Global warming skeptic John Stossel to join Fox News.
By on Sep 10th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Global warming skeptic John Stossel to join Fox News.
TVNewser reports that ABC News’ John Stossel, a libertarian reporter, “is leaving ABC to join Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network.” Stossel, a climate change skeptic who recently gave the keynote speech at an Americans for Prosperity rally, “will host a weekly, one-hour program for the 2-year-old business channel” as well as “four, hour-long specials on Fox News, much like the business/consumer specials he’d hosted for years on ABC.” Stossel has regularly appeared on Fox to promote his work over the years.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bayh
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Supreme Court
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Global warming skeptic John Stossel to join Fox News.
– - FOX News, pushing the diversity envelope every day.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:06 pmJohn Stossel is a nasty little biatch.
I hope he gets slapped till he cries again.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:06 pm.
SHOCKED…
… NOT!
.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pmBirds of a Moustache:
Stossel and Rivera, together at last.
Fox is awesomer than the National Enquirer,
’cause it’s free on my apartment’s basic cable.
Gotta pay for the Enquirer, or be content with the front cover as you pass through the checkout lane.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pmLast week Disney’s entertainment empire gained some comic characters. This week its “news” division loses one.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:11 pmGood to see all the freaks gathering under the same big top. Perhaps MSNBC could let Pat Buchanan out of his contract so Fox can have the complete set.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:14 pmFox News:
Where even bad journalists can find a home.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:17 pm***
he is not a “libertarian”.
he’s a conservative.
*
i know the title is pejorative
but if the shoe fits…
:)
September 10th, 2009 at 3:18 pmSee Ya John! Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out. You will be well received at Faux! Although you’re reputation will nosedive.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:19 pmThat’s exactly where he belongs.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:22 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Never watched him. Never will.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:25 pmNo Stossel is a libertarian and a sadist.
He’s the kind of freak that gets pleasure from crushing others.
You ever hear or even deal with a kid on the playground went around telling younger kids Santa doesn’t exist?
The same thing that drives him drives Stossel.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:26 pm***
#11,
so does lyndon larouche,
assho|e.
:\
September 10th, 2009 at 3:26 pmWell, that’s where he belongs.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:28 pmWhen all the crazies of the media end up on Fox news, they can have one big circle jerk.
Stossel’s career is as upwardly mobile as Dennis Miller’s and Brit Hume’s. /snark
September 10th, 2009 at 3:31 pmGood Riddance, Fox deserves him.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:32 pm***
#15,
marie,
abc news: gateway to fox.
*
brit hume, geraldo, chris wallace
and now stossel.
**
for the past twenty years network news has
been intimidated by newtie and rush into
becoming whore houses of right wing propaganda.
the biggest whores are rewarded by being shuttled off to fox.
:0
September 10th, 2009 at 3:32 pmYes.. I see it now, Pat, Sarah Palin and the rest of the great faux news team. Relocate Faux to Texas and kick it out of the Union!
September 10th, 2009 at 3:33 pmStossel’s career HAD to go up from here.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:33 pmWhen all the crazies of the media end up on Fox news, they can have one big circle jerk.
Little Billy O’Reilly will be so happy. He’s hoping they invite their “political consultant”, KKKarl RoverBoy, who brings along Jeff Gannon for a date-night.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:34 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
After a little reading it appears that Stossel’s from the camp that claims a “warmer planet will benefit humanity”. There’s a big problem with that.
Dramatic, rapid, change in climate and/or the chemical composition of the atmosphere and/or oceans have one common effect. Mass extinction.
Most experts agree that we are already in a “mass extinction event”. Mass extinctions are bad. They are especially bad for the “top of the food chain”. We humans are the top of the food chain.
Anyone who claims that a fundamental change in the planet’s chemistry and/or climate will prove beneficial is either dumb as a stump or entirely ignorant of natural history, though the two are not mutually exclusive. It’s as stupid as Raygun’s proclamation that trees cause air pollution.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:35 pmI read somewhere (Al Franken’s books, perhaps) that John Stossel’s contract with ABC forbid any of his colleagues from pointing out inaccuracies (some call them ‘lies’) in any of Stossel’s stories. I doubt he needed such a clause in his contract with Fox News. No one there points out any lies. That would contradict their reason for being.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:38 pmCan I get a boo hoo?……………
Guess not.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:39 pmMisery loves company.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:44 pmI wonder if his mustache will fight with Geraldo’s mustache
September 10th, 2009 at 3:45 pmHas any journalist ever left Fox News Channel to work for ABC, CBS or NBC (or any of their cable counterparts)? I’ve seen a few of ther “consultants” (”experts”, whatever) go from FNC to one of the cable news channels, but I haven’t noticed any journalists (reporters, whatever) do that.
I guess once you establish a career as a reporter on Fox News Channel, it becomes the last major place you work.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:47 pmthey go together like stink and sewage.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:47 pmWhy am I not surprised to see everyone’s favorite racist concern troll back to soil another climate change thread.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:49 pmend of the road for stossel.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:49 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
John Stossel, what a joke. He is #1 not qualified as a scientist #2, isn’t much of a reporter and #3 lives under a rock. Why do people who have no qualifications continue to insist that they know what they are talking about? Using this logic, I could sit on the supreme court as a Constitutional scholar.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:51 pmeasy, they are the same thing. Same with so called independents.
September 10th, 2009 at 3:52 pm***
#22,
right, he moved over to fox news to promote:
legalizing pornography,
marijuana, gambling,
ticket scalping,
prostitution,
homosexual activity,
and assisted suicide,
in addition to his support for almost all forms of abortion in the U.S.
*
we’ll hear a lot of stories on those subjects
when gets there won’t we?
**
btw, the last bullet point ask for a citation,
did you give them one, assho|e?
:)
September 10th, 2009 at 3:54 pmI despise Stossel’s brand of libertarianism. Sure, his stance on social issues is logical…but everything else…
He’ll fit right in with the flat earthers on Fox
September 10th, 2009 at 3:54 pmI ran that through the troll to English translator and got this:
September 10th, 2009 at 3:56 pmJohn Stossel is a Ron Paul supporter and a Bircher.
I hear there is a clause in the contract that forbids Geraldo from sharing the same screen as him. (I hate to be one to further the “single-mustache” conspiracy theory, but what are we to think?)
September 10th, 2009 at 3:58 pm***
#32,
o’reilly claimed in his first
book he wasn’t a conservative.
**
you believe him don’t you?
:)
September 10th, 2009 at 3:59 pm***
#37,
reg,
backup and aaron are getting together and
reworking their talking point memos.
*
this should be fun.
:)
September 10th, 2009 at 4:01 pmWayne, the only moves I know of away from Fox are to the White House. (Perino, Snow)
September 10th, 2009 at 4:03 pmOf course he believes him Joe he’s a f$cking stooge just like the rest of the hired trolls.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:03 pmraynman says:
Fox News:
Where even bad journalists can find a home.
Smiles you are given bad journalst a bad name smiles
there are very bad entertariners.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:04 pmaaronk, MSNBC has Joe in the Morning. Not the lock step democrat you’d imagine at MSNBC.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:05 pmThere are conservative libertarians and there are liberal libertarians. Stossel is unquestionably a conservative libertarian.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:07 pmThanks, Marie. The only Fox News Channel personality that I can envision going to a “less conservative” network would be Shep Smith.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:10 pmWelcome home John.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:13 pmaaronk,
Why can’t Stossel be both a libertarian (a conservative one) and a Republican?
September 10th, 2009 at 4:13 pmWayne. you’re right about Smith. He often looks like he’s not on board with the Fox message.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:15 pmBecause nobody wants to be called a Republican anymore, that is so 2008 and out of style.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:16 pmFox Business Channel is losing money hand over fist. The only reason anyone watches it is because their female anchors all look like high-end cocktail lounge hookers. Putting John Stossel on the payroll will only accelerate their losses.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:16 pmCNBC has better anchors, but their free-market dogma is just as obvious as Fox, and the constant bombardment of screen graphics and sound effects are actually more irritating than Fox.
Stick with Bloomberg and Reuters.
I agree that Stossel is a libertarian.
More specifically he seems to be a social liberal and fiscal conservative.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:17 pm***
#48,
wayne,
before you ask him interesting and provocative
questions like that why don’t you teach him to
sit and roll over first?
*
you’ll have much better luck at that.
:)
September 10th, 2009 at 4:18 pmjoe cantwell,
Well, I know I’d have better luck teaching my cat to sing opera, but I was just curious to know if he knew some reason why Stossel couldn’t be both a Republican and a libertarian. He seemed to imply that this was impossible.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm***
#52,
here’s a space for you to link to every “social liberal”
story or opinion stossel files while he’s at fox: _______.
**
you’ll never fill it up, assho|e.
:\
September 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pmThe people that work at Fox and most networks are not journalists. They are news readers and news commentators. There are few journalists in print or on TV. Most of the people in these so called new organizations get their “news” from the national services with the network’s local reporter if available.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:23 pmOn January 4, 2008, The New York Times, reported that FBN had registered an average of 6,300 viewers, far below Nielsen’s 35,000-viewer threshold. The number was so low that neither Nielsen nor FBN were allowed to confirm the number.
NY Times
September 10th, 2009 at 4:23 pmI can understand that progressives oppose Stossel’s views on Global Warming and his decision to support Fox.
I think it’s fair to point out that in addition to those differences, Stossel holds many progressive positions.
I agree with joe cantwell that Stossel may/will be influenced by Fox management to avoid his more liberal reporting.
It will be interesting to see.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:23 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
***
#54,
wayne,
my cat can sing “aida”.
*
aaron thinks “aida” is what an italian says
when you serve him a bowl of spaghetti.
:0
September 10th, 2009 at 4:25 pmWayne. I think many libertarians lean or also consider themselves Republican. I think that’s true of Stossel.
Do you consider yourself a libertarian and a Democrat?
September 10th, 2009 at 4:26 pm***
#59,
“So?”
*
September 10th, 2009 at 4:28 pmwhat took him so long the Baghdad Bob of network “news.”
September 10th, 2009 at 4:31 pm***
libertarian is what a conservative calls himself
when he’s too ashamed to admit the truth
*
:)
September 10th, 2009 at 4:31 pmbackup,
According to the many times I’ve tested myself on http://www.politicalcompass.org, I am a Liberal Libertarian. I am also an unaffiliated registered voter. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Democratic Party. I vote for them, but I am not one of them.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pmJohn Stossel, a libertarian reporter
If you have ever have read their ‘Statement of Policy’ you would come to the conclusion that it would lead to outright ‘Anarchy’
They appear to be completely devoid of any kind of logical thought what so ever.
CooCoo for LibertarianNutz
September 10th, 2009 at 4:35 pmJoe Cantwell,
That line of reasoning is utter nonsense. The Libertarian platform supports many of the liberal values that some in the Democratic Party and most in the Republican Party have long abandoned.
Let’s hope this party rises to prominence, so we have some common sense in government and a return to Constitutional principles. Any system which has one party is destined to turn into a tyrannical and oppressive regime. Let’s hope that the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party hasten the demise of the Neocons that have grabbed hold of the Republican Party.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:38 pmI disagree. I think a libertarian resists empowering others to limit the rights of individuals.
Limiting abortion means limiting the reproductive rights of women. Making marijuana illegal limits the rights of people to smoke marijuana. Making assisted suicide illegal limits the rights of people to choose to end their lives. Increasing taxes limits the rights of people to spend their money as they see fit.
Libertarian is different than conservative.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:39 pmStossel is was beyond being a Libertarian. He did a piece on the effects of too much salt in your diet and interviewed only those who agreed with him and failed to inverview a spokesman for the American Heart or Kidney Assoc among other main stream organization in an attempt to give the impression that only a few health nut kooks endorse watching your soidum.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:42 pmBuckie Boy,
Then this nation was founded on Anarchy and survived until 1913 in Anarchy. This of course is not true. To undermine states rights and to no longer have any government accountability will lead to the demise of this nation. The principles of Thomas Jefferson are almost identical to the current platform of the Libertarian Party.
This is not a Republican versus Democratic issue. People will always argue about social politics, but economic politics and liberty can find common ground, even amongst Republicans and Democrats.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:42 pmbackup says:
Nice job at diversion bakedup.
This is the topic, Global warming skeptic John Stossel to join Fox News, it’s not a discussion of your personal political beliefs.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:43 pmWhy would anyone in their right mind ever watch Fox News to begin with? Besides Napolitano, everyone there is reading the Neocon script given to him by his master.
It is not news. It is a circus of Neocons getting people with differing opinions on their show and yelling at them. It is opinion and mostly bad opinions, it is not news in the slightest.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:45 pmMikeua.
I agree with what you are saying.
I believe the best thing that could happen for Republicans, would be for them to become less conservative and more libertarian.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:46 pmReggie, you’re right. Stossel is a climate change skeptic.
I’m out.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:48 pmAs long as those Libertarians keep buying my
“Government-Meddling Free” lines of medicine and airplanes,
then not being able to sue me when they don’t work, because of the Reformed Torts,
then they are A-O.K. in my book.
Your fall catalog, featuring lots of new medicines and our brand-new line of helicopters will be in the mailbox soon, Backup. Remember to order spares!!
September 10th, 2009 at 4:48 pmIncreasing taxes limits the rights of people to spend their money as they see fit.
Actually, the fact is that you do not have a “right” to spend your money “any way you see fit.” We have to pay our taxes. I think the difference between liberal libertarians and conservative libertarians is that liberal libertarians understand this, while conservative libertarians don’t.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:49 pmA match made in Heaven, I’m sure.
/sarc
September 10th, 2009 at 4:49 pmWhat is a global warming skeptic? The Earth has heated up approximately 0.7 degrees celsius in the last 100 years. 48% of climatologists believe that solar variation is the main cause, of those who believe global warming is caused by man made CO2 (42% of climatologists), less than 1/3 of that group believe it is catastrophic.
The true criminals are the Rothschild family, Al Gore’s corporation, the Oil Companies, General Electric and all those wealthy elite who will profit from global warming hysteria.
There are actually idiots out there that smear scientists who propose solar variation as being “on the take” from oil companies, when the oil companies will reap huge profits from the hysteria.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:51 pmbackup says:
Libertarian is different than conservative.
Not really. The Libertarians, like conservatives, refuse to believe that an unbridled free market leads to abuses. Their social beliefs are less pernicious.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:52 pmMikeua26 says:
Do you care to explain what happened to all the alpine glaciers?
September 10th, 2009 at 4:53 pmHeh. “Libertarians” are just insecure Republicans who are too ashamed to admit they are, in fact, still Republicans.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:53 pmMikuea: “The true criminals are the Rothschild family, Al Gore’s corporation, the Oil Companies, General Electric and all those wealthy elite who will profit from global warming hysteria.”
Hey, Mik, I’ve got your tin-foil hat right here! It’s a special one, with a propeller on top.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:55 pm***
#71,
reg,
way to call backup out.
it’s always about him.
you’re first person to get him leave
this site with his bu||shit under his arm.
:)
congrats.
. …. ….
#72,
mike if you’re pro-choice then
there’s no place for you at the republican table.
a third party is your best bet.
:)
September 10th, 2009 at 4:55 pmWould you like to backup that assertion with facts from reputable sources that are not financed by special interest groups?
September 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pmthat’s fracking hilarious. I know you didn’t mean for it to be but it is.
gees, I just can’t stop laughing at that. I hear it a lot these days and it always cracks me up.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pmI long for the days, not that long ago, when TV news reported news and left the advocacy to others. The sad fact is that, once a “reporter” advocates a position? Their contributions become suspect. Once one can identify the political affiliation of a “reporter”? The very “facts” they report become suspect.
That’s why I refuse to subscribe to cable until such time as I can exclude the cable “news” channels from the package. I’ll be damned if I’ll pay one cent to people who lie for a living.
NOTE: There are cable “news” personalities who rise above it but, none of the “news” networks regularly display enough journalistic integrity to get my dollars.
September 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pmjoe cantwell says:
I think he learned a lesson Sunday afternoon when he accused me of showing up loaded for bear, claimed victory and left.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:00 pmThe climate has been changing for millions of years. So.
I don’t care how many trees you cut down to print more dollars, nothing can stop the climate from changing.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:01 pmYou mean those 98% who agree that there is anthropogenic climate warming, who have “ganged up” to smear the 2% who don’t?
That’s like saying “the jury’s still out on this Bigfoot thing” because there are still 3-4 Anthropologists at Universities claiming it’s possible.
Want to buy some Ghost Insurance? My premiums are the lowest you’ll find!!!!
September 10th, 2009 at 5:03 pmstossel gets gangster slapped on tv
You got to see this
September 10th, 2009 at 5:04 pmkws – I can tell you’re as well-versed in the Sciences as you are in History and Politics.
That’s really something.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:04 pmpete says:
That’s why I refuse to subscribe to cable until such time as I can exclude the cable “news” channels from the package. I’ll be damned if I’ll pay one cent to people who lie for a living.
Sorry to burst your bubble but your local cable company pays next to nothing to carry cable news stations. These news stations get most of their money from advertising. Companies pay big ad dollars to make sure you see their ads.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:05 pmkwsventures and you just get dumber and more petulant every day. Wish I could do something about that but you hide like a little baby boy and pretend to be relevant.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:05 pmReggie,
I am an economist not a climatologist. I have a colleague in the Physics department here who showed me the NASA satellite images comparing polar ice from 2003 to 2007, and you could clearly see the decrease, then from 2007 to 2008 you can that it all returned. I will find the study. It was specifically geared towards climatologists only and the study was performed by two german climatologists. Look here later, I will post it for you.
Meanwhile here are a bunch of peer reviewed white papers on climate change, most of them are interesting. You can look them up, many are readily available to read online or available for download.
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice (Nature 316, 591 – 596, 15 August 1985) – C. Lorius, C. Ritz, J. Jouzel, L. Merlivat, N. I. Barkov
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates (Science, vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1257 – 1266, 14 November 1997) – Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani
A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate (Science, vol. 294. no. 5546, pp. 1431 – 1433, 16 November 2001) – Richard A. Kerr
Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic (Science, vol. 301. no. 5641, pp. 1890 – 1893, 26 September 2003) – Feng Sheng Hu, Darrell Kaufman, Sumiko Yoneji, David Nelson, Aldo Shemesh, Yongsong Huang, Jian Tian, Gerard Bond, Benjamin Clegg, Thomas Brown
Decadal to millennial cyclicity in varves and turbidites from the Arabian Sea: hypothesis of tidal origin (Global and Planetary Change, vol. 34, issues 3-4, Pages 313-325, November 2002) – W. H. Bergera, U. von Rad
Late Holocene approximately 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications (Geology, vol. 26; no. 5; pp. 471-473, May 1998) – Ian D. Campbell, Celina Campbell, Michael J. Apps, Nathaniel W. Rutter, Andrew B. G. Bush
Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model (Nature 438, 208-211, 10 November 2005) – Holger Braun, Marcus Christl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Andrey Ganopolski, Augusto Mangini, Claudia Kubatzki, Kurt Roth, Bernd Kromet
The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 97, no. 8, 3814-3819, April 11, 2000) – Charles D. Keeling, Timothy P. Whorf
September 10th, 2009 at 5:06 pmReggie, Here are a few more papers on climate variation:
The origin of the 1500-year climate cycles in Holocene North-Atlantic records (Climate of the Past Discussions, vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 679-692, 2007) – M. Debret, V. Bout-Roumazeilles, F. Grousset, M. Desmet, J. F. McManus, N. Massei, D. Sebag, J.-R. Petit, Y. Copard, A. Trentesaux
Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 30, no. 10, 2003) – Stefan Rahmstorf
Timing of Millennial-Scale Climate Change in Antarctica and Greenland During the Last Glacial Period (Science, vol. 291, issue 5501, pp. 109-112, 2001) – Thomas Blunier, Edward J. Brook
Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14,000 yr (Geology, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 455-458, May 2002) – André E. Viau, Konrad Gajewski, Philippe Fines, David E. Atkinson, Michael C. Sawada
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (Energy & Environment, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 439-468, 1 September 1999) – Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Global warming (Progress in Physical Geography, 27, pp. 448-455, 2003) – W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable (American Geophysical Society, vol. 80, pp. 183-187, April 20, 1999) – S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, L05204, 2004) – A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future (Physical Geography, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007) – Soon, Willie
September 10th, 2009 at 5:08 pmYes Mikeua,
we’re aware that papers get published.
But that doesn’t change the big picture.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:08 pmReally?
The Larsen B Ice Shelf just grew right back?
September 10th, 2009 at 5:10 pmFred:
September 10th, 2009 at 5:10 pmkwsmisadventures is good at dishing out opinion and talking points, but he never seems to have any reputable sources to backup his claims.
Glad he’s leaving ABC. Welcome to Fox.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pm***
#90,
fred,
they may not agree on whether wrestling
is fake or not but i bet they agree that global warming is.
:)
btw, here’s the longer version,
stick around for the segment
where barbara walters inteviews him.
:|
September 10th, 2009 at 5:14 pm***
#99,
bend over and
spread your cheeks
when you say that.
:0
September 10th, 2009 at 5:16 pmReggie,
It is called “Scientific Consenus on Global Warming” here is a blurb about the report. Let me know if you need more info.
This booklet summarizes the results of international surveys of climate scientists conducted in 1996 and 2003 by two German environmental scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch. Bray is a research scientist at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany. Von Storch is a climatology professor at the University of Hamburg and director of the Institute of Coastal Research.
More than 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries provided numerical answers each time the survey was conducted. All responses were anonymous. The same questions were asked each time the survey was conducted, plus an additional 32 questions were asked in 2003. The 2003 survey was conducted online. Notice of the survey was posted in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and on the Climlist server (Climlist is a moderated international electronic mail distribution list for climatologists and those working in closely related fields). Notices also were sent to institutional lists in Germany, Denmark, and the U.K. The survey was password protected to ensure that scientists in climate-related fields were the only ones with access to it.
The surveys presented dozens of assertions regarding climate change and asked respondents to give a numerical score, on a scale of 1 to 7, indicating the extent to which the respondents agreed or disagreed with each assertion. The entire results of both surveys can be found online at a site created and maintained by Bray and von Storch. The average responses to every question in both the 1996 and 2003 surveys are reported in the appendix of this booklet. This is all valuable and accurate data, of course, but it can be difficult for a layperson to interpret.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:20 pmGlobal warming skeptic John Stossel to join Fox News.
You mean they haven’t been paying him to be a fool all these years he’s been on ABC.
I wonder if Beck recruited him?
September 10th, 2009 at 5:22 pmThere’s a big problem with “solar variation”. Mostly because solar output is at an, at least, 50 year low after the latest twelve year downward trend. If solar variation was at play we would expect temps to lower when, in fact, 8 of the warmest years on record have occurred in those same twelve years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
NOTE: There are numerous sources of greater depth that confirm the findings in the two articles I’ve linked but, these two really stand out for their brevity.
BTW. Winter ice is not the same as permanent ice. The losses from the polar icecap would take decades, if not centuries, to replace even if we saw a reverse of recent climate trends.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:22 pmMikeua:
S. Fred Singer funding from special interests connected to big oil.SOURCEWATCH.ORG
S. L. Baliunas signed the infamous ORIGON PETITION, so he is not a credible
September 10th, 2009 at 5:26 pmsource.
I meant what I said, pags2. I refuse to give a cent directly to cable news, or even a tenth of a cent. I don’t give a rip at how little my local provider passes on to them. They ain’t getting it from me.
Plus, I’m not a big consumer and, aside from late night fast food commercials, I can’t recall a single instance where I saw an ad and went out to buy the product.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:29 pmTomBaker
I’ve learned not to waste my time on those who are dogmatic. I prefer to speak to someone who is seeking the truth and not a sock puppet, like Reggie.
I turned to the experts, listened and read both sides of the debate. If you are using an Inconvenient Truth as your basis of fact, there are at least 64 scientific inaccuracies which have been demonstrated. In fact 11 have been acknowledged in British court. It is now illegal for a teacher to show this film to students in British schools without a disclaimer that it is political propaganda and citing the 11 false statements from the movie in question. As was pointed out to me by my Physicist friends, there are more than 11 falsehoods.
I was impartial and unbiased going in to this. It is clear that there is no consensus, and if this were a true calamity, we would be investigating other lines of research.
GE will be one of the biggest profiteers of climate alarmism, and they own NBC. The Rotschild empire will be another profiteer of this hysteria and they own a huge chunk of CBS. Do you think you will ever get impartial reporting on global temperature research from either CBS or NBC?
Do the research. Don’t drink the Kool Aid. Scrutinize everything you read and follow the money. When you dig down deep, the political and economic ramifications of this hysteria are a heinous attack on the poor and for the benefit of the wealthy.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:32 pmIf you gentlemen are really interested in this topic, I can ask my colleagues from the Physics department and those who are climatologists to answer your questions.
They will be gone in a flash if you are rude and there is the usual name calling and vulgarity that is frequently found here. If there is genuine and sincere interest I can arrange for them to answer questions in one of forums tomorrow or perhaps on Monday.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pmIf only he’d take Jake Tapper and Terry Moran with him.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:36 pmStefan Rahmstorf is in a league of his own, there are four pages of articles at Realclimate that show him to have no credibility at all.
That must explain why he is so often quoted by Glen Crybaby Beck
September 10th, 2009 at 5:39 pmMikeua26 says:
September 10th, 2009 at 5:40 pmI already have debunked three of your sources, how many more to I have to do before you stop spamming this thread with denial nonsense?
Reggie,
It is interesting that you mentioned S.Fred Singer. I read what you read a while ago, and found out that it is simply not true. He has no connection to the oil industry. I understand he is in the process of litigation, which he will probably win. And if it were true, it would not explain the 100 other scientists white papers I have read, who are not involved but big oil. Let me reiterate, he is not involved with big oil and his name was dragged through the mud by industrial robber baron profiteers.
Besides if he was on the side of big oil, he would a man-made global warming hysteric.
It also does not explain the gentlemen whose research Al Gore’s movie and book is based on reversing his position and saying that man made CO2 is not catastrophic, or a cause for alarm. However he holds firm to his postion that is has contributed to warming.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:44 pmWould someone tell Stossel that climate is always changing? The climate is dynamic, not static. There are certainly regions that are warming, whether he likes it or not.
I haven’t seen the actual (numerical) data that supports global warming the global warming thesis, but I’ve seen enough data from this continent to support the notion. The only question, in a sense, is how much of that warming is attributable to anthropogenic sources and what comes from other phenomena.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:46 pmMy friend you have debunked nothing, if you knew that you were a stooge of big oil, General Electric, The United Nations, the IMF, The Rotschild Group and a host of other robber barons you would be in dismay.
You’ve done no research. You have spoken to no scientists directly. You have only gotten opinions of those who were paid and have vested interests in the carbon tax scam.
Meanwhile our pressing environmental issues have been ignored since the Bush administration.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:47 pmThe fact of the matter is that there’s not a single scientific body of national, or international, standing that denies the consensus on global warming. These groups include the American Association of Petroleum Geologists! And, virtually all of the individual “skeptics” can be traced to the energy industry, religious groups, or the GOP.
There’s plenty of room to debate what actions can and should be taken but denying the existence of global warming, or man’s contribution, flies in the face of all the relevant data.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:51 pmStossel should be very much at home on Fux.
What took him so long?
September 10th, 2009 at 5:54 pmMikeua26 says:
Why don’t you STFU and spend a few days reading from this site, HOW TO TALK TO A CLIMATE DENIER.
It breaks down everyone of your astro-turf talk points one by one with links sources.
I recommend everyone add this site to your bookmarks.
September 10th, 2009 at 5:54 pmHere’s a link to a very clear, concise, summary of climate data, Virtual Pebble.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
September 10th, 2009 at 5:55 pmSo the Larsen B Ice Shelf did grow back, like you said?
September 10th, 2009 at 6:18 pmFirst of all, Stossel is as insane as Beck, and not just on climate change.
Second, what’s all this BS about solar variation. Does the term “global dimming”ring a bell ?
The fact is, humans have spewed so many particulates into the
atmosphere, that the planet now recieves signifigantly less
solar radiation than it used to.
So logically, reduced radiation should result in a cooler
September 10th, 2009 at 6:33 pmEarth, unless of course, something else is affecting the climate.
Mikeua26 says:
If you gentlemen are really interested in this topic, I can ask my colleagues from the Physics department and those who are climatologists to answer your questions.
They will be gone in a flash if you are rude and there is the usual name calling and vulgarity that is frequently found here. If there is genuine and sincere interest I can arrange for them to answer questions in one of forums tomorrow or perhaps on Monday.
Oh, the poor dears! Just have them address the points that are debunked in Reggie’s link.
If they can, that is. Also, ask them about the melting of methane clathrates. Cause for alarm, or not?
September 10th, 2009 at 6:37 pmReggie. I’ll take a crack at this one from your link:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/arctic-sea-ice-recovered-in-2008.php
The author claims that although the ice extent was recovering in 2008, it was still 2.24 million square kilometers below average.
Here’s the recent extent from 2009, up from 4.5 million square kilometers to 6.3 million; almost average:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/image_select.html
The obvious question from skeptics: If we are experiencing significant warming, why are we at level of ice extent in 2009 that is close to average for the last 30 years?
September 10th, 2009 at 6:49 pmI’m not sure if it will link to April 2009, but if you scroll thru it appears that this spring, ice was at the median level.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/image_select.html
If global warming proponents use ice extent to support their position, Arctic ice extents like April 2009 at the very least water down the argument. (pun not intended).
It’s hard to get alarmed by average extents.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:10 pmThanks for the link, b-kup. I followed one of the links on the homepage and found this bit:
Atmospheric circulation patterns in August helped spread out sea ice, slowing ice loss in most regions of the Arctic. NSIDC scientists expect to see the minimum ice extent for the year in the next few weeks. While this year’s minimum ice extent will probably not reach the record low of 2007, it remains well below normal: average ice extent for August 2009 was the third-lowest in the satellite record. Ice extent has now fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the third-lowest extent in the satellite record.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
September 10th, 2009 at 7:18 pmbackedup:
Why don’t you grow up and get a life, you come here to play your childish games and I am not going to play it your way your way.
You focus one one minute detail and you get everyone here distracted and then you slowly make the thread all about you.
Did you even bother checking out this site?
How to talk to a climate denier
If you weren’t too lazy to have visited that site, you would have found that topic covered in the 2nd link in section 2.
When you had your little hissy fit Sunday, you accused me of coming loaded for bear.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:18 pmTonight I brought a howitzer and will not take prisoners!
The sea ice animation tool can also be used to show Antarctic ice from 1978-2009.
(change hemisphere to Southern)
I went thru it a couple of times. The extent of the ice there seems relatively stable (average) throughout that time period.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:21 pmFrom the same source:
August 2009 compared to past years
Arctic sea ice extent for August 2009 was the third lowest August since 1978, continuing the downward trend observed over the last three decades. Only 2007 and 2008 had lower ice extent during August. The long-term trend indicates a decline of 8.7% per decade in August ice extent since 1979.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:24 pmpete. I agree we are still less than average, but the closer the value gets to average the less convincing that measure is.
I think that warming proponents understandably grabbed on to the 2007 data, because it looked very bad. But the large gains in extent since, in 2008 and 2009, mitigate the significance.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:24 pm126
September 10th, 2009 at 7:24 pmWhat part of overwhelming preponderance of the evidence don’t you get Captain Mantastic?
Reggie, I appreciate your bluster. ; )
September 10th, 2009 at 7:25 pmReggie. Of course I checked out your link. My post back at #122 links back to your link. (check it out).
September 10th, 2009 at 7:28 pm2009 Second Warmest July on Record Globally, according to NASA
September 10th, 2009 at 7:29 pmbackup says:
September 10th, 2009 at 7:32 pmYou think know better than thousands of scientists throughout the world who have determined that Climate Change is real.
I am not playing your disingenuous troll games anymore.
Reggie, don’t play.
Proponents have made the argument that the ice is melting.
My point is that if you look at the ice extents for both the northern and southern hemisphere with the exception of the summer of 2007 in the Arctic, it doesn’t seem that significant:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/image_select.html
check it out for yourself and explain how I’m wrong.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:35 pmCaptain Mantastic:
Here you go again, you are being myopic and focusing on one issue as if somehow that will prove that there is no climate change
.
You do that every time you get into troll mode.
Grow up and get a life!
September 10th, 2009 at 7:39 pmThere are a number of dynamics that differ between the Arctic and Antarctic. Mostly it’s due to the land mass of Antarctica which, somewhat, mitigates the effects of rising ocean temperatures. BTW, average ocean surface temperature was the highest ever recorded back in July.
Part of it is also dependent on snowfall. A warmer atmosphere takes up more moisture and it’s then deposited in Antarctica. Much of this snow falls on land where, unlike Arctic snowfall, it’s not lost to warm water. There are other dynamics involved but that’s the big one.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:41 pmAre you a scientist?
Did you measure the amount of ice mass and then do a valid mathematical test to determine whether or not that the change was statistically significant?
Did you factor in ice thickness?
Or are you just stating your own opinion?
September 10th, 2009 at 7:45 pmAlas, Reggie, it appears that our worthy opponent can’t see the difference between a continuing 30 year trend and the moments where conditions fall outside the line.
BTW. !978 was not a high point, it’s just the first year for which they have comprehensive satellite coverage.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:49 pmpete says:
You raised a very interesting point when you mentioned that warmer air temperatures in the Antarctic may lead to more snowfall and a temporary slowdown in the loss of ice mass.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:50 pmThen there’s the shrinking mountain glaciers, the disruption of migration routes, the change in range of species towards the poles, ocean surface temperatures, and this year’s pesky global average temperature which may not match 1998 but looks like it will exceed every other year on record.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:52 pmThe whole subject is fascinating, Reggie. And there’s so much data that an amateur like myself could spend several lifetimes pouring over it.
Personally, I noticed something was going on long before anyone coined the phrase “global warming”. I’m an avid outdoors man who lives at the border of two bio-zones and have a wealth of personal observations that strongly support the data. It’s only in the last couple decades that several “Southern” species, like opossum, have invaded the North. Others that were once checked by winter are now becoming pests.
Those, and countless little things, were observations that only make sense in the light of the “new” climate data.
September 10th, 2009 at 8:00 pmpete says:
Twenty Five ago I took a college course third year course in climatology. The professor was one of the first to teach what at that time was termed global warming. At the time the talk was of a mini ice age.
September 10th, 2009 at 8:13 pmAs a child I heard stories about the Rum-runners driving trucks across the Detroit River and it amazed me because by the late seventies, I wouldn’t walk out five feet onto what little ice there was because it was moving downriver at a brisk pace.
Even by the late seventies it was no longer possible to make natural ice rinks near Detroit. Instead of having sub zero temperatures for many weeks at a time, the rinks where gone in a matter of days. Where I live, they even had to cover the refrigerated outdoor rink because it wasn’t practical to have outdoor rinks.
Reggie,
I lived on a Minnesota lake for most of my life and kept a journal of first freeze, first ice, maximum ice thickness, and ice-out.
As a youth, I could count on going ice-fishing during the Thanksgiving break from school and would be driving on the ice well before Christmas. Safe ice, in the last ten years or so, has been well into December and, that same lake, has thin spots that persist through winter. Ice-out is also a week or so earlier.
September 10th, 2009 at 8:21 pmPete:
September 10th, 2009 at 8:31 pmThey used to grow a lot of winter wheat in this area but not anymore. The farmers have lost too many crops due to warm winters and lack of snow cover.
Snowmobiles were a big thing here thirty years ago. Now if you own one, you’re going to have to head north and go to the snow belt near Lake Huron.
You know what bothers me as much as those who outright deny the data are those who think we can’t make a change. I’ve seen superfund sites restored. I’ve seen the Great Lakes go from cesspools back to thriving fisheries. I’ve seen bald eagles become common once again. I’ve seen Peregrine falcons come back from local extirpation.
When we humans follow our best minds we can do some wondrous things. And, often, it’s as simple as changing some relatively small thing.
We humans face a great challenge. We need to change what we burn, how we burn it, and why. I think we’re up to the challenge but a bunch of screeching fools keep muddying the water over politics and petty bickering. But that’s been the case before every fundamental change in human history.
September 10th, 2009 at 8:32 pmI don’t think there’s an honest “Northerner” who can’t see the same changes, Reggie. Snowmobile sales have gone down while trailer sales have spiked because enthusiasts need to track down the snow they once took for granted. And lots of local ice rinks have stopped trying.
September 10th, 2009 at 8:41 pmpete says:
September 10th, 2009 at 8:43 pmExactly:
It is not impossible to make changes.
I remember when Lake Erie was considered dead due to eutrophication. Just by eliminating phosphates in detergent the lake came back to life.
The fisheries were in Lake St Clair due to mercury contamination due to the petrochemical plants on the St Clair River. Since the plants came under stricter environmental laws the mercury levels in fish have dropped significantly.
They certainly have cleaned up the air around Detroit, at one time if you were 20 miles outside the city, you could see a brownish haze on windless, days and the sunsets were always red because of sulfur dioxide.
correction: fisheries were closed in Lake St Clair…
September 10th, 2009 at 8:47 pmThat’s what ABC gets for sticking with Stossel even after his nutbag bias became apparent. Fox is the perfect place for him. At least we’ll know where he is.
September 10th, 2009 at 8:49 pmReggie:
Lake Erie is one of the biggest success stories in the history of environmental regulation. Michigan, one of the best trout and salmon fisheries on earth, was nearly as dramatic a turn around. And yet? So many can’t, or won’t, see it.
Heck! We’ve also made progress on acid rain and particulate emissions. Environmental lead levels are showing the gains from going to unleaded gasoline and, though it’s speculative, there are researchers that make a connection between lowering lead rates and the decline in violent crime rates over the last few decades.
And, of course, the skeptics will continue to say we can’t do this or that. Human history argues against them.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:01 pmThe naysayers also fail to consider that new energy technology results in new profit streams. It wasn’t that long ago that the coal industry tried to say that petroleum would never be a viable fuel. And we still tend to overlook the value of natural gas.
If big energy were smart they would be investing huge amounts in hydrogen, solar, wind, and even some of the newer theoretical methods of producing nuclear energy. Which, of course, they are but they seem to invest at least as much to fight ANY change in energy production.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:08 pmPete:
Many of these improvements ended up having positive financial benefits due to improved health and living conditions.
Its unfortunate that we live in a time when we can no longer count on the media to be telling the truth.
This whole “fair and balanced” myth is the problem. We don’t need to hear both sides of the story, what we need is honest accurate reporting based on the best information attainable.
Look at what is reported here regarding special interests funding this so called grassroots movement, the news has become spin city.
Take backup as an example, it only takes one troll like him to disrupt a thread, even though it is obvious he doesn’t have a clue. I am mad as hell and am not going to allow him to disrupt another thread on climate change or racism.
Living outside Detroit all my life, I have seen too racism that sickened me and I have zero tolerance for any type of xenophobia.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:18 pmPete:
I am starting to make too many typos, this should have been the last sentence of my previous post:
Living outside Detroit all my life, I have seen too much racism that sickened me and I now have zero tolerance for any type of racism or xenophobia.
It was nice chatting with you but it time to get offline and make a late dinner.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:31 pmGood night.
That may be what pisses me off the most, Reggie. The way that the screechers refuse to even consider the benefits of, for lack of a better word, progress. Whether its health care reform, race relations, or environmental regulation, the same cowards “just say no”.
I’ll paraphrase Bill Maher:
“Both sides don’t deserve a hearing if one side is BS”.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:38 pmG’night, Reggie. It’s been a pleasure.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:38 pmRaised in the 60’s;
No news, in the spectre of idols Huntly & Brikley, and Cronkite;
Hypnotized by the spell of the courageous star, of Edward R. Murrow, ever shining brightly in the distinctive, sparkling Democratic constellations above!
Entertain me with humor!
Delight me with freedom!!
September 10th, 2009 at 10:07 pm@ 118, pete says: Here’s a link to a very clear, concise, summary of climate data, Virtual Pebble.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
September 10th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
thanks, pete, I’ll take a look at that.
at the moment, I’m crunching my way through the NOAA historical data set (just appeasing my inner quant). that data set has pretty good month-by-month max, min and median numericals from observer data going back to the mid-1800s;
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/
September 11th, 2009 at 1:00 amThis is great. All the hateful, right wing, extremist, dirtbags like John Stossel are being funneled into the FOX Network toilet. We can get rid of all them with one flush.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:26 amThis is good, corral all the traitorous talking heads into one vehicle and then drive that vehicle over the cliff. Which will be the place they eventually drive themselves. But we can help push them faster.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:20 amI am sorry delafield. I did not even read any of the comments, and just went to the end to post my thoughts. Wow, great minds think alike.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:21 amReggie says:
Pete:
Many of these improvements ended up having positive financial benefits due to improved health and living conditions.
Its unfortunate that we live in a time when we can no longer count on the media to be telling the truth.
This whole “fair and balanced” myth is the problem. We don’t need to hear both sides of the story, what we need is honest accurate reporting based on the best information attainable.
We are receiving the BUSH-CHENEY’ing of our media. They pick and chose what “intelligence/information to listen to, and it got them into a Multi-Trillion dollar war that Cheney has made millions if not Billions from.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:43 amStossel and Fox, perfect match. Like dumb and dumbest.
September 11th, 2009 at 10:28 pmThank you for your sharing.!
September 13th, 2009 at 11:10 amCertainly though Fox is a more appropriate home for someone like Stossel. He was a fish out of water at ABC given the raving climate lunatics they are estetik burun ameliyati
September 16th, 2009 at 8:49 am