« Speaker Pelosi's Copyright/Trademark Problem | Main | Mr. Cold Cash To Get Homeland Security Seat? »

Global Warming- It ain't Happening

As if the 143 feet of snow in on the East Coast wasn't enough to convince you....

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

COLUMBUS , Ohio - A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available - there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

Don't tell the global warming husters, they declared victory last week.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Global Warming- It ain't Happening:

» University Update linked with Global Warming- It ain't Happening

» Maggie's Farm linked with Gore Cancels Global Warming Concerts

Comments (88)

So you're saying, based on ... (Below threshold)

So you're saying, based on this (and presumably, more), that global warming is not happening? At all?

Holocaust Denier!! I'm tel... (Below threshold)

Holocaust Denier!! I'm tellin on ya, Paul!!

They cant get a 5 day forec... (Below threshold)

They cant get a 5 day forecast right, yet we can predict 50-75 yrs into the future?

Some people need to lay off the glue!

Paul, The models might be i... (Below threshold)

Paul, The models might be ill-concieved, but precipitation will be high in the early stages of global warming. (man-made? not much) Snow is precipitation and 143 inches is a lot. Like the condensor of your air con. on a very hot day icing-over. Action, reaction.

You neglected to add the su... (Below threshold)

You neglected to add the summary from the article which said;

Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.

"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.

Your banner of "Global Warming - It Ain't Happening" clearly misrepresents Bromwich's position on this issue. In fact, it's a disservice to your readers.

This January is starting out to be a record breaker as well. Last year, 2006 was a record breaking warm year, close to the record set in 1998. In fact the National Climatic Data Center had this to say about the period between 2006 and 1880;

In a statement, the center said the last nine years have all been "among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record." - MSNBC Jan 9th 2007

Also, just as an aside, the earth is not flat, it really does revolve around the sun, and humans did not live with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago.

Mantis-Define "Glo... (Below threshold)


Define "Global Warming"

Warming over 5 years, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 yeas, 10,000 years, 100,000 years, 1,000,000 years, 10,000,000 years.

Define your terms.

John that is not the summar... (Below threshold)

John that is not the summary of the article. That is some guy making excuses for being wrong.

Telling the truth is a disservice to my readers???

You're funny.

Also, just as an aside, ... (Below threshold)

Also, just as an aside, the earth is not flat, it really does revolve around the sun, and humans did not live with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago.

I find it amusing that you use these examples. All things people believed where true but later found to be myths. Just like global warming.

Guess irony is lost on you huh?

Ok, do you believe that glo... (Below threshold)

Ok, do you believe that global climate is in a warming trend since the little ice age? If so, do you believe that warming trend has increased in the 20th century?

Sure bryanD it all fits so ... (Below threshold)

Sure bryanD it all fits so well...

If it's hot outside it must be global warming. If it's cold outside that's just more proof of global warming.

When you sent up arguments like that, you'll win them every time.

This is great news! ... (Below threshold)

This is great news!
Does this mean I can go back to my old gas guzzlin', coal burnin', NASCAR drivin', electricity wastin', environment destroyin' ways?
I really didn't want to leave a livable world to the Grandkids anyway.

>Ok, do you believe that gl... (Below threshold)

>Ok, do you believe that global climate is in a warming trend since the little ice age?

That's seems as sure as anything. We may be wrong but that seems like a very safe bet. (IOW 99.9% yes)

>If so, do you believe that warming trend has increased in the 20th century?

I do not believe that based on the data we have presently. (like this study for example)

For years Antarctica has been considered the touchstone for global warming evidence and this data says it ain't so.

Only a fool would "believe" it to be anything else in the face of contradictory evidence.

Well, I think Human-caused ... (Below threshold)

Well, I think Human-caused global warming is real. This article finally convinced me.

It covered everything I was wondering about - long-term orbital precession cycles, solar influx variability, and greenhouse gas level cycles as measured in ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years - and the conclusion they came to was about 5000 years ago, as agriculture really took off, methane levels rose dramatically.

And if they hadn't - a significant portion of northern and northeastern Canada would be under glaciers at this point.

So, after looking at all the facts - I'm a believer in global warming... and I think it's a damn good thing!

So do you think that the tr... (Below threshold)

So do you think that the trend has not increased in the 20th century, or are you just not convinced that it has?

And by contradictory evidence, do you mean that the evidence contradicts the modeled predictions, or that the evidence proves that warming is not evident?

Paul,Yes, it is th... (Below threshold)


Yes, it is the summary of the article, and the quote is not by "some guy" it's by the scientist reporting on this work. Your material came from his press release from his office, and the end of his article is exactly as I printed it.

Not only have you represented his work, and now you're trying to lie about it. So, no... You're not telling the truth, and yes, it's a disservice.

So we don't have to go around and around on this issue, here's the full article in it's entirity, including his origional title, and the articles conclusion.

How about you shoot the guy a piece of email directing him to your post, and ask him if "Global warming Ain't Happening". I'd like to know how truthful he finds your representation of his work.

Please do not post the whole article. it is very rare (mostly when they are short) that we do not clip things that are copywritten. I provided a link for a reason -Paul

It's funny...Every... (Below threshold)

It's funny...

Every time they find another gaping hole in the computer models, they first deny the new data, then explain that the new data must be incorrect because of some unexplained reason, then fiddle with the models until the new data is excluded for some reason or other.

So we end up with someone trying to tell us that lower temeratures in Antarctica is unimportant because it's "remote" (never mind that it was critically important to global warming when they thought it was going to be a lot warmer, and every time some big ice shelf fell off it was Another Dreadful Sign) but that the Arctic Ocean is very important because it has less ice (and temps that haven't really changed that much, either - it's the lowered precipitation that's causing the lessening of the ice cap) - even though Antarctica and the Arctic Ocean are about the same size, and are both pretty damned remote from most of the world.

I think that we do not have... (Below threshold)

I think that we do not have enough evidence for a *reasonable* person to conclude that the rate of warming is accelerating.

And I consider myself reasonable. Don't you?


Further, the question you ask is really quite silly. You sit here, on a planet almost 5 Billion years old and want to discuss measurements of the last 50 years???

Let's just sharpen our darts and throw them at a dartboard, it's easier, faster and at least we'll all agree where the dart lands.

Well all except for Lee.

BryanD,I really ap... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:


I really applaud your efforts to try and patiently educate these dolts but it's futile. They are dumb and dumber just like pappy and george. There is nothing you will say that will have them be anything more than funny, foolish fundamentalist fanatics.

You have so much more to offer than responding to these lunks yet I always enjoy reading your reasoned, informed, articulate debate. Along with Lee and arepuke you each contribute so much in solid inforamtion. I guess it's just so much disgusting stupidity on here and some of the right wing blogs that no matter how many times you try to teach they fail to learn.

Global warming is real and the scientific community knows it. The 30% deadenders in here will never be part of the solution only the problem. Let's just hope we can motivate enough other people who know it but are just as lazy as the righties to do much to reverse the CO2 contributions.

>Yes, it is the summary of ... (Below threshold)

>Yes, it is the summary of the article,

No it is not, you're grapsing at straws.

The only "summary" we have is the headline "Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions"


I don't understand the fuss... (Below threshold)

I don't understand the fuss coming from the left over global warming. On the one hand, we need more water and all you guys seem to want to say is conserve (which isn't really a plan of action)...but if global warming truly is happening and the earth warms up a bit and melts a crapload of snow across the globe, creating lots and lots of water...what's the freaking problem then? No pleasing you left-tards, is there?

That and the fact we really,really can't stop the sun from warming up the planet, now can we...

Paul,Stop spoofing... (Below threshold)


Stop spoofing my signature. That's twice now you've sent messages that eiether did not come from me, or you modified before it was posted, and used my name.

Also, stop editing my comments in order to support your point.

Jlawson........try aip.org.... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Jlawson........try aip.org....another great informative site

HUH?Didn't spoof a... (Below threshold)


Didn't spoof anything.

And as far as clipping copywritten material, sorry Charlie, you don't get to make that call, I do.

John, sorry, I see it.... I... (Below threshold)

John, sorry, I see it.... I'm on a client machine so I do not check "Remember personal info?"

I was answering you but instead of putting your name in the body I put it in the top field. Typo, I'll fix it. -P

Looks like this politically... (Below threshold)

Looks like this politically driven global warming hysteria might be halted soon. Libs you'll have to come up with something else to scare the people into propping up your obvious agenda.

Did every conservative fail... (Below threshold)

Did every conservative fail science class?

It must really suck to have to stick to a position just because the Politicians and Talking Heads on your side of the political spectrum are beholden to the billion dollar fossil fuel industries.

At least they're getting some kind of compensation for denying that man made global climate change is real. What are you fools getting out of it?

Sure Live@9 because you're ... (Below threshold)

Sure Live@9 because you're calling names PROVES it is true. Sigh.

I love the fact we have HAR... (Below threshold)

I love the fact we have HARD DATA, not pie in the sky predictions and all the lefties want to ignore it and just sling insults.

These are the same folks who claim science is on their side.

Irony so think you need Snow Shoes.

Paul,Because you den... (Below threshold)

Because you deny scientific data it makes it untrue?

ROFLMAO I'm the... (Below threshold)


I'm the one denying data? Where do you people come from?

At least they're gettin... (Below threshold)

At least they're getting some kind of compensation for denying that man made global climate change is real. What are you fools getting out of it?

So you think those scientists on the left are not gearing up to get compensated for this hysteria?

Bwhahahahahaha.....you guys aren't really that ignorant, are you?

mantis, I'm getting behind ... (Below threshold)

mantis, I'm getting behind in my work tonight. Hate to miss another lively discussion but I might have to finish up this machine and get to bed. -- I'll be back in about 10 to check on you then I gotta go.

Paul,Fair enough. ... (Below threshold)


Fair enough. Please accept my appology.

Anyhow, the professors report was a press release. I assume it's for distribution and we have fair use with proper credit.

I think it's an accurate statement to say that something on the order of 95% of the scientists that activley work in the field of global climate change are in agreement about human driven climate change. The "controversy" that the oil funded public affair shadow orgs "report" are mostly normal disagreements about which model best fits, but the concensus is really in on this issue.

Jo,So you think the ... (Below threshold)

So you think the fossil fuel industries don't have a vested interest in denying global climate change?

Bwhahahahahaha.....you guys aren't really that ignorant, are you?

>Anyhow, the professors rep... (Below threshold)

>Anyhow, the professors report was a press release. I assume it's for distribution and we have fair use with proper credit.

Actually you might be right. As a blogger, especially on a high traffic blog, we are just careful by nature. I did not notice it was a press release.

Either way, that's why bloggers link things.


>I think it's an accurate statement to say that something on the order of 95% of the scientists that activley work in the field of global climate change are in agreement about human driven climate change.

WOW, where do you get that polling data? I'd love to see it....

Don't tell me you pulled it out your ass... I'll be very disappointed.

The only way one gets the t... (Below threshold)

The only way one gets the temperature increases as predicted by the COMPUTER MODELS is for positive feedback mechanisms. The prime example of one of these is water vapor. Roughly speaking every 5 C increase doubles the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can carry. Water accounts for over 90% of the greenhouse effect. Increases in water vapor also increase the effective heat pumping rate of the atmosphere (as witnessed in cloud formation), and that is admittedly not well modeled in the code.

One of the real problems with the COMPUTER MODELS is that they adjust the models to make sure they match the temperature rise as known from the records. One human influence that has been known about, but not really considered in the models is the injection of aerosols/particulates into the stratosphere in the early to mid last century. Aerosols have a tendency to lower temperatures at the surface by reflecting incoming radiation. Concerted efforts to lower particulate emissions starting in the 50's through the 70's would increase the rate of warming attributed to CO2 if they were not considered in the models. Furthermore, the particulates would have reduced the impact of warming prior to the bulk of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Natural warming that should have occurred over say, a century or so, would be relocated to the last couple of decades mimicking increases attributed to CO2.

Live, yeah it sucks to have... (Below threshold)

Live, yeah it sucks to have such dissent from your so called "consensus" now doesn't it? And doubly irritating is that the dissent is backed by hard evidence.

Remember, dissent is patriotic. Isn't that what you guys tell us?

Ooops, all these new "questions" and doubts oughta set back your all consuming political agenda by at least a few years. Patience, boys, patience.

New book out exposing the l... (Below threshold)

New book out exposing the liberal agenda in global warming hysteria. He was on the Daily Show the other night.


RicardoVerde,Are y... (Below threshold)


Are you suggesting that our success in cleaning the atmosphere of particulates is the main reason for the now yearly overall warmer global temperatures?

How does the fact that C02 levels in the atmosphere have been rising every year since the mid 60's factor into your equation?

Jo,I'm not understan... (Below threshold)

I'm not understanding your point. The Catholic Church used to "dissent for the consensus" that the earth revolved around the sun. They were steadfast onto a rigid theological belief that the sun revolved around the earth. But dissenting from science didn't make it so.

Even Mother Nature laugh... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Even Mother Nature laughs at the democrat frauds and proves them wrong. Not a single Hurricane this season in the News . What happened to the so called worse hurricane season predicted? Duhhhh!

I stumbled across <a href="... (Below threshold)

I stumbled across this article the other day - VERY interesting. Basically, journalists have been scaremongering climate change since 1895 - that's not a typo, I meant eighteen-ninety-five. They just cycle from global cooling to global warming every few decades, and the public has so far not caught on. I remembered the global cooling scares of the 1970s, but I had no idea how much further it went back.

As the article points out, "This isn't a question of science. It's a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science."

Read the whole thing, it's fascinating.

RicardoVerde........... so... (Below threshold)

RicardoVerde........... so are we warming up or not?.. *confused look*

Rob,This might be on... (Below threshold)

This might be one reason the 06 Hurricane season was not as predicted.

"The emergence of an El Nino current off the Pacific coast was most likely the biggest factor in this year's weak hurricane season, said Eric Blake, National Hurricane Center meteorologist and hurricane specialist."

"An El Nino typically causes an increase in vertical wind shear, a sudden shift in wind direction and speed that causes the ocean to rise and more thunderstorms to develop in the Pacific. The Atlantic water level drops, and the resulting drier, more stable air makes it tougher for Atlantic tropical storms to form, Blake said."


Live@9:No. I do not ... (Below threshold)

No. I do not suggest that the particulates are the main reason. I am suggesting that there are variables that affect the climate that may not have been properly modeled.

I keep in mind that the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are logarithmic, that is the next round of increases will affect temperatures less than the first. Do I think that increases in CO2 can increase surface temperatures? Yes, I do. Do I think they are mostly human caused? Yes, I do. Do I think we should do everything possible to reduce CO2 emissions? No, I do not.

RicardoVerde,You w... (Below threshold)


You wrote: "I keep in mind that the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are logarithmic, that is the next round of increases will affect temperatures less than the first."

This is the first I've read of the decreasing effects on temperature due to the increasing C02 levels in the atmosphere. All of the studies I've seen suggest just the opposite. That the more C02 we pump into the air the more accelerated the warming effects become.

Interesting concept though.

There is no evidence, repea... (Below threshold)

There is no evidence, repeat NO EVIDENCE of AWG! Computer modeling, which is what the scare-mongering is all based on, IS NOT EVIDENCE.

But, for sake of argument, let's say that the 1 C increase in temperatures over the last 100 years was caused by man. I want to know more about how we did it so we can do more of it.

There is evidence that past global warming WAS A GOOD THING. IN fact, Liberal, sky is falling, global warming hucksters cannot point to any evidence that past examples of global warming (say the early medieval period) have been anything but a fantastically beneficial force on this planet.

Bottom line, the AGW concept is pure religion, and not a very good one at that. There needs to be some kernel of truth for a religion to be successful. Since AWG is built on sand, it cannot withstand criticism. because it is a false religion. This is why the promoters of this faith take the fascist route and attempt to quell any debate on the subject. Scientists who seek to publish papers questioning AWG suddenly find that their grants have dried up. Professors who speak out against it are suddenly pariahs.

AWG is the 21st century's flat earth. Yes, there are believers in it but they are either ignorant of the science or are selling something. Either way, they should be listened to, only at our own peril.

I begin to wonder about the... (Below threshold)

I begin to wonder about the assessments from "global warming experts/scientists" when I learn many of them have no formal expertiese in atmospheric or climate science. An example is Stephen Hawking, who I admire and respect for his work in physics, but has no business using his academic credentials decrying man's delitarious impact on mother earth. Professing outside of one's field of expertiese was once considered a significant professionalism breech.

Additionally it should be noted that news organizations make foolish claims such as "climate scientists state there is a 75% chance that global warming is caused by human activity". Since when did the scientific method result in "percentage chances"? No self-respecting researcher states his experimental results in such a way.

And finally, please understand that research (and researchers) depend on grants to survive and hopefully flourish. Government grants tend to tbe the best as they are often larger with fewer controls. Of course you can only imagine the government monies available once congress opens it's (I mean our) pockets to address "the most pressing crisis in our lifetime".

Someone mentioned methane g... (Below threshold)

Someone mentioned methane gas as one of the problems. Easy way to cure that-take a cork and plug every cows ass (and every liberals mouth) on the planet and methane gas problem goes away as this is the largest source of methane gas. By the way, I hugged my tree today have you?

Right on MetProf!A... (Below threshold)

Right on MetProf!

Anyone who actually wants to be informed on the subject should add the following to their reading list:

Global Warming: the Cold, Hard Facts. by noted climatology professor, Dr. Tim Ball.


Al Gore Is a Greenhouse Gasbag
by Penn professor Dr. Bob Giegengack

Point of clarification, the... (Below threshold)

Point of clarification, the Al Gore Gasbag article is an interview by John Marchese OF Giegengack. The article is not BY Giegengack.

Sorry for any confusion this may have caused in the intervening 60 seconds between this post and the last one.

The left has been wrong on ... (Below threshold)

The left has been wrong on everything in the past, so logic tells me, why would they be right, and more importantly, why should they be trusted, on this?

Laurie David, where are you? Why don't you fly down here on your Gulfstream 5 and try to convince me how dire the situation is. lol.

metprof for President... (Below threshold)

metprof for President

bryanD said . . .<blo... (Below threshold)

bryanD said . . .

The models might be ill-concieved, but precipitation will be high in the early stages of global warming. (man-made? not much) Snow is precipitation and 143 inches is a lot.

That's exactly the kind of hogwash that has caused GW activists to re-name it "Global Climate Change." No weather events of any kind, be it heat waves, cold waves, drought, whatever, can disprove their theory.

Global Climate Change . . . Of COURSE it's changing. It's always changed and it always will change.

And about computer modeling-- the people cooking up these models say they're juggling hundreds of variables. Suppose we've got a climate scientist who's using 100 variables for his model. Further optimistically suppose he's nailed down all his variables and is 99% accurate on every one of them. To find the probable accuracy of his overall model, multiply 99/100 by itself 100 times. That works out to about 36%, or slightly greater than a one in three chance he's right.

Do we want to enact all the changes the GW activists want based on this??

That's exactly the kind ... (Below threshold)

That's exactly the kind of hogwash that has caused GW activists to re-name it "Global Climate Change."

Climate Change ... what people used to call weather.

Read that carefully. It's ... (Below threshold)
Chris Coyle:

Read that carefully. It's limited to Antarctica. Talk about seeing what you want to see.

n example is Step... (Below threshold)
n example is Stephen Hawking, who I admire and respect for his work in physics, but has no business using his academic credentials decrying man's delitarious impact on mother earth. Professing outside of one's field of expertiese was once considered a significant professionalism breech.

I don't recall to whom to attribute the following paraphrase:

"Why is it that people are so eager to quote Einstein on war but never Patton on physics?"

Mars, Saturn, Jupite... (Below threshold)

Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto...all show evidence of climate change--warming, if you will. So, how did we cause that?

If something is going on, it just might be bigger than Al and friends have suggested. Cause I know my emissions didn't affect fricken Triton all the way yonder.


They got 8 to 9 feet of sno... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

They got 8 to 9 feet of snow in the state of New York and then there was that big cold nat in southern california and then the big snow storm in ohio and still that blabbering fool AL GORE blames it on GLOBAL WARMING its seems a sacralidge to give gore the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE and ACCADEMY AWARD after this

Funny how informed rebuttal... (Below threshold)

Funny how informed rebuttals finally shut up the global warming alarmists who comment on this site.

Of course, my head is still spinning after reading this from civil behavior about bryanD:

You have so much more to offer than responding to these lunks yet I always enjoy reading your reasoned, informed, articulate debate.

Huh? Then this:

Along with Lee and arepuke you each contribute so much in solid inforamtion.

Unbelievable. I must be reading a different blog.

Great post Paul, hopefully you will keep pointing out the falacies in the alarmists current religion (or should I say cult) of choice.

Like so many controversial ... (Below threshold)

Like so many controversial issues these days, AGW is an example of how political gain can be obtained through reliance on an ignorant public. People just don't have the time or interest in general to study up on the hoax that is man-made global warming. The alarmists are essentially either communists or fascists who want to control people's lives through the threat of violence (i.e. government instituted punishment for not abiding by the communist/fascist regulatory schemes.)

This is not only true of AGW but also:

tax policy
social security
ANWR drilling
nuclear power
the role of the family in a healthy society
fighting Islamic jihadists
the war in Iraq

To hold an honest debate on these issues requires not only intelligence, but informed intelligence. As one becomes more informed, the more one ends up taking the conservative position (unless there is some underlying ideological belief system that prevents common sense from prevailing).

As the saying goes (I think it was Jack Kemp who first said it and I paraphrase...)

Liberals live in fear that they will be understood, Conservatives live in fear that they won't be.

Live@9As I noted in ... (Below threshold)

As I noted in the first post, the computer models show the temperature rise from the CO2 increase causes positive feedback mechanisms to kick-in and drive the temperature higher. I have not seen anything in the literature that suggests the rise directly attributable to CO2 is a high order increase.
Some interesting asides to the particulate feedback: China's industrial output has really taken off in the last decade. Their industrial base is much worse than North American or European equivalents as far as particulates injected into the upper atmosphere. A slight lessening of the rate of temperature increase or even a downward trend in temperatures would be the expected outcome of this. It would take a decade or so of data to know for sure, so we wouldn't know until after the fact.
I saw a modest news report (sorry no link) that noted that 2006 had the maximum ozone "hole" over Antarctica since they have been observing there. There is some relationship between increased ozone "hole" and lowering temperatures at the pole. As others have noted this is not necessarily a global effect, but it runs a bit contrary to AGW predictions.

If it's hot outside it m... (Below threshold)

If it's hot outside it must be global warming. If it's cold outside that's just more proof of global warming.

When you sent up arguments like that, you'll win them every time.

Kind of like, "If the violence in Iraq is increasing, it's good because the terrorists are panicked that we're winning. If the violence in Iraq is descreasing, it's good because we're winning."

I stumbled across this a... (Below threshold)

I stumbled across this article the other day - VERY interesting. Basically, journalists have been scaremongering climate change since 1895

Well, that's what you get when you look to journalists instead of scientists for your science.

"Kind of like, "If the v... (Below threshold)

"Kind of like, "If the violence in Iraq is increasing, it's good because the terrorists are panicked that we're winning. If the violence in Iraq is descreasing, it's good because we're winning."

Well actually not at all. Good attempt though ;-)

The issues in Iraq are political and thus, are not measurable by scientific method such as we can do with AGW. The point the poster was making about climate change that you so blithely dismiss, is that there is really no point in debating if the terms are stated that if it is:

- cold? must be AGW
- snow? must be AGW
- rain? must be AGW
- Drought? must be AGW
- Hurricanes? must be AGW
- No Hurricanes? must be AGW

I have to ask, can you stipulate under what circumstance might changes in climate NOT be attributable to man? If you cannot then you are in the realm of faith or ideology but certainly not science. THERE IS NO SCIENCE BEHIND THE AGW HOAX. Just political scare-mongering, posturing, powergrabbing, and a few lame computer models that mean nothing.

The way most of us see it is that "abrupt climate change" is the new fascism. Totalitarian-minded folk are pushing AGW as the cause dujour to once again try to rid the planet of capitalism and personal liberty. Scare people rather than inform them. That is not science.

Meanwhile, in the case of Iraq we can state the various possibilities regarding violence and thus, there can be a debate:


1. We are winning
2. We have given up.
3. The enemy is regrouping.


1. We are losing.
2. Enemy has given up.
3. We are winning and the increase is their last gasp.

Generally, I do not see a lot of arguments from our side that increasing violence is evidence of us winning. The only way that argument can be made is if intelligence shows that the enemy is desperate and their supply lines have been cut so they can no longer rely on Iran. Or maybe they are worried that no one is buying the Liberal appeaser garbage in the US anymore and so they have to fight on their own without the help of American Liberals.

Read that carefully. It'... (Below threshold)

Read that carefully. It's limited to Antarctica.

Yes, it is. But since all of the other weather effects we've seen there (increased calving of icebergs, warmer temps in one location on one peninsula, et cetera) were touted as harbingers of change throughout the world, why did Antarctica suddenly become a non-location, isolated from all other climate change considerations? We've been told for years that microscopic changes in Artarctic weather were huge indicators for change around the rest of the planet.

Talk about seeing what you want to see.

Or not seeing what you were pointing at and screaming about a week ago... Emily Litella is alive and kicking. Now that we're having changes in the opposite direction, it's a huge case of "never mind."

Brian, since there were no ... (Below threshold)

Brian, since there were no blogs, even science blogs, in 1895, most people did turn to the New York Times and other newspapers for information. Go figure. My point is that the constant pounding of the message, "the world is about to end" is a complete load of crap. They've been saying it for 112 years. Every few decades they change the reason, to relieve the tedium I guess, and to hide the fact that their headline predictions were oh-so-wrong.

Paul,You're right, j... (Below threshold)

You're right, just because the computer models for antarctica didn't perform as anticipated global warming must be some vast left wing conspiracy.

Please ignore todays headline.

Warmest January ever recorded worldwide in 2007: US scientists.


Laura,I don't think ... (Below threshold)

I don't think the point of talking about Global Warming is to proclaim that the world is coming to an end. The point is that our environment will change at such an accelerated pace that the human race will struggle to adapt. The planet will be fine with or with out humans.


Live, my point is that we c... (Below threshold)

Live, my point is that we can't trust what the media reports about climate change. They've been hyping these stories for a hundred years. Why should I worry now that the environment will suddenly and rapidly change when they have literally been wrong on this issue for an entire century?

Laura,So who would y... (Below threshold)

So who would you trust to inform you about climate change if not the media? Is there anyone you would trust to tell you that Jan 07 had the highest overall global temperatures recorded to date. What if President Bush informed you then would you believe it? How about your member of congress? Who in our eyes would have the credibility to pass on this info to you?

I'm just asking because someone soon will have to break the news to you.

You assume I'm some big fan... (Below threshold)

You assume I'm some big fan of President Bush, and you're as wrong about that as you are about this upcoming catastrophe.

Let me ask you a question - why would you trust the media when I just showed you that they've been consistently wrong for a century?

Laura,You avoided an... (Below threshold)

You avoided answering my question as to who you would trust to tell you about Global Warming.

I get it that many on the right have been conditioned to disbelieve the media. That is why I asked who the messenger would have to be to get you to understand the changes and challenges associated with global warming.

The upcoming catastrophe you speak of (your words not mine) may not happen until long after you're dead. It could be our children and grandchildren that will have to adjust. But to deny that the earths climate is presently going though some fairly dramatic changes due to some anecdotal article from 1890s seems a bit naive to me.

So again I ask, Who do you trust?

Live, I'm not sure who to t... (Below threshold)

Live, I'm not sure who to trust, I think that's obvious. Certainly not you, parroting the consensus line, when there are good reasons to doubt various aspects of global warming such as whether it's happening, if it is happening, what the cause is, if it is happening whether it is a good thing, and if there's a single thing we can do about it anyway. The fact is that not all scientists agree. You want a scientific consensus? DNA. There's not a single scientist out there who will deny the existence of DNA and the major facts related to it. Or how nuclear technology or penicillin work. There are long lists of things that are beyond doubt in the scientific community. Global warming/cooling and climate change are not on the list.

But I'm not going to bother to link to a bunch of stuff you're not going to read. And I know you're not going to read it, because you didn't read my last link, or you wouldn't have characterized it as "some anecdotal article from 1890s."

As for my being "conditioned to disbelieve the media" - oh, I can believe them on quite a few things. I can believe them when a Republican does something wrong. I can believe them when a soldier dies. I can believe them when they're releasing classified information. I can believe them when a white college coed disappears, and I can believe them that Anna Nicole Smith is dead.

The media has proved untrustworthy on climate change and a number of other issues, and it is not naive to be skeptical when you consider their track record.

Thanks Live@9 for proving L... (Below threshold)

Thanks Live@9 for proving Laura's point. Did you even read the article you cited? It's a laugh and you didn't even realize it!

The headline reads "Warmest January ever recorded worldwide in 2007: US scientists".

But unless you actually read the article, you don't realize that the headline is not borne out in the body of the text. The article itself claims that the record broken was for the highest temperature recorded ABOVE THE AVERAGE. Note that it does not make any claims in the body of the article that January temps were the warmest ever recorded only that they are higher than average.

Let's just have a little fun with math shall we?

Let's say that in January 1907 the world-wide temperature averaged 60 degrees F. Now lets say that in January 1990 the world-wide temperature averaged 50 degrees F. The average for these two measurements is 55 degrees. Now, lets say that in 2002 the temperature average for January was 55.5 degrees, 1/2 degree above average. WOW! Now, let's say that January 2007 the temperature was 55.6 degrees, a 10th of a degree fahrenheit higher than the previous "record" in 2002.

Question Einstein, was January 2007 the "warmest January ever recorded worldwide"?

If you answered yes then you get to go back to 5th grade to relearn some basic math. This is why the media can't be trusted. In fact, I don't even trust the other stats in the story because they are really meaningless unless we know how warm it was, for example, in 1100 AD. From what we know of farming by the Vikings in Greenland during that period, I think we can safely say that this January is FAR FROM THE WARMEST.

Furthermore, like I said above, the claim is about WORLDWIDE temperatures which include large metropolitan heat sinks that hold more heat.

I also note that the story says that the oceans were warmer IN THE PAST than this year so right there some questions are raised.

There are all kinds of things besides the headline that are outright false or misleading in this story but this should be obvious to anyone with even a room temp IQ (i.e. Al Gore).

Laura,Thanks for bei... (Below threshold)

Thanks for being honest about your lack of trust. I agree that today's media is way to profit driven and will go into overkill mode when someone like Anna Nicole Smith dies if they think it will bring in viewers. I also agree that you or I could find hundreds of links in the media (yes I did check out your link and I did find it anecdotal) to prop up whatever side of an issue we are on.

At the Science Museum in St.Paul they have an entire section dedicated to quack medical devices from the past. Devices proven to provide no medical benefit what so ever. However if I'm sick I'm not going to avoid the Doctors office because they have been wrong in the past. I hold the same attitude with the media, I just view with a critical eye.

Being a father and an outdoor enthusiast ( sorry lefties camping and hunting are two of my many passions) I want to leave a stable world to my children and hopefully someday grandchildren.

When I observe dramatic changes in our environment I have a natural curiosity to find out why. Embracing the fact that Global Warming is real doesn't mean I'm out to destroy your way of life.

Just as JKF challenged Americans to reach the moon in the 60s I feel we need our President to inspire us again to find solutions to foreign oil dependence and ways to conserve energy. Just think of technological, economic and industrial boom this would create in our great nation. When it comes to innovation no one can touch us. That's why were I'm coming from when I talk about Global Warming.

That's my rant for today thanks for listening.

Bebblebrox,Please go... (Below threshold)

Please go back and re-read the article, this time without the I hate Al Gore preconceived notions.

These two paragraphs alone should be enough to cause you concern.

"The combined global land and ocean surface fartemperature was 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average of 53.6 degrees F (12 C) for January based on preliminary data, NOAA said."

and this:

"During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11 F (0.06 C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 F (0.18 C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere," it said."

I don't know where you live but here in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere things are changing fast. Outdoor hockey tournaments in January being canceled due to lack of ice, ice fishing houses and trucks going through the ice, exotic lake plants taking hold due to lack of winter kill off, forest killing insects moving farther north each year, tornadoes well past the end of "tornado season", thunderstorms in December the list goes on and on.

Go ahead a discount an entire article just because you don't like the headline but don't try to tell me Global Warming isn't real, I'll laugh at you every time.

Live, we seem to be talking... (Below threshold)

Live, we seem to be talking past each other. The point of my article was not to prove that global warming isn't real. If that were the goal of the article, then anecdotal might be a fair word to use. The point of the article is that the media's reporting on global warming cannot be trusted. From the article: "This isn't a question of science. It's a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science." The article proves nothing more than the fact that the media is just full of crap on this issue. And it *does* prove that.

You suggest that there have been "dramatic changes" in the environment. You refer to "the fact that Global Warming is real." The truth is that those things are very much in dispute.

I have no problem with conservation or with laying off the oil; those are good ideas regardless of whether global warming, if it exists, would be affected. My family lives modestly for those very reasons. Good stewardship is always a good idea.

I have a real problem with the Chicken Little hysteria from the media. You say you view the media with a critical eye, but the MSNBC article, for example, was chock full of hype. Floods, droughts, rising sea levels... and near the end, one short graf - "Meteorological offices across Europe were reluctant to say on the basis of just one month's data that the high temperatures in January were due to global warming." which was immediately refuted by an expert they like. No explanation on which meteorological offices were reluctant or how many when consensus has supposedly been reached or why scientists mistrust using small samples to draw big conclusions. That is the pattern of the media's reporting on this topic *for the last century.*

Quack medical devices are soon disproved and abandoned. The media, on the other hand, keeps pulling this tactic out and reusing it. That's the difference.

Laura,Fair enough, I... (Below threshold)

Fair enough, I get your point that the media likes to hype things for dramatic effect.

Do you believe that the fossil fuel industries would try to influence the public by way of right wing media outlets into believing that Global Warming is in dispute?

Would they also once that global warming is no longer in dispute try to convince us that this may not be a bad thing?

Live,Don't lecture... (Below threshold)


Don't lecture me about an article that you yourself, are misreading. You only look foolish. Furthermore, restating the lie doesn't help your point either. The article is FALSE. January WAS NOT THE WARMEST ON RECORD. It was warmer than AVERAGE. Get that through your head.

Let me try to 'splain it to you another way.

Headline: In January, Live@9 made more money than everyone in history.

Text: Live@9 made more than the average American income in January (and by the way, we don't have records for people's income much further back than about 100 years so who knows).

That more clear to you? Or are you going to claim that the story is one of those "false but still true" kind of things?

Finally, I don't think anyone is claiming that it isn't getting warmer on a geologic scale. Since the little ice age it certainly is warmer so yes, you've got us there. It is also warmer than the big ice age. You have us there too.

What I do know is that man has not been shown to be causing any climatic change and I challenge you to find one shred of evidence that there is any causality between human activity and global climate. If you can you would be the first and I would think that Pelosi should be calling you before Congress to tell them what no one else has been able to verify.

Secondly, and this is key. It would be fantastic if we COULD warm the climate. Prosperity would increase, growing seasons would be longer, disease would be reduced, trees would grow taller and stronger, storms would be significantly minimized, and larger areas of the world would become more habitable. THIS IS DEMONSTRABLE BASED ON HISTORIC EVIDENCE.

Your anecdotes about ice rinks are the stuff of freshman philosophy seminars, not science. By the way, I don't hate the guy that created the Internet. We need to keep him around as a continual reminder of why we never want to elect a Democrat for President in this country. ever. again.

"Fair enough, I get your... (Below threshold)

"Fair enough, I get your point that the media likes to hype things for dramatic effect"

This is not the reason they are hyping AGW and I think you know it Live@9. They are hyping it because it is the liberal scare tactic of our particular time. The dinosaur media outlets are the mouthpiece of the Democrat party and we've known this for about a decade. The Dems want more power over the people and over corporations and what better way than with fascist environmental regulations.

The energy companies make less money on a gallon of gas than the government does so who is gouging us? Who has the most to gain by regulating fuels?

What the oil companies think about this is totally irrelevant to the argument except that they, along with the rest of us, are being victimized by the AGW hoax. Just because energy companies are pushing back against this slander does not make them wrong, it just makes them responsible. And if there were any right wing television news outlets (and I know of none but lets just say there were for argument's sake), I would applaud their efforts to get the truth out.

Let's say your neighbor doesn't like you so he puts a sign out on your front lawn that you are a pedophile. Who is the evil person in this scenario? I would argue that, unless you really are a convicted pedophile that maybe the guy who put the sign out is the one who should be sued for slander.

Pelosi, Gore, you, and the rest of the AGW hoax promoters are the slanderers because you have just about zero proof of the following:

- that we are in a dangerous warming cycle
- that the warming cycle is man made
- that, if man made, it could be reduced without the cooperation of third world nations or without seriously damaging first and second world nation economies.
- That instituting regulations on hydrocarbon emissions wouldn't actually be harmful, in the long run, to the environment (and there are some theories that damage to first world nation economies actually would have dramatically negative effects on the environment).

Fair enough, I get... (Below threshold)
Fair enough, I get your point that the media likes to hype things for dramatic effect.

Do you believe that the fossil fuel industries would try to influence the public by way of right wing media outlets into believing that Global Warming is in dispute?

Oh, glory... here we go again. My point is not that the media is hyping things "for dramatic effect." My point is that, whatever their goal is, they are hyping things and spreading false information. In the last hundred years, not one of the dire predictions has come to pass.

Would fossil fuel industries try to dampen the effect that the media's propaganda is having on the public? Not only would they, but they are doing that as much as they are able. I don't see the problem with some alternative propaganda getting out there - I take it with the same very large grain of salt that I take the media's propaganda.

You use phrases like "dramatic changes in our environment" as if that proves something. What does a "dramatic change" consist of? In comparison to what? How's it compare to 50, 100, 500 and 1000 years ago? Blips since we started keeping records are meaningless, especially when compared to indicators that we have had wide swings in both directions over the history of the planet. For example, I recently was ill and had a 104 degree fever. But over the course of my life, my temperature is going to average 98.6.

Face it, you've bought into global warming like I've bought into Christianity. That's your right, enjoy it, and good luck with that. We'll see who's right about it eventually. I predict that a hundred years from now, some clever person will write an article much like the one I linked to, showing how the media continued to lie about disastrous climate change.

Oh, and "right wing media outlets" - plural? There's only one, Fox, of course, that even comes close to being right wing and they've got Shepard Smith and a good sprinkling of other liberals on staff.

"There's only one, Fox, ... (Below threshold)

"There's only one, Fox, of course, that even comes close to being right wing"

Laura, I think we know what you are saying here but actually, Fox is far from a "right-wing media outlet". They have pretty much an equal distribution of Liberals, Moderates, Conservatives, Libertarians, and populists. Also, their news format is to bring on lots of different voices and let them be heard. No real editorial distinction is made on which voice is actually authoritative.

I will not dispute that Fox appears more conservative than the other networks because, obviously, they are by virtue of having ANY conservatives at all. But this does not make them right-wing. It only makes them less LEFT-WING.

There are a few right-wing news outlets but they are not broadcast media. Newsmax and World Net Daily are very good sources of truthful information online. The Washington Times is somewhat right of center as is the New York Post. As of yet, there are no news wire services that are anything but ultra lefty nor are there any broadcast networks that are even centrist, much less right of center.

Add to that, there are no governmental funding agencies that are conservative nor are there any public research universities that are conservative. It is a wonder that we get any useful science out of universities anymore at all.

I was thinking purely of TV... (Below threshold)

I was thinking purely of TV when I wrote that, but yes, you're right, there are right wing media outlets as well. But Newsmax and WND in my opinion are often guilty of the same over-the-top hype I'm complaining about. When I read something on those sites that outrages me, I go find a supporting article and I often find that some mitigating fact has been omitted or minimized. I'll give WND credit for a lot - the Philly 11 is just one example of keeping the heat on a situation that needs it - but I think they bear watching. For fairness' sake, I'll admit there are a few tokens on the left - Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck come to mind. But that side is not balanced at all. I agree Fox is reasonably well balanced and in comparison it makes them look more right wing.

You're right about the universities, of course - the left is so entrenched in academia that they'll never be dislodged in our lifetimes.

For those who are still rea... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

For those who are still reading this thread and want to hear from someone other than the media or George w Bush on AGW this is a post provided by someone on another blog...........Do you believe it?

" Here in the hills of the Morvan fruit, milk and cattle are the main produce, for the last 5 years we have had such extreme whether changes that have caused havoc to farming.

Normally we have cold winters that clean the land of ticks, grubs and other pest that harm fruit trees, infest cattle and cause illness in both humans and beasts alike, but for the last 5 winters, things have become milder with changes from temperatures of -10c with snow to this winters +8c. Grubs and tick lava have not been destroyed and we fear an onslaught during summer that will cause infestation of both fruit and livestock, making both inedible and very expensive.

For five years we have had very little rain,wells are below half average this winter, spring and summers have been hotter by 10-15°c and for 3 years fruit has not ripened because of a lack of rain and too much sun in April-September. The grass burns off by April's end and only one hay crop has been cut because the land burns black. Winter-feed is needed for the cattle by May and continues until late September when the grass starts to grow again. This makes for expensive poor quality beef, milk and fruit, if and when it grows at all. It also makes for expensive dairy produce, lower supplies for the shops and if this year is the same, there will be food shortages by September all over Europe. The same conditions are happening in the USA, but in reverse. Water is low, crops are taking longer to mature, if at all and prices are going up, everywhere.

I wish that you townies had started to take this seriously 5 years ago when we country folk first told you of our concerns, but as a landsman, I say it is a little too late now, whether you "believe" in climate change or not, the price is upon us now and only the rich will be able to eat fresh and regular" .....(end of post)

IF THIS IS NOT ENOUGH google yourself the changes happening in the Inuit villages in Alaska. Both of these examples and others if you talk to people who LIVE the weather and live close to the land are proof positive that something very dangerous is happening. My examples aren't some high level theoretical debate derived from computer models but from people who live close to planet earth in all parts of planet earth. They are warning us city folks and it's at our own peril that we refuse to pay attention. No need for hype just the facts from people who understand the most intimate relationship of man to earth.

What will you do tomorrow to reduce your carbon footprint?

"Here in the hills of the M... (Below threshold)

"Here in the hills of the Morvan..."

So what?

Some guy claims that the short-term hotter weather in one place is because of global warming. Unfortunately, if the global warming scientists are honest at all, the overall average temp for the planet is only a little warmer (a couple of degrees in the last century), not the EIGHTEEN DEGREES CENTIGRADE the guy in the story is claiming. It sure isn't averaging TEN TO FIFTEEN DEGREES CENTIGRADE warmer in the summers, either, as he claimed.

So one moron remembers a few hot days, and a somewhat warmer winter than the stories his grandpa told about when he was a kid in the tail end of the Little Ice Age, and this is supposed to mean something? Either you believe the IPCC scientists, and admit that the guy in the story is full of shit, or you don't believe them, and admit those scientists are the ones who are full of it.

Last year, here in Florida, we got hit by ZERO hurricanes, after being told we'd be getting hit by a bunch, due to global warming. It's been pretty cold (for this region) in recent days. The northeast part of the US is getting hammered by snowstorms, and, overall, for the last few years planet-wide, it's not getting warmer (and according to some measurements, it might be slightly cooler). Antarctica is getting more snow, and isn't getting warmer ( which is the opposite of what those climate modelers all swore in recent years because of their "99% accurate" forecast for Global Warming).

So one BBC story (reprinted in the Huffington Post) really makes no difference...

Cirby, you've got it exactl... (Below threshold)

Cirby, you've got it exactly right.

Why do people keep insisting on using anecdotal (and probably fabricated in the case of the "farmer from Morvan") stories to try to prove what science has been unable to do? There is no evidence of even 2 degrees of warming in the last century globally much less the numbers this faux-farmer has come up with.

I especially love it when so-called farmers complain about the "towny" behavior. Who buys the farmer's produce anyway, the farmer couple down the road? Farmers are to city-folk eaters what the oil companies are to city-folk drivers - suppliers. The only difference is, unlike the farmer, the oil companies haven't razed any forests to make way for their oil fields.

Oh, and this little tale of warm weather being so bad for crops is probably a laugh riot for the citrus farmers in California this year who had whole groves of orange and grapefruit orchards ruined by unusually cold weather of late. But notice, I am not using the unseasonably cold weather this January stand as proof of global cooling. I prefer scientific evidence over anecdotes.

Did you know that the globa... (Below threshold)
michael dornon:

Did you know that the global warming scientists around the world take their temperatures in cement buildings that absorb heat during the day and let it out at night making it nice and warm for a catastrophicaly high temp.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:


Fresh Links


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