You know, it's one thing when some government employee sends you an e-mail message claiming that global warming will cause greater snowfall on the planet.
However, it's really something else altogether when a major American newspaper would actually publish an article with the headline:
Global Warming Not Always to Blame for Extreme Winters
No, this wasn't the National Enquirer, or The Star. This was the Christian Science Monitor, which is now on a growing list of press outlets clearly uncomfortable with the winter of 2008 (emphasis added throughout):
Whatever global-warming models may suggest about the futures of Earth's climate, one thing is certain: Global warming never promised to eliminate winter, especially for those living outside the tropics.
After listing examples of some of the crazy winter weather this year, the Monitor tried to assert some calm:
The extremes weren't all frigid. In Stockholm, Sweden's weather service posted an average temperature of 36 degrees F. this winter, which for weather-data purposes runs from December through February. That makes it the warmest winter since 1756. In January, Australia saw its temperatures rise 2.2 degrees F. above the 1961-2000 average, a record anomaly.
In the continental United States, things were a bit more sedate, despite the tornadoes that struck the Southeast in January and the snow that piled high in ski country. This winter ranked as the 54th coolest on record, though still 0.2 degrees F. above normal, according to preliminary figures released Thursday by the National Climate Data Center in Asheville, N.C. And it ranked as the 18th wettest winter, dropping an average of 2.7 inches of moisture on the country – just over half an inch above normal.
Unfortunately, the Monitor was playing it a bit loose with the facts here. This is what NCDC reported on Thursday (emphasis added):
The average temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century mean.
Maybe more important, if the Monitor felt it necessary to share this preliminary data for winter 2008, why didn't it provide how this compared to some recent years?
For instance, "The winter temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 0.6°F (0.3°C) above the 20th century average of 33.0°F" in 2007.
This figure was "1.2°F (0.7°C) above the 1895-2005 mean" in winter 2006. And an astounding "2.8F (1.6C) above the 1895-2004 mean" in winter 2005.
Anybody see a trend -- like, our past three winters have dramatically cooled from almost three degrees above the 20th century mean to virtually right back to that mean? Isn't that newsworthy?
Apparently not. Nor did the Monitor choose to share some of the extraordinary snowfall numbers this season:
The map to the left depicts the snowpack levels in many Rocky Mountain basins on March 1, 2008, illustrating above-average snow cover in much of the Rockies, Cascades, and Sierra Nevada in the western U.S. Some areas in Oregon, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and southern Colorado had levels above 180% of normal at the beginning of March. At the end of February, new snowfall records for the season-to-date were set in both Telluride and Aspen, Colorado. Conversely, parts of Wyoming, Montana, Nevada and north-central Washington had levels below normal, as did much of eastern Alaska and southern New Mexico. Above-average snowfall this season is bringing relief to many areas of the Western U.S. that have been plagued by drought in recent years.
I guess reporting this would be too much like news as well.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Something tells me that
March 6, 2008 - 21:12 ET by wiwfSomething tells me that blaming global warming is become the new term getting phased in. Blaming Bush was getting old. Next thing you know, 6 degrees of blaming global warming will say not being green will cause cancer!
I love how these morons cherry pick when Global Warming is the problem and when it isn't. That doesn't prove anything other than the NONEXISTENCE of global warming.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
A complete list of things caused by global warming
March 6, 2008 - 23:24 ET by PopularTechA complete list of things caused by global warming (Number Watch)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
i made i bet with myself to
March 7, 2008 - 00:56 ET by red_dragon311i made i bet with myself to see how fast somone would put that up, and if nobody did i was going to ......pop you win
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
Great link pop (and almost
March 7, 2008 - 02:27 ET by wiwfGreat link pop (and almost reddragon ;))! Classic.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
"Global" Temperature ... Global Wild Goose Chase.
March 6, 2008 - 21:30 ET by thoridflyDon't you know what a colossal waste of time, money, and resources it is to even try to find a "global" temperature?
Have tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars ever been spent on trying to establish a more meaningless and non-existent number than the "global" temperature?
That is a number created BY global warmists FOR global warmists to prove their global laming theory.
Thumb-Riders
March 6, 2008 - 21:41 ET by thoridflyI've never seen a more distinguished gathering of intellectual idiots than these global warming PhDipsh_ts that sit around with their thumbs up their _sses all day long trying to prove a pointless lie with creative math.
Recession VS. Global Warming
March 6, 2008 - 21:45 ET by aeroveloHere is what I dont understand...
The MSM cant stop wringing their hands about the impending recession, yet you would think this year's weather would at least garner a few reports about how completely bad life on this planet would be if in fact we are entering a cooling period for the globe.
If you think polar bears on little ice bergs are a crying shame...imagine entire crop failures due to colder and colder weather. Imagine entire cities under constant heavy snow storms from December to March.
Its amazing, they would rather prattle on endlessly about the impact of the relatively small percentage of people out there who were too generously given home loans, than discussing the potential impact of crop failures, and loss of economic prosperity on a global scale if things decide to cool off.
If things heat up, you at least can grow crops, but youd better get on your knees and pray that were not entering into a little ice age, because that will really put a damper on human activities for the next hundred years or so.
---
Ask yourself: Do I want a good paying job, or do I want a government hand out. Its that simple!
The brains over at Real
March 7, 2008 - 08:35 ET by danboThe brains over at Real Climate seem to have figured out that something happened in the years 535/6 and 40. But it looks like they still don't have a clue what happened. A sudden serious climate cooling. Where the noon day sun was liked to the light of a full moon. Where tree rings show no growth. It may have triggered the plague.
If we get a serious cold spell, they'll wish AGW were real. They'd pay us to run our cars 24/7.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
This is like that game at Chukie Cheese's
March 6, 2008 - 22:46 ET by JayTeeYou Take a Hammer and hit the Heads when they pop up out of the Holes in front of you.
You Beat down one Global Warmer, and another pops up holding a Peace prize, trying to keep you from hitting anyone else with a GW agenda.
It's a never ending game.
Whack-a-Mole!! LOL
March 6, 2008 - 22:50 ET by motherbeltWhack-a-Mole!! LOL
Whack-a-mole
March 6, 2008 - 22:51 ET by Free StinkerIt's not "Whack-a-mole",
it's verbally-smack-an-alarmist
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
JT... Words spoken so
March 7, 2008 - 00:21 ET by bigtimerJT...
Words spoken so true...
...I am LMAO!
"Global Warming Not Always
March 6, 2008 - 23:18 ET by Jerry"Global Warming Not Always to Blame for Extreme Winters"
Other suggested headlines for these Einsteins:
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
" Christians Not Always to
March 7, 2008 - 08:26 ET by danbo" Christians Not Always to Blame for Islamic Terrorism"
They'll never print that. Nor "The US Not Always to Blame for Islamic Terrorism". And they really want to replace Islamic Terrorist with Islamic Freedom Fighters. It's a whole new dictionary.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Weather change
March 6, 2008 - 23:54 ET by ScrapironIt changed for the Aussie's down under to. They are in the mist of the coolest summer in years. So cool the outdoor food joints are closing up due to lack of customers willing to freeze their buns off while waiting for a bun.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
CS knows how to pick cherries.
March 7, 2008 - 10:53 ET by Dave in TexasThe Australia quote jumped out at me too, because of this article I saw a few days ago. Sydney's Coolest Summer in 50 Years Leaves Empty Cafes, Gloom.
"No day topped 31 degrees celsius (88 degrees fahrenheit) for
the first time since 1956. Average daily sunshine totaled 6.7 hours,
an hour less than normal and the lowest since 1991-92. The average
maximum temperature was 25.2, the coolest since 1996-97."
Hmm. I wonder why the Christian Science Monitor didn't mention that in their article?
paging Dr. Giles
March 6, 2008 - 23:59 ET by contrarypaging Dr. Giles Winterhorne....
Dr. Winterhorne....
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
He's 3 pages back. Maybe 4
March 7, 2008 - 08:20 ET by danboHe's 3 pages back. Maybe 4 by now. Still claiming that the IPCC is god. A couple times a day I go there and say it isn't. But I'm about to lose the place.
Apparently he doesn't realize people move along.
If you want to go tell him we moved???????
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
i think i predicted this at least a hundred times
March 7, 2008 - 00:13 ET by lunaticcringeradioi said that the glob warms were going to try and take credit in some way for the cold temps too.
lunaticcringeradio
I can say from personal
March 7, 2008 - 09:54 ET by USA4freedomI can say from personal experience that my Brother-in-law who was a crazy screaming nut case when it came to global warming is starting to see the light. He e-mailed my wife/his sister the other day and told her that he is starting to have his doubts. Now I cant say if the movement is starting to loose steam (pun intended) but some how I think it is.
I think that fact that God seems to be messing with the global warming people. Biggest snow in North, snow in middle east, 27 degrees in Viet Nam, AlGore makes his speech in NYC and it is the coldest day in history for that date, etc, etc.
Then the idiots say something like: the reason its snowing is because the planet is warming..??..
I have pages of this info, kept for my next argument with him.
His wife, English, super liberal , and in the movie industry.
I had a two hour chat with her one day about gun control. In the end she told me, she still thinks gun control is better but sees why I have the opinion that I do and, that she will try to do some reading on it. I think one of the biggest problems that liberals have is: no one in their group challenges their opinions. Every one around them (group think) (like the MSM) thinks the same way. Once you do (if they are honest with them selves) cant help but be convinced, or at the minimum start to question their own opinions.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ae6GlcvBtldY&refer=home
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=7940256&nav=4QcS
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
http://www.ana.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=6157497&maindocimg=6154941&service=6
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-02-china-snow_N.htm
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105114.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1146182220080111
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/07/iran.snow.ap/index.html
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=7560925&nav=menu183_17_14
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2983816.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
Try to Get Him to Watch these Global Warming Videos
March 7, 2008 - 10:23 ET by PopularTechEveryone I have been able to get to watch these videos has come away much less hysterical and much more skeptical. The ones I have been unable to convince refuse to watch them out of fear of being convinced (I kid you not). All the hysterical ones have only seen Gore's film the rest think the debate is about pollution not CO2.
Censored Global Warming Videos (Videos)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Thanks, popularTech
March 7, 2008 - 10:33 ET by Mica the MagnificentI felt sorry for those frightened kids in Stossel's video.
Ahh, give me the good ol' days when, as a kid, the only thing that frightened me was a bald headed commie named Nikita who claimed he would 'bury me.'
Pop Techo Goldilocks and the Greenhouse Video
March 7, 2008 - 11:10 ET by JayTeeYahoo and company have a few Kids being solicited to watch this Video... I especially like the picture of the Blue Earth with Dry Sandy Mars on Both sides of earth in the Video...sorta a Visual End of the World effect, as if we're turing into Mars.
Goldilocks and the Greenhouse
Some people get their Science from Yahoo......or Yeehaww
thanks guys, I will add it
March 7, 2008 - 12:13 ET by USA4freedomthanks guys, I will add it to my saved pile!!
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
missed one
March 7, 2008 - 13:59 ET by Giles Winterbournehttp://www.cbc.ca/fi...
That is bizarre. I
March 7, 2008 - 14:45 ET by danboThat is bizarre. I wouldn't waste that much time with the whole thing. How about using http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html ?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Go ahead, if it floats your
March 7, 2008 - 15:56 ET by Giles WinterbourneGo ahead, if it floats your boat.
But a substantive discussion would be to point out purported inaccuracies in the CBC report rather than try to imply that your source is equal to CBC research.
And it's worth mentioning that the focus and title of the CBC report is _The Denial Machine_, not tobacco. They're just pointing out the tie-ins and similarities of the AGW denier meme to the previous tactics of the tobacco deniers.
Tell me fire can't affect
March 7, 2008 - 17:01 ET by danboTell me fire can't affect steel either?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
they were similar in another way, too.
March 7, 2008 - 17:07 ET by sarcasmoBoth take government subsidies, leading to crappy "science."
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Giles is my source equal to CBC Research?
March 7, 2008 - 19:47 ET by PopularTechCBC: Documentary: Doomsday called off (Google Video) (44min)
Ooops, it is from the CBC too - my bad.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Different
March 7, 2008 - 21:44 ET by Giles WinterbourneDifferent producers/authors.
The Denial Machine lets the skeptics speak and respond to questions. However Doomsday Called Off program doesn't ask questions, shows only a march of the well known skeptics running through their talking points. Instead of 15 minutes of scenery, why not a call and response from both sides?
DM was taking the skeptic/deniers to task for their incomplete arguments, cherrypicking, inaccurate studies, funding ties, etc. They had their opportunity to clarify.
GWDCO, on the other hand only provided a sounding board for those known skeptics. And ignored the facts that much of their arguments have already been debunked or called seriously into question. http://www.cicero.ui...
Would you really say Morner's beach tree and skull is conclusive proof that the sea level hasn't changed or only dropped?
Willie Soon-Sallie Baliunas' publishing history? David Legates'? Skeptics ties to organizations?
Or that Christy/Spencer data hasn't been reviewed?
i.e. " The comparisons,
focused on the tropics where atmospheric temperatures are closely tied
to SSTs, strongly suggest that two spurious downward jumps occur in the
MSU-2R record coinciding with changes in satellites, and that the real
trend in MSU temperatures is likely to be positive, albeit small." Spurious trends in satellite MSU temperatures from merging different satellite records http://www.nature.co...
Remember also that the MSM for a long time fell into the trap of thinking they needed to present both sides of a controversy equally, without reviewing quality of information; that's why we had government and corporate sponsored or produced 'news' pieces. Having been taken to task, most outlets are reviewing their role in investigative journalism and look more critically at their sources. GWDCO is older, not updated. DM has been.
Also, the Denial Machine production was about the politics-specifically the funding; the Doomsday production was a POV documentary wearing a fleece of science to cover up the producer's agenda.
You got me there Giles
March 7, 2008 - 23:25 ET by PopularTechIt is obvious "The Denial Machine" is an honest non-biased documentary featuring the known skeptical climatologist Bonner Cohen. Why would I question such a clearly non-biased piece called "The Denial Machine"?
Nils-Axel Mörner, Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden - obviously has no publishing history.
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA - obviously has no publishing history.
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA - obviously has no publishing history. - obvoiusly has no publishing history.
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA - obviously has no publishing history.
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA - obviously has no publishing history.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You are right Giles I missed quite a few Videos...
March 7, 2008 - 20:02 ET by PopularTech*The Great Global Warming Swindle (Video) (1hr 14min)
*20/20: The Debate is Not Over (Video) (8min)
*Bullshit! - Environmental Hysteria (Video) (29min)
*CBC: Documentary: Doomsday Called Off (Video) (44min)
*Climate Catastrophe Cancelled (Video) (25min)
*CNN: Exposed: Climate of Fear (Video) (42min)
Bob Carter: Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? (Video) (37min) (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, Ph.D. Paleontology)
Economist Bjorn Lomborg: Global warming is not a priority (Video) (17min) (Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science)
Dennis Avery Discusses Global Warming (Video) (31min) (Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics)
Freeman Dyson on Global Warming (Video) (11min) (Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University)
Global Warming Debate - 'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis' (Video) (1hr 16min)
States of Fear: Science or Politics? (Video) (1hr 56min)
Al Gore:
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming (Video) (9min)
Al Gore: BBC's 30th Most Annoying Person of 2007 (Video) (3min)
Al Gore and the siege of Yorktown (Video) (2min)
Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story (Video) (1min)
Al Gore and Global Warming - Is He a Hypocrite? (Video) (10min)
Al Gore's Gulfstream (Video) (7min)
Al Gore Snowjob (Video) (5min)
An Inconvenient Truth:
CNN Meteorologist Applauds Criticism of 'Inconvenient Truth' (Video) (1min)
Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore - Hurricane Catarina (Video) (2min)
Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore - Moulins (Video) (2min)
Marlo Lewis Critiques Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (Video) (1hr 2min)
Scare Tactics in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (Video) (8min)
The truth about Al Gore and Kyoto (Video) (2min)
Energy:
Bullshit! - Nukes, Hybrids & Lesbians (Video) (28min)
Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Close-up )
Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Wide-angle)
Give me a break - Oil Prices (Video) (5min)
Living Next Door to a Wind Farm, Australia (Video) (10min)
Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great (Video) (5min)
MythBusters: Free Energy = Busted (Video) (41min)
"Peak vs Deep Oil"[/b] (Video) (8min) (CNBC)
The Problems With Ethanol (Video) (5min)
Wind Farms - Not In My Back Yard (Video) (5min)
Wind Turbine on Fire, California (Video) (1min)
Wind Turbine on Fire (Video) (min)
Global Warming:
Glen Beck interviews James Spann (Video) (6min)
Glen Beck interviews Weather Channel Founder: John Coleman (Video) (5min)
Global Warming - "Energy" (Video) (1min)
Global Warming - "Glaciers" (Video) (1min)
Global Warming - An Unsettled Science (Video) (8min)
Global Warming - Every Breath You Take (Video) (4min)
Global Warming - Opportunities (Video) (4min)
Global Warming - Sun (Video) (5min)
Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Fiction? (Video) (48min)
Larry King: Bill Nye vs. Richard Lindzen (Video) (8min)
Little Ice Age: Big Chill (Video) (1hr, 40min)
Man-Made Global Warming is Bunk (Video) (10min)
Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion (Video) (4min)
Milankovitch Cycles (Video) (3min)
Space weather and climate change (Video) (4min)
What is Normal? Climate Video (Video) (55min)
Polar Bears:
Polar Bear Kills Seal Pup (Video) (2min)
Polar Bear Attacks Seal (Video) (1min)
Recycling:
Bullshit! - Recycling (Video) (29min)
Species Extinction:
Bullshit! - Endangered Species (Video) (29min)
Older:
The Greening of Planet Earth (1992, 1998) (Videos) (60min)
Green House Conspiracy (1990) (Video) (52min)
Humor:
*Back in Black: Earth Day - YouTube (Video) (4min)
*George Carlin - The Planet is Fine (Adults Only) (Video) (8min)
A Tribute to Gore (Video) (7min)
Al Gore's Penguin Army (Video) (2min)
An Inconvenient Youth (Video) (1min)
Drew Carey on Global Warming (Video) (2min)
Global Warming Frosty the Snowman (Video) (3min)
Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition (Video) (3min)
South Park - ManBearPig ft. Al Gore (Season 10 Episode 6) (Video) (22min)
Sorry about that.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The Stossel one of course
March 7, 2008 - 20:36 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe Stossel one of course points to the current admin's position of uninhibited energy growth and use. There was early and solid discussion of the downsides of switching corn to a energy source.
Glad you kept busy on ytube.
Yes I have had the Ethanol Discussion Before
March 7, 2008 - 21:13 ET by PopularTechYes I am well aware the current admin's position on mandating Ethanol is idiotic - just like his billions in useless aid to Africa. I have posted extensively on this before.
Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops Not Worth The Energy (Science Daily)
Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
The Problems With Ethanol (Video) (5min)
- Ethanol reduces fuel economy by 30% compared to gasoline
- Ethanol cannot be transported in existing pipelines
- Ethanol fires are harder to put out
Ethanol Energy Content (U.S Department of Energy)
Ethanol (E85) = 80,000 BTUs, Gasoline = 125,000 BTUs (per gallon)
Ethanol - E85 BTU Adjusted Price (AAA)
Ethanol - Ethanol E85 fuel loses cost-benefit test to diesel (USA Today)
Ethanol - Ethanol Fuels Fire Concerns (ABC News)
Ethanol - Ethanol Is Not the Answer (The New York Sun)
Ethanol - Ethanol Makes Gasoline Costlier, Dirtier (Cato Institute)
Ethanol - Ethanol: Myths and Realities (BusinessWeek)
Ethanol - Ethanol Vehicles Pose Significant Risk To Health, New Study Finds (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Fuel Ethanol Cannot Alleviate U.S. Dependence On Petroleum (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Study: Ethanol May Add to Global Warming (USA Today)
Ethanol - Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Study: Ethanol Won't Solve Energy Problems (USA Today)
Ethanol - Test results: E85 vs. gasoline (Consumer Reports)
Ethanol - The Environmental Costs of Ethanol (National Center For Policy Abalysis)
Ethanol - The Many Myths of Ethanol (John Stossel, 20/20)
Ethanol - The Ethanol Fallacy (Popular Mechanics)
Ethanol - The Ethanol Myth (Consumer Reports)
Food - Biofuel Brews up Higher German Beer Prices (MSNBC)
Food - Biofuel Demand Makes Food Expensive (BBC)
Food - Biofuels Could Lead to Mass Hunger Deaths: U.N. Envoy (Reuters)
Food - Ethanol Fuel From Corn Faulted As "Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning" In Analysis By Cornell Scientist (Science Daily)
Food - Ethanol fuels food price frenzy (Financial Post, Canda)
Food - Ethanol Mandates Could Drive Up Food Prices, Enviros Say (CNSNews)
Food - Ethanol Production, Worldwide Demand Sends Prices for Dairy Goods Soaring (MSNBC)
Food - Germany's Cheap Beer Tradition Under Threat From Biofuels (Deutsche Welle)
Food - IMF Warns About Impact of Biofuels on Food Prices (Forbes)
Food - How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor (The New York Times)
Food - Mexicans Torch Tequila Fields for Ethanol Boom Corn (Reuters)
Food - More Ethanol, Less Sugar (The New York Times)
Food - Think Tank Warns Biofuel Will Lead to Rocketing Food Prices (Vnunet, UK)
Food - Will Demand for Ethanol Raise Food Prices? The Government Says Yes (FOXNews)
Livestock - Cattle Fed Byproducts Of Ethanol Production Harbor Dangerous E. Coli Bacteria (Science Daily)
Livestock - Ethanol, Corn To Weigh Heavily On Future Of Livestock Industry (Science Daily)
Water - Ethanol Production May Put Pinch on Water Resources (FOXNews)
Water - Ethanol Production Threatens Plains States With Water Scarcity (Environmental News Service)
Water - Ethanol's Water Shortage (The Wall Street Journal)
Water - Increase In Ethanol Production From Corn Could Significantly Harm Water Quality (Science Daily)
Water - Water Constraints Rain on Ethanol Zeal (USA Today)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Summation of Science for the last Decade
March 7, 2008 - 09:52 ET by Polazerus"After several years and thirty-million dollars, the results of our politically motivated, yet scientific, study indicate that we still don't have a clue how this planet was formed or how any of it works. We are quite confident, however, that bad things must be happening. Further, we guess, with near certainty, that evil humans are responsible for the bad things, and that such bad things are impacting women, children, and minorities in a disproportionate manner."
This was sent to me from a relative. Not sure if it was his quote or if he got it from somewhere. I just thought it was perfect.
Polazerus, Thats a great
March 7, 2008 - 09:59 ET by USA4freedomPolazerus,
Thats a great statement. I think I might save it to my files.
If the world cools via natural causes they will be wishing for global warming!!!!!
women and minorities hit hardest.....
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
Heads, they win
March 7, 2008 - 12:45 ET by ThalpyHeads they win; tails we lose.
So Noel...
March 7, 2008 - 10:56 ET by Sick-n-Tired...the brilliant, mental giant that emailed you yesterday was a government employee eh? With comments like his I am soooo suprised <end sarcasm>
"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.
Anybody see a trend
March 7, 2008 - 13:44 ET by Giles WinterbourneUh, yeah,
First, using anecdotal evidence of weather to dispute global climate trends has been an ongoing skeptic technique - one that may work with a small number of people in the world that have a problem differenciating between local and global and weather and climate. A topic covered pretty well from about the 4th grade up.
Second, using newspaper articles as though they were science studies to refute the science has also been a long term trend.
Third, using weak data, cherrypicked data, and unelipised quotes; then stating that it disproves every piece of data that far more strongly supports antropogenic global warming has also been an oft-repeated technique.
Some clarity http://www.columbia....
Speaking of cherrypicked
March 7, 2008 - 14:28 ET by danboSpeaking of cherrypicked data. You have the Kahunas to lecture people when you use http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080303_ColdWeather.pdf
which compared the last few months with the mean of 1950-80. The last cool period.
What will be your next revelation? That it's warmer now than during the plistocene, or the little ice age..
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
And continue reading on to
March 7, 2008 - 15:40 ET by Giles WinterbourneAnd continue reading on to page 2
Or even the text on page 1 "The maps are used to show that, even averaged over a month, local weather anomalies
(dynamical fluctuations, more-or-less independent of forced long-term climate change) are much larger
than the global mean temperature change of recent decades.1 Weather fluctuations or ‘noise’ have a
noticeable effect even on monthly-mean global-mean temperature, especially in Northern Hemisphere
winter. Weather has little effect on global-mean temperature averaged over several months or more."
"1950-80". It's your
March 7, 2008 - 16:52 ET by danbo"1950-80". It's your garbage.....
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Why don't you try to debate
March 7, 2008 - 16:59 ET by NL207Why don't you try to debate the details of this stuff you link?
Maybe the reason you don't is because you don't actually understand any of it and are simply relying on the opinions of others?
Since this is primarily a
March 7, 2008 - 17:33 ET by Giles WinterbourneSince this is primarily a political site, I'm providing links to the science that supports my position.
"There appears to be a concerted and systematic effort by some
individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has
led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that
there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's
climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate
scientific debate through the peer-reviewed literature, they are waging
in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with
which they disagree." Avery et al, Special insert--An open letter to Ben Santer July 1996 http://www.ucar.edu/...
Giles... What exactly is
March 7, 2008 - 17:41 ET by Clear thinkerGiles...
What exactly is your position?
"Abstain from McCain"
should be clear
March 7, 2008 - 18:27 ET by Giles Winterbourne"There appears to be a concerted and systematic effort by some
individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has
led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that
there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's
climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate
scientific debate through the peer-reviewed literature, they are waging
in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with
which they disagree." (my bolding) http://www.ucar.edu/...
"...I’ve decided to put up this post as a work in progress, aimed at
establishing a list of basic facets of the climate and energy challenge
that are not in reasonable dispute..." A. Revkin 'A Starting Point for Productive Climate Discourse' http://dotearth.blog...
"What we have here is a case of dogged contrarians who present results in ways intended to deceive the public into believing that the changes have greater significance than reality. They aim to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I believe that these people are not stupid, instead they seek to create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in the climate change story. They seem to know exactly what they are doing and believe they can get away with it, because the public does not have the time, inclination, and training to discern what is a significant change with regard to the global warming issue.
The proclamations of the contrarians are a deceit, but their story raises a more important matter, usufruct. It is the most important issue in the entire global warming story, in my opinion. The players in the present U.S. temperature story, we scientists included, are just bit players. The characters in the main drama are big fish, really big fish. But before we get to that matter, I need to expose how the deceit works." Hansen The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla http://www.columbia....
"Of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical
and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to
warming" http://www.ipcc.ch/p...
"There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming." http://www.ipcc.ch/p...
"Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)." http://www.ipcc.ch/p...
"A vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that it poses a serious threat to society. They also agree that it is being caused largely by human activities that release greenhouse gases, such as burning fossil fuels in power plants and cars and deforesting the land. This scientific consensus emerged gradually over decades of research and debate. The current state of knowledge on climate is summed up in the periodic reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are compiled by thousands of scientists. Unfortunately, much
of the American public remains unaware of this overwhelming scientific agreement. Part of the blame for this lies with coordinated efforts within certain industries to spread misinformation about global warming." Environmental Defense _The Latest Myths and Fact on Global Warming _ http://www.edf.org/d...
"It has become fashionable in some parts of the UK media to portray the
scientific evidence that has been collected about climate change and
the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities as an
exaggeration. Some articles have claimed that scientists are ignoring
uncertainties in our understanding of the climate and the factors that
affect it. Some have questioned the motives of the scientists who have
presented the most authoritative assessments of the science of climate
change, claiming that they have a vested interest in ‘playing up’ the
potential effects that climate change is likely to have." The Royal
Society A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (pdf)
http://royalsociety....
But you already knew that.
Interesting You use a
March 7, 2008 - 19:40 ET by danboInteresting You use a quote from the Royal Society. Didn't the Royal Society write Exxon demanding that they stop funding anyone who disagrees with them (The Royal Society) on AGW. That's a group that's really interested in the truth.
And of course it also states anyone who recieves money and support from an oil company is suspect. And lying.
This morning I saw another warmer post, where they cited the organizations and societies who have come out in support of AGW. (Not individual scientist.) Also the corporations. Guess what one of the corporations was. You guessed it. Exxon/Mobile. When is Exxon supposed to be lying? When they support climate hysterics or skeptics?
Giles also gives us a link that defends Hansen after his Y2K error. Trying to minimize it. Of course the US records are the worlds best. And a serious error there isn't good for the rest of the world. Further as there are so few long term stations that GISS has for the rest of the world it's hard for them to prove the last 20 years are warmer than the 20's, 30's and 40's without using stations heavly influenced by UHI. (See McIntyres where's Waldo series.) Please Giles give us the long term records for the antarctic that prove it's warmer now than the 20's or 30's.
Giles if the US records aren't that big a deal. Why is Giss readjusting them again since the error was found?
We've already talked IPCC till you're blue from holding your breath. Enough there.
As we now have 4 studies that indicate Oreskes is wrong in her assertion that there is a scientific consensus. Please provide proof of a consensus.
As far as decit. Gile's I wasn't the one who posted that biased research using a 1950-80 base. You did. It's probably very true. Just misleading as all get out. And I did point it out. That was your second time. And my second time pointing out the bias.
There are three ways to lie. A falsehood. Not telling all the truth and research/statistics.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Interesting, though logically flawed
March 7, 2008 - 20:27 ET by Giles Winterbournere Royal Society letter "The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups
that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that
emissions are linked to climate change." http://nielsenhayden...
It might be interesting to do a bit of research: there is a growing legal opinion meme on what is becoming obviously deceiving PR from the various astroturf skeptical groups. You've probably also noticed that skeptical arguments tend to be met with more derision lately as reporters, and citizens are starting to see the GWS arguments holding less and less water.
"..cited the organizations and societies who have come out in support of AGW..."
I think most of the major petro, electrical producers, car cos., retail outlets, etc have come out with policy statements about reducing energy use and being better stewards of the environment.
"..4 studies that indicate Oreskes is wrong .."
And they are where? One at least used incorrect search terms (though if I remember right, there was an early article that gave incorrect search terms but corrected that later), One also used a different database for their comparison.
Care to cite how big the 'serious error' was? Or would you like me to point out how small it was?
"A minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century." NASA '2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year' http://www.giss.nasa...
Likewise, the rationale for Hansen's choice of data for the 'cooling' discussion is to show the trend. I don't see any science in your objection, only opinion. Use a different base and see where the trend leads.
In any case, there are sufficient other studies debunking the 'cooling' meme; I used Hansen mainly because he attracts a certain vehemence often reserved for Mann or Clinton.
You said ""The move
March 7, 2008 - 21:53 ET by danboYou said ""The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that
emissions are linked to climate change."
You can white wash it. I call it censorship. If The royal Society is so sure iof itself they shouldn't fear. That's been your who mode of operation. No one has a right to disagree with you.
You said "I think most of the major petro, electrical producers, car cos., retail outlets, etc have come out with policy statements about reducing energy use and being better stewards of the environment."
As you and your friends said they're lying. When are they lying. When the support warmers are when they decide to make money by jumping on the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hysteria bandwagon.
You said "One at least used incorrect search terms (though if I remember right, there was an early article that gave incorrect search terms but corrected that later), One also used a different database for their comparison." The contention of Oreskes was that everyone agreed. The issue of the search terms or database is irrelevant. They were found. If you use use a set of search parameters designed to lean heavily to one type of response. And a subsequent researchers finds the reports that your parameters failed to find by using different terms or a different database. You're still wrong.
Sufficient to debunk the cooling? Ghee I though your models had it all figured out. I thought they accounted for La Nina or the PDO. I guess not.
Enough for now. Din-din to finish. I'll let someone else finish with this.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Royal Society isn't in a
March 7, 2008 - 22:22 ET by Giles WinterbourneRoyal Society isn't in a position to 'censor'. They could recommend, they could point out the ludicrous position that that funding is trying to project.
And where are those 'four studies' refuting Oreskes' The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
"That's been your who mode of operation. No one has a right to disagree with you." No, you can disagree all you want. But your opinion holds little weight without some good support. Show us the support.
Not legally but their
March 7, 2008 - 23:14 ET by danboNot legally but their attempt was.
You still haven't disputted the study didn't find research contrary to AGW. Do you understand what a population and a sample are? Do you understand what a hypothesis is in reference to these two factors?
The 4 researchers are Benny Peiser, The one you complained of. Also Klaus-Martin Schulte, Von Storch, and the one that is now being reported on by the Edmonton Journal of a poll of those licensed by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. “
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
"Not legally but their
March 8, 2008 - 00:03 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Not legally but their attempt was."
How? What can the RS do to compel or force them to not fund? It seems you are taking a very forced position on the context of their message.
Why are you not citing the studies disputing Oreskes?
"You still haven't disputted the study didn't find research contrary to AGW. "
??????
"Do you understand what a population and a sample are? Do you understand what a hypothesis is in reference to these two factors?"
Pretend I (and the rest of the audience) don't - Explain it and what it has to do with the discussion.
"The celebrated research by
March 8, 2008 - 00:18 ET by Giles Winterbourne"The celebrated research
by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still
continues over the science behind climate change, is "a bit patchy and
nothing new," according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication."
http://www.desmogblo...
"Benny Peiser, The one you complained of."
That would be - pointed out that there has already been discussion on the errors of his methodology.
Benny Peiser ....
March 8, 2008 - 01:06 ET by NL207Benny Peiser .... hmmmm... he tried to reproduce Naomi Oreskes results according to the protocol she described in that bogus 'consesus' piece that was published in Science and discovered her paper was hogwash. It could not be reproduced.
The inability of independent researchers to reproduce results previously obtained using the methods described and documented bty the author is sufficient without any other proofs to invalidate unreproducible results. Real Science is repeatable and predictible. That consensus drivel Oreskes wrote is neither.
Giles. You really need to
March 8, 2008 - 09:14 ET by danboGiles. You really need to give us a warning. I almost got coke on my keyboard.
You're so desperate you use that great bastion of science desmog to counter the 4 studies. A public relations group associated with Suzuki.
Let me point out from desmog what you failed to print from Sonja.
"For your information. I have informed Dr Schulte that I am happy to publish his own research findings on the effect on patients of climate alarmis/Angst"
I notice no one provides the entire letter. I'm having trouble finding it. From 2 sources I see his research was accepted for publication. May not have been published yet.
If you don't know what research is about. You can just try to trash it.
So we have 4 studies that show Oreskes erred. And everytime one of us finds research that casts doubt AGW, that is another piece of evidence that Oreskes got it wrong. Pop Tech has proved her wrong many times as have a number of us. We find the studies she couldn't.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Bottom of the desmog link
March 8, 2008 - 10:20 ET by Giles WinterbourneBottom of the desmog link is the email conversation. As noted at the top of the link.
Maybe you could write her and ask for the publication schedule; though it sounds pretty dead in the water.
Maybe you didn't hear me.
March 8, 2008 - 10:56 ET by danboMaybe you didn't hear me. As I said. I noticed they didn't produce the entire letter. That doesn't look like the entire letter. And I also noticed you didn't produce all of what desmog wrote.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
" I noticed they didn't
March 9, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Giles Winterbourne" I noticed they didn't produce the entire letter."
How do you figure that? They don't say 'included in this statement is '...' or indicate any selective quoting The statement is "And this is Bochmer-Christiansen's response:"
Now, even if they did pull a para out, it is still clear that E&E made a choice to not publish his work on 'survey of papers critical of the consensus' but are publishing the work about 'effect on patients of climate alamism/'Angst'.'
And the orig point (remember the orig point?) was that Oreskes' work has been published, had a correction (in search terms being described) has had discussion, but has been found to be valid.You have been saying it has been proven invalid, stated there were 4 studies, 4 studies that you have not been able to show.
Which, generalizing a bit, is fairly typical how asinine denier argument/discussions go; not looking at the valid evidence, Arguing pine needles and not seeing the forest, insult when reason doesn't work, attempt to equate one questionable piece of data with a large body of evidence to refute areas beyond the scope of the topic.
But, the deniers have had their day in the sun. It has become pretty obvious to journalists, politicos, general public that you're off to sea in a sieve.
"The water it soon came in, it did,
The water it soon came in;
So to keep them dry, they wrapped their feet
In a pinky paper all folded neat,
And they fastened it down with a pin.
And they passed the night in a crockery-jar,
And each of them said, 'How wise we are!
Though the sky be dark, and the voyage be long,
Yet we never can think we were rash or wrong,
While round in our Sieve we spin!'" Edward Lear 'The Jumblies'
Giles Fact is. By your own
March 10, 2008 - 10:48 ET by danboGiles Fact is. By your own admission you know these studies exist. You found desmog to try to rebut one of them. I don't need to show them as by your own admission they exist. And desmogg bac