In the past few days, several friends have sent me links to columns in the press that seek to debunk global warming. I’ve been struck by how different columnists pretty much made the same arguments — they seem to be taken right from the same playbook — and how counter they are to the scientific evidence I’ve seen.
John Tomlinson of the Flint Journal writes that at the climate talks in Poznan, “650 of the world’s top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis.” He goes on to say that global temperatures “are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades.” Up in the Arctic, this supposed deep chill is allegedly causing Arctic sea ice to expand to levels not seen for decades. And down in Antarctica, the ice sheets are supposedly growing.
Meanwhile, Mike Thomas over at the Orlando Sentinel doesn’t say explicitly that the Earth is plunging into a profound cooling trend, but he picks up the cooling mantra by saying that NASA had to revise its calculations and admit that “six of the 10 hottest years came before 1954, with the 1930s being particularly toasty.” Thomas goes on to note that the rate of glacial retreat in Greenland has slowed down, after having sped up dramatically prior to 2005. His conclusion: “I have gone from being a believer to being a global-warming agnostic.”
So let’s take a look at these points:
- Those 650 “scientists”? The list is an extension of an earlier one from Senator James Inhofe, which includes economists, television meteorologists, and many others with no expertise in climate science. And not everyone on the list actually wanted to be there. Meteorologist George Waldenberger, for example, wrote an irritated email asking to be removed. For more on this, go here and here.
- Temperatures are dropping? According to NASA, calendar year 2008 was indeed the coolest year since 2000. Yet it was still the ninth warmest year since 1880, when instrumental records began. And most important, the 10 warmest years all occurred between 1997 and 2008. No climate scientist I have talked to, and no climate report I have ever read, has said that warming would occur in a straight, unbroken line. Given the complexity of the climate system, of course we should expect some ups and downs. I wish I could report that the downs are now predominant, but it sure doesn’t look that way. Here are two temperature records to consider:
- What about the rate of ice loss in Greenland? Well, yes, it has dropped since 2005, as Thomas says. Quoted in a story by Richard Kerr in Science, glacial modeler Faezeh Nick of Durham University and his colleagues warn that “the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland’s outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future. Chalk one up for the climate skeptics? Well, not quite. Kerr also quotes renown Pennsylvania State glaciologist Richard Alley as saying, “If you turn the thermostat too high, it will melt.”
- So how about Arctic Sea Ice? John Tomlinson of the Flint Journal alleges that “the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What’s more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.”
Well, not really. I went to the Arctic Climate Research Center’s web site, and here is what I found:
You don’t have to look too carefully to see that sea ice is considerably less extensive today than it was in 1979.
That’s what the National Snow and Ice Data Center is reporting too. According to NSIDC, the extent of sea ice in January was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. And the long-term trend couldn’t be any clearer:
But if all that still doesn’t convince you, consider this:
Perhaps I’m imagining it, but it sure does look like all those lines show pretty clearly that sea ice extent is dropping. But if you need more evidence, check this out:
The graph clearly indicates that while sea ice has recovered somewhat after taking a dramatic hit in the summer of 2008, it is still running about 1 million square kilometers below the 1979 to 2000 mean. Any way you cut it, sea ice does not seem to be “returning to 1979 levels.
- Okay, how about Antarctica? Recent research shows that ice loss there has actually increased 75 percent over the past decade thanks to acceleration of glaciers emptying out into the ocean along the continent’s coastline. For more information, see the NASA press release here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2008012326052 And also see the abstract for the actual paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo102.html
.
That being said, I know as a journalist that with science this complicated I could easily overlook something, either because of a personal bias (hey, I’m human!) or information overload. And I also have to be open to the idea that new science could come along at any time to cast doubt on what I’ve presented here.
COMMENTS ARE NO CLOSED ON THIS POSTING.
This thing has 37 Comments
I see whre you attempt to broadly disqualify many of the names in the U.S. Senate’s 650 Dissenting Scientist Report. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Are you aware the news media refers to UN IPCC chairman Pachauri as a “climatologist” when he is in fact an enginner and economist? Do you disqualify him as an “expert.” Or do you give his qualifications a pass since you agree with him? Here is a breakdown of some of the UN IPCC scientists and their qualifications. See: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal-thyself.html
You claim to have found one name out 650 plus. Nice rigorous work. One name out of 650 plus. Here is the real story behind the one meteorologist you cite:
Below is a note I wrote to him in January 2008. Waldenberger has not responded to emails or phone calls. I still have not confirmed he even wrote the original email that is attributed to him. As you will see from my note to him, he is clearly a scientific skeptic of man-made global warming claims, regardless of what Andrew Dessler of Grist may incorrectly claim.
Marc Morano
Communications Director
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff
Full note reprinted to George Waldenberger:
—– Original Message —–
From: Morano, Marc (EPW)
To: George Waldenberger
Sent: Sun Jan 13 00:48:05 2008
Subject: Re:
Dear George,
Thank you for you note. We currently have you in our Senate Report under the criteria of scientists who “voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called consensus” on man-made global warming. The report does not allege you believe we should “ignore” climate change, rather it simply states you “expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007.”
That assertion in the report is followed by a long series of your quotes in which you state in part (your full section from the report is below), “The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air.” In the linked article (Sioux City Journal – April 11, 2007), you also opine about the intensity of hurricanes and global warming and state, “And that’s an item of debate as well.” You bluntly assert that both the hurricane connection to warming and CO2’s impact on global temperature are still “debatable.”
You clearly articulate that you do not agree with former Vice President Al Gore (who claims we face an urgent “climate crisis”) or the UN IPCC (where multiple UN leaders say the climate debate is completely over – UN leaders say it is ‘completely immoral’ to question the IPCC ‘consensus.’ See: http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/ 2007/05/10/analysis_un_calls_climate_debate_over/6480/
And the UN says it is ‘criminally irresponsible’ the urgency of global warming. See: U.N.: Ignoring global warming is “criminally irresponsible”
The Senate report further quotes you stating: “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?”
The fact is, you recognize that there is a “debate.” Gore and the IPCC leaders do not recognize the need for the “debate” about climate that you so eloquently lay out.
Your statements about these climate feedbacks further separate you from Gore and the UN IPCC views. You assert that CO2’s stimulating impact on plant growth can be a negative feedback which directly limits CO2 levels. This is a significant point which runs directly counter to man-made climate fears.
Indeed, many of the latest research trends indicate that plants are absorbing far more CO2 than IPCC figures anticipate, partly perhaps because deforestation rates have been overestimated. Here’s an article that supports your thoughtful views on the subject: Excerpt: Claims that tropical forests are declining cannot be backed up by hard evidence, according to new research from the University of Leeds. “Scientists all over the world who have used these data to make predictions of species extinctions and the role of forests in global climate change will find it helpful to revisit their findings in the light of my study.”
Full Report here: No convincing evidence for decline in tropical forests
Also, please keep in mind the Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full bio of each scientist, quotes and links for further reading. The reader is not looking at your name on a long list, but actually reading your words and understanding all of your intended subtleties and caveats about climate change. The report even quotes you saying man-made global warming “seems to be a reasonable argument.”
Again, I thank you for writing me. If you would like to further discuss, please respond or call me at 202-XXX-XXXX.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
Communications Dir. (Minority)
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
Below is your full entry from December 20, 2007 Senate report:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport
I recently read a report from the U.K. about how journalist and scientists were “misleading” the public with over the top headlines etc. But now I feel a little better. I think for the most part the science backs up most of the headlines.
Well, I think news media have swung to extremes, and some stuff is reported uncritically. Andy Revkin had a post about this today. (Much more interesting than my equivalent of Ambien…) Check it out: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/british-climate-office-criticizes-cool-and-hot-hype/
The problem is that the science is so bloody complex, and journalists’ jobs are getting so much more difficult, that it’s easy to accept whatever a scientist or new press release says without doing enough due diligence. Especially in this hyper-political phase we’ve entered, it’s important for us not to over-interpret findings, or accept blindly the possible over-interpretations of scientists. We need to read the fine print and check in with multiple independent sources to make absolutely positively sure that we’re characterizing a piece of research accurately. (Easy to say, harder to do. I’m not sure I always succeed.)
Marc: For sake of argument, let’s grant that your list really is not an exaggeration and does indeed include experts with the experience and knowledge you claim. What about everything else in my post? Do you deny that the balance of evidence shows the world is in fact warming, that Arctic sea ice is in fact shrinking, and that Antarctica is in fact losing ice? Are all of the studies I cite simply false? What evidence can you provide to demonstrate that? And would any evidence ever convince you that humans are causing warming, or are you simply philosophically opposed to the idea that we could achieve dominion over planetary life support systems?
Another response to Marc’s comment:
To rebut one of the many points I made in my post, you correctly point out that Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, is an economist. The implication is that there is equivalence to what the experts on your list say about climate change and what the IPCC has said. But that is obviously false. The IPCC process, however flawed it may be, is rigorous, transparent, and based on exhaustive review of peer-reviewed science by experts with specific expertise in the research they are called on to review. By contrast, your list of experts is just that — a list. It may consist in part of people with impressive credentials, but to argue that it is somehow on a par with the IPCC is patently absurd.
As to the criticism that Pachauri is an economist, the IPCC integrates both physical and social science. It is entirely legitimate for an organization with the IPCC’s scope to be led by economist. But as far as I know — and if I’m wrong, I hope someone will correct me — economists on the IPCC stick to their field of expertise. They do not evaluate, say, paleoclimate research. Meanwhile, many of the “experts” on your list offer opinions on subjects for which they have little or no expertise.
That does not mean all of their opinions are somehow illegitimate, or that they are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, as many people argue. But be honest with me Mark: If you ever get cancer, will you go to a cardiologist for treatment? I think not. You will certainly seek out the best oncologist you can find. So if I’m making public policy on something with the far reaching implications of climate change, I would want the best information I could get from people with specific expertise about the climate system. The fact that you don’t seem to agree suggests that you are far more interested in hyper-partisanship than truth-seeking.
I must also point out that in my post I responded to what columnist John Tomlinson wrote at the Flint Journal about your list: “At December’s U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world’s top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis.” I hope you will be honest enough to admit that your list does not consist of “650 of the world’s top climatologists.” There is no question that it does include some impressive scientific talent, including Nobelist Ivar Giaever, renown physicist Freeman Dyson, and NASA weather researcher Joanne Simpson (whom Roger Pielke, Sr. has acclaimed as “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”). But Dyson is a theoretical physicist and mathematician. And Giaever is an expert in tunneling phenomena in semiconductors. These guys may be the equivalent of extremely talented cardiologists, but they are not the oncologist you need when you get cancer.
As far as I can tell, of the three I’ve mentioned here, Simpson comes closest to being a climate expert. During her career, she conducted research on tropical meteorology and short-term climate variability. But I’m not sure that she has the specific expertise to evaluate the causes and impacts of long-term climate processes. If I’m wrong, I hope someone who reads this will show me.
Of course none of this disqualifies these experts from commenting intelligently on climate change. I also read with great interest Simpson’s statement on Pielke, Sr.’s blog that there is “no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring,” which is quite a different stance from that taken by the columnists I took to task in my post. But Simpson also questions whether humans are to blame for the observed changes, saying that this claim is based “almost entirely on climate models,” which aren’t up to the task. As a science journalist who has conducted many dozens of interviews and read countless papers linking human activities to global warming that do not rely almost entirely on climate models, I’m skeptical about her statement. But I’m open-minded enough to recognize the “frailty” of models, as Simpson puts it. And her position certainly makes me curious enough to check it out. When I get the time, I may try to follow up on this idea.
In the meantime Marc, please answer this question: Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that humans are responsible for much if not all of the warming being observed, or are you just a propagandist?
Tom,
A great question! A few comments on your science claims:
You claim temperatures you only cite NASA data. How about looking at latest Satellite data:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
It shows a very different picture than NASA’s Hansen. (BTW: Hansen is a serious political activists and many scientist are now worrying about his objectivity. See: Retired meteorologist Craig James, an AMS member, wrote a scathing commentary about Hansen. “I believe Dr. Hansen’s political ideology has taken over his science and renders him no longer qualified to be the keeper of the global temperature data,” James wrote on January 15, 2009.)
Also, MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.”- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming
You cite data showing the 10 warmest years all occurred between 1997 and 2008. First off, we are coming out the end of a little ice age beginning in 1850. Multiple studies have refuted the claim that current temps are unprecedented. See: A June 29, 2007 critique by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a previously touted study claiming the 20th century had been unusually warm.
Plus, A November 2007 study published in Energy & Environment found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” The study was authored by C. Loehle and titled “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.” ( LINK) & ( LINK)
For more info see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8
Second, NASA data shows that for the US, (not globally) the 1930’s were the hottest decade and 1934 was the hottest year. (80% of man-made CO2 came after 1940) Also note that as CO2 was rising the Earth cooled from 1940 to the 1970’s. Plus, warming does not equal man-made warming.
As for Greenland, here are the facts:
Excerpt from 2007 Senate report: Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.
A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930′s and 1940′s, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Ano ther 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies. These studies suggest that the biggest perceived threat to Greenland’s glaciers may be contained in unproven computer models predicting a future catastrophic melt.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD
As for the Arctic: Why not reveal that even the UK Met Office admitted that sea ice changes in recent years Arctic ‘Could Easily be Due to Natural Fluctuations in the Weather.’ Excerpt: Dr. Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, warned that “there is little evidence to support claims that Arctic ice has reached a tipping point and could disappear within a decade or so,” according to the UK Guardian. “The record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer ice increasing again over the next few years,” Pope explained. Pope’s Arctic ice view echoes the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report on Arctic sea ice and polar bears. The January 20, 2008, report featured “the latest peer-reviewed science detailing the natural causes of recent Arctic ice changes.” More here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=672bfd77-802a-23ad-4264-12316616363c&Issue_id=
Also, a new study on the Arctic from January 2008 finds: “The current rate of human-influenced Arctic warming is comparable to peak natural rates documented by reconstructions of past climates.” It does cite computer model predictions as being worrisome, but so far, nothing unusual according to this study. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1186593
RE; Antarctica: For a comprehensive analysis of how Antarctica is not cooperating with warming, see this report http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=FC7DB6AD-802A-23AD-43D1-2651EB2297D6
You seem to rely on RealClimate.org as the “experts.” Perhaps your readers should know the latest developments about RealClimate.org.
RealClimate.org Under Scrutiny for report see here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=672bfd77-802a-23ad-4264-12316616363c&Issue_id=
Excerpt: Lead blogger and NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt was recently harshly criticized for some of his scientific claims. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a prominent scientist from the Netherlands, wrote a scathing denunciation of Schmidt in which he=2 0said he was “appalled” by Schmidt’s “lack of knowledge” and added, “Back to graduate school, Gavin!”
“Roger Pielke, Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin’s lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin!” Tennekes wrote on January 29, 2009. Tennekes, is an scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes. Tennekes is also featured in U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
0A
“Gavin Schmidt is not the only meteorologist with an inadequate grasp of the role of the oceans in the climate system. In my weblog of June 24, 2008, I addressed the limited perception that at least one other climate modeler appears to have,” Tennekes wrote. “From my perspective it is not a little bit alarming that the current generation of climate models cannot simulate such fundamental phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I will not trust any climate model until and unless it can accurately represent the PDO and other slow features of the world ocean circulation. Even then, I would remain skeptical about the potential predictive skill of such a model many tens of years into the future,” Tennekes added.
Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo also launched a sharply worded critique of RealClimate.org in January 2009 titled “Response to Gavin Schmidt – Global Data Base Issues Are Real.”
“To Gavin [Schmidt] and the other alarmists, it appears, a piece that is fair and balanced can make no mention of any other opinion except that carbon dioxide is causing global warming and action is needed now and will deliver gain and no pain, something the one sided media coverage has gotten them used to over the years,” D’Aleo wrote on January 13, 2009. D’Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.
Atmospheric Physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, also critiqued RealClimate.org on June 24, 2008. Peden wrote, “‘Real Climate’ is a staged and contracted production, which wasn’t created by ‘scientists,’ it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in sp reading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering.”
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv has also been critical. “The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is to post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point ‘has been refuted by real scientists at RealClimate.org,’” Shaviv’s website reported. Shaviv, who calls the website “Wishfulclimate.org,” noted that the “writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.” [Note: Other critique’s of RealClimaet.org include:: Pielke Jr.: 'Gavin Schmidt admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre' – February 4, 2009 - Gavin's "Mystery Man" Revealed - by Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre on February 4th, 2009 –Gavin Schmidt demands Pielke Jr. Pull Critical Blog - “Tough New York City crowd reverses opinion on man-made warming and converts to skepticism following debate featuring RealClimate.org’s Schmidt”– March 2007 – RealClimate.org’s Michael Mann Cites Mt. Kilimanjaro as evidence of man-made global warming - Providence Journal - September 25, 2008 - Reality Check: Mann’s using years old Mt. Kilimanjaro talking points. Mann’s “facts” on Kilimanjaro are outdated. - UK Spectator: 'Hysterical' Michael Mann's Hockey Stick 'most discredited study in history of Science – February 7, 2009 – By Melanie Phillips – ‘Is Gavin Schmidt The Best Thing Ever Happened To AGW Skeptics?’ – Pielke Jr.: Details RealClimate.org’s & Others Engage in ‘Character Assassination’ of Skeptical Scientists’ ]
For latest science refuting man-made warming claims see here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Excerpt: On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack=2 0of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works (Minority)
Tom,
First off, I am not criticizing Pachauri, merely pointing out that he is referred to as a “climatologist” when he is in fact an engineer and economist. (like some in the Senate report you critizised.)
I am not making claims that our Senate report is equivalent to UN IPCC. But I am saying both reports come from POLTICAL bodies.
Here is how one scientist describes the UN IPCC:
Earlier this year, a UK scientist ripped the UN IPCC as “a purely political body posing as a scientific institution.” Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.
Also, the Summary for Policymakers has to be agreed to line by line by UN delegates and participating governments. (morel lie Political party convention platform debate than scientific process)
The point on climate science is all disciplines matter!! Biologists, Astrophysicists, economists (half the debate is economic at this point) geologists, statisticians, modelers, mathematicians to analyze the data, etc. Please don’t act like only certain scientists can have a valid opinion. Also most of the studies out today are all essentially “if – then” studies on global warming impacts if temps rise X degrees.
Tom,
You wrote: “In the meantime Mark, please answer this question: Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that humans are responsible for much if not all of the warming being observed, or are you just a propagandist?” (note: correct spelling is Marc )
Please, keep this civil. First off, I am not a scientist. But the scientists I work with almost all agree mankind has had a warming impact. Shocked? The main culprit they would assert is land-use. Urbanization, concrete, deforestation, etc. all have a warming impact. Rising CO2 is another matter entirely. Even RealClimate.org has admitted there are hundreds of factors that influence the temperature on Earth. You seem to be positing that a trace essential gas in the atmosphere is the key temperature driver and that is where the debate really is beign waged.
But even scientists who do believe that much if not all (I dont’ know any who think “all”) of the warming is man-made are skeptical of further warming.
Geologist debunks rising CO2 fears: CO2 is ‘tuckered out as a greenhouse gas’ (Geologist David Archibald of Summa Development Limited in Australia is a Perth-based scientist working in the fields of climate research. Archibald .wrote a scientific paper titled “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 and he is featured in Senate dissenting scientist report see: (LINK)
Excerpt: The more carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere, the more you are helping all plants on the planet to grow, and of course that makes you a better person. Virtue is in direct proportion to your carbon dioxide output. What of the temperature, you ask? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but the effect is strongly logarithmic. The first 20 ppm achieves 1.5 degrees of heating, but it takes more than another 400 ppm to equal that. By the time we get to the current level of 384 ppm, carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. From here, every 100 ppm extra may be worth 0.1 of a degree. So how does the IPCC achieve 5 degrees of heating from a doubling of the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide to 560 ppm? They do it by cheating. Their computer models are written so that a little bit of carbon dioxide-caused heating puts more water vapour in the air. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas, so they have the heating compounding away until they get a number that will melt icecaps, kill polar bears and all the other effects of their apocalyptic visions. See more here: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/archibald_prize/
Marc: A lot to digest here, and since I am not (or should not) be a full time blogger (I have papers to critque) — I can’t do it now. But I will repeat one question I posed to you earlier:
If you get cancer, would you go to a cardiologist for treatment or would you seek out the very best oncologist you could find?
With the climate issue, almost all of the oncologist equivalents are telling us — and supporting what they say with rigorous, peer reviewed research — that humans are causing global warming. Are there uncertainties and gaps in some of that research? Of course. It wouldn’t be science if those uncertainties and gaps did not exist. Is there some research that may raise questions about this or that aspect of the bigger case for anthropogenic climate change? No doubt. Has some research turned out to be false? Of course. But when a person gets cancer, there may be five oncologists who argue for radiation, and one surgeon who says surgery. So Mark, please answer me honestly: Whose advice are you going to follow? The one surgeon’s? Or the five oncologists’? (And by the way, the ratio in the case of climate change is far more skewed than five to one.)
Tom,
You ask: “If you get cancer, would you go to a cardiologist for treatment or would you seek out the very best oncologist you could find?… So Mark, please answer me honestly: Whose advice are you going to follow? The one surgeon’s? Or the five oncologists’? (And by the way, the ratio in the case of climate change is far more skewed than five to one.)”
You question has the arrogance of assuming that the UN or the promoters of man-made global warming are the sum total of all the “experts.” This is clearly not the case.
To answer your question, I would not choose the doctor who was pushing his way and smearing the other doctors as “Holocaust Deniers.” I would not chose the doctor who comes from an institution who vilifies anyone who does not accept their view point.
# See: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.” (LINK) 3) The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (LINK) #
I would not choose the doctor who promoted the work of a POLITICAL organization as strictly science. I would not choose a doctor who rejected out of hand any criticism of his work or methods.
I would choose a doctor who had an open mind about the situation and an open mind about the best course of treatment.
Tom, I hope you can see the light on this. I enjoyed our spirited discussion. I too have to get back to work. But I enjoyed this dialogue.
Finally, if we did face a man-made climate catastrophe and the UN Kyoto Protocol or the upcoming Kyoto 2 or Congressional Cap-and-Trade were our only “solution” we would all be doomed. All of these would not have a measurable impact on global temps. Even proponents of these measures admit this. So if the “skeptics” are wrong is not a valid question. The question is what if the alarmists are correct – no realistic proposal in past two decades would have a measurable impact on global temps. The idea of a climate “insurance policy” is equally silly. Would you buy a home insurance policy that had a huge up front premium (Kyoto or cap-and-trade) for absolutely no payout if your home burned down? That would be a unsellable policy.
Obviously moving from a carbon based economy has many benefits, ie. geo political, less reliance on foreign oil. But the key to this debate is technology. New technology will move us to cleaner burning energy. In the meantime we must be very careful to saddle the world with purely SYMBOLIC “solutions” to global warming.
See this info on how poor residents of the developing world are already feeling impacts of policies based on man-made climate fears.
[Morano Note: We often hear global warming is a “moral” issue. See: 1) Al Gore: “This (global warming) is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization.” (LINK) 2) UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.” (LINK) 3) The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (LINK) #
So-called “solutions” to global warming would invariably lead to restrictions on development in energy deprived parts of the world. In short: Energy poverty equals human misery and suffering.
Black clergymen protest Robert Redford ‘link his environmentalism to racism’ http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11455096
Poor Kenyans rebel as UK grocery store’s “carbon friendly” policies may stop food exports http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6383687.stm
Marc, Thanks for taking the time to weigh in here. A couple additional comments:
In the 27 years that I have been covering climate change, the overwhelming vast majority of scientists I have interviewed have been thoughtful, measured and reasonable. They do not engage in smear tactics. If anything, they go about their work quietly and refrain from the fisticuffs that characterize some of the hyper-partisan debate on this subject. Have some people said silly things? Of course they have. We’re talking about human beings here. But you cite the exceptions as the rule.
And in the end, you are being disingenuous. If the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended a particular treatment for a cancer that you contracted, you would almost certainly go with that treatment plan as opposed to what what a handful of dissenting doctors might recommend. It’s entirely possible that the society is wrong and the dissenters are right. But when your life is on the line, who will you put your trust in?
And you still haven’t answered my bottom-line question: Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that humans are responsible for much if not all of the warming being observed? If so, what would that evidence be?
If Marc Morano didn’t work for Sen. Inhofe, he would just be another over-the-top reality challenged internet troll.
Tom,
You wrote: “…in the end, you are being disingenuous. If the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended a particular treatment for a cancer that you contracted, you would almost certainly go with that…”
Yes, but you are being ludicrous! Are you saying the UN is the equivalent to the American Society of Clinical Oncology?! Also, as noted above, I would reject any “treatment” that caused me a great deal of harm for absolutely no benefit!! (ie. Kyoto and cap-and-trade solutions.)
As I said: No realistic proposal (or “treatment”)in past two decades would have a measurable impact on global temps. The idea of a climate “insurance policy” is equally silly. Would you buy a home insurance policy that had a huge up front premium (Kyoto or cap-and-trade) for absolutely no payout if your home burned down? That would be a unsellable policy.
So once again, if some quack doctor tried to push a “treatment” on me that even he admitted would not have any positive impact on me but would cause me great collateral damage, I would absolutely reject the treatment, regardless of whether the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended it.
Enough said on that point!
Thanks
Marc
You ask: “And you still haven’t answered my bottom-line question: Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that humans are responsible for much if not all of the warming being observed? If so, what would that evidence be?”
As I wrote, I am not a scientist. But the evidence would not be temperatures are “consistent with” or “models” say or “nothing else explains the temp” except CO2.
You question is also incomplete. Even if rising CO2 were “responsible for much if not all of the warming” it is not a very relevant question according to many scientists. As I said, peer-reviewed studies and scientists are now saying that if CO2 is the warming agent some claim, it is essentially now all “tuckered out” as a warming agent. In other words, we may have seen all of most of the warming from CO2 and you still cannot distinguish that from natural climate variability. Continued rising CO2 has been compared to painting a window black, the first coat has the most impact on allowing the light in, each successive coat of black paint has less and less impact.
But keep in mind, many scientist reject CO2 as the warming agent you seem to believe it is. Just recently a UN South African Scientist declared South African UN Scientist: Solar ‘influence is more than 17 times that of the claimed human influence’ in models – http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/climate-models-for-monkeys
As I wrote, even RealClimate.org concedes there are hundreds of factors influencing the climate, not just a trace essential gas in the atmosphere (CO2).
You need to realize that there has been significant shift in the scientific community about warming fears in the past few years. Many scientists have shifted their views. See: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics – http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12 – Left-of-center scientists now rejecting warming fears – http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=b87e3aad-802a-23ad-4fc0-8e02c7bb8284&Region_id=&Issue_id
In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”
This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here ] More here; http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Furthermore, the UN IPCC’s POLITICAL proclaimations are not science. It is documented how they exclude influences other than CO2. See Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke’s recent report on how the UN excluded solar influence. Protecting The IPCC Turf – There Are No Independent Climate Assessments Of The IPCC WG1 Report Funded And Sanctioned By The NSF, NASA Or The NRC. – January 13, 2009 – http://climatesci.org/2009/01/13/protecting-the-ipcc-turf
Tom, it’s time for you to examine the UN a bit more closely before you continue to proclaim the majority of scientists agree. See also this report: Examining the So-Called ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3
As for whether the intimidation is just a few isolated incidents. Think again. Check out these two reports: EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic – http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802a-23ad-4bf9-c3f02278f4cf & this report: Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression (NYC Climate Conference Report – Part One of Reports) – http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277
Thanks
Marc
Marc,
I find it interesting that you point to Spencer’s satellite data instead of to NCDC or MET, both of which have longer data continuity. Or to the Remote Sensing Systems data, which analyzes the exact same satellite measurements as Spencer and Christy but come to a very different (and equally supported by the science) conclusion based on different weighting factors for the different parts of the troposphere.
I also find it interesting that the 1998 El Nino was called out in Spencer’s data, but that the 2008 La Nina wasn’t similarly identified. In fact, the El Nino in 1983-84 (which was more powerful than the 1998 El Nino according to this link: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif) produced much less warming in Spencer’s graph than the relatively weaker 1998 El Nino, suggesting that something else was boosting the 1998 El Nino temperatures. Could be underlying CO2-based climate disruption, could be something else, but there’s nothing in Spencer’s data to say either way.
Also, on Anthony Watts/Richard Lindzen, of course there’s been no statistically significant warming since 1995. That’s only 13 years of data, which is 4-10 years too little to make any statistically valid claims about warming, and that includes the lack thereof. In my own analyses of the publicly available temperature data from RSS, UAH, MET, NCDC, and GISS, I don’t get to what qualifies as a statistically rigorous conclusion until over 20 years of data, although more advanced statistical techniques might get that down a few years.
Watts is also well known for cherry picking his data – I had someone point me to a post of his where he made the argument that, just because there was a large Jan07 to Jan08 temperature difference, that meant the globe had cooled a lot. But Watts’ conclusion was unsupportable if you looked from Dec06 to Dec07 or from Feb07 to Feb08. Furthermore, his data was unsupportable if averaged annually instead of a single month snapshot. Not exactly the best source of data to be referencing.
Tom Yulsman,
Debating against Marc is a bit of an exercise in futility. He will cherry-pick anything he finds to refute your position irregardless of its quality (and seriously, a 6th degree polynomial fit on UAH data in your first link? Citing “peer reviewed” articles in Energy and Environment?). He also has all the time in the world to bury you in a mass of poor arguments, given that arguing about climate change on the internet is his day job. Thankfully science, unlike politics, tends to be decided by the quality of the argument.
Marc tellingly doesn’t answer the question about what evidence would ever convince him of the science. That’s because he is a paid hack who only seeks to discredit climate science. By definition, nothing could ever convince him, otherwise he would lose his job. Snake oil salesman are also morally incapable of caring whether or not the snakeoil actually works.
Marc: First, a quick rebuttal. Susan Solomon is not “the U.N.” Stephen Schneider is not “the U.N.” Gerald Meehl is not “the U.N.” Elisabeth Holland is not “the U.N.” You may discount their work, but these are all highly respected scientists who do their research and work as employees of institutions like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Yes, they have participated in a complex, exhaustive and transparent evaluation process conducted under the umbrella of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But they are no more “the U.N.” than you are.
You show your true feathers here. Rather than debate honestly, you try to mislead people into thinking that nothing coming out of the IPCC can be trusted because it all comes from “the U.N.” Translation for folks who don’t live in your world: “It all comes from corrupt international bureaucrats.” So hidden beneath your seeming reasonableness is an ad hominem attack.
More important, you still haven’t answered my question. Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that humans are responsible for much if not all of the warming being observed? If so, what would that evidence consist of? What would it take to convince you? Take a public stand here.
So far, you’ve risked nothing in your approach. You’ve put out a flurry of information and simply hoped to accumulate more debating points. I understand that, because I love debate too, and I have happily participated in this forum. But do you hesitate to answer my question (as opposed to rebutting what I’ve said) because you are actually afraid of putting yourself on the line in this specific way? If there is substance to your argument, say something specific that you can be held to.
Unless you do answer this simple question, readers will be wholly justified in concluding that despite all the studies and names and links you put forward, you are not actually interested in getting at the truth.
You ask: “And you still haven’t answered my bottom-line question: Is there any evidence that would ever convince you that humans are responsible for much if not all of the warming being observed? If so, what would that evidence be?”
As I wrote, I am not a scientist. But the evidence would not be temperatures are “consistent with” or “models” say or “nothing else explains the temp” except CO2.
You question is also incomplete. Even if rising CO2 were “responsible for much if not all of the warming” it is not a very relevant question according to many scientists. As I said, peer-reviewed studies and scientists are now saying that if CO2 is the warming agent some claim, it is essentially now all “tuckered out” as a warming agent. In other words, we may have seen all of most of the warming from CO2 and you still cannot distinguish that from natural climate variability. Continued rising CO2 has been compared to painting a window black, the first coat has the most impact on allowing the light in, each successive coat of black paint has less and less impact.
But keep in mind, many scientist reject CO2 as the warming agent you seem to believe it is. Just recently a UN South African Scientist declared South African UN Scientist: Solar ‘influence is more than 17 times that of the claimed human influence’ in models – http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/climate-models-for-monkeys
Hi Tom
Thanks for this summary of some of the 20th Century data. And also for engaging on both sides of the argument.
If possible I’d like to see a summary of data for the last 1000 years? One of the arguments that has been advanced is that the situation we see today is unprecedented and yet there are some suggestions that there have been similar changes in climate in the period immediately prior to fossil fuel consumption. For example I think there is historic evidence of significant polar ice cover change and Alpine glacier extent? I think there is also use of proxy data from events such as grape harvet dates which suggest that temperatures in the 1500′s were similar to today but I haven’t researched critiques on this yet.
Do you think there is a possibilty that one of the reasons we think this is unprecedented is that it is only relatively recently we have been measuring and recording some of these variables in numerical terms?
As far as your question re: confirmation of AGW I’m not sure. From the theoretical point of view I’d suggest a first step would be fully open data sources, algorithms and models. I’d certainly value a fully worked reference deriving the power forcing attributed to CO2. Perhaps this is out there – apologies if I’ve missed it.
As far as your cancer analogy goes – I think medicine these days is recognised to be a complex interdisciplinary activity and I know from family cases surgeons and oncologists (and others) were involved. I think one of the strong recommendations of the Wegman report was for better involvement and cooperation of a variety of disciplines and talents.
Kind regards
Obviously you aren’t a scientist, Marc. Otherwise you would know that consistency with models, lack of other competing explanations and multiple lines of evidence actually DOES constitute concrete scientific knowledge. What you said is very telling, because it indicates that you actually reject science and the scientific method as a way of knowing about the world.
Reverse the question on yourself:
What evidence would it take to convince you we do not face a climate crisis in the future?
As I said, even if it can be “proven” that CO2 caused “much if not all” of warming from end of Little Ice Age, it clearly does not mean what you seem to imply it means.
The issue is what can we expect in the future.
RE: Your charge that I am making an “ad hominem attack” against the UN. I am pointing out to you that it is a political organization with a particular “partisan” focus if you will.
As for you citation of Susan Solomon, she recently came out with a study that claims to predict sea levels in “the year 3000’ A.D.!
Would you buy stock based on someone’s model of 1000 years from now?
Many of the skeptical scientists focus on the model scare scenarios. Also, Solomon recently compared CO2, plant food, to nuclear waste.
Imagine teaching kids that in school.
As for Stephen Schneider, he once reportedly wrote: “In the debate over climate change, Schneider said, there simply was no legitimate opposing view to the scientific consensus that man – made carbon emissions drive global warming. To suggest or report otherwise, he said, was irresponsible.”
Does that sound like someone who is open to new scientific findings/views? Both Solomon and Schneider are great examples of what I wrote earlier.
You as a journalist should have your radar go up when you hear scientists say there is no dissent. You should be immediately “skeptical” of such claims.
I have enjoyed this. Please keep these types of open discussion going.
Daganstein wrote: “Obviously you aren’t a scientist, Marc. Otherwise you would know that consistency with models, lack of other competing explanations and multiple lines of evidence actually DOES constitute concrete scientific knowledge. What you said is very telling, because it indicates that you actually reject science and the scientific method as a way of knowing about the world.”
Nice attempt at a smear. My point, if you had read what I wrote is that climate models are not “evidence.” You cannot make a prediction of the year 2100 and use it as some kind of “proof” of anything.
I was making the point that there are hundreds of factors influencing temperature and to claim that we have eliminated them all and it leaves only CO2 is not a credible claim according to a growing number of scientists.
UK Scientist: – ‘Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables’ Not Just CO2! By UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London – Excerpt: As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets.
RealClimate.org Let Truth Slip Out! – ‘The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors’ – September 20, 2008
2008 was indeed the coolest since 2000 but clearly not the 8th, 9th or 10th warmest in 127 to 147 years. UAH MSU satellite global data suggests instead it was the 14th coldest in 30 years of global lower tropospheric data. There are numerous issues with the NASA/NOAA/Hadley global data bases that make it them useless for long term trend analysis.
These issues include no or improper adjustments for urban warming, instrument siting that does not meet government established standards, use of instruments with proven warm biases that are not adjusted for, changes in height and in the sheltering of instruments, major global station dropout in 1990, a tenfold increase in missing monthly data especially in areas where the government data bases show the greatest apparent warming (the FSU) and undocumented final adjustment practices. All of these issues mentioned produce a warm bias in the data.
With 841 of the 1200 US Climate stations surveyed as of 02/05/09, only 11% met the government’s own standards for siting with many on rooftops, near air conditioner units, steam heat pipes, trash burn barrels, paved roads, parking lots, and overgrown vegetation. Even the best sited instruments have issues. They tend to be ASOS stations which were specified by the FAA and focused on parameters of greatest interest to aviation like wind and were never meant to have the accuracy needed to assess small climate changes. They are required to have a precision of 0.1F but an accuracy of only plus or minus 0.9F, far in excess of the changes since 1930. Some initial efforts globally to survey stations are reporting the same issues.
The number of global stations dropped from over 6000 to well under 2000 after 1990 (most of them rural, high latitude and thus cooler). This left behind warmer, more urbanized stations. Without an adjustment to account for localized urban warmth, an apparent accelerated warming took place.
Examining purely rural stations does not confirm long term warming but a moderate cyclical change more in line with satellite based sensing data bases and natural cycles in sun and oceans with only a two decade coincidental rise of both CO2 and temperatures (1979-1998) since World War II’s Industrial boom.
See a detai8led analysis of these issues here (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_AND_GLOBAL_TEMP_ISSUES.pdf
Marc,
Your bias in the argument is very telling. You are so convinced that AGW isn’t occurring but you can’t even answer a simple question that would let others know you’re at least objectively looking at the SCIENCE, and not the hype put out by Pielke, Inhoffe and others.
You wrote: “As I said, peer-reviewed studies and scientists are now saying that if CO2 is the warming agent some claim, it is essentially now all “tuckered out” as a warming agent. In other words, we may have seen all of most of the warming from CO2 and you still cannot distinguish that from natural climate variability”
First of all post cite some sources of these “scientists”. These sentences are scientifically wrong. From these sentences you show you know absolutely nothing about the physics of greenhouse gases, and along with that cannot even site the “scientists” who have the same misunderstanding. And yes, you CAN distinguish the current warming from natural variability. In fact its far outside the range of natural variability.
Marc, its time for you to move onto another blog, because we’ve figured out your game. I hope your paycheck is big for spreading the equally gross amount of lies.
Marc wrote, “RealClimate.org Let Truth Slip Out! – ‘The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors’ – September 20, 2008″
Nice cherry picking, why don’t you show the rest of the quote?…
FYI:
I included links to every single citation, but the comment section rejected them. So i had to resubmit without the links to all the scientists and their studies.
Go to epw.senate.gov and search and read up on the latest science.
As for “objectivity” – I would put our EPW Senate blog up against any of the reporting from Newsweek, Time, ABC News, on climate. We actually show both sides and included links in our reports for further reading.
Somehow I missed this in your first post Marc:
“Marc Morano
Communications Director
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff”
So you had a hand in putting out the crap that comes out of Inhofe’s office. I knew I saw something familiar in the the press releases by your bosses office to your posts hear. The same cherry picking of quotes/data, misunderstanding of climate concepts, and the same out and out lies. And for future reference, you may be taken more seriously in your posts if you leave out that you work for Sen. Inhofe.
Instead of going to the senate blog do and actual scientific literature search. Try web of science, or google scholar. They’ll serve you better.
As far as both sides, we don’t let the tobacco industry have a say when the surgeon general says there’s a link between smoking and cancer. So why let the deniers? For me there is the side of those who read and follow science, and those who don’t understand the science and spread the lies to propagate their ideals to the masses. As a scientist myself, I can tell you which side I’ll be on.
Aaron: Thank you for participating in the discussion. I very much appreciate it. But in the future, I would ask that you tone down your rhetoric just a bit. I’m trying to encourage respectful discourse in this blog. I know that all of us, myself included, can feel passionate about some of these issues. But I politely ask that you refrain from using words like “crap.” Stick to the facts and your arguments will be stronger. And again, thanks for your participation.
This thing has 4 Trackbacks
[...] have been meaning to mention them for a while now, and with todays publication of “The climate skeptic playbook” it seems a good moment. This particular post takes down a number of the current climate [...]
[...] the merits of climate science with journalists on blogs, as Morano did most of yesterday over here. What impresses me most is not Morano’s rhetoric, but how he was able summon his evidence [...]
[...] And so the implication seems to be that media members are at risk of being “seduced” by quick-turnaround stories and alarmist perspectives. All of this criticism bothers me, because I’m a journalist who has written some stories on human-caused climate change — and who has accepted it as fact. It’s fair to say I’m afraid something I think I know could turn out to be wrong. As such, my heart leaps into my throat when I see attacks on prevailing beliefs about global warming, like I did late last week underneath a blog post by Tom Yulsman at CEJournal. [...]
[...] over at the Centre for Environmental Journalism the comments thread for the piece “The climate skeptic playbook” that I mentioned the other day attracted no less [...]