Forbes: Global Warming: Hot Sensations versus Cold Facts

[Wrong Direction]

The author is coming out with a book. Here's some snippents of his article.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/23/media-climate-change-warming-opinions-contributors-larry-bell.html

As 2010 draws to a close, do you remember hearing any good news from the mainstream media about climate? Like maybe a headline proclaiming "Record Low 2009 and 2010 Cyclonic Activity Reported: Global Warming Theorists Perplexed"? Or "NASA Studies Report Oceans Entering New Cooling Phase: Alarmists Fear Climate Science Budgets in Peril"?

Remember all the media brouhaha about global warming causing hurricanes that commenced following the devastating U.S. 2004 season? Opportunities to capitalize on those disasters were certainly not lost on some U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change officials. A special press conference called by IPCC spokesman Kevin Trenberth announced "Experts warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity."

But there was a problem. Christopher Landsea, a top U.S. expert on the subject, repeatedly notified the IPCC that no research had been conducted to support that claim--not in the Atlantic basin, or in any other basin. After receiving no replies, he publicly resigned from all IPCC activities.

Subsequent hurricane seasons returned to average patterns noted historically over the past 150 years, before exhibiting recent record lows with no 2010 U.S. landfalls.

Much global warming alarm centers upon concerns that melting glaciers will cause a disastrous sea level rise. A globally viewed December 2005 BBC feature alarmingly reported that two massive glaciers in eastern Greenland, Kangderlugssuaq and Helheim, were melting, with water "racing to the sea." Commentators urgently warned that continued recession would be catastrophic.

Reporters somehow failed to notice that only 18 months later, and despite slightly warmer temperatures, the melting rate of both glaciers not only slowed down and stopped, but actually reversed. Satellite images revealed that by August 2006 Helheim had advanced beyond its 1933 boundary.

According to two separate NASA studies, one conducted by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the other by the Langley Research Center, the oceans now appear to be heading into another natural periodic cooling phase within a typical 55- to 70-year dipolar warm/cool pattern. Although Greenland has recently been experiencing a slight warming trend, satellite measurements show that the ice cap has been accumulating snow growth at a rate of about 2.1 inches per year. Temperatures only recently began to exceed those of the 1930s and 1940s when many glaciers were probably smaller than now. (We can't be certain, because satellites didn't exist to measure them.)

A recent study conducted by U.S. and Dutch scientists that appeared in the journal Nature Geoscience concluded that previous estimates of Greenland and West Antarctica ice melt rate losses may have been exaggerated by double.

Studies by the International Union for Quaternary Research conclude that some ocean levels have even fallen in recent decades. The Indian Ocean, for example, was higher between 1900 and 1970 than it has been since.

And in February 2009 it was discovered that scientists had previously been underestimating the re-growth of Arctic sea ice by an area larger than the state of California (twice as large as New Zealand). The errors were attributed to faulty sensors on the ice.

But these aren't the sorts of observations that most people generally receive from the media. Instead, they present sensational statements and dramatic images that leave lasting impressions of calving glaciers, drowning polar bears and all manner of other man-caused climate calamities.

...

Lots of grown-ups are sensitive people with big hearts too. Don't we all deserve more from the seemingly infinite media echo chamber of alarmism than those windy speculations, snow jobs and projections established on theoretical thin ice?

[Predicto]

The Media HAS done a lousy job on this issue. It always does a lousy job on complicated subjects that can't be completely explained in three sentences or less. Sensationalism (both for and against a subject) always sells more papers or garners more web hits.

It appears that the author of this book has his own axe to grind, and is doing the exact same thing in reverse. He is cherrypicking and spinning specific factoids to sell his view that there is no global warming at all. For example, he talks about Christopher Landsea, and the discussion implies that Landsea thinks that manmade global warming is not happening. If you research the guy, you find out that Landsea DOES think that manmade global warming is happening. he just doesn't think that it has been demonstrated that global warming is contributing to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes.

The author isn't searching for truth any more than the guy who writes the alarming global warming headline for the New York Daily News.

[alexey]

Yes it would be unwise to rely on the media to properly report on the science of climate change.

(that includes relying on Forbes as well)

I've been really enjoying Science News, highly recommended: http://www.sciencenews.org/

[Wrong Direction]

I'm assuming that his larger argument isn't just that the media isn't very good, but that this notion that the science is settled is a false narrative spewed by people who are vested in the process.

For what it's worth, I'm in the camp that believes AGW is possible, but isn't sold on anything related to degree (large or small).

[alexey]

I'm assuming that his larger argument isn't just that the media isn't very good, but that this notion that the science is settled is a false narrative spewed by people who are vested in the process.

For what it's worth, I'm in the camp that believes AGW is possible, but isn't sold on anything related to degree (large or small).

The only point he succeeds in making is that the media isn't very good.

[Predicto]

I'm assuming that his larger argument isn't just that the media isn't very good, but that this notion that the science is settled is a false narrative spewed by people who are vested in the process.

.

Yes, that is what he is arguing. But in this case, proving A does not prove B at all. The fact that the media distorts or sensationalized things does not at all demonstrate that the science is genuinely unsettled. In fact, the only way to make that argument is... to distort and sensationalize the stories you tell in your book.

For example, the author talks about one glacier that has made a recovery, inplying that this represents all glaciers around the world. He does not mention the innumerable glaciers that continue to shrink, including our own Glacier National Park. If he researched this subject enough to write an entire book, he has to know that he is distorting things.

He is worse than the ignorant media he criticizes. At least the underinformed cub reporter on the Miami Tribune thinks he or she is getting the story right, right before turning to write the next article about a lost kitten in Boca Raton. This author is flat out selling snake oil because he knows his audience wants to read about the "global warming conspiracy."

[Skins24]

He is cherrypicking and spinning specific factoids to sell his view that there is no global warming at all.

Where? :whoknows:

I see a couple times where he mentions temps rising, but can't seem to find him implying global warming doesn't exist.

Seems he has the same problem I have with all of this. The rates and effects of "climate change" are being vastly overblown for no apparent reason.

[No_Pressure]

Yeah of course the media sucks. What would you rather put on your channel if you were a news CEO without morals? Would you talk about boring gains and losses in size of the ice shelf in X region or "29 POLAR BEARS FELL INTO THE OCEAN AND DROWNED BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING! ARE YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN SAFE? FIND OUT AT 11!!!!"

[Predicto]

Where? :whoknows:

I see a couple times where he mentions temps rising, but can't seem to find him implying global warming doesn't exist.

Seems he has the same problem I have with all of this. The rates and effects of "climate change" are being vastly overblown for no apparent reason.

There is a reason. It is to sell newspapers and generate page hits.

You are assuming that the rates and effects of climate change are vastly overblown. From where do you get this assumption? Answer - from the "other media," the one that sells ITS newspapers and generates ITS page hits by saying that the whole thing is overblown.

The science media gives the real story: Manmade global warming is a genuine and serious problem, but no one in the world is exactly sure how it is going to manifest itself.

The mainstream media is correct on the first point, but gets the second point wrong. The conservative media gets the second point, but is wrong on the first point. :whoknows:

[Wrong Direction]

The science media gives the real story: Manmade global warming is a genuine and serious problem, but no one in the world is exactly sure how it is going to manifest itself.

The mainstream media is correct on the first point, but gets the second point wrong. The conservative media gets the second point, but is wrong on the first point. :whoknows:

So, it's serious, but they don't know how it'll manifest itself? I think the question is about how serious it'll be AND how it will/will not manifest itself.

[PeterMP]

Ice/snow as a function of warming are not good short term measures because they're related factors. Increasing precipitation where temperatures still stay below freezing for much of the year can cause increases in ice and snow in the face of over all warming.

Longer term though, any doubt that warming will cause net melting and an increase in sea levels is just dumb.

And longer term globally melting is happening and sea levels are rising (though most of the sea level increase isn't from melting, but the thermal expansion of water).

---------- Post added December-29th-2010 at 04:13 PM ----------

So, it's serious, but they don't know how it'll manifest itself? I think the question is about how serious it'll be AND how it will/will not manifest itself.

Any significant change to a system is highly likely to be determental the existing evolutionary systems there in.

[alexey]

So, it's serious, but they don't know how it'll manifest itself? I think the question is about how serious it'll be AND how it will/will not manifest itself.

We are seeing significant changes, so it will be serious even if there is uncertainty. Hurricanes provide a great example of this uncertainty.

The scientific situation on this is covered very well here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/11/8pa8duiMiS0

I will try and retype the main stuff here:

They know that warmer water causes hurricanes to become stronger, and that global warming will rise the water temperature. However, they also know that global warming increases wind shear in the upper troposphere... and greater wind shear tends to "chop off" tops of hurricanes before they have a chance to form... However, this wind shear will not kill stronger hurricanes, and warmer water will make them even stronger... so the current scientific position appears to be that global warming will reduce the number of hurricanes, but make hurricanes that do occur stronger.

[sacase]

GW or GCC however you want to spin it, is a farce designed to get money out of goverments, period. The planet has handled far worse things in the past than what people like to call GW. Fact of the matter is scientiests don't know what is going to happen, they don't know if its going to be global warming or cooling, hence the new name, of climate change. Hell they don't even know how the climate is going to change, maybe it is meant to change.

If you tell me you want a cleaner enviroment, I am with you on that, we can do that a smart way, and I will agree with you, there is nothing better than mother nature unspoiled. However, once you start talking about GW or GCC......missed me with that ****.

[alexey]

GW or GCC however you want to spin it, is a farce designed to get money out of goverments, period. The planet has handled far worse things in the past than what people like to call GW. Fact of the matter is scientiests don't know what is going to happen, they don't know if its going to be global warming or cooling, hence the new name, of climate change. Hell they don't even know how the climate is going to change, maybe it is meant to change.

If you tell me you want a cleaner enviroment, I am with you on that, we can do that a smart way, and I will agree with you, there is nothing better than mother nature unspoiled. However, once you start talking about GW or GCC......missed me with that ****.

This is bull****.

These series of videos do a pretty good job describing the science, as well as bull****, on both sides, behind all the hoopla:

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/0/52KLGqDSAjo

[Bang]

You know, maybe this makes me ignorant, but the second anyone refers to the "mainstream media" I tune them out.

If you're going to try to present a plausible argument, but you tilt at such a vague and broad stroked windmill, I really can't see how you can make any sort of point at all since you steadfastly refuse to believe anything that doesn't agree with your conclusion, and you can paint them all into this gigantic amorphous lump of "msm".

It's a bull**** propaganda technique meant to immediately discredit and dismiss any opposing view that does not originate from your pre-approved sources.

Since the first quote I read is a bit of pre-emptive strike propaganda, I see no reason to trust anything else he says.

~Bang

[Predicto]

GW or GCC however you want to spin it, is a farce designed to get money out of goverments, period. The planet has handled far worse things in the past than what people like to call GW. Fact of the matter is scientiests don't know what is going to happen, they don't know if its going to be global warming or cooling, hence the new name, of climate change. Hell they don't even know how the climate is going to change, maybe it is meant to change.

If you tell me you want a cleaner enviroment, I am with you on that, we can do that a smart way, and I will agree with you, there is nothing better than mother nature unspoiled. However, once you start talking about GW or GCC......missed me with that ****.

You have been sadly fooled by your sources of information, which is not surprising given your predisposed political leanings.

As a liberal, it took me a long time to accept that welfare reform was necessary. But I eventually got there. You will get there too.

Anytime someone claims that thousands and thousands of independent scientific professionals are all involved in a massive conspiracy to fake all of their work in order to get government funding... when in reality any scientist would actually be a hundred times richer and more famous if they could legitimately DISPROVE global climate change... well, that is a belief that is based on political faith, not reality.

[Wrong Direction]

As a liberal, it took me a long time to accept that welfare reform was necessary. But I eventually got there. You will get there too.

Hopefully that means you agree that more welfare and unemployment reform is needed, but I digress.

In all seriousness, how is Bob Segar the music equivalent of Carrot Top?

[Predicto]

Hopefully that means you agree that more welfare and unemployment reform is needed, but I digress.

Yes, I do agree with that, actually. I don't agree with GOP proposals that tend to equate "reform" with "abolish" but I do agree that more changes a needed.

In all seriousness, how is Bob Segar the music equivalent of Carrot Top?

Trust me. You don't want me to derail this thread.

[Larry]

You know, maybe this makes me ignorant, but the second anyone refers to the "mainstream media" I tune them out.

If you're going to try to present a plausible argument, but you tilt at such a vague and broad stroked windmill, I really can't see how you can make any sort of point at all since you steadfastly refuse to believe anything that doesn't agree with your conclusion, and you can paint them all into this gigantic amorphous lump of "msm".

It's a bull**** propaganda technique meant to immediately discredit and dismiss any opposing view that does not originate from your pre-approved sources.

Since the first quote I read is a bit of pre-emptive strike propaganda, I see no reason to trust anything else he says.

~Bang

Me, my "moment" with the "liberal media" sound bite came many years ago.

It was rather early in the Reagan administration, and I was listening to Rush Limbaugh. (I liked political talk radio, having been a regular listener of Braden and Buchanan on WRC radio in DC. But I'd moved, and Limbaugh was the only person my radio could get who was actually discussing the news. Yeah, I disagreed with some of his opinions, but I listened because I wanted the facts.)

And Limbaugh was explaining to his audience that, now, the liberal media is going to tell you something, and you're going to hear this information. They're going to tell you that the federal deficit just set a new record. Breaking last year's record. Which broke the previous year's record.

And here's why the liberal media are all biased: Not one of those network news anchors is going to tell you that all deficits are completely and exclusively caused by Congress.

And he kept hammering this home. Repeating it, over and over.

And it occurred to me.

1) "The deficit set a new record" is a fact.

2) "Deficits are caused by Congress" is not. (It

may

be true, depending on circumstances. But there's certainly no hard immutable rule that says it's always so.)

3) His definition of "liberal biased media" is "one that presents a fact without providing the spin that I think it should have."

4) And what he's doing is: Telling his audience which parts of reality to ignore.

[PeterMP]

Hurricanes are complex, especially as there are Atlantic and Pacific Hurricanes. Conditions that favor one disfavor the other.

For example, the 2009 Atlantic Hurricane season was below average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Atlantic_hurricane_season

The Pacific season was above average though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Pacific_hurricane_season

On the other hand, the 2010 Atlantic season was above average (despite no US land falls).

And the 2010 Pacific season was below average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Atlantic_hurricane_season

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pacific_hurricane_season

Even Landsea though agrees that warming will strengthen hurricanes. His point is that at this point time, it hasn't been expected be more than a very little bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea

This issue has also made several occurences in the "main stream media"

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/1098984201.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Aug+20%2C+2006&author=Juliet+Eilperin+-+Washington+Post+Staff+Writer&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.3&desc=Scientists+Disagree+On+Link+Between+Storms%2C+Warming%3B+Same+Data%2C+Different+Conclusions

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/science/04cyclone.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/science/earth/29hurr.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/23/hurricane.cycle/index.html?iref=allsearch

[Skins24]

The 2009 and 2010 hurricane seasons had absolutely nothing to do with global warming for either the Atlantic or Pacific and had everything to do with a strong El Nino last year and strong La Nina this year.

Even Landsea though agrees that warming will strengthen hurricanes. His point is that at this point time, it hasn't been expected be more than a very little bit.

Where do you see that at??

As for climate change affecting hurricane strength, Landsea said that global warming theories and numerical modeling suggest only that "hurricanes like Katrina and Rita may have been stronger due to global warming but maybe by one or two miles per hour."

He only states there are theories that those hurricanes were possibly stronger due to GW, and by very little (unlike some of the sensationalist stuff out there)

Predicto:

You are assuming that the rates and effects of climate change are vastly overblown.

Not assuming, until proven otherwise, they simply are. Period

From where do you get this assumption? Answer - from the "other media," the one that sells ITS newspapers and generates ITS page hits by saying that the whole thing is overblown.

Original research

[alexey]

The 2009 and 2010 hurricane seasons had absolutely nothing to do with global warming for either the Atlantic or Pacific and had everything to do with a strong El Nino last year and strong La Nina this year.

Highlighted part is a sure sign of bull****.

Here is an example of a non-bull**** way of saying something like that:

Climatologists say it's likely that increased number of hurricanes between 1995 and 2005 is mainly due to the 60 to 80 year natural cycle called Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO).

[LD0506]

Well here's another "fun" conversation

Science in any form does not lend itself well to the causes of the media, period. For the many decades that I have been interested in science I cannot recall a single instance where reporting at large covered a subject thoroughly or well. The most you can ever hope is that they draw your attention to a set issue and spark enough interest that you follow it up, and that involves a lot of that boring reading stuff that so many are loathe to do. This is a good case in point.

Science is and has been since its inception a slow, diligent process of observation and analysis, there is very little in it that is flashy enough to garner much attention unless it is stuffed into the food processor and reduced to pap suitable for easy consumption.This is never going to change and you might as well rail against the weather as this.

Any legitimate scientist of any regimen or stripe whatsoever will tell you that we do not know, that knowing is in itself not the point of the process as much as the pursuit of knowing is. It is sheer folly to claim that mankind has no effect, but for arguably the first time ever we are ascending to the level of macro effect on the world's environment and we do not have the tools or historical observation data to fully understand effects on this scale, much less having the slightest grasp on the interactions between multiple macro effects. The overwhelming amount of information we collect nowadays impedes the process just by its volume, it will require decades to make any sense of it.

But none of that constitutes a reason not to investigate, observe and collect data with the intention of "knowing". The most that any of us can hope for is that the science is co-opted as little as possible so that it can pursue knowledge that may be of use.

[Hubbs]

It's cold outside today! Those global warming people are idiots!

It's hot outside today! Those global warming deniers are idiots!

...thus concludes my contribution of typical cable news network opinions to the thread.

[SnyderShrugged]

Whatever happened to the good ol days where woodsy owl, Smokey Bear and the Native American with tear rolling down his cheek next to a dump all convinced us the importance of conservation and pollution control?