« Well Worth The Wait | Main | Be careful what you wish for... »

A Convenient Lie

Jon Stossel debunks Al Gore's doomday warnings and identifies some reasons the alarmists continue their Chicken Little warnings.


Comments (25)

Great post by Mr. Stossel. ... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Great post by Mr. Stossel. It's nice to see as many storied contesting AlGore as of late. I think his movie will prove to be a good thing. he more out in the public eye it becomes, the sharper the criticism and more rebuttals against this global warming sham will become available.

Nothing like bringing the issues to the people. At least AlGore did that, although it won't ultimately end up in his favor.

Lorie, do you care to add a... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Lorie, do you care to add any of your expert opinion, reasoned conclusion, or speculative conjecture to this debate? Would you rather just link to a ridiculous post by a presumably retarded commentator without any sort of personal interjection, commendation, or recongition of any kind? Are you merely forwarding the "news" to us, so to speak?

Good work! Do you really need me to link you to the refutations or have you already taken them into account?

Jon Stossel is absolutely r... (Below threshold)
Geoff:

Jon Stossel is absolutely right. Because there is one glacier in Alaska that is advancing (moving, not growing) and because computers are always wrong and because there is a giant, worldwide conspiracy by the scientific community to falsify data and provide false conclusions on global warming to the end of receiving government grants to use to falsify more data and provide more false conclusions on global warming, there is no such thing as global warming.

Thank god we have Jon Stossel to set the record straight and thank god for his magnificent moustache which must have told him everything he told us because he seems to have forgotten to back up any of his arguments or accusations with any facts, evidence or sources.

More good work by Stossel. ... (Below threshold)

More good work by Stossel. He's done some fantastic writing in the last year.

Lorie, thanks for the link.... (Below threshold)
Candy:

Lorie, thanks for the link. The link, as you say, was Stossel's debunking - which for me, simply brought the pendulum back to center (Gore being WAY off in one direction and Stossel going WAY off in the other direction.

It gives us all an opportunity to slow down and look at the big picture - do we have an enormous amount of control over global warming? Can we do more? Do we NEED to spend gobs and gobs of taxpayer money on the effects, or perhaps put that money to better use simply taking logical steps to clean up the air and the environment in general?

I remember, as a Massachusetts resident (at the time) feeling so happy when the harbor seals came back to Boston Harbor. Several local ponds and lakes were cleaned up over a number of years, and we were able to swim again.

Progress can be made. But the Chicken Littles of the world NEVER help - they only cause people to panic, which causes them to smoke more (BAD for the air quality) and eat more, which of course causes them to emit more methane gasses into the air (BAD again for air quality) - they need more cookies and MILK so we need more cows, which of course - more methane. And a country drive might ease the tension - more bad air quality coming out of those exhaust pipes.

Vicious circle.

And don't forget the icecap... (Below threshold)

And don't forget the icecaps on Mars are receding. Everyone thinks of the Sun as a 'stable' heat source, and it is (especially compared to some variable stars) but there's some variation and I've seen very few climatalogical models that include the possibility of a variation of the input we're getting.

Mars Global Surveyor MOC2-297 Release - MOC Observes Changes in the South Polar Cap:
Evidence for Recent Climate Change on Mars

SPACE.com -- Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming

an MIT scientist had a piec... (Below threshold)
jp:

an MIT scientist had a piece in the Opinion Journal monday that pretty much debunks the whole "global warming" or "global cooling" myths from different time periods.

long story short, if you can't see that we have a dynamic climate and the importance of that you are an idiot.

and because computers ar... (Below threshold)

and because computers are always wrong

CLimate is complicated. The computer modelers have a very difficult task. They should keep at it. But until they can take the weather data from 1950 and predict the climate in 2000 (which no model can do successfully), I will continue to treat their predictions of the climate in 2050 as garbage.

I'd like to second Christop... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

I'd like to second Christopher's post. Stossel's writing is "fantastic".

<a href="http://www.opinion... (Below threshold)
jp:
It's not that "computers ar... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

It's not that "computers are always wrong," but it's equally not a case of "computers are always right."

A few years ago, a Mars surveyor crashed into the planet. Why? Because in the course of programming, somebody goofed and put in metric measurements assuming that they were in English units.

Is this the computer's fault? Of course not---it's the programmers'. A classic case of GIGO---Garbage in, garbage out.

But here's the thing---how good are the models? How good is the data? How relevant is the data? You may have a high correlation between your Mom feeling cold and you catching the flu, but the reality is that your catching the flu is unrelated to whether dear old Mum feels cold.

Similarly, while there has been global warming, the essential questions remain:

How (and why) does the world climate fluctuate?

To what extent is it caused by humans?

Many scientists believe they understand the former, and attribute it to the latter. Many scientists disagree with that assessment. The latter are not necessarily screaming "Fraud!" or "Liar!" but are raising legitimate questions about what we know, and how well we think we know it.

Now comes before us the lik... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Now comes before us the likes of mantis and Geoff practicing their broad mindedness.

mantis, because Mr. Stossel does not agree with his world view, presumes that Mr. Stossel is retarded, without any supporting evidence.

Geoff another of those broad minded types that degrades into denigrating someone personal characteristics.

The problem is there is not a global consensus on climate change or global warming or what ever the flavor of the week is this week.

Read a little outside the box.

Oh, and this year, no <a hr... (Below threshold)

Oh, and this year, no Kansas/Nebraska tornados in the first 6 months, for the first time since 1950!

Must be global warming!

Or maybe, just maybe, weather is a chaotic system that don't always repeat as expected.

Hmmmm.1. The prima... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

1. The primary problem with computer models is that they universally go loony after a relatively few cycles. This is because of the reinforcing effect of cumulative compounding error in computer models of extremely complex and not very well understood climate.

Basically if you have a very small error in a climate model then each and every iteration of that model, i.e. advancing the elapsed time forward, that error will continue to grow until it finally destablises the model and you end up with hurricanes in Idaho, Europe a sun blasted desert and Brazil under 75' of sea water.

2. *shrug* for those interested the third movie of the Matrix series is based on this concept of cumulative error destablising a computer model. The reason why the Architect offered Neo an opportunity to escape and rebuild Zion as an entirely new colony is to provide an opportunity to eliminate the source of the current destablising error: the existing Zion.

Not important, just slightly interesting.

3. All of humanity currently supplies 3.2% of all annual world-wide carbon dioxide emissions.

It's rather ridiculous to think that humanity is having a greater effect than volcanoes when volcanoes emit far more greenhouse gasses than humanity does or has.

Hmmm.Actually glob... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Actually global warming might be a good thing.

Why?

One of the major requirements of space colonization is providing water for the colonies. Right now the biggest available source of water is probably right here on planet Earth. If a cost-effective means of shipping that water to orbit becomes available, perhaps a nuclear powered mass-driver, then we'd be shipping a considerable amount of water off planet which could eventually lower the sea levels.

Global warming would very nicely melt the ice caps and raise those sea levels right back to where they should be.

:) j/k

Sadly, the post won't show ... (Below threshold)

Sadly, the post won't show for me. Just an error message, "The page you requested cannot be found. The page you requested cannot be found.
We are sorry for the inconvenience.

Please visit Townhall.com's homepage for a full listing of what's online "

Another reason I wish Townhall would finish updating and not mess again for at least 5 years! Sheesh!

Benning,Sorry. It w... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Benning,
Sorry. It worked earlier, but might be down due to traffic. Hopefully they will get the kinks worked out soon. Unfortunately sometimes the only way to do that is to go live. The reason they changed the site this time is because of the merge with Salem. I agree that hopefully they won't have to change again for a long time to come.

Dave: I think his movie... (Below threshold)

Dave: I think his movie will prove to be a good thing. he more out in the public eye it becomes, the sharper the criticism and more rebuttals against this global warming sham will become available.

What, like happened with Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11?

Have you ever tried to argue and point out all the lies, deceptions, and juxtapositions with someone who saw that movie and believed it? It's like talking to a brick wall. You tell them all the things that aren't true, and all you get is a blank stare and "Well, I think Bush isn't very good" as a response.

That's the problem with propaganda. It doesn't matter if it's the truth. All that matters is that it gets widespread belief and the people arguing against it are seen as the ones with an "agenda", not the people spewing it.

I caught The Man Who Shot L... (Below threshold)

I caught The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence yesterday. I'd forgotten all about the scene near the end where the press decides not to print the real story about Jimmy Stuart and John Wayne, "because this is the West, where legend becomes truth." (or something close to that) Blood, sweat and tears John Wayne denied and forgotten so the lawyer could forge the new West and complete his seduction of the fair damsel (a thinly veiled metaphor she was).

Thank goodness it wasn't colorized. The shades of grey and shadow were important parts of the message.

The TownHall link is still ... (Below threshold)
wave_man:

The TownHall link is still down. Found via Boortz a link to it at Real Clear Politics.

How many of you global warm... (Below threshold)
mak44:

How many of you global warming skeptics have see "An Inconvenient Truth?"

John Christy, whom Stossel's diatribe is based upon, is a member of the Competitive Einterprise Institute, one of the organizations doing shill work on global warming for Exxon Mobil.

That so many of you here on Wizbang are so quick to dismiss Global Warming w/ claims like CEI's BS adverts that CO2 is life, goes to show that many on the Right are genetically malprogrammed for species survival.

Wanto greed and self-aggrandizement are your dominant core values.

In the '70s, we were going ... (Below threshold)

In the '70s, we were going to freeze. And starve. Oil was going to run out, we were going to get into a nuclear war with the USSR and cause a nuclear winter.

I'm thinking the earth's ecosystem is a hell of a lot more complex, sturdy and redundant than a lot of the environmentalists think. And I really want to know what they're establishing as a baseline that we have to keep the environment at, no matter what other factors (aside from human input) may occur. If a volcano erupts and drops a year's worth of crap into the atmosphere, does that mean we've got to cut CO2 and sulfer emissions accordingly?

The ice caps on Mars are receding, which implies THAT planet's warming also. Everyone thinks of the Sun as a 'stable' heat source, and it is (especially compared to some variable stars) but there's some variation and I've seen very few climatalogical models that include the possibility of a variation of the input we're getting. If the solar influx is .05% more - how much does that affect things, if at all? Obviously it's sufficient to melt polar caps on Mars...

And personally, I think I'd rather see global warming than global cooling. We don't need a repeat of the Little Ice Age.

Global warming is occurring... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Global warming is occurring; it's hard to contradict the climatilogical evidence that indicates as such. To what extent human activity has played a role in global warming is where the debate needs to occur. Make no mistake: by products of human activity do affect and have impacts on the environment to sometimes disasterous affect (like DDT killing off bald eagles or selenium destroying salmon runs). But the evidence of CO2 and how it interacts with the protective layers in our atmosphere is-in much of what I've read--still very difficult to determine.

I find Gore's evidence suspect, his claims bombastic and his solutions childishly simplistic and unrealistic. On the other hand, Stossel makes good but diversionary points and his comparison evidence is also suspect. Honestly, comparing Kilamanjaro's glacier receeding and Norway's growing glaciers is really an unwise comparison to make as they are on two different continents, in two completely different environs and climates. I see his point, but it's shaky "evidence" at best. And relying on a scientist who works for Exxon is more than a bit suspect, kiddies. (That's like trusting the human resources executive at your local Fortune 500 company to put the company in a negtive light. It just ain't gonna happen.)

Fact is glaciers naturally grow and receed and disappear on a regular global basis; the fact that some are disappearing shouldn't be cause for alarm or is an indication of global warming OR cooling--whether it's in Africa, Alaska or in California. Goodness knows Yosemite Valley was carved out of a glacier that was some 5,000ft deep that no longer exists. Is that because of global warming? Of course it was. But global cooling led to Yosemite Valley's formation. And this was all several million years ago, long before cars and fear-mongering former veeps.

My final thoughts are these:
1.) Global warming is happening. To deny it is being simplistic and ignoring a majority of scientific evidence. On the other hand...
2.) Global warming is happening but there's no need to go batshit crazy until we figure out exactly why it's happening before go nuts with restrictions, treaties and other nonsense. In short, chill out on global warming. 1-degree in one hundred-plus years is hardly a reason to panic.
3.) No one--Republicans or Democrats, at least here in America--really wants to destroy the environment. We all want to breathe clean air and drink clean water and see bald eagles fly. So STFU on the partisan, GOP hate-mongering, mak44.
4.) Yes, we should be doing things to offset our carbon footprints. We should make more mileage-efficient cars (already doing that) and clearner burning gases (and boy, US legislators have gone head over heels on this one and this already costs everyone an arm and a leg) and so on. But we do these things as the market demands--like now, when gas prices are failing to come down, people demand more mileage-efficient cars like Priuses. But don't force it on us. We're already legislated and regulated to the hilt.
5.) Ignore Gore, but debate him and question him openly. His dogmatic stance on the issue brings his objectivity on the issue into serious question and doubt.

Now I'm going to go for a ride in my Hummer.
/sarcasm tag off

Yes, global warming was occ... (Below threshold)
jp:

Yes, global warming was occuring, naturally from the late 70's up until 1998...the big problem is, as normal for a dynamic climate it has flatened out since then(note this is during the SUV boom and rise of China/India) and is actually slightly down from 1998....hear that, the temp has dropped slightly since 1998 and quit rising....we still aren't anywhere close to temps of a 1000 years ago!

When Mount St. Helens had those hiccups in 2004, note this wasn't even a full eruption...it single handily became the #1 air polluter in the state of Washington!!! Think about that for a moment, when you go to condem driving cars and other industry of man.

John Christy, whom Stoss... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

John Christy, whom Stossel's diatribe is based upon, is a member of the Competitive Einterprise Institute, one of the organizations doing shill work on global warming for Exxon Mobil.

When you can't dispute the facts, smear the source. Got it.

"Global warming advocates" are pimps for government funds and dramatically overstate the facts to get more money from Uncle Sam.

That so many of you here on Wizbang are so quick to dismiss Global Warming w/ claims like CEI's BS adverts that CO2 is life, goes to show that many on the Right are genetically malprogrammed for species survival.

Again, I noticed you didn't, you know, disprove that.

Honestly, comparing Kilamanjaro's glacier receeding and Norway's growing glaciers is really an unwise comparison to make as they are on two different continents, in two completely different environs and climates.

BUT --- if global warming is, in fact, GLOBAL --- then Norway shouldn't have growing glaciers. They should ALSO have receding flaciers.

Otherwise, it's not GLOBAL but --- as critics like me always state --- it's simply anecdotal evidence of patterns of local weather.

A truly global phenomenon would be global. It'd impact everybody --- not only certain people.

Critics such as myself realize one thing --- we don't know squat about the environment. We cannot accurately predict the weather a month in advance. We surely cannot predict it years in advance. Global warming alarmists rely on computer models where we lack so much info that the models are nigh worthless.

The Earth warms and cools no matter what we do --- which is why Ice Ages begin and end.
-=Mike




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy