CNBC's Joe Kernen Rips John Harwood's Knee-Jerk 'Global Warming' Reaction to Mild Winter
After the news portion of a "Warmer Weather Hurting Retail" segment on the impact of the mild winter on retail sales thus far appearing early this morning on CNBC, Joe Kernen and John Harwood got into it over the relevance and influence of so-called "global warming" (I guess Harwood didn't get the memo that it's "climate change" now).
Picking up at the 2:10 mark of the video:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Courtney Reagan: Now while the temperatures have begun to drop in many areas of the country, it could be too late for seasonal apparel sales. It's going to be hard to sell gloves in February when we're already past most of winter.
John Harwood: This global warming is a killer.
Courtney Reagan: I knew you were going to say that and I wasn't going to go there!
Joe Kernen: You say that (women panel members, especially Michelle Caruso Cabrera, give it the "oh no, here we go" treatment), but no no no, wait a minute, John. (We have) the same, the same carbon concentration last year as this year. Last year we were just talking about the record frigid temperatures. How do you have the variability from last year and this year based on the same carbon? Why wasn't it warm last year like this year because we had the same carbon concentration?
John Harwood (in a kidding tone): You don't have any empathy for retailers, do you?
(after crosstalk)
Kernen: But the great thing for the climate change people is that they attributed the snow last year also to global warming. So you have a frigid, freezing winter with lots of snow -- global warming. You have a warm … (inaudible) … Doesn't that tell you something?
The conversation then went to the continued popularity of Uggs.
In a subsequent segment on the Italian debt situation, a guest humorously referred back to the global warming discussion, saying that "things are going to melt down there a lot sooner than they do everywhere else."
Nice job by Kernen in asking the logical questions which really can't be answered by the warmist crowd.
Separately in a later interview, Harwood gave away his leftist lean when he took the position that a Mitt Romney win in Iowa's caucuses might turn the Republican race for the presidential nomination into a short-term rout for the former Massachusetts governor, who has been the fave of the establishment press all year. On what planet, John? Not the one which has South Carolina in it.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
It's my favorite aggravation
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 1:32pm.
It's my favorite aggravation from the Climate Change alarmists. If the current weather conflicts with GW dogma, it's irrelevant. If it supports GW, then it's evidence. Also, let's focus on the drought in the south for example, while we ignore the record snows in the Rockies. Let's go on day after day about warm winter in the Midwest, and gloss over the seasonal winter in the Southeast.
Our country is geographically large enough that there is almost always some region experiencing an extreme weather event. The climate alarmists jump on these events like they were the plagues of Moses. Not much mention of the inactivity for the Atlantic hurricane season of 2011, but they're all over the late, mild winter this year - so far! The cherry picking of events and data is so incredibly frustrating to me. And the fact that a true believer can switch from "current weather means nothing" to "current weather is proof" without taking a breath, is exasperating.
A true believer friend of mine once said it isn't necessarily cold weather in the summer or warm weather in the winter, it's "wacky weather". I asked him to define wacky weather. It was kind of like pornography, he couldn't give me a definition, but he knew it when he saw it. And it always supports global warming.
"Wacky Weather" Always Supports Global Warming
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 3:36pm.
I like that, I may have to steal it.
While I'm not going to search for the link, I seem to recall a few weeks ago the Hurricane Center has decided to forgo their annual guestimate for the upcoming hurricane season, because they have finally realized their models don't model anything when confronted with real, historical data. Go figure.
I've been calling them the weather guessers for years, because whenever I go fishing, there's a 50% chance they're going to be wrong. They can't even forecast tomorrow's weather accurately. I knew it was going to be a relatively warm winter this year, my Thanksgiving orchid bloomed a few days later than "normal"....last year it bloomed almost three weeks early, which proved out as we had a very, very cold winter (for SoFla). But those Warmers just KNOW what they know....they can't explain it, but they know it (apt simile, too, Kenny, just like porn).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Maybe not
Submitted by Model850 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 5:38pm.
"... I seem to recall a few weeks ago the Hurricane Center has decided to forgo their annual guestimate for the upcoming hurricane season...."
This link seems to indicate they're only dropping their December predictions, not their forecasts altogether. Too bad. I always have hated those things. The media touts how "accurate" the forecasts are when in fact they are revised at least once -- usually more -- during the season.
All they are really good for is the media to use them for "Run for your life! We're all gonna die!!" stories. The subhead for those articles is, of course, "Is global warming to blame?"
That kind of "evidence" in medicine is called "malpractice".
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 7:47pm.
The vertigo caused by listening to the AGW crowd's constant shifting evidence is almost untreatable. On one side, "evidence" is the plural of "anecdote", but then single points become trends in some kind of magical "consensus" driven hogslop that are independent of time. With that kind of "evidence", malpractice litigation and an inquiry by a licensing board is the common result in health care professions. AGW seems to be Harry Potter science at best.
Digitalis was considered a miracle drug when it was first used back in the 18th and 19th centuries by European physicians based on consensus. Following a closer examination of its pharmacological properties, that consensus quickly vanished when it was realized that the safe dosing range was very narrow and it was clinically useful in only a small subset of patients.
Carbon Shmarbon
Submitted by miss911ninja on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 1:46pm.
Kernan did do a nice job. But I still think any global warmist should be asked how the Earth emerged from the last Ice Age thousands of years before before humans used electricity or drove cars. The planet warmed and the glaciers melted while the human population was still wearing fur clothing. Carbon shmarbon.
miss911ninja
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 3:07pm.
A boulder might become dislodged from the side of a mountain as a result of wind and rain.
Does that mean that a person can't also dislodge a boulder from the side of a mountain by pushing on it?
Unique Position
Submitted by miss911ninja on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 3:55pm.
Your "boulder" is a single object which could be effected by THE WEATHER in its location, and its unique position on the side of the mountain.
Of COURSE a human being has the same potential as the weather to effect a single object. A strong wind can blow a tree down, or a human could cut it down. So if you were were trying to prove something with your "logic," you failed.
During the Ice Ages--and there have been many of them--almost the entire globe was covered with glaciers. It wasn't local weather or carbon emissions which caused them to melt.
Think about it.
miss911ninja
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 4:44pm.
The only thing I was trying to get across was the fact that different causes can generate basically the same effect.
Do you disagree with that?
If you don't, then you have to agree that the argument that humans can't be the cause of a current increase in the Earth's average global temperature since those types of increases have occurred in the past when humans weren't capable of causing such changes is obviously wrong.
I think you were taking my analogy too literally.
Edit: Typo/Correction
That's your argument? Really?
Submitted by JeffC... on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 6:08pm.
You're really using the "there's more than one way to skin a cat" argument for AGW?
Natural forces (e.g. the sun) caused earlier climate changes.
Natural forces are still around--there's no taking them out of the equation. Just because man is here doing things and observing the climate doesn't mean that man is affecting the climate.
JeffC...
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 7:49pm.
Show me where I've argued for AGW.
I'll wait.
I was pointing out what I saw to be a flaw in miss911ninja's argument. Nothing more - nothing less.
I don't know - maybe to you, a flawed argument is an OK argument as long as it agrees with your point of view?
I agree that just because "man is here and doing things... doesn't mean that man is affecting the climate."
Do you agree that just because natural forces have caused earlier climate changes that that doesn't preclude that possibility that mans actions might affect the climate as well?
If you do, then congratulations - you got my point.
There was no flaw in my argument.
Submitted by miss911ninja on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 8:25pm.
It's a fact that Ice Ages came and went before Man invented fire. Therefor, even EXTREME warming can occur in the absence of human influence. Conversely, if the planet were to enter another Ice Age while we were still enjoying our internal combustion vehicles and generating electricity with coal, etc., there would be nothing Man could do to stop the onslaught of glaciers. Global warmists just don't understand how powerful the Earth is, and how insignificant humans are by comparison.
Good evening missninja
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 9:01pm.
Just don't pee in the ocean. If you do you'll raise the water level amd flood us again. We had enough of that with Katrina.
Have a blessed year.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Oh dear!
Submitted by miss911ninja on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 9:21pm.
I've already peed in the ocean so much, I probably did cause the sea level to rise!
But can I still pee in lakes?
;-) Happy soon-to-be New Year, cocodrie!
miss911ninja
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 9:07pm.
OK, maybe I'm not understanding what your point is.
Was your original post here an argument that since global warming/cooling has occurred in the past through natural non-manmade mechanisms, then that proves that such changes can't be the caused by manmade mechanisms? If so, then unless you can deny the fact that a given effect can have multiple causes, your argument is flawed.
That isn't based on the details of AGW - it's based on you using a fallacious argument form called affirming the consequent. Your argument is basically:
If A then B
B
Therefore A
with A = "natural forces which can change global temperatures are in affect" and B = "global temperatures change"
That's an invalid argument form since it denies or ignores the possibility that B might be caused by other things.
If, on the other hand, your point was to simply assert that you don't think that mankind has the ability to affect global temperatures in a manner that amount to anything significant - particularly compared to what natural forces can do (which seems to be what you are saying in this last post) - well, that isn't really an argument - it's just you stating an opinion.
To turn that into an argument, you would have to actually explain why you think that is.
Nature v. Man
Submitted by Buzzy on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 3:35pm.
Hydro
I think the difference between the wind and rain moving a boulder and man moving a boulder is as follows: N
ature does not erode on purpose but... well naturally; a man would have to intententionally exert force to move the boulder therfore in order for man to have a effect on the weather he would have to forcefully, with intent, cause such weather change.
Just a thought.
Buzzy
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 7:52pm.
My boulder thing was just an analogy to get across that idea that you can get the same basic effect from different causes - something I obviously failed to do clearly given some of the responses here.
It had nothing to do with intent.
Having said that - are you honestly suggesting that humans are always fully aware of all the consequences of their actions? You know that isn't true.
Why don't you address the fact that we have the same
Submitted by frank14 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 7:16pm.
amount of carbon in the atmosphere this year as last and the weather is different? Oh that's right you global warmist nutcases can't. You are frauds and a disgrace to real science.
frank14
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 7:39pm.
First, I'm no global warmist. Anyone who's familiar with my posts here on the subject over the last five years knows that. What I am is a person who will call someone out if I think they have presented a flawed argument - regardless of what that argument is for or against.
And second, I did present a simple argument to account for temperature fluctuations in a post below.
I look forward to you explaining to me what the flaw in that analogy is.
How did it get loose?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 11:06am.
"Does that mean that a person can't also dislodge a boulder from the side of a mountain by pushing on it?"
How did it get loose enough for a person to "dislodge" to begin with? Oh, that's right, because of all that wind and rain. So much for the power of man to influence nature.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 7:41pm.
Um, OK.
What does that have to do with my point that multiple causes can result in basically the same effect?
And by the way, I'm pretty sure that guys who work with and dig through rock and stone for a living might disagree with your dismissive comment about the power of man to influence nature.
runnin hot and cold
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 1:56pm.
It's warmer than usual here in the Midwest. I'll see 50 degrees today but that's not near the record set in 1984 when it was 64 degrees. But hey..... that was when Reagan was President and there wasn't anything he wouldn't do for us.
The idiot Harwood
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 2:30pm.
Harwood is such an idiot I usually mute the TV when he appears on Squawk Box.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Concur Regarding Harwood
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 3:09pm.
Harwood used to tout his ties to the Wall Street Journal when he made appearances on television to give credence to his being non-partisan. I notice that he's since moved to the New York Times.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Harwood is one of the reasons I cancelled my WSJ
Submitted by frank14 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 7:18pm.
subscription. Sharon Begley the global warmist being another.
Answer to logical question
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 3:04pm.
"Nice job by Kernen in asking the logical questions which really can't be answered by the warmist crowd."
Look, I'm no proponent of AGW - but come on. Even I can come up with a simple analogy to explain how temperatures can fluctuate from year to year as a result of an overall increase in average global temperature...
Consider a tub full of water. Let the depth of water represent the Earth's average temperature in this analogy. If I drop a stone into the tub, the overall (average) water depth (temperature) will increase. But dropping a stone in a tub of water will also create waves on the surface. As a result the water depth (temperature) at any given point on the water surface will fluctuate - going up and down over time. In fact, even thought the overall average water depth has been increased, the troughs (low points) on the waves might be at a depth (temperature) which is less than what the water depth (temperature) was before the stone was dropped in the tub.
Now, just to be clear, this is just an analogy. I don't work in climate science and for all I know, someone in that area of work might tell me that the above analogy is fundamentally flawed in some way.
But my point is that if I can come up with a reasonable explanation for why an increase in average global temperature might result in local temperature fluctuations with time, I'm pretty sure someone who actually works in the field can do the same.
Using this particular exchange where some journalist couldn't answer a question about AGW hardly demonstrates what Mr. Blumer asserts in the sentence I've quoted above.
AGW vs your bathtub analogy
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 3:21pm.
From everything I've read concerning the modeling and assumptions used by proponents of AGW, they would probably be better of using your bathtub analogy to explain their theories and push for their positions regarding crippling the western economies.
And regarding Mr. Blumer's comments about Kernan: My guess is that he feels it's nice to have someone like Kernan on an NBC network who is there to counter the endless prattle regarding AGW. Kernan is about the only thing, (besides some of the guests), that makes watching CNBC tolerable.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
What about MMCC and Becky?
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 3:25pm.
Oh, I don't know. I think MMCC and Becky Quick, among others, make CNBC extremely tolerable.
:o)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
comparing apples and atmospheric thermal dynamics
Submitted by Huapakechi on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:24am.
*>"But my point is that if I can come up with a reasonable explanation for why an increase in average global temperature might result in local temperature fluctuations with time, I'm pretty sure someone who actually works in the field can do the same."<
But you don't. To begin with, oversimplification does not begin to describe your attempt at analogy. There are various cyclic variables that have been identified as having major contributions to our global climate. I offer a gleaning of some information I have discovered while arguing against a "warmer" who refuses to admit that the whole green movement is merely a front for inflicting world socialism.
Just a few of the climactic cycles: >orbital eccentricity, (1oo,ooo year cycle) polar axial tilt and wobble (41,000 year cycle), the Milankovitch theory, the 22 year Hale solar cycle, the 87 years (70–100 years): Gleissberg cycle, the 210 year Suess cycle (a.k.a. de Vries cycle), the 2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle, and the 6,000 year periodicity identified by Xapsos and Burke. <
These factors are totally separate from the thermal characteristics of mixed gas atmosphere, Coriolis effect, vulcanism, and cosmic ray influence on cloud formation, to name just a few other influences on weather/climate. Global warmist/climate change fanatics would do better to advance their cause by using Tarot card readings than the "computer modeling" they have hung their economy destroying hopes upon.
"Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get." Robert A. Heinlein
Huapakechi
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 7:28pm.
Yes, my analogy is a simple one (that's the appeal of analogies) but I think it does capture a typical characteristic of fluid/gas systems which is relevant to the question of temperature fluctuations from year to year.
I'm pretty sure the basis for atmospheric models is the Navier-Stokes equation - the same equation used to describe fluid systems. If I'm wrong about that, let me know.
The N-S equation obviously allows for oscillatory responses to sudden changes as exemplified by my water and tub analogy. Consequently, it makes sense that an atmospheric system - one that follows the same equation - might exhibit oscillatory responses to sudden changes as well.
Do you agree that this is possible? If so, then I think that makes my analogy a reasonable one.
I don't see what your list of cyclic processes has to do with my analogy since my analogy was basically about dynamic responses to short time scale forcing, not about responses to periodic forcing.
And keep in mind that the point of my analogy wasn't to argue for or defend AGW but was specifically put forth to address a contention which Mr. Blumer makes which I don't think is correct.
Bad anaology
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 11:35am.
You're using a bad analogy there, Hydro. There's over 3 TRILLION tons of atmosphere, mostly nitrogen, and the amount of CO2 we add to that massive atmosphere is less than three thousand of one percent (0.003) annually. That's like a teardrop added to an olympic size swimming poll. It not even enough to have a measurable effect. Even if we increase out CO2 output to 100 million tons a year, it would take 3 thousand years to increase the levels just 1 tenth of one percent (0.1) of the Earth's atmosphere, which would still have no effect on global temperatures. It take at least a 3 percent increase of CO2 concentrations to have a noticeable effect on the atmosphere's ability to "store' heat, that "greenhouse" effect everyone's so worried about. That's on the order of 9 BILLION tons of CO2 that we'd have to add for a measurable effect to occur.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 7:38pm.
See my post above - I think it explains the point of my analogy.
As I mention in that post, I wasn't arguing for AGW or the effects of CO2 or whatever - the point was to show that you can come up with a possible explanation for temperature oscillations in an atmospheric system based on analogy to a similar system which can display such behavior.
These idiots know nothing about retail sales.
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 3:22pm.
It's going to be hard to sell gloves in February when we're already past most of winter.
There won't even BE any gloves (or other winter apparel for that matter) in the stores in February...they are all on the clearance shelves NOW.
In February, they will be putting out the spring line.
Exactly, mb
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 3:26pm.
The "beach dresses" arrive at Macy's on January 15th. I know this, because my mom asked!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Good. Swimming and barbecues.
Submitted by ant on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 4:55pm.
Even if their global warming premise was true, I wouldn't understand the hysteria. Cold sucks, we could grow more food, storms would actually lessen, as one scientist explained, they are the conflict between hot and cold air. We'd use less oil for heat and such, you'd think libs would be diggin' it, I know I would. But then again....they were looking at some cool redistribution of wealth...so I guess that's the hysteria factor.
Another Clown
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 6:05pm.
John Harwood is just another clown that believes that we can power our economy with windmills and suncatchers.
two questions have to be answered
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 9:35pm.
There is the question is man causing Global Warming and the other question what do we do about it?
OK so let's say man is causing Global Warming.
The warmers say the effects are all around us What can we do about it? Not much. If the effects are already here that means we have to lower CO2 below current levels. But at the same time the worlds population is growing and more people are producing CO2. The socialist ideas out of the UN to force developed countries make payments to undeveloped countries will only make the CO2 situation worse as more undeveloped counties modernize their lifestyles.
The ONLY solution to lowering CO2 is genocide on a massive scale. I hear the Iranians and North Koreans are working on that very solution. Just think of them as quirky environmentalists.
The real questions
Submitted by Huapakechi on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:54am.
First, these fanatic socialists have identified a gas that comprises approximately 0.03% of the Earth's atmosphere as being the cause of "global warming" Mankind is responsible for approximately 2% of the annual tonnage of CO2 released into the atmosphere (if my memory serves me correctly), and the gas only "traps" a narrow spectrum of the infrared band. This means that there is a limit to the heat that can be trapped by CO2, regardless of concentration, which is much less than historic norms. Plant life is on the point of starvation.
The u.n.'s ipcc is an organization dedicated solely to the destruction of capitalist economies. Given the proclivities of socialist governments, a massive reduction of human population is well within the realm of possible remedies for "global warming", and even that will not reduce the atmospheric CO2 as much as a gnat's fart.
Global warming? Gnome infestation!
Submitted by lgeubank on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:37am.
Whenever I hear something attributed to "global warming" or "climate change," I mentally substitute the phrase, "infestation of gnomes."
The scientific basis for the two explanations is equally valid, and gnomes help me keep the subject in perspective.
Ha
Submitted by ant on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 11:16am.
I knew Paul Krugman had something to do with it.
One question. Why hasn't Fox hired this guy Kernen away...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 5:20am.
by now? I never watch CNBC anymore but I understand he and Rick Santelli are two worth hiring away.
Global Warming is GW
Submitted by CO2Maker on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 9:03am.
President Bush is GW.
Global Warming is obviously a Republican conspiracy to deprive polar bears of ice, swamp low-lying islands, and cause life-threatening arid, hot, dry conditions across large parts of north Africa,the Middle East, and China.