An Inconvenient Fib...
binauralsounds
Posts: 1,357
Majority Fact of the Day
New York Times Op-Ed Heat Wave Hype Melts Under Scrutiny
Fact of the Day: Friday, August 4, 2006
New York Times Op-Ed Heat Wave Hype Melts Under Scrutiny
The August 3 New York Times op-ed by Bob Herbert titled “Hot Enough Yet,” makes several dubious global warming claims. See: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/opinion/03herbert.html?hp Herbert promotes the idea that the recent heat wave that has swept across the United States is another example of human caused catastrophic global warming. But the facts do not support this latest example of climate hysteria.
Claim: Herbert implies that the recent heat wave hitting the eastern United States is somehow evidence of global warming.
Fact: The recent heat wave hitting Mid-Atlantic States is nowhere close to breaking record temperatures set in 1930 – nearly 60 years before fears of human cased catastrophic global warming began. "That summer has never been approached, and it's not going to be approached this year," said the state of Virginia’s climatologist Patrick Michaels. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200608/NAT20060804c.html
In addition, even climate alarmist, NASA scientist James Hansen, rebuffs any attempts to tie any single weather event to global warming. "I am a little concerned about this, in the sense that we are still at a point where the natural fluctuations of climate are still large -- at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change," Hansen, director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told reporters in April 2006.
Claim: Herbert wrote: “We should keep in mind, as Al Gore has pointed out, that of the 21 hottest years ever measured, 20 have occurred within the last 25 years. And the hottest year of this recent hottest wave was last year.”
Fact: According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled, “There is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.” See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
Claim: Herbert wrote: “But with polar bears drowning because they can’t swim far enough to make it from one ice floe to another…”
Fact: Polar Bears are not going extinct because of the supposedly melting ice, according to a biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the arctic government of Nunavut. “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor wrote on May 1, 2006. See here: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146433819696&call_pageid=970599119419
Claim: Herbert wrote: “…with the once-glorious snows of Kilimanjaro about to bring down the final curtain on their long, long run…”
Fact: A New York Times recent article debunked Herbert’s claims, noting that there is ‘dubious evidence’ that Kilimanjaro is melting due to global warming. “The ice on Kilimanjaro has been in retreat since at least the 1880's, with the greatest decline occurring at the beginning of that period, when greenhouse gas concentrations were much lower,” says the New York Times article of July4, 2006 by Philip M. Boffey. “The National Academies panel judged that Kilimanjaro's glaciers "may be shrinking primarily as a continuing response to precipitation changes earlier in the century," Boffey noted.
Claim: Herbert wrote: “…with the virtual disappearance of Lake Chad in Africa, which was once the size of Lake Erie, it may be time to get serious about trying to slow this catastrophic trend.”
Fact: The disappearance of Lake Chad primarily has been caused by human overuse of water, not global warming. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population,” according to the April 26, 2001 National Geographic titled “Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources.” See: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0426_lakechadshrinks.html ).
Claim: Herbert wrote: “I think the single most effective thing most ordinary Americans could do to become more informed about global warming — and the steps we need to take to fight it — is to go see Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and read his book of the same title.”
Fact: Gore has been criticized by many scientists for his incorrect and misleading presentation of science in his movie. “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” – wrote Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal. For more scientific critique of Gore see here: http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
In April, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister questioning the basis for climate alarmism. The letter noted, "’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." See web link:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
New York Times Op-Ed Heat Wave Hype Melts Under Scrutiny
Fact of the Day: Friday, August 4, 2006
New York Times Op-Ed Heat Wave Hype Melts Under Scrutiny
The August 3 New York Times op-ed by Bob Herbert titled “Hot Enough Yet,” makes several dubious global warming claims. See: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/opinion/03herbert.html?hp Herbert promotes the idea that the recent heat wave that has swept across the United States is another example of human caused catastrophic global warming. But the facts do not support this latest example of climate hysteria.
Claim: Herbert implies that the recent heat wave hitting the eastern United States is somehow evidence of global warming.
Fact: The recent heat wave hitting Mid-Atlantic States is nowhere close to breaking record temperatures set in 1930 – nearly 60 years before fears of human cased catastrophic global warming began. "That summer has never been approached, and it's not going to be approached this year," said the state of Virginia’s climatologist Patrick Michaels. See: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200608/NAT20060804c.html
In addition, even climate alarmist, NASA scientist James Hansen, rebuffs any attempts to tie any single weather event to global warming. "I am a little concerned about this, in the sense that we are still at a point where the natural fluctuations of climate are still large -- at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change," Hansen, director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told reporters in April 2006.
Claim: Herbert wrote: “We should keep in mind, as Al Gore has pointed out, that of the 21 hottest years ever measured, 20 have occurred within the last 25 years. And the hottest year of this recent hottest wave was last year.”
Fact: According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled, “There is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.” See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
Claim: Herbert wrote: “But with polar bears drowning because they can’t swim far enough to make it from one ice floe to another…”
Fact: Polar Bears are not going extinct because of the supposedly melting ice, according to a biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the arctic government of Nunavut. “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor wrote on May 1, 2006. See here: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146433819696&call_pageid=970599119419
Claim: Herbert wrote: “…with the once-glorious snows of Kilimanjaro about to bring down the final curtain on their long, long run…”
Fact: A New York Times recent article debunked Herbert’s claims, noting that there is ‘dubious evidence’ that Kilimanjaro is melting due to global warming. “The ice on Kilimanjaro has been in retreat since at least the 1880's, with the greatest decline occurring at the beginning of that period, when greenhouse gas concentrations were much lower,” says the New York Times article of July4, 2006 by Philip M. Boffey. “The National Academies panel judged that Kilimanjaro's glaciers "may be shrinking primarily as a continuing response to precipitation changes earlier in the century," Boffey noted.
Claim: Herbert wrote: “…with the virtual disappearance of Lake Chad in Africa, which was once the size of Lake Erie, it may be time to get serious about trying to slow this catastrophic trend.”
Fact: The disappearance of Lake Chad primarily has been caused by human overuse of water, not global warming. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population,” according to the April 26, 2001 National Geographic titled “Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources.” See: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0426_lakechadshrinks.html ).
Claim: Herbert wrote: “I think the single most effective thing most ordinary Americans could do to become more informed about global warming — and the steps we need to take to fight it — is to go see Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and read his book of the same title.”
Fact: Gore has been criticized by many scientists for his incorrect and misleading presentation of science in his movie. “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” – wrote Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal. For more scientific critique of Gore see here: http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
In April, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister questioning the basis for climate alarmism. The letter noted, "’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." See web link:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
*Yes, one heat wave does not necessarily prove that global warming is occurring, however, a recurring pattern of above normal temperatures and heat waves over a longer period of time is a good indicator. Climate is determined over 25 year period of averages, so it is not so much the one heat wave but in context of many heat waves it does become alarming.*
*Perhaps this was taken out of context because I cannot find any sources showing empircal data to support this.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/saib/climate/Climatechange/SOE_95-2/sections/image-22_large_e.html
I cannot find any data graphs, research papers, scientific literature etc, to support this in full. If you can provide such data, it would be very useful, but everything that I have found support's Gore's argument.
*This one does have teeth, however it would be wrong to paint a rosy picture about the fate of the polar bear. Gore is not entirely wrong, as scientists have found a higher abundance of polar bears, but yes, their population at present time is stable. However, they have also been found to be much more underweight and with sea ice retreating, it undeniable that if the sea ice disappears than the polar bears will not have habitat to live upon. Climate change does affect the arctic areas much more than other regions, so I believe we'll begin to see a more telling picture of teh polar bears in the not so distant future. *True. Kilimanjaro has been retreating for a while now and Africa's climate has been getting hotter and drier as desertification has spread southward, however, this is not necessarily an argument against human induced global warming. I stress that the current global warming phenomenon has to be looked at in a global context-not a regional one. So, if Africa was getting hotter but the rest of the globe wasn't, than I'd agree that there are problems with the theory, but the global temperature has increased-not only in Africa and especially over the past few decades. I have not found a good source stating that most of the melt occurred early on so I won't refute that unless I find something to the contrary. *True much of the water loss has been due to incrased irrigation etc, similarly to the Aral Sea, however, the trend of increased drought and higher temperatures has some to do with it as well I'm sure.
I have not said that Gore is the Bible of climate change info. Yes, the book does take some unnecessary alarmist appeals, and yes, perhaps he doesn't overly discuss natural variation, so it does have its downfalls but overall I would still reccomend the book as a good source of entry level information that can be used to understand the key arguments and science behind it. That said it is not a textbook, it is not a primary scientific document, so it would not be adequate to reference in a paper for instance.
Bush is a retard, but that doesnt mean the democrats arent retards either.
I haven't seen the film, but I did see articles like this one.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm
The heatwave is coinciding with massive attention on the problem with co2 (and other) emissions, which means that a hot summer is naturally going to make people jump to conclusions.
FACT is that science overwhelmingly supports the idea of global warming because it makes perfect sense. We're pumping gases that already cause what's called the Greenhouse Effect into our atmosphere. This is a natural process which is the reason we have any climate at all. Essentially, the greenhouse effect is the act of different gases including ozone and Co2 trapping heat from the sun inside the earth's atmosphere. Now, we're putting far more of the gases into the process which common sense tells you is going to accelerate it. It's not some fartfetched conspiracy theory.
But the most important part of this is that people like you actually seem to be arguing against lowering the amount of pollution we pump into the earth's atmosphere. That is literally the stupidest argument I've ever heard for anything. Even stupider than the certain sect of creationists who claim dinosaurs were all vegetarians and that's why they didn't eat humans when god created everything.
It's stupid because it's literally suicidal.
You're saying,... "GLOBAL WARMING? That's complete bullshit, please pump as much pollution into our atmosphere as you want and give me respiratory diseases!"
The real, indisputable fact, is that you're arguing against a movement that's trying to lower air pollution drastically and take our dependance off of a very filthy and finite source of energy. Just because it happens to take a fairly solid scientific theory into it's argument doesn't mean you should argue against it.
It's theory. And if it's real (which odds are it is), we're fucked if we don't do something about it ASAP.
There is no reason we shouldn't be doing the things people you so despise like Al Gore are calling for.
And yes, that makes you a dumbfuck. In a major way.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Why the arguements???
It doesn't necisarilly have to be hotter in the summer in any particualr place, I thought it has been getting warmer annually near the polar caps.
Why do people argue that its not taking place?
Its a proven fact of life. The real question is wether or not you are bothered by it and if humans are the ones casuing it.. temperatures as a whole on the planet ARE annually going up.
Since when does a fucking thermometer have to become political. It's science already.
We won't have enough data to "prove" it for at least another 50 years. Like someone said, you prove this kind of thing with patterns and over long periods of time. The industrial age is fairly new in the big scheme of things. But the thing is that even the patterns that we've been able to observe are pointing towards the theory being correct.
Because they're idiots and for some reason feel like they have to oppose liberalism in all it's forms even if it's self-abusing? :rolleyes:
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Like I said, taking the original poster's side (which he's shown throughout the moving train since Gore's movie...) is suicidal.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Whatever works to get everyone thinking about the future. No need for a Mad Max scenerio..
no we're not. thats another lie that many believe. true, it would be better if we didn't rely on ragheads for our oil..but don't form your opinions around lies.
Either way, I'm sick of paying so much for fuel. Bring on hydro-power!
Jesus take a class, read a book, do something..
Plus, once again, it's a filthy filthy source of fuel which we should be trying to stop using anyway... Even if our Oceans were made out of pure oil we should still be looking for alternative fuels urgently.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
I like my air clean, so I'm gonna vote for alternative methods..
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
you should get your money back. the world will never run out of crude oil, there is a near endless supply. however, we have about tapped into everything that could be considered "cheap" oil. oil in the far northern hemisphere, as well as the pacific, would be very expensive tap into. the price of oil would become so high, as it already is, that we would best benefit from finding alternative sources. but no, the planet will not run out of oil in our lifetime.
I don't know if "endless" is the right word there, but I don't think i agree that we'll run out of oil anytime soon.
But supplies in the areas we're tapping (like the middle east) are dwindling quickly. I might live to see them bone dry. I think that message gets translated into "all oil" and that's how the argument changed.
edit: I should get my money back? Among other things, I came out of that class with a thourough understanding of this issue. That's an 82$ exam fee well spent
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
and thanks
And also, I like to spank my monkey.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Have your read the book/watched the movie? What inaccuracies were there? Anything specific?
i have not seen the movie, i get lied to enough with the media. no reason to pay somebody to do it. but i do know the movie poster featured a hurricane, and its pretty widely accepted that global warming (if it exists) would have no effects on hurricanes. i think gore was playing on our fears.
So you're judging a two hour movie and a book based on a graphic you do not like? It is not at all accepted that global warming does not effect hurriccane activity. Quite the contrary. Warming temperatures are result in a warm ocean temperature which is ingredient number 1 for hurricanes. If the ocean temperature gets warmer, hurricanes will be more intense. Ocean temperature is by far the most imporant factor in hurricane development. There is not a strong concensus yet that there will be MORE hurricanes, but there is concensus that hurricanes we have will be much stronger with warmer ocean temps. Last year was the hottest year on record and we had the highest number of hurricanes and tornadoes, along with the most intense hurricanes recorded.
Lastly, what is your reason (scientifically) that you disbelieve global warming?
i'm not judging the movie, i've never seen it. i know gore has an agenda, and i am not going to spend my money to watch propaganda. if you into that, then great. i hope you found it entertaining, i would highly recommend talladega nights. your opinions on hurricane strength, are opinions. the earth, in the past, has been far hotter than it is now. it warms, and it cools...we don't have that much of an impact. but some people need something to feel guilty about, and this feels that void.
I actually haven't seen the movie myself, but read the book. I have criticized it so I'm not saying its gospel, but it is quite good. I've studied this in university, and all he's doing is illustrating what scientists have been saying.
What I mentioned about hurricanes is not opinion. Its fact. If you know of other ways that hurricanes are formed than please inform me. Ocean temperature regulates the occurrence and severity of hurricanes. This is fact.
Yes the world climate does change naturally, but it has never warmed this quickly and with the amount of gasses we pump out we are changing the composition of the atmosphere. This is what makes this different. We haven't had CO2 levels in our atmosphere this high in 650000 years and there is no other explanation for its increase than our increased use of fossil fuels.
this guys responses are pretty weak tho ... its not really worthy of some of the other MISinformation out there ...
edit: actually - who the frig is the author of this piece??
The thing that annoys me is that there is shreds of truth taken out of context and misapplied by people who don't really understand the issue at all. I still don't understand how anybody who doesn't deny that the greenhouse effect can deny human responsibility for climate change. Kinda boggles the mind.