NewsWeek debunks its own Global Warming Story

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 14 2007, 01:50 AM) [snapback]495266[/snapback]</div>

It hardly counts as debunking. Robert J. Samuelson -- a business writer and editor, not a climate scientist -- says there has been no well funded campaign to discredit global warming. He's simply lying. It is well documented. See: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...irrors-hot.html

For example, Samuelson states "In 1989, Gallup found 63 percent of Americans worried "a great deal" or a "fair amount" about global warming; in 2007, 65 percent did." to prove that there has been no effective disinformation. Odd, given that a 2001 Gallup poll states "Americans Consider Global Warming Real, but Not Alarming. Only 31% feel it poses serious risk in their lifetime." Or that a 2006 Gallup poll states "Americans Still Not Highly Concerned About Global Warming. Though record number say it's happening now." In fact, he arrives at his 1989/2007 63/65 percent by combining the great deal/fair amount stats. To see actual trends that he's grabbing his data from, see this poll. What it shows is that the amount of people who worry about global warming a great deal has increased by 6% since 1989 (from 35 to 41%). And that in 7 out of the 14 years sampled, the number worrying that much was LOWER than 35%. Looks like disinformation at work to me. Oh, and the poll he's quoting is titled "Polluted Drinking Water Is Public's Top Environmental Concern. Concern about global warming inching up."

Then again, Samuelson's piece is in the Newsweek category of an Opinion Column, and opinion columns are notoriously free of fact-checking. In fact, rather than refuting the assertions of the earlier article, Samuelson spends most the article wringing his hands with the old "we don't have a solution to this problem so we can't do anything" argument. The article Samuelson is supposedly debunking is a thorough 7 page piece , published as Science and Technology reporting.

So, as is usually the case, the global warming denial piece is filed under opinion. And written by a businessman. The same fellow who has also written "The Prius is, I think, a parable for the broader politics of global warming. Prius politics is mostly about showing off, not curbing greenhouse gas emissions."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 14 2007, 05:56 PM) [snapback]495637[/snapback]</div>

I'm honestly puzzled - why do you think "Global Warming advocacy" groups are better funded than the opposing viewpoint, which is supported by the largest corporations on earth (oil) and the industrial base of almost every human society? Global climate change science has been developing for decades, who started to fund them to attack the very basis of modern society?

As to why Americans should be worried about climate change... wow. The sea level rise is trivial. The concern is the higher energy level of the climate system, leading to harsher and more frequent extreme weather events - flooding, storms, drought, etc. Also modern civilization cannot readily pick up and move in response to permanent climate shifts. The US is looking at astronomical infrastructure costs if even 10% of the populated areas have to re-develop their watersheds, never mind the impact on hydro power sources if ice packs dry up eliminating summer flows for power generation. Plus storm costs, although as soon as the Gulf coast is depopulated we're really only susceptible to the flooding and drought.

While I'm not an Al Gore fan, your "scientifically unsupported BS" comment appears to be a lie, and a odd one at that since you even reference (without a link I notice) the summary of a huge body of research that supports his scenario you quote. If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for a millennia (that more ice melt than precipitation, even with the increase precip driven by global warming - a realistic tipping point scenario), then the calcs are pretty strong that it is a 7 M sea level rise. Does Al falsely imply that such an outcome is a short-term risk? Maybe he finds it easier to get excited about ocean levels than the more complex (and serious) implications of water shed maintenance, annual ice pack levels, fishery health, midwest drought, etc. Not to mention that a 2C average global climate change means that it will be 6C hotter in some places and 4C cooler in others. Personally, a week of 88F in the summer is a heck of a lot different than a week of 99F.

If you want to challenge one of the hundred of facts supporting global warming, go for it. If you just want to reject the results drawn in a logical fashion based on analysis of those facts for no reason, as an engineer sort my self I am going to think you a bit ignorant. The last factual attack on anthropomorphically forced climate change was settled when the satellite temperature records were reconciled with other temperature logs after the discovery of the clock error (things like volcanic emissions and solar cycle inputs were trivial to reconcile).

 

I'd like the deniers to state what it will take for them to finally acknowledge Global Warming. So that when it happens I can say "Told you so."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 14 2007, 09:20 PM) [snapback]495921[/snapback]</div>

Why when we all know it will never happen? Silly.

Wildkow

 

Samuelson, in his column, cited the Guardian article as one that was discredited. That's the article that linked Exxon-Mobil to the American Enterprise Institute, and then linked the AEI's proposed survey of experts in the field of climatology with a standard honorarium to compensate them for evaluating the UN's recent report. It has been fodder for the non-scientists debating the issue from the left (but not from the scientists themselves).

While the links between AEI and Exxon-Mobil are there, they are overstated in the Guardian article. Both in terms of Exxon-Mobil's funding of AEI, and incorrect in terms of what AEI actually proposed. AEI is not "funded by oil companies" ... most of its funding comes from the John M. Olin Foundation, IIRC ... and it is not a "lobbying group" as the Guardian article stated. It is conservative, which means the Guardian feels it can knowingly and purposefully lie about it. Newsweek's error, according to Samuelson, is not in citing GW as a concern, but in using a discredited source for part of its rationale. And he's right.

AEI responded to the Guardian article with some references on 2/19/07:

From http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/pr...5&R=1131E2F

AEI's honorarium is often cited by the political (rather than scientific) supporters of climate change to bolster their opinion that we should no longer even discuss the issue because it is "proven". We have a lot to learn about rising CO2 levels, and strident voices lying about corporate intent is not helpful.

For its part, Exxon-Mobil has not funded anti-GW studies with the intent to force an outcome of the study, and does not "deny" global warming exists or even that it is caused by humans burning hydrocarbons. In fact, Exxon-Mobil climate scientists participated in the 4th Assessment by the IPCC:

From http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environme..._mobil_res.html

Exxon-Mobil's response to the IPCC 4th Assessment is on the LawProfessor's site in a .DOC format, at http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environme...K%20(clean).doc I have not validated the document as genuine, but it fits in with other press releases I've seen from the major oil companies.

The political advocates of global warming/climate change want to portray the issue as one similar to the Big Tobacco denial of harm from cigarette smoking, engaging in a kind of class warfare or, at least, they are engaging in feel-good populist rhetoric. But it is a lie, and it is not helpful.

There are serious problems with some of the surface temperature data points, and rigorous examination of those issues is in order. Science should welcome this, and the problem of proprietary software (which can't be released to the public) makes examining the computer models difficult. So more transparency, not less, is needed before the public will trust their lives to policies currently advocated by granola crunching, Prius driving, socialist 'greens' who have long advocated draconian measures like mandatory population control and elimination of suburban sprawl.

 

Transparency .. as in white house editing of scientific reports ? Or just more propaganda ?

Btw, while you were frothing at the mouth at the death threat environmentalists pose, you somehow forgot to add sandal wearing, mult-lingual, thin, anti-war, and evolutionist.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 15 2007, 12:36 AM) [snapback]495966[/snapback]</div>

The trouble is the tobacco connection is there and it's clear. Exxon funded work of Steven Millroy, who ran the tobacco campaign to downplay the dangers of secondhand smoke.

<blockquote>Steven Milloy
Tobacco Money
Headed The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a group that the Philip Morris tobacco
company covertly created in 1993 to manufacture uncertainty about the health hazards posed by secondhand smoke

Oil Money
Member, Global Climate Science Team (GCST), a group created in part by ExxonMobil that outlined an explicit strategy to invest millions of dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming. Home address listed for the slightly renamed The Advancement of Sound Science Center (TASSC) and the Free Enterprise Action Institute, both funded by ExxonMobil.</blockquote>
The guardian article is one paragraph in the 7 page Newsweek article, just as the AEI is but one of many organizations mentioned. Samuelson cherry-picks those two and ignores the rest, making his rebuttal far from convincing in my opinion (that and his Prius-bashing--it just makes me doubt his intelligence ).

Exxon has funded many organizations to combat climate science (attachment).
Even the Royal Society of Great Britain called on Exxon to stop funding bad science.
Royal Society Letter to Exxon

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 14 2007, 09:57 PM) [snapback]495782[/snapback]</div>

It's not just the ice melting that contributes to the sea rise. As the ocean water warms, it expands also.

~buttster

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 14 2007, 09:57 PM) [snapback]495782[/snapback]</div>

The ONLY link I had in my post was to the IPCC (I did indeed google it), which on page 17 of the Summary for Policy Makers (ie, the simplest possible summary) contains the 7 m sea level rise scenario exactly as I described it (I cut and pasted it actually). I'm sorry, but you're crossing the line from ignorant to belligerently unable to comprehend simple facts. If you're going to attack me, please take the time to read what I wrote. If you want to discuss the facts, that's fine, but I don't see a point in arguing with someone who appears to just be repeating a talking head (be it an ex-VP or FoxNews) with an agenda or is simply intellectually unable to comprehend anything but simple and profoundly incorrect descriptions of a complex scientific field.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 14 2007, 11:20 PM) [snapback]495921[/snapback]</div>

I acknowledge there's GW; I never denied it. If there was no GW we'd still be in an ice age, right? I also acknowledge there's global cooling (GC). There's probably something like global stagnancy (GS), and I'd acknowledge that too.

Is it totally mankind's fault? Nope.
Do we contribute? Probably.
Exactly how much? Unknown.
Can we control the Earth's climate? Undetermined but unlikely.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Aug 15 2007, 10:30 AM) [snapback]496128[/snapback]</div>

So is bad science defined as that which doesn't agree with the approved/pre-determined/politically correct conclusion? What makes me suspicious of the conclusion of those that claim man is causing global warming is the constant insistence that the matter is settled and no debate should be allowed (see the newsweek article that claims the debate is stopping us from doing anything) and needs to be prevented from offering contrary opinions. Why is there intimidation of those that would disagree with the politically correct conclusions on GW? It belies an underlying agenda that wants to stay hidden.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Aug 15 2007, 08:55 AM) [snapback]496158[/snapback]</div>

A world wide agenda supported by 100s of countries? Man, your conspiracy must run DEEP!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Aug 15 2007, 10:51 AM) [snapback]496150[/snapback]</div>

I agree with all of that response...!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Aug 15 2007, 10:55 AM) [snapback]496158[/snapback]</div>

Bad science is non-peer reviewed. It's what you get in opinion columns, like Samuelson's. You won't meet a harsher and more aggressive group of critics than scientists. They live to prove each other wrong. Real science has no predetermined outcome. Thus, the fact that nearly all peer-reviewed published science articles confirm human-caused global warming is stunning.

That Exxon funded a small handful of contrarians to fog up the issue in the uncritical mainstream media is distressing. But it worked for Tobacco, i.e., "the issue needs further study," and it has worked to muddle up the issue of global warming and prevent more policy action.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 15 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]496170[/snapback]</div>

No, an agenda that will result in massive changes to our society and cost trillions of dollars based upon predictions and computer models that have an accuracy level most people wouldn't bet on.

By the way, I like your posting pic, but I can't see well enough to be able to tell what book she is holding.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]495966[/snapback]</div>

The rigorous examination of these issues has been done, peer reviewed, published, tested, and adjusted for decades (the man-driven global warming consensus is coming up on a decade). All of it has been painstakingly transparent, with tens of thousands of pages of journal articles and PhD thesis's gathering dust dating from the early 90's. The last major factual question was chewed into when the satellite data analysis of atmospheric temperatures done in 1992 was reassessed in light of contradictory measurements a couple years ago. A few key errors were found and the current climate models were found to not be wrong, but actually further validated (with big 'ol error bars, as any real science will have). And climate change deniers quietly quit trumpeting this single outlier dataset, quit arguing the now iron-clad irrefutable proof of global temperature increases, and embraced "but it's all natural!" with absolutely no factual argument as to the 'all natural' mechanism. Software is tested by comparing its predictions to actual results, and the current climate models have been validated by accurately predicting the actual climate behavior. At what point do you start to trust what all the professionals are telling you?

Global climate change deniers cannot be refuted scientifically since they are not presenting any alternative scientific model with publicly available assumptions and facts that can be directly tested and debated. There is no "all natural" climate change model - that is based on facts, calculations, and tested by providing accurate predictions - in existence. They spent 20 years looking for one before finding they had to add in the unprecedented CO2 spike to make the numbers work, and then spent another 10 years testing and tuning that approach. The models are still quite imperfect and hundreds (maybe thousands) of scientists and grad students are looking to make their dissertation by finding a factual hole.

Sorry I'm ranting - your rational comment doesn't deserve it. My point is simply that you (and certainly I!) cannot understand a field with this breadth and depth of datasets unless you have an awful lot of time to dedicate to it (40-60 hours a week for at least 7 years) and a better analytical mind than I. All you can really do is choose your champion. I (obviously ) have chosen to side with the non-partisan National Academies of Science from most of the first world nations and their frightening stack of publicly available data. There is no opposing scientific theory, all of the 'its a natural cycle' theories do not work when the numbers are run (volcanic gas generation, solar irradiation measurements, tundra off gassing, forestation impacts, etc.).