Polar bears and hot air: On Fox, you get nothing but false information on global warming
It's pretty much getting to the point where, if you heard it on Fox, you can pretty much be assured it's a lie. Especially when the subject is global warming.
It's not just Sean Hannity, though he's bad enough. It's pretty much every single anchor and reporter they have. On the subject of global warming, they seem incapable of reporting a single straight fact.
Take Neil Cavuto yesterday. He opened the segment by talking about how cold temperatures are right now. This is a big surprise, since we're in the dead of winter.
But this is part of the larger theme: It's colder than crap here in America, so that must mean there's no global warming! We're hearing it constantly.
Fairly typical of this approach was the e-mail we got yesterday from a reader who wanted to defend Hannity:
Sean Hannity may be many things, but your claim his statement about 2009 being colder is a lie doesn't hold water. In fact, Accuweather.com says this winter may be the worst and coldest since 1985.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-weather-features.asp?#extremes
Please stop misleading people into this global warming crap.
Dave Boylen
Maui, Hawaii
If you go to the story he links, you'll find a story about how we're getting record-cold temperatures this year in the United States.
Because, of course, the USA is the only part of the globe that matters. Temperatures elsewhere? Who cares?
It's the same approach Cavuto's guest, a Palin fan who built an ice sculpture showing Al Gore blowing hot air, took in the above segment.
Even though the reality, as we explained, is that in terms of global temperatures, 2009 will go down as one of the hottest years on record.
Cavuto and his guest also plop out the polar-bear canard -- that polar-bear populations are actually at new heights. This, too, is just a flat-out falsehood:
First, it's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers—they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded. That situation was a conservation success story ... but the current threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.
Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that was not predicted to happen until 2040. The loss of Arctic sea ice has resulted in a shorter hunting season for the bears, which has led to a scientifically documented decline in the best-studied population, Western Hudson Bay, and predictions of decline in the second best-studied population, the Southern Beaufort Sea.
... At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision. (The number of declining populations has increased from five at the group's 2005 meeting.)
Warming deniers like Hannity and Cavuto lie with impunity, and the worst part is, no one will ever hold them accountable. In 10 years, when they are proven catastrophically wrong, they'll find ways to claim they were actually right.
It might be helpful for the rest of us, though, to understand some of the dynamic involved here. You see, sharply colder wintertime temperatures in the United States -- and particularly along the Atlantic seaboard -- may well in fact be part of a larger global warming trend.
That's because of something called thermohaline circulation, which is the phenomenon behind the North Atlantic Current. This current, of course, is responsible for the relatively warm temperatures enjoyed by western Europe and Eastern North America.
It's not any news that global warming may affect these currents -- and indeed, we've been recording a weakening of the NAC for several years now.
We won't know, of course, for several years, when all the data is in and analyzed, but it's certainly reasonable to believe that our current colder winters are likely being deepened by the shutdown of thermohaline circulation.
What we do know for certain, though, is that believing that our ultra-cold winter is some kind of evidence against global warming is, well, pure mendaciousness. And the people who believe it are gullible dumbasses.
I think any new person caught lying should get at least 2 years in prison. I bet a lot of the bullshit artists at fox would have a great time there!
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness and it is killing America!
Fox News defended itself in court by successfully asserting that it is an entertainment program, not a source of news. It is so sad that so many Americans cannot tell news from entertainment, but that is what one should expect when we elect people because we "would like to have a beer with them".
The ones who believe this fox bullshit are just too damned lazy to do any research for themselves. They won't bother to find out if what Neil and the rest are saying is true, because they really don't give a damn about this "elitist" knowledge. I doubt any of them could spell global warming, let alone speak intelligently about it.
Thank you so much for this post, David, because this bullshit they are selling on fox about the polar bears is driving me crazy.
Have a wonderful weekend.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Say: "GLOBAL CLIMATE DISRUPTION"
.. please ..
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
These idiots will continue and keep swaying the 20%ers no matter what it's called.
In the first place it would counter their immmediate claim that the colder than usual winter most of the northern hemisphere is experiencing somehow disproves "
global warming" "global climate disruption" ..And in the second place "global climate disruption" explains this colder than usual winter here in the north.
AND (wait, there's more) it would put into everyday dialogue a phrase - "global climate disruption" - which more accurately describes what the surface of our planet will be undergoing for the forseeable future - temperature extremes, extremes of droughts, storms, flooding and rising sea levels.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
.... have the facts presented in a coloring book and the deniers still wouldn't get it. It's not a question of dressing it up pretty. They're just invested in the FOX News line. Al Gore's a liar, John Kerry's a wimp, Barack Obama is a secret Muslim, global warming/climate change/climate disruption doesn't exist.
true .. true .. and true ..
.. and yet! I still say "global climate disruption" is a much more accurate name and implicitly includes much colder winters in some regions ..
.. oh well .. back too other things ..
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
have the debate up there in Shishmaref....
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/human-shish...
F'n Fox clowns....
The message is strickly for the group who believes:
The earth is only 6,000 years old
There is no such thing as evolution
If you pray hard enough you can join the wealthy!
I offer them all Darwin awards
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Exactly!
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
perfectly put....
This planet is toast. We had an opportunity to do something about the mes we've made but it has been squandered. I've been an advocate of environmental causes since the early 70's and now I've grown tired of fighting. Fully half the people in America are to stupid to understand the problems and another 45 per cent think baby jesus will come down and make it all alright. This country has become a wasteland of stupidity and the conservatives wallow in it. I'm going to start drinking now, hopefully I'll feel better in the morning.
and in a million years or so will be beautiful again....
The apes taking over the laboratory experiment will be filed and catelogued away in the rocks of geologic time.
... we've poured so much excess heat into the environment, the oceans will still be spilling it off decades from now. Even if we stopped EVERYTHING cold.
Funny how the crowd that is so adamantly anti-Muslim really doesn't appear to mind sucking Saudi tit for oil to fuel their SUVs.
Whether the earth is truly warming beyond our full contol or not, we will be toast as a country much sooner with a 12 trillion announced on paper debt.
Forget the temperature, if we don't get our crap together and have economic growth, we will be burned much quicker than the sun and ozone and C02 will create.
Clinton had a "balanced budget" that was on plan to eat off the debt, however he maneuvered that. But Bush immediately doubled it. Obama mandatorily then added another 4 trillion.
Without a means to work it off, we are a shell country that is very very close to closure like a Pontiac plant in Flint. If you have money, hide it, and run away. Soon.
Substitute "local weather" for "global climate" ... close enough.
Substitute "health crisis" for "insurance crisis" ... close enough.
Substitute "terror OMG terror!" for "panty-bomber fail" ... close enough.
C'mon, play the FAUX NEWS game ... got any more?
Substitute ...
"fair and balanced" for "false equivalency"
"searching for moral clarity" for "war crimes"
"former Vice President Dick Cheney" for "war criminal"
"Liz Cheney" for "daughter of war criminal Dick Cheney"
"keeping America safe" for "spreading fear and panic"
"no attacks during the Bush Administration" for "we'd like to pretend 9/11 didn't happen, and you know we'd go ahead and trash the Constitution and start an illegal war anyway, so what's the big fuss?"
without us probably a mass die off is the best bet at this point. Let trees grow back.
which is the belief that an endless sequence of magic tricks performed by shaman scientists can defeat the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which rules the universe -- which true scientists ought to know cannot be defeated . . . will save us.
As someone from Hawaii, let me just say that 1. I'm embarrassed that anybody here would think what this idiot does. 2. He obviously hasn't been in Hawaii long(being from Maui "The White Isle" I would guess he is recent transplanted Californian--destroy that state then move to mine, thanks!). You can look at the last ten years so of Hawaii weather alone and see that things are changing--drastically. IF this idiot were here during the summer he would remember that in the BEGINNING of summer we had 9+ straight days of record-setting temperatures. They changed out the thermometer at the airport thinking it was broken, it got so bad. Twenty years without an a/c and I finally had to buy one. And now we are in winter weather and we have already seen extremes--near-record waves on Maui and Oahu. And now it is hot and muggy in winter again. Go back to California and wallow in the mess you Republicans made of it--don't come over here to Hawaii and embarrass us.
The right goes ballistic when someone mentions bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.We really need a Truth in News law instead. Basically come up with an independent body to check the accuracy of reports. If a news organization fails, require a retraction by the same announcer in the same time slot on the next broadcast. If the organization has too many violations shut them down. Include all commentators, spokesmen, paid consultants and invited guests. It would great to hear O'Really spend the first half of his show correcting his last show and Fox would last a week in its current format.
... but it's ultimately unenforceable when neither the corporate directors nor the perfect-hair brigade give a shit about telling the truth.
bad enough that he can't understand the difference between GLOBAL and LOCAL weather, but to top it off, his need to defend Hannity... that's just sad.
A basic tenet of those who deny man's impact on global warming is that billions of tons of carbon dioxide can be pumped into the atmosphere annually with no effect. The deniers never address that.
First, even if there was a period where the climate was warmer in the past, it does not mean that a subsequent period of increased temperatures will be the same. The addition of human-caused levels of CO2 change the playing field.
Second, if carbon dioxide can be expelled in such great quantities, if SUV's and BBQs really don't change the environment, I'd like to invite Hannity to sit in a closed, airtight garage with a running Humvee.
I bet it really sucks to work for POX Theatre these days. Can we vote now?
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
They're doing exactly what they're paid to do. No one is holding them accountable for the lies, the distortions, the hate- and fear-mongering, because neither the government nor the people have that authority.
Oh, but flash a tit or say the word FUCK, and the FCC would be all over them.
It's pretty much getting to the point where, if you heard it on Fox, you can pretty much be assured it's a lie. Especially when the subject is global warming.
That point was passed long ago, man. Fox "News" is like pro wrestling; unless you're watching it purely for entertainment, it's absolutely worthless.
I think I'd tune in to watch Hannity get slammed in the head with a chair.
I am addressing this message which you yourselves posted:
"Sean Hannity may be many things, but your claim his statement about 2009 being colder is a lie doesn't hold water. In fact, Accuweather.com says this winter may be the worst and coldest since 1985.
http://www.accuweather.com/news-weather-featu...
"Please stop misleading people into this global warming crap.
"Dave Boylen
"Maui, Hawaii
I don't have the privilege of knowing Dave Boylen personally, but after reading his post above, I can't help wondering if he had the same question occur to him that has been crossing my mind: What about other factors that influence weather like El Nino, La Nina, and sunspots?
Before algore began uttering his "global warming" stuff, there was a lot of discussion about El Nino. People would wonder in the media if El Nino would appear, how large it would be, how potent would it be, etc. Plus when I was in school decades ago, I used to hear in class that sunspot activity had effects on our weather. But since "global warming" came into fashion, I can't remember hearing anything about these alternatives in the media.
I would issue a challenge to this place. Whenever anyone dares to challenge algore and his mantra of "global warming", they are demeaned, denounced, castigated, and called a variety of names, with "Liar" being the most family-friendly one. Instead of denouncing us and the commentators at Fox News, what about doing some research on the factors li9ke the ones named above that DO have some effect on our weather? In my opinion, blindly accepting the "global warming" mantra as gospel truth without any real, hard science to support it is as much an example of brainless thought as is that of people accepting Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin as connoisseurs of fine philosophical musing.
Don't forget that the "e-mailgate" matter around the time of the Copenhagen climate conference shows that not all scientists accept "global warming" as a valid concept. Why don't they? THAT also is a topic that is worthy of exploration.
Thank you, Dave Boylen, for showing your courage by speaking out.
spell "Dick Cheney" and "Sarah Palin" correctly, but continually use "algore" to refer to Al Gore? And why do I see that in all global warming denier comments in many different comment threads? Just curious.
An Inconvenient Truth?
Be truthful.
They can't debate facts, so they belittle the man.
And, 'thinker' - El Nino is a product of the climate, which affects the weather. You and the other folks who deny global warming continue to conflate the two, when they are not the same.
Perhaps you need to do some research on what the phenomenon is: an upward change in ocean temperatures in a specific region that disrupts weather patterns, resulting in increased flooding in some areas, and drought in others. So if you're looking for El Nino, you're basically looking to prove that there is, in fact, global warming and climate change.
the temperature of the globe has increased, every year, for decades
do you have trouble understanding?
you can be silly and argue over the 'why' of this happening if that delights you, and side with the 1% dissenting opinion, but to deny something that is just an easy to look up fact is foolish.
and why do you feel the need to thank daveboylen(sic) for having the "courage" to not understand the difference between local and global / immediate and yearly climate patterns?
I feel sorry for you.
"not all scientists accept "global warming" as a valid concept. Why don't they? THAT also is a topic that is worthy of exploration"
thinkerfromiowa
Why didn't all scientists accept that cigarettes were a health hazard?
"Quit filling our heads with science!"
me-oww!
paid to sell. The oil and coal companies do not like the idea of selling less fossil fuel. The fact that the burning of fossil fuel might cause mankind harm is not their problem. Their executives are paid to sell oil and coal. Just remember that the tobaco companies deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes cancer. They have not given up. The fact that cigarette kill hunderds of thousands of people in the USA every year is not important to the tobaco companies executives. There are many reasons to stop the burning of fossil fuel, global warming is just one of them. The biggest reason to stop burning oil is national security. Does anyone remember the Arab Oil embargo? The biggest reason to stop burning coal is the pollution that damages the environment and our health. The argument that fossil fuel is cheaper is wrong when you extrapolate over the next fifty years you can see that fossil fuel will be more expensive. Conservation is actually the cheapest solution with Windpower the next cheaper.
Wikipedia instead of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association?
Here's their data on global temperatures, and it's trending upwards.
You insist that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Like what? What set of facts or measurable events would you accept? Otherwise, you're hiding behind a moving goalpost.
We KNOW what the result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is by looking at our two neighboring planets. Venus, which is closer to the Sun and warmer, retains much of its heat. Mars, which is further away and colder, is a frozen wasteland. If we *are* increasing the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere, neither a warming climate or a cooling one is particularly good news.
And it's just plain laughable that you suggest spending more to fight pollution, but dismiss 'wind farms' and hybrid vehicles as a waste of money, when much of the pollution you decry comes from the petroleum refining process and the use of its major byproduct: gasoline.
And part of that is global dimming.
Pollutant particulates in the atmosphere that endanger the breathing of the very young and the very old, paradoxically are screening some of the more destructive aspects of global climate change.
At this point we can't live with our without the particulates, with or without the global change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ye8GLPUVsM
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPnh2sa4Fek&fe...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
If you actually spent a little time looking at the table on the Wikipedia page, you'd have noticed that the source for the data is footnoted:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/an...
Uh, it's NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association).
The data at the link you post to is mostly up to 2005/2006 (convenient for your counter argument). The one graph that shows temps for 2006 actually shows the beginning of a downward trend:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwa...
The earth may be warming, it probably is, which is within the natural variations that have gone on since the earths been around.
Right now global climate models cannot predict anything because they have insufficient data and understanding of earth's climate system. AGW reduces it to one variable--CO2 emissions. (Every wonder why they always say 'projections' rather than 'predictions'?) Clearly that isn't the only thing going on, yet, folks want to spend trillions to reduce that one variable, which may or may not do anything.
As for pollution etc, I don't disagree that much comes from petroleum refining processes (beyond just the CO2). Moving away from reliance on oil would save us trillions that we are currently spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Deforestation is a huge issue as well, which has nothing to do with GW, but is entirely man-made and will have a huge environmental and climate impact (think about the Amazon).
Most importantly, all the projections about what to fear about AGW (water shortages, war for resources, etc...) are already happening, and have been happening for a long, long time. The only reason why folks care under the AGW scenario right now is the fear that--gasp--they might actually be affected personally.
(First, I'm a bit confused. You appear to correct my spelling out of NOAA, but then say the same thing.)
But as 2009 showed, when faced with a severe drought in the South (due to over-development of the land and thus, a strain on existing resources), the answer of the governor was:
LET US PRAY FOR RAIN.
Not 'hey, maybe we've built too much in this area'. The mindset isn't there among the people you need to convince.
my apologies.
I was pointing out that I did in fact rely on data from NOAA (the link I posted is the data set at NOAA), not Wikipedia, which you brought up to discredit my figures.
As your example shows, many of the problems we face have nothing to do with AGW. It's resource management. Contrary to popular belief, AGW isn't projected to turn the planet into a worldwide Sahara with bits of Antarctic thrown in.
Whether temperatures go up or down, it's really about adaptability to certain conditions. As conditions change, you need to be able to adapt. According to AGW theory, if we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it may be too late. So it is better to spend money to adapt to the climate, not stop it.
It's also pretty clear, except for a couple of questionable studies, that the earth has gone through periods much warmer than what is projected in this century. One example is why the Norse settled in Greenland. It used to be warm enough for sustainable farming. Then the world started cooling and they left. The timeframes correspond to the period known as the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Many scientist believe we are actually coming out of the LIA, which is why there's been global warming.
I generally detest Wikipedia because it's group-sourced, and you're counting on everyone being an equal and responsible contributor.
It's kind of like the myth of the free market that Republicans keep pushing: little or no regulation, good stuff rises to the top, bad stuff goes away. Only that's not true. Not for the economy, as we've seen, and not for FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
for EXXON!......ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets, and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe.
Cue the Kabuki....
say a single credible thing ever.
Except once...when reading the Paris Business Review...
that I'm cutting Fox some slack. They may be right on this, but in the grand tradition of their network, not for the right reasons.
your 'facts' are terrible.
as has been mentioned, go over to the NOAA if you really give a damn.
small spikes one way or the other don't mean very much compared to an overall trend.
and the plea to emotion here:
"UNICEF estimates 29,000 children die EVERY DAY, with 70% of those deaths from preventable causes."
is ludicrous on it's face.
We, just the United States, right now, throw away enough food to feed the rest of the world.
We. Throw. It. Away.
Yes, it's preventable now, as you said, but the prevention has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.
Nice try though, I guess, if you were trying to be disingenuous.
FOX anchors routinely misreport the facts, and conflate weather with climate when they are not the same thing?
If the facts don't support AGW, what's wrong with presenting them instead of snappy (and entirely incorrect) comebacks?
about Fox. I don't think facts actually matter to them, only their agenda (definitely not the facts that support their agenda, as those facts really just fall apart under any scrutiny).
I usually get my quota of Fox by just seeing the cable listings when it shows up on my converter when I travel between the channel I'm on and the channel I'm trying to get too.
pollution, deforestation, poor agricultural practices, adequate access to water, declining fisheries, poverty, malnutrition and Unicef statistics....
well are you certain that's not just a hoax on the American people?
from the wiki you linked to:Each of the last 12 years (1997-2008) was one of the warmest on record.
BTW, it's not trending down, those stats just show the climb has decreased somewhat due to the icecaps melting, each number in the globally column is how much hotter than the year before.
There is only so much heat you can pump into a closed system before it tips.
can you source "the climb has decreased somewhat due to the ice caps melting"? I haven't read a study on that.
[Enough. This is not a thread on your views about the climate. It's not about what Al Gore says. It is called "Polar bears and hot air: On Fox, you get nothing but false information on global warming." Read the text of the post if you need help with the topic. You are perfectly welcome to discuss your opinion about the climate on the open thread, due up in under half an hour-Sitemonitor]
The problem is that Cavuto and his ilk are wrong. But, as are the Gore locksteppers.
Folks, the issue is the fossil fuels destroying the earth, and the endgame of none of it left. I say the sooner the better. Either stop it or burn it all up asap.
The warming of the planet is a strawman, as I have said before. Is it "climate change" or is it "global dimming" or is it or is it or is it...
Look, the earth is warming a few degrees over 20-100 years or it isn't. Or, it is cooling. Show me where the statistics are wrong that even if we stop all fossil fuels on earth we can decrease the temperature on earth 2% in 20 years. Hoax? Maybe, maybe not.
Alas, the issue is the fuels that are available today and the pollution can stop right now. But everyone is fixated on the bogieman of warming. We just don't affect the temperature as much as you assume. That is not the reason to stop extracting and burning our crude-laden ancestors.
And, why should everyone cut back on usage when we are producing more people than are dying? That is no solution. Stop the usage and integrate alternatives asap. Otherwise, this is just a rediculous fear mongering non-logical exercise.
And, if cap and trade is instituted, add it to the mandatory health insurance. Socialism? I am not actually against it. But this is not Socialism, this is corporatocracy, or, ahem, Mussolini Fascism.
All of your food is owned by Monsanto. Enjoy.
... my concern about climate change is only on the say-so of Al Gore?
You are continuing the mistake of 'all climate change is the same' - that it's a cycle we can safely ignore. Go look at the links provided to NOAA. It shows the trend of increasing temperatures over the past decade. We DO have the facts. We DO know what steps we should be taking towards developing alternative fuels (and, really, having America be a leader in this field solves the 'for profit' motive - invent it, stamp it Made in America, and be on the top of the food chain, rather than sucking hind tit with OPEC).
My concern is from having walked on glaciers starting in 1970...
and first hand witnessing of their decline.
Some toes of them have receded by several kilometers....
and, that has an effect on our Eastern Slope river water flow....
(down 60% this year)
But, everyone seems to religiously quote NOAA.
Weigh it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576...
The point seems to be missed by people. At worst, we affect the temperature of the earth 4%.
4% of a dollar is no big thing.
But if I increase your body temperature by 4%, you could die of a fever.
Or if 4% of your body were covered in third-degree burns, that would be a forearm. (That's based on the forensic 'rule of nine,' used to estimate the percentage of the body damaged by burns.)
You are propagating the 'no big deal' line of the global warming deniers. That human activity simply can't have that big an effect on the environment. Furthermore, you are making a serious math error - that a 4% variance in global temperature is really no big deal, but ignoring that the extremes of our planet's temperatures - the Saharan desert and the Antarctic - are neither habitable without significant aid, and do not support crops nor livestock. Add or subtract your 4% to the narrow band where man lives and thrives, and it's no longer a throwaway number.
Not 4% of temperature. 4% of the greenhouse gasses and CO2 specifically. The other 96% we can not control. Stopping the 4% or cutting it to 2% will not stop the earth from warming.
The assumption is that we alone are the reason the earth is warming inexorably. That is bogus. We contribute, of course. And we should stop asap. Hubris to think we can simply stop using oil and the earth will cool.
Boy, you're just hitting on all cylinders with the right-wing talking points.
The existing levels of greenhouse gases may be fractional, but that would mean an increase can be even MORE critical. That bowl of chili may be largely beans, meat, and tomatoes, but the spices - a small percentage of the whole - nonetheless have a serious impact on the flavor (and the potential for some really nasty gastic episodes).
Human activity DOES have an impact on the environment. It's hubris to look at what we've done in terms of pollution, over-development, deforestation, mining ... and then conclude that, hey, this greenhouse emission thing is no big deal.
Then you float this strawman about 'stop using oil and the problem will go away' - which is not what I've been saying, and I don't think Al Gore has said it, either. We are looking at the potential for upsetting a delicate balance - one that could have serious consequences for our planet.
"you're just hitting on all cylinders with the right-wing talking points."
Many scientist disagree with AGW, some on the theory, some on the particulars of the theory (which would suggest other solutions than just cutting CO2). So disagreement is not just right-wing talking points.
I hope AGW doesn't turn into a litmus test like stem cells, birth control, and abortion.
"Human activity DOES have an impact on the environment. It's hubris to look at what we've done in terms of pollution, over-development, deforestation, mining ... and then conclude that, hey, this greenhouse emission thing is no big deal."
I don't believe I said it doesn't. Also, I do agree over-development, pollution, mining... are all bad. No argument here, nor in the previous posts.
"Then you float this strawman about 'stop using oil and the problem will go away' "
Interesting. I didn't say that anywhere. Again, we don't affect the climate as much as stated. So, ergo, we can't stop what is happening as much as stated. We should focus on pollution, mining, water, soil, air... not on temperature changes. One solves or at least works with the other, and avoids all of the messy controversial science.
" - which is not what I've been saying, and I don't think Al Gore has said it, either. We are looking at the potential for upsetting a delicate balance - one that could have serious consequences for our planet."
And when would that occur? And how much? And is it irreversible? And how much can we control the sun spots, electromagnetic fields, the ocean vapor Co2, and animals that produce it? We are a fleck on the planet, and 4% of the 'damage' is from us. And we should stop it. But, it is over stated and over blown to say we are the cause of climate change. Hubris, again.
Cap and trade is NOT a good thing. Cap, yes. Trade? No. It is Enron all over again. The world's leaders are salivating, just like the insurance companies with mandatory health insurance.
PS - I am as liberal as they come, but this is not right to tax people for carbon usage. How bout taxing people who have more than three children? That is a carbon footprint violation!
1890 The US average temperature was 52 degrees.
The mean US temperature in the last 115 years is 52.8 degrees.
1960 - 1980 average temperature was about 53-54 degrees.
Then cooler again to the median.
1998 - 55, matching the highest since about 1934. Very warm.
1999 - 54.7
2000 - 54
2001 - 54.4
2002 - 53.9
2003 - 54
2004 - 53.8
2005 - 54.4
2006 - 55 again, tying the highest in 115 years
2007 - 54.4
2008 - 53
2009 - 52.5
Warming inexorably? Maybe a trend, but the bleep of 1998 to 2007 seems to be reversing as it did in the late 1930's.
The facts trump the scares. Stop the oil to save the planet from pollution, not 2-3 degrees warmer. Wrong focus.
And, how can any scientist prove that Co2 and everything we are doing with the fossilly fuels is creating irreversible warming? They can't.
The mean is derived by taking the values in a series, adding them, and dividing by the number of entries.
The median is the value within a series where the remaining values are distributed equally above and below it.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Data set: 2, 5, 10, 37, 62, 88, 105
MEAN: 44.14
MEDIAN: 37
Temperature averages in the US over the last 115 years:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/c...
Sure, this is not the best source, many will say. But, find another chart of temperatures that disputes this.
The last three years the US average temperature has gotten cooler.
PS I am not a republican. I am a practical realist. Address the fossil fuels from a perspective we can solve instead of dubious and controvertial science predictions.
Pollution is bad. Fossil fuels are bad. But stopping them won't stop the warming, or cooling.
It won't stop them, but it's possible it'll keep the effects from snowballing over us.
Why do you think it was meteorologists who came up with the Chaos Theory?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
.
You mentioned the blip of the late 1930's...
... but nowhere is it in your chart with no links.
You're tripping up on your trumped up facts.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
I agree, we must reject top down politics and put
our money and time at the bottom and build up. Yes,
it will take time. The top was just a storing line anyway
with big hopes of profit at the end at the peoples expense.
by now that global warming was just a scam to gain more power and to make money.
I'd much rather spend my time worrying about Putin's head ... where does it go?
And is that PETN in your pants or are you just happy to see me?
the Scientists said we've passed the point of no return?
::: waiting for end-of-the-world party at Evet's place :::
For sure!
;)
oh my!
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
it's Friday night!
No, I partied like it was 1999.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WZW4groJro
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
and had forgotten all about it.
Thanks.
loved the classic of that genre:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb4nMFHXxro
I used to watch UFO, here's some more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RzCB3VRruE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqs_0SBbPD0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP2TEdOAldQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kcCPzmjAUk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHbPiPOsj3Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRPDO63rI1E
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Some of those shows bring back great childhood memories. Have not thought of UFO in decades...
When I was a kid, I would visit my Granny in Texas...watch the Beverly Hillbillies et al...and Sat morning cartoons.
And my favorite flavours of America...Whopper, Dr. Pepper and Corn Nuts.
Thanks again for those....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E06cNv55jTs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV8YbLvGrb0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ-zQpC4uaM
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Haha.....you got my mind going...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oboly57qxjg
or the theme song version...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEleD_jN5EE&fe...
Actually, I thought I did.
It's not like I watch my own links, too dang many of em.
That's what you get for linkin' while drinkin'.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
but am pretty sure I clicked them all...
Well done.
Supermarionation. Can't say CGI is really up to that yet!
Key West, Florida, the southernmost point in the continental United States, hit a 131-year low of 47 degrees Thursday and the forecast promised more of the same as icy cold swept across the Southeast.
... a trend in the WEATHER and not a change in the CLIMATE.
Could it be that the decrease in salinity of the waters off Greenland (due to the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap) has stalled the Gulf Stream Conveyor?
The Gulf Stream Conveyor normally brings warm tropical waters up the Atlantic Coast, warming both the east coast of north america and the British Isles and northern Europe.
This conveyor belt is the "only thing between comfortable summers and a permanent ice age for Europe and the eastern coast of North America."
And right now there's ample evidence of glaciation right outside my back door here in Virginia!
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Nothing like an intelligent, well written article that ends in a pithy bit of well-aimed profanity. I got to enjoy said blog post on both levels.
Nice way to end the day before the cold ride home from work. Love it.
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
.
The human behavior that has evolved to new heights in America this last decade is called...
... DENIALISM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
Ice core samples and tree ring samples have shown cool downs and warms ups over the millenias
But NONE of the were severe enough to potentially wipe out either mankind or the ecosystem we depend on.
What little percent we may be responsible for is irrelevant. When a killer or a saber-tooth tiger is after your ass, you don't pause to think "...Hmmm...what did I do to cause me to fail to see this coming?" You get the hell out of the way.
And what caused you to fail to see what was coming was playing a number game, if you just count two plus two long enough, you're going to get a hell of a number.
Life is durable, human life not necessarily so. We've had large numbers of life forms go extinct in the Earth's history. Why should we be excepted?
They have found life forms on ocean floors who flourish in the acid seeping up from seabed fissures of the tectonic plates, that's how durable life can be.
But I for one don't won't to live on acid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A95qnv-oIuo
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
On Fox you automatically get false information if it in any way involves politics , for them to tell the truth is to sabotage themselves . Joseph Goebbels would be so proud .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
It's time to build from the bottom; the top stinks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_dai...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/colu...
Funny thing here is that this rag is owned by Rupert as well.
Hmmm, wonder why he feels so free to lie to you in ways that he doesn't to us?
He must think he can get away with it there and not here, right?
So what the hell is wrong with Americans?
Too much abstract information to correlate or is it just that US schools suck so hard that the majority of Americans just can't understand?
I'm betting on the latter given that a third of you can't read at better than a 4th grade level:
http://soulpoetrysiteblog.wordpress.com/2009/...
So the way it looks to me (looking in from outside) is that Rupert lies like hell to you because the people of the US on the whole are unable to understand the issues he is lying about and are unable to challenge them critically. In short he lies to you so much because the majority of Americans don't know enough to not believe him.
Until you as progressives can reverse this trend of ignorance and illiteracy you will not be able to do much to get the truth out in your country. You can bet the conservatives in charge like it this way so don't bother looking to government who at this point are solidly right wing (even the Dems) for help in this, they are the ones who did it to you in the first place.
Well, actually, they mostly did it to you.
You also helped in a big way. I remember from the 3rd grade on being subjected to taunts of egghead, nerd, Mr. KnowItAll, smart ass and all the other variations used in attempts to denigrate anyone showing even a modicum of intelligence. Ignorance was king around me for the next 9 years and woe be to those of us who sought out others with brains, to form groupings of knowledge was to commit the worst form of social suicide, far worse than just being a typical stoner. That was 30-40 years ago, it has only gotten worse since then.
So there is a strongly ingrained cultural element you will have to eliminate in your children as well in order to succeed.
Best of luck, you are going to need it.
Stop shoveling crap for the Republicans, Dave Boylen.
on as a guest? Does he offer some sort of insight and expertise?
Fox News look for the absolute dumbest person they can find, and who tows the party line 100%, to prop up as a role model for their viewers. Play along, and you, too, might be on TV one day!
Comments are closed on this entry