that you link to, where 1934 is the new warmest year, is referring to Continental US temperatures. A key hint is that the article you link to is titled “1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA”. The article makes no claim to have changed the order of global rankings, and, as this article shows, the overall change to global temperatures from this correction was less than 1/1000th of a degree.

    To cirby’s post, let me stress that the debunking article does a very good job of explaining out the error, which NASA has confirmed. NASA has also corrected the data and the rankings of the warmest US years. However, the person who found the error and the explanatory linked article make no claim that this had any significant change to global yearly temperatures.

    Of course, everyone makes mistakes, even bloggers. However, it is probably best to really understand a claim before saying that the author is “talking out of his ass” and “has no idea what he is talking about.” This is a good test of the mettle of a new blogger to see how he can respond to a clear error. Will he be a courageous clear thinker and correct his post in the Jay Tea/Cassie style, will he pretend that there was never any error and just more on to the next article like Kim or Lorrie, or will he angrily denounce and/or censor anyone who would question his rightness, the Wizbang Blue/DJ Drummond style.

  • Larry

    *sigh*

    Does anyone here understand sun spots?

    Searching for the correlation between sun spots and global temperatures takes so little time, I am not going to post the links. Global cooling was all the rage before global warming took over.

    On the other hand, flying to China, you begin to see industrial garbage high in the air somewhere between Alaska and Japan. This may be a very large planet, but billions of people and undustrial activities are also very large on a global basis.

    An excellent example of pollution are the floating islands of garbage in the oceans of the world. Pollution of the oceans has a better chance of affecting climate than all the carbon and other emanations supposedly linked to warming. So does cutting down the Amazon and goats as a diet.

    For whatever it is worth, I spent the past several weeks moving from the small town of Winters, Texas to Paducah, Ky., where I promptly froze my arse off. I would have thought that the natives up here would be used to it and not react with hysteria to a bit of ice crystals falling from the sky.

    Not so; Chicken Little must have lived around here in his youth.

  • Jim Donaldson

    It’s nice of you to find a website from a person who has no climatology publications and claims to refute the warmest years on record. At some point, people need to understand how to check credibility, and since most of your readers know nothing about that, people like you can continue with their mirrors and deceptions.

    Here is a little reading for you from experts who do have numerous publications in climatology:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm

    There are credible scientists who doubt the global warming theory, but none of them doubt that the earth is warming. You’re really scraping the barrel now.

  • Dan Marcus

    Everybody here should read Joe Yangtree’s comment.

  • Dave Noble

    My thanks to Joe, Jim and Dan for their comments. In particular thanks for the links you provided, guys. Here’s my response to cirby and JLawson:

    Challenged does not equal debunked. Given the choice, I’m going to believe the guys who put a man on the moon before I believe some guy I never heard of who “reverse-engineered” NASA’s algorithm. How do I know he got it right? Exactly who is Stephen McIntyre and what are his qualifications for correcting NASA scientists? And that’s not because I believe NASA is infallible, but it does have a solid reputation for applied science. Further, as the posters above have ably notified, McIntyre’s work has resulted in changes to the data that are inconsequential to the AGW debate

    And who are the scammers, JLawson? Just to make it easy for you (not that I agree) I’ll give you Al Gore, and the one-world government crowd at the UN. Let’s say for the sake of argument, that Al Gore and the IPCC are perpetrating a scam.

    Why are such reputable scientific organization as the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Academy of Sciences in on the conspiracy?

    As Mac Lorry points out:

    “There’s a long established methodology for doing real science and that methodology should be protected”

    I totally agree, but as I note above the IPCC conclusions are not as Mac claims, an “aberration.” When it comes to science, I am a conservative in the sense of being a traditionalist. I trust established scientific organizations and peer-reviewed scientific journals over blogs like Watts Up With That.

    Regarding the 31000 scientist cited by rodney dill, I have done some research and analysis of “The Oregon Petition.” I suggest you do the same with a critical eye. I would call particular attention to minsicule contingent of climatologists in that huge list. Science is very specialized. It’s hard enough to keep up with advances in one’s own field. It’s impossible to speak authoritatively on current research in a field in which one is neither trained nor current.

  • Dave Noble

    Should be “the miniscule contingent.” And compared to the long and indiscriminate list of signers it is miniscule.

  • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

    I’m going to believe the guys who put a man on the moon before I believe some guy I never heard of who “reverse-engineered” NASA’s algorithm. How do I know he got it right?

    You know he’s right because NASA Admitted the errors, but then everyone already knew that. It was report months ago.

    Regarding the 31000 scientist cited by rodney dill, I have done some research and analysis of “The Oregon Petition.” I suggest you do the same with a critical eye.

    Let’s use the same critical eye on the claims that are pro Global Warming. Please provide claims and numbers of Climatologist only that advocate human caused Global Warming. There are far more proponents of Global Warming that are non-Climatologists.

  • Larry

    Dave Noble

    http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

    Global Warming is not the first time when the collective wisdom of assorted “Scientists” has been a herd mentality instead of thoughtful conclusions based on solid research. History is full of examples.

    When in doubt, follow the money. Al Gore has made tens of millions out of his junk science.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

    After nine months without ANY sunspots, several have been spotted. Predictions that we would have the greatest level of sunspot activity in a long time starting in early 2008 failed. The model that predicted the past eight cycles didn’t correctely predict the start of this one.

    There are lots of pro and con on the subject. The real issue is the measurement of temperature, which has several problems; urban heat sinks for one. If you drop the data for urban areas, you do not get the same upward curve.

    The jury is still very much out on global warming as hysteria or fact. CO2 going up 100 PPM in the past hundred years isn’t enough to cause Chicken Little to run around, yet.

    Larry

  • bobdog

    I did not write a reply to this thread. I was sucked into the swirling black vortex of oppressive self-loathing, never again to feel cheerful about anything whatsoever. Oh, woe is us! Destroyer of worlds, killer of cute little polar bears, doomed by our own pitiful ignorance to a lingering global death, freezing in the dark. If only we had listened!

    So, anyway, has anybody heard the new Britney CD? I heard it’s hot. And OMG did you check out the sale prices at The Gap! They’ve got the cutest sweaters on sale for 40% off!

  • http://yinyangtree.blogspot.com/ Joe Yangtree

    Rodney,

    You know he’s right because NASA Admitted the errors, but then everyone already knew that. It was report months ago.

    I agree. He was right. NASA admitted the errors, corrected the data, and issued updated results. That was months ago. However, the shift caused by this data was miniscule for the global data set. Michael Laprarie and cirby don’t seem to understand the significance (or lack thereof) for the global warming debate. Can we also agree that this Michael’s article is simply incorrect on this point and needs to be corrected (to say nothing of the gross hyperbole based on this error)?

  • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

    However, the shift caused by this data was miniscule for the global data set

    No, the shift was quite significant. Backers of Global warming, those with their reputations on the line, continued to back global warming anyway.

  • Dave Noble

    “Global Warming is not the first time when the collective wisdom of assorted ‘Scientists’ has been a herd mentality instead of thoughtful conclusions based on solid research. History is full of examples.”

    Cite one, Larry. History is far more replete with examples of scientists countering religion, and politics controlled by religion, to speak truth to power. Bruno was burned at the stake and Galileo was imprisoned for advocating the heliocentric picture of the solar system. In the famous Scopes trial a teacher fought against a fundamentalist-influenced statute that banned the teaching of evolution. That particular battle still rages today, despite the scientific consensus on the theory of evolution.

    Rodney, scientists promoting the forward progress of scientific thought do not do so with petitions. They do research and publish the results in peer-reviewed journals.

    Finally,regarding following the money, there is substantial money on both sides of the issue of AGW, the scientific consensus is only on one side.

  • Dave Noble

    Rodney,

    “No, the shift was quite significant. Backers of Global warming, those with their reputations on the line, continued to back global warming anyway.”

    Did you read the Times Online article you linked to?

    It supports Joe’s assertion that for the *global* data set the shift was not significant.

  • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

    Rodney, scientists promoting the forward progress of scientific thought do not do so with petitions. They do research and publish the results in peer-reviewed journals.

    Agreed. Yet I see you providing very little evidence supporting global warming. Here are some other supporting reports.

  • Dave Noble

    Rodney,

    I am an educated layman, not a climatologist. I am assuming the same is true of you. I defer to the NASA and the other organizations I cite above.

    If leading medical organizations tell me smoking is carcinogenic, I don’t sit down and read all the studies. First, I exercise common sense. Smoking makes you cough. It’s unpleasant until you become addictive. That brown stuff on your fingers and the ashtray is going into your lungs. That it might cause cancer then is highly plausible. But if scientists for the tobacco companies say the medical organizations are perpetrating a fraud, as they once did, I don’t read every study they cite to get the other side of the story.

    Simple reasons I, as an educated layman accept the scientific consensus on AGW:

    -The greenhouse effect is scientific fact

    -Carbon dioxide is released in huge quantities by human activity

    -Carbon dioxide in ppm has increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution for obvious reasons

    -The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990 (NASA website – it has not been debunked)

    -As noted, and following my reasoning aboveNASA, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Academy of Sciences all support AGW.

    The Heartland Institute is not a scientific organization at all. It is a political organization:

    The Heartland Institute is an American libertarian/conservative free market-oriented public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois.

    They have a political agenda, not a scientific agenda.

  • apb

    Dave,

    Tell us all why you wouldn’t want to have extended growing periods (and latitudes) to feed the planet. Why wouldn’t you want a ‘greener’ planet to produce additional corn for ethanol and other biofuels without jacking up food prices.

    The alternative is mass starvation. Unless the sun perks up, we WILL see reduced growing seasons and starvation.

    What then?

  • Mac Lorry

    Dave,

    I am an educated layman, not a climatologist. I am assuming the same is true of you. I defer to the NASA and the other organizations I cite above.

    Another way to spell NASA, at least in regards to temperature records is Jim Hansen. What Hansen says is what’s on the NASA web site. Hansen is a climatologist, but when it comes to making sense of the data he’s out of his field. What you need is a statistician like Steve McIntyre who discovered Hansen’s Y2K error, which when corrected, reordered the record for the warmest years in the U.S. It was also Steve McIntyre who debunked the Mann hockey stick such that not even the IPCC used it in their 2007 report. In both cases Steve McIntyre was not given any credit for correcting the science. That itself should tell you something about Hansen and the IPCC.

    After Hansen acknowledged his Y2K error he publish a piece to downplay the importance of the error, but McIntyre debunked that as well. Recently a potentially larger error was found in the global temperature record by independent researchers going through the data. After the fall of the USSR, the weather stations is Siberia stopped reporting. Well, when there’s no data from the coldest inhabited place on Earth the average temperature from the rest of the world seems to increase. At this juncture there’s simply no reason to believe the NASA data until it has been independently verified by qualified statisticians like McIntyre. If you want to educate yourself rather than just reading propaganda check out McIntyre’s web site at http://www.climateaudit.org

    I see you are impressed by the views of “real” scientists. Well in post #8 I provided a link to a page titled “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”. Do you dispute that these are real scientists doing real science? If not, then the scientific consensus is that the 52 scientists who wrote the 2007 IPCC report have it wrong.

  • Dave Noble

    Are you a statistician, Mac? How do you know James Hansen is “out of his field?” Do you think maybe there are statisticians working with Hansen at NASA? And the simple fact is that McIntyre, no matter how great his statistical acumen, did nothing to change the data on global temperatures. McIntyre’s work is a red herring in the larger AGW debate.

    I trust the scientific process. If those 650 dissenting scientists wish to debunk AGW they need to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals and enter the discourse. That’s how the system works. It doesn’t work by circulating petitions, posting on conservative websites, or adding your support to a political document, the U.S. Senate Minority Report.

  • Mac Lorry

    Dave,

    Are you a statistician, Mac? How do you know James Hansen is “out of his field?”

    Hansen’s cerdentuals are a matter of public record and he’s a climatologist not a statistician.

    Do you think maybe there are statisticians working with Hansen at NASA?

    Apparently not or Hansen is taking credit for their work.

    And the simple fact is that McIntyre, no matter how great his statistical acumen, did nothing to change the data on global temperatures. McIntyre’s work is a red herring in the larger AGW debate.

    Obviously you know vary little about McIntyre. The 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report featured the Mann hockey stick as it’s best proof of AGW. Once McIntyre and McKitrick raised objections, and after the congressional investigations triggered by their objections, not even the IPCC uses it anymore. McIntyre has shown that Hansen’s Y2K error is far more significant than Hansen is willing to admit and even apart from that error, the software Hansen uses to “correct” the temperature data causes a warming trend on its own.

    I trust the scientific process. If those 650 dissenting scientists wish to debunk AGW they need to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals and enter the discourse. That’s how the system works.

    Apparently you couldn’t bring yourself to look at the site and follow the links or you would see that many of the scientists listed have published peer-reviewed studies. One such study shows that the global temperature data Hansen and the IPCC use is contaminated such that at least half the warming trend in the data is false. The problem is that the IPCC doesn’t follow the established peer-review system, in fact, it doesn’t even follow it’s own charter. If you look you’ll see that a number of the dissenting scientists are former IPCC contributors and/or editors so you can’t filter them based on their credentials, only on their positions.

    It doesn’t work by circulating petitions, posting on conservative websites, or adding your support to a political document, the U.S. Senate Minority Report.

    If you want to discredit the U.S. Senate Minority Report all you have to do is show that the listed scientists didn’t say what they are quoted as saying. You really have to overdose on Al Gore’s kool aid to claim the quotes and links to peer-reviewed studies are all fabricated.

  • Mac Lorry

    Dave,

    Here’s a peer-reviewed study from 2007 that shows that the climate sensitivity value the IPCC used in their 2007 Fourth Assessment Report is way too high for a doubling of CO2. Rather than 3 K the study shows it’s 1.1 ± 0.5 K. What that means is the IPCC over estimated the warming effect of doubling CO2 by nearly a factor of 3. Is the study right? I don’t know, but it’s real science. There are many more examples, but you’ll only find such science if you are willing to look at sites like the U.S. Senate Minority Report.

  • Mitchell

    This was a huge lame-o from AP’d, right up there with the “world is spinning out of control” one they did some months back.

    Pathetic.

  • Mitchell

    Why is it that the burden of proof is to prove global warming does NOT exist. It’s the other way around, since the evidence in favor is quite mixed.

  • Dave Noble

    Mac,

    When losing an argument change its direction.

    To wit, the McIntyre and the Hockey Stick.

    As I and other posters have pointed out, McIntyre’s work did nothing to change the import of NASA’s observations on the relative warmth of recent years. Michael, who has chosen to sit out this discussion, accused Seth Brownstein of “talking out his ass” for citing debunked analysis by NASA. That analysis was not debunked, NASA stands by that analysis, and thus McIntyre’s contributions to the observation about recent global temperature averages are irrelevant to the larger AGW debate. Will you concede that?

    I agree the study you provide a link to is real science and as such it enters the stream of scientific analysis of AGW. If it prevails, it will result in a change in the direction of that analysis. If that change is significant enough it will be reflected in the positions of scientific agencies and organizations like NASA, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Academy of Sciences.

    Until that time, I choose to go with the consensus and you choose to go with the dissenters.

  • Jay

    This is why war will always be with us as a way to correct the political and religious holes the human race falls into. People get so fired up and so full of shit that there is no way you can sit them down and convince them otherwise. Thats where we are today with GW. This political and scientific dysfunction propped up by our liberal media and cheered on by millions of followers is the greatest danger our modern society has ever faced. I forget the quote but some Roman emperior said… We can survive any external threat but not TREASON from within. How can we deal with all the challenges before us when our leaders only want to deal with FANTASY problems.

  • abc

    Perhaps GW is supported by bad science, but the things coming out of it are not bad. Are you all really against pollution control? I see that there’s concern about the economic impact of such controls, and that is as it should be. It has to be handled correctly and consistently worldwide for it to work. But just becasue you think GW is bunk doesn’t mean you should feel free to throw all environmental concerns out with it.

    “Man can heavily damage environments on a local scale, but globally? The Earth is really, really, big, and man simply doesn’t control the power necessary to do it.”

    has to be one of the most stupid statements I’ve ever heard. You have to have actively ignored reality and large amounts of scientific study for a long period of time to hold such a belief.

    Hell, if that’s how you feel, why not dump your garbage in the ocean? It’s big, I’m sure it’ll never wash up on someone’s beach. Or create a new floating garbage-continent in the middle of the pacific (oh, that’s already been done, sorry). And hey, all that black soot from pollution deposited on snow covered mountains and glaciers, causing them to absorb rather than reflect the sun’s rays and melt at a greater rate, bah, let’s just lump that in with global warming too.

    Just because the GW arguments are poorly supported does not mean that mankind does not have an affect on the world, two separate propositions that the GW debunkers like to confuse.

    Yes, perhaps the temperatures are going through a normal cycle, but if you think man’s efforts have not exacerbated that cycle, then you are in willful denial. Studies have shown world-wide effects of deforestation and burning fossil fuels. Our civilization and its pollution are visible from orbit; the changes to our atmosphere as a result of human inputs is measureable worldwide.

    Most of us seem to live with the notion that the earth is ours to do with as we please. The other side of that story isn’t as widely understood. The earth was here before us, and will be here after us. It has no need to remain habitable for us, and is capable of leaving that habitable range on its own, let alone with a push from us.

    So, you keep pushing and preaching about global warming as a straw man for all things environmental – it’s obviously the weak spot, and if you can tar the rest of the environmental initiatives with the same brush, woohoo for you and your SUV. Woe betide the environment.

    PS – The asses who live in warm climates and say “it’s snowing here – how’s that for GW?” can just step out of the argument now. You obviously know nothing about the theory other than its name. Whether GW exists or not, more heat in the atmosphere = a more energetic weather system that creates greater excurisons of weather from their normal latitudes, giving you snow in the tropics and tropical (or at least unseasonably warm weather) closer to the poles. Also higher winds, more tornadoes/ hurricanes, etc., or so the theory goes.

  • Mac Lorry

    Dave,

    When losing an argument change its direction.
    To wit, the McIntyre and the Hockey Stick.

    Sorry, I didn’t know this was a formal debate. The debunking of Mann’s Hockey Stick demonstrates that renowned scientists supporting AGW can be proven wrong by the likes of McIntyre and McKitrick. Ultimately, the science prevails against the establishment position.

    As I and other posters have pointed out, McIntyre’s work did nothing to change the import of NASA’s observations on the relative warmth of recent years.

    All you can say is not yet. It took years of persistent effort for McIntyre and McKitrick to get the scientific community to accept that Mann’s Hockey Stick was based on erroneous methods and data. It’s the same McIntyre who found the Y2k error in Hansen’s work, criticism Hansen only begrudgingly accepted and has tried to downplay. Now McIntyre has raised questions about the method Hansen uses to “correct” the raw temperature data. McIntyre has shown that that method introduces a warming trend in the results where no warming trend exists in the raw data. Hansen is resisting as he did before, but now independent researchers publishing peer-reviewed work have shown that the raw data itself contains a warming bias that increases from WW2 to today because of the urbanization of the reporting stations in Europe. In addition, other researchers recently discovered that since the fall of the USSR, the data from Siberia is no longer being included. Excluding the data from the coldest inhabited place on earth adds a false warming trend to the raw data Hansen uses.

    Hansen and Mann are true AGW believers and it will take time for scientists like McIntyre, McKitrick, and others to overcome the status men like Hansen enjoy, but the truth will prevail. Bet against it if you will.

    If that change is significant enough it will be reflected in the positions of scientific agencies and organizations like NASA, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Academy of Sciences.

    The members of these agencies never voted nor authorized their leadership to make claims in support of AGW. The leadership simply goes where the bandwagon goes and now that the scientific consensus is turning against AGW, I expect these agencies will modify their positions sooner rather than later. Hopeful the turn will catch Gore with all his money invested in carbon trading schemes.

  • Mac Lorry

    abc,

    Perhaps GW is supported by bad science, but the things coming out of it are not bad. Are you all really against pollution control?

    No, many of us don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water. However, for environmentalists to save the good environmental science and goals they have to quickly distance themselves from true AGW believers like Gore and the liberal media.

    If prominent environmental groups are found religiously supporting AGW after the science behind AGW has been debunked then all their positions on the environment will be discredited. To distance themselves and protect the good environmental science prominent environmental groups need to start publicizing the fact that the scientific debate is not over and that there is real evidence that the IPCC’s position is wrong. If environmentalists don’t do that they will have no one to blame but themselves when their baby is thrown out with the bath water.

  • Dave Noble

    Mac,

    Whether or not this is a formal debate, when a question/issue is put on the table you have a responsibility to respond to it.

    Here is the question:

    Michael, who has chosen to sit out this discussion, accused Seth Brownstein of “talking out his ass” for citing debunked analysis by NASA. That analysis was not debunked, NASA stands by that analysis, and thus McIntyre’s contributions to the observation about recent global temperature averages are irrelevant to the larger AGW debate. Will you concede that?

    What is your response?

    The members of these agencies never voted nor authorized their leadership to make claims in support of AGW. The leadership simply goes where the bandwagon goes and now that the scientific consensus is turning against AGW, I expect these agencies will modify their positions sooner rather than later.

    Really? Support that assertion.

  • Mac Lorry

    Here is the question:

    Michael, who has chosen to sit out this discussion, accused Seth Brownstein of “talking out his ass” for citing debunked analysis by NASA. That analysis was not debunked, NASA stands by that analysis, and thus McIntyre’s contributions to the observation about recent global temperature averages are irrelevant to the larger AGW debate. Will you concede that?

    I’ll concede that Hansen, which is NASA, stands by his analysis. However, he stood by his analyses when McIntyre first notified him of the Y2K bug, so Hansen standing by his analysis only shows he’s stubborn, not that he’s right. Beyond the Y2K bug, McIntyre has shown that the method Hansen uses to “correct” the raw data creates a significant artificial warming trend that’s not evident in the raw data. McIntyre’s work is very relevant to the larger AGW debate as he has a proven track record of finding errors in the work of Hansen and Mann, both highly regarded scientists, at least for now.

    The members of these agencies never voted nor authorized their leadership to make claims in support of AGW.

    Really? Support that assertion.

    Here’s the link to a paper titled “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?” You can skip down to the section titled “Conscious Efforts to Politicize Climate Science” on page 4 (it’s a pdf).

    If you read that section you’ll see evidences of the environmentalist conspiracy other posters have been talking about. The consensus of rank and file scientists is in opposition to the IPCC’s position, but it’s going to take time to overcome the environmentalists who have hijacked the process. Then again, if the climate continues to cool as several Russian scientists have predicted, not even Hansen will be able to fake up the data to show warming.

  • Dave Noble

    You win, Mac, I can’t fight a conspiracy theory. It involves the impossible task of proving a negative – Prove to me, Dave, that the scientific agencies you cite are not in collusion with each other to suppress the dissenters speaking truth to power. I can’t prove that to you, Mac.

  • zzazzeefrazzee

    Hey Mac Lorry,

    Just so you know, citing McIntyre may make you sound more knowledgeable, but confounding info is out there, even when it comes to M&M’s “expose” on“Hockey Sticks”.

    But like Dave said, there’s no use fighting a conspiracy theory.

  • Mac Lorry

    Dave,

    Prove to me, Dave, that the scientific agencies you cite are not in collusion with each other to suppress the dissenters speaking truth to power.

    So you’ve given up arguing against what I write and created your own straw man to knock down. Talk about taking a dodge.

    You asked me to support the FACT that the membership of the agencies you cited never voted an official position supporting AGW. I linked to a paper by MIT scientist Richard S. Lindzen and even gave you the page number. Lindzen backs what I said and also documents the relationship between Al Gore and other environmental groups with the head of these agencies. These people know that there are lots of people out there like you who will swallow whatever they tell you is the truth. That’s fine, but don’t pretend you have educated yourself on the issue because all you have done is drink the Kool aid.

  • Mac Lorry

    zzazzeefrazzee,

    Your linking to Realclimate.org to debunk McIntyre is laughable. It’s the guys who run Realclimate.org that McIntyre debunked to the point where even the IPCC stopped using Mann’s hocky stick, which was the centerpiece of their prior assessment. Independent scientist looking at the evidence sustained McIntyre’s work on 7 of 10 counts.