Scientists scoff at AP global-warming story
posted at 11:55 am on December 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Remember that global-warming wet kiss from the AP to climate-change activists and Barack Obama earlier this week? Even scientists who believe in global warming couldn’t quite believe their eyes. They called the report by the Seth Borenstein a “polemic” and wondered when research stopped being a requirement for science reporters (via Q&O):
James O’Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, said that global climate change is very important for the country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy decisions. But he said he worries that scientists and policymakers are rushing to make changes based on bad science.
“Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world,” O’Brien said. “But everything that’s attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming.”
He took issue with the AP article’s assertion that melting Arctic ice will cause global sea levels to rise.
“When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it’s displacing water,” O’Brien said. “When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down. I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it [melt]. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
And that comes from Borenstein’s ally on global warming. O’Brien calls hysteria on sea levels “major scare tactic,” the kind one would expect a science reporter to debunk rather than to perpetuate. He wants public policy on climate change to be informed rather than hysterical. The fact that water is less dense as a solid than as a liquid — which is why ice cubes float in your drink — never seems to occur to the AP’s “science” writer, who probably never heard of the Archimedes Principle before now. The only way melting ice would raise sea levels would be if water was more dense as a solid than a liquid, which if true would mean ice would get submerged below water than float on top of it.
Other scientists blasted the entire basis of Borenstein’s reporting as well as his ignorance of research:
“If the issues weren’t so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it,” said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue. …
“The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.” …
Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho, is another academic who found serious flaws with the AP story’s approach to the issue.
“There’s very little that’s right about it,” Fox said. “And it’s really harmful to the United States because people like this Borenstein working for AP have an enormous impact on everyone, because AP sells their news service to a thousand news outlets.
Fox understands the problem, but undersells the scale. When the AP produces propaganda rather than reporting, it gets distributed to thousands of publications around the world. Unfortunately, the rebuttals don’t get that kind of distribution, and the lies and propaganda get accepted as truth.
Unfortunately, that’s been the history of the global-warming cult over the last decade. They accept no challenges, demonize those who question their science, scoff at contradictory data (such as the fact that temperatures have stopped rising), and insist on politicizing their science rather than work from facts. The AP has become the cult’s propaganda arm.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 Next »
So what he’s basically saying is that they don’t teach 4th grade science in Tennessee?
Notorious GOP on December 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM
A little sanity I suppose, but I couldn’t help but notice this one:
Global climate change is occurring in some places. Uh, OK.
forest on December 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM
AP = Associated Pravda.
Pravda is Russian for “truth”, and we know how much truth they told in the Soviet years. Not the inconvenient kind.
Steve Z on December 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM
When scientists like the Noble Prize winner Albert Gore, Jr. realized that there was a whole boatload of money to be made.
Tommy_G on December 17, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Ice cubes under my bourbon—-I like it!
Rovin on December 17, 2008 at 12:03 PM
The real enormous impact will be when the Global Warming Authority starts taxing everyone $35 per tonne of soda pop gas. Break out the sweaters and bicycles, and stock up on candles and buggy whips.
Steve Z on December 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Informed public policy? What a concept. Unfortunately, it’ll never happen here. Not as long as kool-aid drinking Dims like Obama are voted into high office by the majority of our idiot electorate.
AZCoyote on December 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM
It’s not the ice floating in the Arctic sea that’s contributing to mean sea levels rising, it’s ice on land melting that is. Some of that ice is in the arctic region, including on Greenland. So the complaint from O’Brien is baseless.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Bingo! Everything is related to global warming according to these kooks. If it is hot, its global warming, if its freezing, its global warming. My car didnt start, my dinner was over cooked,you guessed it, global warming.
MDWNJ on December 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Save a polar bear—-demand carbon credits owners included in government bailout.
Rovin on December 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM
well, this is posted at Foxnews.com, obviously they have an agenda. Who is this hack criticizing Borenstein? Deming? He must be funded by Exxon.
James on December 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM
In case you hadn’t seen it yet, here is your chance to sign on to Tim Blair’s Global Warming Denier list.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/sign_the_big_list/
My name is there.
tmitsss on December 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I appreciate this article, it’s nice to see scientists adding some rationality to the hysteria, without saying that American can just continue using fossil fuels as if nothing is happening, the other side of the cultist fringe on this issue.
DeathToMediaHacks on December 17, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Again, it’s pretty sad to see the ignorance on display here.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Well, that means that there are other reasons why several atolls out in the Pacific are being inundated. I have my suspicions (erosion of the coral due to human activities on the atoll itself), but the islanders seem to be blaming the rest of the world.
People also talk about the “rise in sea level”. I’m wondering, given O’Brian’s explanation, why sea level rises at all? It doesn’t sound like a local phenomenon, so it would be nice to hear him explain if it’s happening at all, and, if so, his hypothesis as to why. I’m clueless here — this is a real question.
And the Archimedes Principle certainly explains why nobody is ever buried below ground in New Orleans.
I know very few people (even liberals) who truly believe in global warming. Maybe I’m not working at the right place — I need to go get a job at Gore Laboratories, which I understand is doing research into the effects heavy water has on sea level. Their hypothesis is that the nuclear power industry is responsible for both global warming and the rise of the oceans due to the production of heavy water;-)
unclesmrgol on December 17, 2008 at 12:12 PM
You betcha.
unclesmrgol on December 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM
So when the ice reforms as the planet cools in the next decade, will this make the “Dudes” comment also baseless and moot?
Rovin on December 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Antarctic ice, however, when melted, would ultimately raise the sea level, as it is (largely) ice atop a land mass.
I’m not a cultist, just a nitpicker ;)
LimeyGeek on December 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM
In San Francisco, this article produced a profoundly reasoned argument in favor of homosexual marriage.
warbaby on December 17, 2008 at 12:16 PM
“What’s this?” thought Barack Obama. “I can feel nothing warmer at all! This is terrible. Am I stupid? Am I a flat-earther? Am I a denier? Am I not fit to be President? That would be the most dreadful thing that could happen to me. “Oh, it is very hot!” Obama said aloud. “It has my highest approbation.” And Obama nodded in a contented way, and gazed outside, for he would not say that he felt no Global Warming. The whole entourage that he had with him looked and looked, and felt no warming, any more than the rest; but, like Barack Obama they said, “It is so hot!” and Rahm Emanuel counseled him to always say that he felt hot when he was out in public, even hotter than all the Chicago troubles were making them both feel. “It is warm, hot even!” went from mouth to mouth. On all sides there seemed to be general warming, and Barack Obama gave Al Gore the title of Imperial Master of Global Warming Science.
So Barack Obama went in procession, and every one in the streets said, “How incomparable hot it is! What a hot day it is!” No one would let it be perceived that he could not feel warming, for that would have shown that he was not fit for his office, or was very stupid or a flat-earther or a denier. No day of Barack Obama’s had ever been as hot as this one.
“But I’m freezing my ass off out here!” a little child cried out at last. “Just hear what that innocent says!” said the father: and one whispered to another what the child had said. “But it is cold out here!” said the whole people at length. That touched Barack Obama, for it seemed to him that they were right; but the thought within himself was, “I must go through with feeling all the Global Warming. I do not dare to do otherwise” And so he held himself a little higher, and his aides held on tighter than ever, and proclaimed the Global Warming which did not exist at all.
MB4 on December 17, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Everything is backward on Planet Gore so I’m not surprised that the scientists would believe that melting ice makes water levels rise.
grdred944 on December 17, 2008 at 12:17 PM
So what about the argument that the polar ice caps are buffering the warming effects, but the supply of ice at the poles is diminishing dramatically. Is the report of 2 trillion tons of lost ice an accurate measurement? Is that a lot relative to the total?
Mark30339 on December 17, 2008 at 12:18 PM
The writers for the Times Picayune must not have paid attention to science in the fourth grade either.
They have a special on their website, nola.com, where they claim rising sea levels are caused by melting ice caps, in turn the reason why Louisiana’s coast is deteriorating.
I mean, it couldn’t be the systems of levees and canals that have caused the deterioration of the Louisiana coastline since the 1930s.
Lay-Z on December 17, 2008 at 12:19 PM
The scientists who responded to the AP fantasy story do so from a flawed assumption. Since they are scientists, they believe in science and reasson.
But science and reason have absolutely nothing to do with the global warming hoax.
Arguing logically with AP is like debating the merits of candy vs broccoli with a 3-year old.
notagool on December 17, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Whenever the word ‘consensus’ is used, real scientists should be distancing themselves. I don’t recall anyone voting on Newton’s ideas.
Vashta.Nerada on December 17, 2008 at 12:20 PM
It’s not funny. It’s denialism such as this that’s doing no one any good. This is just a case of trying to put words in the reporter’s mouth that he never said, since there is plenty of glacial ice in Greenland and the Canadian arctic that’s adding to the rise in sea level as it melts.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Let’s see; 30 years ago it was Global Cooling.
Then more recently Global Warming.
Now Climate Change.
Hey Fat Al. “the debate is over”.
GFY.
there it is on December 17, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Well, it is the AP we’re talking about. They don’t understand science, apparently.
Vashta.Nerada on December 17, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I’m sure the clowns will offer a correction.
marklmail on December 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM
“Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world,” O’Brien said.
Someone already hit this, but I had to add: If what this guy says is true, then shouldn’t it be “Many Places in the World Climate Change”, not “Global”?
Again, it’s pretty sad to see the ignorance on display here.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Then stop typing…
(I couldn’t resist)
catmman on December 17, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Let’s see. The last ice age ended around 14000 yrs ago when the ice sheet covering N.America and Eurasia melted. In fact, one hypothesis by which native Americans migrated to N.A was via the ice sheet from the modern Russian/China regions. Now the end of the ice age was due to “global warming”, but it had nothing to do with human activities. Here you have it, an end of an ice age not caused by humans. There have been many of these cooling/warming cycles in the billions of years of existence of the planet earth. Scientists who claim “case close” for the current global warming debate is simply not “scientific” by definition. While writing this, it’s snowing outside with real cold windchill.
poxoma on December 17, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I have algoraphobia
Kini on December 17, 2008 at 12:26 PM
LimeyGeek on December 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Good for us the Antarctic glaciers are growing, and not melting then.
: )
catmman on December 17, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Borenstein is the AP writer who wrote the infamous “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” article, when only 19 of the 100 scientists contacted by AP offered an opinion of Gore’s movie. To say that 19 is an insufficient sample size is putting it mildly.
Bill Ramey on December 17, 2008 at 12:27 PM
star, please tell people where YOU live in this world!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 12:28 PM
FYI, David Deming is also the one who said this just this week in the Washington Times:
Except that isn’t at all true, as despite there being a strong La Nina this year, global air temperatures in 2008 are still far warmer than the average over the past 200 years. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to grasp the possibility that the thermal mass of the oceans are also a factor in the rate of warming.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 12:29 PM
O’Brien points the way to a solution. If the current Admin simply stated that the issue was closed, that further research was not needed and that all funds going forward would be spent on mitigation, the scientists would quickly find some serious doubts with the science to support their continued funding.
OBQuiet on December 17, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Has anyone done a study of the correlation between believers in the Obama cult and the Global Warming cult?
I think they’re now becoming a single cult for mutual support against the rising tide of non-believers.
econavenger on December 17, 2008 at 12:29 PM
starfleet_dude has bought the global warming stuff hook, line, and sinker. Panic, panic, little red hen! The sky is warming!
Pardon me whilst I shovel more global warming off my driveway that fell last night.
See, dude, ze climate, it changes! It changes–now wait for it–naturally! I seem to recall both Napolean and Hitler not reaching Moscow due to extraordinarily cold winters. I seem to recall dinosaurs living in places lots warmer than now.
Besides, give me 4 billion dollars and I’ll solve global warming. Really simple too. Guarenteed to work. Make it ten billion to be safe.
All you gotta do is do something to the gulf stream–cover it up along the coast of Europe. No evaporation, no warming of the air…. Europe goes into deep freeze. Lots of snow, no melting…. increase the earth’s albedo by a lot. Less energy. Boom! Global Cooling! Ice Age! Paris ground under by a glacier! That would almost be worth it on it’s own!
All for a measly ten billion dollars.
Vanceone on December 17, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Here’s what Borenstein wrote:
(emphasis added by me)
You are the one putting words in the reporter’s mouth starfleet_dude. He is clearly erroneously relating sea ice melt to sea level.
forest on December 17, 2008 at 12:29 PM
It was the damn dinosaurs, and there big SUV’s, and there over farming, and there energy inefficient homes. Glad those bastards are extinct.
MDWNJ on December 17, 2008 at 12:30 PM
For supposedly so many Galciers melting in Alaska… why haven’t I drowned yet?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 12:31 PM
upinak–you’ve drowned, but just haven’t noticed yet. That’s the only explanation. Or suffocated from all the permafrost melting…..
Vanceone on December 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Look, a new disease! We’re not intelligent people debating a faulty dogma, we’re just sick people. Do we get compassionate treatment for our disease, or just get sent to re-education camps?
Vashta.Nerada on December 17, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Bumper sticker seen on Al Gore’s SUV:
“My Other Car is a 100-Foot Houseboat”
ex-Democrat on December 17, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Antarctic ice, however, when melted, would ultimately raise the sea level, as it is (largely) ice atop a land mass.
I’m not a cultist, just a nitpicker ;)
LimeyGeek on December 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Well, the Antarctic ice (either shelf ice or landmass glacial ice) is currently increasing, and the worldwide sea levels are currently stable, at best.
There’s no real evidence of rising sea levels, and the landmasses these clowns use to prove sea-level rises are in long-time states of depositional subsidence. In other words, they are naturally sinking due to shale dewatering or tectonic forces or reef subsidence – NOT relative sea-level rises
As a geologist, I am sickened by this insane, almost Stalinist-like scam.
All this is AGW bullshit just to squeeze money from the rest of us. There is no other explanation.
TexasJew on December 17, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Take two man-made global warming fanatics ice fishing and tie an anchor to their lines—repeat proceedure as needed.
Rovin on December 17, 2008 at 12:35 PM
“global air temperatures in 2008 are still far warmer than the average over the past 200 years…”
This statement which cannot possibly be quantified!
What exactky is the globe’s average air temperature? How do you know? If there is an average going back 200 years (which there isn’t) then how is that average correct?
If you insist there was a quantifiable, measurable global air temperature going back 200 years, please show me the data from the global temperature stations from 1808 (200 years ago) please.
catmman on December 17, 2008 at 12:35 PM
forest, to the contrary it’s absolutely true that as the ice cap shrinks over the Arctic Ocean, the open water will absorb more infrared radiation and help to warm the Arctic region, which will increase the rate at which glacial ice on Greenland and elsewhere in the Arctic melts, thus adding to sea level. Sure, that could be made more clear but that still doesn’t make O’Brien’s assertions about the report true.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 12:35 PM
starfleet:
You have to read the AP story before you comment. The writer specifically commented on ocean ice not land ice.
Vince on December 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Honestly …. I am the new ghost in the machine!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Apparently so.
Just to reiterate, I’m not an anthracitic globule warmer. I was just mentioning that the ‘ice melting’ theory can, in theory, raise sea levels.
LimeyGeek on December 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM
For supposedly so many Galciers melting in Alaska… why haven’t I drowned yet?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Hi!
Medora, ND yesterday had a balmy -60 wind chill. Thanks to AGW, no doubt..
Thanks G-d I won’t be drilling up there in Medora until April.
TexasJew on December 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Star where do you live? For the SECOND time!
I bet your either a Canadian or a California Tree Hugging Owl Activist!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Again, starfleet_dude, that’s not the argument Borenstein was making. You are attempting to fill in the gaps for him, but his article stinks.
forest on December 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Here ya go, catmman:
Global Air Temperature
Thanks by the way for at least being willing to ask genuine questions. I do appreciate it!
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
HEY!!!!
LTNS. Come to Alaska, little warmer up here!!!! BTW did you EVER get that box I sent you?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Facts are daily turned into turds by liberals, and lawyers.
kirkill on December 17, 2008 at 12:39 PM
The Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works responded to Borenstein’s rave review of Gore’s Oscar winner with this: ‘The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”‘
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
warbaby on December 17, 2008 at 12:39 PM
You know, it’s really strange.
Every 6 months, it gets really warm and hot.
Then it gets really cold and freezing.
Then it gets really warm and hot again.
Weird huh? It’s like the weather changes man.
/takes another bong hit
Kini on December 17, 2008 at 12:40 PM
The Associated Press’s climate science is impeccable. I have seen their analysis and I can demonstrate it’s soundness for you mathematically. Let me see now, four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is … … oh my! We shall never get to Global Warming at this rate! However, the multiplication table doesn’t really apply. Let’s try geography. There are 57 states, the Vatican is located in Chicago, Russian troops invaded Alabama. No, that’s all wrong, But geography doesn’t really apply either, I’m certain! Let’s try religion. Jeremiah Wright preaches love, Jews were behind 9/11 and Saudi Arabia is Mormon and Islam is a great religion of peace. No, that’s all wrong too! Maybe if the Associated Press just starts over and this time if they read the directions, then perhaps directly they will be directed in the right direction.
Cheshire Cat on December 17, 2008 at 12:40 PM
warbaby on December 17, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Gold Jerry! LOL
ex-Democrat on December 17, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Again, it’s pretty sad to see the ignorance on display here.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Thank you for speaking about yourself. Live in your little world. Believe as you wish.
sheebe on December 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM
First, his statement and yours are not contradictory. The fact that temps were increasing for the 170 years he didn’t include simply means taht he was looking at a different perspective.
But using that range not only requires comparing different data capture methods, it is harder to argue that man-made activities affected the results from those earlier years. IN fact, it would seem to be better evidence that the rise was simply a recovery from the Little Ice Age. In fact, there seems to be a trend that these rises and falls follow, completely independent of human activity
OBQuiet on December 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM
/takes another bong hit
Kini on December 17, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I am going to tell! :)
sheebe on December 17, 2008 at 12:42 PM
LTNS. Come to Alaska, little warmer up here!!!! BTW did you EVER get that box I sent you?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
It’s 65 down here in my little corner of West Texas, so I’m staying put right now.
And yes I did – MANY thanks! Great geology and regulation stuff..
I’ll shoot you an email tonight.
TexasJew on December 17, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Ice, currently floating in the water, that melts will not raise sea, river or lake levels.
Ice, currently sitting on land, that melts will raise sea, river or lake levels.
albill on December 17, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Starfleet: Please explain how the artic can lose these two trillion tons of ice–which you accept–AND lost trillions of tons of mass. See, if I remember correctly, this estimate of ice loss was done by satellite gravitational measurements, which equally say the artic lost millions of tons of mass. Now, how can the Artic Ocean lose tons and tons of mass without the entire world oceans dropping like a rock? They are all interconnected!
So, either oceans worldwide are dropping, or maybe, just maybe, these measurements are wrong. You pick!
Vanceone on December 17, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Warm Earthers = Linus
Global Warming = The Great Pumpkin
“No, it’s true! He really does exist! You’ll see!”
BobMbx on December 17, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Now, how can the Artic Ocean lose tons and tons of mass without the entire world oceans dropping like a rock? They are all interconnected!
So, either oceans worldwide are dropping, or maybe, just maybe, these measurements are wrong. You pick!
Vanceone on December 17, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Dear Vanceone:
Take an ice cube. Put it in your glass of Tang in your Barney cup and let it melt. The level of the Tang will stay the EXACT same after all the ice melts.
That’s called a “science experiment”
TexasJew on December 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM
GOOD! Glad you got it. email me when you have a moment. I got info for you!
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM
It should not be forgotten that other planets are being ravaged by mankind’s selfish use of energy!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Soon, this could spread to other stars! Then we can expect that visit from Klaatu.
OBQuiet on December 17, 2008 at 12:54 PM
This Day by day cartoon should quiet all the disbelievers of Global
Doom and GloomWarmingKini on December 17, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it [melt]. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
He can set fire to Roman ships with a mirror AND disprove rising global sea levels! Is there anything this man CAN’T do?
Tony737 on December 17, 2008 at 12:56 PM
OBQuiet on December 17, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Thanks for that link. Interesting to read!
sheebe on December 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM
This means WAR! r not whatever.
ronsfi on December 17, 2008 at 12:58 PM
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
I can put a graph together, the graph you supplied is not evidence your assumption is correct.
You state there has been a global average temperature, how do you know that temperature even portrayed on the graph you supplied (even using the average mean on the graph) is the correct, proper average temperature for the planet?
Your graph does corroborate your point about an increase of global temperature, making what you said technically correct, but there are to many variables in collecting the data.
For example, if you look at global temps since 1990, they spike. That is usually put out by alarmists as evidence of global warming. What it is evidence of is that a majority of temperature stations were closed or went down after the fall of the Soviet Union – if you have a lot of stations go down in one of the coldest parts of the world, then your “average global temperature” goes up.
Using the phrase “average global temperature” is a misnomer. It can’t be quantified. Why? Because the globe is a dynamic system – not static.
catmman on December 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM
A whole new market for the Big Three.
Marsmobile
Kini on December 17, 2008 at 1:01 PM
ManBearPig was killed by Algore. We’re safe.
VolMagic on December 17, 2008 at 1:01 PM
650 and counting…..go here
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
falcon_275 on December 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Don’t bring the SUN in on this argument.
With the temps on the mainland being what they are, I’d say it isn’t warm enough.
Kini on December 17, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Star… so are you going to tell us were YOU live in this World?
Or are you going to be quiet and sit there like a rock in a dry lake bed?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM
And IMO, it is the most supreme arrogance of AGW believers to claim that man can intentionally change the temperature of the planet, one way or the other. I doubt we could do it if we tried.
The earth has been around a long time, has gone through these cycles many times, and back again without our help. Can we say for sure what the “normal” temperature is for the earth? Perhaps we can, but there is no doubt that it is dynamic. And huge. And sometimes it is our friend, and sometimes our enemy. It doesn’t really care if we love it.
connertown on December 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM
There are arguments against the MYTH of global warming, on all fronts, but this is one of the most simple when it comes to Arctic Ocean ice melt, and one I’ve repeated at least dozens of times one this very site. And this guy is right, this is elementary school science… and for those who were sick that week, go put some ice in a glass, then fill with water until it’s as full as it can go without spilling, then just wait for the ice to melt, and see if you get an overflow. If you don’t – the “sea levels rising as a result of Arctic Ocean ice melt” is debunked before your eyes.
Again, every aspect of “global warming” is easily debunked, but this is one of the most simple examples, and it’s disgusting that it is still regularly used.
RightWinged on December 17, 2008 at 1:15 PM
From Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee On Environment and Public Works: The first link takes you to his blog. The rest of the links are the ones he embedded into the post.
INC on December 17, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Show that this effect is counteracting both the decrease in sea level due to sea ice melting AND more precipitation from the ocean making landfall due to more evaporation..
As sea level has stopped rising, then clearly it isn’t.
And you still haven’t proven any of this is primarily due to mankind anyway, or if anything proposed will make any significant difference- which is the actual point. Kyoto has been an absolute failure in decreasing CO2 so far.
Chuck Schick on December 17, 2008 at 1:18 PM
A couple of quotes from two of those 650 scientists. There are more at Inhofe’s blog.
and
INC on December 17, 2008 at 1:21 PM
We can no more change the climate on the earth than we can on Mars. An invisible gas that is completely natural to our world is causing all this hysteria, even though it is produced in much greater supply by that natural world. But Space Cadet Keanu Reeves says it’s so, so it must be.
Wake up people!
saltydogg14 on December 17, 2008 at 1:23 PM
He can set fire to Roman ships with a mirror AND disprove rising global sea levels! Is there anything this man CAN’T do?
Tony737 on December 17, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Reports of him setting fire to ships happened a couple of hundred years after the fact. Odds are it never happened, based simply on the available technology at the time. Much like the Romans never salted the land of Carthage (modern Lybia) after sacking it.
And no, the principle discussed does not ‘prove’ anything, other than media science writers tend to be morons. I’m on the fence with AGW, but I sure don’t get my info from science reporters or Al Gore.
Krydor on December 17, 2008 at 1:25 PM
How many countries that ratified the Kyoto agreement met their goals? None.
So how did the US fare over the period of the agreement (which was not ratified by the US)? The goals established for the US in the agreement were met and then some.
BobMbx on December 17, 2008 at 1:26 PM
In the meantime, the top story on cnn.com today was the supposed loss of 2-3 trillion tons of ice in places that rarely get above freezing. How is ice lost in places that are below freezing? simple: the natural process of ablation. It’s similar to what dry ice does at room temperature. So, ice is lost on earth due to natural processes during a time when temperatures are actually cooling. Sounds like global warming to me! Add this to the fact that ice in the artic and antarctic is increasing at a record pace, and you really have one of the biggest wool-over-eyes stories I have ever seen. Ignore that man you see behind the curtain! “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for!”…it could be said that Star Wars has so infiltrated our culture that even major news organizations think they can perform jedi mind tricks!
bilups on December 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Now my name’s there too. Thanks.
petefrt on December 17, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Hmm another global warming tree hugging bug kissing theroist.
So I have a question. When the wind isn’t or is blowing and it is a cloudless day in an area with -20 degree weather and yet the sun is shining… what happens?
I know the answer.. and it sure as hell isn’t ablation since it only effects the 1 cm on the ice and snow to begin with. But I will make this simple for you…
You have 3 inches of fine granulated snow. It is -20 (fahrenheit) outside. There is a breeze, not a gust, of 7 mph. It is also 11:30 AM. This last for 3 hours staight.
What is happening?
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Wow … the starfleet dude must be Al Gore kin.
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Just as soon as it stops freezing here in Sacramento, I’ll go out side and look at that big ball of hydrogen in the sky. I wonder if it has anything to do with
Global Warming,Global Cooling,Global Weather Change, Global whatever is on the libs list today.Merry “whatever offends libs today!”
TimothyJ on December 17, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Good Lord, I am not asking for a calculated answer via a theory of ablation.
Come on bilups… lets have it.
upinak on December 17, 2008 at 1:43 PM
For starters, tell me why ice should be static. Ice grows and recedes not necessarily because of temperature but because of snowfall. If the winter snow isn’t enough to make up for the summer melt then ice recedes. If the snow is more than enough then ice grows.
Scientists thought global warming was occurring in the 1930’s … northern polar ice had receded, temperature were higher … then it cooled again.
Tell me why during WWII … when the amount of fossil fuel burned was enormous, the temperatures dropped? Obviously the CO2 released had no effect on climate.
Don’t forget the sun … which is in a unusually quiet phase after being very active. The AGW folks never, never, ever talk about the sun.
darwin on December 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM
For the record, here’s what Borenstein wrote in his recent report:
It’s very clear to me at least that O’Brien isn’t being honest in his assertions as he’s blatantly reading what he wants to read in to set up his own pathetic effort to add more fuel to the denialist’s fire. Yawn.
starfleet_dude on December 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 8 Next »