L.A. Times Still Overstating Percentage Who Believe Global Warming Is Man-Made
The L.A. Times appears hellbent on overstating the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is man-made. Having corrected a recent article in apparent response to a blog post of mine, they are still materially overstating the percentage, and owe readers yet another correction.
The paper originally reported that 62% of Americans believe global warming is a man-made phenomenon. The paper has now corrected that number to 46.5%. But my reporting shows that the true number of Americans who blame human activity is actually less than 25%.
Time for a correction to the correction! Click “more” for the details.
The paper recently reported that 62% of Americans surveyed believed that global warming was man-made. Reporter Dean Kuipers linked a study that showed that percentage represented people who believed in climate change — not necessarily in man-made climate change. I wrote this blog post highlighting the error, and reader Mike K. wrote an e-mail to complain, which I will publish soon.
Shortly thereafter, the paper corrected the article — but the correction is still wrong. Kuipers’s revised article states:
When participants in the Brookings study said they believed in climate change, they were asked a follow-up question about what they believed to be the cause. Borick noted that about 75% of participants said they believed that climate change was human-caused, about 20% thought it was part of a natural cycle, and about 5% didn’t know.
I asked Borick to send me the information regarding these follow-up questions, since it has not been published and was not part of the original study linked by Kuipers. The information Borick sent indicates that 40% (not 75%) of those surveyed believed climate
change is “human-caused” (as Kuipers puts it), 21% believed it was part of a natural cycle, and 35% believe it is due to a combination of the two.
Kuipers takes the entire percentage of people who attribute it to a combination, lumps that percentage together with those who attribute it to human activity solely, and says (without qualification) that the sum of the two groups “believed that climate change was human-caused.”
That is substantially misleading. He could have said 75% attribute those changes at least in part to human actions — but that’s not what he said. Instead, his verbiage implies that 75% attribute the change to human activity . . . period. Which is not true.
I could just as easily say that 56% of the people surveyed attributed the change to natural cycles, and only 40% attributed
it to human activity. I could reach that number by adding the percentage who attribute the change to natural cycles (21%) and adding it to the 35% who attribute it to natural cycles in part. But that would be misleading, because it would attribute to the 35% a view that there is only one cause for warming (natural cycles), when they actually see it as a combination of factors. That would simply be the mirror image of what Kuipers did: he attributed to the 35% a view that there is only one cause for warming (human activity) when their view was more nuanced.
Borick seemed reluctant to criticize the author (as you might expect, since the paper did publicize his survey), but he did agree that the article’s new wording should have read differently:
The Times also should have placed in the words “that 75% of individuals attributed climate change at least partially to human activity” in the explanation. I may not have been as clear as I should have been when Dean called me with the follow-up question so blame can come in my direction too.
I asked if Kuipers had requested to see the hard data which I have presented here, and he said no.
So it’s not necessarily the case that Kuipers was intentionally distorting the data. There could have been a miscommunication.
But it’s funny how the errors keep over-representing the percentage of people who believe that warming is attributable to human activity. The paper started at 62%. Then, in apparent response to my post, they changed that to 75% of 62%, or 46.5%. But the true percentage of people who believe warming is solely attributable to human activity is actually 24.5%. While 46.5% see human activity as contributing to the problem, almost half of those believe natural cycles play a role.
From 62% to less than 25%.
Yeah, I’d say they owe a correction.
Yes, this is completely dishonest. To use two completely different standards when adding up the numbers for assigning belief in man-made vs. naturally-caused climate change is indefensible (and laughably stupid).
Seriously, they should feel ashamed. This is an error that was bound to be spotted.
Good spot, just the same.
Random (38d59c) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:51 amI think the percentage of people what believe a gimpy socialist economy-raper like Barack Obama can change the temperature with clever policies like cash-fer-clunkerz is even smaller, actually
if you were to measure it
scientifically
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:25 amOf course, the number of people who believe that global warming is/is not happening, or is due to human behavior, does not affect the truth of the matter. See Saucers, Flying.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:24 amKevin, that’s true. But peer pressure is a powerful way to prop up dogma.
Happyfeet has a strong point. What exactly would we do about this problem? Our government can’t even run its basic operations from day to day without sending billions of dollars down the hole. Their ideas for solving this involve energy crises, leans to makers of $100,000 electric cars, and funding Chinese fighter jets with cash for crushing 18 mpg Volvos.
It’s flailing. Gotta admit that Chinese fighter jet looks really cool, though.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:37 amHave they ever made an error that favored their ideological opposition?
JD (0e9826) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:09 amNot that I can recall, JD. It’s like magic that all their math and other provable errors prop up their ideology. Makes you wonder (not really) about the dishonestly in the unprovable spin stuff.
The LA Times is tough to beat on this count, but I recall reading a long collection of BBC corrections on Israel and Palestine, and 10:1 the errors benefited the Palestinian propaganda. It gets hard to accept this is an accident.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:14 amI don’t accept it as an accident.
FDA (0e9826) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:20 amnever attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.
but never attribute to stupidity what is obviously blatant lying either…
soon come the day they file BK and close forever.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:21 amEven many “skeptics” believe in some Global Warming, but don’t believe it represents any danger to mankind.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Neo (d1c681) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:30 amWow.
This is off topic, but it’s also strangely on topic, because it allegedly involves the exact same type of dishonesty.
Is that not precisely the same type of blatant lying as the L.A. Times in its global warming beliefs survey?
I won’t engage in a debate on this because it is off topic, but I will present once here it for your interest because it’s a perfect example of the same dishonest practice as at the dog trainer; it’s also interesting because it dovetails with today’s Sock Puppet Friday featuring Senator Grassley.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:38 amWe will probably know the truth of this in the next decade. The best theory of natural warming has to do with solar activity, which has been abnormally high for over 50 years. Recently, it has died down and is currently way below normal. If this leads to temperatures abating, or the increase slows markedly, then one can conclude that solar activity is a prime factor in global warming. If, instead, temperatures continue to increase despite lessened solar activity, the man-made theory becomes stronger.
Of course, there is the issue of whether temperatures are increasing to begin with, but that’s a lot easier to ascertain than what is causing it.
As for what to do about it if so? Pretty clear you want to limit CO2 emissions. Nuclear and solar, I think, but that will happen anyway if government will get out of the way. The truly crazy thing is that so many people think government is helping.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:48 amKevin, I agree. Some reports say that temps on other planets are warming and cooling pretty similarly to ours. I think they should put multiple probes on the planets where it’s feasible to help track that. You know… actual science.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/16/2012 @ 12:23 pmI don’t agree with that at all. CO2 is great for plants; the feedbacks for CO2-induced warming appear to be dampening, not positive; and mild warming — the only kind CO2 is likely to cause — would be net beneficial to humans anyway.
This is what drives Earth’s climate.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 12:35 pmRandom–
There are very few scientists that believe that it is cosmic rays. Too weak a source in comparison with the sun and internal warming to have a meaningful effect.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:01 pmI don’t give a damn how many scientists believe sh-t. This actually makes sense and fits the data on two different timescales.
Random (974eda) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:14 pmDid you see where it turns out that a “report” on Apple/Foxconn worker conditions was a fraud? Link here.
Imagine if Fox News had done the above.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/16/2012 @ 1:58 pmComment by Kevin M — 3/16/2012 @ 1:01 pm
There are very few scientists that believe that it is cosmic rays. Too weak a source in comparison with the sun and internal warming to have a meaningful effect.
The theory was/is cosmic rays pushed away by the sun.
Cosmic rays: not causing global warming by Tom Chivers in the Telegraph Feb 10, 2012.
Henrik Svensmark, the Danish researcher…had hypothesised that cosmic rays could nucleate particles, that those particles could seed more clouds, and that the extra clouds could cause cooling. He suggested that this meant that in times of high solar activity, the magnetic activity of the Sun would deflect more of the rays, so that fewer clouds would form.
He doesn’t say this is false, but rather unproven, because too many steps are left out, but says it can’t be right because cosmic rays and solar activity have been essentially stable over the last 35 years (which doesn’t mean anything because you don’t know how much might be needed to cause an effect)
More to the point, the correlation between temperature and the cosmic ray rate is delayed – with the change is cosmic rays displaced forward so any change related to sunspots etc is more direct and somebody calculated that mathematically sunspots etc it couldn’t be responsible for more than 14% of the rise, presumably because temperatures are not rising and dropping enough.
Sammy Finkelman (8bd44f) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:03 pmRandom, see #3
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:03 pmI’ve seen this talking point on the global warming denial sites.
CO2 at higher levels can help some plant growth, BUT – generally only big increases in water use, plant food and fertilizer use. And I think they use more root oxygen. It’s a complex system, not simple enough to say “CO2 is great for plants. More at http://www.bnl.gov/face/
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:10 pm….generally only WITH big increases….
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:10 pmI’m sure it’s a complex system, carlitos. I’m also sure the Earth’s atmosphere has often had more CO2 than now, and life has been fine.
The big thing is increased CO2 doesn’t seem to have the predicted positive temperature feedbacks, rather dampening ones.
Random (9daf1f) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:23 pmSammy,
It is such a second-order effect that it doesn’t seem right. Direct solar activity seems more likely than indirect solar activity. In the end, we will probably find it is a collection of things, and more to the point, we will find that the earth’s own processes are mitigating a lot of what we might otherwise expect.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:25 pmDr Breggin told me it was cosmic rays.
JD (0e9826) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:25 pmOh, as long as a guy named “Random” on the internet is sure, I’ll just ignore the global scientific community.
I’m not sure, but I think that stratospheric cooling makes no sense vis a vis “cosmic ray” theory. I could be wrong, but I think those rays do have to pass to the stratosphere before they could warm the troposphere. Why wouldn’t they warm the other layers?
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:30 pmHere’s a climatologist discussing the cosmic ray theory linked by Random.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:36 pmReading that, I answered my own question above, no clouds to catch the cosmic rays in the stratosphere. Meh, I’ve been wrong before.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:37 pmThe real problem with the current science is that damn little of it is Science. The moment that the East Anglia database became corrupted by endless data-tweaking it because worthless. So did any research done with any version of that database, since it could not be reproduced. Note that the Journal of Irreproducible Results is not (pretty much by definition) a peer-reviewed publication.
Add to that the internal emails which showed that the East Anglia researchers had no intention of allowing their results to be tested by skeptics, and when faced with a legal order to release their data, they said “Our dog ate it.” And in fact, their dog had eaten it, so they were not technically lying.
Add to that their penchant for destroying the careers of anyone who disputed their results (or stood near anyone who disputed their results), the idea that this was in any way Science went out the window.
In the end, it had to do with what Al Gore was sure of, since he wasn’t just a random guy on the internet, but the guy who INVENTED the internet, and got a Nobel and and Oscar, too!
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:55 pm_became_ worthless.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 3/16/2012 @ 2:57 pmglobal warming is very controversial
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/16/2012 @ 4:32 pmThere is an unstated arrogance , that we have such influence on the climate, there was a point when the Callender curve and other elements represented
narciso (f1dcf9) — 3/16/2012 @ 4:44 pmreal science, but now it’s more like alchemy.
“L.A. Times Still Overstating Percentage Who Believe Global Warming Is Man-Made”
Yeah, they’re a lefty newspaper. Concocting and spreading lies is their bread and butter.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/16/2012 @ 5:01 pmSince the follow-up question in the poll was biased, how was the previous question worded?
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/16/2012 @ 5:04 pmI’m still waiting for that tremendous acceleration in sea level rise that’s been predicted. The observations don’t lend support to the claim, so in their absence, all we have are predictions.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (bf357d) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:42 pmSvensmark’s idea may be right or wrong, but it doesn’t have anything in the slightest to do with what you wrote.
The theory — an aspect of which is being tested and has been verified in the CERN “Cloud” experiment — is this:
That’s the theory in a nutshell.
Here’s a scientist (mostly Svensmark) talking about Svensmark and colleague’s theory.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 6:54 pmwe’ve known LA Times
Colonel Haiku (25ae07) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:01 pmthree fries short for quite some time
let’s not dwell in blame
Reading comprehension, still not “Random’s” strong suit.
Yes, I was wrong. I admitted so. I read more about it, and now I understand his theory. Which is completely dismissed by the scientific community, as you can read at the link I posted above. But yes, good job. I was wrong. But the scientist you quote is a fringe nutter.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:07 pmI didn’t read the entire thread, Carlitos. I’m glad you admitted the error and no biggie. I don’t mind the debate; I just saw what you wrote originally and it seemed like you weren’t disagreeing with Svensmark’s theory, but some other theory.
However, mostly his theory has to do with low cloud formation, and most of the ions and aerosols formed would be at ground or ocean level … it’s the albedo that would cool the Earth, it isn’t that cosmic rays heat the Earth. In fact, his theory says more cosmic rays = more cooling.
So were most successful ones before they weren’t. I think he’s right.
At the very least, watch the last video I linked and think about it independently. The CERN experiment was largely expected to debunk him, but actually, went as he predicted.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:11 pmRandom, good work. Here’s an article in Nature about the CERN experiment.
The findings, published today in Nature, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.
But of course the CAGW believers’ stance that the debate is over won’t be swayed by mere evidence.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (bf357d) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:13 pmcarlitos,
Which is completely dismissed by the scientific community, as you can read at the link I posted above.
Real Climate is not a neutral player; it’s committed to the CAGW cause. You need to vet your sources more carefully.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (bf357d) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:15 pmThere’s room for debate, Brother Bradley, over whether the effect is large enough (it doesn’t seem to have a strong day-to-day effect, but Svensmark argues it has a substantial longer-term effect) to account for the climate cycles, however, its correlation with both long and short-term temperatures is scarily good. Literally. Means we can do crap-all if and when cooling trends begin.
Carlitos relayed, correctly, that there is controversy on this point. But the idea is fascinating and so far seems to be standing up to experimental scrutiny. As someone who is interested in these matters, I hope Carlitos will watch the video I linked, it’s about an hour long, and research further. If he comes back to “debunk” Svensmark, I hope he comes with a greater understanding of its strengths and weaknesses so we can have a robuster, more productive discussion.
Which I don’t see why we can’t enjoy.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:18 pmRandom,
I know the Svensmark hypothesis needs more testing. As the quote from Nature indicated, the findings are “preliminary.”
I was responding to carlitos’s provably false statement that the cosmic ray hypothesis (which he didn’t even understand) was “completely dismissed by the scientific community.”
That’s what happens when people place their trust in a putatively scientific site like Real Climate, when it’s really a CAGW advocacy forum.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (bf357d) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:39 pmI’m with you there.
In fact, I go further and say I believe Svensmark is right. It’s simply my best judgment.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:42 pmBradley, no offense, but I’m inclined to believe the scientific community. The only bias I’ve found at realclimate is a bias towards science. I’m aware of their Fenton Communications and other ties, but really, it’s a blog with real live scientists posting on their own free time, and Fenton probably spends $50 / month for a website?. That kind of expertise is what the internet and blogs are great for. I also get info from http://www.skepticalscience.com/
While I found Gore’s movie troubling, I’m not willing to learn this entire subject firsthand, so I’ll defer to the experts. If the scientific establishment of every country in the world is in on some type of conspiracy (OMG AGW), then so be it. It shouldn’t affect my life much either way. Random’s link of a crackpot nutter reminds me of cold fusion and other nonsense.
Random, before I spend an hour of my life watching a movie about a fringe theory:
– Explain your anti-psychiatry stance.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:44 pm– Any other non-traditional theories of yours we should know about? Abiogenic petroleum? Homeopathy? Herbal medicine? Colloidial silver? AIDS / HIV denial?
Bradley, my last post was before I saw your post @7:39. If CAGW is real, and scientists agree that it is, then a “CAGW advocacy forum” is OK with me. Much like a “civil rights advocacy forum” or a “the earth is round advocacy forum” would be. Perhaps I’m being naive, but that’s how I see it. Many people that I respect disagree with me on this issue, but I’m happy to respectfully disagree with them.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 7:54 pmYes they were running actually a trillion dollar scam, with the Chicago Carbon Exchange, Pachauri, has made a pretty penny as well, the bogus science
narciso (f1dcf9) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:00 pmhas been made clear, even Michael Mann, admitted there had been no GW for 15 years, and none could be identified in 1989,
– Explain your anti-(bio)psychiatry stance.
The human brain is very complex, the mind is extremely so, and we have nowhere near enough knowledge about how to fix human emotions and thoughts by interfering with any of a handful of neurotransmitters without doing more harm than good. I’ve presented a lot of evidence of why this is so on the Carbonite thread (by coincidence, this was published on the anniversary of the day Michelle Malkin’s cousin went missing, and the discussion began then). By all means, see there.
Doubtful. Would be nice.
No plausible mechanism it could work since the substances are diluted so much that often not even a single molecule would be retained. Laughable actually.
Yeah, it makes sense. Of course plants can have medicinal qualities. Try willow or quinine bark.
I don’t know much about it. I have no idea what the human requirement for silver is, if any.
HIV exists. AIDS exists. They are probably related, although it can be hard to rigorously prove this with retro viruses, although a lot of early deaths were probably iatrogenic. Since wider spectrum, lower dose drug cocktails have been developed, this appears to be less so.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:07 pmThanks Random. It’s big of you to note that AIDS and HIV are “probably” related … but I’ll see if I can watch the video over the weekend. Not a huge fan of proof by youtube, but I’m always willing to learn something new.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:12 pmrandom: thanks for stopping by. It’s been fun.
Ag80 (b0b671) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:12 pmcarlitos, nothing says you can’t use it as a primer, then probe deeper, including sources cited, experiments performed, etc.
Enjoy your weekend.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:18 pmEnjoy yourself, Ag80. Indeed it has.
Random (de9896) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:21 pmuse it as a primer, then probe deeper
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:54 pmThat’s what she said.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 8:55 pmcarlitos:
Bradley, no offense, but I’m inclined to believe the scientific community.
I gave as a source an article in Nature, a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Your sources are Real Climate and Skeptical Science. Neither are peer-reviewed, and both are CAGW advocacy sites.
You might be interested in what climate scientist Roger Pielke, Sr. has to say about Skeptical Science’s bias.
Skeptical Science would do more of a service to the science community if they accurately presented their (and my viewpoints), even when they disagree, rather than disparage those who disagree with them. As Skeptical Science is currently presenting their information on climate on their weblog, everyone just needs to recognize that the weblog is not presenting all peer reviewed perspectives.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (bf357d) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:01 pmthe policy response to the science has never not been inane
and the science itself has never not been more than a little un-sciencey
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:10 pmcarlitos,
You might also wish to consider what climate scientist Judith Curry has to say about the influence of solar cycles on climate.
Curry questions the effectiveness of climate models in explaining this issue:
So are these model-based studies getting it right in terms of what we might see in the 21st century from an irradiance reduction comparable to the Maunder Minimum? I think we have barely scratched the surface of this problem, since these papers rely on alot of assumptions, many of which I haven’t even mentioned. And I suspect that, because of the seasonal and latitudinal asymmetries in insolation, that the direct solar response may be greatest in the polar regions.
And none of this discussion addresses the issues associated with magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and the latest results from SORCE on spectral variations of irradiance.
What do observational analyses tell us? Observational analyses can implicitly include the effects that are ignored by climate models.
I suggest you re-evaluate your confidence that Real Climate and Skeptical Science are giving a fair overview of the state of climate science.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (bf357d) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:13 pmTouche, Brother Bradley. But I don’t think it will have much effect. He seems to place a lot of value on ‘consensus’.
Maybe he can find his calling as a Wikipedia editor?
Random (afcb1f) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:13 pmBradley, it’s one experiment in Nature, and everyone agrees that it’s interesting, but that they need lots more data.
That said, I will try to broaden my reading on the subject. If you know any AGW ‘critical’ stuff to read, let me know. The sites I have read thus far are not impressive.
Also, did you note the slope of the graphs in the article you linked on Skeptical Science? They all seem to look like that. Everywhere.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:22 pmIt’s a good thing copernicus did not believe the scientific community of his age.
In fact, I can think of nothing less scientific than believing something just because a community has failed to make a better case than popularity.
The words ‘fringe’ and ‘consensus’ are meaningless to the scientific method.
Time and time again models for global warming fail to predict anything. And the theories are convoluted to accommodate the data… just as science explained how the Earth was the center of the universe with a dizzyingly complex set of calculations for the insane orbits of everything around the Earth.
Maybe it’s just wrong?
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:27 pmCarlitos, I’m not saying grasp the alternate theory for the sake of. But maybe worry less about what most people believe and a little more about what you believe after studying it and thinking about it.
Random (afcb1f) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:28 pmDo you know what “hide the decline” means?
This is the reason they don’t like revealing the raw data. They have to selectively pick data to continue showing an upward slope. Nowadays they explain that the upward slope is assumed and somewhere in the ocean the heat is being stored. Every time reality doesn’t show this upward slope, they figure out a way to make an upward slope with some strange theorizing.
But the truth is that the temperatures have fallen since 1998.
Dustin (401f3a) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:29 pmCarlitos, you are aware the British Meterological Office recently released revised data showing the planet has not warmed in 15 years, right?
Random (afcb1f) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:31 pmthis winter was very warm which is good for turtles and other reptiles cause of they are cold-blooded, and have no warmth of their own
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:39 pmThis British Meteorological Office? Sure you want to cite them?
carlitos (49ef9f) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:45 pmNo problemo.
Random (afcb1f) — 3/16/2012 @ 9:55 pmThe evidence accumulated like dirty Chicago rush hour snow on the windshield of Angus Heller’s 1976 Gran Torino Squire wagon.
The wipers were as busted and useless as an obama stimulus program, and what else was busted was the damn heater, but that didn’t change the fact that Angus had a cold turtle on his hands, a turtle he needed to get warm and soon or it would be curtains for the winsome cold-blooded fella.
But as the traffic congealed like a flesh wound Angus had never been more glad he wasn’t a turtle.
Poor little guy. Didn’t even have the sense to shiver. Not that it woulda done a lick o good, him being cold-blooded and all.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:02 pmPerfectly-timed comment, happyfeet. Brilliant!
Random (afcb1f) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:05 pmcarlitos,
Also, did you note the slope of the graphs in the article you linked on Skeptical Science? They all seem to look like that. Everywhere.
You’re making a common mistake of CAGW believers, conflating warming with human-caused warming. So I draw this to your attention in the article:
Skeptical Science can accurately state that the climate system is warmer today than it was several decades ago. However, the weblog is in error in stating that the “most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming”. There has not been warming significantly, if at all, since 2003, as most everyone on all sides of the climate issue agree.
As for other Web sites to recommend, I suggest the blogs of climate scientists Roger Pielke, Sr. and Judith Curry for starters. These scientists accept a human cause in warming, but are often at odds with the CAGW crowd. Both discuss peer-reviewed literature that challenges the CAGW position.
Roger Pielke, Jr., son of Pielke, Sr., a political scientist who has published peer-reviewed papers on climate science, is also a good read. He also accepts a human influence on climate, but is critical of scientists who are stealth advocates.
Some blogs not run by scientists are also quite good. Check out Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre. Take a stroll over to Watts Up With That? by Anthony Watts. It’s the most popular blog dealing with climate science.
Enjoy!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (bf357d) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:30 pm“This British Meteorological Office? Sure you want to cite them?”
Nah, I don’t waste my time with doofuses who continually blather on about arctic sea ice coverage, while flatly refusing to discuss antarctic sea ice coverage.
If they’re too dumb to know that the earth has not one but, two polar regions, with lots o’ ice (especially the southern region), I can’t really be bothered with listening to them.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/16/2012 @ 10:48 pmAny lie that supports the narrative is a “fact” that must be put forward with authority!
AD-RtR/OS! (5eb098) — 3/16/2012 @ 11:16 pmRegardless, all their friends know that it’s true.
carlitos,
I used to be a CAGW believer. I even recommended Real Climate as a source of mainstream climate science. I thought such respected scientists would bend over backwards to show they had no agenda.
Then I learned about another hypothesis for climate change, that it is driven by the sun and comic rays. I also learned that some CAGW scientists were trying to squelch inquiry into this hypothesis with such dubious methods of creating a computer model putatively proving this effect couldn’t happen. So I began to get a little cooler.
Then Climategate struck. I read the emails showing how these supposedly objective CAGW scientists colluded to keep information from skeptics, defy Britain’s FOIA law and blackball CAGW skeptics from being published or peer reviewing articles. Some of these scientists, like Michael Mann were involved in Real Climate, and discussed among themselves the need to hide “dirty laundry” from skeptics.
I also began to pay closer attention to how climate issues were covered in the media, and how they habitually overstate the case for CAGW.
That turned me into a full CAGW skeptic. If I could not trust these climate scientists to act as scientists instead of politicians, they didn’t deserve the unquestioned deference I had given them.
I also read further research supporting the solar hypothesis. As you know, more evidence has been found in favor of that hypothesis since then.
But if the ilk of Real Climate and Skeptical Science had its way, we’d never learn these truths so inconvenient for their pet theory.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (2235d1) — 3/17/2012 @ 7:59 amDebunking info about Skeptical Science.
“Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website founded and run by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared.”
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (3102b1) — 3/18/2012 @ 5:58 pmShhhh, Bradley. Leave Carlitos alone. He’s busy this weekend studying Svensmark’s hypothesis and data with an objective, open mind.
Random (0b5884) — 3/18/2012 @ 6:08 pmLOL!!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (3102b1) — 3/18/2012 @ 6:11 pmCarlitos is about 7423689542579743267 times more open minded and honest than Random could ever dream of being.
JD (318f81) — 3/18/2012 @ 6:19 pmGlobal warming on Mars (2007)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says….
“Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov said.
By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
Abdussamatov’s work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists….
….The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet’s orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
“Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era,” Oxford’s Wilson explained. (Related: “Don’t Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says” [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth’s wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years. …
…Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. ..
….Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov’s theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet’s surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth’s climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But “without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice,” said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth’s temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.
Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.
“The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040,” Abdussamatov said. “It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years.”
Sammy Finkelman (4591c3) — 3/19/2012 @ 11:25 am‘But “without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice,” said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.’
That’s the conventional wisdom all right. Unfortunately, it’s wisdom that isn’t backed up by experimental data, and therefore, from the POV of a REAL scientist (as opposed to a climatologist or astrologist, or something like that), it remains an untested hypothesis, and not a demonstrable fact.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/19/2012 @ 11:44 amDid the LA Times get around to correcting its incomplete correction?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/20/2012 @ 1:07 pmAh for goodness sakes. Did the spam filter eat my last comment?
Random (a01c37) — 4/7/2012 @ 11:35 pmGuess so.
Carlitos (1) did you do the study you said you would do? and (2) I can’t post the link here, so do a google search for: “M.A. Vukcevic: Possible Confirmation of Svensmark Hypothesis” and read that article.
And (3) JD, you are a dummy.
Random (a01c37) — 4/7/2012 @ 11:38 pmStating a truth does not make me dumb. Now, if you wanted to be accurate, you could state that my dumbness makes me dum. But carlitos is exponentially more open-minded than you, unless a belief in crack-pot quacks counts.
JD (34d969) — 4/8/2012 @ 6:25 amIt took you almost 3 weeks to come up with yer a dummy?! That gives new meaning to quick witted.
JD (34d969) — 4/8/2012 @ 6:29 amJD, your mind is narrow and … well that. You’re an idiot.
Random (85a9db) — 4/8/2012 @ 9:45 amIs Random the host of “tallbloke.wordpress.com” or is he pimping an article that doesn’t appear to be published anywhere?
carlitos (49ef9f) — 4/8/2012 @ 8:12 pmhttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/still-not-convincing/
carlitos (49ef9f) — 4/8/2012 @ 8:17 pmMr. Random if I had a dollar for everyone what called Mr. JD an idiot I’d have to take time out of my fun-filled and action-packed day to google the exchange rate for troll dollars
which, nobody wants that.
not really.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 4/8/2012 @ 9:01 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkfVdrtLcRs
carlitos (49ef9f) — 4/8/2012 @ 9:05 pm^ Best thing I’ve seen online today, Carlitos.
Dustin (330eed) — 4/8/2012 @ 9:11 pm