Global warming skeptics disregard the facts
12/15/2010 7:00:10 AM
I was dismayed to see the online comments posted on the Post-Bulletin’s article, “Snow emergency declared in Rochester.” By 9:45 a.m. there were 18 comments. Six of these declared global warming to be a hoax.
We see too much of this phenomenon: people’s beliefs about climate change science fluctuate with the daily weather reports. On hot days they are believers; on cold days they’re not. I call on all of our local news outlets to do a much better job of educating the public on the basic facts.
And the basic facts are not up for debate. First, weather (a daily event) simply is not the same thing as climate (the average of all regional weather over extended periods of time). Second, nobody disagrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The only disagreement seems to be whether or not the CO2 that comes out of tailpipes and smokestacks has the same effect as CO2 that occurs naturally.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that CO2 is CO2 regardless of where it comes from, or doesn’t understand that today’s weather is not an indicator of regional climatic shifts over time, needs to be educated, not given a public forum. All of us are entitled to our own opinions, but none of us are entitled to our own facts.
Steve Bein
Rochester
Ever hear of a soda bottle?
I call on all of our local news outlets to do a much better job of educating the public on the basic facts.
And they should listen to you because?
“people’s beliefs about climate change science fluctuate with the daily weather reports. On hot days they are believers; on cold days they’re not.”
No, that’s not my experience. Many hard core skeptics never did believe. We just couldn’t see it. Others, through time, left the believers when they just couldn’t stand to see the lies and manipulations anymore. Some hard core believers still persist, but there’s only so many harsh winters they can go through without throwing in the towel.
Guys, I just posted a response to a recent frequent poster here at realscience. I’d appreciate a read and your views. While the view I have isn’t unique, I don’t see it articulated often in the skeptic community and I’m wondering if I got something wrong. Criticism is especially welcome, but either way.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/nasa-says-it-is-warmer-now-than-the-1970s/#comment-21664
arguing about the MWP is a waste of time. duh.
lol, ok, well Peter, I had a different thought in mind, but thanks…….I think.
I should point out, though, that I didn’t limit myself only to the MWP, but also the hockey stick and the “trick to hide the decline”.
sorry! i just meant he has obviously made up his mind.
lol, np, I was trying to be humorous but failed.
I know sometimes it seems a waste of time, but, often in blogs, there are lurkers. Ones that only watch and read but don’t post. Will I convince Sense that he’s wrong? Probably not. Will some reader follow the discussion? Perhaps.
It could be the megalomaniac in me, and none of this is original thought, but I think I’ve presented a fairly good case for debunking the “there never was a global MWP” thought, while all at the same time stomping on the ashes of a hockey stick used for kindling.
Which is why I’ve asked for feedback.
I think you overestimate the abilities of the public on this forum, Suyts, asking for feedback on complex matters.
Perhaps, but hope springs eternal! .
All humor aside, while I agree that this site is given to blunt and satirical musings, some of the people here are quite sharp. I can say this because their postings are well known to me. Others, I haven’t pinned down yet. In spite of the tone and tenor here, some of Steve G’s articles elsewhere are spot on, insightful and nuanced. AAM is another that has shown to be quick and easily grasps concepts. (Some that I struggle with.) Of course there are others here, that are equally adept, but I’m just not as familiar with them or I don’t recognize their alias’.
It’s difficult for me to explain,…….and upon reflection, will save for another day, but they dynamic you are seeing here is culmination of events and experiences.
I followed the paper through its processes and it was more than peer reviewed because after it went through the normal peer review process it became a discussion paper about the statistics methods used. Thrown in were comments about the quality of proxy material which in itself makes all the paleo reconstructions that support the hockey stick bogus.
We each hope some one that visits will read something we write and follow where it leads to find their own answers.
True that. Thanks, Mike. Yes, the paper is a very strong statement. I guess what I was asking for, and perhaps won’t get, is a view of how I tied the paper to not only the MWP and the sudden upturn in the hockey stick graph, but also how it infers Mann used his trick in his original paper. While it is true that none of these thoughts are original, I don’t see it given much time in its aggregate.
Perhaps I’ve missed something, but, the statements used, wraps it up quite nicely, in my mind.
Yes, there was a MWP,(not new) no, the MWP wasn’t confined to the north Atlantic,(not new), Jones spliced to different sets of datum together (given), Jones used Mann’s trick to do so (given). Why? Because of the divergence of proxy to real temps (given). Same proxy data was used for Mann’s multiple studies(shown). If there was a divergence to hide, then why wasn’t this on display for Mann’s multiple studies? Or the other subsequent studies done by others using the same data?
First, weather (a daily event) simply is not the same thing as climate…
i like this argument. if climate is not weather, then we don’t have to worry. we will continue to have our normal weather whatever happens with their ‘climate’
The weather is not climate schpiel is a semantical dodge by warmists. We never hear this cry when their fellow warmist are, for example, blaming the Russian ‘heatwave’ on AGW.
If we’re going to get random weather just like we always did with AGW then why should we worry about it?
Yes but Russia and Philadelphia were obvious evidence for “global warming”. ;O)
It doesn’t matter that it looks like hypocrisy. It’s their hypocrisy so that makes it ok. Al Gore’s Gulfstream jet is ok hypocrisy too. You see, they are out saving the world. Hypocrisy doesn’t apply to you if you are out saving the world.
That’s odd, everyone I know still thought it was a total crock last August………..
Armstrong and Miller – Weather is not climate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk&feature=player_embedded
Wow… the AGW movement is really in a decline if even the ultra-PC Brits are being allowed to mock it on TV.
“.. nobody disagrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The only disagreement seems to be whether or not the CO2 that comes out of tailpipes and smokestacks has the same effect as CO2 that occurs naturally.”
I have never heard anyone suggest that either type of CO2 has any differing effect. That’s a new claim to me and I have been a vocal skeptic for 3 years now. To the best of my knowledge nobody disagrees that CO2 is agreenhouse gas. The only disagreement seems to be whether human CO2 output is driving or changing the earth’s climate.
Those that rely on superstition and religion for their facts must make sure that those with real facts are not heard.