February 10, 2010 11:21 AM

Conservatives Use "Snowmageddon" to Mock Global Warming

By
Stephanie Condon
Topics
Domestic Issues
(CBS/ Jill Jackson)
Conservative congressmen are using Washington's serious snow storm (known as "snowmageddon" or "snowpocalypse") to mock those who say the government should act to curb global warming, and at least one Democrat says the storm could actually set back progress on an energy and climate bill.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) took to the social networking site Twitter to mock former Vice President Al Gore over the storm: "It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle,'" he tweeted yesterday.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, also got in on the fun. He and his family built an igloo in Washington and adorned it with cardboard signs reading "Al Gore's new home" and "Honk if you [heart] global warming."

Inhofe is one of the loudest skeptics in Washington of global warming and traveled to the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen in December to make his point.

The liberal blog Think Progress challenged Inhofe's joking attitude, reporting that, "In reality, winter snows do not invalidate the reality that the planet just experienced the hottest decade on record. Scientists have been warning for decades that global warming would increase the severity of winter storms."

Meanwhile, the magazine Mother Jones reported earlier that the Virginia Republican party has capitalized on the snow by running an ad against Democratic Reps. Rick Boucher and Tom Periello for supporting cap-and-trade legislation.

The ad blasted the Democrats for voting to "kill tens of thousands of Virginia jobs just to stop [global warming]." It urges viewers to call the legislators and "and tell them how much global warming you get this weekend. Maybe they'll come help you shovel."

Democratic senators are conceding that the chances of passing a comprehensive climate and energy bill, like the House passed last year, are slim, the Hill reports.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told the newspaper the storm is not helping.

"It makes it more challenging for folks not taking time to review the scientific arguments," he said. "People see the world around them and they extrapolate."

President Obama, meanwhile, said yesterday that he remains an "eternal optimist" and expects Congress to reach a consensus on an energy bill. He suggested there should be a bipartisan agreement to promote both alternative energy sources and fossil fuels. He made no mention of a cap-and-trade system, which would enable industries to buy and trade permits that allow them to emit certain levels of carbon.

Add a Comment See all 181 Comments
by WaxItYourself November 25, 2010 1:21 AM EST
HawkSpringidBack: Sure I'll link you to some papers proving that an increase in CO2 is warming the troposphere

Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006 - Chen et al. (2007)

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - Wang & Liang (2009)


And proof the increase in atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to humans:

Atmospheric CO^2 and 13CO^2 exchange with the terrestrial biosphere and oceans from 1978 to 2000: Observations and carbon cycle implications - Keeling (2005)

Of course there is also the fact that the ocean is absorbing more CO2 than outgasing during a warming period and the associated acidification, the rising tropopause, the cooling upper atmosphere while the lower atmosphere warms, etc...
Reply to this comment
by CBSisCommunist5 February 13, 2010 1:43 AM EST
no no no listen, warming creates cold/snow.

Everytime I turn on my oven-I get a snow blizzard. Its true, just ask Al Gore. Its a scientific fact.

Then I bought a Prius and the snow went away.
Reply to this comment
by tom97531 February 11, 2010 2:53 PM EST
Even if what happens in one part of the country on a partiular day was a good indiction as to whether or not global warming was true or not, what does the amount of snow have to do with temperature change anyways? If it were 20 degrees and sunny and the next day or exactly one year later or even 10 years later, it was 25 degrees with 2 feet of snow, wouldn't that indicate that things were warming up?
Reply to this comment
by lakota2012 February 11, 2010 3:33 PM EST
Actually, what you're suggesting is only short term WEATHER and not overal trends over many years or decades indicative of CLIMATE. Obviously, for politicians to wrongly suggest that any one particular storm or number of storms during an entire winter or even a couple of winters, is proof that global warming doesn't exist, is delusional.

The fact still remains that this winter in particular has been very unusual to say the least, with an extreme negative Arctic oscillation where Canada and Greenland temperatures have been way above normal, an el Nino in the Pacific causing different weather patterns and a jet stream not acting normally. It will be interesting to see what happens next winter!
by tom97531 February 11, 2010 10:22 PM EST
Lakota, I wasn't suggesting short term weather is a good indication of Global Warming. I'm just saying even IF it was, like people in this article are claiming, it still is faulty reasoning since snow totals have nothing to do with temperature change. It can get warmer than usual in the winter and still snow. Or to look at it another way, when it comes to temperature, 25 degrees and 2 inches of snow is no different than 25 degrees and 2 FEET of snow.
by lakota2012 February 11, 2010 2:41 PM EST
by LibertyAtStake:
"See also this Wikipedia entry:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
--------------------------------


Thanks for the eye-opening Wikipedia entry about the contrarians.

First the bar is lowered to almost ground level:
"For the purpose of this list, a scientist is defined as a person who published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences. There is no requirement to have published in recent years or in a field relevant to the climate. There is no requirement that their views contrary to the global warming mainstream need to have been published in peer-reviewed literature, and the majority have not."

And then, we have different categories:

1.) Global warming is not occurring or has ceased -- 3 total including the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, timmy ball

2.) Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable -- 4 total including richard lindzen, a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil and other various fossil fuel corporations.
Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century.

3.) Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes -- 22 total in this category, with notables roy spencer, fred singer, and ian plimer
Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

4.) Cause of global warming is unknown -- 9 total in this category, with notables john christy and ross mckitrick
Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.

5.) Global warming will not be significantly negative -- 3 total here, including father and son sherwood idso and craig idso,
Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment.

6.) Now deceased -- 4 total of dead denialists, including frederick seitz, whom as a past president of the NAS, was able to push the OISM petition by arthur robinson, and use the same tactics that had worked so well for him in the manufactured doubt campaign that he had used effectively at R.J. Reynolds to confuse the cancer/smoking link debate. Apparently the cigarettes got him in the end too!


So out of the 5 categories besides the dead ones, only the first category empirically denies global warming exists, and the rest of these contrarians either have problems with the accuracy of the IPCC projections, agree that the planet is warming but from natural causes, also agree to global warming but that the cause is unknown, and finally those that think excessive CO2 and warming is a good thing for the planet Earth........Hmmmmmmmm......
Reply to this comment
by FauxNews February 11, 2010 2:12 PM EST
Conservatives will have to think up a smaller word than "Snowmageddon" because it won't fit on Palin's hand.
Reply to this comment
by lakota2012 February 11, 2010 1:37 PM EST
by HawkSpringsIsBack:
"I want to see the Scientific Paper that proves it using the Scientific Method."
----------------



Oooooh...aren't you the clever one today?

On that same plane, all I ask from you contrarians, is a peer-reviewed published article by a real scientist and preferably a paleoclimatologist, that can answer why, in their scenarios, the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 levels -- 40% higher than before the industrial age began -- is not compounding the problem of global warming.

And.....after that is answered, I'd like to to see a peer-reviewed scientific article proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a fact.

Or....better yet, and probably easier, a peer-reviewed scientific article about the delusional creationism that carbou barbi hypes!
Reply to this comment
by lakota2012 February 11, 2010 1:26 PM EST
In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science

So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading.
Reply to this comment
by lakota2012 February 11, 2010 1:12 PM EST
by HawkSpringsIsBack:
"So now it's been revealed that the Global Warming Scammers have been rigging the whole game to squelch any scientist who dissagrees with them."

"BTW, are you done shoveling that Global Warming off your driveway yet?"
----------------------



springer....you should know by now if you watched anything besides the FAUX NoNooz propagandists, that the denialist cult "smoking gun" through their perceived "climategate," was just more propaganda by the right that fizzled upon impact. Their endless tirades against Michael Mann for the past 10 years have produced nothing but pure political grandstanding by the likes of inhoffe and other non-scientists. Penn State even vindicated Mann in this latest tabloid scam by the denialist cult.

If bush/cheney did not manipulate and manufacture intelligence during the runup to the Iraq WAR, then climatologists didn't manipulate data or "squelch" the denialists either! Every scientist has the right to submit scientific papers for publishing, and your conspiracy theory of keeping them out is enviable by the king of the conspiracy theorists, glenn beck! Give it a rest!

While some of the private correspondance is not commendable, an informed examination of their "suggestive" emails reveal technical discussions using techniques well known in the peer reviewed literature. Focusing on a few suggestive emails merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.


BTW, I don't shovel snow, but use my commercial snow thrower when I need to. This winter at 8,000 feet has been a breeze, and so far we've had 10" in January and 2" in February -- much below normal -- but I certainly like it when I can share winter with others!
Reply to this comment
by lakota2012 February 11, 2010 12:42 PM EST
by likeitbe:
"The same scientists were predicting an imminent "Ice Age" just 25 yrs ago. LOL"
----------------------


NO they were not!....but you contrarians keep using that stale argument!

1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production." A 1974 Times Magazine article "Another Ice Age" painted a similarly bleak picture.

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "?we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate?"


http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf


Hey -- any more LIES you need debunked in the denialist cult?
Reply to this comment
by lakota2012 February 11, 2010 1:03 PM EST
In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
American Meteorological Society
The Royal Society of the UK
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science

So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading.
by anti-global3 February 11, 2010 12:38 PM EST
Though I don't believe man made global warming is what the climate control people made it out to be I do know one thing, the climate control legislation they were trying to get passed in Denmark was not about saving the planet, it was about trying to bail out the E.U. with tax dollars from Americans.
Look at what they were proposing. We in the U.S. would be paying higher energy rates, and higher taxes and carbon fees so that the money raised could be re-distributed to European, Asian and developing countries around the globe. We were told they would use this to invest in cleaner technology. now ask yourself this. With the E.U. on the brink of collapse and many European nations facing economic crises worse then the downturn here in the U.S. do you really think they would have taken this money and used it for clean technology? Of course not, they would have had to use it to keep providing basic services to their people, and to keep thier banks solvent which is not the American publics responsibility.
Nobody stepped in to bail us out, why should we help them? What we need to do is reign in our economy, de-globalize it wherever possible and look out for ourselves.
Reply to this comment
by lakota2012 February 11, 2010 1:51 PM EST
by anti-global3:
"..it was about trying to bail out the E.U. with tax dollars from Americans."
-------------------------



Completely understand that you rabid republiCONS get more delusional each and every day, and now try to parrot more of that glenn beck propaganda, disguised as another conspiracy theory, that a law that might be passed in Denmark will be paid-for by U.S. tax dollars.

HA!...HA!...HA!...HA!...HA!...ROTFLMFAO!!!

I don't even think a 5th grader would believe your LIES!

Don't you in the denialist cult have better things to do with your time?
See all 181 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...