Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming

Jefferson · 12-07-2006, 08:11 AM

Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming

...and since our resident geniuses who worship global warming will refuse to follow the link, here's its content.

Quote:

To: National Desk

Contact: Sean Tuffnell of the National Center for Policy Analysis, 972-308-6481 or sean.tuffnell@ncpa.org

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), testified this morning at a special hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The hearing examined climate change and the media. Bellow are excerpts from his prepared remarks.

"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

"In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph. "Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed."

Perhaps the truth will begin to emerge - and the Global Warming Worshippers will be exposed as the liars they are.

Jefferson · 12-07-2006, 10:00 AM

And, of course, CNN just is NOT interested in the truth about Global Warming - and not interested in paying attention to anybody who criticizes the mindless hype.

Senate Debates Global Warming, CNN Anchor Snoozes | NewsBusters.org

digit · 12-07-2006, 03:06 PM

Here's a good blog entry in response to this meeting. Extracts:

Quote:

Inhofe’s last stand

Part of me felt a little nostalgic yesterday watching the last Senate hearing on climate change that will be chaired by Sen. James Inhofe. It all felt very familiar and comforting in some strange way. There was the well-spoken 'expert' flown in from Australia (no-one available a little closer to home?), the media 'expert' from the think tank (plenty of those about) and a rather out-of-place geologist. There were the same talking points (CO2 leads the warming during the ice ages! the Medieval Warm Period was warm! it's all a hoax!*) that are always brought up. These easy certainties and predictable responses are so well worn that they feel like a pair of old slippers.

...

Naomi Oreskes did a good job on the context and provided useful rebuttal to a frankly ridiculous claim that contrarians were not getting any air time on the networks. One point she could have raised was that when Patrick Michaels made the same complaint to CNN - that their climate news stories weren't 'balanced' - a quick scan of their interviewee lists revealed that the scientist most frequently on CNN .... was none other than Michaels himself. A result somewhat at odds with his standing in the community or expertise, but ample evidence for the 'false balance' often decried here.

...

As for the scientific content, with the sole exception of Dan Schrag's statements, it was a textbook example of abuse of science. Two exchanges summed it up for me. In the first, Bob Carter insisted that CO2 always follows temperature for the ice age cycles (which are paced by the variations in the Earth's orbit and for which CO2 is a necessary feedback) and seasonal cycle (related mainly to Northern hemisphere deciduous trees) . Both statements are true as far as they go - but they don't go very far. Was Carter suggesting that the 30% increase in CO2 decreased after 1940? or that it has stopped increasing in recent years (since he appears to also believe that global warming stopped in 1998?). As an aside by his criteria it also stopped in 1973, 1983 and 1990.... only it didn't. Of course, if this wasn't what he meant to imply (because it's demonstrably false), why did he bring the whole subject up at all? Surely not simply to muddy the waters....

The second great example was Carter making an appeal to authority (using NASA and the Russian Academy of Science) for his contention that world is likely to cool in coming decades. Of course scientists at NASA are at the forefront of studies of anthropogenic climate change so a similar authority would presumably apply to them, and the Russian Academy was one of 11 that called on the G8 to take climate change seriously, but let's gloss over that inconsistency. The nuggets of science Carter was referring to are predictions for the next couple of solar cycles - a tricky business in fact, and one in which there is a substantial uncertainty. However, regardless of that uncertainty, NASA scientists have definitively not predicted that this will cause an absolute cooling - at best, it might reduce the ongoing global warming slightly (which would be good) (though see here for what they actually said). Two Russians scientists have indeed made such a 'cooling' prediction though, but curiously only in a press report rather than in any peer-reviewed paper, and clearly did not speak for the Academy in doing so, but never mind that. Of course, if Carter seriously thought that global cooling was likely, he should be keen to take up some of James Annan's or Brian Schmidt's attractive offers - but like the vast majority of 'global coolers', his money does not appear to be where his mouth is. It's all classic contrarian stuff.

...

RealClimate » Inhofe’s last stand

Jefferson · 12-07-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digit

Here's a good blog entry in response to this meeting. Extracts:

You are the epitome of what this congressional hearing was about.

You've bought the hype. You're not looking at anything honestly or objectively. You believe only what you've decided you want to believe. You read only pro-global warming hype blogs.

Aren't you a little ashamed of yourself?

digit · 12-07-2006, 04:46 PM

How about addressing the contents as well as making ad homs? Or at least back up your ad homs with evidence.

Jefferson · 12-07-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digit

How about addressing the contents as well as making ad homs? Or at least back up your ad homs with evidence.

Did you even read the original post and/or links?

It doesn't appear that you did.

alias · 12-07-2006, 05:56 PM

Is digit an idgit?

digit · 12-10-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Did you even read the original post and/or links?

Yes and it has no bearing on me at all seeing as I didn't get any of my understanding of climate science from the media. Despite your assumption otherwise.

Jefferson · 12-10-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digit

Yes and it has no bearing on me at all seeing as I didn't get any of my understanding of climate science from the media. Despite your assumption otherwise.

Then why are you arguing on this thread?

sgtdmski · 12-11-2006, 12:08 AM

The problem with scientific study regarding global warming in the future is that the scientists make predictions based upon what is known now. So what does that mean, well for one, what if some company comes along and is able to market and sell a hydrogen cell that is small enough to replace a gas tank in a car and keep the car's price relatively the same???? So much for emissions of CO2 from cars.

Not too mention that if this technology works, what would it mean for people's homes, apartments and such??

Predictions are a weird thing, they apply today's data to forecast the future, however, at the same time they ignore what might be discovered. Rather than spending vast somes of money to try and eliminate the CO2 causing machines today, instead that money should be spent on research. That is the problem with the global warming crowd. They want action taken now that costs vast sums of money, they want companies to reduce their workload to reduce the amounts of CO2 they expend, but instead we should be promoting these companies to continue working hard so that there is more money to go into research and development.

Like it or not, Nuclear energy reduces the CO2 emissions that come from residences and businesses. We could reduce this countries CO2 emissions by converting more of our power plants to nuclear plants, but those at NIMBY won't have it. The technology is there but we are not using it. Sorry but you can't have your pie and eat it too.

dmk

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode