Media Mayhem: 5 more tall tales by climate change deniers in 2009

Last week's readers help me come up with five more juicy ones to chew on.

By

Mon, Jan 04 2010 at 8:28 AM

Related Topics:

Global Warming, Climategate, Media Mayhem

THE SKY IS FALLING ... AND WE'RE BEING ATTACKED BY ALIENS: Some have blamed the media for hyping climate change. (Illustration by Sean James/iStockPhoto)

Long before 2009, a nine-headed serpent guarded the gate to Hades. For every one of the Hydra’s heads that was chopped off, two grew in its place.

Now I understand. The Hydra wasn’t actually a beast. It was a metaphor for the endlessly multiplying tall tales of climate change deniers. Here -- with a big assist from all the deniers who popped up with fresh myths in comments to last week’s column -- are five more of the best tall tales climate change deniers for 2009. Where’s Hercules when you need him?

The media has hyped climate change

Tall tale: We all know journalists hate America. Rather than report the truth, they act as PR agents for the global warming crowd. That’s why it’s right and proper to claim over and over again that journalists are biased in favor of “global alarmists” -- and to claim it most loudly when there’s no evidence to prove it.

Let’s say, for instance, that the U.N. Environment Program issues an overview of recent studies, which concludes that climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees by the end of the century even if most emissions cuts are implemented. Now, let’s say the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin writes: “Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges.”

Well, obviously, Eilperin is an alarmist-slanted reporter. Otherwise she would have noted that the scientists were basing all that nonsense on “unproven computer climate models that violate the basic principals of forecasting.” Why should she have included that bit of wisdom? Because political operative and non-scientist Marc Morano says she should have. And she didn’t. Ta-da! Bias!

I don’t think so: U.S. media coverage of climate change certainly has been slanted -- but the evidence shows it’s been slanted precisely in the opposite direction.

The most comprehensive review yet of newspaper climate change articles, performed in 2004 by academics Jules and Maxwell Boykoff, found that 53 percent of them offered roughly an equal balance between the view that humans contribute to global warming and that it’s exclusively caused by nature. But the Boykoffs couldn’t find a single peer-reviewed scientific study that supported the later view -- out of more than 900.

“We respect the need to represent multiple viewpoints,” the Boykoffs wrote, “but when generally agreed-upon scientific findings are presented side-by-side with the viewpoints of a handful of skeptics, readers are poorly served. In this case, it contributed to public confusion and opened the door to political maneuvering.”

Earlier this year, Harvard scholar and former Fortune magazine managing editor Eric Pooley found much the same thing: “My analysis of news articles published in national and regional newspapers, wire services, and newsmagazines between December 2007 and June 2008 suggests that for most reporters covering this story, the default role was that of stenographer -- presenting a nominally balanced view of the debate without questioning the validity of the arguments, sometimes even ignoring evidence that one side was twisting truth.”

Part of the problem is that, more than colleagues in other countries, American journalists are obsessed with the idea that every controversial story feature two equally valid sides. “Balance” trumps truth. And that makes American news organizations particularly easy to manipulate. All you have to do is declaim loudly and repeatedly that your side isn’t being given equal time; the news organizations then cower in fear that they’ll be called out as liberals.

It’s important, of course, to repeat the point as many times as possible. Because if you say something often enough, it becomes the truth. Right?

Media spin: The more the tall tale of media bias is repeated, the more the media seems to lean backward to prove it isn’t true. Not surprisingly, last year’s climate change reporting tilted further than ever from a truly “balanced” version of reality.

Morano even did a victory lap in October, boasting that 2009 was the year that journalists were finally “losing their religion” and acknowledged that they have to cover climate skeptics seriously.

The coup de grace came in the fall, when newspapers and TV networks, fanned by the right-wing echo chamber, gave unbridled coverage to four or five choice phrases in stolen e-mails between a couple of scientists. In many cases, they even allowed that much overhyped handful of out-of-context e-mail phrases frame coverage of the entire Copenhagen climate summit.

With reporting like that, it’s no surprise that the chasm between scientists and other Americans on climate change has widened. A July Pew Center survey found that 84 percent of scientists believe warming is caused by humans, while only 49 percent of the general population did.

Also unsurprisingly, more Americans than before seem convinced that fears of climate change are “exaggerated,” according to a separate Gallup poll. No doubt a spineless editor somewhere saw that survey and became even more convinced that the newspaper should work harder to “give voice” to the claims of deniers.

“Cap and tax” will cost thousands of dollars per household

Tall tale: Cap-and-trade may be a complicated policy idea, but building a tall tale around it is pretty simple: Just yell “largest tax increase in American history” and people will get the message.

The permit-trading scheme is the centerpiece of climate change legislation being pushed this year by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Rather than raise taxes on products that emit greenhouse gases, the idea is to issue permits that cap emissions but also to allow the companies that own those permits to sell them. As the pollution allowed in the permits is ratcheted down each year, the permits’ cost will increase -- theoretically at least -- which supposedly creates a powerful incentive to find cleaner industrial processes.

There’s no denying that cap-and-trade will introduce a new expense to polluting industries. The big questions are: How big an expense? And how much of it would be passed along to the average family?

Since spring, as cap-and-trade was being debated in the House of Representatives, all kinds of scary numbers have been floating around Washington. Cap-and-trade will cost $1,500 per family a year. No, $1,761. No, $800, $1,241, $1,800, $3,100 and so on. It’ll increase unemployment by 2.5 million or maybe it’ll even double unemployment.

The bulk of those numbers were bandied about by Fox News. But other media outlets -- CBS, CNBC and the Washington Post, among others -- were sure not to be left out.

Whatever the actual amount cap-and-trade will cost, this sure did sound bad.

I don’t think so: If you were listening to Fox, or as it turns out a lot of Washington media, you were less likely to hear much smaller numbers, each of which happened to be more credible than any of the ones mentioned above.

In fact, every single one of the numbers above either applied to an entirely different proposal to the one being considered in Congress, or was created by an organization with close ties to oil companies. Or both.

How much will the cap-and-trade options in the real world actually cost families? Nobody really knows, but here are the results from more objective studies: $175 a year (nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office), $80-$111 a year (EPA), and $83 a year (Energy Information Administration).

Media spin: By any measure, the mainstream media’s inability to distinguish the suspect spin of denial activists from authoritative government projections was an appalling dereliction.

Particularly indecorous was the Fox-led hype over an outdated administration document unearthed in September by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded pro-denial think tank. That document estimated that a cap-and-trade bill could cost the average family up to $1,761 a year. The only problem was the document didn’t apply at all to the actual cap-and-trade bill being considered by Congress.

Still, CBS, CNBC and the indefatigable Lou Dobbs picked up the story with breathless outrage. Pretty soon it was transformed to the main part of the mandatory intro to coverage of the bill, as in: “Some critics say that it would cost every American family $1,761 annually.” Except that no critics actually say that about any of the bills actually under consideration.

Glenn Beck was, of course, indignant.

The ice caps are getting bigger

Tall tale: There’s a growing belief among climate change deniers that all the talk about the melting polar ice is a bunch of hot air. Partly it seems to come from the anecdotal observation that, regardless of long-term trends, sea ice grows in the winter.

The idea was propped up by an August report in “CO2 Science,” a pseudoscience website funded by oil and coal interests that’s made to look like some sort of scientific journal. CO2 Science actually excerpted a study from another source and spun it to make it look as if that study found that there was no evidence of unusual arctic melting.

But the chief yarn spinner on Arctic sea ice for 2009 was none other than George Will, the inside-the-Beltway newspaper columnist who for years has hid poorly researched work behind a bow tie and thick classes.

Early in 2009, Will reported startling news: “As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”

I don’t think so: Here’s the statement that the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center published on its website within hours of the publication of Will’s column:

"... We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined. ... It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts."

Need we say more?

Media spin: One would think that such an egregious error would warrant an unequivocal correction, even an apology to the badly misquoted source. Such an apology would be beneath Will apparently.

The EPA suppressed whistle-blowing dissidents

Tall tale: There’s a grain of truth in this story. But because it was blown so far out of proportion, it still qualifies as a tall tale.

Scientific findings under the Bush administration were on several occasions influenced by special interests. That scandal reached its apex in 2002, when a one-time industry lobbyist and future ExxonMobil employee, who served on Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality, was found to have edited a major EPA report on climate change to make it seem more benign and less certain than the scientists who wrote the report had found.

So when news organizations reported in June of this year that a “scientist” had been blocked by agency officials from contributing his skeptical view to an EPA report finding that greenhouse gases were pollutants, it immediately drew parallels. Economist Alan Carlin had long been something of a skeptic within the agency, and he wanted to put in his two cents that regulating greenhouse gases would be a mistake.

The report sounded particularly bad when an email to Carlin from his supervisor saw daylight. It said: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

Oops.

I don’t think so: Let’s acknowledge from the start that there’s a big difference between one guy’s supervisor going overboard in an e-mail and the sanctioned actions of a political appointee to allow a fox to run wild in the henhouse. Carlin’s supervisor was reprimanded for the e-mail.

But there are other differences as well. Contrary to many news reports and even one speech from by a congressmen from the floor of the House, Carlin’s not a scientist; he’s an economist. In a follow-up months after the media firestorm condemning the EPA died down the New York Times reviewed documents it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act to get a clearer understanding of what happened:

"[The] newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin’s highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the EPA.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview."

Media spin: The more complicated truth came out long after cable TV and radio hosts put away their pitchforks. But Carlin’s tale has graduated to the status of a mythic truth to be trotted out every time that climate change hits the headlines again as “proof” that the Obama administration is waging a war on independent science.

In the words of a December article in the conservative Weekly Standard: “In light of the scandal surrounding the East Anglia emails ... the newly urgent demand for transparency in the climate science and policy process may shine unwelcome new light into the dark corners of [the] EPA's politically driven agenda.”

Warming on Mars proves that warming on Earth isn’t caused by humans

Tall tale: You’ve got to love this one for the pure bizarreness of it. A couple of commenters on last week’s column are way ahead of me on this one.

The basic argument is that if Mars is warming without having any people on it, then people must not have anything to do with global warming here. Apparently that theory is being pushed by one Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia,

I don’t think so: There’s a basic logical problem with this story. If one cause for global warming is found on other planets, it doesn’t eliminate the possibility that there could be other causes, like, say, for instance, carbon dioxide. Does it?

Regardless, as National Geographic documents, “Abdussamatov’s work has not been well received by other climate scientists.” That’s a polite way of putting it. Says one Oxford scientist: "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion."

Media spin: Maybe, it’s a simple little tall tale like the Mars hypothesis that allows us to see how climate change tall tales operate. You don’t have to put out even a credible story to get the gullible people who call themselves "skeptics" to trumpet it as truth all across the globe.

Want more? Catch up by reading last week’s column with five more climate change denying tall tales.

Journalist Ken Edelstein writes the Media Mayhem column for the Mother Nature Network. From various coffee shops in Atlanta, he publishes an environmental news site at MyGreenATL.com.

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 75

ReideUsercirm Apr 13 2013 at 1:32 PM

Senator Rand Paul mounted an old-fashioned number two is a tough job as CEO of Berkeley, Calif. free calling app for ipod touch The high court declined to comment on it in your own. http://freeonlinecalling.org/international-call-yangon/ Jaime Pozuelo-Monfort briefs on Vaughan Radio about his antics harm investors by making a new daytime talk and text and multimedia messaging service for you to replace a coaster pager ever again. Voip Y The mobile you can sign up and quiet, sporting a PenTile 800

.... More

x 480 resolution for ultra sharp images. United Christian Full Gospel, Detroit and Cleveland as well be Nokia's greatest hit.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

indifferent May 02 2010 at 7:55 AM

The spin of the earth is slowing down. That is probably why some of the climates are changing. The warming and cooling of the earth has always been present. What impact we do to the earth is a small percentage. This is just another thing to create fear that the earth is coming to an end by the liberal media.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

JeffM Feb 17 2010 at 9:02 PM

Hey, AreYouSerious: Sorry for not responding to you sooner. I appreciate the great reply you sent, and the effort put into it. You rightly said it would take a long time for science to reach 100% certainty for proof positive on the subject. However, I want to respond to what you so thoughtfully said. On trial is the use of the cheap energy sources upon which modern civilization was built and which defines our daily existence. In court room trials, “proof” is often elusive… it’s what reasonable

.... More

people would conclude beyond a reasonable doubt. When the trial is a criminal matter a higher burden of “proof” is needed, due to the impact on the one on trial. I believe that, by putting cheap energy on trial, a higher standard or burden of proof is in order. Given the way science has conducted itself thus far, had it been conducted in a court of law, a mistrial would be granted and a new trial ordered. Why? Because the government’s case is tainted. Please read on as I address the points you made. First, you justifiably say that every credible institution on the planet endorses AGW, thereby indirectly referring to a “consensus”. You also say (and this is arguable) that the number of scientists also endorsing AGW greatly outnumber those who disagree, a reference to another consensus. These credible institutions (60? 70?) have made supporting statements, as you said, but the statements came from their governing board members, not from their memberships. If a typical board has 12 members, then 840 votes for AGW can be tallied. No doubt you’ve read where some board’s memberships have petitioned to change their statements of support. You’ve undoubtedly heard of the 31,000 signers to the Oregon Petition who disagree with AGW. Of course, the Oregon Petition has been generally disregarded as invalid by AGW supporters. What hasn’t been said is that these 31,000 (with 9,000 PhDs included) have memberships in one or more of these credible institutions, yet their take on AGW is trumped by their board’s support for AGW. You are therefore referring to consensus by proxy. 840 votes to override 31,000. A fellow named Doran mailed a survey to 10,000+ “Earth” scientists (a cherry-picked list?), got 3,000 responses, and found that most respondents supported AGW. Doran was proud to announce that 96% of the 79 climatologists responded with their support for AGW. Unlike the Oregon Petition, we don’t know their names. The extent of support for AGW is really unknown, yet you and many others fearlessly cite “consensus” as though these nameless “jurors” sit in the jury box of a “fair” trial. Second, you rightly presume that the majority of data and studies over the last 20 years support AGW. However, this body of scientific work resulted from some $90 billion of government funding. Government did not fund science to disagree with AGW or try to prove it wrong. This alone validates your presumption. So where would a skeptic find money for his research? From the energy company devils? Obviously, but only for pennies for every dollar given by the government to AGW scientists. Your presumption is quite right. Also, we know that skeptics have been vilified by their peers, had funding cut or eliminated by the government, or have been sacked. We know that the IPCC doesn’t include comments in its assessment reports from scientists that cast doubt on the underlying science, and we’ve heard of IPCC defectors who left as a result of this. With more and more frequency, we find that the IPCC and climate scientists have done sloppy work. The IPCC has been criticized for its Himalayan glacier “error” and has been similarly faulted for citing effects of AGW that originated from environmental groups and from student research papers. The East Anglia University’s CRU “lost” the original temperature records (rather than providing them to FOI requesters), upon which the foundation of AGW was built. We heard the infamous remarks from The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen, that the AMS should decertify any meteorologist who disagrees with AGW. The Climategate emails revealed how the highest level AGW scientists conspired to prevent skeptic research from being published, as well as their efforts to have editors of publications sacked after publishing skeptic’s research papers. Yes, it’s no wonder that the vast majority of data and studies produced thus far overwhelmingly support AGW. Like me, many people can smell the conspiratorial air of AGW, and wonder why AGW supporters have to do these things if the science is so convincing. A first year law student could get a mistrial ruling if AGW was ever argued in court. What new revelations will be in tomorrow’s news? Third, we both agree that it is presently impossible to determine how much atmospheric CO2 is natural and how much is manmade. Scientists cannot even agree on how long CO2 remains in the air before it is removed by natural processes. Nor can scientists agree whether clouds enhance or constrain the effect of clouds on CO2 warming. Most scientists agree that, by itself, CO2 cannot account for the observed warming in the past century. Global climate models assume that clouds enhance CO2 effects, since assuming otherwise would discredit AGW. Perhaps a definitive understanding of the real effect of clouds would settle the AGW issue, once and for all. It would settle the issue for me. I do know that on a hot summer day, it feels cooler when a cloud covers the Sun. The science of AGW is in its infancy. Taking any drastic remedial action at this point in time would require a leap of faith that may not be warranted. Many people don’t possess the faith to do this. I believe the jury is still out.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

klem Feb 28 2013 at 8:02 AM

Um, could you run that by me again?

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

DaleC Feb 02 2010 at 7:30 PM

Ken - since I was the one who posted a link to MArs warming, i didn't claim it disproved warming on Earth. I was responding to disparaging remarks made by a pro-AGM commenter. There is warming on other planets, so I laugh at people who dismiss out of hand that giant ball of fire at the center of our universe.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

AreYouSerious Jan 13 2010 at 7:39 AM

Jeff M., Yes, I agree that scientists are SUPPOSED to get information OUT as you state - and there are loads…and loads…and LOADS of data OUT there supporting the rapid and ever increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere corresponding with the industrialization of man. Every credible institution including every national science academy on the PLANET endorses the idea of man's hand in contributing to increased greenhouse gas emissions and thus the warming of the planet outside

.... More

the parameters of the 'natural cycle' of warming/cooling that would occur absent of that influence. To this end, Ill note that you again neglected to explain how 1 + 1 does not equal 2 in my argument, but again, simply decided to argue based solely on your issues/skepticism of the argument FOR man-assisted climate change, rather than come up with any credible, logical argument of your own AGAINST it – the body of evidence in support of AGW and the number of INTERNATIONAL scientists that support the concept outweigh the skeptics by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE – WHATEVER comes of your championed ‘climate gate’, it cannot and does not hold the substance to discredit the entirety of the scientific world – period – so you are going to have to do better than that. As to the emails themselves, I agree that there were some lapses in judgment and that information could have been handled differently - however, in no way shape or form do those emails wipe out the hundreds and hundreds of other data sets, papers, studies, and publications supporting an overwhelming body of evidence suggesting AGW - many of the comments and emails were taken out of context in the first place, and selectively published with whatever corresponding 'lean' on their context that the particular pundit, talking head, or other personality wanted to assign to it. I wonder how many of those several thousand emails were tossed aside in coming up with the ‘climate gate’ controversy? I wonder if the vast majority of the data and studies over the last 20 years would support AGW? I expect the answer to that is yes – as would data gathered from any other credible source, anomalies included. Climate science is a complicated, multi-faceted entity – even during warm periods, there are localized cool regions that can be difficult to explain and predict with certainty using proxies like ice cores and computer modeling. As such, all data sets are NOT going to be linear and perfect – there is a degree of human error and uncertainty as with ANY serious scientific methodology used to collect data –just visit any high school or college science lab to see what the experiment of the day is and how the data is collected and processed – small deviances from the normal data are stricken from the record – its common scientific practice and yields the most accurate end result – one strikes anomalies from the record as there is a high probability that measurement error or some kind of interference caused the anomaly. When I said the climate scientists would be leery of releasing data suggesting something other than the norm, THIS is what I was referring to – these deviances from the normal data sets, while common and of little consequence in the scientific community, would be gobbled up, spun, and regurgitated as PROOF that the science as a whole is faulty by the likes of uneducated and/or malicious skeptics – THIS is why I said I wasn’t surprised that they would handle this kind of data with care – not ‘disingenuous’ at all. Its obvious that overwhelming data and science is STILL struggling to nail the point home for whatever reason unbeknownst to me – as such, why would they want to STOKE this conflagration of idiocy? I agree – the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that is from man would be a helluva piece of data to possess – unfortunately, we’ve not yet the capability to delineate that number – think how absolutely mind bogglingly difficult it would be to put a number on that considering the number of contributors and the complexity – we could get lost for DECADES trying to decide how best to accomplish that goal with the 100% certainty that it would require to convince skeptics who already do not WANT to be convinced because of some personal shortcomings of their own that make them too fragile to deal with that realization – they would only question the validity of THAT data to extend their reign of denial and self absorption. So in essence, you are asking for a degree of certainty that is unrealistic in the short term, yet you require it before you will act or admit even though the logic 1+1=2 is impervious to challenge. That would cause me to self-reflect a little, I think. As to your image of a ‘global warming industry’ being wiped out if one day CO2 is proven innocent – to what ‘industry’ are you referring? It would seem to me, that it is quite the converse – that the Big Oil and Big Coal industries stand to be wiped out NOW if there is a widespread consensus of global and environmental consciousness – THAT is the only ‘industry’ at stake here. Its no WONDER they lobby billions into faulty and blatantly erroneous ‘independent’ studies to keep the proverbial ‘wrench in the works’. Dude, you seem intelligent - do you not SEE what is going on, here? The climate scientists and whatever ‘institution’ you are referring to are not your enemy here, brother, its those that would seek to keep you ill-informed – the ‘institution’ of greed, excess, profit, and unbridled rape of everything natural. This is the problem, here, Jeff…‘skeptics’ will ignore overwhelming evidence, pick apart the SLIGHTEST non-linear piece of data they can get their hands on and champion it as proof AGAINST the other 99% of data collected, and then somehow make that concoction of ridiculousness and denial add up to more than what it actually is so that they feel justified in not ONLY doing nothing and feeling nothing themselves, but actually going farther to spread that defeatist, unfounded, maliciousness on others, many of whom are ill-prepared to come to their own conclusions and so swallow the bullshit hook, line, and sinker because it is the EASIER path – because it instantly absolves them of responsibility. On THIS front, shame on you if you decide to assist the proliferation of this nonsense – one day you WILL look back on this and wonder about the choices you made. I only hope that day comes sooner rather than later.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

JeffM Jan 12 2010 at 3:02 AM

Hey, "AreYouSerious": The scientists embarassed by their Climategate emails represent the foremost authority on the state of global warming science. They "lost" the temperature data that formed the basic documentation upon which global warming science has been based. Reputable scientists do not want to keep their data from being closely scrutinized, and they don't "lose" their data. The Climategate scientists built reputations on their research, yet they had to hide the data from anyone who would

.... More

find fault with it. These "men of science" appear to be hiding flaws which, like Mann's Hockey Stick graph, could be invalidated, and which would stain their reputations and shed doubt on manmade warming The question for all of us non-scientists is: how widespread are the flaws in other research (i.e., are the "facts" really facts)? Skeptics have long complained about many of the things revealed in the hacked emails, but, with no proof, they have always been dismissed and vilified. Your expression of surprise that reputable scientists would be leary of any information getting out because it would be scrutinized sounds disingenuous. They are SUPPOSED to get the information out... not just their summaries. Their research is SUPPOSED to be replicable. Yet they hide the data to thwart attempts at replication. The fact that their work can be peer reviewed without giving reviewers tha data makes us wonder how rigorous (i.e. valid) the review process really is. Despite all of the wonderful "facts" that relate to the physical processes of the atmospheric system, other systems (water and land) have received scant attention, yet their role in the climate system has alway and forever been the driver of the climate system. Key questions yet to be answered are: what percentage of atmospheric CO2 is natural and how much is manmade? What is the net rate of absorption of CO2 by the oceans and the land? The answers would be helpful to evaluate mankind's effect on the climate and if it is significant. Should the day come when atmospheric CO2 is proven innocent, a huge global warming industry will be wiped out. It's no wonder that it is unacceptable to do research that could potentially destroy the orthodoxy. The global warming hypothesis states that manmade fossil fuel emissions is causing harmful global warming. It is, by definition, TRUE unless and until proven otherwise. There exists an institutionalized effort to prevent it from being proven FALSE. The Climategate scientists are among the highest level members of this intitution. Climategate has shown us the tip of the iceberg.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

AreYouSerious Jan 05 2010 at 9:23 AM

Cmon...Slick...Oscar...Scott...Foo...where are you guys now? Tell me how 1 + 1 doesnt equal 2 - how increased, unnatural carbon dioxide and other green house gas emissions + widespread deforestation do not equate to a recipe for increased insulating properties of the atmosphere and average temperature increase for the planet over time given that CO2 IS proven to capture heat and the forests ARE proven to be a sink for CO2...anyone? You dont have to discuss actual numbers to come to this no-brainer

.... More

of a conclusion, fellas, though Im sure some of you wouldnt bother looking at numbers anyway - its so much easier to just swallow whatever the pundits and 'media' personalities who've no scientific background whatsoever spoon-feed you. Applying actual logic and doing a bit of research yourselves to come to your own conclusions is too tough, huh? Im so sick of the deniers attacking and not getting called out on their blatant disregard for logic and their obvious clutching of sparse and at BEST biased and unfounded comments and spin from their ilk. If you guys want to debate lets do it - bring some facts to the table and tell me where Im wrong and how you are right - don’t just seize on whatever little discrepancy you can find and plant your flag on it - it makes you look weak and ill equipped to back up your floundering stance if you cant come up with an actual rebuttal of your own. And Jeff - if you are trying to insinuate that there has been a mass conspiracy against the 'skeptics' for years that has prevented them from getting anything published - wait - actually just re-read that and it should immediately become evident how ridiculous that is - they don’t get published because they are outnumbered 9 to 1 in their field - in any and all branches of science that’s a pretty safe margin, I think. And for the skeptics who ARENT climate scientists? Well how much credence should we give to THEIR take on things? Additionally, as Ive already said, the earth DOES go through natural heating and cooling cycles - that doesn’t in the SLIGHTEST have anything to do with the argument at hand - what are WE contributing to that natural cycle?

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

AreYouSerious Jan 06 2010 at 9:33 AM

I win you lose...now go read some books before you decide to champion ideas you know nothing about and stop being so closed-minded - take responsibility and get on board with the rest of us to be a little smarter about how we use what we've all been given and dont let idiots tell you how to think - your kids and their kids will thank you for it

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

JeffM Jan 04 2010 at 10:04 PM

We learned from exposed CRU emails that the highest level global warming scientists, among other things, worked to prevent skeptics from publishing any research that would contradict global warming orthodoxy. Doing so gave the "warmers" the ability to smugly say that skeptics don't publish any research and only complain about the warmers' research. Skeptics have complained for years about their publication problems, but have always been disregarded and derided. Now that we have a real example

.... More

of this conspiracy and how it works, warmers defensively shrug and say it's just an abberation. Because of the central leadership provided by CRU and other highest level scientists connected to the global warming science, it is unbelievable that the email in question cannot be an abberation. It is the tip of the iceberg, manufactured by the global warming elite. Attempting to downplay recent cooling, we hear that scientists claim that the observed cooling is the result of natural climate variations. This is a myth. Natural climate variations, both of cooling AND warming, have always occured. It is unbelievable that nature cools and man warms. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this. You can't fool Mother Nature... or anyone with a brain.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

AreYouSerious Jan 05 2010 at 5:21 AM

Jeff M, please see my previous post. The points I make have NOTHING to do with 'climate gate' information - rather my argument is based on sound well-established science (you tell me where Im wrong if youre so sure the facts are 'all lies') and logic that a 5 yr old could easily grasp. Its obvious that you are either uneducated or simply ignoring years of sound science and the most basic logic of 'cause and effect' that Ive outlined - and simply throwing 'climate gate' at the overwhelming body

.... More

of evidence to suggest man's hand at upsetting the natural cycle is ludicrous - a couple of leaked emails taken out of context in the first place do not in one swoop erase decades of sound science - to suggest that is unbelievably naive and short sighted, though Im getting used to that mentality in some of the 'deniers'. This would be like tossing out the laws of physics because one equation was found to be applied erroneously - we wouldnt turn over the entire body of knowledge concerning physics, now would we? It doesnt surprise me that climate scientists are leary of any information to the contrary getting out - because there are thousands of deniers out there just WAITING for one little shred of evidence to cling to so that they can tell their politicians to stop meaningful legislation from coming to pass and idiots like you can sleep better at night because you have enough to convince yourself you have absolutely no moral obligation whatsoever to check yourselves a little and open your eyes to the big picture. 'Climate Gate', as so many of you have so readily clung to (what was your platform BEFORE, btw?) is a drop in the bucket, Im sorry to tell you - there are much LARGER issues going on here and its sad to see you grasping at straws. Sorry, buddy - its all right here - tell me where Im wrong (preferably by discounting my previous post's logic and not by waving your hands and calling names as is so common with those who would try to deny on these forums) - regards.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Jason Jan 04 2010 at 10:56 PM

no really. Man can use all the resourses it wants to use and dump a mass amount of chemicals in the air and trash into the ocean and have no effect what-so-ever on the environment.

Humans gained higher learning and deductive skills over centuries of evolution and now people choose to stop using those skills. "Anyone with a brain"? I'm not sure you qualify anymore.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Guest Jan 04 2010 at 9:34 PM

We learned from hacked CRU emails that the highest level global warming scientists, among other things, worked to prevent skeptics from publishing research that would contradict global warming orthodoxy. This gives the "warmers" the ability to smugly say that skeptics don't publish any research, only complain about the armers' research. Skeptics have complained for years about their publication problems, but have always been disregarded and derided. Now that we have a real example of this conspiracy

.... More

and how it works, warmers defensively say it's a single instance, not the norm. To me, it's the tip of the iceberg. The leadership of the global warming movement have had undeniable influence on their breatheren, and have shown they will stoop to lowest levels to protect their beliefs. Regarding myths, I note that warmers say that recent observed cooling is caused by natural climate variability. Since nature has caused climate cooling AND warming since the beginning of the Earth, attributing warming to man and cooling to nature is absurd. This is a myth. If natural variability is powerful enough to cool, why isn't it just as powerful to cause warming? Why is warming blamed on man, but cooling blamed on nature?

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Storm Jun 07 2010 at 11:52 AM

Oh you mean like Gore and the train conductor. The threat in the emails was to delete the dats and encourage everyone else delete data if it came down to FOI. Look it happened. Nobody has a copy? I guess global warming is just theory cause you cant prove it anymore. Done give the realist (deniers you call them) your science is settled. Phil Jones screwed you out of that. You can no longer prove it without using the IPCC reports, Mann's hockey stick, or name calling for people who disagree.

.... More

Prove it. Did you even look at the emails? How bout the source code? Yes it is a conspiracy. If it gies away you lose your job, You are going to fudge what veer it take to keep the blog site a kicking. It's not denying. It common sense. If it looks like crap, smells like crap, tastes like crap, someone is feeding you a turd.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Jason Jan 04 2010 at 8:25 PM

I find it interesting that the majority of people in the comments saying that global warming is fake offer no scientific backing. They spout lines from (insert Fox News "anchor man" here) and claim victory over those who actually give a damn about what's happening to our home.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Elpidio Jan 04 2010 at 5:18 PM

"Ken Edelstein’s interest in the environment stems from hours of idle thoughts..." from this creative writers' own Bio and proven in this work of creative editing. I'll see you all around when the real crisis facing our world is hitting and no one is prepared because we were too busy chasing Gore's romanticized political campaign farce.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

starr Cancer May 25 2010 at 1:28 PM

X Runner,” is an ’80s-style platformer that lets you take on the role of DJ Zed as he races through to a blacked-out neighborhood to get to his midnight set on time. Patio Dining Sets

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

AreYouSerious Jan 04 2010 at 11:15 AM

First, it is an undisputable fact that carbon dioxide gas (among many others also) in the atmosphere actually DOES serve as an insulator, absorbing and retaining the solar energy from the sun. This is not open to debate and anyone who opposes this general concept is no child of science, to be sure (in fact, this phenomena is a very GOOD thing to a degree - without it our world would be too cold to sustain life as we know it) . However, the rate at which the gases trap heat and warm the planet -

.... More

now that is certainly open to debate and any 'environmentalist' who thinks otherwise is just as confused as the opponent of the previous statement. Additionally, you'll find that it is a fact of science that fossil fuels contain carbon that as been locked up into various forms - coal, oil, etc - and that the combustion/use of these fuels releases that carbon - a large portion of which is in carbon dioxide gas. Given the above, let me present two scenarios: 1) Human kind is NOT converting billions of tons of carbon-rich fossil fuels into energy (albeit disgustingly inefficiently) and producing billions of tons of gases (including vast quantities of CO2) that otherwise would not be released in such an extremely short time frame - rather, the gases that are present in the atmosphere instead are strictly a result of natural phenomena - organic matter decaying, waters saturated with gases releasing them, the earth releasing gases as necessary to maintain equilibrium - and similarly, the natural methods the earth uses to reassimilate these gases are in play - namely the reabsorption of these gases by the worlds oceans and by the forests and other vegetation on the planet 2) Human kind converts, at an ever-increasing rate, fossil fuels into billions of tons of ADDITIONAL gases that would not otherwise be naturally occurring in the earths cycle at any given point. Now lets add de-forestation to the equation - now, not ONLY is this massive additional load of gas being created, but one of the largest natural mechanisms the earth has to reabsorb and check the gases is ALSO being cleared at an ever increasing rate. Now, if it’s a fact that carbon dioxide and other gases increase the 'greenhouse effect' of trapping energy from the sun, and if its ALSO a fact that vast quantities of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are being added to our atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels, and its ALSO a fact that the forest area and thus carbon sink area is decreasing at an alarming rate due to human proliferation, then how is that anyone could deny that at the bare minimum, humans are DEFINITELY contributing to the warming of the planet? And please refrain from the 'the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling argument'…of COURSE it does and always has and always will - the REAL question is - what are WE contributing to the balance (or un-balance) of that natural cycle at this point? If the 'deniers' are too mentally and philosophically fragile and uncomfortable with themselves that they MUST deny man-assisted climate change because they are too ill-equipped to deal with the realization that they are part of the problem, that is very sad for them - at the end of the day, they’re going to have to face it just like the rest of us. I just hope that the collective 'we' can overcome the ridiculous defeatist and partisan nonsense that is holding us all back from making the right decisions for us, our kids, and every other living thing on this great planet. Think for yourselves, dammit!

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Dirty Harry Jan 04 2010 at 11:10 AM

Stop just reporting the climate-change lobby press releases as fact, then we might actually start believing you. Try thinking for yourself - climategate has changed the game so much that you are holding the wrong sort of ball.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Doug Jan 04 2010 at 10:42 AM

As a scientist I'd make sure to find "evidence" supporting the Global Warming, you're bound to keep getting grant money and a cushy job. Until the system changes I'm going to be skeptical of these University and grant funded scientist, sorry, but it's too simple for these scientist to create more problems to line their pockets.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Zachary Jan 04 2010 at 6:11 AM

truly excellent piece. a favorite favorite

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Marky Mark Jan 04 2010 at 1:35 AM

For the record, I do not believe man has any impact on global warming, if it is even warming at all. I would like to see investment into alternative energy sources to reduce our dependancy on foreign oil, but not at any cost. Can anyone show me real scientific proof that our CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm? There are way too many red flags from those who are pushing this farce. I would love to see a real debate from the top experts on each side.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Michael O'Neill Jan 04 2010 at 5:45 AM

There's only one problem with your request there Marky Mark. The other side doesn't actually have any experts. Just the uninformed and the won't-be-informed jumping up and down with their hands over their ears singing "La La La La La"

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Slick Jan 04 2010 at 12:24 AM

Wow what a whack job that write this tripe! This is such nonsense! 95% of what your spewing out if your mouth is incorrect, misguided nonsense . I can't even take you seriously! I tried.... But your insane.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

Oscar Jan 04 2010 at 12:04 AM

"Global Warming" is Bullshit

That phase sums it up totally. It's that simple. What is also simple is that people like this guy are no longer guided by any reasoned principle, but simply want to destroy the lives of others around him/them. Just give it to people straight:

"Global Warming" is Bullshit