The United States of Denial
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
The United States of Denial
There's a big debate -- and it's one worth having -- over whether people spend too much time worrying about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and company. As some have pointed out, the most popular primetime host on the Fox News Channel, Bill O'Reilly, draws just a fraction of the ratings that the supposedly dying network nightly newscasts receive. That's true, but the cumulative exposure to these right-wing gabbers -- especially Limbaugh, who even critics admit gets about 13 million daily "Dittohead" listeners -- is huge; they tend to control the conversation at places like the Thanksgiving dinner table, and they can influence the millions of folks mostly watching "American Idol" instead of American politics.
Case in point: Global warming. These conservative voices have been out on a limb these last few years, disputing what most of the world's top scientists report, which is that manmade pollution from greenhouse gases is warming the planet, with serious likely consequences. Are folks getting the conservative message? You bet.
There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem – 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.
Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.
I wouldn't put this all on talk radio and Fox News Channel alone. While the mercury remains above average where it counts most, at the polar extremes, it's been more often cooler than normal in the United States, and the fact that stricter anti-pollution measures would have an impact on the not-recovering-so-much economy has a lot of people wishing that the whole notion of climate change would go away. Also, as many have noted, misinformation about climate change is heavily funded by industry groups -- but average citizens wouldn't know about their work were it not for the likes of Rush and Glenn.
The U.S. has long been the outlier around the world when it comes to public opinion about global warming -- but the fact that belief in the body of scientific evidence has declined even more is pretty astounding. Here's the latest news from the reality-based world:
Air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean reached an unprecedented 7 degrees Fahrenheit (4 Celsius) above normal in October-December of 2008.
_There is evidence that the higher air temperatures are causing changes in the air circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes.
_The area covered by sea ice this summer was 25 percent below the average from 1979 to 2000...
But the forecast for any U.S. action is pretty cloudy, and I do think we can thank the folks on the right side of your radio for that. I'm sure they're very proud. Meanwhile, people can get worked up about Limbaugh and the bogus tale of the Obama thesis, but a saga like that is pure comedy gold, nothing more. What El Rushbo and his ilk have to say about the science of climate is deadly serious.
Comments (104)
Global warming is not real because it's not in the Bible.— HandNik- Sloboat has Sarah Palin "Goin' Rogue" posters plaster all over his bedroom walls.— Talking point sleuth
- Bunch, you are the king of misinformation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm— Phillyrussian7
Comment removed.- Will, you tried this global warming attack before and failed miserably. GISS (a dvision of NASA) got dinged for overstating the the October-December 2008 temperature data. Like good little liberals they adjusted the data to fit the theory (or rant, take your pick). The corrected data was within normal ranges for the last 30 years and cooler than most of the last 7 years. Plus, please check out http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html where even some high priests of Gorism conclude that water vapor, not carbon dioxide, controls climatic shifts. To quote the article: "This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere," said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned." When do you suggest we should start deep welling water to decrease atmospheric levels? This global warming BS damages the US because it draws attention away from our real problem, imported energy. We need coal and nukes so that we stop funding those who would directly or indirectly fund terrorists. Also, the Oakland debacle rests squarely on the offense, from top to bottom.— Joe Funk
- Willy, the truth of the matter must be that the MAJORITY OF Climatologists admit we don't have any clear evidence either way. But before the lefties gets they undies in a bunch, consider this simple fact: Noone and yet defined what the "normal" temperature should be. What if normal is hotter than the last 100 years? Secondly, we have not yet determined why things are happening. For instance, 80% of the largest reduction in Artic ice cap has occurred over a series of giant erupting vulcanos. These vulcanos were only discovered in 2006. They generate massive heat, maybe they are the reason the ice is melting? Third, the envirnmentalists have actively been workign to change the debate from "global warming" to "climate change". If the world were really going to melt, why change the name in a coordinated campaign world wide? Fourth, the environmental crowd has never told the truth about the role CO2 plays in global warming. Ask yourself this question: if there were only 15 Eagles fans at Giant Stadium for a game out of about 100,000, would anyone even notice them? Those 15 fans represent the mathmatical equivalent of the impact of CO2's TOTAL global warming effect rolled into the total of all other global warming greenhouse gasses. That amounts to 0.015% of the impact of greenhouse gases. The real truth is the Conservatives like Limbaugh have kept up a steady drum beat and opinion has been changing because THERE IS NO HARD VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC DATA. The public your scorn Willy is a lot smarter than you. It is increasingly looking like a ponzi scheme.— Dutch-wayne
Jeez you flogging this old nag again ? , yeah yeah we are all gonna fry or drown or whatever else you say happy now ? . Lets ignore every study that says temperatures have not risen for seven years , lets ignore the leader of Greenpeace admiting he lied about the plight of polar bears , lets ignore a British court agreeing that 9 points in Al Gores film were untruthfull . Lets all agree we are doomed thanks to global warming , I mean climate change , or have they changed it again ? .— PAEnglish
Well, it was either this or another Reagan/Bush/Cheyney ate my homework screed. How's that book doing?— georgel- And Gordon Brown said we have 50 days to do something or the world would end as we know it... I remember 30 years ago hearing all the sceintific facts & doomsday scenarios around global cooling.— Norton
If CO2-induced AGW turns out to be true, and all of human civilization is eradicated, we can blame conservatives and leftists alike. The left have botched the job of convincing the public by trying to politicize the potential risk into another of the many centralized government power grabs. The left's voracious appetite for government power at the expense of people's freedom has weakened their credibility, and they can't sell the idea when it is so thinly veiled in the gauze of central planning. Conservatives are to blame for reacting to defend freedom from the statists. The reality probably is that were more at risk from a massive tectonic event or meteor strike. But at least we'll all be able to have taxpayer funded abortions, so it's all good.— Mr. Smith- Will Thhe question as to the origin og global warming is open for debate. One thing that is not debatable is that if current carbon tax legislation is passed ,the company that I and 500 of my co-workers are employed by WILL go out of business. This is not an opinion,just a cold fact.Another fact is that the products we produce will be imported from China and India where no environmental taxes hinder their businesses.— webster2006
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} (cause the earth has actually been cooling over the past 8 yrs)...{{{--- LOL! You guys are hilarious. http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/GISStrends.jpg— Talking point sleuth
- --snip-- Figure 1. Global temperature according to NASA GISS data since 1980. The red line shows annual data, the larger red square a preliminary value for 2009, based on January-August. The green line shows the 25-year linear trend (0.19 ºC per decade). The blue lines show the two most recent ten-year trends (0.18 ºC per decade for 1998-2007, 0.19 ºC per decade for 1999-2008) and illustrate that these recent decadal trends are entirely consistent with the long-term trend and IPCC predictions. Even the highly “cherry-picked” 11-year period starting with the warm 1998 and ending with the cold 2008 still shows a warming trend of 0.11 ºC per decade (which may surprise some lay people who tend to connect the end points, rather than include all ten data points into a proper trend calculation). --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- --snip-- The blogosphere (and not only that) has been full of the “global warming is taking a break” meme lately. Although we have discussed this topic repeatedly, it is perhaps worthwhile reiterating two key points about the alleged pause here. (1) This discussion focuses on just a short time period – starting 1998 or later – covering at most 11 years. Even under conditions of anthropogenic global warming (which would contribute a temperature rise of about 0.2 ºC over this period) a flat period or even cooling trend over such a short time span is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (see 1987-1996). That simply is due to the fact that short-term natural variability has a similar magnitude (i.e. ~0.2 ºC) and can thus compensate for the anthropogenic effects. Of course, the warming trend keeps going up whilst natural variability just oscillates irregularly up and down, so over longer periods the warming trend wins and natural variability cancels out. (2) It is highly questionable whether this “pause” is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 ºC per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 ºC per dcade – just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Someone has a lot time on their hands...— camtheman
- I think we have bigger fish to fry - how about the children that are murdered everyday? How about the deficit that our children and their children will be paying off for decades to come?? Also, stop blaming the conservatives. Everyone is to blame for the mess we are in. You are an idiot!— msvndy
- Comment removed.
- Global warming is real and the observation of decreased polar and mountain ice volume proves it. However, because the weather in the US has been cooler than average the past couple of years, less Americans believe it. There is a difference between local, short-term weather and global climate change that most people don't appreciate because they don't travel or read information from outside of their local area.— M-star
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- More proof of global warming: Sarah Palin used to be able to walk to Russia from her house, now she has to swim.— M-star
- TPS just because you beleive certain scientists , and sneer at any others that dont fit your little world doesnt make them wrong . There is growing eveidence that many scientists now beleive global warming/climate change isnt man made but wont release their findings because their grants are then suspended this is especially true in Europe , there to get government grants you have to agree in global warming/climate change or you lose out , now answer why would European governments not want more research done ? couldnt be because global warming/climate change is a liberal spin myth and a blatant attempt to 1 take more power from the citizenry and 2 raise yet more taxes under the 'green tax' banner ? hmm since thats exactly what they are doing there and its exactly what the present government here is trying to do I guess anything you post is pointless and more liberal spin . snippety snip snip— PAEnglish
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- I thought the American people voted FOR change in 2008? Now we are against change? Can you get your story straight? Climate change bad, hopenchange good, sex change great, spare change please, oil change, pitching change, keep the change.— Mr. Smith
- Comment removed.
- Junk science at its best.— fcs25
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} couldnt be because global warming/climate change is a liberal spin myth {{{--- LOL! Take a look at the graph I posted and get back to me, PAEnglish. There is all kinds o' evidence that the Earth is warming at unprecedented rates. Do I think it is 100% certain that it is AGW? No. Contrary to your mythologizing about "libz," I do believe that there is a small minority of legit scientists who think that GW is not A. However, facts are facts. There have been very, very few studies published in peer review journals that show evidence that GW is not A. The conspiracy theories that all expert scientists who think it likely that GW is A are either (1) crooked, or (2) bad scientists is laughable at best. And there is tons of evidence of bad science on the part of "skeptics," such as the misleading meme that has been exposed that "The Earth is cooling." That statement is flat out false. Take a look at the data on plant species growth and animal migrations. You guys are hilarious.— Talking point sleuth
- I am may be dumb because I actually believe that climate change happens through history and that Global Warming is a natural cycle. You know we have had ice ages and extreme warm times without any cars on the earth. I know that is not popular and wont get me any grants from liberal organizations who want to push an agenda but I look history not just sherry pick the last 30 or 40 or even 100 years because that would only make sense. So I am not going to stop driving my SUV and heating my house or going on long vactions to Europe and Asia. Give it a rest with all your faux data from scientist who are bought off by the UN. There are plenty of scientist who believe otherwise they just dont get NBC to put them on TV. The truth is that libs hate Foxnews because they actually show the other side and no one else does. Liberal hate to have their views contradicted and individual thought. Good luck with your cult of OBAMA buddies your gonna need it.— rgreen72
- I'm all for global warming...I hope I live long enough for West Chester to be beachfront property.— jimmymack
- When will you secular, fact and science based people learn? There is no such thing as man made global warming. It is the work of God. The same God who created the entire earth in 6 days, 6,000 years ago. Back then, people and dinosaurs lived side by side, by the way. Oh yeah, and for what it is worth, God is a white male, as was Jesus, despite his being born in the middle east.
- ---}}} I know that is not popular and wont get me any grants from liberal organizations {{{--- This is hilarious, and so typical of the conspiratorial thinking that delegitimatizes those few expert scientists there are out there who doubt that GW is A. The academic/scientific research process has brought us virtually every medical/scientific/technological advance that has occurred in America SINCE THE MID-1900s. Peer review is not a perfect process, but by making the laughable assertion that it categorically produces bad science is counter-factual to the day-to-day realities of modern existence. Come back with peer reviewed evidence that AG is not W, and we'll talk. Otherwise, all you have is an insane conspiracy theory that enables you to dismiss tens of thousands of articles published in peer-reviewed journals.— Talking point sleuth
- You forgot, Mr. Baseball - Noah took a male and female of EVERY SPECIES OF PLANT AND ANIMAL ON THE PLANET, and neatly fit them into his ark and went for a cruise.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- TPS , there are graphs saying the exact opposite to the ones you use as your 'bible' who says yours are right ? As for facts , FACT the earth has been much warmer in the past , Greenland was in fact green , Britian was a tropical island , Fact the earth has warmed and cooled for millions of years , Fact our knowledge of global climate shifts is sketchy at best and shots in the dark at worse . Fact many climate computer models are spewing out information that are not adding up because the initial data is deeply flawed , Fact greenpeace has admited lying about the plight of polar bears . We cannot base everything on 100 odd years worth of records but thats what the the scientists to the left are doing , while the scientists on the right are not allowed an opinion , until the facts are debated in a rational way most of us will remain sceptics. Again why is the left grasping at certain statitics while ignoring equaly compelling evidence there is no man made climate change ? its to grasp more power and raise more taxes , in Europe they are 'green taxes' in the US its cap and trade . Those are facts , you of course wont agree because it infringes on your narrow veiws and you cannot possibly accept you may be on the wrong side . I can post graph after graph showing yours to be wrong but of course you will counter with the usual drivel 'they are in the pay of big oil' , well the pro climate change scientists are in the pay of big government , again explain to me why anti climate change views are not being debated but being shouted down ?. And why in Europe only climate change activists get grants to study climate while sceptics get refused the same grants .— PAEnglish
- Global warming is a religion also guys. You pray at the alter of Al Gore and OBAMA. Its the same thing ad being a Catholic or Muslim. You have faith that this is what is happening and you are on a crusade to spread your faith and now people dont believe it anymore but good luck.— rgreen72
- First off, I think we all have to admit that climate change is real (get rid of the stupid 'Global Warming' label nonsense). The questions then become: 1) Is it man-made? 2) Will it have a negative impact, and 3) Can we do something about it without making it worse? I'd like to focus on #3. Climate change occurs continually throughout the span of time and various species either adapt or die. We cannot prevent climate change, what we can do is attempt to limit our impact on it. But we have to carefully consider what actions we take, because the mere fact that we change our behavior and alter our own impact on the Earth will cause the extinction of many 1000's of species that were adapting just fine to the changes as-is. What people fail to understand is how complex the ecosystems are, and how much unintended consequences happen as a result of people's "do-gooding". Read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"...— IggleFan68
- ---}}} TPS , there are graphs saying the exact opposite to the ones you use as your 'bible' who says yours are right ? {{{--- Not true. Any graph that shows a "cooling trend," by definition, is focusing on a deceptively short span of time. Show me any graph that shows temperature data for the time period since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and you will see exactly the same warming trend as the one shown in the graph I posted. Just because you assume something to be true, PAEnglish, or because you wish it to be so, doesn't mean that it is true. The collected temperature data shows a warming trend over an extended period of time. Only by clipping off the past 10 years or so can you demonstrate a "cooling trend." The fact that bogus "deniers" choose to draw graphs with only the last 10 years or so included, and pass that off as legit analysis, only serves as evidence of "bad science" on the part of deniers.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Fact many climate computer models are spewing out information that are not adding up because the initial data is deeply flawed , {{{--- also not true. Given variables involved such as solar radiation, the changes in climate are very much aligned with what the models predicted. Read RealClimate, for Christ's sake. ---}}} FACT the earth has been much warmer in the past , {{{--- Due do specific variables. Given the state of those variables today - without a greenhouse effect - we would have lower temperatures than we have. To state that it has been warmer in the past, such as when there were more greenhouse gasses due to volcanic activity, in itself, means nothing (check out the Permian mass extinction). ---}}} We cannot base everything on 100 odd years worth of records but thats what the the scientists to the left are doing , {{{--- Laughably wrong, and based on a complete ignorance of the work of climate change experts. They base their modeling on data records going back tens of thousands of years. Not to mention that your whole notion of "scientists on the left" is ridiculous. Is it your contention that every scientists that has published a paper on AGW in peer reviewed journals is a "leftist?" Hilarious. ---}}} Again why is the left grasping at certain statitics while ignoring equaly compelling evidence there is no man made climate change ? {{{--- Because there isn't "equally compelling evidence" that the Earth isn't warming at an unprecedented rate. Seriously, PAenglish, look at some scientifically based information. Apparently, you are only getting your information indirectly - form partisan sources. Time after time (as with "the Earth is cooling" meme), indirect sources promoted bogus information. The list of proven bogus material put out by deniers is endless. Read some of the material out there that debunks the "deniers" and get back to me, PAEnlish. Actually read some material from both sides of the debate.— Talking point sleuth
- So now I understand TPS thanks , supporters of global warming/climate change are to be beleived 1005 no doubts . Those who say global warming /climate change is not happening are using bad science . Trouble is TPS there are scientists out there far more versed on this than you that say your wrong . Once again I have asked you twice to explain why skeptics dont get the same research grants supporters get twice you have failed to answer I find that far more relevant than anything you care to post .— PAEnglish
- ---}}} I can post graph after graph showing yours to be wrong {{{--- Go for it, bro.— Talking point sleuth
- TPS -agree or disagree: Al Gore chose misleading "convenient" time scales in presenting his fear mongering case for AGW in his Nobel prize winning movie?— Mr. Smith
- ---}}} And why in Europe only climate change activists get grants to study climate while sceptics get refused the same grants . {{{--- And your evidence is? Show me evidence where credentialed skeptics were denied grants approved for accredited "activists."— Talking point sleuth
- Mr. Smith. Al Gore is a politician. Politicians lie and deceive. It is inbred in them. Al Gore lied about tons of things before his movie came out. As to the veracity of his movie - I really don't know the answer. I didn't watch it, and I haven't studied the responses in depth (although I have seen arguments by experts on both sides of whether or not his movie was factually accurate). I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if there were inaccuracies and hyperbole in his movie. But I'm not talking about what politicians say, Mr. Smith. I'm talking about what expert scientists have to say, and about the bogus science behind a great deal of what "deniers" have been promoting. There is a very small amount of what seems to me to be legitimate science, produced by credentialed scientists, which questions that GW is A. There is virtually no information by legit scientists which show that GW isn't happening. But the predominance of the data show that GW is likely to be A, and for anyone to categorically state that such data are bogus, or that scientists who produce that data are categorically either lying or bad scientists is, positively, ignorant and laughable. There have been tens of thousands of scholarly articles produced in prestigious, peer-reviewed journals that support the contention that GW is A. Are then necessarily correct? In my opinion, no. However, to state that the exact same process that has brought us virtually EVERY SCIENTIFIC/MEDICAL/TECHNOLOGICAL advance over the past 60 years is now, in one field, categorically false and or fixed - can only be done by CONSPIRACY THEORISTS or people who don't bother to look at the information which is out there.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Those who say global warming /climate change is not happening are using bad science . {{{--- I never said that, PAEnglish. So, the question is why is it necessary for you to claim that I am? You are the one who is categorically stating opinions about the work of experts in the field, not me. I have stated that I believe that there are some legit, credentialed experts who produce data that suggest that GW is not A. But they are a small minority. I have not said that they are producing bad science. For me to state that would be to say that I am a conspiracy theorist, who is willing, with no actual knowledge of the scientists or their work, to state that they are either crooked or practice bad science. I am not a conspiracy theorist, PAEnglish. Sorry. I just don't roll that way.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Once again I have asked you twice to explain why skeptics dont get the same research grants supporters get twice you have failed to answer I find that far more relevant than anything you care to post . {{{--- LOL! First, PAEnglish, you are asking me to prove a phenomenon which I don't believe exists, and you have offered me no proof that it does exist. Show me the evidence where credentialed scientists have been denied funding simply because their theories don't confirm that GW is A. Secondly, you seem to be assuming that because there have been a paucity of published articles in prestigious peer-reviewed journals that show why GW isn't happening, or that GW isn't A, is PROOF that such skeptics aren't getting funding. Have you considered the possibility, PAEnglish is that the reality is that there are just very few credentialed experts who have done studies which have stood up to peer review? There are plenty of academic scientists who get funded to do research without beforehand stating what the conclusions of their research will be. It's not like when applying for funding they have to say, "I want this money to prove that GW is A." Instead, they apply for funding to study a phenomenon. Your notion that they are denied funding because of what they intend to prove isn't grounded in any logistical mechanism of funding that reflects reality. That is why, PAEnlgish, it qualifies as a CONSPIRACY THEORY.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Will, Are you aware that China and India are producing a large part of the world's industrial emissions. At the same time, those countries emissions are more polluted than ours. Those countries also refuse to abide by the Cap and Trade requirements of the bill our Congress is considering. I guess talk radio should not cover this because Obama would rather we not hear about it. Also, it has been revealed that methane emissions from livestock are a greater threat for global warming than industrial carbon dioxide. Are you emitting methane, Will?— Falls Ed
- Comment removed.
- TPS http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/06/another-example-of-how-global-warming-skeptics-are-kept-silent.html http://www.topix.com/forum/energy/renewable-energy/TPDMNNJDRA73LM1SE— PAEnglish
- Heres an example of how the global warming / climate change crowd stiffle dissent http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=348— PAEnglish
- Comment removed.
- This link (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs) is from GISS (NASA), the US arm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith for Global Warming. No tin foil hatter generating this data. The 5 year running average plots are all tracking down, especially in the southern latitiudes (over 10 years). This data is why the AGWers are now talking sea temperatures instead of air temperatures like they were 5-10 years ago. Their data hopping is the antithesis of science. Just because you are doing math it doesn't mean you are doing science.— Joe Funk
- It was only a matter of time before Will and his merry band of liberals blamed Bush, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh for global warming. Some other little-known facts: Republicans caused the demise of the dinosaurs, Glenn Beck was responsible for the Black Plague, and Bill O'Reilly started the Civil War.— WhatWouldTDDo
- ..................huh?.....The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)......... The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.— Illogical Liberal
- --snip-- Itoh and Climate Change Dr. Kiminori Itoh declares himself as a "physical chemist familiar with evironmental sciences, and not particularly specialized in climate science." According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University, Dr. Itoh has not published any work in the area of climate change in peer-reviewed science journals. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Joanne Simpson: --snip-- In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Will Happer: --snip-- Let me state clearly where I probably agree with the other witnesses. We have been in a period of global warming over the past 200 years, but there have been several periods, like the last ten years, when the warming has ceased, and there have even been periods of substantial cooling, as from 1940 to 1970. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth's surface to warm. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Btw - Will Happer also argued that the science of ozone depletion was flawed.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- DR HOAGIE: lol. i'd buy one.— whsmith
- Well I completly understand this now , thanks for the explanations TPS , from your posts I see A , no matter how many links people put up from legitimate scientists , biologists or chemists , if they dont agree with you they are not qualified , well in your opinion at any rate . Also you never got back to me on why skeptics are denied funding , you wanted proof I gave you a link you must have forgot to explain to me why its perfectly acceptable for governments to only fund one side of this issue . Thats why more and more people are becoming sceptics , I was open minded about the issue once upon a time until the far left turned it into a political crusade and silenced all disenting voices , that was all the evidence I needed to know its a complete crock of s**t .— PAEnglish
- Let's break this down a little bit, shall we PAEnglish? ---}}} no matter how many links people put up from legitimate scientists , biologists or chemists , if they dont agree with you they are not qualified , {{{--- Huh? I never said anything like that. In fact, I wrote repeatedly in this thread that I think that there are (a minority) of legit scientists who have legit scientific skepticism that GW is A (however, there are virtually no legit scientists who claim that there is not GW happening. That laughable claim is made by distorters of science, such as those who laughably tried to say that there is a "cooling trend" by looking at the last eight years. Look into what Mojib Latif said and how it was distorted by "deniers" if you need any more evidence of that phenomenon).— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Also you never got back to me on why skeptics are denied funding , you wanted proof I gave you a links {{{--- Your first link doesn't work. Your second link contains info provided by Christofer Horner, who is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that's received more than $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998, among other corporate funders. That doesn't prove that he is wrong, but it does make what he says highly suspect. He is an attorney. he is not an expert on climate science. Here's a quote from Horner from your link --snip-- Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" … They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement… --snip-- So - they did a completely unscientific poll, and drew conclusions on the responses of 530 respondents, out of what must be a total of tens of thousands of climate scientists, and on respnoses which could be highly subject to sampling bias. LOL! Once again, PAEnglish - the most likely reason that "deniers" don't get published is that there have been very few who have material that can stand up to the scrutiny of peer review. You keep asking why deniers don't get funding and ask me why. I tell you that (1) funding is not correlated with the theoretical aim of scientists. There is not test when they apply for funding to see whether or not they think that GW is A or not. Show me some evidence of that, PAEnlish, and (2) you need to provide hard evidence OF ANY KIND that anyone was DENIED FUNDING for a legit study before I can even begin to answer your question. You claim something is happening, offer no hard evidence that it is, and then demand that I explain why it is happening. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- --snip-- ---}}}*yawn*{{{--- --snip--— pheonix14
- The end of the last ice age was 20,000 years ago, the earth has been warming ever since, sure maybe a little faster over the past two hundred years however the previous 200 were likely warming faster than the previous 5000, it's called momentum.— Celtic Tide
- Comment removed.
- global warming is b.s. bill o'reilly is not a conservative.— bobbyd24
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
Help! We've turned into Dumbfukistan!- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they Do... Not... Know about it!— bird11- Comment removed.
- Who cares if Indonesia gets flooded? My penthouse is safe!— WriteWinger
- Anyone who uses Algore's movie as an example of the need to address climate change is an idiot. That's why the British courts have mandated that any school there that shows the movie MUST also point out the 13 or so complete falsehoods that were proven in that courtroom trial of the accuracy of the movie. Who in the world would listen to algore anyway? He couldn't even win his home state in the election. A true loser! BTW, it is also obvious that the prize in a cracker jack box is more deserved and earned than any Nobel Prize nowadays.— WriteWinger
- President Barack Obama has only been in office for just over nine months, but he's already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years. CBS' Mark Knoller — an unofficial documentarian and statistician of all things White House-related — wrote on his Twitter feed that, "Today - Obama ties Pres. Bush in the number of rounds of golf played in office: 24. Took Bush 2 yrs & 10 months. I guess this is where he goes to ponder whether to send more troops. Too bad he can't do as he did in the Illinois State Senate and just vote "present"!!!— WriteWinger
- Hey Wilbur- when they no longer are willing to pay you for your "cut and paste" jobs, maybe you and your liberal socialist comrades can do us all a favor and show the world how to run an insurance company. After all, they make so much money that if you ran it for less, we could all save. SEE ARTICLE: WASHINGTON (AP) - Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry. In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up." Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones. Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans— WriteWinger
- WriteWinger - I think you have hit on my biggest objection with the whole GWA crowd. They treat global warming/climate change like an end of the world movie (BTW 2012 in threatre near you soon). I think a good argument can be made for conservation and alternative energy (less dependence on foreign oil alone works for me) but when you turn it into a chicken little "the sky is falling" I tune out and think you are a loon. I also find it ironic that people who denounce creatist as loons are afraid to let evolution happen.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- It's entertainers and a metaphorical "handful" of scientists who aren't in the study of climate vs. peer-reviewed climatologists scientists (who, if they practiced shoddy science, would be fired (for the process and not for the results)). You can't trust a peer-reviewed climatologist for anything because they might be too liberal and because they aren't volunteering their time to the climate change cause. Better to trust the entertainers and people who work for think tanks. Don't worry about who funds them, that's not important; it's only who funds the climatologists that matters**. Also, go ahead and tell your kids to base their lives on whether Al Gore turned off microphones or whether a few of his points have been refuted (and don't bother checking to see if they've been corrected or clarified). I just want to see how well "bill at", "PAEnglish", "Illogical Liberal" fare at the blog at http://www.realclimate.org/ Let me know how your arguments hold up. **In fact, I do believe that, just as the folks at realclimate.org believe, scientifically speaking, it doesn't matter how anyone is being funded. It shouldn't matter from a political standpoint, either, but...— Aaron G. Stock
- Mr Stock , here try this one , we can do this until hell freezes or warms up if its affected by Global Warming/ Climate Change http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5164— PAEnglish
- LOL! Ask for a peer reviewed study published in a credible journal, and PAEnglish gives us a summary of arguments written by someone from the Hudson Institute. So what we get are complaints about "agenda-driven" science coming from peer-reviewed journals, written by experts on the topic - complaints that are supported by "evidence" provided by complete non-experts funded by highly partisan institutions. Agreed - the funding itself doesn't necessarily drive the science, but when the bulk of what you have is material provided by non-experts funded by politically driven institutions, and then you whine conspiracy theories about "biased" science, it is laughable. Anyone need anything from the lobby? I'm going to get some more popcorn.— Talking point sleuth
- Bird11, do you continue to tune out when you consider what real estate to buy? 2012 is hokum, but I don't know what is hokum about wondering how we are going to relocate so many people living by the rising oceans. That's a big big problem to solve, no matter what the causes behind global warming.— Aaron G. Stock
- Comment removed.
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: