Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' (mercury, greenhouse gas, toxic)

[my54ford]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

I attended a debate between two scientists at an Emergency Preparedness convention. They debated the whole "global warming" theory. The woman who insisted that we humans were the main cause of global warming was talking about the anomalies in the global warming stance - in partcular was one year where their measurements and hypotheses went totally askew. Those of us in the audience looked at her graph and started laughing. The anomaly that destroyed that trend? The year that followed the Mt St Helen's eruption!

I still think that the globe warms and cools in response to much larger events than humans can influence. If Yellowstone erupts, that could cause a massive cooling trend, due to the interruption of solar warmth. If it never does, then sunspots, solar flares, increased or decreased magma activity around the world will still have far more devastating and long-reaching impacts than a mere handful of humans burning wood in their fireplaces to keep warm, or driving vehicles without emission controls. It all adds up certainly - but I still cannot see where humans cumulatively have a greater impact than a Mt St Helen, or a Vesuvius. And neither could the global warming, gloom and doom prognosticators. We might actually be grateful for a few degrees of human-waste-generated warmth, if we have any more plates shifting or volcanic eruptions...

Great story thanks!.
I like to think of the planet as big power plant. Some alarm will go off telling the operator he's got a high temp problem so he trips off a few volcanos or solar flares to cool her down.

[PNW-type-gal]

Originally Posted by MrsMtnsOnTheMind

Trace the funding is all I have to say.

The USGS source of funding? The US Dept. of the Interior, headed by Bush appointee Dirk Kempthorne, former Republican governor of Idaho and founding member of the "Wise Use" movement, as anti-environmental a group as you can find.

Likewise the agency which commissioned the report, The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which is overseen by Dept. of Interior and Bush's appointee Dr. John H. Marburger in the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

[MrsMtnsOnTheMind]

I'd have to see the proof on that one.

[vec101]

Wouldn't it be a great world if we could actually trust those supplying us with the news? It's pretty hard to pick and choose what to believe. Guess the natural inclination is to believe the news that agrees with your beliefs.

I'm on the fence with global warming - believe it could be happening but just not sure how much is the natural course of nature and how much is man-made. Of course, the best thing Mother Nature could do for herself is rid herself of us humans. We just beat her to pieces and rarely stop to see the beauty she offers all around us.

[PNW-type-gal]

Originally Posted by vec101

Wouldn't it be a great world if we could actually trust those supplying us with the news? It's pretty hard to pick and choose what to believe. Guess the natural inclination is to believe the news that agrees with your beliefs.

I'm on the fence with global warming - believe it could be happening but just not sure how much is the natural course of nature and how much is man-made. Of course, the best thing Mother Nature could do for herself is rid herself of us humans. We just beat her to pieces and rarely stop to see the beauty she offers all around us.

I tend to believe the climate data collected about the past - and I wasn't much of a believer in the present rapid climate change, even though I am a geologist, until some friends in glaciology pointed me toward technical papers about ice cores and glaciers and I began reading more widely in the field.

I have a bit of trouble with the forward-looking data, which predicts what might happen, because it's based on complicated models. Models have to be developed using assumptions and conditions which may or may not be true. For instance, I think there will be a sharp limitation in available petroleum as we edge into peak oil, while the models tend to use the assumption that oil usage continues to rapidly increase, with the congruent rise in CO2 levels.

[GreenGene]

Originally Posted by vec101

Wouldn't it be a great world if we could actually trust those supplying us with the news? It's pretty hard to pick and choose what to believe. Guess the natural inclination is to believe the news that agrees with your beliefs.

I agree - it's difficult to know what to believe when so much of the "news" is actually slanted opinion pieces. Take the two stories on which this thread is based:

Obama Left with Little Time to Curb Global Warming - Just the title alone is over the top - what is a "little time"? - 2 years? 2 months? 2 days?

Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.

Almost makes it sound like Clinton is responsible for global warming, doesn't it? I mean, I know the guy is full of hot air, but really!

Then there's Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' - Just the title alone is over the top - people will see "global warming" and "hysteria" used together like that, and may see this as further "evidence" that this whole global warming thing is just nonsense.

Deming said the article is further evidence of the media's decision to talk about global warming as fact, despite what he says is a lack of evidence.

Who to believe? Personally, I'm not going to believe any "news" report on global warming. It may have been true in the past that people reporting the news actually reported facts only, and saved their opinion for the editorial page, but those days appear to be long gone. Instead, I'll go to the source. I'll look for reports based on scientific studies performed by professionals in the field - ideally, reports generated by government agencies (and not those funded by Exxon-Mobil). For example:

NASA Study Links Severe Storm Increases, Global Warming - A report by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory:

PASADENA, Calif. -- The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth's tropics -- the type associated with severe storms and rainfall -- is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

In a presentation today to the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, JPL Senior Research Scientist Hartmut Aumann outlined the results of a study based on five years of data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua spacecraft. The AIRS data were used to observe certain types of tropical clouds linked with severe storms, torrential rain and hail. The instrument typically detects about 6,000 of these clouds each day. Aumann and his team found a strong correlation between the frequency of these clouds and seasonal variations in the average sea surface temperature of the tropical oceans.

For every degree Centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in average ocean surface temperature, the team observed a 45-percent increase in the frequency of the very high clouds. At the present rate of global warming of 0.13 degrees Celsius (0.23 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade, the team inferred the frequency of these storms can be expected to increase by six percent per decade.

When I see reports from NASA, from the US Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency, and especially from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I believe such reports far more than I believe any "news" reports on the same topics.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by GreenGene

When I see reports from NASA, from the US Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency, and especially from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I believe such reports far more than I believe any "news" reports on the same topics.

Ahh but they can just as biased, it's ironic that you mention storms as that what led one top researcher to resign from the IPCC.

- Prometheus: Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC Archives
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR

If I remember correctly that's the scientist they still put his name on the report after he resigned and he ended up having to sue them to get it removed.

[SCGranny]

THANK YOU, COALMAN!!!
I remembered reading that but couldn't find it when I read GreenGene's post...

Old age does things to the mind... sigh. Anyone seen my PO Box key, btw?

[OhioNative]

I tend to be skeptical of global warming alarmists because the suggested solutions always turn out to be socialism - there is clearly a political agenda wrapped up with it. Also, the whole green movement has become a strange combination of political, marketing/consumerist, and pseudo-religious movements. It's almost like being green has become a replacement for religion and traditional ethics, especially with all the propaganda inserted into kids tv shows and school lessons. It has also become a way for companies to get people to spend money and feel like they are saving the planet - salvation through consumption. Very strange.

[Brian.Pearson]

Even if there is global warming, the Milankovitch cycles could act as a counterweight. According to the lower graph, we are very near a hot peak insofar as glaciation cycles go.

If there is no global warming, then we are in for some cold weather down the road, and we need to pump more carbon and other such things into the atmosphere.