Global Warming? Give Me A Break!

I didn’t post anything at the time, just tossed it off as another bit of propaganda by Michael Milstein and Richard L. Hill of The Oregonian. But, this first paragraph in Sunday’s front page story set my teeth on edge:

The debate over what to do about global warming remains divisive and politically charged. But few scientists dispute we live on a planet where average temperatures are higher than they were a century ago and will continue to climb. In the Pacific Northwest — a place defined by glacier-clad mountains, rivers and the sea — the effects are now seen and measurable.

Milstein earlier in the month interviewed Al Gore about his movie and there was this exchange:

Q: You recall in the film that when you started discussing global warming in Congress, you expected that everyone else would be as concerned as you were. But they weren’t. Why do you think that is?

Al Gore: Yada, Yada, Yada

You know, I’ve been trying to tell this story for 30 years, and what’s different in the last several years is the debate’s over. There’s no more debate. No more debate among serious people about five points. Number 1: Global warming is real. Number 2: We human beings are largely responsible for it. Number 3: The results are catastrophic. Number 4: We have to fix it, and we have to act quickly. And number 5: It’s not too late. We still have time. (emphasis added)

Milstein doesn’t challenge Gore on any of that false science. Then he and Hill follow with the Sunday piece on the front page!

Well, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works just issued a report accusing AP of bias and guess what they said:

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”.[…]

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years.

[…]

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

I am sick and tired of newspapers and reporters treating this global warming propaganda as science and saying it is settled science. And, I am sick that our president, elected as a conservative, would cater to this hoax. Here’s the Philippine News on June 28th saying

I don’t think many would dispute the impact global warming is having upon the world. Even Governor Schwarzenegger and President Bush have admitted its existence to some degree. I also understand the impact global warming is having but I have issues when it comes to some of the responses we have taken to lessen its impact because it goes against the theory of evolution.

This is propaganda, plain and simple. If you think James Frey’s book should have been labeled “fiction”, then Al Gore’s movie should be called “An Inconvenient Fiction”!

Al Gore Global warming An Inconvenient Truth Mover Mike
One more thing about that infamous “hockey stick” TCS has this to say:

In their attempt to not publicly scold Mann and his coauthors for questionable data analysis methods, the authors of the new report instead chose to restate the evidence for how warm the Earth has gotten recently. What the media didn’t notice, however, is that the 1,000 year figure that was central to the whole hockey stick debate had now been replaced in the report by a figure of 400 years. Since most of the last 400 years was dominated by the “Little Ice Age,” the warming during the 20th century should be welcomed by humanity.The report says that surface temperature reconstructions before this period (about 1600) have “less confidence” and that “uncertainties…increase substantially backward in time…” for any of these proxy estimates of ancient temperatures. One review panel member told me that the statisticians on the panel were amazed when it was revealed that the method underlying the hockey stick had essentially no statistical skill when validated.

This is pretty harsh language for an NAS report written by review panel members, several of whom are equivalent to foxes guarding the hen house.(emphasis added)

And don’t “uncertainties…increase substantially FORWARD in time…?”

Update:


9 Responses to “Global Warming? Give Me A Break!”

  1. Mike, my first reaction was exactly like yours – but then I read another quote. Bush referred to “climate change” as a proven threat, which it is. However, the well-documented sudden climate changes over even the last 20,000 years were not produced by CO2 levels. In other words, the threat predated us and may well exist after we are gone.

    Bush is using this to push for faster approval of nuclear plants, which is what we desperately need to do in order to bolster up our economy anyway. It’s an attempt to use the hysteria the envirowhackos have produced to force them to be reasonable.

  2. I wish Bush would be more clear. I don’t want him any where near the environo-whackos

  3. Hell, yeah there’s global warming and it’s accelerating. Six months ago I could put an ice cube on the railing of my back porch and it would still be there the next day. Today, if I try the same experiment the ice cube melts in ONE HOUR.

  4. No no no no no!

    You completely misunderstand what ‘scientific consensus’ is. Al Gore is 100% correct – the scientific consensus is that man causes global warming. Full stop. End of debate.

    Now where you may be going wrong in your understanding is that ‘consensus’ the term as used every day is quite different to the specific meaning implied by ‘scientific consensus.:::[Global warming consensus solid since 1988].

    I believe big fossil-fuel employs ‘foundations’ to sow confusion between ‘scientific consensus’ and ‘consensus’in the public mind, and what you may be doing is parroting their messages.

    Jeez, glad I got that all cleared up

  5. Hey Mike, I like you blogging but you are simply wrong about global warming son – check out realclimate for an opinion by the people in the field of climate science about the NAS report.

    Essentially it underscored global warming was going on and caused by mankind. With this conclusion, anything you say about the hockey stick is redundent.

  6. Mike, why do you insist on defending big oil companies? Do you stand to make money from not switching to an alternative energy source? Will using an alternative energy have any negative effect on your life? I’m interested to know why you are denying such an overwhelming conscenus by the scientific community and calling it propaganda. I guess it could be because you’re a professional scientist who has made it your career to study this subject, and after years of careful analysis, you’ve come to a completely different conclusion than that of your colleagues.

  7. Since when do we have science by concensus. It either is or it isn’t true. You give me your conclusions, the way you arrived at those conclusions and if I can duplicate it, then oone can say it is proved. There is no “concensus”!

  8. Both Waderd and ERC Trader basically ask how can I support research that is funded by the Big Oil companies, as in the case of CO2 Science.

    Don’t be so naive to think that the George Soros type of people who support the global warming view don’t do the same type of thing.

    There is an excellent description of just such a thing in State of Fear by Michael Crichton beginning on page 43 dealing with a scientist named Per Einarsson who is asked to distort a paper so that it favors the theory of global warming, even though his data suggests otherwise.

  9. Dude, It that were the case then their papers would be torn apart by their peers. It’s the beautiy of science.

Discussion Area - Leave a Comment




Copyright © 2007 Mover Mike. Design by Anthony Baggett.