Science based on computer models that are already wrong.
Gee, sounds good to me. Let's spend lot of money.
Printable View
Science based on computer models that are already wrong.
Gee, sounds good to me. Let's spend lot of money.
1) evidence shows that the intensity of hurricanes across the globe is increasing;Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
2) solar cycles do affect the earth's climate, no-one says they don't, but that doesn't change the fact that altering the atmosphere is also changing the earth's climate... you are probably referring to sunspot activity, which, while correlated with climate from the 50s-70s, hasn't correlated since;
3) I don't rely on computer modeling - I am an ecologist so I rely on empirical observations from across the globe re record ice and glacial melts, plant flowering patterns, species migrations, inundation of low-lying Pacific islands, changes to high-altitude ecosystems, changes to rainfall and temperature patterns occurring 10-100x faster than recorded anywhere in the temperature record, etc. The fact that modeling accords with these observations is further evidence.
Why don't you explain to me how you change the concentration of a gas in a closed system and don't change the equilibrium state of the system? Or how 7 billion people can have no affect on the planet's systems when the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet is 2-5 billion (depending on lifestyle)?
Actually, I have changed the way I live, and cut my ecological footprint by about 50% without much effort. I use 60% less electricity than two years ago (1/4 of Austn average), and 75% less petrol. Interestingly, none of the behaviour changes I've made has detrimentally affected my lifestyle - so much of what we consume every day is WASTED.Quote:
Originally Posted by PEP
If everyone changed their behaviour to eliminate waste we'd have a great start on the changes needed to make our societies sustainable.
Note that EGW is not the only environmental crisis we face - don't forget non-renewable resource depletion (esp. oil), destruction of renewable resources (esp. fisheries, groundwater, soil, forests), toxic pollution, overpopulation, etc.
Focusing on EGW alone is foolish - it is the scale of harmful global change at all levels that we must address.
This is very true. One of the interesting things is that many changes would actually be beneficial to almost all people, so there isn't even a "sacrifice" to make in many instances. Riding a bike is healthier than driving a car, living closer to work saves you money and gives you more leisure time to spend that money. The body, when faced with the task of keeping itself warmer or cooler, burns more calories and generally does more work and stays in better condition. It is far healthier to occasionally shiver from cold or sweat from heat than it is to constantly exist in a 72 degree environment that is constantly pumped with unnatural heating or cooling. If nothing else, I'd hope that people would want to avoid the drudgery of turning into some character from a stand up comic's routine about elderly mother-in-laws whose waking hours are spent absorbed in conversations about chills, drafts, and hot flashes... Life is short! We should mourn the deaths of friends and loved ones, we should fight injustices, we should strive for freedom, but geez, when it comes to the small stuff, I think people should take more things in stride and be more celebratory about everyday existence. The last thing any country needs is to turn into a nation of whiney wimps whose days and moods are ruined by Earl Grey tea that isn't quite hot enough, or a breeze that is just ever-so-slightly too robust.Quote:
Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle
Global Warming theory ( manmade CO2 increases temp) is just that...a theory. It is not proven beyond question and in fact the models used fail to predict recent temps when known historical data is plugged in. So the future predictions are unreliable. The models just aren't good enough yet.
Some things that aren't theories but facts...
- CO2 levels are rising due to mans activity.
- Elevated CO2 decreases the pH of seawater
- coral reefs are extremely sensitive to low ph. Low ph leads to decrease in spawning events, decreased larval survival, increased bleaching events, and ultimately death for corals in general.
- without healthy coral reefs much of the life in the ocean will cease to exist
- without the resources the oceans provide we are fucked
Long story short, we HAVE to decrease the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. No need to argue about temperature.
The people who want "proof" on this debate will never be satisfied, especially when it comes to political opposition. The argument can always be raised about century-long weather cycles, sunspots, etc... It reminds me of the smoking debate that raged for many years, with one side claiming that the constant inhalation of the smoke of a cigarette-- a thing that is literally on fire-- is bad for you, while the other side argued that those claims were as yet scientifically unfounded. There is a reason why some people commit suicide by closing up their garage and leaving the car running... it's because breathing in automotive exhaust fumes is fundamentally not healthy. People die of smoke inhalation, but a fireman who visits the countryside on the weekend will never die of excess clean air. Of course, the degree to which humans can withstand pollution and still live a quality life is hugely debatable-- I myself prefer cities to rural areas-- but I don't think that there are too many people out there who would really say that the pollutants put into the air by millions of cars, buses, trains, furnaces, motorcycles, factories, etc., are good rather than bad. So I think the argument boils down to the claim that a future planet earth with less pollution is preferable to a future earth with more pollution. Even if it could be proven that there is no human-influenced climate change whatsoever-- which would be as impossible to "prove" for the same reasons-- it would still make sense to try to limit pollution as much as humanly possible.
That is a simplification.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
It is based on simple correlation of a lot of data.
The balance of scientific evidence and the balance of opinion of people who study this is strongly in favor of the theory that we are causing an increase in global temperatures.
To think that releasing MILLIONS OF TONS of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every year without any effect seems to be a very unreasonable position to me.
We have more than enough reason to consider this a very real possibility, and the potential consequences are extremely dire.
Have you actually watched the whole video from the OP? (probaby asked this already)
In fact, the controversy has almost vanished over the past several years, based on an enormity of evidence that has converged to establish the near certainty of anthropogenic warming (recognizing that science never reaches absolute certainties). Within the science literature, the warming is universally recognized with no exceptions, and all challenges come from outside the journals - from blogs, videos, retired scientists, media sources (particularly those with an ideological agenda), and so forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
It's for this reason that the science literature currently addresses global climate change on two fronts, neither of which poses a challenge to the existence of significant anthropogenic warming. The first involves specific details that remain unsettled - a prime example is the effect of continued CO2-driven warming on hurricane intensity. The second involves the optimal means of reducing CO2 emissions in time to avert the most catastrophic warming effects. If you begin to acquire a science background to the point where you can read the journals yourself rather than relying on descriptions provided by others, you'll get a sense of why science now sees some urgency in the need for CO2 mitigation.
--Fred Wooten and friends.
Thank God idiot conservatives are no longer running this country.
Obama gets global warming and he's going to do something about it.
That is one of the other things about the Obama presidency:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadHatter
The war on science will stop.
Thank God. ;)
What is ironic is that the computer models were made by mans assumption of cause and event, and leaving out the changing influence of Sol.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Yes, but how much would they rise without us?Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
True, but if you do the math, you find it is so small, it makes no difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
If we could change the CO2 content enough, I would agree. Like I said. Do the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Maybe. Are they in that much danger? Could the damage as easily be the changing intensity and spectr of the sun?Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Absolutely, but we really don't know the cause, and it's not CO2.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Again, show me the math. I have dabbled with the math. It takes a factor of ten change to change the PH by 1 for the H to OH balance. Because of the way the carbon cycle works, it takes even more to change the acidity because the carbonic acid changes to other forms in the cycle. A doubling of CO2 can change the PH of the ocean by 0.3 PH if you are able to ignore the other factors. We have changed the atmosphere from a natural 280 ppm to about 380 ppm. Only a 0.13 PH change at best. Reports have the change at the caral reefs causing damage at a 0.6 PH change if I recall correctly. To increase the PH by that degree, we would have to exceed 1100 ppm.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Please stop listening to the bullshit about global warming/climate change until you fact check.
My wife and I have only one car, because she can walk to work. Although part of that is the economy too. Also, we downgraded from my Charger R/T to a Pontiac G6 (which sucks slightly less). I would've preferred a Toyota Camry, but it was the wife's decision. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by PEP
Of course, those were also economic reasons. Extra energy = more money spent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
What would you say to scientists who co-authored IPCC reports that disagree with this assertion?
Following is from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change.
The IPCC is a framework around which hundreds of scientists and other participants are organised to mine the panoply of climate change literature to produce a synthesis of the most important and relevant findings.
These findings are published every few years to help policymakers keep tabs on where the participants chosen for the IPCC believe the Earth's climate has been, where it is going, and what might be done to adapt to and/or even adjust the predicted outcome.
While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:
this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way)
scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead
The political process begins with the selection of the Lead Authors because they are nominated by their own governments.
Thus at the outset, the political apparatus of the member nations has a role in pre-selecting the main participants.
But, it may go further.
Unsound bites
At an IPCC Lead Authors' meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient.
After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."
Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process.
And, while the 2001 report was being written, Dr Robert Watson, IPCC Chair at the time, testified to the US Senate in 2000 adamantly advocating on behalf of the Kyoto Protocol, which even the journal Nature now reports is a failure.
Follow the herd
As I said above - and this may come as a surprise - scientists are mere mortals.
The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the "ones who know" (from the Latin sciere, to know).
You dare not be thought of as "one who does not know"; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as "one who knows".
This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.
Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I'm identified as an IPCC Lead Author.)
The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans."
We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural".
So, I would have written this conclusion as "Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change."
Slim models
To me, the elevation of climate models to the status of definitive tools for prediction has led to the temptation to be over-confident.
Here is how this can work.
Computer models are the basic tools which are used to estimate the future climate. Many scientists (ie the mere mortals) have been captivated by an IPCC image in which the actual global surface temperature curve for the 20th Century is overlaid on a band of model simulations of temperature for the same period.
The observations seem to fit right in the middle of the model band, implying that models are formulated so capably and completely that they can reproduce the past very well.
Without knowing much about climate models, any group will be persuaded by this image to believe models are quite precise.
However, there is a fundamental flaw with this thinking.
You see, every modeller knew what the answer was ahead of time. (Those groans you just heard were the protestations of my colleagues in the modelling community - they know what's coming).
In my view, on the other hand, this persuasive image is not a scientific experiment at all. The agreement displayed is just as likely to do with clever software engineering as to the first principles of science.
The proper and objective experiment is to test model output against quantities not known ahead of time.
Complex world
Our group is one of the few that builds a variety of climate datasets from scratch for tests just like this.
Since we build the datasets here, we have an urge to be sceptical about arguments-from-authority in favour of the real, though imperfect, observations.
In these model vs data comparisons, we find gross inconsistencies - hence I am sceptical of our ability to claim cause and effect about both past and future climate states.
Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).
Of all scientists, climate scientists should be the most humble. Our cousins in the one-to-five-day weather prediction business learned this long ago, partly because they were held accountable for their predictions every day.
Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.
Explosive view
How could the situation be improved? At one time I stated that the IPCC-like process was the worst way to compile scientific knowledge, except for all the others.
Improvements have been adopted through the years, most notably the publication of the comments and responses. Bravo.
I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed.
These alternative-view authors should be afforded the same protocol as the IPCC authors, ie they themselves are their own final reviewers and thus would have final say on what is published.
At that point, I suppose, the blogosphere would erupt and, amidst the fire and smoke, hopefully, enlightenment may appear.
I continue to participate in the IPCC (unless an IPCC functionary reads this missive and blackballs me) because I not only am able to contribute from my own research, but there are numerous opportunities to learn something new - to feed the curiosity that attends a scientist's soul.
I can live with the disagreements concerning nuances and subjective assertions as they simply remind me that all scientists are people, and do not prevent me from speaking my mind anyway.
Wise teachings
Don't misunderstand me.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties.
However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.
The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.
He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: "At our present level of ignorance, we think we know..."
Good advice for the IPCC, and all of us.
John R Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, US
He has contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007
Let's pretend for a moment that you're right that it takes a .6 change to have a negative affect on stony corals. (as someone who propagates stony corals I can tell you that's not true). And let's pretend that 1100 ppm is the magic number as you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...on_Dioxide.png
Do you notice any trend going on in that graph? How total deniers like you can supposedly look at all the data and come to the conclusion that there is no need to change the way we do things is beyond me.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3069/...0d393865_o.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
pH = -log [H+]
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/...40f96f63_o.gif
The theoretical relationship between carbonate alkalinity and pH for seawater in equilibrium for preindustrial air (green; 278 ppm carbon dioxide), current air (blue; 350 ppm carbon dioxide) and possible future air (red; 700 ppm carbon dioxide) using the equations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Seems like WC is more certain than any of the experts, even the ones held up as doubters.
I'm only recounting a number that was listed in an article some time back.. The number may be in error, but I remember noted then, that CO2 could not cause what they said the change in PH was. I'm pretty certain they said 0.6 PH and that it was starting to cause problems. My claim is that it would take 1100 PPM to make that 0.6 PH change, and that would also assume the ocean could absorb that much more CO2 in those areas. Warmer water expels CO2 and the cooler water absorbs it. Now maybe there was a 0.6 PH change in that part of the ocean and the starting PH was high enough that it took that much of a drop to cause problems. My point is that that much change was not from CO2. Like your formula below shows, there are other factors. Those constant factors may not be so constant. Is it safe for me to assume they are nominal regional value? Is it possible the slow moving thermohaline circulation is changing other values? If the small amount of change we have caused is causing problems anywhere, then they were already endangered. Some nautural change would cause them problems, and maybe actually have.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Something I explain in my past posts on CO2 and temperature. Few people acknowledge sciences behind it. It is another thing the alarmists will not acknowledge. You will find that CO2 lags temperature. Before we started burning fossil fuels, the paleoclimatology records clearly show that temperature changes cause the CO2 level changes in the atmosphere. It is in the hundreds of years. As the average sea temperature changes, the CO2 levels changes by about 28 ppm per C, but it is not a linear formula. Modern increases of CO2 do not increase the temperature by any notable levels. The extra levels expelled by man do not follow what the plotted temperatures trend should be if CO2 was the reason for warming and cooling.
Please do note that it supports the temperature theory for CO2 levels as there is a clear annual change associated with temperature. Also note that levels at a Hawaii station are not indicative of a global view. Alarmists like to use the data there because CO2 levels are higher from the ocean expelling CO2.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
I never said we don’t need to change things. I simply do not see problems with CO2 the way the alarmists claim. I will agree that the oceans are what is most likely to be affected, but I dispute that we are close at all for that to happen yet.
I have seen the above graph on several occasions. Please note that the annual insert clearly shows CO2 level changes up and down, with the season, as ocean temperatures change.
How does that math dispute what I said? I have seen arguments before. Maybe I’m wrong at assuming you were going after the 0.6 PH change. I guess the question becomes, at what PH change does the coral population start being in distress.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
The PH changes by the graph show a 0.09 PH change with a change from 278 ppm to 350 ppm. That is in line with my claim of no more than 0.13 PH for 280 ppm to 380 ppm. Please also note that the doubling of CO2 only shows a 0.25 PH to 0.29 PH change dependant upon AT. So according to the graph, if another doubling works the same, it would increase by 0.5 PH to 0.58 PH with my starting claim of 280 ppm to 1120 ppm. Still within what I claimed. I said it would take more than 1100 ppm to make a 0.6 PH change referenced from 280 ppm.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Something that must be noted. I used a phrase ”if you are able to ignore the other factors.” That is because the ocean equilibrium of CO2 is dependant on so many factors. You cannot simply use the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now something else. I haven’t a clue what the different constants are in your math. Also, is there a reason to use AC rather than AT? Are the carbonate and bicarbonate anions somehow the only alkalinity to be figured for alkalinity?
Since you say you “propagates stony corals,” can you tell us what PH changes do put them in distress?
I looked around the web a bit and searched prior threads. Rather than 0.6 PH, the claim was 1/3rd of a PH unit (1/3 = 0.33 PH.) Here is that link. We discussed this in a prior thread. I found where the 0.6 PH is from. That is the normal delta PH of the ocean. All natural!
Of course, coral is simply part of the ocean food chain. The other part is the plankton that make up the base of that food chain, and that is definitely addressed in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Original source articleQuote:
Researchers from California State University-San Marcos and the University of South Florida towed nets behind the vessel to catch plankton, which they then subjected to acidic conditions on par with what might be experienced in the future.
"They're seeing that the shells of these organisms start to dissolve even while the organism is still living," said Sabine, an oceanographer with NOAA's Seattle lab.
Some of the creatures tested are little snails that are "a major food source for salmon and whales and these larger things and they make a shell that is very susceptible to a decrease in pH," he said.
Other experiments show that microscopic plants at the base of the food chain that build protective plates out of calcium carbonate don't grow properly in the acidic water.
"We don't expect to go out and find living organisms with dissolving shells," Sabine said. "We expect to find perhaps a change in where these organisms are thriving or perhaps fewer of them over time."
The ocean scientists expressed an urgency over reducing carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible.
"Anything we can do to slow that rate of change will slow the rate of response in the oceans as well," said Kleypas. "It buys us some time."
You know, I might consider such articles if it addressed all the other possible causes for the acification. It is pure propaganda, because:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomPropagandaGuy
CO2 is increasing.
Acification is increasing.
Cause and effect, with no scrutiuny!
Fuck that. Especially since the same article soes say the ocean is warming! Warmer water reduced the balance of CO2 in the water. How does the warmth affect the acification? So many other factor. What about the ocean currents, changing the conditions? What about the stronger sunlight during the peried a few years earlier? So many other factors that are simply ignored.
For CO2 to increase the acification, give me all ofther identical factors. Especially when tht article crys about a 0.25 PH change when the natural range is 0.6 PH!
Fucking alarmist journalists.
Because it is so implausible that if you massively increase CO2 in the atmosphere, none of that will be absorbed by the oceans. :rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Why do you ignore relevant facts that you don't like?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
The article said the oceans were warming, right?
The CO2 was measured at a -0.25 delta PH.
Fact is, warmer water absorbs less CO2, the balance change likely has less CO2 in the water than more, even with higher CO2 in the air!
Direct factors are also atmospheric pollutions like sulfur, mercury, soot, etc. from factories that are 'rained out' to the oceans. Add these to the ones I mentioned before.
Tell me that the sulfur, soot and trace mercury doesn't not have an effect. These are pollutants that run rampant because Asia is not using clean burning technologies.
Again, there are so many possible causes. When anyone tells me "It's the CO2." "It cannot be something else." I'm sorry; I shake my head at how much a fool that person is.
Give me real evidence. Not assumed cause and effect without eliminating other things. Don't tell me it's the CO2 when the math just doesn't pan out for it.
If you want to be a champion of the environment, take a stand at the real problems. Things like coal powered electric generation plants with little or no pollution controls. Something you learn as a technician, is you tackle either the easy or the biggest problems first. You prioritize your problems and resources. Since they tend to mask the smaller problems, or assumed problems that are hard to fix, you do the simple and blatant problems first, then see if more work is required. All that reducing CO2 generation in the USA is going to do is cost us big bucks, and yield almost nothing in return as long as the rest of the world doesn't take action too.
You say that as if you were there helping them write the models.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Source of this statement?
Me? You have no room to point fingers in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I am fully 100% open to the possibility that there is no such thing as man-made climate change, as does this guy:
Whereas you have flat out stated that there is virtually no possibility that you are wrong about your assertion that we have contributed virtually nothing to the warming, if the warming even really exists.
You constantly post all sorts of threads, along with the rest of the Ostrich Brigade when new bits that seem to disprove the AGM theory. Great for you.
Quite frankly I have grown to assign your "evidence" little weight, simply because you are all far too eager to drink your own cool-aid. You claim *I* ignore data, yet none of you ever have the intellectual honesty to admit or present honest evidence that contradicts your precious theory.
As I have said before, the particulars are beyond my expertise to truly evaluate, and I really don't want to spend my limited time to acquire that familiarity, because ultimately, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Run across this article this morning on Fox News.
FOXNews.com
Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'
Tuesday , December 16, 2008
FC1
ADVERTISEMENT
Scientists skeptical of the assertion that climate change is the result of man's activites are criticizing a recent Associated Press report on global warming, calling it "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased."
They say the report, which was published on Monday, contained sweeping scientific errors and was a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue.
"If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it," said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue.
In the article, Obama Left with Little Time to Curb Global Warming, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein wrote that global warming is "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid," and that "global warming is accelerating."
Deming, in an interview, took issue with Borenstein's characterization of a problem he says doesn't exist.
"He says global warming is accelerating. Not only is it continuing, it's accelerating, and whether it's continuing that was completely beyond the evidence," Deming told FOXNews.com.
"The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980."
Deming said the article is further evidence of the media's decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence.
"Reporters, as I understand reporters, are supposed to report facts,"Deming said. "What he's doing here is he's writing a polemic and reporting it as fact, and that's not right. It's not reporting. It's propaganda.
"This reads like a press release for an environmental advocacy group like Greenpeace. It's not fair and balanced."
A spokesman for the Associated Press said that the news agency stands by its story. "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others," spokesman Paul Colford told FOXNews.com in an e-mail.
Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho, is another academic who found serious flaws with the AP story's approach to the issue.
"There's very little that's right about it," Fox said. "And it's really harmful to the United States because people like this Borenstein working for AP have an enormous impact on everyone, because AP sells their news service to a thousand news outlets.
"One guy like him can be very destructive and alarming. Yeah it's freedom of speech, but its dishonest."
Like Deming, Fox said global warming is not accelerating. "These kinds of temperatures cycle up and down and have been doing so for millions of years," he said.
He said there is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. "It's silly to lay it all on man-made carbon dioxide," Fox said. "It was El Nino in 1998 that caused the big spike in global warming and little to do with carbon dioxide."
Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes, he said.
James O'Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, said that global climate change is very important for the country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy decisions. But he said he worries that scientists and policymakers are rushing to make changes based on bad science.
"Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world," O'Brien said. "But everything that's attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming."
He took issue with the AP article's assertion that melting Arctic ice will cause global sea levels to rise.
"When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it's displacing water," O'Brien said. "When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down.
"I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it met. After the ice melts, the sea level didn't go up in your glass of water. It's called the Archimedes Principle."
He called sea level changes a "major scare tactic used by the global warming people."
O'Brien said he doesn't discount the potential effects man is having on the environment, but he cautioned that government should not make hasty decisions.
"There is no question that the Obama administration is green and I'm green, and there's no question that they're going to really take a careful look at what we need to do and attack problems, and I applaud that," O'Brien said.
"But I'm really concerned that they're going to spend all the money on implementation of mitigation, rather than supporting the science."
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships At Fox News (Summer Application Deadline is March 15, 2007)
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected]; For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2008 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.