The Observatory

02:15 PM - June 21, 2011

Climate Questions for the GOP

What to ask candidates so clearly unconcerned?

By Curtis Brainard

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Print
• One Page

Comments Post a Comment

Thanks -- and a DEEP CONCERN

Curtis, thanks for raising this issue -- sort of -- but you've mainly missed the point, and that's a bit scary to me. Allow me to raise the following concern, and hopefully you'll respond or perhaps write another post.

In an important Presidential primary debate, it is NOT the news media's job to ask only questions that the candidates are comfortable with. Nor is it the media's job to "frame" the questions in a way that's comfortable to the candidates and that allows them to conveniently enter the conversation and "respond" to only that aspect of the larger issue that the framing involves.

It is -- is it not? -- the media's job to ask clear questions about vital issues of importance. Period. Please let me know if you think that it's the news media's job to serve and protect the genuine public good, or if you think that it's their job to serve the preferences and comfort zones of the candidates?

Your post seems to let King and CNN off the hook -- and thus implies that the media are (and will be) off the hook -- far, far, FAR too easily. Given the importance of climate change as an issue -- to the world, to America's future, and etc. -- King and CNN should have asked a DIRECT question about climate change and the candidates views about CLIMATE CHANGE: Is it happening; do they agree with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community; do they agree that it's mainly caused by human activities; and etc.? It's NOT the job of the news media to "frame" the question to ONLY ask about "energy" or "energy independence" -- to appeal to what the candidates would like to talk about and to ignore the larger picture.

Isn't your column a SCIENCE-oriented column? The point, of course, is not for King to ask a complex question about science, in scientific terms. But the point IS that King should have asked a question (preferably questionS) about what the candidates think about climate change as such: You know, a tough and real question. He could have referred to the Stanford study (I think it was Stanford) that says that over 97 percent of relevant scientists agree that climate change is real, is happening, is mainly caused by human activities, and will be immensely problematic if not addressed. He could have asked each candidate whether or not he/she agrees with that. And if not, why not? He could have used the letter, signed and sent by 18 top scientific organizations to all members of the Senate a year or so ago, as the departure point for the same question.

Your post seems to suggest (and allow) that a question framed as an "energy" question or "energy independence" question would have been sufficiently responsible for King to ask. NONSENSE!

But this has me worried, and deeply. If even YOU think that the NEWS media should, can, or must pander to the candidates -- rather than ask real, serious, and direct questions -- then we're in trouble. Whose payroll are you on, or whose status-quo paradigm have you swallowed hook, line, and sinker? I mean, really?

I would enjoy a dialogue/debate here, and/or for you to post a Part II -- a clarification and correction -- to your post above. Who should the NEWS MEDIA serve? Is asking an "energy independence" question, or an "energy policy" question, the SAME AS asking a direct question about climate change? I'll be interested in your thoughts.

Thanks,

Jeff

#1 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Wed 22 Jun 2011 at 01:02 PM

Well, while I agree with Mr. Huggins, the idea is to get politicians to address the solutions to climate change any way we can. We know who the nutcase deniers are. Good on the current Mormon coalition for not joining that group. I'll take progress where I can get it. I'd like consensus on what constitutes "reality" as the experts see it. Here's to more of that.

#2 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Wed 22 Jun 2011 at 10:32 PM

Jeff, sorry I didn't make myself clear. Of course I don't think it's the media's job to ask only questions that candidates are comfortable with. Yes, King should've asked a question about climate change, and your suggested approach is top notch. The study you're referring to, "Climate Change in the American Mind," was released last month by Yale and George Mason universities. It found that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is happening, but that only 13 percent of the public understands that there is such a high level agreement.

Pointing to this report, King should've asked why the public, especially Republicans, continue to misunderstand or deny the scientific consensus about climate change. And, yes, more reporters should do the same. It's their responsibility to put candidates on the hot seat and force them to explain why, in the face of so many different statements from groups like the National Academies, they continue to distrust the advice of the nation’s and the world’s best scientists. When the candidates fire back with obvious complaints about “Climategate” and errors in the IPCC’s last report, etc., etc., reporters should be ready to point out the numerous investigations that have cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing and reaffirmed the basic tenets of climate science.

Ultimately, though, I think GOP candidates will just repeat what they've already said – that they think the science is uncertain and don't support cap-and-trade. They’ll stick to talking points and the line of questions related directly to climate change will quickly run its course. At that point, it makes sense for reporters to switch to a line of questioning focused on energy policy. When it comes to addressing climate change, this is what really matters and I imagine that the candidates will be much more likely to discuss the specifics of their positions. They’ve all professed support for fossil fuels, but rather than ask about the global warming angle (which will lead back to the aforementioned climate talking points), reporters can grill them about the public health toll of coal mining and burning or challenge claims that the oil industry can create more jobs than the wind and solar industries.

Of course I don’t want journalists to frame questions only around energy, but neither do I want them to frame them only around climate. Honestly, I think the former framing will be more fruitful and helpful for voters, but the point is that politicians are slippery and reporters will have to employ many creative lines of questioning to get meaningful answers.

#3 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 12:19 PM

It might help if there were some actual global warming going on...

The simple fact of the matter is that any global warming over the last 15 years has been so small as to be scientifically insignificant.

That's just the reality here.

#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 12:42 PM

Curtis, thanks for your response, clarification, and thoughts. I appreciate them.

That said, your original post (which is what most people read) was not at all clear, was way too "light" on CNN and King, seemed to suggest/imply that the energy framing (right from the get-go) would have been OK or acceptable, and basically let everyone off the hook in numerous ways, including by emphasizing that some of the candidates had already made their (often) vague statements in other appearances and interviews, which is (of course) no reason that the topic shouldn't be raised in a key televised debate.

What matters here, of course, is not a clarifying comment. What matters is that CNN and John King themselves feel the high heat and know that they should and must do much better next time; AND that other media outlets know that key media watchdogs are watching and that they'll need to ask the hard climate change questions when they host debates and interviews. THAT's what matters. Your original post, even with this clarifying comment, will come nowhere close to achieving that goal -- i.e., the goal that matters and that can actually influence the way it's done next time.

Allow me to ask: You should be jumping on and yelling from the rooftop about this MAJOR sin of omission on CNN's part and John King's part. If this habit repeats itself in future debates, the public will lose, the media's credibility will lose, CJR's credibility will lose, and indeed your own credibility will diminish. If you aren't going to make a CLEAR and EMPHATIC point about the problem in that debate, and how the problem should be remedied next time, then WHO WILL? Is there another more credible and more serious organization (than CJR), column (than 'The Observatory'), or watchdog and commenter (than yourself) who will take this seriously enough to prompt change in the way it's done next time? If so, please let us know who that is, so we can begin reading THAT column. Otherwise, can we PLEASE get serious? As it stands, I doubt that CNN and John King have noticed, or even heard of, your light critique (if we can call it that), and I doubt it is making them think about how they'll NEED to do it -- how they OUGHT TO do it -- next time.

And/or, have you called John King and the leaders at CNN?

Have you read Al Gore's recent comments regarding the media? You know, CJR and you are a part of that, and (I see it as) it's your job, I think, to get and push the media onto a track that actually serves the genuine public good. I'm not seeing that happen, yet. Am I wrong?

Thanks Curtis. Sorry to be pushy, but it seems necessary. The question is, are YOU going to make this an issue, clearly enough, so that CNN and John King will reexamine their approach and do better next time, and so that other media outlets will be aware, and on alert, that they'd better do better too? The stakes are not small: Climate change. Need I say more?

Thanks,

Jeff

#5 Posted by Jeff Huggins, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 01:35 PM

Padikiller … that’s just denialist bull.

After all, if the observed data doesn’t fit projections, it’s the observed data that’s suspect, not the projections.

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate

#6 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 02:50 PM

No Mike...

It is the R-E-A-L-I-T-Y and it comes from the Chief Warmingist Himself...

Phil Jones, former director of the Hadley CRU:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 23 Jun 2011 at 03:20 PM

Don't feed the troll.

Curtis, how about if we take a step backward (to encompass the larger picture) and ask candidates whether a president should know the difference between science & public relations?

#8 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 04:11 PM

LOL...

If you happen to mention, with regard to an article about global warming, the fact that there hasn't been any scientifically significant global warming in the last 15 years, according the guy (Phil Jones) who ran the Hadley CRU, then you are a "troll

You guys are silly.

#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 24 Jun 2011 at 06:35 PM

Arguments typically raised by trolls and the misinformed are addressed at SkepticalScience.com
(thank heavens for that resource)

But Curtis (if you see this), isn't there a way to ask a Q that addresses the larger context? My offering above probably isn't the best; how about asking them something along the lines of "Should a president's views on a scientific issue be informed by science, and do you view this as a simple yes-or-no question?"

#10 Posted by Anna Haynes, CJR on Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 11:44 AM

" scientifically significant global warming "
Why do you

http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/meltdown.php#comment-25279

keep doing this?

http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/mia_on_the_ipcc.php#comment-25369

#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 12:59 PM

Thimbles:

It's just "black and white"....

According to Phil Jones, there wasn't any scientifically significant global warming in the 15 years between 1995 and 2010. PERIOD.

That's just what the man said, Dude.

Deal with it. Or don't. Whatever.

Unless Jones happens to black, that is.

Then we'll hold him to a different scientific standard, right?

Just like you think "professional journalists" should be held to different standards depending on their races, right?

Right?

#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 11:11 PM

whatever margret.

#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 25 Jun 2011 at 11:25 PM

You can call me Jay... You can call me Ray... Or you can call me Johnson... Or Margret (sic)...

Whatever... I've done my due diligence, and if you want to do what you want to do, I can't stop you, Thimbles. I've atoned for my error, and I don't really have a horse in the race with regard to your invective malice... You are the one publicly accusing Margaret Valois. a Lynchburg attorney who helps her clients keep their homes and get a fresh start after losing their jobs, of being a "bigot" (your words), This baseless accusation unquestionably and irreparably harmed her professional reputation maliciously in the process. Despite and in the face of my repeated admonitions to the contrary. Is it because she's a woman? You have something against women? Is to get back at me? Are you willing to harm a lady because you're pissed off at me? Why would you defame a lady who fights for the poor, otherwise?

None of it changes the fact that you espouse a racist standard for "professional journalism", Thimbles...

I'm only asking your to explain your position - I just want to know how we determine who is "black" enough to have the right as a "professional journalist" to make a racial criticism of presidential candidate....

That's it... Could Herman Cain do this? How about Michelle Malkin? Is she brown enough to make the grade?

This is all we hope to discern, Thimbles..

Elucidate, please....

#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 12:18 AM

Please direct your colleague to this, you idiot.

Dear Margaret,

I'm sorry for the behavior of your classless colleague in his exposing of your identity and private information on the Internet. It's unfortunate that your thin skinned acquaintance cannot handle a little ribbing over his errors but being the kind of person you know him to be, he can't. I, in no way, participated in the release of your information and I regret that Padi felt provoked enough, by my actions and others, to do so by his own hand. We did not ask for your information nor did we invade your privacy. I apologize if our actions had any connection to the acts of the person responsible.

Dear Mods,

Please delete the references to Margaret here and in this thread:

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_crazy_book-banning_lady_wh.php#comments

I'm not interested in exposing innocent people's private information to search engines and web crawlers like some of the more sensitive, irresponsible, and idiotic people among us.

#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 03:52 AM

To correct another mistatement by padislayer: "According to Phil Jones, there wasn't any scientifically significant global warming in the 15 years between 1995 and 2010. PERIOD."

The reality is that, by the scientific definition of 'statistically significant', climate warming between the years 1995 and 2010 inclusive IS 'statistically significant', per Phil Jones:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

#16 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 07:53 AM

In order to show scientifically significant global warming, once has to cherrypick a sampling period.

If you choose 1995 to 2010, and if you use the "right" data, then you can show that odds that the increase in the average global temperature is random is less than 5%. In 1995, using the NASA data, the average global temperature "anomaly" (the difference between the average global temperature and an arbitrarily chosen baseline 100 year average temperature) was .37 degrees C. In 2009 the anomaly was 0.57 degrees C, and in 2010, the anomaly was 0.63 degrees C.

Jones is telling the truth about the numbers... From 1995 to 2009, the average annual increase in global temperature was 0.0133 degrees C (not scientifically significant because there is more than a five percent chance that the increase is random) while from 1996 to 2010, the average annual increase was .0173 degrees C, which (barely) makes the observed warming scientifically significant. Remember, all this means is that there is only a 95% chance that the temperature increase isn't random, thus there is still a 1 in 20 chance that the increase is random.

However... What happens if you pick a longer period? Well, it depends on the dates you pick.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

If you pick a 30 year period, you will see that in 1981, the anomaly was 0.35 degrees and so the average annual increase in global temperature from 1981 to 2010 was only 0.009 degrees C (not scientifically significant). What about a 50 year sampling period? In 1961, the anomaly was 0.07 degrees C, so the average annual temperature increase since then is a mere 0.012 degrees C.

What do you find if you look at the 50 year period from 1900 to 1950? Global cooling! The average global temperature decreased 0.08 degrees C over this period. The 100 year period from 1900 to 2000? An insignificant increase of 0.004 degrees per year.

What if you go back 1000 years, to the Medieval Warm Period, when Vikings had 600 farms in Greenland? You don't see any farms there now, do you?

In order to state the case that global warming exists, you have to cherrypick data. We can certainly spot trends over certain very small periods, but there is less than 200 years of useful data, and small periods don't mean anything in the context of global climate change.

The Warmingists now are the same Nuclear Winterists and Ice Age Comingest anti-capitalists from years past.

#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 09:56 AM

"The reality is that, by the scientific definition of 'statistically significant', climate warming between the years 1995 and 2010 inclusive IS 'statistically significant', per Phil Jones"

This has been pointed out to padidiot at least twice in the threads I posted above.

He doesn't care. To liars and fools, facts are like holy water to vampires - avoided at all costs.

He knows there is no such thing as 'scientifically' significant, he knows that the calculation for the period of 1995 to 2009 was thrown off by a truly anomalous year (the 1998 El Nino), he knows that the preceding 4 20 - 30 year periods show a statistically significant warming trend, he knows that 10 of the 11 hottest years on record were since 2000 - during a prolonged solar minimum - and that only one out of the bottom 20 hottest years is previous to 1987, he knows that this last year was one of the hottest and one of the most extreme for weather events on record

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=1831

He does not care. He's a koch-head. You might as well argue with your toaster.
The only difference is that one doesn't call you a racist when it goes 'ping'.

In short, don't feed the troll.*

*I know, "physician heal thy self" is a very appropriate response and I will do a lot less feeding and a lot more ignoring in future.

#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 11:35 AM

padikiller tolls the Reality Bell:

From 1896 to 1976, the average global temperature DECREASED. PERIOD.

Read it and weep, Warmingists!:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

1896 Global Average Temperature Anomaly = -0.14 degrees C

1976 Global Average Temperature Anomaly = -0.16 degrees C

See? The average global temperature in 1976 was LOWER than the average global temperature in 1896!

Dude, the data is what it is... Deal with it. Or don't. Whatever floats your boat. Either way, the data isn't going anywhere. Facts are facts.

Show me an AGW computer model that can account for this 80 year recent period of global cooling, while simultaneously corroborating Al Gore's "hockey schtick" and then we'll talk. Of course, you can't do this, because such a fantastic computer model only exists in Liberal La La Land; no such model is to be found here in Reality Land.

The ONLY way Warmingists can make their case is to cherry pick sampling periods. Or by monkeying with the data sets, a la "Mike's Nature Trick".

"Troll" must be defined here as someone who presents NASA scientific data that liberals don't want to read, and then does arithmetic that liberals don't want to do..

I'm guilty as charged, I suppose....

#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 12:37 PM

On a related note...

A document drop is brewing that could make Climategate look tame.

UVA was ordered just last month by a judge to produce Michael Mann's emails from his days as a UVA climatologist. UVA resisted producing these emails tooth and nail, even though these documents are clearly public documents under Virginia's FOIA law.

The documents are currently under review by the advocacy group who petitioned for their release and I expect a "wikileaks" or "Breitbart" style of escalating releases will begin soon.

#20 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 12:48 PM

Googling the news for the latest in Warmingism, I found this:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

The Warmingists are up to their old "Nature Tricks" again... Adding a .3 mm "fudge factor" to predicted annual sea level increases, because.... wait for it...

Because the sea level won't actually rise that much because the volumes of the oceans are increasing as the continents are actually rising.

Pesky oceans!

Seems the "sea level scientists" stated their purported belief that "sea level rise" means the same thing as "ocean water volume" even if the water level doesn't actually rise... Seriously. No kidding.

Now that they've been caught "hiding the decline", they're considering putting the actual data online to compete with the fudged data. Now there's some academic honesty for you!

Well, sea levels have risen indeed... A whopping 7 inches in the last 100 years.

And although it never hurts to keep the lifeboats handy, I think Al Gore will be safe in the oceanfront mansion he bought a couple of years ago.

#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 02:27 PM

Padislayer almost got it right when he said: "In order to show scientifically significant global warming, once has to cherrypick a sampling period."

The truth is that "In order to deny global warming, one has to cherrypick the sampling period."

Here is a graph of the data that he cites (from the NASA website):

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#globalTemp

The warming trend is obvious.

And here is an excellent example of cherrypicking, thanks to padislayer:

"What do you find if you look at the 50 year period from 1900 to 1950? Global cooling!"

Year 1900 was warmer than average, and 1950 cooler than average. Mouse over the graph to see how ridiculous it is to claim a cooling trend. Sure, 1950 was cooler, but not 1949, 1951, or 1952. Certainly not the 5-year moving average. Cherrypicking at it's finest.

The 1896 to 1976 cooling trend is an equally good example of cherry picking.

#22 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 04:13 PM

BTW, even though I pointed out that padislayer was wrong about the statistical significance of the 1995-2010 data (and I accept his admission of error), the whole argument about statistical significance is a red herring. It would have no relevance if Phil Jones hadn't inadvertantly brought it to the attention of the deniers, most of whom don't even know what it means. Padislayers use of the term 'scientific significance' is in error, conflated with 'statistical significance', probably on purpose. (A point already made by Thimbles.) 'Scientific significance' sounds more compelling than 'statistical significance', even though it has no quantitative meaning. Regardless, a trend can certainly be scientifically significant, without meeting the rigorous test of statistical significance.

#23 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 04:17 PM

LOL...

Of COURSE I'm cherrypicking the data to make a point, Rick!

Just as the Warmingists do.

There is no doubt that we are in a warming period with regard to the last couple of hundred years... But that is almost certainly meaningless trend - the warming is slight and sporadic - so much so that it is possible (as I have shown) to find long periods within the recent record where absolutely no warming - and indeed, even slight cooling - occurred.

The Earth is 4 billion years old. A 50 year trend represents 0.00000125% of the Earth's history. Drawing any conclusion on the global climate from a 50 year trend is the equivalent of basing a one-year evaluation of an employee by observing him work for less than half a second. It's just silly.

What about the longer terms?

How about the trend over the last 12,000 years?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Well, we've been in an 8,000 year cooling trend, as anyone with eyes can surely see.

You want to see an even longer term - say over the last 800,000 years? Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

We're in a post-glacial warm period that has been repeated a dozen times over the last 800,000 years. The graph speaks for itself.

The scientists who promote Warmingism have a horse in the race - they get money to feed the Warmingist fires. That's why they hide data, lose data, misrepresent data, etc. That's why the IPCC reports are full of ridiculous, alarmist nonsense of starving North African deserts and melting Himalayan glaciers.

This isn't about climate. It's about the same anti-capitalist crap the leftists have been promoting forever. China produces the most CO2, but you don't see liberals protesting at the Chinese embassy over it.

The science just isn't there. Nobody knows exactly what CO2 does to temperature - the feedback mechanisms just aren't understood. Nobody knows how fast the oceans absorb or release CO2. Nobody knows how much lowering CO2 concentrations will stunt plant growth. Nobody knows if raising the global temperature is a bad thing or a good thing - although anyone with eyes can see that generally warm is good, and cold is bad, biologically speaking.

The government-funded climate "scientists" are generally alarmists - I remember in 1990, Scientific American predicted a 2035 CO2 concentration of 470 ppm using an exponential model in favor at the time. Well the actual concentration now is predicted to be 10 percent lower because it turns out that CO2 isn't increasing exponentially - the data since 1980 indicates that it is rising at fairly constant level - a linear increase instead of an exponential one.

Go to an IPCC meeting and you'll see hundreds of scientists dutifully presenting dire predictions of drowning polar bears and Category 7 hurricanes - but ask them to provide an ideal global temperature - a global thermostat setting - and you get nothing. Take it one step further and ask them to tell you the "ideal" CO2 concentration - the CO2 concentration that will guarantee that global temperatures hold steady - and you'll see them stammering for the exits.

The AGW nonsense is all a crock of crap. The public isn't buying it, especially since the Climategate fiasco. Poll after poll shows that voters rate "climate change" right below duck pin bowling in terms of national import. I have a feeling that the UVA documents - the emails from Mike "Nature Trick" Mann's tenure - will be worse when they are published. The group that just got them - under court order and after a three year knock down, drag out fight with UVA - is out to make political hay and I bet it will time the public

#24 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 06:45 PM

Don't feed the troll.

I'm serious. There is thread after thread of the same garbage from this guy.

http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/hacked_emails_and_journalistic.php

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/lets_get_this_party_organized.php

For a lawyer a) he has a lot of time on his hands
b) he's fond of making the same old bad arguments ad nauseum.

Don't feed it.

#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 08:56 PM

Today, it's global warming...

Forty years ago, it was global cooling...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

Forty years from now, it will be some new liberal silliness.

You have guys like the late Stephen Schneider who will say whatever they have to say in order to get published and get paid.

Returning to the Inconvenient Truth...

Since 1880, the difference between the lowest average annual global temperature (1907) and the highest average annual global temperature (2004 and 2010) is a whopping 1.02 degrees K.

The average global temperature baseline in 288.15 K. Thus, the maximum "warming" in recent times amounts to a 0.35% in temperature variation. And this over 130 years.

The current "anomaly" is 0.63 degrees K. This represents an average annual global temperature that is a blistering 0.2 percent higher than the baseline average temperature. Two tenths of a whole percent! Crank up the AC!

The Warmingist alarmists are nothing but a bunch of anti-capitalist Chicken Littles.

A 0.35 percent fluctuation in the average global temperature is a remarkably stable temperature over 130 years! What do the kooky Warmingists expect it to be?

Phlogiston
...The cosmic ether of the 1890's... The Ice Age predictions of the 70's... Cold Fusion of the 80's... But none of them compare to the screwy AGW madness.

#26 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Jun 2011 at 10:19 PM

Al Gore ask some climate questions for the media.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622

Worth a read, even if you don't like the Goracle (which I don't)

#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 01:02 AM

One answer to Curtis' question is that voters aren't very concerned about climate change. Consumers of media have heard so many apocalyptic predictions from the environmental lobby (faithfully transmitted by an unskeptical press drawn from the same class of people) that a level of cynicism has set in.

CJR will not, I predict, devote any resources to investigating this element of the issue, and acknowledge that a lot of health/environmental scares advertised by the elite media since the environmental movement arose as an offshoot of the New Left analysis of the 1960s have not, in fact, appeared to materialize in the years since. It would be too difficult to say something like "well, 'we' were a little off-target then, but now we're definitely right". NEWSWEEK attempted an embarrassed acknowledgment that its famous 'Global Cooling' scare story some years ago was . . . wrong . . . but now we know more . . . In a related development, NEWSWEEK is now nearly defunct as a journalistic force.

#28 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Mon 4 Jul 2011 at 08:38 AM