Heartland's Burnett: What kind of impact do you believe this scientific misdirection of global warming and you know sort of the single point of view of global warming has had on science in general.
"scientific misdirection of global warming" ?
You don't explain a thing.
You don't specify what you are talking about.
You don't provide anything constructive to build upon.
What about learning from the information at hand?
Heartland's Burnett: You know the media just focuses like a hawk, it seems to me, on whatever horror, horrific climate spin story is sent out.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What's with this non sequitur?
Heartland's Burnett: Just following the old Mann trick, I believe the lead on climate is the same way, if it's disaster it's the headline.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Oh dear, more of that obligatory Gish Gallop. Why always with the phony rhetorical tactics and never any slowing down enough to actually think about the stuff you're rattling off?
What's your justification for continuing to ignore that the Mann et al. "hockey stick graph" has withstood the test the time?
~ ~ ~
Instead of proxy data, I'm curious what do you think about the actual changing composition of our planet's atmosphere? For instance, when you look at the Mona Loa CO2 record, does the concept of accumulating compounding interest (trends) having massive 'down stream' impacts mean anything to you?
Heartland's Burnett: And you got some concerns about the effect of sort of mass media science on science in general?
There is nothing controversial about the work of climatologist Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center. His innovative research helped recreate the Earth’s historical temperature record and separate the noise of natural weather fluctuations from the steady signal of real climate change. As such, Mann has played a significant role in the development of the overwhelming scientific consensus — the planet is warming and human activities are responsible.
It’s another story in the realm of politics, where Mann, an affable scientist, has been dragged into the fray by diehard climate change deniers. ...
1. Climate Scientists are the Real Skeptics . . .
2. The Science of Climate Change is Based on Many Sources of Data and Many Different Methodologies . . .
3. The Models Have Proven Accurate . . .
4. If Anything, Global Warming is Probably Worse Than Scientists Say . . .
5. A Scientific Consensus Isn’t Like a Popularity Contest . . .
6. Climatologists are Beginning to Recognize That They Have to Speak Up . . .
Misplaced cries of McCarthyism: an attempt to muddy the climate change waters.
Recently, a somewhat obscure scientific journal rejected a paper. Somehow, that made the front page of the London Times and spawned a number of articles in the right-wing press. How in the world does a rejected manuscript warrant front-page media coverage? Here's how.
A number of recent developments -- widely covered reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Climate Assessment, a popular new cable television series The Years of Living Dangerously produced by James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger and featuring prominent figures like Harrison Ford, Leslie Stahl, Matt Damon and Jessica Alba, a report by a blue-ribbon panel of National Security experts, and record drought and a catastrophic, early California fire season -- have dominated the climate change media narrative for months, raising public awareness about the reality and threat of human-caused climate change.
Without the facts on their side or an objective case to be made, the usual suspects behind the climate change denial campaign -- industry front groups and their hired hands -- have once again resorted to their preferred means of distraction: invent a fake scandal, get help trumping it up from sympathetic right-wing media outlets (e.g. The Murdoch-owned London Times and the infamous Drudge Report), and hope to once again dupe the mainstream media into covering the matter as if it had actual merit or significance.
In the latest such instance, . . .
- 33 national science academies
- 68 national and international science organisations believe
- 97% of climate scientists
- The rise in temperature, along side CO2 concentrations and human CO2 emissions (a veritable cluster of hockey sticks)
- Many different proxy records showing the unusual warming over the past century compared to previous centuries
- The increase in the number of record high temperatures compared to record lows, both in the USA and Australia (but why hasn't this analysis been done in other countries?)
- The growing season is lengthening
- Nights have warmed more than days, ruling out the sun as the cause of recent global warming
- The oceans have warmed steadily according to a number of independent ocean heat reconstructions
- More wildfires
- Snows are melting earlier in the year, sometimes as much as 20 days earlier in the spring
- Fire seasons are starting earlier, last longer and are harder to control
- The Northern Hemisphere is losing snow cover and permafrost
- The world's glaciers are losing ice each year
- Arctic sea ice extent and volume have both declined
- Greenland is losing ice and the ice loss is steadily spreading north
- Antarctica is losing ice
- Sea levels are rising
- Ocean acidity is increasing across the world's oceans
- Northern Hemisphere plant species are moving up slopes
- U.S. bird species are migrating further north to cooler temperatures
- Biological events like timing of breeding, emerging of flowers and butterfly emergence are happening earlier in the year
- Regions where climate is more favourable to plants are steadily migrating north
Ray Pierrehumbert explains in terms of the physics of what happens high up in the atmosphere, how rising levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide result in warming of the Earth's surface.
For more information see www.thiniceclimate.org
Here's a nice easy watching introduction to what our "global heat and moisture distribution engine" is all about:
The groundbreaking two-hour special that reveals a spectacular new space-based vision of our planet. Produced in extensive consultation with NASA scientists, NOVA takes data from earth-observing satellites and transforms it into dazzling visual sequences, each one exposing the intricate and surprising web of forces that sustains life on earth.