Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

New media same as the old media. Politico pimps global cooling for Hill deniers

Posted on  

"New media same as the old media. Politico pimps global cooling for Hill deniers"

Share:

google plus icon

If you like the old media’s misreporting on climate (see “The NYT blows the bark beetle story” and so does NBC), then you’ll love this whopper from the Politico, “Scientists urge caution on global warming,” which opens:

Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.

Growing accumulation? Too shaky? An entire piece on climate science that never actually talks to one single reputable climate scientist?

Even as pure political reporting, the piece is beneath rank amateurish — as if climate change deniers on the Hill are “quietly” doing anything.

Has the reporter, Erika Lovley (sic), been following this issue for more than a week? Note to Ms. Lovley: The deniers on the Hill have been shouting their disinformation for years. Try listening to the recent Senate climate bill debate (see “Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 6: What the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill debate tells us“).

This piece wins the 2008 prize for a press release masquerading as journalism – a tough category to win given the competition: NYT suckered by ExxonMobil in puff piece titled “Green is for Sissies.”

Even by old media’s standards, the story is laughable. It is built around “Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists” who are pushing the “global cooling theory” (aka well-debunked denier talking point numero uno, see links below).

Note to Ms. Lovley: D’Aleo holds no doctorate in any scientific discipline. Whether holding a Masters in meteorology qualifies in general as being a scientist I will leave to others, but meteorologists should not simply be treated or quoted as experts on climate (see “Are meteorologists climate experts?“).

Here’s where the Politico jumps the shark into the territory best left to The Onion. The story actually builds its case around D’Aleo’s article in that well-known, highly credible, peer-reviewed scientific climate journal, The 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac.

You can’t make this stuff up. Well, maybe you can’t, but deniers can. They can make stuff up, print it in places like the Almanac, and then get “media” outlets like the Politico to regurgitate it wholesale:

Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 – which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions.

Data from the same source shows that during five of the past seven decades, including this one, average U.S. temperatures have gone down. And the almanac predicted that the next year will see a period of cooling.

We’re worried that people are too focused on carbon dioxide as the culprit,” D’Aleo said. “Recent warming has stopped since 1998, and we want to stop draconian measures that will hurt already spiraling downward economics.”

You might think even a pseudo-serious new media journalist publishing such claptrap would bother to, say, ask even one real scientists at NASA GISS what he or she thinks their data says or, if that’s too much of an imposition on the reporter’s precious time, how about spending one minute on Google to see what the prolific head of GISS has written (see “Hansen throws cold water on cooling climate claim“).

The story grudgingly notes “The National Academy of Sciences and most major scientific bodies agree that global warming is caused by man-made carbon emissions.” But the Politico apparently doesn’t know the difference between the National Academy of Sciences and the widely discredited Global Warming Petition Project (aka the “Oregon Petition”), since it gives the latter more ink.

Modern journalists from traditional media have for years made the mistake of balancing stories on the reality of accelerating human-caused global warming with a quote or two from deniers, though some are starting to do that less. The Politico’s 1980s-style reporting manages to cite multiple deniers, including Patrick Michaels from the right-wing Cato Insitute and a staffer from lead Senate denier James Inhofe (R-OK), but then doesn’t bother to quote a single climate scientist in opposition.

Indeed, Ms. Lovley treats those who understand the actual state of climate science as if they are the ones in the dwindling minority, ending with these two paragraphs:

Despite the growing science [!!!], the world’s leading crusader on climate change, Al Gore, is unconcerned.

“Climate deniers fall into the same camp as people who still don’t believe we landed on the moon,” said the former vice president’s spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider. “We don’t think this should distract us from the reality.”

Has your head exploded yet?

Note to Ms. Lovley: Why call up Gore’s office to respond to scientific disinformation? You do understand the difference between scientists and non-scientists, don’t you?

Some of you who aren’t political junkies may be wondering what the frig the Politico is anyway. Their mission statement from January 2007 says

The Politico’s goals are simple. Over the past several weeks, we set out to assemble the most talented and interesting collection of journalists – established names as well as promising young people — that we could find. Now, we will turn these reporters loose on the subject we love: national politics….

The traditional newspaper story is written with austere, voice-of-God detachment. These newspaper conventions tend to muffle personality, humor, accumulated insight — all the things readers hunger for as they try to make sense of the news and understand what politicians are really like. Whenever we can, we’ll push against these limits.

Yes, who needs those tired old conventions of the traditional newspaper — accuracy, checking sources, not getting suckered by one side to print stuff that isn’t true, possibly having even one editor overseeing cub reporters who has the tiniest amount of knowledge or judgment on the story….

But wait, the Politico claims:

There is more need than ever for reporting that presents the news fairly, not through an ideological prism. One of the most distressing features of public life recently has been the demise of shared facts. Warring partisans — many of whom take their news from sources that cater to and amplify their existing opinions — live in separate zones of reality. In such a climate, every news story is viewed as either weapon or shield in a nonstop ideological war. Our answer to this will be journalism that insists on the primacy of facts over ideology.

Hey, that credo almost lasted a full two years!!

I actually got a call about this story from a leading print reporter expressing disbelief and asking me if I was going to write something about it since he/she can’t do that sort of thing. I said I was going to call for the reporter’s firing, but he/she said not to do that in this economic climate.

Fine. If you don’t fire her, pull her from the environmental/energy beat and put a senior reporter on writing the real story of climate science on the Hill. Heck, instead of interviewing the deniers, who after all seem to be losing political strength in recent elections, why not talk to those who have been gaining strength in recent elections. Maybe the public knows something you don’t.

Related Posts:

« »

36 Responses to New media same as the old media. Politico pimps global cooling for Hill deniers

  1. Modesty says:

    There’s a companion piece.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15931.html

    Note the ending.

    I’m thinking these two articles really have got to be a joke. Maybe Erika can drop by to reassure us that’s the case.

  2. Jfk says:

    Read it this morning near the Capitol after picking up the Politico for free from a street corner box, and wondered for half a second whether anybody on my lobbying rounds among new Hill staffers would take this to heart? But thought…nah. Does anybody take this rag seriously…besides Inhofe and maybe some goofy Coburn staffers?

    By the way, what’s “new media” doing in corner bin alongside the Pennysaver? It’s a joke paper with barely even Republican cred. As the Joker says, “If you are good at something, never do it for free.”

    Unless…um…if you write a damn great blog like this one, Joe!

  3. Alan says:

    Nice takedown.

  4. Richard says:

    I sent Erika this note… In which I make an effort to be less condescending than usual… taking my mother’s advice to heart (about catching flies with honey, and all that…)

    I’ll report back if she responds.

    Hi Erika…

    I have a degree in journalism — and a couple of writing awards — so I know how tough your job can be.

    But I also have a degree in science, and I write for environmental publications and an environmental web site, so I can tell you in all honesty… You’ve been duped. Global warming, or climate change, isn’t a theory, it’s a scientific fact — as solid as the fact that cigarettes cause cancer. Global warming is happening now, and it’s going to change the world.

    That means you’ve written the journalistic equivalent of an article claiming that smoking is harmless and fun.

    You’re not the first to be fooled. There is an entire denial industry — funded by big oil companies — that are trying to muddy the waters so we don’t enact tough climate legislation. It’s a devious marketing ploy called astroturfing, and it comes from the big tobacco playbook. This link provides some background.

    http://www.anythingbutconservative.com/astroturfing.html

    In a nutshell, with one or two exceptions, anyone who denies climate change isn’t a climate scientist. Their agreement is virtually unanimous. Joseph D’Aleo isn’t a climate scientist, he’s a meteorologist (who doesn’t have a doctorate) and who hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed article in any reputable scientific journal. He’s misrepresented the climate data, and fed you an unfortunate series of lies — all easily proven as false — and you’ve published them and served his agenda.

    So please… Talk to a real climate scientist like Dr. Jim Hansen or Dr. Andrew Weaver before publishing something that is so misleading and wrong.

    I’d be happy to discuss this matter with you in greater detail via email, if you’re interested in learning more about a serious and frightening issue.

  5. James Warhol says:

    Richard above is an arrogant pr*ck whose writing awards were likely made with his very own crayons. (What awards, Richard? Please, impress us, you big strong man.) Climate Progress is not only terrified of dissent, it is committed to silencing anyone who disagrees.

    [JR: I am committed to putting people who swear on permanent moderation.]

  6. Craig KravetZ says:

    You wouldn’t need to yell so loud and attack the journalist if you had fact on your side.
    If you were absolutley correct, you would present your data and call for a national debate to end to controversy so we could get on to saving the planet.

    But you don’t,

    So you can’t be taken seriously.

  7. WJ says:

    How is man-made global warming the same thing as climate change? Can someone explain how these two phrases can accurately be used interchangeably?

    The climate is always changing as has always been changing for the entire billions of years existence of the Earth’s atmosphere. The temperature has gone up and has gone down, you all agree with this right?

    When the temperature went down during the thousands of years of a glacial period, you would call that “climate change”, right?

  8. joletaxi says:

    Sorry, mais un tel article ne mérite pas que je m’efforce de vous adresser mon commentaire en anglais.
    La sciences n’est pas une religion, encore moins une question de “majorité”.
    Votre attitude ne peut que renforcer les doutes sur la validité de vos arguments.
    @Richard
    Hansen? n’est -ce pas ce grand scientifique qui vient de se rendre ridicule en essayant de nous “vendre” le mois d’octobre 2008 les plus chaud de la décennie?Un copain au bon “docteur Mann”,?

    Bien à vous

  9. thingsbreak says:

    WJ:

    Global warming and climate change describe two distinct but sometimes overlapping phenomena. As it’s commonly used, global warming refers to the observed warming of a planet (increase of the global mean temp), climate change means altering the distribution, “shape”, intensity, and duration of climate norms.

    Our emissions-driven alteration of the planetary energy balance is increasing the mean temperature of the planet which is changing the climate (dry areas are becoming more prone to drought, flood prone areas receiving more precipitation, colder areas becoming arable, etc.). Global warming can be non-anthropogenic (e.g. what will happen when the sun expands) and climate change can be non-anthropogenic but warming (e.g. Permian extinction), and non-warming but anthropogenic (e.g. nuclear winter). Anthropogenic global warming and anthropogenic climate change both describe what is occurring.

    Take a look a Luthi et al. 2008 for some perspective on how we’re pushing the atmosphere beyond anything seen for at least the last 800,000 years (and probably the last 2 million).

  10. Brian Cain says:

    Dear Joe Rohmm,

    It is with great comic relief that we apostates to your new “All-Encompassing Religion” get to observe your fanatic, and mostly hateful responses to we critics. I hold true believers like yourself with more pity than contempt, but there is some of that as well.

    I am of the view that people like yourself have a mental disorder and are in real need of an intervention, so that you can lead a normal life, without being swept away with such utter and complete nonsense!

    Brian Cain

  11. WJ says:

    thingsbreak:

    Thank you for taking the time to offer up an explanation. Just a few comments/questions back at you to see if I understand.
    1) anthropogenic basically means man-made and/or humans are the main causal factor?
    2) you write “climate change means altering the distribution, “shape”, intensity, and duration of climate norms”. How long is a certain climate in existence that it can be classified a norm? For example, aren’t we in an interglacial period that began about 15,000 years ago? Wouldn’t the change into a interglacial period be called climate change?
    3) Wouldn’t man-made global warming be a subset of climate change? i.e. all man-made global warming would be climate change, but not all climate change would be man-made global warming?

    Thanks again
    Regards,
    WJ

  12. sulis dyah says:

    I agree that we should more respect to nature & being responsible as the citizen of the word.

    I’m just a regular person who want some peace in future without having to worry of more natural disaster, weird phenomenon in nature, increase of pest & illness, uncomfortably hotter daily temperature, etc.

    i made some points on:
    http://sulisdyah.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/you-nurture-nature-nature-nurture-you/

  13. Richard says:

    Richard above is an arrogant pr*ck whose writing awards were likely made with his very own crayons. (What awards, Richard? Please, impress us, you big strong man.) Climate Progress is not only terrified of dissent, it is committed to silencing anyone who disagrees.

    Whoa, sorry James! I obviously hit a nerve. I was acyually trying not come across as an arrogrant pr*ick, but maybe I did.

    But the difference between my opinion and Ms. Lovley’s is that I can point to studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals to support my statements. Erika has to refer to institutes funded by big oil – institutes that have no credibility in the scientific world because they’re political, and don’t conduct any real science.

    I’m OK with dissent, Joe is OK with dissent, and so is just about everyone who comments here. But the rules require that you offer at least a few facts to butress your contentions, and those facts can’t come from non-scientists and bogus institutes like Heartland and Friends of Science.

    Anyway, if I pissed you off so completely, then I probably did the same with Erika, so I failed in my attempt to get her to do a little research.

    As a matter of fact, I do have a number of awards that I personally created with my 100-color box of crayons. I also have a Governor-General’s Silver Medal, a Council of Higher Education Silver Medal, and another dozen award nominations (although I obviously didn’t win them, or I’d be listing them here). Alas, I’m not the strong man that I once was, although I’m looking to start a martial arts club here in my new home after several years of illness… I’m an instructor in Shotokan karate. Hitotsu! Jinkaku kansei ni tsutomuro koto!

    And joletaxi… Hansen est l’un des plus respectées au monde des scientifiques. Mann est aussi très respecté….

  14. jerome bastien says:

    Hansen est respecté uniquement par ceux qui croient que mentir pour avancer un agenda socialiste est permissible. Il a récemment soumit des données frauduleuses pour la température du mois d’octobre.

    Mann has been exposed as a complete fraud by Steve McIntyre on more than one occasion.

    [JR: You have that exactly backwards.]

    There are plenty of reputable scientists who disagree with this nonsense. Off the top of my head, there is Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, and Nigel Calder.

    The trick with you guys is that simply by disagreeing with you, a reputable scientist becomes disreputable, and in the pay of oil companies. That’s why you maintain that no reputable scientist disagrees with you, because merely by the fact of disagreeing, they become disreputable.

    The world is waking up to this giant fraud and I dont suspect it will be very happy to having been conned into funding this nonsense to the tune of billions of dollars.

  15. amd says:

    JB,
    I reputable scientist becomes disreputable when they state findings based off bogus science funded by corporations that have an agenda. And these so called ‘disreputable’ scientists are in the grave minority in the scientific community, but somehow seem to be getting more media attention than entire rest of the scientific community. Do some peer reviewed literature searches and see what you come up with…

    And yes, some will make money off the ‘green’ revolution, though I doubt it will even approach the money made by oil companies in the last decade.

  16. William H Yarber II says:

    Ask yourselves why the NASA GISS land based temperature data is diverging more and more from the two satellite based temperature measurements? Could it be that a significant number (30%+) have been compromised by urban incroachment? And what is with NASA claiming that October was the warmest on record becasue they used Septembers data from Russia, not the significantly cooler actual Russian data for October?

    People, Hansen is far closer to Jim Jones than a true scientist.

    Bill

  17. jerome bastien says:

    Joe Rohmm:

    You say I have it exactly backwards?

    Isnt Hansen who published temperature data from october that was actually from september?

    Hasnt the Mann hockey stick graph been shown to be a complete and total fraud by Steve McIntyre?

    Please let me know how that is exactly backwards.

    [JR: McIntyre's "debunking" is the fraud. The "hockey stick" has been vindicated by all recent research. Start here.]

    Also, amd’s answer to my previous post just confirms my point. To you guys, anybody who dares to doubt your (self-serving) conclusions is deemed an apostate or a heretic. This is nonsense.

    Real scientists are willing to entertain that their theories are wrong, even if early findings suggest that they are right. You guys, and the entire AGW clique, cannot even fathom the possibility that you are wrong. That makes you non-scientists, and you have more in common with Torquemada than Einstein.

    Scientists who question your conclusions are not necessarily hacks who promote bogus science – they are the actual scientists, because questioning conclusions is what science is about.

    A theory is only as strong as the extent to which it has been tested and critiqued. AGW however is not allowed to be critiqued as anybody who does is demonized (the present blog post being a case in point). A real scientist wants to have his hypothesis tested and challenged by others, but not you guys, you guys want to bully critiques and challenges into silence. Sorry, that’s not gonna work.

    Also, if the evidence is so strong in your favor, why do you guys rely on lies (Inconvenient Truth, Mann hockey stick graph, Hansen’s fudged october data, suggestion that ice caps are melting) and bullying? You should let the science do the talking. Bullying and ad-hominen attacks are the surest sign that even you guys dont believe the nonsense that you’re saying.

    [JR: It is beyond absurd to call a tiny, temporary mistake in public data "fudged." Try to think for yourself rather than mouthing denier talking points.]

  18. Steve Bloom says:

    jerome, the science talks rather a lot these days. Try reading some of it.

  19. Jim Clarke says:

    Richard wrote:

    “I’m OK with dissent, Joe is OK with dissent, and so is just about everyone who comments here. But the rules require that you offer at least a few facts to butress your contentions, and those facts can’t come from non-scientists and bogus institutes like Heartland and Friends of Science.”

    It is a demonstration of the weakness of the AGW crisis argument that proponents spend most of their time denying the factualness of a fact, by attacking the person who said it. For real scientists and rational people at large, facts are facts no matter who says them. To believe that only the ‘correct’ people can speak truth and everyone elses facts are invalid by definition, is the nature of a closed minded religion and the antithesis of science.

    Day in and day out, AGW crisis proponents are demonstrating to the the rest of the world just how feeble their arguments really are. The more shrill and irrational the leaders get, the more the mob starts to disperse, dropping their pitchforks and torches as they go.

    Richard, Joe et al…keep up the good work!

  20. Jim Clarke says:

    Steve Bloom,

    How do you know that Jerome Bastien does not read the science? I do not know if he does or not. Lets face it…neither do you. So why did you imply that he does not? One thing that I do know is that your response is yet another example of the endless personal attacks on AGW crisis skeptics.

    If personal attack is not the only weapon in the AGW crisis arsenal…then why is this completely unscientific method used as the weapon of choice most of the time? Could it be that it really is the only weapon you have available?

  21. David B. Benson says:

    jerome bastien — Our host’s name is Romm, not what you wrote.

    The science is quite clear. You could start learning it by reading “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

    Review of above:

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63

  22. jerome bastien says:

    Steve, yes indeed it does and I’ve been following it closely. It’s unfortunate that you have chosen not to address any of the points I raised and instead simply suggest that because I dont agree with you guys, Im uneducated.

    Why do you guys think this approach will convince anyone other than the already converted – beats me. This is consistent with every proponent of AGW I meet: the attitude is “if you dont agree with me you’re either stupid, uneducated, or a stooge for oil companies”.

    Here’s a clue: the climate on earth is unbelievably complex – yet you guys consider that you’ve got it all figured out, but none of your predictions ever come to pass. We’re supposed to believe Al Gore and computer models instead of our lying eyes.

  23. Anna Haynes says:

    Kudos to Richard for this -
    > I sent Erika this note…

    Following his excellent example, I just now submitted this to John Harris -

    Greetings Mr. Harris – Could you tell us please, if you stand by Erika Lovley’s article “Scientists urge caution on global warming”? Joe Romm critiqued it, at
    http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/25/new-media-same-as-the-old-media-politico-pimps-global-cooling-for-hill-deniers/
    yesterday, and we’re wondering if this is considered to be standard Politico fare.

    I’ll report your reply there; or perhaps you could drop by and comment directly?

  24. David B. Benson says:

    jerome bastien — You must be quite young. I can tell the changes here in the past 28 years. Perhaps the easiest to communicate is warmer nights, in full accord with AGW predictions.

    Anyway, I gave you a reading assignment. I suggest you be about it.

  25. John Mashey says:

    Along the lines of advice in what to do about poor science reporting, let us consider constructive measures beyond complaining in blogs.

    I.e., is the issue:
    a) Politico?
    b) Harris?
    c) Lovley?

    and is the issue lack-of-knowledge or purposeful? as noted in the advice above, it sometimes isn’t obvious, unless there is more data to be had in this case. It may be that some reasoned education maybe useful.

    Here is Erika’s background, via LinkedIn.

  26. jre says:

    As is usual, John Mashey has pinpointed the issue clearly and quickly.

    Erika Lovley is a young writer, of some talent (as indicated by her editorship of the UMass Amherst Collegian and her subsequent 7-month stint with the Wall Street Journal) and little or no knowledge of the science underlying her reportorial beat (as indicated by her 2006 Jounalism / PoliSci degree, not to mention the multiple howlers in her articles).

    It is to be hoped that getting banged around like this will in time make her a more careful, thoughtful writer — and not a bitter, fact-resistant hack. We have enough of those.

    And — James, Craig, joletaxi, Jim, jerome — being criticized as not knowing what you are talking about is not necessarily a sign that your critic is an ideologue — it may just be that you do not know what you are talking about.

  27. Sorry, a reporter doing a science story using the Old Farmers Almanac as a credible, scientific source needs to find another line of work.

  28. Eli Rabett says:

    Its the pirates. As one of Eli’s sage commentors put it

    It’s all related to an increase in “R”.

    As pirates increase, so does “R” (also sometimes spelled “Arrr”) and as “R” increases, so does the correlation between pirates and global warming (and pirates and everything else, for that matter)

    Everyone who visits Anthony watts’ site understands this.

  29. Eli Rabett says:

    Sorry for the bad HTML. By the way FWIW Nigel Calder is a science writer, not a scientist, sort of an older and more published version of Ms. Lovley.

  30. Marion Delgado says:

    Tim Ball doesn’t even know (on a consistent basis), that ice not attached to land displaces its weight in water. See here – click on the pdf of his letter to the Williams Lake Tribune:

    The point I made was with regard to the Antarctic and Greenland ice
    sheets. I posed the question about what happens to the water level
    when an ice cube is placed in a glass which is then filled to the brim
    and the ice melts. The correct answer is the water level drops because
    the space occupied by the ice is greater than that occupied by the
    water it contains. Water expands when it freezes.
    I then applied that analogy to Antarctica and Greenland since a
    majority of that ice is already in the water. Lettinga identifies them as
    land-ice, which is technically correct, but they are grounded on the
    land below sea level for most of their area. His claim about portions
    of the ice slipping into the oceans and raising sea levels is speculative
    nonsense as is his claim there is already evidence this is happening.

    “All I did was apply my “analogy” (which is wrong) to something I couldn’t apply it to even if it were correct.”

    The thing is, Tim Ball, like the late Michael Crichton, does not go anywhere to reason or discuss anything, so inconsistency and outright nonsense is actually part of his assigned task. It’s “climate filibustering.”

  31. Anna Haynes says:

    re Mashey’s
    > Along the lines of advice in what to do about poor science reporting…

    related, Jennifer Ouellete via Mooney
    “…while the constant snark directed at science in movies and TV might be entertaining to those in the “geek clique,” it is not, in the long run, constructive, or conducive to fostering change in how science is portrayed in Hollywood. …”

  32. William H Yarber II says:

    Steve Bloom:

    [JR: William -- You have come to the wrong site. The points below are all denier talking points that have been debunked years if not decades ago in the scientific literature -- and repeatedly on this website. The fact that you talk about the satellite data as indicating anything other than warming shows that you are stuck in the 1990s. Spend some time to RealClimate where folks will humor your claims to scientific literacy. Hint: Human-caused CO2 is NOT the only forcing, just the biggest new one today and outpacing all others rapidly.]

    Please enlighted the huddled masses and explain why a lagging indicator can be the only possible explanation for the Earth’s temperature changes from 1975 to 1998, to the exclusion of the PDO, solar cycles and other natural climate drivers. All of the data gained from the analysis of every glacier tested shows that CO2 lags Earth’s temperature changes by centuries (200-800 years). Yet the AGW crowd says that it has now become a driving force which is the one and only reason that the Earth warmed from 1975 to 1998. (to say that the Earth has not cooled since 1998 is to totally ignore the satellite data and show both your bias and ignorance!) Also please explain how the Earth’s atmosphere had CO2 concentrations several times higher than our current 385 ppm several million years ago without run-a-way greenhouse warming.

    So tell us, Oh Enlightened One, how that can be the case for a trivial trace gas in our atmosphere (CO2) which happens to be absolutely essential to all life on Earth. I don’t want links to other sites, I want a detailed explanation from you without the bombastic personal attacks you dish out to fellow “skeptics”.

    Bill

    For the record, I have an MS in Aerospace Engr with a major in space dynamics and control theory. I also have 30+ years of experience in Industrial Instrumentation with emphasis on process control and sensor techonolgy and application. I know that lagging indicators are not system drivers; in economies, process control or climate systems. I know that CO2 has consistently increased from 1900 to present day which does not correlate with the warming from 1900 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1975, the warming from 1975 to 1998 and the cooling that began just a few short years ago.

  33. William H Yarber II says:

    JR

    Are you saying that ice core data does not indicate that atmospheric CO2 concentrations lag Earth’s temperature over the past 150,000 years? *The heart of my argument!) I have personally spoken with Dr Richard Alley, an AGW believer and a leading geoclimatologist, who has done that research and confirms this is indeed THE FACT, not a denier’s talking point. This FACT has been confirmed on every glacier which has been tested to date, without exception! Tell my just one of your computer models which has even remotely foecasted Earth’s mean temperatures for the past 30 years since Hansen began this hysteria.

    [JR: This lame argument of yours has been debunked on every single climate website for years. The best evidence says that in most (but not all) cases external forcing (such as a change in the earth's orbit) precedes the CO2 increase. THEN that CO2 increase warms the planet more, acting as a major amplifying feedback, which is why the temperature record over the past 800,000 years shows periods of incredibly fast warming followed by much slower cooling, typically. As Alley no doubt told you -- assuming you bothered to listen to a full lecture -- the human-generated GHG forcing can easily replace the natural forcings in magnitude. Hansen's predictions have been "remotely" accurate, as has the IPCCs. Indeed, you bothered to read this website or the scientific literature, you would know that in most impact areas, the climate models have underestimated climate change.]

    Are you suggesting that the PDO does not have a measureable impact on Earth’s climate and it has not moved from cool cycle to warm cycle twice during the periods I mentioned in my previous post? NASA recently confirmed that the PDO switched from its warm cycle to its cool cycle in 2006, which corresponds very nicely with Earth’s recent cooling. What does it take for you to accept that CO2 is not the biggest new driving force today, it isn’t even a driving force. Earth would have already experienced runaway global warming if CO2 was the significant climate driver you claim, but that has never happened thoughout geological history? Warming and cooling, ice ages and interglaical periods have happend repeatedly long before man had any impact. CO2 levels have been higher in the past than today, long before man began burning fossil fuels. But we’re supposed to believe your fairy tale that this time it is different, this time we’re the cause!

    [JR: The PDO is neutral with respect to total planetary warming, but yes it does overlay the human-caused warming trend, as do aerosols and volcanic eruptions. When you factor in all of the known forcings, human-caused and natural, you get the funny shaped, but ultimately steadily rising temperature trend we have seen in the past century -- as Hansen and many others have shown. If you take out the human-caused forcings, however, you can't explain the temperature trend.]

    If you don’t accept these facts, then you are correct – I am on the wrong site and wasting my time; science is not discussed here, just religion.

    [JR: it is you who have succeeded in wasting my time. And it is your anti-scientific views that border on religion.]

    By the way, how do you make a living, who are you indebted to and is that why you support AGW? I have made my fortune investing in NG and oil stocks but I have never accepted one dime from “Big Oil” or anyone else in the fossil fuel industries. Can you say that your livelyhood does not depend on AGW (and the funding it has generated for research) or the CO2 cap and trade schemes?

    [JR: How I make a living is well known to anybody who reads this blog or spend a nano second on the Internet checking. My "livelihood" depends on making accurate statements and predictions that turn out to be true -- based on my understanding of science and technology. It is only people like you who keep repeating long-debunked disinformation that ever think others would willfully and shamelessly do the same.]

    Bill

  34. Marion Delgado says:

    Troll:

    “are you saying … are you saying … are you saying …”

    Answer:

    All we are saying is, most of us use a killfile script for commenters like you.