HBO Poll: Global Warming

48 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Cabbage Boy on December 08 at 10:30 a.m.

  Ha, great day to run this poll. Perhaps the senators should take a trip to NoDak before ratifying any GW treaty.

• 

  poolman on December 08 at 10:34 a.m.

  I think we will run out of fossil fuels before the globe “overheats”, but it will be an interesting race. One my kids – kids will have a front row seat for. “Drill baby drill”

• 

  Phaedrus on December 08 at 10:34 a.m.

  Why can’t conservatives understand the difference between weather and climate?

• 

  Smacky on December 08 at 10:38 a.m.

  It’s not just conservatives who don’t understand it. Most people don’t take the time to grasp the concept. We are a nation of dumbed down individuals who glean all their info from soundbites spoken by wannabe actors.

• 

  Lynne on December 08 at 10:43 a.m.

  Global warming is a joke being perpetrated on people who don’t know better by people who do. Or, more precisely, it’s a way for slick rich guys to take money from the working class.

  It’s called climate change, and it’s a natural phenomenon. Stick around for a century or two and they’ll be trying to sell ice age scare tactics.

• 

  nic on December 08 at 10:48 a.m.

  Weather: http://tegacayhomepages.com/images/weather.gif

  Climate: http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/photos/surface-stations/DetroitLakes_212142_NorthWest_04-labelled-small.jpg

  ; )

• 

  Cabbage Boy on December 08 at 11:15 a.m.

  What doesn’t the left bank understand about sharks being jumped?

  Or humor?

  Or funny coincidences?

  Yes, it is cold WEATHER. But that doesn’t mean asking about global warming today isn’t funny.

• 

  Charles_Dixon on December 08 at 12:12 p.m.

  “Stick around for a century or two and they’ll be trying to sell ice age scare tactics.”

  Again.

  In 1975 Newsweek ran with a story on the imminent ice age due to declining global temperatures over the previous 75 years. Two decades later and suddenly scientists say the temperatures weren’t cooling for 75 years, they were actually warming.

  There is no scientific consensus on man-made global warming. It is a political issue, not a scientific one. The CRU emails are substantial proof that 1) GW scientists were fudging the data to manipulate their results, and 2) they were also trying to suppress and intimidate dissenting views. If the issue were something other than global warming this would be more than enough evidence for the world to dismiss this scientific theory wholesale. As it is, the left seeks only to dismiss Climategate as inconsequential while claiming outrage that the information was ever leaked out. I think the social term for it is “red handed.”

  All you have to do is look at 1) the amount of money thrown at global warming scientists and other proponents (such as Al Gore) and 2) observe the absolute hypocrisy of those professing concern over global warming to understand the real phenomenon of global warming.

• 

  Smacky on December 08 at 12:25 p.m.

  Face it: no one on this blog knows for certain whether global warming is a scientific certainty, and to pretend to know so is just plain ridiculous. This is where intelligent discussion and education has run off the rails. People who know absolutely nothing about a subject except what they heard from a soundbite or read on a blog act as if they are experts. Before you embrace or denounce a theory, shouldn’t you wait until all the evidence is in?

• 

  Charlie on December 08 at 12:31 p.m.

  Climate change has been happening for Billions of years, man has been here for a minute in geologic time, the Sun still provides light and warmth, changes will continue whether we like it or not!

• 

  Sisyphus on December 08 at 12:35 p.m.

  Here’s a very interesting observation by James Fallows on distinct methods of reporting regarding the fallacy that is ‘climate gate’ in comparing articles between the NYT and WaPo. This dichotomy highlights that the “debate” fails to get to the heart of the matter. And it is one that is not raging anywhere like it is in the media.

  http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/they_could_study_this_in.php

  The two stories are worth reading in full, and side-by-side. I won’t belabor all the contrasts and implications but will make this point: A very frequent criticism of the mainstream press is that reporters are hesitant to say, “This is true, and that is false.” Instead, they usually feel safest in the “critics contend” zone, “neutrally” reporting what each side says. Eg, “Critics contend that the health-care reform bill will require the elderly to face ‘death panels’; Administration officials disagree.”

  In this case one big-time paper, the Post, sticks with “critics contend,” while the other presents a contrast between “decades of peer-reviewed science” and politically-motivated opposition. Moreover, the NYT presents the controversy as something that might get in the way of deliberations in Copenhagen; while the Post presents it as a scandal in which “wonky” emails may not constitute “proof” that climate change is a “lie or a swindle” but still justify introducing “lie” and “swindle” as possibilities.

  Not to overdramatize, but: in a way the papers are betting their reputations with these articles. The Times, that climate change is simply a matter of science versus ignorance; the Post, that this is best treated as another “-Gate” style flap where it’s hard to get to the bottom of the story. While I don’t claim to be a climate expert, the overwhelming balance of what I’ve read convinces me that the Times’s approach is right. For now, I’m mainly noting the stark contrast.

• 

  Cindy_H on December 08 at 12:45 p.m.

  Here’s some fuel for your global warming fire:

  http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html?partner=email

  *disclaimer* Just scanned the artlcle, because frankly, the subject bores me to tears.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 08 at 1:00 p.m.

  Oh please Cindy. Here’s another by this ‘not a scientist’ on HCR from October. http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/30/healthcare-government-medicare-intelligent-technology-sutton.html Do you reckon he may have other pre-conceived notions? But I do agree with this statement above: “It is a political issue, not a scientific one.”

• 

  Bent on December 08 at 1:00 p.m.

  That’s a good piece Cindy. I read that yesterday… here is another good piece:
  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/08/torquemada_in_east_anglia_99445.html

• 

  spokelooneh on December 08 at 1:12 p.m.

  “n 1975 Newsweek ran with a story on the imminent ice age due to declining global temperatures over the previous 75 years. Two decades later and suddenly scientists say the temperatures weren’t cooling for 75 years, they were actually warming.”

  It is a complete MYTH that back in the 60’s and 70’s science was saying we would be experiencing global cooling.

  If you don’t understand that basic factoid, you have absolutely no basis to be pontificating on the matter.

  “During that time (‘60’s &‘70s) , the survey counted a total of 7 papers expecting cooling, 19 neutral papers, and 42 for warming.

  So if warming outnumbered cooling 6 to 1, why were so many in the popular press talking about cooling?

  For the media, it was easier to talk about cooling, since the world had been cooling for about 30 years. Or more accurately, the world’s temperatures had been flat for about 30 years. … ”

  http://cce.890m.com/a-new-ice-age/

  The Global Warming Debate
  A Layman’s Guide to the Science and Controversy

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 1:19 p.m.

  Interesting piece on global cooling, Cindy. Interesting that he did not cite one scientific article, but a Random House book and press reports.

  Why? Because there was never any real scientific support for that hypothesis. It was falsified. Just another straw man argument.

  PS, nothing in any of the CRU emails falsifies any of the science. There is no evidence at present that any data were deleted or changed. Much remains unknown about the causes of climate change, but Smacky and Sis have it right (though there will never be 100% scientific certainty).

• 

  Me on December 08 at 1:40 p.m.

  chip

  In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

• 

  spokelooneh on December 08 at 1:52 p.m.

  All of the data is still available from its original sources and in the Global Historical Climatology Network.

  “The question of whether CRU dumped “raw” data is a little deceptive, because CRU, NASA, and NOAA don’t put together first-order temperature measurements—that’s up to various national meteorological services, which rely on satellites as well as thermometer readings on land and at sea. The National Weather Service in the United States, and equivalent organizations abroad, then sort through the numbers and clean them up. … ”

  http://www.slate.com/id/2237253/

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 1:55 p.m.

  me – the raw data are still out there and are available at the original national meteorological services throughout the world. Of course they did quality control on the raw data to get rid of reporting errors.

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 1:57 p.m.

  What Spokelooneh said.

• 

  Charles_Dixon on December 08 at 2:49 p.m.

  Smacky: “Face it: no one on this blog knows for certain whether global warming is a scientific certainty, and to pretend to know so is just plain ridiculous. This is where intelligent discussion and education has run off the rails. People who know absolutely nothing about a subject except what they heard from a soundbite or read on a blog act as if they are experts. Before you embrace or denounce a theory, shouldn’t you wait until all the evidence is in?”

  Absolutely amazing. I couldn’t agree with you more. Except for one thing: if there is no scientific certainty, why in the world are people talking about—and why is Congress trying to pass laws aimed at—cutting our carbon emission levels to 1920s levels, when that would plainly result in a catastrophic effect on our economy? Why do leftists and the UN insist that global warming is established science, and then denounce anyone who disagrees with them.

  You are right—the evidence is not all in. But with science we don’t accept theories as true until they are proven, confirmed, and accepted after intense scrutiny. And we sure as heck don’t start seriously debilitating the economies of the civilized world based on a half-baked theory that hasn’t been proven. But that is exactly what global warming believers want the world to do.

  There is no scientific consensus on global warming. Not even close. There are politicized factions on both sides of the issue, but no consensus between the factions. There is evidence that proponents of the theory are not being above-board in their science or with their duty to be transparent. And, there are legions of believers who expect others—but not themselves—to change their lifestyles wholesale based on something they themselves don’t even understand. They get rich on a political cash cow through scare tactics and a cloud of garbled science mingled with political themes.

  And Sis, saying the New York Times is betting its reputation on something is like saying a man who has nothing but a single dime to his name is betting his entire estate on something. It’s patently underwhelming.

• 

  Bent on December 08 at 2:49 p.m.

  This gets directly to the science. Of course the first thing some of you will do is attack the sopurce, so just go ahead get that out of your system… We can wait….

  Now, go back and read it for content and prove it’s wrong. Tell us how far fetched it is. Using the so-called “existing raw data” that “everyone has access to,” this sceintists and many others, by the way, cannot recreate the graph that was predicted using the UEA/NASA/NOAA valued-added data:

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818

  /this is kind of like dropping gold fish into a piranha tank, but for some strange reason it is entertaining to watch… it’s crazy how some people will thrash about and try shred anything that doesn’t fit their ideology…

• 

  Bent on December 08 at 2:54 p.m.

  Gosh, I thought the debate was over…

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/uk-met-office-do-over-entire-global-temperature-series-160-years-worth/

  BTW, this is an excellent blog with awsome technical expertise commenting on this issue

• 

  Sisyphus on December 08 at 3:29 p.m.

  Whew, lots of misinformation on the scientific method. Here’s a video that will walk you through it.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14&feature=related

  This is very reminiscent of the old church v. science debates just different actors. Yeah evolution is just a ‘theory’, one that fits the facts much better than God burying dinosaur skeletons. If we do nothing until the climate change ‘theory’ becomes ‘law’, Charles Dixon will be scraping his brain off his sidewalk with a spatula. I got a clue for the flat earthers, the rapture ain’t an exit strategy. We’re back to this video.

  http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42

  And holy cow Bent. Your denier site failed to mention this important preface to the MET’s decision.

  “The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.”

  It doesn’t say anything about the science changing. Just public opinion.

• 

  Bent on December 08 at 3:51 p.m.

  “It doesn’t say anything about the science changing. Just public opinion…” — I agree, but I bet they don’t throw out the data, methodology and assumptions this time …

  Misrepresenting scientific method..Bahahahahahahaha. That’s a good one, Sis!

  Nice try switching to eveolution…

  You guys want to believe the warming alarmists who say the data wasn’t actually destroyed, and it is accessible — even though the culprits (UEA) admit on their own website that they destroyed raw data.

  The alarmists base their assertion on DR. Jones’ explaination that the destroyed data is still avaiable from other sources.

  Nevermind that Jones is the guy who was caught green-handed adovacting for the destructions of data and emails (which his colleague Dr. Mann even denounced) … of course, he says it is readily available.

  Watts decides to check the so-called raw data that Jones cites and low and behold they just can’t make it work…he lays it out in the open and challenges other scientists to refute it and crickets that all we hear from the alarmists on this crickets and diiversionary tactics…

  Come on now… Take it apart…

• 

  Cindy_H on December 08 at 3:56 p.m.

  I may not find the topic stimulating, but I sure enjoy the discussion between Bent and Sis.
  Other commenters might note I don’t think either of them have stooped to name-calling.
  Just saying.

• 

  Cindy_H on December 08 at 3:57 p.m.

  It’s kinda like boxing— only with words :-)

• 

  Bent on December 08 at 4:18 p.m.

  Oh and that ever so available tree ring data. A published and peer-reviewed paper criticizes jones’ work and see what happens to the scientists…

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/climategate-grows-to-include-other-research-institutions/#more-13511

  Here is his attempt to get the tree ring data…

  http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3900.htm

  Uhuh…readily available … hmmmm

• 

  LarrySpencer on December 08 at 4:32 p.m.

  Smacky @ “Face it: no one on this blog knows for certain whether global warming is a scientific certainty, and to pretend to know so is just plain ridiculous.”

  Well, there is another side to the story. Who stands to gain if the world believes the sky is falling? Who stands to gain if the world doesn’t fall for it?

  If a group of people has built their very identity around the belief that the sky is falling, and then the evidence points to the opposite, I don’t trust them to be honest about finding out they may be wrong when it would undermine everything they have worked on their entire adult life.

  I tend to give more credibility to those who take a unpopular stand that they belive in and who have nothing to gain for their stance.

• 

  poolman on December 08 at 4:33 p.m.

  What I find funny is that the “climate-gate” crowd seems to align very closely with the conservative crowd. Many of those same people consider stories from the Bible to be factual – ‘Noah DID build a giant ark and DID walk each species two by two onto it’… Yet those same people have suddenly become very scientific when it comes to the environment. ‘Umm the statistical mean divided by the square root of pi minus the average sum of the standard deviation times Avogadro’s number does not produce a graph in the approximate shape of a hockey stick, finite math using discreet logic clearly points this out’ – WHAT – and Noah really built a big ark you say?

  Listen - I don’t need 200 years of atmospheric C02 data taken from the top of a volcano to tell me the climate is changing. Just look at the polar ice cap photo’s taken from space in the 60’s verses those taken today– I’ll fill spill the beans – they are much smaller. That’s all the data I need – that and an occasional look at the smog in LA, Houston, Phoenix, Denver or NY.

• 

  fortboise on December 08 at 4:36 p.m.

  “Consensus” means everyone agrees, or is willing to keep their objections to themselves. That clearly is not what we have.

  But this isn’t a matter of counting up how many scientists are “for” and how many are “against.” Peer-reviewed work carries weight; blog opinions, editorials and op-eds and other folks with websites (whether showing “awesome technical expertise,” or not) don’t.

  There is the possibility of group-think, and peer review is subject to all the flaws of a system run by humans. Nevertheless, it’s the best thing we have for sorting out science. Those left out in the cold wail and gnash, and howl about conspiracy and scam, but all that only detracts from their credibility.

• 

  LarrySpencer on December 08 at 4:37 p.m.

  Phaedrus @ “Why can’t conservatives understand the difference between weather and climate?”

  Because of the internet that Gore invented for us!

  See, when we get told “sure, it is colder here, but it is warmer everywhere else” we can check, and lo and behold, the “weather” is colder everywhere!

  When it is colder everywhere, it is the “climate”! Does that help?

  :-)

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 4:51 p.m.

  well, its warmer than average today in northern Europe, which really is is part of “everywhere.”

• 

  Bent on December 08 at 4:59 p.m.

  You know, Boise, I would agree with you if I believed for a minute that the so-called skeptics had access to the same information that is bieing used to establish worldwide policy in Copenhagen right now…

  This is a a guy who managed some of that dat. His mindset in his own words. (excepted from my second link in the 4:18 post)

  The reason (for not releasing raw data) for this was elucidated by Peter M. Brown, in April 2007. At the time, Brown was president of the Tree-Ring Society, which is the main international organization for tree-ring researchers. Following is an excerpt (the full elucidation is here).

  … they ARE my data. Funding agencies pay me for my expertise, my imagination, and my insights to be able to make some advance in our understanding of how nature works, not for raw data sets. … It is the understanding and inferences supplied by the scientist that funding agencies are interested in, not her or his raw data.

• 

  Phaedrus on December 08 at 5:00 p.m.

  lo and behold, the “weather” is colder everywhere!—LS

  well, its warmer than average today in northern Europe, —CJ

  Larry Spencer misstates facts. —The Idaho Supreme Court.

  ;-p

• 

  Phaedrus on December 08 at 5:01 p.m.

  The Polar Ice Caps, then and now:

  http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us/academics/rock/bears_files/polar-ice-caps-melting.jpg

• 

  Phaedrus on December 08 at 5:02 p.m.

  this is an excellent blog with awsome technical expertise commenting on this issue—Bent

  Is that like Cliff Harriss’ blog? ;-)

• 

  MatthewRoot on December 08 at 5:20 p.m.

  Bent, if it was federal funding, the raw data would probably eventually have to be submitted to the funding agency. Researchers are usually allowed a certain time where their raw data can be proprietary so that they can continue to publish studies based on that raw data. Some don’t want to give away data that may have taken many years of hard work to compile. Pretty standard, nothing sinister there.

  If there is a problem replicating results, the raw data are released (or publications are withdrawn).

  Skeptics can go get tree ring data as easily as Peter Brown did. Old trees are in lots of places for anybody to sample (mountain tops, bogs, glacial ice).

• 

  LarrySpencer on December 08 at 5:27 p.m.

  How nice of you to show us how the left lackes real credibility, Phaedrus!

  I noticed that you used a high school picture in your link so I googled it, and found “the rest of the story”

  Turns out that the ice has been increasing for the last three years, but that doesn’t help your point, does it?

  “The 2009 minimum is the third-lowest recorded since 1979, 580,000 square kilometers (220,000 square miles) above 2008 and 970,000 square kilometers (370,000 square miles) above the record low in 2007.”

  http://ecology.com/ecology-today/2009/09/18/arctic-ice-cap-shrinks-to-third-lowest-size-since-1979-decline-to-continue-in-future-years/

  A counterpoint is as follows

  “While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979” And “The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent.”
  
  http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent

• 

  LarrySpencer on December 08 at 5:30 p.m.

  Lackes? Good grif!

  :-)

• 

  sue on December 08 at 5:33 p.m.

  I understand Cindy’s attitude about global warming. My eyes glaze over, also. I just have a few observations, fwiw. The polar ice caps are melting, and no one seems to dispute that. The photographic evidence is right there, hard to ignore. What’s causing that to happen? I believe the planet is slowly heating up, and that the cause can be traced back to human activity creating more greenhouse gases. What I don’t understand, is why the push-back from that pretty straightforward observation. Does anyone believe that pollution is a good thing? Shouldn’t we be trying to cut back on pollution for it’s own sake, never mind the cumulative ramifications? If ithis hadn’t become such a political football, I think we’d all be working towards the same goal. Reducing emissions for health concerns, even if it had no other effect on the health of the planet. But then we get the likes of Spence, who never saw a situation that wasn’t part of some conspiracy; we get others who post here who get whipped into a frenzy if anything “liberal” is promoted. Does anyone think that pollution is a good thing, and that we oughta just keep on dumping garbage into the atmosphere?

• 

  LarrySpencer on December 08 at 5:44 p.m.

  Good gosh, sue! Don’t you look ignorant today!

  I can’t stop laughing! Read my post for a total and complete refute of everything you wrote and posted behind me.

  “Does anyone think that pollution is a good thing, and that we oughta just keep on dumping garbage into the atmosphere?”

  Of course not. But I think we should at least tell the truth about the facts, don’t you, sue?

• 

  LarrySpencer on December 08 at 5:50 p.m.

  Here is a fun quiz, with the following warning

  “This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.”

  /thinks about how sue and Phaderus are going to have their panties in a wringer/ snickers

  http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

• 

  Phaedrus on December 08 at 6:04 p.m.

  But I think we should at least tell the truth about the facts,—

  LarrySpencer, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t recognize the truth —in anything— if it walked up and introduced itself to you. BTW, what does Gary Ingram have to say about the Mike Kraelicek lie he was spreading?

• 

  Phaedrus on December 08 at 6:07 p.m.

  LarrySpencer, West Virginia? Seriously? Those folks can’t even tell the difference between sisters and wives, how the heck do you think the could tell the difference between science and fantasy?

• 

  sue on December 08 at 7:15 p.m.

  I fully admit to ignorance in many areas, Spence. But I’m pretty sure that re-reading one of your posts will not be the remedy. Sorry about that. Please don’t take this wrong, but I really think we should be getting our info from the scientists, and last I checked, that’s not you.

• 

  florined on December 08 at 9:40 p.m.

  uh, Phaed, are you wallowing unwarranted generalizations again?. Those of us raised in WV take umbrage (we can even use fancy words.)

• 

  florined on December 08 at 9:42 p.m.

  but of course we’re not very good with prepositions.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic