You can’t deny it’s cold outside in Washington, DC today — any more than you can deny the planet is unequivocally warming and humans are probably the cause of most of that warming, can you? I mean, the fact that it’s cold in early January isn’t news. It’s the friggin’ winter!
Oh wait, you say we’re setting records for cold over parts of the country. But if you accept the temperature station data going back over a century that says we’re setting records for cold over a small part of the globe over a short period of time, then you have to accept this very same data over the entire globe over a long period of time, no?
Yes, the 2000s were the hottest decade in the temperature record by far, though this decade is all but certain to surpass it easily (see here).
Barring a last-minute cancellation, I’ll be on FoxNews with Neil Cavuto at around 4:20 pm ET to talk about the weather and the climate. There’s never a bad time to talk about climate science and human-caused global warming, is there?
Anyway, here’s what most of the globe is doing right now, temperature-wise, according to NOAA:
Yes, it’s anomalously hot in many places, most importantly in the tropical Pacific (see Australian weather bureau: “Central Pacific Ocean surface temperatures are now at their warmest level since the of 1997-98″³).
And unless this El Ni±o ends unexpectedly soon, it is more likely than not to augment the inexorable march of human-caused global warming and make 2010 the hottest year on record (see “Hansen predicts better than 50% chance 2010 will set new record” and UK Met Office: Global warming plus El Ni±o means it’s “more likely than not that 2010 will be the warmest year in the instrumental record”).
For the record, the scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) reported in November “Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S.“:
Still, it’s unequivocally cold outside (some places). Enjoy it while you can, because if the anti-science, cold-weather-means-the-climate-ain’t-warming crowd keeps blocking action, then here’s how things are likely to end up (see Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year “” and that isn’t the worst case, it’s business as usual!):
See also Skeptical Science’s “It’s freaking cold!“
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I also note that 8 of the last 10 years on the first (GLOTI) chart have been warmer than any of the preceding 100. I guess Faux News is too busy gloating over the latest cold spell to notice that GLOTI would rather not be gloating about being right…
Fox News exists for the purpose of broadcasting deliberate lies. That’s what they are paid to do. They are not “anti-science”; rather, they just don’t care what the science says. They care what the script that they are paid to read from says.
Don’t forget to mention this, which is why it should be called climate chaos:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/peru-mountain-farmers-winter-cold
It is heartbreaking.
Take your “Light Saber!” I hope that they give you a chance. Perhaps a few will see the light.
Getting close to viral?
Best wishes, Leif
This is a great opportunity, and I’m confident you’ll do well, Joe. Their viewers are way ahead of the reporters, who are lockstep skeptics. T
Here’s another example, “China blames freak snowstorm on global warming” http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/01/china-blames-freak-storm-on-global.html
Go on the offense with this, Joe! Initiate the discussion about extremes and unpredictability! Are you going to post video? I doubt I will be near a teevee this afternoon and I want to see the interview. Good luck!
“More than 2 million Beijing and Tianjin students were given the day off school yesterday because traffic was in chaos. On Sunday the capital received its biggest snow dump since 1951, immediately followed by the harshest Siberian winds in decades.
Tomorrow morning the mercury is forecast to plunge to minus 16, a 40-year low, after a day-time maximum of minus 8.
The head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, Guo Hu, linked the blizzard-like conditions this week to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming.
”In the context of global warming, extreme atmospheric flows are causing extreme climate incidents to appear more frequently, such as the summer’s rain storms and last year’s icestorm disaster in southern China,” Mr Guo told Beijing News.”
Wonderful post Joe !!!
It’s quite proved now that the 2000s decade was the hottest but still I don’t see any change in the way we are progressing towards more and more hotter climates in the coming decades.
Many countries have set some Emission cut targets but I wonder if there is some great body that can do the job to surveillance to make sure that we actually are doing something.
I guess the E-media, Newspapers and the TV media should take corrective steps now and make people about where we are heading to and with such kind of information that you have put on, we can really run a substantial campaign.
Sometimes, we have lots n lots of thoughts wandering all around but I believe the implementation is what we are lacking.
keep posting !!!
-A Planet lover
@www.TheWarmist.com
Neil Cavuto loves to play the bully with the microphone on his show while often coyly acting like the self deprecating lout. Be prepared to often get talked over on your points while he’ll continue to drill down on what would seem to be simple home spun observations with quick one liners from the usual bag of denial myths and sources. I would practice keeping my answers short, tight and directed at placing his counter arguments on the offensive.
I admit it’s cold outside, but it is January. I wonder how the news media would react if we really got a bad Winter. Trying to make this cold snap out as more than it is is just pathetic.
Hey, it is colder still inside my freezer.
Be careful, they are asking you to respect their ignorance.
Right, just like if you use tree ring proxies going back two millenia, then you have to accept the values given by the proxies for the last 50 years as well.
[JR: Unless you know there is something wrong with a subset of those tree ring proxies in the modern, polluted era. BTW, you don't accept the proxies, so why are you pretending you do?]
One word: Excellent!
I find that NCAR report / study to be quite good & would be interested in similar work done around the world.
Just had a commentator on my post about the NCAR work (http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/11/17/new-record-temperatures-all-the-time-of-course-george-will-and-deniers-will-write-about-this/) who asserted that if we were experiencing global warming, then setting any cold temperature records would be impossible. …
Cold weather has sent the mercury well below zero in:
Moscow -20C
Beijing -14C
Berlin -8C
New York -7C
London -5C
[JR: Welcome to winter!]
Joe, will you post a video for us?
It’s hot here in Canberra, Australia :) 35-36C is forecast for Saturday through Monday. Today is forecast at 31C. Yesterday was a cool day at 29C. Normal historical max in January is 28C. Surprisingly we’ve begun to get some decent rain in recent weeks despite El Nino. It all started when a cyclone off the North Coast of Western Australia decided to head inland and then East to New South Wales. Some areas got 200mm or so of rain and there is a lot of flooding in northern NSW. Here we got a decent 100mm or so into our reservoirs. The grass has turned greenish again after being totally dead from the record hot (two days above 38C) and very dry November.
I have several questions for T Lehman. In your temperature roundup, I noticed you ignored recent weather events in Bulgaria. Why? Why would you hide data that doesn’t appear to conform to your preconceived notion?
And why would freezing temperatures in January be of any great concern? If the low temperature for the day is 17F, but the record low is 4F, is that cause for panic?
Lehman. Stop making things up. The September-November global temperature was the fourth hottest since 1880.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=glob&byear=2009&bmonth=9&year=2009&month=11&ext=gif
[JR: Not in the NASA dataset, which is the best.]
Did I miss Joe? I tuned into cavuto / fox news online, but i might have been late.
Fine job Joe. Cavuto is a piece of work, isn’t he? When he could no longer keep up with the denial points, he turns to, “well we could argue data all day long, but boy it’s cold today“. This experience, really focuses where the conservative/libertarian/anarchists are trying to head with their disinformation. I knew he couldn’t let the CRU flap go without comment.
Cavuto can’t hear as most deniers won’t listen. Their questions point to their predisposed mindset. My thought is that it may be pointless to think one can convert a person who has already chosen not to listen. The gain is that Joe spoke to the masses and his message is out there for those who will think and hear! Now if Cavuto would have plugged Climate Progress it would have been a home run!
Nice work, Joe. Don’t watch Fox much. I give them credit for having you on, but it looks like Lore #8 nailed it: Do their hosts make it a habit of routinely interrupting their guests with misleading comments?
Great Job
Joe — I just watched you on Fox.
You did a great job — as good as anyone could possibly have done, under the circumstances. Indeed, it was super. Congrats.
That said, given the context/tone that they establish, the sorts of questions, the time limits, and so forth, as well as the general view on Fox about climate change, even a clear and intelligent appearance, such as yours, is unlikely to open the eyes of anyone (on Fox or watching Fox) except someone who is actually willing to open his or her eyes. My guess is that Fox, and much of its audience, already “know” what they want to believe — damn the science (and future generations).
So, of course, we still have the media problem. Yet, your appearance helped — we just need thousands more like it.
Also, I do wish that they would have mentioned your scientific background. They really SHOULD. Perhaps I missed it? Otherwise, genuine scientists, pundits, corporate leaders, talking heads, and so forth or all lumped together, and nobody can tell the real scientists from the paid pundits.
Do you think that Fox didn’t mention your background purposefully?
In any case, great appearance. Bravo!
Jeff
[JR: Well, I'd rather they plug the blog so I can get the quick hatemail I always do! Seriously, yes, I should probably say, "As a scientist," or something. Gotta mentioned the blog myself, too.]
Mr. Romm,
I’m not surprised that the 2000′s are the hottest years in the instrument measured temperature record, given the start point of the temperature record coincides with a rise in temperatures due to the planet coming out of the “Little Ice Age” which was much colder and lower still than the temps shown on the graph starting in the 1880′s.
Is a 0.9 deg C rise in Mean Temperature over the last 130 years an unreasonable amount of warming? And is CO2 the cause of the planet shaking off the “Little Ice Age”?
(thanks for the correction)
2009 was the 2nd hottest September October November, SON, since 1880.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
Anyone have a link? I couldn’t find it over at FoxNews.com
PositiveThought #23
Funny you should ask. John Cook over at Skeptical Science has just posted an article relating to this subject, “What ended the Little Ice Age?”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-ended-the-Little-Ice-Age.html
“I’m not surprised that the 2000’s are the hottest years in the instrument measured temperature record,”
*They are also likely the hottest in the instrumental + proxy record (going back 1000-2000 years)
“given the start point of the temperature record coincides with a rise in temperatures due to the planet coming out of the “Little Ice Age” which was much colder and lower still than the temps shown on the graph starting in the 1880’s.”
*That statement is irrelevant without context of the warming/cooling.
“Is a 0.9 deg C rise in Mean Temperature over the last 130 years an unreasonable amount of warming?”
*A smaller amount of planetary warming occurred during the 1930s and we had the Dust Bowl. We’ve had near that amount of warming (in an actually shorter period of time, starting around 1970) and we’ve seen dramatic reductions in arctic sea ice volume, changes in growing season, and changes in ecosystems. Yes, it’s significant – and it’s just the beginning.
“And is CO2 the cause of the planet shaking off the “Little Ice Age”?”
Most of the warming from roughly 1900-1940 (which you refer to as “shaking off the LIA”) has been attributed to changes in solar activity. That same solar activity has since been declining slightly, while temperatures have increased.
…”Oh wait, you say we’re setting records for cold over parts of the country. But if you accept the temperature station data going back over a century that says we’re setting records for cold over a small part of the globe over a short period of time, then you have to accept this very same data over the entire globe over a long period of time, no?”…
– Were these ‘max/min’ records put through the same multi-layered ‘adjustment’ processes that the NASA data is to arrive at what they are now? Or are these ‘raw-unadjusted-data’ record highs and lows? Seems to me if one set was adjusted and another was not, that the correlation between the two would not be as relevant.
#23 Positive Thought
Per your reasonable amount of warning question, think of it this way:
Use a lit match to represent the amount of warming caused by humans so far. Now picture the match moving towards an open, but as yet unlit, gas stove burner. The moving match represents our current emissions trajectory.
On the burner is a frying pan. In the frying pan is our planet.
Above freezing with light rain here at 47.5 degrees north latitude.
Kinda warm for this time of year, seems to me…
Correction: 46.731N latitude
W Scott Lincoln:
If warming was the proximate “cause” of the Dust Bowl rather than farming practices, then why has the U.S. not suffered a Dust Bowl every year since in which the Mean Temps. were equal to or greater than those of the Dust Bowl?
The interview is at http://video.foxnews.com/v/3960110/global-warming-debate?category_id=86861
Say It’s So, Joe! Great job, Dr. Romm! Hey, our friend Andy Revkin made some great points down in the Paul Ehrlich entry five posts below.
Check it out, really a world-class discussion with many world-class experts like Revkin weighing in.
Again, as everyone else feels, you did the best job it was possible to do, Joe. As one your super-bright minions (and I mean this in the best possible way) Jeff Huggins says, now all we need is thousands like it, in every form of media and conversation, every day. You’re sure doing your part – there’s no one I’d rather have speaking for all of us who believe in science, the laws of physics, and reality.
@ Andy Bauer:
As to your assertion of a “runaway Greenhouse effect” colorfully expressed by your illustration of humanity lighting a match and igniting unburnt fuel under a skillet, here is my question:
How can CO2 possibly have the power to cause a runaway Greenhouse Effect, given that it’s ability to contribute to the Greenhouse Effect falls off on a logrithmic scale?
In other words, CO2 has it’s greatest effect in the 20 to 100ppm range, and every doubling of CO2 after that cuts it’s heat trapping characteristics in half.
I’ve seen the scales, and it’s heat trapping characteristics at 600ppm are only the slightest fraction greater than at 300ppm.
Here is another question: If we TRIED OUR HARDEST to make CO2 rise to 800ppm, wouldn’t the biosphere react with greater growth and sink the extra output, preventing us from ever reaching 800ppm?
You might have clarified that your “what most of the globe is doing right now” graphic is only for the oceans. Yes, I know it says SST, but not everyone knows what that means. I also know that most of the globe is covered by water. It still took me a few seconds to figure out that land was not included (but it would be neat if it were).
“If warming was the proximate “cause” of the Dust Bowl rather than farming practices, then why has the U.S. not suffered a Dust Bowl every year since in which the Mean Temps. were equal to or greater than those of the Dust Bowl?”
There have been incidences, just like the Dust Bowl, since then. They are not necessarily going to occur in the same place. If you seriously believe that, then you have a major issue understanding the differences between climate and weather. Our farming practices have also improved greatly – yielding far less topsoil erosion. If not for that, we may be seeing something different. There also is the role that specific humidity has played (modern warming has caused an increase in humidity, yielding more flooding concerns in the midwest than drought concerns).
Yes, seemingly small changes in the earth’s energy balance can cause massive changes. When averaged over the planet, they may seem small, but it’s a matter of hyper local perspective only.
Good job in a difficult situation, Joe! Every Fox interview I’ve seen with anybody who believes the science (not that there have been many) goes similarly, with the host interrupting nearly everything the guest says and interjecting some folksy false factoid. How anybody remains calm when talking with them is beyond me, and I’m sure getting their guest to fail to remain calm is their aim.
As is usual with the deniers, they seem to believe that whoever shouts the longest and loudest wins.
Positive Thought,
There is too much for me to address. But first, the lighted match of CO2 is lighting the *tipping points* and METHANE!!! That’s the burner under the frying pan.
And NO the biosphere won’t react with greater growth to absorb increasing levels of CO2, because the biosphere is simultaneously being POISONED by other products of fossil fuel emissions such as nitrous oxides and sulfuric dioxides and other volatile organic compounds making ozone and acid rain that are toxic to vegetation.
Not to mention, they are lethal to humans, causing cancer, asthma, and emphysema.
We MUST halt our reliance on burning fuels and switch to clean energy, wind and solar, and reserve any burning of fossil and biofuels for emergency purposes only. Or we will destroy our formerly hospitable climate, and ecosystem, and ultimately, rather dreadfully painfully, ourselves.
#35 Positive Thought: Yes, it would be nice if was that simple.
Unfortunately, you left out the change in irradiance of an ice-free Artic, the increase of greenhouse gases from a thawing permafrost, and the unlocking of methane from warming oceans. Don’t forget ocean acidification and changed weather patterns with increased potential for extreme weather events.
I could go on, however I hope you take my point.
Positive Thought,
Look, I want to reduce greenhouse gases and climate change. Clearly we don’t agree.
If we, as a country, promote a climate mitigation strategy with energy efficiency and clean energy (see Joe’s post on stabilization wedges), then in addition to reducing greenhouse gases, we:
1) reduce sulfur dioxide which causes asthma attacks and contributes to acid rain.
2) reduce nitrogen oxide which creates ground level ozone and contributes to acid rain.
3) reduce mercury which is a neurotoxin
4) reduce dependence on dwindling supplies of finite fossil fuel.
5) reduce dependence on foreign supplies of fossil fuel.
6) create domestic jobs (more than fossil fuels, BTW).
7) bolster our economy, not the economies of other countries.
8) stabilize energy prices
9) reduce the need to put our military in harm’s way to protect our energy interests
10) Lead, finally, in an ethical manner (note that this one is my opinion, the rest are facts).
Positive Thought, whether you intend it or not, arguing against action on global warming equates to arguing against these objectives.
Dear God! I just watched the piece on the web, being Australian I don’t have ready access to the US Fox news service.
Who is that jowly, overdressed buffoon doing the interviewing (and I use that term advisedly)? What a cretin. Any answer longer than 20 seconds or words of more than two syllables seemed to be too much for him. That barely-concealed smirk on his face every time he interrupted you was pretty annoying.
The way the debate has shifted in the last 6 months has me really worried that this, the first truly global, complex and long-term problem humanity has been confronted with, will make decisive action impossible. The average person, weighed down with everyday thoughts of their job and life, will never understand it and thus support remedial action by governments. Homo sapiens, indeed.
PositiveThought stated: “In other words, CO2 has it’s greatest effect in the 20 to 100ppm range, and every doubling of CO2 after that cuts it’s heat trapping characteristics in half.”
PositiveThought’s statement is wrong: logarithmic means that each doubling of CO2 produces the *same* increase in effect as the previous doubling did.
PositiveThought asked: “wouldn’t the biosphere react with greater growth and sink the extra output”
That would depend on the supply of other nutrients, especially water. Look up Liebig’s Law of the Minimum.
In any case, CO2 has been much higher than 800 ppmv in Earth’s history, so there goes that argument.
I finally got to watch the video. JR, I do not mean to be critical in any way. You are my hero!
But, I do think the way to approach such interviews (and I hope you have many more opportunities) is the same way that moronic brilliant imbecile, Ronald Reagan did.
Don’t even listen to the question, let alone reply to it.
Go in with YOUR agenda, the message YOU want to impart, and just say it over and over and over.
[JR: It's good advice. What's tricky of course is that you need to get invited back, so you can't just ignore the questions. Normally I'd refocus the discussion on the clean energy jobs bill, but that debate is 2 or 3 months away and there were no obvious places to do that, so I decided to just respond as patiently as I could.]
You know, Wit’s End is onto something.
The Right has perfected the art of staying on message track for the simple reason that it works.
“Who is that jowly, overdressed buffoon doing the interviewing (and I use that term advisedly)? What a cretin. Any answer longer than 20 seconds or words of more than two syllables seemed to be too much for him. That barely-concealed smirk on his face every time he interrupted you was pretty annoying.”
This is a debate tactic used to great effect by FoxNews when interviewing persons with opposing views. Whenever a guest has a knowledgeable clear grasp of the subject and begins to give a concise and coherent answer they are immediately interrupted so as to disrupt and muddy the message. The interviewer then quickly moves on to another question doing the same wash and spin cycle. If the guest happens to be a lightweight and they are headed for a dead end with their response, they then are often allowed to compete their full answer as well as those who happen to agree with the interviewers points.
“Go in with YOUR agenda, the message YOU want to impart, and just say it over and over and over.”
Can’t be done with the likes of Cavuto. They set the agenda and have been known, especially with him, to cut the mic on anyone who fails to follow it.
It takes some coaching to overcome this abuse, but it can be done.
Thank you, Jim Eager. I’m quite serious about this approach – it consistently works – and engaging in honest debate always loses out to the loudest most persistent shouter, in our world of soundbite media.
Watched the video Joe, and was quite impressed. As others have said, a very good job, probably the best that could be done under the circumstances.
Congratulations!
I’d have punched Cavuto out after about 30 seconds.
Unfortunately, the typical Faux News viewer will probably accept Cavuto’s interruptions as signal and your answers as noise…
Joe – more details here on Australia’s warmer years.
“2009 ends Australia’s warmest decade on record, with a decadal mean temperature anomaly of +0.48°C (above the 1961-90 average). In Australia, each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the preceding decade. In contrast, decadal temperature variations during the first few decades of Australia’s climate record do not display any specific trend. This suggests an apparent shift in Australia’s climate from one characterised by natural variability to one increasingly characterised by a trend to warmer temperatures.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml
“That’s only if your idea of a ‘small part of the globe’ is North America, Europe, and significant parts of Asia and South America.”
And even if your claim were true, that doesn’t even near 50% of the planetary surface. Planetary geography, 101.
damn – i missed it! please post link to web video when available – would love to see it.
Joe, well done. Debating someone like Cavuto (I’ll admit to never having witnessed his shtick before) looks like boxing a windsock.
On tactics, I think Wit’s End is onto something. You know going in what the agenda of the interviewer is, and all of the questions are designed to convey that agenda. So, don’t worry too much about the specific question.
1) Just make sure the answer is at least tangentially related.
2) As much as possible, answers should convey your agenda up front or succinctly counter the argument implicit in the question.
3) Perhaps most importantly, answers have to be super-brief. This is perhaps the most important thing, as these guys all seem to cut people off.
I get the feeling that the best way to handle this is to go in with a bunch of pithy one-liners. This is made easier by the fact there never seems to be anything new under the denier sun (and “denier” is certainly the term for folks like Cavuto).
We don’t even need people as scientifically informed and competent as our host here. Media virtuosity is probably more important. It doesn’t take a genius to counter the, ahem, claims of the deniers that pepper the airwaves.
Cheers,
Martin
here’s the link, posted earlier, for those who skimmed past it:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3960110/global-warming-debate?category_id=86861
JR good point. The most efficient tactic would be to simply recite: climateprogress.org constantly – but then of course, you wouldn’t get invited back, and that is after all, the goal. Or a goal.
I admire and appreciate your intrepidity! Bravo!
[JR: I meant to mention ClimateProgress once, but forgot. In the heat of the moment, it's hard to actually follow a script, even though I've done this a lot. It's especially tough talking to a blank screen. I was staring at the monitor, which isn't a good idea, but I get to look at a person that way.]
A Thought
As I think about some of the suggestions you are getting, Joe, (such as that from Wit’s End, #44), my gut feel gives me a different view, in the present case.
I don’t think you should ignore the questions and just do the blah blah blah canned message thing. I think you did a great job by calmly and confidently responding, often in ways that showed that the question was a bit silly.
After all, credibility and science are at stake too. Someone like you can’t (or shouldn’t) stoop to the tricks or stubborn ridiculousness that many other talking heads adopt. If we all play in the mud, we’ll all sink in the mud, and the meanings of “fact” and “reasoning” themselves will be eroded away, quickly.
Different venues and different people should help the genuine cause in different ways. For example, more people (MANY MORE) should get out and be visible. People giving speeches at rallies, and people using bullhorns, can convey simple messages loudly, repeatedly, passionately, and so forth. When giving a speech, a person isn’t being interviewed. In other words, plenty of people can (and should) speak the simple points and accomplish what is called “frequency” in the advertising world.
But, if you (as a credible scientist, in your role) resort to NOT listening to questions, and dumbly repeating pre-prepared stuff, something tells me that that wouldn’t work and would actually backfire in terms of credibility. You would merely equate yourself with all the other talking heads who don’t listen to the question. You did a great job of listening to questions, responding clearly and succinctly, staying calm, and (ultimately) retaining credibility — and you came across as much more credible than the dummy asking the dumb questions.
I DO think, however, that more people need to get out, be visible, show passion, and do the repetition thing. But, I don’t think you can carry that whole load. And, if you try to do that, you may well lose the credibility you have — and credibility is KEY, because it is one thing that science has and needs to retain. If science looses credibility, then what?
Anyhow, just a thought.
Jeff
The point is, Jeff, that the “questions” are NOT genuine efforts to elicit answers or information, they are actually leading statements to trap the answer into a “prove that you don’t beat your wife” sort of reaffirmation of a pre-determined point of view, posed by the question.
The way to go into that is armed with your own talking points, and repeat them, regardless.
I’m no expert. I’ve just seen so much of this propaganda for years, and it seems to me, if you are going to bother to engage the propagandists, you should at least recognize the rules they are playing you by , or else, not bother, and confine yourself to engagement on a different playing field, that of actual science, instead
In other words if you are fighting fisticuffs on their turf, follow their rules, otherwise you will certainly lose, so why bother?
JR, how about making some videos in collaboration with greenman? And maybe some others, like mongabay?
You guys have complementary talents – science and communication – and we need you!
Today I heard that stupid blue cat movie made $1B so far. Movies are the way to reach enormous numbers of people and influence policy.
I love the blogs, but maybe our energies would be more effectively spent on media that reaches a broader audience?
[JR: I'll do a post on the stupid blue cat movie this week!]
The pictures of winter weather and various “Fox Facts” as Joe is talking about global warming is pretty funny. Great propaganda effect for global warming denialists.
Joe did pretty well, but missed a few opportunities, probably because he was being interrupted every few seconds. Absent almost entirely is the general point that weather isn’t climate. Joe mentioned briefly a high pressure system bringing cold air down to the eastern U.S., but it would expose Fox News if he made the point more clear, how insignificant some regional weather incidents is in the context of climate change.
Another very important point that could have been made more clearly is that regional differences don’t go away with global warming. Joe mentioned something to this effect but it might be useful to point out examples – the fact that 2009 will be in the top 5 warmest on record (2nd warmest likely) globally but that it varies between regions, with the continental U.S. being only a little above average (which seems cold compared with the recent decade) while other regions like Australia were scorching.
Hi Wit’s End, #56.
I realize, of course, that the questions are not really genuine attempts. No matter. That doesn’t alter what I’ve said. The interviewer can stand on his head, and Joe should still provide the best answers possible.
This doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t go in with some key points in mind. It just means that he should make them as he listens to, and directly answers, the questions, remaining calm, as he did.
Also, it doesn’t mean that passion and repetition aren’t important, but one person can’t do everything, and credibility is key. More people need to get involved, as I wrote earlier.
I do agree with your thought about other forms of media, definitely.
But, I don’t think Joe should play the mud-wrestling game.
Gather your wit’s, Wit’s End.
Be Well, and Cheers,
Jeff
Joe, i just watched the Cavuto piece. You did very well. I give talks in public and it is so frustrating and difficult to quickly respond to a random set of unconnected questions where the questioner cuts you off, you never get a chance to organize your thoughts, and you are perpetually on the defensive….you did very well.
At first I thought this blog was taking a personal tack:
“OMG, it’s so cold out; I think I’ll just see what Fox News is up to these days.”
Thanks for the heads up.
My husband thought Cavuto rudely interrupted from time to time
and I noticed that he used sensational and simplistic hyperbole.
But you did just a terrific job being the adult in the room.
Its great to see Joe’s support staff at bat here. My thought is for Joe to go in with the counter questions so he can control the answers. Expose Cavuto’s bias and talk of the utter compounding crisis that awaits us. But the truth is you did everything right under the difficult Cavuto Voodoo. The last thing i wish to do is critique your valiant effort [and i love the writers remark about it being like boxing with a wind [bag] sox] but if i were asked to redesign the Lincoln Memorial, i could ask Joe to subtly show a little underlying passion with his characteristic cool demeanor as often a persons defining strengths will appear. That could devastate Cavuto and get him flustered. Throw your credentials at them and remind them that your not their to entertain their banter and spin. And yes we do see Cavuto blush at times … obviously even he knows when he has stretched it to the breaking point. When will an avowed skeptic realize the poison of their biased spew. Oh, i forget they get paid to pump the Faux Fallacious Fables as they are the mouthpiece of the NOPe! [National Obstructionist Party] If they don’t invite your back, it is because your weren’t their patsy! The reason they asked you is because your are in the top tier of recognized AGW SCIENTISTS! Cut’em no slack!
Just watched the piece also. Mot important point is that I think at the end Cavuto was defeated, getting back to “still, it’s really cold out there”. His whole failure is acknowledged in the “still” !
One of your last sentence, Joe, was “Yes, the existence of winter does not invalidate global warming”
Another just before was “GW will not turn January into July, we’ll still have winters.”
I think if these brilliant, simple, factual, scientifically correct and easily understandable sentences could have been placed at the beginning, and then simply repeated each time Cavuto said “it’s cold out there”, that would have been even better.
Another suggestion: immediately opening the field to “the world” (aka the part of the planet that is not United States…) : It’s cold in US. Ok. It’s also cold here in Paris, though I think not any record is being broken. But Australia seems hot. So looking for a few areas of the world where it’s hot and making points like
“It’s cold here, but it’s hot here and here and here… so what is the conclusion? The conclusion is we need an average. And the average is HOTTER than before.”
“Large” place like australia, central pacific, etc. Comparing their size to america, or think like “X times texas”.
And then sentence like “Last time it was this hot there, Bush was governor of texas! (or “we were sending a man on the moon”, if that can be found for a place…).
Anyways, bravo.
I agree with Daniel, #61, especially his first three paragraphs.
Your point that the existence of winter does not invalidate global warming is great, clear, obvious (or should be), and clearly demonstrates the silliness of the point that the questioner is trying to make or imply when he says that it’s cold outside. Indeed, it shows (in civil but clear terms, given your style) that the person asking such a question hasn’t been listening ALL THESE YEARS and is still confused between weather and climate. Your credibility is retained, and the questioner’s credibility is (rightly) diminished, especially if he asks again and again and again.
Ditto regarding your point that GW will not turn January into July.
Indeed, your appearance suggests to me that climate change experts and communicators should have such clear, understandable, and “kind but pointed” responses ready for any and all such denier nonsense and silly questions There is a clear, simple, understandable, and “kind but pointed” answer to all such nonsense. One just has to understand all of such answers ahead of time. They are available and valid, but not always on the tip of the tongue.
So, a valid recipe is: Listen to the question. Answer the question. But, when the question is silly or obviously denier-esque, answer (calmly) with the clear, understandable, and “kind but pointed” response that DOES answer the question IN A WAY THAT IS clear AND that also conveys (to the audience) in civil terms that the questioner has either not been listening or is not that bright or credible.
Just what you did. That’s what I’m talking about.
WHAT ARE the quick, clear, simple, understandable, and “kind but pointed” responses to EACH and EVERY such silly denier-esque question? Perhaps we should list all the main questions here and collect a list of the best responses to each? How can we learn from your appearance and develop simple answers that, in essence, do the same thing in response to other silly questions?
“Got a silly question or denier-esque point? Well then, good, because I have a simple, clear, and ‘kind but pointed’ response for you that will answer your question validly AND, at the same time, make you look (to the audience) like a stubborn dummy who hasn’t even been paying attention these last several years — kindly and calmly of course! Let’s go. I’m ready!”
In your appearance, Joe, I think you actually discovered something: A type of honest and civil and simple response that “carries the day” in the face of silly questions, as long as the response is delivered naturally and calmly. Maybe other people can use that same approach. For reasons that Daniel, #61, mentioned, I do think it works.
“If GW is happening, then why is it so cold in here?”
“Well, that’s because you are standing in your refrigerator, and you won’t notice GW much if you stand in your refrigerator with your eyes closed: GW won’t eliminate refrigerators.”
Cheers,
Jeff
Correction to my point in #64. I agree with Daniel’s comment #63. I think the numbers may have changed there, or perhaps I wasn’t paying attention. Anyhow, it was Daniel’s comment #63 I was talking about.
Cheers,
Jeff
Overall, you really held your ground, though the interview was infuriating to watch as he talked over you. I agree with #63. In mainstream and right wing media we are all tired of hearing, “well, I’ve got a scientist over here with different interpretations.” When this happens, or from the beginning, I think the point should be made solidly that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, it’s happening now, it’s man made, and it has grave consequences.” I don’t think that sentence can be said often enough, especially in rebuttal to the odd denier example. Or, “You are talking about the conclusions of a mere 3% of all climate scientists, the vast majority, 97% concur that….” I really want to see the 97% consensus figure drilled into everyone’s head.
Update the List and Challenge the Media
I agree with Nancy, #66.
Also, I think that CP should form an updated, clear, and full list of the major scientific organizations who agree with the reality of GW and have expressed concern about it, listing them all together and providing easy links to their statements. Also, let’s link to the recent press releases (e.g., the recent letter from the numerous scientific organizations in the U.S. to members of the U.S. Senate, and the recent statement from the Royal Society, and etc.).
Let’s pull those things together and, in effect, challenge and “dare” the media to cover (prominently) the fact that the large majority of scientists and relevant scientific organizations DO agree on the reality of GW and have deep concern about GW.
Unfortunately, we (apparently) have to make it “easy” for the media to cover that fact, and we’ll undoubtedly have to be somewhat “in their face” to catalyze them to do it responsibly.
The fact that a vast majority of scientists and respected organizations agree on the matter is not really to the media’s liking, in that such a fact runs counter to the media’s preference for a (false) “balance” and for coverage of the “controversy”. But, it’s a fact that CRIES OUT FOR coverage and that the public NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND. So, we’ll have to make it easy, and we’ll have to PUSH.
You’d think, by now, that the scientific organizations themselves would be willing to help tackle this particular task. Joe, perhaps the CP staff, working with the major bona fide organizations, could put together the latest, accurate, up-to-date list, including links to the current official statements. Then, put out (in conjunction with some of the organizations) a real and energetic press release to call on the media to cover the matter and to DO THEIR JOB in informing the public.
I’ve had it with the lackluster and irresponsible media coverage. It’s time to make it easy for them, and then PUSH. More bite with the bark.
Cheers,
Jeff
I think it might not hurt to be prepared to say, (in response to any question whatsoever):
“You know, that’s an excellent question, and as a physicist I’m not sure I can explain it in one sentence. Your listeners can find a more in-depth and accurate discussion on my blog, climateprogress.org, or I can try to answer now – but you’ll have to allow me at least one uninterrupted minute.”
I feel for Joe, scheduled to appear on Faux “news”. The few times I’ve watched their episodes, they’ve purposely squelched any pertinent information their guests tried to point out. They dominate the whole scene with their ignorant rantings.
As Secular Animist pointed out, their goal is reading paid-for non-information scripts, not about actual facts or real news.
PositiveThought wrote: “Here is another question: If we TRIED OUR HARDEST to make CO2 rise to 800ppm, wouldn’t the biosphere react with greater growth and sink the extra output, preventing us from ever reaching 800ppm?”
CO2 mixes quite thoroughly into the atmosphere. A good part of the extra 420ppm would rise to the stratosphere, where the greenhouse effect operates most strongly. There are, of course, no plants in the stratosphere.
There would be some additional plant growth due to extra CO2 near the surface. This might not be the plants we prefer, however. Past a certain point, more CO2 does not always mean more plant growth; it depends on the type of plant, and on the temperature. Higher temperatures can shut down growth. And, as Jim Eager pointed out, other nutrients must increase in equal proportion, or the additional growth doesn’t happen.
With all the excellent comments, I’m suprised a link to Joe with Neil Cavuto hasn’t been provided before. Here it is:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3960110/global-warming-debate
Some talented filmmaker/video editor could edit the interview so that whenever Joe tries to speak, Neil swoons “Baby, It’s Cold Outside. . .”
Here are the lyrics and I look forward to seeing your product:
http://www.lyricsblog.org/nfo_lyrics.php?name=Baby%2C+It%27s+Cold+Outside+%28duet+with+Dolly+Parton%29&artist=Rod+Stewart
I could see Neil play-acting dumb, just as Gretchen Carlson who was her high school’s valedictorian, graduated from Stanford with honors and studied at Oxford was caught by the Daily Show playing dumb in a brilliant piece here last December 8:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down
While Joe did as well as anyone could’ve, we need Joe’s intelligence and ability to think on his feet, plus thousands more also ideally suited to their strengths and jobs. When you think about it, that’s what Fox News is, a propaganda machine employing thousands counting affiliates. They might work for Beelzebub, but they’re each good at their jobs.
We need to create an Anti-Fox News Network (AFNN) – part Daily Show, part Discovery, History, National Geographic Channels, part NASA, NOAA, NCAR, IPCC etc – with thousands of ideally-positioned people to not only entertain and inform, but at the same time relentlessly tell the truth.
PositiveThought wrote: “Here is another question: If we TRIED OUR HARDEST to make CO2 rise to 800ppm, wouldn’t the biosphere react with greater growth and sink the extra output, preventing us from ever reaching 800ppm?
————————————–
Nope. Trees die off after an increase in temperature of 1.5 degrees. Ordinarily, they do act as a sink and absorb a lot of the excess CO2. However, when they die, they GIVE OFF CO2 (become a source of CO2 themselves) and they start dieing off after 1.5 degrees increase in temperature. There is an increase in temperature of about 1.3 at present.
[JR: Indeed, droughts and wildfires will wipe out lots of vegetation. Also, one of the keys to high GHG levels is unleashing the carbon currently frozen in the tundra.]
Positive Thought, in my opinion, Methane is the real monster behind climate change. Carbon dioxide is just the instigator, the match or whatever. Carbon dioxide will cause warming sufficient to thaw the permafrost, where all the methane has been lieing for thousands/ millions of years. Methane is 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide and there is about 1.3 trillion tons of methane in the arctic and siberian permfrost. (That’s not counting the hugmoungous amounts buried beneath the oceans!) While frozen, it wasn’t contributing to a warmer world. Now, the permafrost is in a state of collapse and methane is leaking out. Methane is the joker behind global warming and will swamp our efforts to mitigate global warming. When the summer sea ice disappears, there will be a dramatic increase in temperature at the Arctic (about 5 degrees increase) and guess what will happen to all that permfrost…
#58 MarkB: “…the fact that 2009 will be in the top 5 warmest on record (2nd warmest likely) globally but that it varies between regions…”
My standard response to the “It’s cold outside” type of argument is to remind the person that it is called “Global” warming, not warming, and continue from there.
Must learn to preview.
…called “Global” warming, not “insert small geographic region” warming…
nancy #66. Nancy, that sentence ((Real/happening now/man made/has grave consequences)) is concise and strongly worded. but where did that 97% number come from? If the 97% comes from a legitimate survey or poll, that would be a good talking point (even though it really doesn’t address the scientific concerns).
Joe. Great job; I’m going to be a semi-apologist for Cavuto here (I know this is strange). He doesn’t strike me as a particularly well-informed interviewer and seemed to want to avoid a policy discussion because he knew he would not be able to keep up. Perhaps he is an idealogue too, but I think his style is more a reflection of his lack of knowledge here. Great point; the existence of winter doesn’t invalidate the existence of global warming…. I can’t tell you how often that point comes up in discussion. Maybe one way to deal with that is to use the term “global mean temperature” (although as a nonscientist, I’m not sure if that is a meaningful and measurable data point).
Global Warming amounts to a total of ~0.5 C or ~ 1.0 F. On a typical winter day in Duluth that would translate from -20 F to -19 F! Still darn cold in my book. On the other hand that translated to almost ~ 2 “W87″ Nuke explosions every second, day in and day out. ~ 30,000+ per day. ~ 300 million explosion over the last 50 years, and counting! More than enough energy to intensify a storm! Disrupt established weather patterns!
“It’s cold in Kirkcaldy, freezing in Frankfurt and brass monkeys in Bryn Mawr… a winter spell with weather that’s unusually – well – wintry.
“But not everywhere; in fact, other places in the Northern Hemisphere are seeing weather that’s unseasonably warm.
“In Goose Bay in Newfoundland, it’s barely getting below 0C – bikini weather, relatively speaking, given that the average minimum for January is -23C.
“The cause of what one weather service refers to as these “upside down” conditions is an extreme of the Arctic Oscillation (AO).”
Source: “Arctic roots of ‘upside-down’ weather”, BBC News, Jan 5, 2009
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html
A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey in late 2008.
The findings of their survey were published on January 20, 2009 in EOS, the newspaper of earth and space sciences published by American Geophysical Union.
To access “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” go to:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Here is a little counter balance from the 48th Latitude in Port Townsend, Washington. Above the northern tip of Maine! Lilacs are in serious bud with green leaves showing. Grass is growing, I will have to mow the lawn before the month is out. Fruit trees with obvious buds. Broken clouds and a high of close to 50 F before the day is out.
Think Global Climatic Disruption, Not Global warming!