I'm not particularly a fan of Al Gore, but to be fair, he never claimed to have invented the internet. This was a deliberate misquote by republican spinsters during the campaign. He did say something to the effect that as a congressman he supported development of the internet, which was true.

Easy, the Earth goes through naturally occurring warm and cold cycles. Archeology has proven this.
The Vikings colonized Greenland during a warm cycle and at the time Greenland had a temperate climate suitable for growing crops to support a substantial population. That’s where it got its name. Greenland was abandoned when the climate changed and the ground froze permanently. It was also used as an example proving Global Cooling or the coming Ice Age scare. Now it's being used as an example of the Global Warming scare when a naturally occurring cycle allows Greenland to become green again.

It was snowing today, so global warming must be a hoax. Riiiight.
n4zou: Yes, there was a warming, and yes there was also a "mini ice age" around 1100 A.D. I missed the coming ice age scare, wasn't it related to a "nuclear winter"? Was there a body of scientific research behind it, or was it a bunch of loons that think they know more than people who spend a lifetime studying earth science? The ice core data is irrefutable: an increse in C02 is going to result in an increase in temperature. Yes, the planet is warming, and yes, it is the result of human activity... this is not my opinion, but that of the International Union of Geophysicists, that all signed off on this in 1999, I believe. If you know something they don't, why don't you enlighten them?

Actually I was speaking of Alaska...

Mars is experiencing global warming too. Maybe the Mars Rover is causing it?

Point taken, JP; I will concede that that clause in my comment on Mr. Gore was unfair, though I stand by the rest. I allowed my irrational dislike of his 'irritatingly finger-wagging but nevertheless incredibly dull' style of oratory to get the better of me. However, now that I think of it, the 'new Gore: Enviroman' does raise an interesting point: in the current climate (oops, sorry!) of debate, it is very difficult indeed to distinguish positions held with genuine conviction from those forming part of a politician's/celebrity's PR toolbox, on any side of a given issue. In the case of 'celebrities,' the main problem of course is that in many cases these bodies are guided not so much by a fully functioning brain as by a thickening of the spinal cord which controls basic motor functions. Mr. Gore, on the other hand, is clearly intelligent, and I think in his case perhaps a combination of both? He/his handlers may well think that he can hitch a ride on this bandwagon and get back in the public eye (as I said, it's worked!) and he may well have some genuinely held views on the issue(s); further, he does seem to be one of those individuals who loves being nanny to us all -- and the environment is of course an issue which provides all kinds of opportunities to (expenses paid) hop on a kerosene-burning jet, fly to a paid forum, and tell everyone else to reduce his/her 'environmental footprint,' then head off to a nice reception/dinner, the cost of which would feed a third-world child and put him/her through primary/secondary school.

Second, and final, rant over.:)

Yep, in the 50s and 60s climatologists told us that the Earth was heading into another ice age. This was based on pollution increasing Earth's albedo and reflecting sunlight back into space, as well as the fact that it's been 10,800 years since the last one and the average interval is every 12,000 years. When the Venus probes found unexpectedly high temperatures there, a formerly-disfavored theory about CO2 causing a greenhouse effect was resurrected to explain them. It was subsequently picked up by a few alarmists here, who noted that CO2 was higher since the industrial age began, and therefore global warming, not cooling, was going to be a problem. It's important to note that it was determined first that there was a problem, and only after that was it decided what the problem was. Cooling? Warming? Both?

To put things in perspective, the current CO2 level of 350ppm is closer to the point where plant life dies off for lack of it (100 ppm) than high levels of past eras (up to 3000 ppm.)

I saw that article about Mars experiencing a warming trend, and that it's of similar magnitude to the Earth's. One thing climatologists assume is that the sun is constant in its output. Considering what we already know about sunspot cycles and Maunder minimums, that's a pretty stupid assumption.

Find a globe and put your finger on Greenland. Hold your finger just above Greenland and rotate the globe counterclockwise. Did Alaska pass under your finger? There's your answer.

+1
Archeology shows no CO2 level correlation to climate temperatures.

Here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94 is a short scientific article explaining why the above quote is not quite accurate. They say that it is much more accurate to say that the popular press was guilty of saying some unfortunate things about an impending ice age. Great thing about realclimate.org is that they present the issue, cite supporting scientific work, discuss non-supporting scientifc work and then come to their conclusion. They then take the further step to answer questions from both people who support their conclusions and those who oppose them. Makes for some very good reading.

wow.. that is actually a really informative site... but I can't help but be cynical and a bit paranoid as to what company or political entity is behind this site... because everyone has someone in their pocket nowadays... so then the credibility would be shot... Any idea?

So, far in this thread I've seen a number of reasoning fallacies: slippery slope thining, ad hominem fallacy, questionable authority, searching for a perfect solution, appealing to emotions, etc. What concerns me most about this debate is what I see as the general public's inability to think about this issue in any meaningful way. As I say this, I realize that the effort it would take to find evidence and arguments that are highly reliable is more than I want to make, and I make part of my living teaching critical thinking skills. The hours one would have to invest to fully understand all of the current reliable data would be quite extensive. If my assessment of the effort needed is correct, I find it easy to imagine that most of what we (we being the collective general population of the plant) "know" about global warming is filled with bad information and poor reasoning. Because of this I take a slightly different stand on the issue. I ask, what damage can be caused by assuming that it is in our best interest to reduce our "carbon footprints"? And, can any resulting damage be avoided or lessened? So, on a personal level, I can take responsibility for this postion by making reasonable attempts to reduce my carbon footprints and encouraging a wider range of consumer options that would allow me to pursue this with more vigor.

On the "about" page they say,
"RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions."

So the contributers are not paid, but I don't see any place where they say who pays for hosting the site.

I think that some of us have been saying that the popular press was guilty of saying some unfortunate things about impending climate change. What I want to hear from both sides in this issue is real, fact stipulating science, not colored by lots of emotion laced rhetoric.
I would like to know more about what conditions existed on this planet during the previous interglacial periods and what the potential causes were back then. I would like to know more about what political or economic interests may be fueling both the pro's and con's so that I might make some informed decisions about what I am reading and watching.
I have become very wary of popular catastrophies....ozone layer....nuclear winter.....bird flue....terrorism.....eco terrorists.....the domono theory.....peak oil.....that play out in the media for a while and then fade away in the face of the next impending end of it all story.
Nor can I abide by the naysayers who joke about having beachfront property in New Hampshire.

The words of fear are....could...might...as much as....its possible that....may be......idiots....bull!@#$%.....all of my scientists are right and all of yours are wrong. Remember that there are people out there on both sides of the issue that believe that Elvis lives, flouride is a communist plot, there is a shadow government that rules the world and everyone else is bad.

Watch the responses to this post.

OK- I'll bite. As a scientist, I can tell you that you should never, ever trust the press for scientific reporting. The fact that the various "crises du jour" fade out after a (usually short) time, should tell you something- journalists are in one business only, and that's to sell TV ad time, papers, or magazines. That, and the fact that so many errors slip through the editing process. Some things journalists should just stay away from- the vast majority of them don't have the intellectual equipment to handle solid scientific reporting. And those that do are bound and beholden to editors and a reading public that don't have that equipment either. Sorry for sounding so bitter, but so much of the controversy about global warming (and a zillion other problems) has been politicized by the press.

Anyone around here selling some...well. you know, like some carbon credits. I got the money to buy them and no real manifested reason in my life to do anything but what will generate or utilize carbon credits.

I hear Algore's business is making scads of money on his carbon credit-selling vendors. Hell, he owns most of them. Definitely no conflict of interest here.

+1. Very well stated.

This is the kind of response I would hope we would not get from a scientist. The use of “absolutes” in your argument are most troubling. I don’t think it is accurate to portray journalist with such a broad stroke. Nor, it is correct to say that they have but one business. While there are surely those journalist who are interested in the business end, there are also those who have a sense of ethics that drive a real desire to inform people. Your assessment that they may be “bound and beholding” has some merit, yet it too paints editors and the general public with quite broad strokes. If one were to argue that reporting of science could be better, I would eagerly agree with this. I would also suggest that the general public would fare better with issues of science if they were treated with more respect and fewer assumptions that the information might be too complex for them to understand. Finally, I would suggest that politics, or more accurately the use of power to influence, is an area in which the scientific community might want to invest in gaining additional skills. Just my two cents, and perhaps a knee jerk reaction in an effort to protect friends I know and trust who are journalist with a drive and healthy ethic aimed at informing people in a fair, honest and accurate way. For me the bottom line is that what we know today, is not likely to be what we know tomorrow. We have to find someway to try and keep knowledge availalbe and desired by the general public.

I too will bite . . . as a journalist (just a plain ole country editor from a small town weekly newspaper ;) ), the press is one component in the debate process, and the national media (think CNN, FOX, MSNBC) thrive on the crisis du jour. But journalists are primarily the messenger and the "news" is usually initiated by other parties. The reason the press has the power that it does to shape public opinion is because we are conduits to large segments of the public, and our power is our ability to sway that opinion.

The power brokers understand that as messengers, journalists are seldom equipped to fully understand the subjects they report on. Therefore it is easy to manipulate the process.

It is our job as journalists, and especially editors, is to guard against that manipulation, to make sure the reporters verify facts and work to present as many aspects of a subject as possible. With something as complex as global warming, the media is manipulated by the sources and their reports are only as viable as the sources they have access to. Add to that the tendancy for editors, publishers, and producers to have their own bias.

The public paints the bias in the media with a very broad brush. The bias exists on the individual basis -- we all have our own opinions on which way our favorite newscaster, or local paper leans. To counter that requires the public gather information from a wide variety of sources (just as I instruct my reporters) and not a single network, blog, website, or publication.

PS -- Please do not lump the "press" together. Broadcast news is a very different beast than print news (my second generation newspaper roots showing! :p )

You simply can't compare the two financial interests. The vested financial interest in the oil industry is almost LIMITLESS in terms of money - LIMITLESS. There simply is NO comparision when talking dollars - absolutely none.

Actually there is LITTLE TO NO CONFLICTING OPINION amongst scientists with no vested interest in the oil industry. Most every peer reviewed scientific paper supports only one view - global warming is man made. The only "debate" is happening in the media with propaganda and sound bites. For example, when the government edits Its OWN scientific papers to substantially change their meaning, that's propaganda and self interest at its worst. Again - there is no debate in the (non oil-based) scientific community at all. Again, follow the money .... the LIMITLESS money.

Even if you've bought into the edited government-based reports and propaganda that says "we still don't know", would you not want to err on the side of safety with literally the world at risk?

Do you remember when this government's stance was that GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH? Since that was proven a lie, they now state that it does exist, but we are not the cause.

As Bush would say ... fool me once ... (bumble-bumble-bumble) ... ah, you can't get fooled again! :)


... Brad

Color me a bit skeptical of both journalists and scientists. Journalists are in business to sell stories. However accurate, if it doesn't sell, they're in the soup line. Which sells better, the story of a trend that's been going on for over a thousand years, or a tale of possible impending doom?

OTOH, climatological research scientists largely work off grants - universities, government, etc. Without grant money, they have to go back to teaching or being a TV meteorologist. Again, which is more likely to pry loose the maximum amount of grant money - researching a trend that's been going on for over a thousand years, or checking out possible impending doom? Look at the money trail and you will see ample reasons for both groups to sensationalize.

As I remember the ice age theory, it started with the theory that humans were causing global cooling. When it was shown that the cooling, although real, had been a minor blip & that the earth was continuing its slow recovery from the mini-ice age, (which itself followed the Medieval Optimum,) the story then became that the earth's warming would cause more snow to fall in the northern latitudes, which would be unable to fully melt each summer, and the ice sheets would soon encroach on New York, Chicago, and major European cities. When it was noted that most glaciers in the northern hemisphere were retreating, the dire warnings were changed again. Time after time, computer projections have failed to happen, so the programs were 'tweaked' to produce the observed results. All the programs have proved so far is that with the proper adjustments they can show what's already happened. I don't believe any of them anymore.

Good for you. I tell people all the time to never trust everything they see in print or hear on tv. It is just too easy for journalists to be manipulated, or to manipulate the story themselves. The bigger the story, the bigger the stakes, the more likely the "sources" are going to try to push an agenda. Again, never rely on a single source for the information you are using to make decisions!

We work hard to present the facts, but in complex stories, it requires more than a single story, or a 30-second clip, to do the job right. Journalists are called to make judgements on the quality of our sources, which is reflected in our coverage. I expect nothing less from our readers. Judge the information you use to make decisions based on the credibility of the source. The main stream media usually does a good job of coverage over the long haul, but you have to balance many sources to develop a reasonable understanding of complex issues like global warming.

My biggest fear is our society is trending in the opposite direction . . . with the Internet we can "customize" our news so we only get our "facts" from sources we agree with and ignore any sources which do not valid our own positions.

As for the business -- I sell my paper a year in advance. My readers are less concerned about this week's headlines as they are with the consistency and quality of coverage of local issues. I have enough issues in my own backyard to work on, thank goodness I don't have to worry about reporting on global warming! :rolleyes:

Are you are comparing grant money with the near LIMITLESS money made in the oil industry? They simply do not compare. It's like comparing apples to a fart. There really is no comparison.

You are also putting your trust in politicians over legitimate scientists. There is no comparison there either ... well except for the fart. :D

... Brad

Global warming is a great subject for discussion. It allows people to demonstrate ignorance and stupidity. In many cases it reveals additional traits about people, such as greed, racism and fascism.

I'm not surprised by any of the ignorant comments on the 50+ forum. Reading about complex subjects with a high degree of comprehension is a tiresome task. And many 50+ers repeatedly demonstrate slothful, "can't do" characteristics in their other posts. Critical thinking isn't one of the attributes that come to mind when reviewing the inane subject matter of many of these threads.

In a larger sense, some how in some way, it seems that stupidity and ignorance have somehow gained respect and relevance in today's society. Many people are supporting and applauding public figures with stubborn fascist-like reasoning. All positions, regarding the nation's interests are afforded equal respect, no matter how ridiculous, how absurd, how patently unreasonable.

That being said, there are no reasons, in advancing any logic in this subject matter. Smell you later.......

From Wikepedia:
Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.

Problems are much easier to identify/specify than solutions. Do we really want a special interest oriented government mandated alteration of lifestyle or forfeiture of personal choices/freedoms based on a "concensus"? If the US follows Autrailian "solution" to ban incandescent lightbulbs to be replaced with little curly flourescent bulbs and 10, 20, 40, 50, or ??? years would have to lapse before the (favorable/unfavorable) results could be determined........once mandates are in place, it is nearly impossible to remove. Consider the cost, in terms of dollars and quality of life, while contemplating a solution to a contrived CRISIS. Freedom of choice should apply to more than just abortion! This "issue" needs to be validated/substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.