AGW deniers dishonest about "cooling" [Archive]

View Full Version : AGW deniers dishonest about "cooling"

RandomGuy

10-26-2009, 03:23 PM

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer – 24 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, he added.

It's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.

"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.

"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."

That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

Apart from the conflicting data analyses is the eyebrow-raising new book title from Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, "Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance."

A line in the book says: "Then there's this little-discussed fact about global warming: While the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased."

That led to a sharp rebuke from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which said the book mischaracterizes climate science with "distorted statistics."

Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, said he does not believe there is a cooling trend. He said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years at a time of intense discussion of global warming. Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but "eyeballed" the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years. Levitt said the "cooling" reference in the book title refers more to ideas about trying to cool the Earth artificially.

Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.

"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.

Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policymakers" ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.

President Barack Obama weighed in on the topic Friday at MIT. He said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change — claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."

Earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid.

Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument.

"It pretty much depends on when you start," wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.

Oceans, which take longer to heat up and longer to cool, greatly influence short-term weather, causing temperatures to rise and fall temporarily on top of the overall steady warming trend, scientists say. The biggest example of that is El Nino.

El Nino, a temporary warming of part of the Pacific Ocean, usually spikes global temperatures, scientists say. The two recent warm years, both 1998 and 2005, were El Nino years. The flip side of El Nino is La Nina, which lowers temperatures. A La Nina bloomed last year and temperatures slipped a bit, but 2008 was still the ninth hottest in 130 years of NOAA records.

Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.

The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sci_global_cooling

spursncowboys

10-26-2009, 03:37 PM

Scientists Denounce AP For Hysterical Global Warming Article

http://newsbusters.org/files/user_pics/picture-26.jpg (http://newsbusters.org/user/26)
By Noel Sheppard (Bio (http://newsbusters.org/bios/noel-sheppard.html) | Archive (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard))
December 15, 2008 - 11:50 ET

http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/graphics/print.png (http://newsbusters.org/node/26772/print)

Scientists from around the world are denouncing an Associated Press article hysterically claiming that global warming is "a ticking time bomb" about to explode, and that we're "running out of time" to do anything about it.
As reported (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/12/14/ap-global-warming-accelerating-time-close-running-out) by NewsBusters, Seth Borenstein, the AP's "national science writer," published a piece Sunday entitled "Obama Left With Little Time to Curb Global Warming (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081214/D952LKP00.html)."
Scientists from all over the world have responded to share their view of this alarmist propaganda:

How can this guy call himself a "science reporter?"
He is perhaps the worst propagandist in all the media, and that's stating something.
In his latest screed, he screams: "global warming is accelerating"
How then does he explain the fact that the mean global temperature (as measured by satellite) is the same as it was in 1980?
How can global warming be "accelerating" when the last two years have seen dramatic cooling? Is this guy totally removed from all reality?????
He completely ignores any evidence contrary to his personal beliefs, and twists everything to meet his preconceived notions.
How can anyone so ignorant be a reporter for AP? Seriously? -- David Deming, University of Oklahoma

“Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating.”
Rubbish! Global warming is not “accelerating”: global warming has stopped. There has been no statistically significant rise in (mean global temperature: MGT) since 1995 and MGT has fallen since 1998.
The Earth has been warming from the Little Ice Age (LIA) for 300 years so, of course, the warmest years happened recently. But that warming from the LIA peaked in the El Nino year of 1998. MGT has been near but below that peak for the last 10 years.
Arctic ice advances and recedes over decades. 2007 saw a minimum in Arctic ice cover in the short period that it has been monitored using satellites. But 2008 saw the most rapid growth in Arctic ice cover in that same period and Arctic ice cover is now back to the average it has had in the period. Also, 95% of polar ice is in the Antarctic and Antarctic ice is increasing.
Nobody can know if the recent halt to global warming is temporary, permanent or the start of a new warming or cooling phase. But it is certain that anybody who proclaims that “Global warming is accelerating” is a liar, a fool, or both. -- Richard S. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.

The Great Global Warming Hoax appears to be a collaborative effort between the worlds [sic] incompetent scientists and the worlds [sic] scientifically illiterate journalists. Science Illiterates like Borenstein are the Chicken Littles of the 21st Century, spreading climate change poppycock like bread crumbs in the forest. The crumbs, hopefully, will lead them to a paycheck at the end of the week from their similarly science-illiterate employers. Well, the lower-I.Q. portion of the population has to eat, too....< sigh > -- James A. Peden, atmospheric physicist formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

Borenstein, time is definitely running out – for you to save any possible credibility unless you find a new drama to act out on the public because your current one is going down the drain faster than a so-so sitcom in September.
The world hasn’t “warmed” in a dozen years and over the past year not even Jim Hansen and His Magic Bag of Tricks can make it appear we’re all getting “warmer”.
Once the Public gets wind of the true data that shows their intuition has been right all along – not even the tabloids will pick you up for an occasional column to entertain them. -- Chemical Scientist Dr. Brian G. Valentine of the U.S. Department of Energy and Professor at University of Maryland, has studied computational fluid dynamics and modeling of complex systems

"Hottest on record" means little for a 5 billion yr old planet, when the 'record" is only 100 years or less. Please avoid parsing the data, to support you [sic] indefensible conclusions and to ignored [sic] the data which don't support your conclusions. Selecting data for a desired outcome is as old as drying labbing [sic] chemistry labs. This seems to be SOP for today as environmental journalists and just as silly (and detectable---you are outta my chem. class). Your hypothesis is easily falsified, and has been falsified. Lots of Temp stations show cooling for decades while CO2 rises, ergo falsified. Ergo there are more powerful unspecified climate forces involved. CO2 is likely uninvolved or if so a minor player. Next problem please. -- Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a retired nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor. He is the science and energy writer/reporter for the HawaiiReport.com

One of the biggest problems in all this is that the major media are so busy bashing President Bush for any and every thing that they have lost sight of what he realized 5+ years ago: none of the CO2-related strategies will work unless China and India join the community. Bush's initiative to form an "Asia-Pacific" consortium of nations was the very first realistic step in the direction of a coherent approach to climate-change mitigation.

What is going on currently is that A) India has dismissed the whole thing, saying "we will never be higher in "per capita" energy use than the western countries; B) the Europeans have figured out that it will cost them big bucks and are fleeing from their Kyoto promises; C) the bandwagon in the USA is still going forward in high gear, and in about a year they'll realize they're way out in front with no followers. -- Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, an MIT educated physicist, author of the book "An Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity," and writer of the popular newspaper column "Ask the Everyday Scientist"

One further critical aspect of global warming alarmists that is so fiercely debated by all is the "climate forcing" property of carbon dioxide. Allow me to state categorically that, despite any and all arguments to the contrary, including the most elaborately well-balanced mathematical formulae by the best mathematicians in the world, the climate forcing ability of carbon dioxide equals exactly zero. Not 4 degrees C, not 1 degree C, not even 0.0001 degree C. Just plain zero. Even the much heralded graphic indicating that the first 20ppmv of carbon dioxide makes a difference to the air temperature that is much greater than any subsequent increase in concentration is a useless bit of info based on laboratory tests that have absolutely no relation to the open atmosphere. There exists not one single laboratory test on climate that can be extrapolated to mimic the open atmosphere and that includes the most advanced computers that in any case treat the earth as a flat disc with a 24 hour haze of solar radiation - about as far removed from reality as is possible. -- Hans Schreuder, Ipswich, UK, www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html (http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html)
In responce to what is happening to global temperatures. The key is using the right statistical technique to plot the "average" temperature. I do not have the qualifications to establish what the correct technique is. I just understand such things as non-linear least square regression analysis. There are five organizations which report global temperature anomalies on a monthly basis. If you use simple non-linear analysis, and include 2008 data, then all five data sets show that world temperatures seem to have passed through a shallow maximum. My guess is that when we can look back with 20/20 hindsight, we will be able to see that this maximum occurred around 2005. So it is understandable that recent years are amongst the warmest on record. This fact is no argument that temperatures are still rising. What counts is the slope of the average temperature/time graph at the present time. For a couple of years, this slope has been negative; global temperatures have been falling. We do not know, of course, if this will continue. But so far as I can see, none of the IPCC and other pro-AGW organizations predicted falling temperatures. However, before you attempt to use an argument like this, you need someone who really knows statistical analysis techniques. -- Physicist F. James Cripwell, a former scientist with UK’s Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge who worked under the leading expert in infra red spectroscopy -- Sir Gordon Sutherland – and worked with the Operations Research for the Canadian Defense Research Board

What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling, sharply declining temperatures the last couple of years, record setting lack of sun spots, flipping of the PDO into its cool mode, failure of computer models to predict real climate, predictable warming and cooling climates for the past 500 years, and ................
The answer is really quite simple--just follow the money! -- Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington
University, U.S.
*****Update: American Thinker's Thomas Lifson adds his view (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/12/warmist_hysteria_intensifies_a.html):

The willingness of media outlets to offer self-evident tripe in the face of both the data of the past decade and the immediate experience of people in their daily lives right now has to be considered a form of hysteria. Both the Associated Press and the newspapers which collectively own it are in serious economic trouble, with substantial layoffs accomplished and likely to be repeated, and questions about their survivability evident to everyone.

Instead of focusing on improving performance and survivability, the organs putting forth this claptrap jeopardize their already shaky reputations. It is suicide by propaganda.
As does AT's Marc Sheppard:

This isn't the first time the AP "science writer" has gone H.G Wells in his reporting.

You may recall us taking him to task (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/ap_global_warming_writer_over.html) in March 2007 for a number of similarly over-the-top doom-saying articles. Among them was one so inept in its prediction that the IPCC AR4 would blame Hurricane Katrina on manmade global warming that Professor Neville Nicholls, the Lead Author of WG1's Chapter 9, felt compelled to write:

"I was disappointed that after more than two years carefully analyzing the literature on possible links between tropical cyclones and global warming that even before the report was approved it was being misreported and misrepresented."

The professor then addressed Borenstein's bogus sooth-saying directly:

"We concluded that the question of whether there was a greenhouse-cyclone link was pretty much a toss of a coin at the present state of the science, with just a slight leaning towards the likelihood of such a link. But the premature reports suggested that we were asserting the existence of much stronger evidence."

Here we are over a year and a half later and this man continues to slip his counterfeit wisdom past his editors.

Fortunately, as the overheated predictions of both alarmists like Borenstein and agenda-driven agencies like the IPCC fail to meet observed cold reality, this hoax may finally be singing its swan-song.
CEI's Chris Horner also took Borenstein to task (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2U3YzMxZmE0N2U4M2M4NjViMzc3YzAwNzgzODllNjE=):

So Borenstein takes to his word processor to claim that it has warmed since the Clinton inauguration, and therefore global warming is accelerating. Ahem. Has there been anything else since a Clinton administration, like, say, a Bush administration . . . during which it has cooled. Third base!

spursncowboys

10-26-2009, 03:40 PM

'Long sad history of AP reporter Seth Borenstein's woeful global warming reporting'

Media Factsheet: Climate Depot Serving as the Media's Ombudsman

Friday, August 21, 2009By Marc Morano (http://www.climatedepot.com/contact.asp) – Climate Depot (http://www.climatedepot.com/)

Climate Depot Exclusive
As part of Climate Depot's continuing role as the ombudsman of the Fourth Estate, the below is a small sampling of the long sad history of Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein's woeful global warming reporting: (See also "Related Links" below for sampling of good and bad media climate reporting.)

1) AP's Borenstein in a PANIC: 'Obama left with little time to curb global warming'...'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming' - December 14, 2008 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&show_article=1)

2) Scientists Denounce AP's Borenstein For Hysterical Global Warming Article - December 15, 2008 (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/12/15/scientists-denounce-ap-hysterical-global-warming-article)

3) Say it ain't so! AP's Borenstein Reports: 'The Wind seems to be dying down...the cause may be global warming' - June 10, 2009 (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1255/Say-it-aint-so-AP-Reports-Winds-seems-to-be-dying-downthe-cause-may-be-global-warming) - Excerpt: Scientist mocks wind claims: 'How can they have more intense storms from the same effect that is lessening winds?'

4) Two dozen prominent scientists denounce AP's Borenstein's article promoting sea level fears in the year 2100 - September 24, 2007 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37CD65F0-802A-23AD-4A69-5A1509A4A551)

5) AP's Borenstein excludes scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering claims of allegedly 'melting' Antarctic - March 27, 2008 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=F1F2F75F-802A-23AD-4701-A92B4EBBCCBF)

6) AP's BORENSTEIN INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE - June 27, 2006 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=725B7C34-101C-48C7-B573-4BFDEBD55448)

7) AP's Borenstein inaccurately described scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels' - July 27, 2006 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=D6D95751-802A-23AD-4496-7EC7E1641F2F)

8) Kudos to AP's Seth Borenstein for writing the most balanced of all the media's articles about this new Antarctic study - January 21, 2009 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=FC7DB6AD-802A-23AD-43D1-2651EB2297D6)

9) Arctic Scare! AP's Borenstein out of control (again) - Warns of 'Tipping Point' - Quotes James Hansen, Bob Corell & a Greenpeace 'scientist' – August 28, 2008 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/08/28/2008-08-28_global_warming_tipping_point_arctic_sea_.html) - Excerpt: More ominous signs Wednesday have scientists saying that a global warming "tipping point" in the Arctic seems to be happening before their eyes: Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is at its second lowest level in about 30 years. [...] Five climate scientists, four of them specialists on the Arctic, told The Associated Press that it is fair to call what is happening in the Arctic a "tipping point." NASA scientist James Hansen, who sounded the alarm about global warming 20 years ago before Congress, said the sea ice melt "is the best current example" of that. [...] On top of that, researchers were investigating "alarming" reports in the last few days of the release of methane from long frozen Arctic waters, possibly from the warming of the sea, said Greenpeace climate scientist Bill Hare, who was attending a climate conference in Ghana.

10) Analysis: 'Borenstein's AP Sea Surface Temp Article Is Misleading...Factually Incorrect...Raises Alarmism to Ridiculous Levels' - August 21, 2009 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/21/borensteins-ap-sea-surface-temperature-article-is-misleading/)

[Marc Morano Rebuttal to AP Reporter Seth Borenstein's Shoddy and Incomplete Arctic Article – Note: Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein pulled out all the gadgets for this comical article on Arctic sea ice dropping to 'record level'. He got to use the phrase “tipping point” , he quoted James Hansen and Greenpeace 'climate scientist' Bill Hare (Greenpeace International describes Hare as it's “Climate Policy Director”) Borenstein's citation of Bob Corell as a neutral researcher completely ignores the fact that Corell is an environmental activist who works for Teresa Heinz Kerry's The Heinz Center, (yes the same ones who gave Hansen $250,000 award before Hansen endorsed Teresa Heinz Kerry's husband John Kerry for prez in 2004) Corell was embarrassed in 2007 by a his unsupportable claims about Greenland. Corell's assertion in a September 8, 2007 UK Guardian article that earthquakes triggered by melting ice are increasing in Greenland was rebuffed by University of North Carolina's Jose Rial. Rial is a prominent climatologist/seismologist working on glacial seismic activity in Greenland. Corell's erroneous claim prompted Rial to take the unusual step of writing a letter to the UK Guardian. "I also know that there is no evidence to suggest that these quakes 'are happening far faster than ever anticipated' [as Corell claimed,"] wrote Rial in a September 13 letter. Rial criticized the newspaper for presenting a 'falling-sky' alarmist perspective and added that "it will take years of continued surveying to know whether anything here [in Greenland] is 'accelerating' towards catastrophe, as the article [featuring Corell] claims." See: Rial's critique of Corell here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/13/climatechange.comment)]

More Borenstein: AP's Borenstein at it again: Claims Greenland ice crack result of AGW despite reporting it is 'normal' (http://www.newsweek.com/id/154600/output/print)– [Note: For real story on Greenland and how temperatures there have actually COOLED or stayed the same since the late 1930's and 40's before 80% of man-made CO2 was released see here: Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – July 2007 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD) -] Borenstein claim: "In northern Greenland, a part of the Arctic that had seemed immune from global warming, new satellite images show a growing giant crack and an 11-square-mile chunk of ice hemorrhaging off a major glacier, scientists said Thursday."

1) Borenstein does at least reveal a counter view of the issue in the article: Excerpt: University of Colorado professor Konrad Steffen, who returned from Greenland Wednesday and has studied the Petermann glacier in the past, said that what Box saw is not too different from what he saw in the 1990s: "The crack is not alarming... I would say it is normal."

2) But, Borenstein, cannot let Steffen's comment that the ice crack is “normal” go unchallenged so he plays the old “consistent with” climate change game.

3) Borenstein: “Scientists don't like to attribute single events to global warming, but often say such events fit a pattern.”
#

Climate Depot's Media Related Links:
NYT and Reporter Revkin Issue 'Correction' – Admit 'Error' in Front Page Global Warming Article Touted By Gore! - May 2, 2009 (http://climatedepot.com/a/592/NYT-and-Reporter-Revkin-Issue-Correction-ndash-Admit-Error-in-Front-Page-Global-Warming-Article-Touted-By-Gore)
All Hail the Planet! 'Immorality of climate-change denial': NYT's Krugman accuses Congressmen who voted against climate bill of 'treason against the planet!' – June 29, 2009 (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1724/All-Hail-the-Planet-Immorality-of-climatechange-denial-NYTs-Krugman-accuses-Congressmen-who-voted-against-climate-bill-of-treason-against-the-planet)
'Desperation Time': NYT Promotes 'National Security' Climate Fears - But claims are merely 'a redux of 1970's laughable scares about famines and resource scarcity' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2349/Desperation-Time-NYT-Promotes-National-Security-Climate-Fears--But-claims-are-merely-a-redux-of-1970s-laughable-scares-about-famines-and-resource-scarcity) – August 9, 2009 - Climate Depot's Inconvenient Rebuttal to 'National Security' Climate Argument
Media Spin: New York Times Blames 2009's Record Cold on Natural Factors -- But Blamed Record Warmth in 2000 on Man-Made Global Warming! - August 3, 2009 (http://climatedepot.com/a/2266/Media-Spin-New-York-Times-Blames-2009s-Record-Cold-on-Natural-Factors--But-Blamed-Record-Warmth-in-2000-on-ManMade-Global-Warming)
Shock! NYT's Moment of Clarity: 'Nobel Halo Fades Fast for UN IPCC Climate Change Panel' -- 'It could quickly lose relevance' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2288/Shock-NYTs-Moment-of-Clarity-Nobel-Halo-Fades-Fast-for-UN-IPCC-Climate-Change-Panel--It-could-quickly-lose-relevance) – August 4, 2009
Climatologist: 'It just feels like the IPCC has gone from being a broker of science to a gatekeeper'
Video: Does Katie Couric just take press releases from Gore and read them? (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2294/Video-Does-Katie-Couric-just-take-press-releases-from-Gore-and-read-them) – august 3, 2009
Not this again! Chicago Tribune compares 'conspiracy theory' that the 'moon landing was a hoax' to global warming skeptics (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2279/Not-this-again-Chicago-Tribune-compares-conspiracy-theory-that-the-moon-landing-was-a-hoax-to-global-warming-skeptics) – August 4, 2009
Moment of Clarity: BBC Wakes Up To Benefits Of Warming -- And To Climate Skepticism! (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2222/Moment-of-Clarity-BBC-Wakes-Up-To-Benefits-Of-Warming--And-To-Climate-Skepticism) – July 30, 2009
LA Times Shocker: 'Global warming is not necessarily always bad' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2198/LA-Times-Shocker-Global-warming-is-not-necessarily-always-bad) – July 28, 2009 – Excerpt: 'Warmer temps 'helped fuel Incas empire, giving access to more cultivable, fertile land'
BBC's Moment of Clarity on Climate! '4000 years ago, Earth was significantly warmer than it is now' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2162/BBCs-Moment-of-Clarity-on-Climate-4000-years-ago-Earth-was-significantly-warmer-than-it-is-now) – July 26, 2009 – Excerpt: 'When excitable climate campaigners claim Greenland's ice sheet is 'melting'...it is advisable to take a deep breath and ponder the complexities of the ice'
Shock from NYT: Missing Its Spots: 'Sun may be on verge of falling into an extended slumber' -- could cause 'extended chilly period' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2063/Shock-from-NYT-Missing-Its-Spots-Sun-may-be-on-verge-of-falling-into-an-extended-slumber--could-cause-extended-chilly-period) – July 20, 2009 – Excerpt: 'Cosmic ray levels correlate well with climate extending back thousands of years'
NYT movie critic suggests mankind 'does not deserve to live anyway' if we don't heed global warming warnings! (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2062/NYT-movie-critic-suggests-mankind-does-not-deserve-to-live-anyway-if-we-dont-heed-global-warming-warnings) – July 20, 2009
Fmr. Time Mag. Editor Slams Skeptics! 'Here's what their philosophy boils down to: Let me keep my riches now. Screw my children. Screw my grandchildren' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1978/Fmr-Time-Mag-Editor-Slams-Skeptics-Heres-what-their-philosophy-boils-down-to-Let-me-keep-my-riches-now-Screw-my-children-Screw-my-grandchildren)
Newswire joins warming promoters: 'Help Reuters Fight Global Warming...Through education and offsets we can reduce our carbon footprint and solve climate change problems' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1974/Newswire-joins-warming-promoters-Help-Reuters-Fight-Global-WarmingThrough-education-and-offsets-we-can-reduce-our-carbon-footprint-and-solve-climate-change-problems)
Wash. Post's Moment of Clarity: 'Carbon emissions will not be reduced by international bureaucrats sitting in a room and signing a piece of paper' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1949/Wash-Posts-Moment-of-Clarity-Carbon-emissions-will-not-be-reduced-by-international-bureaucrats-sitting-in-a-room-and-signing-a-piece-of-paper) – Excerpt: 'They will not be reduced by public relations campaigns or by Oscar-winning documentaries...or by a complex treaty that neither the UN nor anyone else can possibly supervise'
Anchor exposes bias: 'It is now effectively BBC policy to stifle critics of man-made climate fears -- those views should not be heard' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1911/Anchor-exposes-bias-It-is-now-effectively-BBC-policy-to-stifle-critics-of-manmade-climate-fears--those-views-should-not-be-heard)
Climate Bill Rebellion: Et Tu, Time Mag? 'Waxman-Markey bill is an excellent candidate for euthanasia' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1907/Climate-Bill-Rebellion-Et-Tu-Time-Mag-WaxmanMarkey-bill-is-an-excellent-candidate-for-euthanasia) – Excerpt: 'A weak, inelegant cap-and-trade system...It is Potemkin legislation, designed to give only the appearance of dealing with a problem'
LA Times: Skeptics promote 'crackpot theories'! 'Clamor from global-warming deniers...Trotting out long-discredited hypotheses, such as solar activity' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1876/LA-Times-Skeptics-promote-crackpot-theories-Clamor-from-globalwarming-deniersTrotting-out-longdiscredited-hypotheses-such-as-solar-activity)
Katie Couric of CBS News on Climate Bill: 'Change can be scary, but the consequence of doing nothing is even scarier' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1834/Katie-Couric-of-CBS-News-on-Climate-Bill-Change-can-be-scary-but-the-consequence-of-doing-nothing-is-even-scarier)
BBC's Richard Black Sees The Light -- Asks 'Does climate cloud the bigger picture?' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1805/BBCs-Richard-Black-Sees-The-Light--Asks-Does-climate-cloud-the-bigger-picture)
Spoof: NYT in 2019: Scientists Now Say Global Warming Fears Fading Away - Claim There Never Was Warming Consensus (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1533/Spoof-NYT-in-2019-Scientists-Now-Say-Global-Warming-Fears-Fading-Away--Claim-There-Never-Was-Warming-Consensus)
BBC caught 'pre-writing' story using climate activists info before event occurred (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1334/BBC-caught-prewriting-story-using-climate-activists-info-before-event-occurred)
Wash. Post reporting makes progress! Article concedes sea level computer model 'predictions could be flawed or flat wrong' (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1245/Wash-Post-reporting-makes-progress-Article-concedes-sea-level-computer-model-predictions-could-be-flawed-or-flat-wrong)
NYT's Revkin: 'lowers himself to the level of debate we're used to seeing from the likes of George Monbiot' (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/04/know-your-times.html)
Geologist Chides Revkin of New York Times for 'Strange, Silly' Climate Article - April 23, 2009 (http://climatedepot.com/a/430/Geologist-Chides-Revkin-of-New-York-Times-for-Strange-Silly-Climate-Article)
UK's Lord Monckton continues attack on NYT's Revkin for 'mendacious article' (http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=moncktonc&date=090430)
Lord Monckton accuses NYT's Revkin of 'deliberate misrepresentation' in climate article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/deliberate_misrepresentation.html)
Gore Mouthing-Off About Make-Believe Madoffs (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/04/gore-mouthing-off-about-make-belive-madoffs.html)
Andrew Revkin's attempt to smear skeptics detailed! – March 10, 2009 (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2968&linkbox=true)
Update: More Revkin Woes - Was Climatologist Christy accurately quoted in NYT? - March 11, 2009 (http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/More%20Revkin%20Woes%20-%20Was%20Christy%20accurately%20quoted%20in%20NYT. pdf)

Challenge to Andrew Revkin of NYT From Marc Morano – January 16, 2009 (http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/My%20note%20to%20Andrew%20Revkin%20%20v2__0x0.pdf)
CBS Newsman Charles Osgood A Climate Skeptic? Questions Whether Quiet Sun May 'Counteract' Global Warming - April 21, 2009 (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/371/CBS-Newsman-Charles-Osgood-A-Climate-Skeptic-Questions-Whether-Quiet-Sun-May-Counteract-Global-Warming)
CBS News reporter compares global warming skeptics to be the equivalent of “Holocaust deniers.” – 2006 (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml)
Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears - September 24, 2007 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37CD65F0-802A-23AD-4A69-5A1509A4A551)
Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism - August 5, 2007 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38D98C0A-802A-23AD-48AC-D9F7FACB61A7)
Media Covering Up UN Global Warming Report's Political Agenda, Senator Inhofe Charges - January 31, 2007 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=79C41A1E-802A-23AD-40C1-210D91AC6AFE)
“Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming” -September 25, 2006 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=07F23E38-D271-4300-AC40-90C84A49134A)
ABCNEWS Climate Reporter: 'Scientists tell us civilization as we know it is over' (http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20070313/NEWS/103130045)
“I don't like the word 'Balance''- Says ABC News Global Warming Reporter – October 30, 2006 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=3EE352B0-5D2E-4CC0-BD6B-304E3F6E0E2D)
New York Times Op-Ed Heat Wave Hype Melts Under Scrutiny NY Times Aug 2006 oped (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=4B688FCD-7943-4859-905D-6AD3FE4EE7DF)
BROKAW'S OBJECTIVITY COMPROMISED IN GLOBAL WARMING SPECIAL – July 11, 2006 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=CB71A459-1F37-4792-AE25-541FCCED0466)
AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE June 27, 2006 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=725B7C34-101C-48C7-B573-4BFDEBD55448)
CNN Anchor Cited Fictional Hollywood Global Warming Movie, The Day After Tomorrow, to Defend His Science Reporting – October 3, 2006 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=8A7668E8-DFD5-4BCB-BD3D-FE223DFE2CC3)
Newsweek Admits Error on 70's Predictions of Coming Ice Age - October 24, 2006 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=616FD8F4-3292-44B9-BAE4-422E8C8E2DF9)
US SENATE GLOBAL WARMING MEDIA HEARING EXPOSED ALARMIST MEDIA - December 6, 2006 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=153E3A47-E54A-41D0-9997-AB22464F881E)

Wild Cobra

10-26-2009, 04:07 PM

By SETH BORENSTEIN,

---

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

They are using the wrong arguments. Why don't they say we are wrong about the diminishing solar activity which we base our claims on. We only point ot the temperature has stopped rising with the numerous examples of cooling.

They are appealing to people's ignorance, like Mouse's articles do. This reason to say the 'deniers' are wrong is a false argument, just like trying to carbon date a living mollusk's shell, or live penguin. They are fooling those who are ignorant to the real scientific facts.

DarrinS

10-26-2009, 04:33 PM

101A

10-27-2009, 08:51 AM

Why do global warming catastrophists prefer ground temp measurements to the satellite measurements?

I know that a vast majority of ground temperature stations are biased on the high side because of urban heat island effects -- maybe that's why they are preferred? When I tried to skip school and pretend I was sick, I used to hold the thermometer to a lightbulb for a few seconds. Faked out my mom every time.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Warm water works better; takes about 45 seconds, but you can nail it to a believable fever - 101.1, then a couple hours later (after tylenol) 99.8 - and with a digital read; it'll show the last temp usually the next time its turned on.

As to the OP:

My family lives a very environmentally aware lifestyle:

I drive a scooter for ANY trip I can (weather and circumstances permitting) - I have driven my son to school with a French Horn strapped to the back.

- We do not run the clothes drier - ever. We have a cool drying rack that will hold two loads of clothes.

- Do not run the dishwasher - and are very conscious of how much H20 we are using doing the dishes by hand.

- Never use disposable dishes.

- Recycle everything that can be recycled (once shipped 28 lbs of Styrofoam egg carton we saved for years to an address in Arizona because one of the cartons said that they would recycle them).

- Have no incandescent lights in our house.

- Use rechargeable batteries.

- Heater set at 66 degrees - only ran the AC for one week this summer, and it was set at 80.

Etc. Etc..

In short, I am concerned about our environmental impact; we try not to waste. We are trying to be as responsible as possible. As far as climate change, or global warming, if we are responsible for it, I think we ought to do whatever it is we can to regulate it, and limit, if not eliminate the impact we are having. I don't want to be wrong on this.

However, with that in mind, I have studied, reveiwed, looked all over the Web; and read every paper in the journals my wife gets about this (Science, Nature, and Chemical and Engineering News) - bottom line - again, I DO NOT want to be wrong on this - I honestly don't think there is any truth to the hysteria at all. It appears the proponents are using typical bully tactics to shout down skeptics - labeling them "deniers", etc.... Most of the "science" surrounding it is based on computer models; all of which point to catastrophe 100 years out, but ALL which have failed to predict what has happened in the last decade (in 2000, the models showed us in much worse shape now; with much LESS actual carbon pumped into the atmosphere!) In short they are wrong time and again, and do not want to be held accountable for it.

RG, you should stop being partisan on this issue; it's a loser.

DarrinS

10-27-2009, 10:14 AM

101a,

I don't go as far as you (I do use my clothes dryer and dishwasher), but I do drive a car with good gas mileage and I try to be mindful of my energy use and I recycle. I just think the catastrophic AGW crowd is starting to lose their minds.

RandomGuy

10-27-2009, 12:17 PM

[AP is a bad source, the reporter is a biased idiot]

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

------------------------------------------------

The underlying basis of the article shows rather interestingly how the argument, "but the data since 1998 shows the earth is cooling, therefore AGW theory is wrong" is dishonest.

Nothing in your posts actually rebuts this charge.

Why do deniers have to be dishonest to make their case? Is it really that weak, that you can't be intellectually honest?

If all you have in response is more bad logic, you fail.

RandomGuy

10-27-2009, 12:34 PM

RG, you should stop being partisan on this issue; it's a loser.

I offered no comment aside from the title of the thread, but don't feel that calling out one side or the other for intellectual dishonesty and/or bad logic is partisan.

It has been my observation, and is my contention that much of what AGW deniers pass off as "reasoned argument" tends to be little more than bad science, conspiracy theory, and logical fallacy, as this thread has shown in the very first responses.

Since Darrin et al. find it incumbent to continually post their side, I thought some good context of those arguments would be a good balance.

RandomGuy

10-27-2009, 12:37 PM

They are using the wrong arguments. Why don't they say we are wrong about the diminishing solar activity which we base our claims on. We only point ot the temperature has stopped rising with the numerous examples of cooling.

It is not the contention of the AGW theory that cooling does not occur. It is the contention that even in periods of diminished solar activity, CO2 concentrations meant that the cooling was not as pronounced as it would have otherwise been, had CO2 levels (along with other GH gases) been lower.

101A

10-27-2009, 12:50 PM

spursncowboys

10-27-2009, 12:52 PM

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

------------------------------------------------

The underlying basis of the article shows rather interestingly how the argument, "but the data since 1998 shows the earth is cooling, therefore AGW theory is wrong" is dishonest.

Nothing in your posts actually rebuts this charge.

Why do deniers have to be dishonest to make their case? Is it really that weak, that you can't be intellectually honest?

If all you have in response is more bad logic, you fail. Look I agree to not attack someone who disagrees with you. Not to mix the message with the messenger. However, you should always know where the information is coming from. That is why I googled this guy. To be honest, just reading a few links shows that this guy has no credibility. This guy has alterior motives and is not interested in facts. Honestly why would the "AP"(vague) give "tempature data"(vague) to "four independent staticians"(vague).
Also, I believe you did this same thing about some information I link from in the evolution/creationist post.

TeyshaBlue

10-27-2009, 01:09 PM

I offered no comment aside from the title of the thread, but don't feel that calling out one side or the other for intellectual dishonesty and/or bad logic is partisan.

It has been my observation, and is my contention that much of what AGW deniers pass off as "reasoned argument" tends to be little more than bad science, conspiracy theory, and logical fallacy, as this thread has shown in the very first responses.

Since Darrin et al. find it incumbent to continually post their side, I thought some good context of those arguments would be a good balance.

AP gives a bunch o statbots some coffee and doughnuts and only 130 years of data and the results are somehow significant?
What's the confidence/error margin for that data sample? Wonder why that's not known. Probably because it approaches unity.
130 years...might as well be 13 for climatalogical trending. They've told us jack squat.
I wouldn't argue whether or not the temp is increasing as the data set suggests. I would argue whether it's relevant.

Wild Cobra

10-29-2009, 06:31 AM

It is not the contention of the AGW theory that cooling does not occur. It is the contention that even in periods of diminished solar activity, CO2 concentrations meant that the cooling was not as pronounced as it would have otherwise been, had CO2 levels (along with other GH gases) been lower.
Well, here they go and contribute nearly all warming to land use and CO2, then turn arorund and dismiss all that doesn't agree with them. I find that attitude really damaging to the truth.

There is no doubt that solar activity has a great deal of impact to temperature. The alrmists minimize it's effect to almost nothing. The same with black carbon on the arctic ice. They want to blame CO2 for the majority of the warming, when at best, it contributes to 1/4 of it. Then on top of that, it is because of a positive feedback where that much CO2 would not be exinsting if we didn't have warming. CO2 has very little effect on temperature at the levels we are at. We are already near saturation, so it takes a tremendous change to make any notable difference.

DarrinS

10-29-2009, 07:40 AM

Well, here they go and contribute nearly all warming to land use and CO2, then turn arorund and dismiss all that doesn't agree with them. I find that attitude really damaging to the truth.

That says it all. Heck, I even admit that SOME of the warming is probably due to human activity -- I just don't prescribe to the catastrophic scenarios.