PBS Attacked for Allowing Global Warm...

PBS Attacked for Allowing Global Warming Skeptic to Speak

There are 289 comments on the NewsBusters.org story from Sep 19, 2012, titled PBS Attacked for Allowing Global Warming Skeptic to Speak. In it, NewsBusters.org reports that:

If you had any doubts about the level of zealotry involved in today's global warming movement, they likely will be erased by the goings on at PBS the past few days.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsBusters.org.

LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#21 Sep 19, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
The reason for the objection is of course that Watts repeats a load of oft-debunked pseudo sceptic nonsense.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/watts-pbs-new...
The guy is a retired weatherman, not even in touch with the Meterology Academy which recently posted a position on AGW, confirming that it accepts the science.

The denialists would seem to want to make this about suppression of 'skepticism' but he is NOT a skeptic. He is a denier. He has no basic understanding of the science and posts the most outrageous trash. The station should be censured just the same as if they had brought in 'Joe the Plumber'. After all, they should be showing discussions with SOME credibility, not drafting idiots to parrot the stupidity promoted by some political and economic special interests.

The reaction should be to boycott this station until they up their
'standards of journalism' above the 'ROTFLOL' level.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#22 Sep 19, 2012
Some of Watts posts are indicative of his cluelessness.

"Climate modeler and British Green Party member William Connolley called Muller's study rubbish, saying they hadn't added any knowledge to what had been done before."

True.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/07/28/mull...
Note that William M. Connolley is commenting on the fact that the BEST study did nothing but eliminate some BOGUS 'faulty methodology' claims by persons who had no basic understanding of the validation of the methodology.

So, rubbish is a bit extreme, but it is true that the science stood up BEFORE the BEST study and the BEST study doesn't 'fix' anything.

"Skeptics were even more dismissive of Muller`s work."

Denialists sure. But no science has been provided by any legitimate skeptic that stands up to scrutiny. The denialists are 'dismissive' because that is their POLITICAL agenda.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#23 Sep 19, 2012
GOP Not Listening to Its Own Scientists on Climate Change

A number of prominent U.S. climate scientists who identify themselves as Republican say their attempts in recent years to educate the GOP leadership on the scientific evidence of man-made climate change have been futile. Now, many have given up trying and the few who continue notice very little change after speaking with politicians and their aides.

"No GOP candidates or policymakers want to touch the issue, and those of us trying to educate them are left frustrated," Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a registered Republican, told InsideClimate News. "Climate change has become a third rail in politics."

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120221/re...

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#24 Sep 20, 2012
Who would have ever thought that AGW would cause Arctic sea ice to set a new record when the climate models predicted the Arctic was to be ice free a couple years ago.

"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/...

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#25 Sep 20, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
GOP Not Listening to Its Own Scientists on Climate Change
A number of prominent U.S. climate scientists who identify themselves as Republican say their attempts in recent years to educate the GOP leadership on the scientific evidence of man-made climate change have been futile. Now, many have given up trying and the few who continue notice very little change after speaking with politicians and their aides.
"No GOP candidates or policymakers want to touch the issue, and those of us trying to educate them are left frustrated," Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a registered Republican, told InsideClimate News. "Climate change has become a third rail in politics."
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120221/re...
Yes there are morons everywhere

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#26 Sep 20, 2012
Sam Lowree wrote:
Who would have ever thought that AGW would cause Arctic sea ice to set a new record when the climate models predicted the Arctic was to be ice free a couple years ago.
"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/...
The Arctic, an ocean surrounded by land, responds much more directly to changes in air and sea-surface temperatures than Antarctica, Serreze explained. The climate of Antarctica, land surrounded by ocean, is governed much more by wind and ocean currents. Some studies indicate climate change has strengthened westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere, and because wind has a cooling effect, scientists say this partly accounts for the marginal increase in sea ice levels that have been observed in the Antarctic in recent decades.

“Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole,” Serreze told Life’s Little Mysteries. This hole was carved out over time by chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in air conditioners and solvents before being banned.“The ozone hole affects the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic, and that keeps the sea ice extensive.”

But these effects are very small, and Antarctic sea-ice levels have increased only marginally. In the coming decades, climate models suggest rising global temperatures will overwhelm the other influences and cause Antarctic sea ice to scale back, too.

The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped 40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic ice expansion makes up for this — that heat is merely shifting from the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global warming must not be happening — is “just nonsense,” Serreze said.

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/09/20/more-on-t...

Antarctic land ice mass is of course melting.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarc...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#27 Sep 20, 2012
Sam Lowree wrote:
Who would have ever thought that AGW would cause Arctic sea ice to set a new record when the climate models predicted the Arctic was to be ice free a couple years ago.
Babble. No serious science has 'forecast' an ice free arctic by 2010. The IPCC (using current climate models) forecast an ice free arctic by 2050 (yes, they are quite conservative in their warnings). Some have suggested 2030, based on updated data, but this latest change shows that even that is too conservative. I myself would suggest 2020 for the 'ice free summer arctic'.

The real issue seems to be under-estimating the 'positive feedback cylces' which also suggests that we have been under-estimating the climate impact.
Sam Lowree wrote:
"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year).
Meaningless. It is WINTER at the South Pole, and dark for 6 months. The current Arctic mimimum occured despite the fact that the 'winter ice' levels were HIGHER than previous years. But it is just a thin skin of weak ice and has no CLIMATE impact because it occurs during the cold DARK season where there is no insolation to be affected. Please get an education.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#28 Sep 20, 2012
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Good thing we acted on CFCs back in the 70's when we first learned of the dangers posed by ozone loss.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
Yes. One subject is AGW. Anthropogenic global warming. Anthropogenic because it is primarily man made.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Show me where James Hansen took the 'government line' during the reign[sic] of GWB and his anti-science crusade against AGW, environmentalism, etc.
http://www.topix.com/forum/us/epa/TTFUCS6863Q...
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Actually, Greece is in trouble because they are almost America.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
PHD

Houston, TX

#29 Sep 20, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
dirtling, aka:Useless Babble
<quoted text>
No your the commander of useless babble tainted with hate covered with spam cut and paste.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#30 Sep 20, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>No your the commander of useless babble tainted with hate covered with spam cut and paste.
You hit that nail squarely on the head

But you forgot outright lies
litesong

Everett, WA

#31 Sep 20, 2012
PHD wrote:
No your the commander of useless babble tainted with hate covered with spam cut and paste.
//////////
'Here Is One' wrote:
You hit that nail squarely on the head
But you forgot outright lies
//////////
litesong wrote:
You both forgot, unrighteous slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms.
Local

Hidden Valley Lake, CA

#32 Sep 20, 2012
Sam Lowree wrote:
Who would have ever thought that AGW would cause Arctic sea ice to set a new record when the climate models predicted the Arctic was to be ice free a couple years ago.
"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/...
Good link Sam

There is so much babble from global warming alarmist when it comes to short term climate models/short term weather predictions.

Having a good understanding long term global climate changes should include a very precise understanding of short term weather models/cycles.
Not so, according to the alarmists.

The alarmists want us to believe that they have the long term figured out, but yet, the short term predictions are full of "error margins" and possibilities.

The alarmists are totally adamant that we are headed for world disaster, however, they are backing off of the short term projections (as you have mentioned), for obvious reasons.
They are being proven wrong time after time. It is my guess that the alarmists will stick to 50-100-200 year projections as none of us will live long enough to find out that they were wrong.

Heck, It would help if the scientific experts could predict 3-month forward weather forecasts......but they cannot. The excuses involve insufficient data and the myriad of variables that affect the weather? Well,.....duh........if they do not understand the variables short term, why should anyone beleive that they understand the variables long term?
GRANDPA NICOLAI

Chico, CA

#33 Sep 20, 2012
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
Good link Sam

blah blah blah

and furthermore

blah blah blah...

Therefore blither....blather...blah blah

Heck, It would help if the scientific experts could predict 3-month forward weather forecasts......but they cannot. The excuses involve insufficient data and the myriad of variables that affect the weather? Well,.....duh........if they do not understand the variables short term, why should anyone beleive that they understand the variables long term?
>
>
Because intelligent people, be they marketers, investors, scientists etc, study and understand long term trends....

Whereas conservatards and other mentally challenged folk only look forwards to lunch and can not see past the nose they pick all day long...

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#34 Sep 20, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>

The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped 40 percent in the past three decades.
And what was the Arctic sea ice doing more than 30 years ago?

" “By itself it’s just a number, and occasionally records are going to get set. But in the context of what’s happened in the last several years and throughout the satellite record, it’s an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing.” Problem is the record is not all that meaningful. As I will explain, these folks are all missing the bigger picture.

The first thing to note is that this “record” is only valid for the period that we have had satellite observations, roughly 33 years beginning in 1978. There is no data for direct comparison before that, so you cannot even say with certainty that this is the lowest ice extent this century. Indeed, as was reported in “Greenland’s Oscillating Glaciers,” the glaciers of Greenland hit a low back in the early 1930s that rivals current reports of glacial melting, an indication the Arctic pack ice might have been rather sparse in the summers back then as well.

The warmist apologists will say that those temperatures were warm but they were different, today we have warming all over. But that is not really true either, though there is not enough data to conclusively prove this argument one way or the other. Regardless of the ice coverage during the 1930s, if you go back farther to some of the historical climate optima it is hard to believe that the new “record” is, in fact, the most shrunken Arctic ice sheet ever (see “Driftwood On Ice”).

During the Holocene Climate Optimum, around 6,000 years ago, temperatures in the Arctic were 4°C higher than today and the Arctic Ocean may have been totally ice free during the summer. That this happened before makes the melting of the Arctic sea ice not a particularly bothersome thing; even the “endangered” polar bears managed to live through this balmy period in the high Arctic.

Even if we ignore the fact that there have been warmer periods in the Holocene climate record, there is a reason to not get upset by the apparent retreat of the Arctic ice sheet. That reason is explained in a paper by Stephen Barker and colleagues, entitled “800,000 Years of Abrupt Climate Variability,” that appeared in Science in 2011. Here is the abstract:

We constructed an 800,000-year synthetic record of Greenland climate variability based on the thermal bipolar seesaw model. Our Greenland analog reproduces much of the variability seen in the Greenland ice cores over the past 100,000 years. The synthetic record shows strong similarity with the absolutely dated speleothem record from China, allowing us to place ice core records within an absolute timeframe for the past 400,000 years. Hence, it provides both a stratigraphic reference and a conceptual basis for assessing the long-term evolution of millennial-scale variability and its potential role in climate change at longer time scales. Indeed, we provide evidence for a ubiquitous association between bipolar seesaw oscillations and glacial terminations throughout the Middle to Late Pleistocene.

According to the authors, ice core records from Greenland document the existence of repeated, large, abrupt shifts in Northern Hemisphere climate in the past. The last glacial cycle was characterized by rapid alternations between cold (stadial) and warmer (interstadial) conditions, cycles known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) oscillations. These oscillations led several scientists to propose a theory of inter-hemisphere climate linkage known as the seesaw model (see “Paleocean circulation during the Last Deglaciation: A bipolar seesaw?”).

http://www.thegwpf.org/doug-hoffman-the-case-...

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#35 Sep 20, 2012
Local wrote:
<quoted text>
Good link Sam
There is so much babble from global warming alarmist when it comes to short term climate models/short term weather predictions.
Having a good understanding long term global climate changes should include a very precise understanding of short term weather models/cycles.
Not so, according to the alarmists.
The alarmists want us to believe that they have the long term figured out, but yet, the short term predictions are full of "error margins" and possibilities.
The alarmists are totally adamant that we are headed for world disaster, however, they are backing off of the short term projections (as you have mentioned), for obvious reasons.
They are being proven wrong time after time. It is my guess that the alarmists will stick to 50-100-200 year projections as none of us will live long enough to find out that they were wrong.
Heck, It would help if the scientific experts could predict 3-month forward weather forecasts......but they cannot. The excuses involve insufficient data and the myriad of variables that affect the weather? Well,.....duh........if they do not understand the variables short term, why should anyone beleive that they understand the variables long term?
Yes, the entire premise is based on models that are consistently wrong. Even the models predicting climate catastrophe have been tweaked so that they produce the results the alarmists want. I don't believe all AGW believing scientists are scamming the system, they may have good intentions but are relying on shoddy science for their predictions. They cannot see the forest for the trees.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#36 Sep 20, 2012
GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:
<quoted text>>
>
Because intelligent people, be they marketers, investors, scientists etc, study and understand long term trends....

Whereas conservatards and other mentally challenged folk only look forwards to lunch and can not see past the nose they pick all day long...
is that why liberals don't want more green cards for educated people???

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37 Sep 20, 2012
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
And what was the Arctic sea ice doing more than 30 years ago?
/
Have a look:

http://blog.sme.sk/blog/1159/306419/kinnard.g...

“Government IS the problem.”

Since: Jan 08

Chico, CA

#39 Sep 20, 2012
Fair Game wrote:
According to your graph it doesn't look like anything to far removed from the cyclical nature of our climate is taking place.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40 Sep 20, 2012
Sam Lowree wrote:
During the Holocene Climate Optimum, around 6,000 years ago, temperatures in the Arctic were 4°C higher than today and the Arctic Ocean may have been totally ice free during the summer. That this happened before makes the melting of the Arctic sea ice not a particularly bothersome thing...
Yeah, numbnutz, and sea level was 2m higher, which is kinda what people are worried about happening now.

And temperatures today are still rising and are set to continue rising for decades.
In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
For larger viewing version of the graph, please click here or on graph. Graph courtesy of Kerwin et al., 1999, complete scientific reference located here.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#41 Sep 20, 2012
Sam Lowree wrote:
<quoted text>
According to your graph it doesn't look like anything to far removed from the cyclical nature of our climate is taking place.
Yeah, if you look at it with your eyes closed and your hands over your face.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chico Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hillary Is To Sick To Be President 2 hr ANONYMOUS 3
Everyone HATES Hillary 2 hr ANONYMOUS 1
Time To Arrest Soros 14 hr Middle of the road 2
Benghazi Truth Coming Out 15 hr Bob Should Go Away 7
Is It Tme To Go To War With Mexico 15 hr GRANDPA NICOLAI 1
Streisand Leaves America (Thank god) 15 hr Middle of the road 7
We Are Close - Keep Up The Good Work 16 hr Stay Away Bob 1

Chico Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chico Mortgages