Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 12, 2008

PALIN'S GLOBAL-WARMING SKEPTICISM.... Since Sarah Palin was added to the Republican ticket, there have been multiple reports about her skepticism regarding the science behind global warming. Last night, during her ABC interview, Palin was pressed on her beliefs, and got a little defensive.

"Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that," Palin told Charlie Gibson.

Well, what has she said? The AP takes a closer look, and concludes Palin's remarks to ABC are "at odds with her previous statements."

[I]n the past Palin has said she does not believe global warming is caused by human activity. She has told the Internet news site Newsmax, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.... I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."

In an interview with a Fairbanks newspaper within the last year, Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." ABC cited the interview as being at odds with her statement.

I can appreciate Palin being embarrassed about her beliefs now; she's obviously well outside the scientific mainstream. If I were her, in my first national television interview, I'd be tempted to distance myself from right-wing talking points, too.

But Palin's record is Palin's record, and the fact remains that she's so far out there, she's rejected the connection between global warming and human activity. Indeed, she's done so more than once. This not only tells us something important about Palin's understanding of public policy, it also tells us a great deal about how she perceives and considers evidence that runs counter to her ideology.

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (76)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Palin is not fit for VEEP. a vote for Mccain is a vote for the continued destruction of America. It will be third world county for out grandchildren.

Posted by: ml johnston on September 12, 2008 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Palin is not fit for VEEP. a vote for Mccain is a vote for the continued destruction of America. It will be third world county for out grandchildren.

Posted by: ml johnston on September 12, 2008 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

I think she's trying to weasel out of this by creating an absolutist straw man. "I was never quoted as saying that nothing any person ever did had anything at all to do with global warming! I just said I'm not one who thinks humans are responsible!" Technically, they are not the same thing. She never said the exact words she's denying having said, which I can't even parse. Why WOULD she have formed that barely intelligible sentence? It would have been written for her ahead of time, in much better grammar.

Posted by: The Answer Is Green on September 12, 2008 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Palin's response to the question is typical Republican road blocking. It's like saying, "I know you are but what am I?" and then plugging your ears.

I would have expected a little more substance from a woman who "knows more about energy than any other man or woman in America."

Maybe all that lipstick got in the way.

Posted by: chrenson on September 12, 2008 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK
it also tells us a great deal about how she perceives and considers evidence that runs counter to her ideology.
...and about her relationship to concepts like telling the truth Posted by: sarabeth on September 12, 2008 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Palin's responses to repeated requests for clarification remained equivocating and elusive to the end. Palin still did not admit that man is the primary factor. To his credit Gibson attempted to argue that how we address global warming is determined largely by how we perceive the cause of the problem.

Posted by: lou on September 12, 2008 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Check out the recent data from www.fivethirtyeight.com - Obama behind in the Electoral vote for the first time as far as I can tell....

Posted by: inthewoods on September 12, 2008 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Take a look at the article in the current National Journal (cover date Sept 13, 2008) on how climate change will affect & is already affecting Alaska. Indeed "some of its native villages are literally disappearing. [snip] Today, the annual average temperature in Alaska is 4 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it was 50 years ago--a larger increase than in other parts of the nation, according to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. During that time, the state's growing season has lengthened by more than 14 days, according to the group. Some scientists predict that Alaska's average temperatures could jump by an additional 5 to 18 degrees by 2100. Such a dramatic shift would radically alter the state's landscape, where 80 percent of the subsoil is icy permafrost."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20080913_3555.php

Posted by: Walsh on September 12, 2008 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Palin has also stated that creationism should be taught in our public schools. Her distaste for science combined with her fundamentalism will catapult the US right into the Fourteenth Century shortly after McCain goes face down in his oatmeal.

Posted by: Dennis - SGMM on September 12, 2008 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

she's not embarrassed about her ignorant viewpoint; but she is so powermad that she has absolutely no compunction about lying to achieve that win.

Posted by: linda on September 12, 2008 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Obama needs to have a bunch of simply constructed ads that demonstrate that Sarah Palin has wacky positions and that she lies a lot about important issues

Topics

1) Rape kits--when she was mayor, Wasilla was the only town in Alaska to charge victims for such testing.
2) Bridge to nowhere repeated lie.
3) Her denial of global warming.
4) Her charging per diems for staying at home as Governor of Alaska.
5) Her appetite, as mayor, for federal pork, and the sheer hypocrisy of her sudden denunciation of pork.

Run simple ads, like these, on the radio and television.

Posted by: Arthtur on September 12, 2008 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

It may be the case that she doesn't believe there is a connection between human activity and climate change, but I am not sure from her statements what she actually believes. To me her statements sound like she has played one side of the issue to date, and is now obscuring her position. What does she believe? We deserve a straight answer.

Posted by: Algernon on September 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

"I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity."

Considering the information he's been trying to put out, Gore has been anything but doom-and-gloom. It's a problem that threatens humanity, yet he focuses on what we can do to stop it.

Doom-and-gloom is saying "Nothing we can do about it. Out of our hands. God's will, etc. etc."

Posted by: PapaJijo on September 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Palin's position on the role of humans in global warming is similar to her (apparent) belief in creationism, and disturbing in a political leader for the same reason: if one can dismiss the role of human activity in climate change, in the face of widespread and growing scientific consensus, and reject evolution, despite the evidence for it all around us, then that same person can reject any analysis, any fact, any reasoned conclusion, out of hand. Evidence doesn't matter, expertise doesn't matter -- all is irrelevant if it doesn't fit within the leader's personal worldview.

And that is dangerous.

Posted by: Andy on September 12, 2008 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

1. A warming climate is generally a good thing for a sub-arctic state like alaska.
2. One can believe that climate change is happening without attributing the main cause to human activity.
2a. Climate change has happened repeatedly in the pat without human activity being the cause.
2b. Cycles of the sun (both so-called Malinkovitch and solar flaring cycles) are likely more responsible for the warming than greenhouse gases.
3. Skepticism is a good quality for a president to have; it is more moderating and open to counsel than a crusading true believer like Gore.

Posted by: on September 12, 2008 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Voters should remember that it hasn't been that long since Republicans were denying that global warming was even taking place. Now they concede that it's happening, but argue that it's not caused by human activity.

How some voters continue to put their trust in people who are so wrong so often is beyond me.

Posted by: CJ on September 12, 2008 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

It's extremely telling when a person cannot admit the the reality of their lives and actions. It reminds me of O.J. Simpson. He was aquitted, but he is now living a lie for the rest of his life and has surrendered his ability to apply truthful self-awareness.
I'm not sure how Ms. Palin, as a Christian, reconciles her surrender of self-awareness, but Jesus Christ summed it up well when he said, "What profiteth a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his soul?"

Posted by: blaze on September 12, 2008 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Algernon wrote: "What does she believe?"

Sarah Palin believes in saying and doing whatever it takes to gain power.

Her doubletalk on anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change is just BS to bamboozle gullible rubes, like everything else she says.

The fact is that Sarah Palin advocates extracting and burning more fossil fuels, and she discourages and disparages investment in clean, renewable energy sources.

Whatever inane, scripted, dishonest gibberish she may spew about her "belief" or lack of "belief" in anthropogenic global warming, the fact is that she aggressively advocates policies that will make it much worse.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

I disagree, Arthtur. Any attack on Palin will be labeled as "disrepectful". I say ignore the whore altogether, and focus entirely on John McCain.

Posted by: MissMudd on September 12, 2008 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Palin believes it is God's will that there is global warming so therefore it's not caused by humans, but God. Well that's her position until she changes it, just like the rest will be and her buddy, McSame.

Posted by: just guessing on September 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

What ABC should have done, since this interview was not aired live, is parse in the clips, etc. that provide the counter-balance to her remarks/denials. Those who saw the interview are mostly believers in her denial, because they'll never see the counter-balance. They needed to show where she did, in fact, say such things.

Posted by: rickles on September 12, 2008 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Anonymous commenter spews bullshit:

1. A warming climate is generally a good thing for a sub-arctic state like alaska.

Wrong. Alaska is already suffering costly damage from rapid warming, and the state commission that Governor Palin herself created to study the effects of climate change on Alaska predicts that the effects of unmitigated warming on the state will be disastrous.

2a. Climate change has happened repeatedly in the pat without human activity being the cause.

Irrelevant and nonsensical: You are in court charged with arson. Numerous eye witnesses saw you set fire to a house, and the firefighters found plenty of physical evidence proving that you set the fire. Your defense consists of arguing that because other house fires have occurred in the past that were not set by you, there is no reason to believe that you set this fire. Good luck with that.

2b. Cycles of the sun (both so-called Malinkovitch and solar flaring cycles) are likely more responsible for the warming than greenhouse gases.

This is pseudoscientific bunk.

Scientific study of solar cycles has ruled them out as a cause of the current rapid warming: solar output has not varied significantly during the period of the current ongoing warming. Likewise variations in the Earth's orbit -- which affect climate slowly on timescales of tens or hundreds of thousands of years -- have nothing to do with the rapid warming over the last century.

The anthropogenic increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, and to a lesser extent methane, have been empirically demonstrated to be the cause of the current rapid warming.

3. Skepticism is a good quality for a president to have; it is more moderating and open to counsel than a crusading true believer like Gore.

Neither you nor Sarah Palin are skeptics. You are deliberate liars pretending to be skeptics. In Sarah Palin's case, she lies because she is a bought and paid for tool of the oil industry. What's your excuse?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

What's a fossil Ms. Palin?

How old do you think the fossil-fuels are under the ANWR?

So, let me get this straight... the devil put fossils under the ground all over the earth some 6K years ago?? Boy he must of been busy because there are a lot of fossils.

If you don't believe in fossils, how can you justify drilling for fossil-fuels?

This line of questioning has got to happen soon!

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on September 12, 2008 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

"I disagree, Arthtur. Any attack on Palin will be labeled as "disrepectful". I say ignore the whore altogether, and focus entirely on John McCain."

I agree. The worst enemy of a celebrity is being out of the public eye. When people think of the Republic ticket, they need to think of McCain.

Posted by: demisod on September 12, 2008 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Polls show the demonstrable effect Palin's nomination has had. In very large (sometimes double digit) numbers white women have switched allegiances, professing a new willingness to vote for the McCain ticket over Obama now that Palin has been added. Many known facts would seem to make Palin's choice unwise. These include known episodes of ill considered, vindictive terminations in her job as mayor of Wasilla. Her hypocrisy in criticizing earmarks despite seeking many earmarks for both Wasilla and Alaska. Her broaching the subject of banning books. Her insistence on rape victims paying for their own evidence kits. Her very public denigration of community organizers as unserious people. Her parading of her family across various campaign stages while decrying Obama's alleged abuse of her family's privacy. All these issues and many more are known to these very same white women telling pollsters of their new support for the McCain ticket. If McCain wins it may very well be due to large numbers of white women voting contrary to their best interests or at minimum voting to install a VP having qualities and traits they would never accept in a woman on the Democratic ticket. Yet they flock to the other side of the aisle for Palin? What woman telling a pollster two months ago they were an Obama supporter now sees a totality of qualities in Palin that merits voting Republican in November? Could it be they're just plain daft? Millions of now reputedly ex-Obama supporters (according to new polls) want abortion outlawed? Want rape victims made responsible for the costs of pre-trial evidence gathering? Want a VP on the lookout for "bad" books in public libraries? Want oil rigs out the back window of every home on an American shoreline? Want global warming shrugged off as a vagary of natural climate rhythms or the will of God? Unfortunately Obama needs these women to get elected. Does the nation need them in our midst while it attempts to adjust and compete economically and militarily with the rest of the planet? How many other critical electoral issues are accorded the same inane consideration by these women before pulling the lever? Maybe we should we invade France because Carla Bruni wears white after Labor Day? This element has to constitute a large net negative on our eventual quality of life.

Posted by: steve duncan on September 12, 2008 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

This is already the most e-mailed story on the AP. And ALL of the stories about her there have been negative.

To answer the question why Team Obama hasn't been 'all over her' -- yet -- the fact is that she was named 2 weeks ago -- almost to the minute as I write this, that many of these stories have come out in the last couple of days, and that if TO had started attacking her at once, there have been so many attacks she would have called down on herself that she could 'play the victim/sexism' cards.

It seems like every day has produced a new Palin scandal. If Obama had responded to each one when it happened, they would have already spent their whole ad budget just on her.

Steve, can you use one post today to create a Palin time-line? Just off the top of my head, I can think of the following stories, and I know I am forgetting some:

Bridge to Nowhere lie

Troopergate -- and the follow-ups to this

The baby story -- which included the 'my water broke, get me to an airplane, not a hospital'

The pregnant daughter

Banning books

Changing a surplus into a debt in Wasilla

"You can see Russia from Alaska" foreign policy statement

Global warming denialism

Creationism -- saying 'teach both' is supporting creationism, see Dover

A lobbyist for Wasilla

Ran a 527 for Stevens despite claims she fought him

Rape kits

Her kooky church and "Jews for Jesus"

Opposition to abortion in all circumstances

"Drill, baby, drill"

And those are just off the top of my head. I know I am forgetting major ones.

Team Obama is probably just waiting for the stories to stop coming before they start blasting her.

I really wish we'd have that timeline put together, like the McCain flip-flop list.


Posted by: on September 12, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen, by the way: you misrepresent Sarah Palin's views on global warming when you title your comment "Sarah Palin's global-warming skepticism."

Sarah Palin is not a skeptic. She is a pseudo-skeptic. She is a bought-and-paid-for tool of the oil industry, spouting bought-and-paid-for climate change denialist BS, that comes straight from the fake, phony ExxonMobil-funded right-wing propaganda mills masquerading as "think tanks".

Also, a minor point: please note that "global warming" is not hyphenated.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Here's an idea...how about Al Gore going to Alaska with the 10% of peer-reviewed scientific reports that he used in "An Inconvenient Truth" and presenting them to Ms. Palin for her review. Then we could see if she is open minded or not.

Mr. Gore, please use recycled paper, of course!

Posted by: Stephen on September 12, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Contrary to the the complete denial that global warming is occurring that thrives in the Washington D.C. at AEI, CEI, Cato, and Heritage, Governor Palin acknowledge the reality of what she has seen with own eyes that the Alaskan climate is significantly warmer then it was even ten years ago. But when asked to accept a fact that might cut against the interests of her State and her husband's industry, that this warming is primarily caused by greenhouse gases released by human activity, she declines. What a shock. Slaveowners routinely denied the rather obvious fact that most slaves found slavery to be an unpleasant institution. The ability of a human to deny a fact when it is in her or his interest to deny it is infinite. Maybe a majority of the country likes fact-deniers. Sure looks that way at the moment.

Posted by: rickstersherpa on September 12, 2008 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

Personally I dont think this woman cares about global warming she is publically refusing to admit a truth! People are the cause of global warming and its not only our fault but our responsibility and if nothing is done now are children will suffer for it. Trees are being cut down, people litter, pollute the airs and waters and its ridiculous how people can be so oblivious to the damage being done to OUR planet!!

Posted by: Abraham on September 12, 2008 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Personally I dont think this woman cares about global warming she is publically refusing to admit a truth! People are the cause of global warming and its not only our fault but our responsibility and if nothing is done now are children will suffer for it. Trees are being cut down, people litter, pollute the airs and waters and its ridiculous how people can be so oblivious to the damage being done to OUR planet!!

Posted by: Abraham on September 12, 2008 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

This just highlights the ineptitude of mainstream US media. When Palin responds with "Show me where I have ever said that..." Why does Gibson not do exactly that - cue VT!

Surely a "journalist" should have done the research and have the previous comments to hand.

One can only summize that CBS is either incompetent or in cahoots!

America, until you fix this the republican lie machine will continue to reign supreme.

Disillusioned Englishman in New York.

Posted by: jayster on September 12, 2008 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

The AGW alarmists do not have any scientific proof of their theories. They have computer models and hypotheses, more and more of which get proved wrong every day whether through corrupt data, fudged results, new information or inherent bias. The public in general does not see global warming as a major issue, look at the polls on issues. Palin is not swimming against the tide, the alarmists are.

Posted by: daleyrocks on September 12, 2008 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think Palin has anything to be embarrassed about regarding her global warming skepticism. The climatologists over at the Old Farmer’s Almanac are predicting GLOBAL COOLING for the next 50 years -- not global warming.
Perhaps Steve Benen will feel embarrassed in a couple of years when everyone is looking back and laughing about the global warming non-sense, just like we all laugh about loons who were duped by Y2K.

Posted by: Zeek on September 12, 2008 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

It's not "evidence that runs counter to her ideology" - it's evidence that runs counter to her THEOLOGY.

Bear in mind that we are dealing with a Dominionist fundamentalist who wants a Theocracy.

Posted by: TCinLA on September 12, 2008 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Sarah Palin: Objectively pro-rapist.

Posted by: John Smith on September 12, 2008 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

There is no such thing as "global warming." It is now a standard called "Climate Change." There is and always has been no direct evidence of a "global warming." All we know is the climate is changing, and there is no proof that this change is not a natural event in the earth. The human race will only exist for a blink of an eye compared to the Earth's age. We have no clue what is going on...

Posted by: Chris on September 12, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

First, this Steve guy wrote a terrible piece.
Second, I am voting Obama.

Third, Palin should not be embarrassed or back out of her skepticism. This is a challenge to every "believer" in Global Warming. Notice people use that phrase, "I believe in Global Warming". For most, it is a leap of faith. I challenge everyone to read the actual studies that this theory are based on... read them. I found them far from conclusive and so have MANY "mainstream" and non mainstream scientist. We have so little data, and it is all over the place... its ridiculous.

Posted by: Patrick Binder on September 12, 2008 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Yes this is going to be a very important talking point. This is a question to a journalist from a scientist. Mr Benen, If you have guts( or should I say Balls), why don't you publish scientific evidances( not Hypothesis)suggesting human activity as a cause for global warming( Or should I say climate change). I hope you understand difference between a scientfic theory and hypotesis. And then if possible open a public debate on your forum.
Prakash Roy.
(I think Governor Palin's comment about Al Gore is true, because while trying to make money and reputation as expert on climate change, he has not shown any change in his lifestyle to reduce human activity that he thinks causes global) warming.

Posted by: Prakash Roy on September 12, 2008 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

Not all professional scientists are in the bag for global warming being exclusively a human induced problem. Many of the "vocal" scientists have very lucrative research grants funded by tax payer dollars and/or are in the pursuit of more. Based on how ignorant the media seems to be regarding how dynamic the Earth is, I suspect they skipped their biology and geology classes when they were in college. The earth goes through and has gone through periods of warming and cooling. Ever here of an "ice age?" I don't think we have any written records from The Devonian. Science is based on math and statistics which requires replication. Its pretty hard to replicate the earth. Much of the data what GW is based on is from ad hoc procedures. The hottest day on record is still prior to WWII. Gore used a NASA data set with an error in it that was corrected after he got $1M and Noble Prize for is Comedy. Go back and look at scientific theories on the origin of life on Earth and look at what the composition of the atmosphere was. Until journalists understand this they need to shut the hell up. The Earth is a dynamic system, not a static one. Ever here of the Sun? It drives systems on the Earth.

Posted by: Jess on September 12, 2008 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

"The AGW alarmists do not have any scientific proof of their theories."

Except icecore data, Mauna Loa data, proxy data from e.g. tree rings, isotope ratios, retreating sea ice, increased droughts, changing weather patterns, and ocnsistent trend upwards in the five year average temperature anomaly, and thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed papers. Apart from that, they've got nothing.

"I challenge everyone to read the actual studies that this theory are based on... read them."

Did you read the 4AR? Do you know what the 4AR is? What did you not find convincing in it? Quit armwaving and show your work. You're asking us to treat you as an authority: show exactly why we should trust you versus the climatologists of the IPCC.

"We have so little data, and it is all over the place... its ridiculous."

How about www.ipcc.ch for a bunchload of data. Read the mainstream before the cranks.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on September 12, 2008 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many doubter's grandchildren will wish their ancestors had STFU and did something other than parrot Rush Limbaugh on this issue.

Posted by: steve duncan on September 12, 2008 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Why has the left felt the need to spread lies via an army of lawyers in Alaska?

Book banning: Lie, verified by the librarian
Fired Librarian when mayor: Lie, verified by the librarian

Pork/Earmark: Miss leading. There is a difference of an "earmark" verses specific budget item or bill. In otherwords, a specific request to congress isn't necessarily an earmark or pork if it is an open request. In other words, earmarks are hidden in unrelated legislation.

An earmark is something that gets slid into an unrelated bill to get it passed since the President doesn't have a line item veto.

There is a whole bunch of other crap also.
Why doesn't this site discus Obama and ACORN? Or the grant he secured for his wife's hospital and her coincidental salary tripling?

Journalists and lawyers shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the 1st Amendment to get away with liable, slander and subversion of the American people.

Posted by: jess on September 12, 2008 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: orwell on September 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Why does everyone seem to forget that the past 4 of the last 5 Presidents were Governors.

1. George W. Bush- Texas
2. Bill Clinton- Arkansas
3. Ronald Reagon- California
4. Jimmy Carter- Georgia

Posted by: Jess on September 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

My, this thread really seems to be bringing out the barely-literate trolls in force, doesn't it?

Posted by: Stefan on September 12, 2008 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Inspired by Sarah Palin, a bought-and-paid-for tool of the oil industry who spouts scripted global warming denialist claptrap on TV, the crackpot global warming denialists are out in force, parading their ignorance and dishonesty.

daleyrocks wrote: "The AGW alarmists do not have any scientific proof of their theories."

That is a lie.

Chris wrote: "There is and always has been no direct evidence of a 'global warming.' All we know is the climate is changing, and there is no proof that this change is not a natural event in the earth."

That is a lie.

"Jess" and "Prakash Roy" and "Patrick Binder" weigh in with more idiotic BS.

We KNOW for a fact that human activities, principally the burning of fossil fuels, have dramatically increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This increase has been empirically observed and carefully measured. It is beyond question or debate.

We KNOW for a fact that increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 causes the Earth system to retain more of the sun's heat. This is a matter of basic physics and has been well understood for over a century. There is no debate about it.

We KNOW for a fact that the Earth system is warming rapidly, and we KNOW for a fact that this warming is caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other so-called "greenhouse gases".

These are all KNOWN FACTS that have been established by actual empirical observation, not "theories" or "hypotheses".

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

"The earth goes through and has gone through periods of warming and cooling."

Your point is true but irrelevant, as noted by another commenter above. Forest fires happen naturally. Does that mean that forest fires can't happen by arson? And it fails to note that there's a difference between the rapidity of climate change now, and that in the past.

And we had lots of people living near the coasts then, and an agriculture, water, and transportation sectors economy finely coupled to the particular climate of the region they're located in, right?

"The hottest day on record is still prior to WWII."

True but irrelevant you're looking at noisy data, and only at the US: you need to smooth it to see the signal in the noise. Look at the global five year average temperature trend. Does your point stand?

"Go back and look at scientific theories on the origin of life on Earth and look at what the composition of the atmosphere was."

What relevance has that?

"Science is based on math and statistics which requires replication. Its pretty hard to replicate the earth."

I know, why don't we use programs in computers to simulate the potential effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm sure skeptics could agree that would be a good idea. And let's get a bunch of really smart scientists who study climate from all over the world to put together the consensus of the science every five years. Heck, that organization of scientists might win a Nobel Prize or something. I'm sure we'll all agree on what they come up with, right?

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on September 12, 2008 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan wrote: "My, this thread really seems to be bringing out the barely-literate trolls in force, doesn't it?"

I've noticed that. For whatever reason, Palin-McCain seem to be attracting a much lower class of trolls than Cheney-Bush did. There used to be Republican trolls posting here who, even when they regurgitated talking points and spouted rubbish, were actually articulate and somewhat knowledgeable. The Palin-McCain trolls are utter morons in comparison.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry, but this article is an insult to the reader's intelligence. Sarah Palin's quoted comments to Charlie Gibson were entirely consistent with her previous remarks. That the author fails to grasp this is a shocking demonstration of his lack of understanding on the issue.

The reason why some of us are "skeptical" of the theory of anthropocentric global warming is that we simply don't believe that it's claims have been demonstrated scientifically. Sarah Palin rightly understands that the burden of proof is the one who *offers* an assertion, and not on the one who declines to gullibly accept it without sufficient evidence.

The author here reverses the burden of proof, effectively asserting that global warming skepticism consists of pretending that we have "absolute proof" that these claims are *false*. That is a ridiculous straw man, and Sarah Palin was right to reject it. He then tries to pretend that this represents a "reversal" on the issue, when it is no such thing.

Posted by: Tony Donadio on September 12, 2008 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Reviewed very long comment by Steve Duncan. AS you porbable know that it is a habbit of scientific community to jump on a band wagon. They primarily do this not because they have any new idea to publish but to prove that they are continuosly involved with some scientfic activty. This brings them grant money( the money they use for themselves lots of the time). If you pick a subject and do liteature review you will find hundreds of papers submitted in scientific journals across world on thst subject. That does not mean that they all are evidanves to support and establish a theory. And In science theory is what counts. Not hypothesis or concensus. If you read the language of this publication that you are talking, you will realise that ther are lots of words like " we believe", " Observation" " Experts". And obviously there are no scientific models to prove this hypothesis. Also If you do literature search, you will find few thousand articals and papers and petition aginst this belief too. So please read lierarure in detail and carefully.

Posted by: Prakash Roy on September 12, 2008 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Tony Donadio wrote: "The reason why some of us are 'skeptical' of the theory of anthropocentric global warming is that we simply don't believe that it's claims have been demonstrated scientifically."

Your "belief" is wrong, and based on ignorance. Anthropogenic global warming is an empirically observed reality, and has been "demonstrated scientifically" many times over, using multiple independent lines of evidence.

Obstinate denial based on ignorance is not "skepticism".

And there is no apostrophe in the possessive "its".

Prakash Roy wrote: "And obviously there are no scientific models to prove this hypothesis."

That is incoherent gibberish and to the extent that it has any meaning, it is false. The "hypothesis" of anthropogenic global warming has been proved many times over by actual empirical observation.

Anthropogenic global warming is not a "hypothesis". It is an empirically observed fact. There is NO legitimate scientific debate about this. None.

Prakash Roy wrote: "Also If you do literature search, you will find few thousand articals and papers and petition aginst this belief too."

No, you won't, because they don't exist.

You are shockingly ignorant, or a deliberate liar, or both.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

AS you porbable know that it is a habbit of scientific community to jump on a band wagon.

I porbably know no such thing.

Posted by: Stefan on September 12, 2008 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

""The AGW alarmists do not have any scientific proof of their theories."

Except icecore data, Mauna Loa data, proxy data from e.g. tree rings, isotope ratios, retreating sea ice, increased droughts, changing weather patterns, and ocnsistent trend upwards in the five year average temperature anomaly, and thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed papers. Apart from that, they've got nothing."

The mania of the true believers on display. We have have indisputable evidence of the earth warming and that it is caused by...

Well it stopped warming several years ago and climatologists are predicting as prolonged period of cooling. The evidence that it was caused by CO2 is being hotly disputed. The is only a consensus between yourselves because you refuse to consider any evidence outside your own circle and attempt to censor contrary ideas.

That scientific data discussed above. Guess what, that is data, not proof. It goes into computer models, which Jim Hansen has been caught rigging several times and others as well to generate desired outcomes. Computer models are not scientific proof. Let me say that again. Computer models are not scienticifc proof of AGW. Am I going too fast? A theoretical consensus between biased scientists is not scientific proof. Am I going too fast?

AGW has turned into a huge industry. Just look at the money Al Gore has made from promoting junk science. They won't even let him show his movie to school kids in the U.K. any more without a disclaimer that it isn't science. The AGW alarmists love to point the finger at oil companies, but what they are really doing is trying to perpetuate their own funding and jobs by keeping the hoax going.

Posted by: daleyrocks on September 12, 2008 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Tony Donadio about one thing: Sarah Palin's comments last night were not a "reversal" of her previous statements that she does not "attribute" global warming "to being man-made" and does not "blame the changes in our climate on human activity".

Rather, her response in the interview was a dishonest and evasive attempt to obfuscate her previous statements and deceive the audience about her beliefs.

The simple fact is that Sarah Palin is a bought-and-paid-for tool of the oil industry, and her global warming denialism (which is emphatically NOT "skepticism") is nothing but regurgitation of the fake, phony bunk that the oil industry has spent decades and millions of dollars funding, in order to deceive the American people about the reality of global warming so as to defuse public pressure for a transition to clean renewable energy that would transfer wealth from the fossil fuel industry to other sectors of the economy.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

"Anthropogenic global warming is not a "hypothesis". It is an empirically observed fact. There is NO legitimate scientific debate about this. None."

Secular Animist - Did they take a complex climate structure add different levels of CO2 while holding all other variables constant and observe the resulting temperature changes or did they just plug a lot of shit into some computer models?

Posted by: on September 12, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

daleyrocks, there is no polite way to put this: you are full of shit. Everything in your 1:03PM comment is lies and rubbish. It is obvious that you get your "climate science" from Rush Limbaugh. You are a clown, except that you are not funny.

There is no point arguing with someone as aggressively, willfully ignorant and stupid as you, so I'm not going to waste any time trying.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

I can not take seriously an illiterate sap like Prakash Rush, er, Roy.

AS you porbable know that it is a habbit of scientific community to jump on a band wagon.

You don't know many scientists, do you? We are, for the most part, an obstreperous and cantankerous lot who don't play well with others. Band-wagon jumping is not an event we medal in.

And In science theory is what counts. Not hypothesis or concensus.

Horseshit, spouted by a dumbass who doesn't even know what "theory" means in scientific parlance. In science, duplicability and peer review are what count. Any idiot can propose a hypothesis. But it doesn't become a theory until it has been borne out by peer review. Gravity is just a theory, for gods sake.

Dumbass.

Posted by: Blue Girl on September 12, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Secular Animist - Even people who have nothing to do with the oil industry don't believe the crap that people like you peddle on AGW. We've seen similar efforts on "environmental crises" in the past as well. It isn't that the oil companies have credibility, that the "scientific community" has sold it's soul and independence to the environmental movement.

Posted by: daleyrocks on September 12, 2008 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

"There is no point arguing with someone as aggressively, willfully ignorant and stupid as you, so I'm not going to waste any time trying."

IOW, I've made up my mind. I'm with Hansen!

Posted by: daleyrocks on September 12, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Anonymous commenter wrote: "Did they take a complex climate structure add different levels of CO2 while holding all other variables constant and observe the resulting temperature changes or did they just plug a lot of shit into some computer models?"

You really don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you?

Do you think that your total ignorance of how climate models work and how they are used, qualifies you to deny the overwhelming consensus of the entire world's scientific community on the reality of global warming?

Have you made even the slightest attempt to do a little research and actually learn something about climate models -- other than what Rush Limbaugh tells you?

Do you understand that anthropogenic global warming is an empirically observed fact, and that that has nothing whatever to do with climate models?

Why is the combination of ignorance and arrogance so common in right-wingers?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Secular Animist - That was my 1:09. I forgot to add a nametag. Why don't you respond to that?

Posted by: daleyrocks on September 12, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

"Anonymous commenter wrote: "Did they take a complex climate structure add different levels of CO2 while holding all other variables constant and observe the resulting temperature changes or did they just plug a lot of shit into some computer models?""

Secular Animist - I think you just confirmed that is what they did, but they got it peer reviewed. Thanks.

It isn't the overwhelming consensus, btw.

Why are you so afraid of debate like the others who support AGW. I think it's because the emperor has no clothes.

Posted by: daleyrocks on September 12, 2008 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

"Do you understand that anthropogenic global warming is an empirically observed fact, and that that has nothing whatever to do with climate models?"

SA - I know enough to confidently say you are completely full of shit when you say computer models have nothing to do with reverse engineering the causes of empirically observed global warming data.

Posted by: daleyrocks on September 12, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

My other favorite is that correlation does not imply causation.

Posted by: daleyrocks on September 12, 2008 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

daleyrocks wrote: "Why don't you respond to that?"

Because you are a pathetically ignorant dumbass who wants to waste my time with idiotic bullshit.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not going to dignify SecularAnimist's attacks on my post with a reply. I'll simply point out that a brazen argument from intimidation, laced with promiscuous and unwarranted accusations of "ignorance," is hardly a rational response to disagreement.

Posted by: Tony Donadio on September 12, 2008 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Well it stopped warming several years ago"

Really?

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on September 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Tony said:

"Sarah Palin's quoted comments to Charlie Gibson were entirely consistent with her previous remarks."

Let's see, Palin said:
'I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.'

And then said in the Gibson interview: "Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change."

THe only way your statement makes sense, Tony, is if you mean when she said that AGW wasn't anthropogenic, she was doing so knowing she had no proof for her assertion.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on September 12, 2008 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

"Did they take a complex climate structure add different levels of CO2 while holding all other variables constant and observe the resulting temperature changes or did they just plug a lot of shit into some computer models?"

Try Crowley's papers on paleoclimate: you can find abstracts through Web of Science. IIRC, there was a paper about a decade ago by him on the snowball period in the Ordovician where CO2 levels where 12x current but there was almost complete glaciation on landmassses (but lower solar output). Crowley was able to replicate said conditions using then current GCM models.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on September 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Sock Puppet: All you are doing is re-asserting the non-sequitor that I objected to in the article author's comments. I suggest that you re-read my comments and think about them. My point was not rocket science.

Posted by: Tony Donadio on September 12, 2008 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Tony Donadio wrote: "... unwarranted accusations of 'ignorance' ..."

Tony, what you originally posted was:

"The reason why some of us are 'skeptical' of the theory of anthropocentric global warming is that we simply don't believe that it's claims have been demonstrated scientifically."

Since the reality of anthropogenic global warming has in fact been "demonstrated scientifically" with overwhelming empirical evidence, the only way that someone could sincerely "believe" what you say you believe is because of ignorance.

The other possibility, of course, is that you don't really believe what you say you believe, and you are deliberately lying.

In that case, I apologize for calling you ignorant.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Coming from someone who's published in statistical genetics, I must say that only the statistically illiterate ever seem to use "correlation doesn't prove causation" in the global warming arguments.

It's as if that is the limit of their stat training, after which they went to blow goats or do whatever it is young republicans do.

Posted by: Gonads on September 12, 2008 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

When someone can prove to me that Global Warming is man made-that will be the day I vote democrat! You dems will be so upset when once again we win the election! Can't wait!

Posted by: Kris on September 12, 2008 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Gonads wrote: "I must say that only the statistically illiterate ever seem to use 'correlation doesn't prove causation' in the global warming arguments."

Besides which, causation has been proved, independently of "correlation".

The amount of CO2, methane and other so-called "greenhouse gases" that human activities have added to the atmosphere has been measured and is known.

The "radiative forcing" of these gases -- their ability to retain more of the Sun's heat -- is also known.

There is no way that adding GIGATONS of additional carbon into the atmosphere, as we have done, could NOT cause the Earth to get warmer.

People who claim that anthropogenic increases of CO2 are NOT the cause of the observed warming don't merely have to come up with some other cause of the observed warming (and there is no other cause that can account for it).

They also need to explain what is the mysterious force that is preventing the known, empirically observed anthropogenic increase in CO2 from warming the Earth, while simultaneously some other, unknown, mysterious force is causing the Earth to warm exactly as it would if the CO2 were causing it.

This is why only very ignorant or very stupid or very dishonest people make the denialist claims that the ignorant, stupid and dishonest commenters on this thread are making.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 12, 2008 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Alarmists are quick to declare that others dont understand the intricacies of climate science and therefore have nothing to contribute. But apparently climatologists do not have much grounding in how feedback works. Unaware of their ignorance, they invoke net positive feedback in their GCMs. Net positive feedback, with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, causes the GCMs to falsely predict continued global warming. If they understood feedback they would realize, based on the Vostok ice core temperature record for the last glaciation, that significant net positive feedback does not occur and thus added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on climate. Graphs showing this are at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html . Other assessments from entirely different perspectives also determine that there is no significant net positive feedback. They can be seen at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/index.html and http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm .

Posted by: Dan Pangburn on September 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly