NewsBusters has just learned that a British "climate activist" was responsible for getting the BBC to radically alter its "Global Temperatures 'To Decrease'" article last Friday.
As reported Sunday, the third paragraph of what previously had been a very balanced piece about how global temperatures have been declining since 1998 was totally reworded in order to make the report just another hysterical climate change pronouncement.
On Monday, Jennifer Marohasy, the director of the Environment Unit at Australia's Institute of Public Affairs, received and published an e-mail exchange between the article's author, Roger Harrabin, and a climate activist affiliated with the British Campaign Against Climate Change:
From Jo, April 4, 2008
Climate Changers,
Remember to challenge any piece of media that seems like it's been subject to spin or scepticism.
Here's my go for today. The BBC actually changed an article I requested a correction for, but I'm not really sure if the result is that much better.
Judge for yourselves...
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Jo Abbess
to Roger Harrabin
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:12 AM
subject Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"Dear Roger,
Please can you correct your piece published today entitled "Global
temperatures 'to decrease'" :-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
1. "A minority of scientists question whether this means global
warming has peaked"
This is incorrect. Several networks exist that question whether global
warming has peaked, but they contain very few actual scientists, and
the scientists that they do contain are not climate scientists so have
no expertise in this area.2. "Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007"
You should not mislead people into thinking that the sum total of the
Earth system is going to be cooler in 2008 than 2007. For example, the
ocean systems of temperature do not change in yearly timescales, and
are massive heat sinks that have shown gradual and continual warming.
It is only near-surface air temperatures that will be affected by La
Nina, plus a bit of the lower atmosphere.Thank you for applying your attention to all the facts and figures available,
jo.
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Roger Harrabin
to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"Dear Jo
No correction is needed
If the secy-gen of the WMO tells me that global temperatures will
decrease, that's what we will reportThere are scientists who question whether warming will continue as
projected by IPCCBest wishes
RH=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Jo Abbess
to Roger Harrabin ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM
subject Re: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"Hi Roger,
I will forward your comments (unless you object) to some people who
may wish to add to your knowledge.Would you be willing to publish information that expands on your
original position, and which would give a better, clearer picture of
what is going on ?Personally, I think it is highly irresponsible to play into the hands
of the sceptics/skeptics who continually promote the idea that "global
warming finished in 1998", when that is so patently not true.I have to spend a lot of my time countering their various myths and
non-arguments, saying, no, go look at the Hadley Centre data. Global
Warming is not over. There have been what look like troughs and
plateaus/x before. It didn't stop then. It's not stopping now.It is true that people are debating Climate Sensitivity, how much
exactly the Earth will respond to radiative forcing, but nobody is
seriously refuting that increasing Greenhouse Gases cause increased
global temperatures.I think it's counterproductive to even hint that the Earth is cooling
down again, when the sum total of the data tells you the opposite.
Glaringly.As time goes by, the infant science of climatology improves. The Earth
has never experienced the kind of chemical adjustment in the
atmosphere we see now, so it is hard to tell exactly what will happen
based on historical science.However, the broad sweep is : added GHG means added warming.
Please do not do a disservice to your readership by leaving the door
open to doubt about that.jo.
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Roger Harrabin
to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:57 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"The article makes all these points quite clear
We can't ignore the fact that sceptics have jumped on the lack of
increase since 1998. It is appearing reguarly now in general mediaBest to tackle this - and explain it, which is what we have done
Or people feel like debate is being censored which makes them v
suspiciousRoger
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Jo Abbess
to Roger Harrabin ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM
subject Re: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"Hi Roger,
When you are on the Tube in London, I expect that occasionally you
glance a headline as sometime turns the page, and you thinkg "Really
?" or "Wow !"You don't read the whole article, you just get the headline.
A lot of people will read the first few paragraphs of what you say,
and not read the rest, and (a) Dismiss your writing as it seems you
have been manipulated by the sceptics or (b) Jump on it with glee and
e-mail their mates and say "See ! Global Warming has stopped !"They only got the headline, which is why it is so utterly essentialy
to give the full picture, or as full as you can in the first few
paragraphs.The near-Earth surface temperatures may be cooler in 2008 that they
were in 2007, but there is no way that Global Warming has stopped, or
has even gone into reverse. The oceans have been warming consistently,
for example, and we're not seeing temperatures go into reverse, in
general, anywhere.Your word "debate". This is not an issue of "debate". This is an issue
of emerging truth. I don't think you should worry about whether people
feel they are countering some kind of conspiracy, or suspicious that
the full extent of the truth is being withheld from them.Every day more information is added to the stack showing the desperate
plight of the planet.It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is
heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing
the emergence of the truth.I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution,
unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your
comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to
happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be
said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics.Respectfully,
jo.
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
from Roger Harrabin
to Jo Abbess ,
date Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:28 AM
subject RE: Correction Demanded : "Global temperatures 'to decrease'"Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier
We have changed headline and more
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
ORIGINAL
================Page last updated at 00:42 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 01:42 UK
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analystGlobal temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.
Rises 'stalled'
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.
El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
Watching trends
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.
Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."
=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
UPDATED VERSION (note : the page date and time has not changed)
==============================================Page last updated at 00:42 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 01:42 UK
Global temperatures 'to decrease'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analystGlobal temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.
The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.
Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.
Rises 'stalled'
La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.
El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.
It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.
Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
Watching trends
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
Animation of El Nino and La Nina effects
But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.
"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."
China suffered from heavy snow in January
Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.
Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."
End of email reporting on Jo's activities.
Wow. For those interested, "Climate Changers" appears to be a Yahoo message board group Abbess belongs to. Also, Abbess posted the entire e-mail exchange at CACC's website.
Isn't it refreshing to know that a major, international press outlet like the BBC can be so easily pressured to change the content of one of its stories?
*****Update: More about Jo Abbess:
Jo Abbess writes:
I replaced Bruce Valpy at the Ealing Churches Together "Our World - What Future ?" event on Tuesday evening as part of One World Week, speaking on campaigning, and representing Christian Ecology Link's Operation Noah. The other panel members were Bishop John Oliver and Laurie Michaelis, of Quaker Green Action and leading light in the Living Witness Project.
All the Christian Ecology Link Climate Covenant cards I had with me vanished like hot cakes, so I must have done something right ! Also, leaflets for the Campaign against Climate Change advertising the Climate March on 3rd December were circulated and eagerly pocketed.
Questions from the floor were excellent, and covered all aspects of environment, community, politics and science. The speakers mainly focussed on Climate Change and our personal and corporate response. Frustration about Government policy was evident, and hopes for a less energy intensive life were aired freely.
I am attaching my prepared notes which I had to ad-lib a bit to dovetail with what the other two speakers said before me.
============================================================
25th October 2005 : Ealing Abbey Personal Presentation :Hello. My name is Jo Abbess, and I get nervous when I have to speak in public, so
please forgive me if I start to resemble cranberry jelly...Over the last few years I have been busy reading and reporting on Energy Trends, Climate Change and Resource Depletion; and as a direct result I am morphing into an environmental campaigner. Along the way, I became a member of Christian Ecology Link, gratefully recognising there are others of faith who are on a similar journey.
My particular viewpoint is that Energy Reduction and Resource Adaptation, which people are committing to on a personal level, must be matched by rock solid policy in the public domain.
Research by the World Wildlife Fund indicates that about 50% of the changes required are at the private or household level, but that means that 50% of the changes required are in the public realm. Loading individuals with the burden of change is not ethical, neither can it ever be a complete solution !
As a nation, we are learning that we have to adapt our Energy and Resource use. This Adaptation has to happen at every level and across every sector In order to adapt, we need to ADOPT. It is exciting to see that there is a large groundswell of people learning and taking radical action, in their
daily lives, their homes and communities. Business and industry are also moving, making a virtue out of necessity.But it is becoming alarmingly clear to me that uptake on a voluntary basis is not sufficiently widespread, or emerging fast enough, despite extensive mainstream media and public education. The conclusion for me is that Adoption will need to be imposed through regulation, from the top.
The biggest problem is Carbon Dioxide. Many experts are concluding that a global cap on Carbon Dioxide emissions is necessary, and that the Global Carbon Budget will need to be fairly shared, and progressively reduced, in the coming years : this is Contraction and Convergence.
Beyond personal and corporate responsibility, we need national strategy and international cooperation. Currently there is the brave but faltering Kyoto. The United States is in a state of clinical denial. Meanwhile, the UK Government seems to be suffering schizophrenia, as it continues to promote airport expansion, plan new roads and build energy-poor housing; whilst at the same time urging energy restraint and offering grant schemes for green energy systems.
I think the key questions are : Will we decide on Carbon Taxation or Carbon Rationing ? When will we realise that centralised energy provision is too wasteful ? How are we going to finance localised Renewable Energies and Biofuels ?
And if we refuse to consider changing our high maintenance lifestyles : How many Climate Refugees will it take before we admit there is a crisis ? How long will it be before the growing gap between energy demand and energy supply destroys the global economy ? How long before crop loss halts international food trade ?
Over the weekend I was at a workshop in a public building, and on the notice board was a sign : "No Smoking". And underneath, the sign : "Please Recycle Your Waste". The first, an imperative, the second an invitation. How long does it take to move from "Please" to "No" ? If I think back, it has been about ten years between the first anti-smoking campaigns and the public buildings ban.
I expect it could take ten years to get effective Climate and Energy policy into the legal framework of this country. However, it might take less time to start Climate Justice proceedings in an international court. My campaigning has to be focussed on influencing a faster move from
voluntary change to institutional policy : ten years might be too slow, considering the fact that the Siberian permafrost is already melting. Everything I do from now on, making changes in my life, in my work and in my words, has to bring the future forward.Global problems such as Climate Change, Peak Oil and Energy Security need global solutions and, happily, since each of us is a global citizen, we can all do something useful. This is One World Week, so make your promises to the planet. And don't forget to sign the Climate Covenant with Operation Noah !
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Hoaxers are against the facts
April 7, 2008 - 09:14 ET by 10ksnookerIt must be time for last ditch action the hoaxers now find their backs against the facts and no where to go.
The most interesting thing is CO2 seems headed down as well.
CO2 is heading down literally
April 7, 2008 - 09:47 ET by PopularTechU.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Fossil Fuels Declined By 1.3% In 2006 (Science Daily)
U.S. Greenhouse Emissions Fell 1.5% in 2006 (USA Today)
These sorts of reports drive the desperate environmentalists crazy as evidence by the emails. You can see they continue to spread the "consensus" lie:
NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT I'm not sure if you've
April 7, 2008 - 10:58 ET by danboPT I'm not sure if you've seen this yet.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Richard S. Lindzen...?
April 7, 2008 - 12:15 ET by SyriusRichard S. Lindzen
Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council.
Contributing Expert, Cato Institute.
Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute.
Member, National Academy of Sciences.
Dr.
Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists,
arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment
Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn
from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent
attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings
assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are
cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears
at events organised by them.
Ross
Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests
$2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify
before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech
he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged
Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The
warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's
magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.
Spin it, baby, spin it! Stunning the populace with enough lies to help get the real message out for the oil companies.
Syrius
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension,
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels.
“A lie told often enough becomes truth”
Vladimir Lenin.
ExxonMobil funded groups
April 7, 2008 - 12:54 ET by wizardjrHe we go with the conspiracy theory of the day. Pro AGW scientists get billions from leftist organizations while skeptitics get millions from evil energy companies. Oil is not evil. Neo-Malthusians and neo-Luddites who want us all to die and leave their holy dirt alone are evil. They'll still be crying "Wait, it'll get warmer. Just wait!" while we are all freezing our buns off in the coming small ice age that's just around the corner as the sun cools. "Sun. Sun. We don't need no stinkin' sun." (pardon the pun).
The facts will set you free...
April 7, 2008 - 13:02 ET by Syriuswizzy,
Conspiracy theory or fact of the day? If you'd like to dispel a truth you must fund the most appropriate liar. If the oil companies believe in their own data then let them present it themselves. It should show strength in its science not in its spin. Funding someone to spin a lie? It's the American way, right? Tobacco doesn't kill, Guns don't kill, Alcohol doesn't kill. It's the people who use the products inappropriately that kill. Oil is not evil. It's a commodity. The companies who promote its use over other competing commodities by well-funded scientists, well, that could be considered possibly disingenuous?
Stop drinking so much Kool-Aid and take a breath of clean, refreshing naturally and artificially produced CO2!
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Is MIT funded by oil companies?
April 7, 2008 - 13:10 ET by PopularTechSyphilis, according to your logic MIT must be funded by oil companies too? How else could they hire such a "dirty" scientist? Maybe the NAS is also funded by oil to allow Dr. Lindzen as a member? Or could it be you need to stop reading far-left smear sites which post lies and smears.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT -- are you now, or have
April 7, 2008 - 13:15 ET by Jack BauerPT -- are you now, or have you ever been, a stock holding member of the Exxon Mobil party?
ANSWER THE QUESTION "SIR"!!!!!
GAVEL BANG, GAVEL BANG.
Double Dribble
April 7, 2008 - 13:23 ET by dboIf you'd like to dispel a truth you must fund the most appropriate liar. If the oil companies believe in their own data then let them present it themselves.
So British Petroleum donates $500 million to UC Berkeley and Exxon donates $100 million to Stanford to do research in finding alternative fuels. I guess that makes all their research redundant and useless because these are "dirty universities" that have been corrupted. This "your side is corrupted by millions but our side is altruistic with billions" argument has become old and stale. It's just become the default position of the alarmists because they know they're on the run and they can't argue with the facts.
Not to mention this is two
April 7, 2008 - 23:03 ET by zfNot to mention this is two universities (which are left-wing bastions, especially Berkeley) are sent money to further a left-wing cause (to find "alternative" fuels so we can supposedly drop "evil" oil completely) and one of those companies is the greener-than-thou British (stike that, Beyond as they want to be called) Petroleum.
I guess Exxon is so evil it's $100 million somehow totally corrupted three lefty institutions, a liberal cause, and $500 million.
And how are us "extreme right-wingers" spreading a conspiracy story? It's lefties who have come up with the idea that Co2 emissions from people in Ohio are killing millions in Zambia and Exxon is behind everyone who says otherwise. Now THAT's a conspiracy theory!
CO2 is the problem?
April 7, 2008 - 13:24 ET by ceedubyaCan you explain the mechanism that causes the earth's temperature to increase with an increase in CO2, please?
PT
provides links to websites that expand on the points he wants to
explain so maybe you can do the same. Thankyou in advance.
Syphilis quoting far-left smear sites again?
April 7, 2008 - 13:06 ET by PopularTechSyphilis why do you always resort to quoting far left-wing smear sites?
www.ExxonSecrets.org
$$$ Funded by Greenpeace
- Greenpeace (Discover the Networks)
"Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee," Greenpeace is today the most influential group of the environmental Left. [...]
In the early 1990s, the organization turned its attention to the purported threat that chlorine posed to the world's water supplies. At the time, Greenpeace asserted that it would accept nothing less than the blanket prohibition of the element. "There are no uses of chlorine which we
regard as safe," declared Greenpeace activist Joe Thornton, [...]
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the organization and now laments that the group has become "dominated by leftwingers and extremists who disregard science in the pursuit of environmental purity."
According to a December 20, 2005 New York Times report, "the F.B.I. investigated possible financial ties between [Greenpeace] members and militant groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front." [...]
An expose of Greenpeace's fundraising practices carried out in 2003 by Public Interest Watch (PIW), a nonprofit watchdog group, led to a report disclosing that Greenpeace uses its
Greenpeace Fund, a tax-exempt entity debarred from engaging in political advocacy and lobbying by the IRS tax code, to illegally direct funds to Greenpeace Inc., a tax-exempt organization permitted to engage in lobbying and advocacy but not to accept tax-deductible funds. PIW calculated that in 2000, $4.25 million was provided by the Greenpeace Fund in this way.
Greenpeace is heavily funded by many foundations, among which are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Blue Moon Fund, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Nathan orgasmings Foundation, the Scherman Foundation, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation. The organization has also drawn support from numerous celebrities, including singers Sting, Tom Jones, and Elton John, who have sponsored its "save the rainforest" campaigns. In 2004, Greenpeace received $15,844,752 in grants, and held net assets of $1,893,548. That same year, the Greenpeace Fund received grants totaling $6,866,534 and held net assets of $7,532,018."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT
April 7, 2008 - 13:09 ET by Noel SheppardPT,
C'mon. Syphilis? That's not appropriate. Once we go down that path, the thread devolves to nothing but name-calling and insults. Let's not. Please? ns
My Name is not "Popped"
April 7, 2008 - 13:11 ET by PopularTechSo either he stops or I get worse.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Gosh, it's a discussion, a debate.
April 7, 2008 - 13:58 ET by SyriusPopTech,
I'll apologize for getting your panties in such a twist. I'll try not to get you so upset at me when I speak the truth or show the errors of your ways in which I hope it will bring an end to the long list of repetitive links. I wish you could formulate an actual original thought and be able to discuss it in a civil manner. I know I will try. You should feel secure in the fact that you don't have to debate against 8 Syriuses just one. I choose to be here and enjoy exposing radical right wing agendas and the hypocrisy of the current conservative mindthink. It truly is not conservative but more in line with authoritarianism or absolutism. Sometimes, Corporate Socialism comes into play.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Radical right wing agenda...
April 7, 2008 - 14:30 ET by jpatchSyrius,
Are you a member of the DemocraticUnderground?
Why do you say that you "...enjoy exposing radical right wing agendas..."? The only thing that has been exposed here are the inner-workings of your dedicated (translation: programmed) liberal "mindthink" (is that even a word? No, its not...try "mindset" in the future).
I know we are so "radical right wing" in here and everything, but you can relax. We're not at DU, where opposing viewpoints are silenced. And also contrary the DU, we're interested in FAIRNESS and TRUTH: things that are SUPPOSED to be at the heart of journalism, but instead exist only in its extremities.
We usually point out liberal bias in the media, because it is the most abundant type; but when there is clear bias or hypocrisy in anyway, we try to point that out as well.
We're not all trying to "deny" the existence of "climate change" in general; what we want is an open, scientific discussion about the REAL impacts that man and CO2 have on the world. And moreover, we want to know what the solutions are. Right now, we have a flimsy hypothesis that was pioneered by a former Vice President; a VP with no formal training in climatology, geology, oceanography, vulcanology, or any other relevant scientific discipline that would relate to his ideas on Anthropogenic Global Warming. His solution is to create a new economy of carbon trading, while crippling the U.S. economy by mandating a Kyoto-recommended 50% reduction in CO2 emissions.
Wouldn't WE be un-American for NOT asking questions about this "science", this "movement", this "religion"?
Since when...
April 7, 2008 - 15:02 ET by ontheright...does original thought require one of an opposite opinion to "blatantly discount" factual evidence in order to appease his opponent in debate?....sounds very fishy (read: liberally motivated) to me; or...egads!...maybe even Clintonesque and/or Gorish.
Woohoo!
April 7, 2008 - 16:07 ET by Roger the ShrubberEight times the huggable goodness!
Syrus the Virus
April 7, 2008 - 18:13 ET by PopularTechThe sad part Syrius is all you have done is help convert more people to the conservative cause. You sir actually do contribute here just not in the way you would hope.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Noel, would Sisyphus be okay?
April 7, 2008 - 17:12 ET by R D HelmBecause that is who Syrius is truly beginning to remind me of.
:-)
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Can't debate the science,
April 7, 2008 - 13:13 ET by NL207Can't debate the science, so we SMEAR the scientist.
Now .... Dr. James E. Hansen is nearly 100% supported by tax dollars and liberal foundations. You don't suppose that if he were to report that Anthropogenic CO2 emission did not pose a significant threat to humanity that this funding would continue? And no doubt you don't think this money or the threat of its withdrawal in any way taints his objectivity? No, of course not! You are a hypocrite. Hypocrites do not ever believe their team is on the take. Nosiree, warmers are always honest, incorruptable, and operating from the highest moral principles. Only evil climate realists accept corrupting monies.
Syrius, your argument is nothing more than a roll of toilet paper in a French Whorehouse.
Let's not forget money
April 7, 2008 - 13:57 ET by danboLet's not forget money Hansen got from John Kerry and Sorros. Sorro's money was used to complain about censorship of him after how many interviews with the press. While Hansen attempted to bully Michael Griffin from speaking.
But there's no hypocracy here.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
You know Hanson is funded by
April 7, 2008 - 22:20 ET by ahusserYou know Hanson is funded by Big Ketchup.
Being you have noting to
April 7, 2008 - 13:45 ET by danboBeing you have noting to say about science you attempt to silence those who disagree. Just as you pointed out. The truth is the enemy of the lie. And it is up to you to either intimidate them from speaking or stop people from listening.
You learned Goebbels well.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Oh noes!
April 8, 2008 - 23:34 ET by ZapThe man did consulting work for energy companies thirteen years ago!
How can anyone take that man seriously? He's clearly in the pocket of big oil. He's willing to see the apocalypse come to the world because of that job he did 13 years ago! We should lock the man up for future genocide.
Another silly smear I see all the time is that Heartland institute has recieved almost $800,000 over the past 10 years from Exxon and thus are lying their asses off for funding. Unfortunately for the idiot smearers who like to ignore facts, Heartland has spent a total of 1.2 million in advertisements while they were trying to get Al Gore to debate them (he never did, wonder why...)
That's right. Heartland has spent MORE money in one year then Exxon has given them in the past ten, and that was just on one small segment of their anti-global warming campaign. You can see how much Exxon's money must influence their policies.
This just in...
April 9, 2008 - 14:15 ET by SyriusZap,
:balloon expanding:
:POP:
Heartland Institute...Heartland received $2,960,555 (unadjusted for inflation) in grants between 1986 and 2006 from a range of foundations...the link...
http://www.sourcewat...
Your comment...
"That's right. Heartland has spent MORE money in one year then Exxon has
given them in the past ten, and that was just on one small segment of
their anti-global warming campaign. You can see how much Exxon's money
must influence their policies."
...can be accurate and misleading without some fact checking.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
Syrius and his obsession with far-left smear sites
April 9, 2008 - 22:49 ET by PopularTechSourcewatch is a far-left smear site and as unreliable as Wikipedia:
www.Sourcewatch.org
$$$ Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy
- Sourcewatch.org (Discover the Networks)
"SourceWatch seeks to expose what it calls the "propaganda activities of public relations firms" and the activities of organizations working “on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests." These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities... [...]
As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users.
...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources." Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate - we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]
- Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)
"An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing "public relations spin and propaganda".
In CMD's view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. The website ActivistCash, which provides "information about the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists," characterizes CMD as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization." [...]
CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center's Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org. He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association.
The aforementioned Sheldon Rampton currently serves as CMD's Research Director. A graduate of Princeton University, Rampton was formerly an outreach coordinator for the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a group established in 1984 to oppose President Reagan's efforts to stop the spread of Communism in Central America, and currently dedicated to promoting a leftist vision of "social justice in Nicaragua through alternative models of development and activism."
An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: "These guys come from the far side of liberal."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
CO2???
April 7, 2008 - 12:06 ET by krendler" The most interesting thing is CO2 seems headed down as well. "
The whole CO2 thing is a complete joke to begin with. google "co2 lag temperature 800 years" sometime. The centerpiece of Gore's movie - his big CO2-temperature correlation graph where he's riding up and down on a lift saying "See what happens when CO2 rises!!!" - has been completely debunked. On closer examination of the data, one sees that the temperature rises occurred well in ADVANCE (8 centuries in advance) of CO2 increases. i.e., Gore got it completely backwards. Temperature increases caused the CO2 to go up (CO2 released from oceans as temperature rose). Not the other way around. Amazing to see this "tiny little" detail is never mentioned in the MSM.
The most telling thing is that the man-made global warming crowd in the blogosphere doesn't dispute the data and they don't have any kind of coherent explanation/excuse for Gore gettting it backwards.
Correct CO2 Lags Temperatures
April 7, 2008 - 13:22 ET by PopularTechYou can watch it on this video...
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming (Video) (9min)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The Scientific Method... no longer needed in science.
April 7, 2008 - 20:48 ET by CortillaenMy single greatest annoyance with people in debates on evolution and AGW is the insistence that their beliefs are scientific. Anyone who does so is disingenuous or needs to take a refresher in the scientific method. Here's how I learned it: 1) You form a question about something. 2) You research the subject. 3) You hypothesize an answer to your question. 4) You test your hypothesis through controlled, reproducible experiments while recording the resulting data. 5) You examine the data and determine if your hypothesis was correct. If so, repeat the experiments numerous times to check for discrepencies. If not, return to step 3.
See, many people on the "establishment" side of the argument formulate a question, research the subject, and draft a hypothesis, but there is little or no experimentation. The most common reason for this is that the subjects cannot be controlled or reproduced for experimentation. In the case of the environment, reproducing and controlling a planet for experimental evaluation is infeasible. The so-called "climate science" is nothing of the sort. Were its proponents fully honest, they would have to acknowledge that it is much more akin to economics than any hard science. They aren't scientists; they're Wall-Street analysts.
Climatology does not involve experimentation to prove or disprove one's hypotheses. Instead, one analyzes previous data of the subject, attempting to discern patterns and rules governing the interaction of various forces, precisely as does someone attempting to determine which stocks are favorable to buy or sell. Market analysts attempts to discern patterns in order to predict future actions based on current stimuli, but their results are sometimes (in some cases, oftentimes) wrong, and rarely result in more than the vaguest of laws. The reason for this is the multitude of forces acting on the subject. Keeping track of all of them is impossible, so there will regularly be gaps in relevant data, even if the analysts don't realize it. Sometimes they don't even recognize potent forces in the market because those forces rarely operate in identical situations. Even when they have identified a force, tracking its effects is nearly impossible due to the interference of all the other forces. It's not uncommon to formulate rules based on observation that are completely shattered later, all because the effects one was tracking were not actually dependent upon the suspected force but upon another force that sometimes correlates with the first. Determining causality within a complex system of almost countless interdependent forces is a daunting task. No one can honestly claim to understand all of the forces at work.
Just like a market analyst, climatologists (perhaps better termed climate analysts) attempt to find patterns within masses of data, hopefully to associate a specific force with an effect. Unlike their market-based cousins, the system climate analysts observe is an entire planet and even numerous effects for beyond its atmosphere (solar and cosmic radiation undeniably impact the earth's climate). The scale and number of forces involved utterly dwarfs those in the market, making analyzing them even harder. One similarity between the two is, as above, that no one can honestly claim to understand all of the forces at work. Climate analysts are supposed to be searching for causality in the system to better understand our world and predict the effects of various stimuli, but arrogantly declaring that a consensus of like-minded individuals hold something to be unassailable makes it no more true than when a panel of market analysts declaring an investment safe. There are more than a few examples of the latter having to eat their words, and the former holds no heavenly mandate protecting them from the same. Neither group is finding scientific law and should not untruthfully represent it that way. Anyone living in the Missouri Ozarks can tell you how accurate the weather predictions are even in a small area. Claiming one's prediction of the planet's weather is scientific fact is not only preposterous, it's utterly laughable.
Now, there is a scientific experiment regarding the climate that I'd like to see done. Specifically, one to test the impacts of CO2 and radiation exposure on temperature. Since reproducing the atmosphere is impossible, a best attempt would have to be made, but it would likely remove most elements other than the atmospheric makeup in order to preserve control. Using past data on CO2 concentration changes and changes in solar radiation to produce proportional effects (singly) on the experimental "atmosphere", I wonder which would be found to have a greater impact on temperatures.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
The following gets rather off-topic, so any replies to it in particular should be addressed to me via a personal message.
From above: "My single greatest annoyance with people in debates on evolution and AGW is the insistence that their beliefs are scientific." This is most certainly the case in the evolution debate where the effect in question supposedly operates over periods far greater than the human life-span. In this instance, what is being used is not science, despite evolutionists' claims. Rather, it is forensics, the study of past events through the evidence left behind. In forensics, one does not prove that something happened since reproducing a historical event and all of the contributing factors (ie. experimentation) is currently impossible. Instead, one analyzes the evidence and tries to determine what event is most likely to have left behind those traces. Simply put, science involves purely empirical facts while forensics involves a judgment call based on the evidence. This difference is why some people try to frame their beliefs as science rather than honestly admitting that they are not. If they admit to operating in the forensic realm, they must also admit the subjective nature of their findings, that other people may interpret the evidence differently and have equal right to do so.
Evolutionists actively attempt to prevent discussion of opposing theories because they cannot scientifically support their side. ID (not to be confused with deistic creationism; ID does not purport to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, only to suggest that the designer's existence is more reasonable than blind evolution) is another theory that has been proposed based on the same forensic principles involved in the theory of evolution; it is an alternative interpretation of the evidence available. Evolutionists attempt to grant their arguments the trappings of science and demean the opposition as "faith-based", unscientific, and antagonistic to established science in order to avoid a very simple truth: Neither theory can be proven or disproven scientifically due to the impossibility of experimentation, so the entire argument is not a scientific debate. Rather, it is an ongoing trial in which each new person is a judge representing only themselves. To these judges, evidence for both sides should be presented fairly and openly, the arguments of each side made without censorship. After seeing all available evidence, the judge must decide (only for himself) which theory is most reasonable.
Outrageous Scandal
April 7, 2008 - 09:17 ET by dboFrom Roger Harrabin 10:23am: No correction is needed.
From Roger Harrabin 10:57am: The article makes all these points quite clear.
From Roger Harrabin 11:28 am:
Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier. WE have changed headline and more
For someone that was sticking to his guns he sure had a sudden change of heart. Do you think some eco-friendly senior management stepped in and brought down the iron fist?
Eco Hypocrits
April 7, 2008 - 09:20 ET by dboImagine if the situation was reversed and a paper made dramatic changes to its global warming story after continous e-mails from the CEO of Exxon?
Would make no difference.
April 7, 2008 - 09:34 ET by NL207Would make no difference. These 'activists' are without shame or moral compass. They justify these acts of intimidation, etc. as justified by their ends. As with all liberals, the ends justify the means.
"When you look at climate
April 7, 2008 - 09:40 ET by mattm"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year,"
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
Jo Abbess is a
April 7, 2008 - 10:40 ET by DarkCurrentJo Abbess is a representative of a highly respected scientific organization that stands firmly for the discovery of emergent truth, regardless of what that truth might be. These are not some lame hippie activists as you may have been led to believe by the comments above. Go take a look for yourselves: http://gallery.globalclimatecampaign.org/image/tid/40
http://gallery.globalclimatecampaign.org/image
Jo Abbess is a
April 7, 2008 - 11:04 ET by Jack BauerThat is almost as bogus as Abbess herself. A woman who seems as full of herself as she is of it.
Patently untrue. An ABSURD statement. I mean, that's JUVENILE.
Hey Abbess, what next? Liquidation at the Warm Earthers Gulag?
Wow. She's a doll. Does she have a way with words or what? And this is a top BBC guy with her name on e-speedo.
By the way, it took the craven BBC hack a mere 11 MINUTES to respond to this emerging quack.
evidence
April 7, 2008 - 11:04 ET by AgnosticI'm willing to admit there is evidence. I'm even willing to admit that whether you believe in man-made global warming or not that less polution is a good thing. I'm even willing to go as far as to say that this a reasonable subject to debate. However, there is in no way enough knowledge, evidence or data to prove that the danger is so bad that in a knee-jerk reaction we should destroy nations and their economies. And why are their not more people talking about adaptation if this so inevitable? Could it be that adaptation would actually work and would not destroy most economies in the process? Or could it be that Carbon Credits and other Green Legislation is need to gain control of economies for he good of "The People"?
The AGW movement is a
April 7, 2008 - 11:36 ET by ahusserThe AGW movement is a political movement not a scentific one. I noticed today that in Paris the Olympic flame was extinguished to protect the runner after activists disrupted the parade or whatever. I find it extremely interesting that the main activist group was the Green Party and they were protesting (somewhat violently) China's human rights record. The Green Party is the metamorphosis of the Marxist Party after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Green Party is where the AGW scaremongering started and is not an environmental party but a leftist/socialist/communist party and totally political in nature. AGW is a movement to induce social/political change through the cover of environmental issues and is anti-corporation, anti-capitalist in nature. Their favorite weapon is propaganda which seems to be working as now 18 states in the U.S. are suing the EPA citing "incontestable" evidence of AGW claiming the Bush Administration, through the EPA, is derelict in their duty to enforce and enact tougher carbon emission standards.
Although the truth or the debate of the science is important it is not the be all or end all. The fact that the other side brooks no debate. That the debate is over. That the "consensus" is settled. That the opposition are "deniers", "skeptics", "flat earthers" or worse. Is not scientific debate but ideologic, demagogic propaganda. The truth of the matter, if it exists, is being tossed aside in this ideological battle.
ahusser,
April 7, 2008 - 11:43 ET by AgnosticThis I understand and why I ended my last post with "The People" (like a good member of the part we must always declare everything is for "The People) What I don't get is even if someone believes man made global warming to be the problem as advertised by Al Gore and the rest of his minions why are they so willing to follow his solutions and his solutions only. No one has asked the polluters, who know more about what can be done than those making the accusations, "what are the realistic measures that can be taken to curb emissions"? Liberals in general pride themselves for not falling for the conspiracies of big business and government but they have a wealthy man give them a problem, give them propaganda, give them advertising and then offer a solution and they don't see a problem with that process? As I said, I just don't get it.
how could you...?
April 7, 2008 - 12:59 ET by wizardjrhow could you get it, you're sane
I don't get it either
April 7, 2008 - 18:21 ET by ahusserAgnostic, they already know the "truth" it has been revealed to them and they are true believers and their leaders have been annointed. Their real problem is not the truth of global warming or "climate change" but how to discredit and ridicule the opposition. Their job, as they see it is not find the truth or debate, or discuss the problems but to convert you to their cause and if you can't be converted then silence you by ad-hominem attacks and ridicule. Why else would they use extreme scare tactics (some of their dire claims are so ridiculous and laughable that it borders on the comedic) except to cause fear, a favorite tactic to promote an agenda.
Pollution has NOTHING to do with "Global Warming"!
April 7, 2008 - 13:14 ET by PopularTechOver and over and ovcr again the propagandists have brainwashed people.
Pollution:
"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality."
- Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology MIT
The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2)
- Water vapor (H2O)
Some Pollutants:
- Carbon monoxide (CO) *
- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
- Nitric oxide (NO) *
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Your car's Catalytic Converter removes about 95% of these pollutants by converting them to Water and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Smog consists of:
- Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Air Pollution is already regulated in the: 1970 Clean Air Act (Amended: 1977, 1990)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
These activists are no more
April 7, 2008 - 11:45 ET by NL207These activists are no more interested in the actual truth than I am Pope John Paul II. They are strictly promoting their particular "version" of the truth.
Their alarms are 100% the result of computer model predictions whose accuracy is highly suspect. This is not "truth". Truth is measurable and verifiable. These predictions are neither.
The truth is what has been already measured. The truth is 0.74 degrees K since 1900 according to the IPCC. Of that, 45-50% has been identified as the product of solar variation, a natural source. that leaves about 0.4 K for everything else including man. Where do you see any of this truth from those activists?
Allow me to add to your knowledge, comrade
April 7, 2008 - 10:44 ET by Pete-PumaWow, this is disgusting. These Global Warm(ongerers) are beginning to sound like the party apparatchiks from the cold war days. "Allow me to add to your knowledge, comrade." "We wouldn't want you to lose, readership, now would we, Dimetri?"
I ran a blackline of the differences. Interesting stuff:
These "Flat Earth"
April 7, 2008 - 10:52 ET by SnappyThese "Flat Earth" "Deniers" of natural climate cycles who continue to insist on the myth of man made warming are persistant buggers.
What?
April 7, 2008 - 11:20 ET by Logic over emotionYour word "debate". This is not an issue of "debate". This is an issue
of emerging truth.
What's this crap? Emerging Truth?!!! So now a failed theory has become a truth that hasn't emerged yet. Oh brother.
Those pesky countries who spew out CO2!
April 7, 2008 - 11:20 ET by SyriusWho would have thought our own Government would actually support research and fund agencies on Global Warming? Gosh, to think President Bush could have done something about changing the science while in office for so many years. Makes you want a think maybe the science is correct?
Here's the link...
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa...
Brought to you by the same guys who predict the weather and other fishy stuff.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
"Brought to you by the same
April 7, 2008 - 11:45 ET by DarkCurrent"Brought to you by the same guys who predict the weather and other fishy stuff" tells me about as much as I need to know about the reliability of the source...
That said:
Interesting that the very first line is "One of the most vigorously debated topics on Earth is the issue of climate change". I thought the debate was already over... may be out of date information.
Also interesting that while the temperature graph at the top of the page only follows a relatively short timeline (leaving out historical highs and lows of magnitude comparable to or exceeding those on the graph), the earth's temperature dropped (according to the graph) by about the same amount between 1880 and 1910 as it has risen since 1980. What caused that? Failure of humanity to produce enough greenhouse gases? It had to be due to humans since other factors are constant, right?
I did think this paragraph was particularly interesting:
"Global temperature extremes have been found to exhibit no significant trend in interannual variability, but several studies suggest a significant decrease in intra-annual variability. There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed. There is some indication of a decrease in day-to-day temperature variability in recent decades."
It sounds like the climate is just getting melow...
Garsh!
April 7, 2008 - 11:51 ET by Roger the ShrubberWell, gee willikers. you mean to tell us that many of us here disagree with the president? I thought we were mindless robots.
You seem to agree with him. That must be really messing you up.
Ha... you little contrarian
April 7, 2008 - 11:54 ET by Jack BauerHa... you little contrarian Sir Shrubber. You're an iconoclast!
There's a link ... so it must be true.
You seem to agree with him.
April 7, 2008 - 11:55 ET by NewsbusterbrownYou seem to agree with him. That must be really messing you up.
:-)
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
What you forgot...
April 7, 2008 - 13:20 ET by PopularTechYou seemed to have left out most of the debate:
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
Climate chaos? Don't believe it (Christopher Monckton, The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Climate of Fear (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT)
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF) (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc.)
Global Warming Myths (Friends of Science)
The Global Warming Myth? (John Stossel, 20/20)
The Myth of Dangerous Human Caused Climate Change (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Jo Abbess et al
April 7, 2008 - 11:49 ET by okiehawk44These people are not cute, they are scary. They believe in eliminating debate and threatening those whose views don't exactly mimic their own. Jo threatened Roger and he and the BBC caved. Who is this Jo Abbess to threaten anyone? Anyone know?
Oh, sounds like the usual give & take with the media.
April 7, 2008 - 12:03 ET by Gary HallOh, gee - wiz Noel, it sounds like the usual give & take with the media.
Take this one (Ok, so it's a shortened and to the point version of an exchange - with all the bs taken out):
Dear LA Times,
In Sunday's piece, it was stated that VP Cheney said that he was a strong supporter of torture. Let's correct the record, the VP did not make such a statement; in fact he said that we do not torture.
Dear Gary,
Well, we all know that he actually does - no correction in order here.
Not to mention
April 7, 2008 - 12:19 ET by Oscar GoldmanParts of Canada including Toronto saw record snowfall this winter. Where's the unbiased media reporting on that tidbit of weather fact? Every weather reporter, anchor, and other journalist attempts some lame connection between every flood, tornado, or hurricane and the new nom du jour for global warming, climate change. What? No report on frozen precipitation in record amounts? I guess they'll wait until the snow melts as it does every spring into summer and report the resulting floods were caused by "climate change." The sad part is liberals have evicerated people's ability to think.
Not only Toronto
April 7, 2008 - 13:20 ET by steve2526Not only are Toronto's suburbs still covered in snow (although it's melting now), all of this e-mail back and forth with the Beeb comes is reported on the weekend that it SNOWED in London in April for the first time in nearly a decade.
Bloody GW-ankers! :-(
A member of the right-wing media
And it's ruddy FREEZING! My
April 7, 2008 - 13:21 ET by Jack BauerAnd it's ruddy FREEZING! My brass monkey is VERY unhappy and glum.
Dont worry Jack
April 7, 2008 - 14:07 ET by well99Al has the answer to save us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA7hAFBRlZw&feature=related
How much carbon was
April 7, 2008 - 15:02 ET by red_dragon311How much carbon was used in the back and forth of these e-mails?
wouldn't a snail mail letter be more eco-friendly
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
The Company you keep
April 7, 2008 - 13:01 ET by dboIt would hardly be surprising if this kind of journalistic malpractice happens more often than not. Here is an excerpt from a James Hansen e-mail sent to journalists on August 10 2007 just after his embarrassing Y2K error was discovered:
Sorry to send another e-mail so soon. No need to read further unless you are interested in temperature changes to a tenth of a degree over the U.S. … My apologies if the quick response that I sent to Andy Revkin and several other journalists, including the suggestion that it was a tempest inside somebody’s teapot dome, and that perhaps a light was not on upstairs, was immoderate. It was not ad hominem, though
In the BBC story, the manipulation took place after the story was first posted. How many times does the manipulation take place before the story is ever written?
Unbelievable! This is right
April 7, 2008 - 14:48 ET by contraryUnbelievable! This is right out of a novel. At what point do the American people get fed up with this and revolt?
I truly live in a state of fear for my financial future with wackos like 'Jo' who have enough power to change public perception. I feel like I'm living in Nazi Germany in the 30's.
"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."
-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot
Re-education camps are next...
April 7, 2008 - 16:35 ET by planetrepublican"...Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter..."
This is why these people are so very dangerous. This is a threat, plain and simple. Next we will have "re-education" camps for us deniers.
The GW nuts would stop all
April 7, 2008 - 16:59 ET by sanergononlibThe GW nuts would stop all the study into climate change, accept GW as fact, and move right into the economically disastrous policies.
It is already happening. 18
April 7, 2008 - 18:28 ET by ahusserIt is already happening. 18 (blue) states are suing the EPA for dereliction of duty for not reigning in carbon emissions. The Massachusetts atty general already stated that the evidence is (for global warming) is "incontestable".
What I got out of it.
April 7, 2008 - 21:28 ET by Edward LeeThe long transcript is important to avoid accusations of "cherry picking", but here's the essence of what I got out of it:
Abbess: "I think it's counterproductive to even hint that the Earth is cooling down again, when the sum total of the data tells you the opposite."
Yes, that has a familiar ring to it. 'must'nt confuse the simple folk with complicated facts. 'sends the wrong message, don't you know.
Abbess: "It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics."
What's wrong with censorship given all the "emerging truth"? Al Gore has declared an end to debate, remember?
Abbess: "You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics."
Oh well, If "reason" doesn't work, threaten him with a campaign of ad hominum attacks to ruin his reputation. That's the final argument that resulted in an "acceptable" rewrite.
"Gelbspan reported in 1995
April 7, 2008 - 22:24 ET by ckc1227"Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services;"
Does this mean he performed consulting duties for everyone else for $0? Or maybe he charged $2,500 to everyone seeking his consulting services.
By the way, how much does Gore charge for his consulting duties, or speeches, if you prefer? Isn't it about $100,000? And that's for an hour or so, not all day.
er.. excuse me syrius
April 8, 2008 - 06:35 ET by theduck6I'll admit I'm fairly new here but I've read some before I joined in and I can't recall where you've refuted or debunked any conservative tenet or successfully supported your opinions with anything other than your opinion. Please point me in the direction of one or two such instances.
It makes no sense to poo where one lives but that's a far cry from the almost manic avoidance of any dialog that refutes man-made global warming being significant enough to warrant the astronomical expenditures planned by the eco-freaks. It is interesting that if you follow the money trail , it leads to the loudest proponents and their personal bank accounts.
Were the changes that the BBC made WRONG?
April 15, 2008 - 09:33 ET by BlindSightThe reporter made only minor changes and then added more background:
"Global temperatures will drop slightly this year will be
lower than in 2007 a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said."
"But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years."
new: "The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
"While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.
Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend."
Heaven forbid the BBC ever provide its readers with MORE "hysterical" information - from NASA, the Hadley Center or the WHO - simply because someone is worried that nuances might be mis-spun by any talking heads (who apparently dislike where their own President is leading them).
Pres. Bush: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.