Add a Comment See all 371 Comments
- Thank you! I already complained to CBS about the lack of integrity of this too!
- Reply to this comment
- The EPA did not suppress this report - they rejected it because it was garbage.
They use an astrologer as a source (an astrologer who claims the rise of Hilter was due to solar cycles).
They cite a paper that shows there has been no increase in solar radiation in the last 30 years and in the same report claim that the rise in temperatures is due to the sun.
They use blog posts as a source of information for their report. I teach an undergraduate science writing course and I won't let my students use blogs posts as references in their paper.
For more debunking of this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
CBS change the title of your article. - Reply to this comment
-
- If what you say is true its been a sad pattern with the media. Its the whole false equivalency problem. On the one hand we have a climate scientist saying "global warming is a serious problem", on the other we have a garbage collector who really thinks "global warming is a hoax". The people who claim its a hoax, who are quoted by the media are rarely credible, but the media presents them as credible. And a lot of the general public does not clue in, because they do not have the expertise to decipher the difference between real science and junk science.
- This media evenhandedness is a little disturbing when you realize the two sides of the argument are treated as if they had equivalent amount of scientific integrity. This is irresponsible dishonest. It's an issue of science. Serious debate is not really open to political partisans.
- On the other hand, there is value in making this debate inclusive of people who are not intellectually trained to grasp the nature and scope of scientific evidence. If you can't convince the scientists, there's still the more easily manipulated public opinion up for grabs, as always.
- "This media evenhandedness is a little disturbing when you realize the two sides of the argument are treated as if they had equivalent amount of scientific integrity. This is irresponsible dishonest. It's an issue of science. Serious debate is not really open to political partisans."
Your arguments do support this point of view. Sure cannot have the media be evenhanded...
Debate is not tolerated by those who are pushing this agenda...they have pulled up the ladder and declared the science settled...which violates every responsible principle of science.
It is laughable that someone who seriously contends that the world owes a debt to Al Gore for his efforts can make the statement
"Serious debate is not really open to political partisans."
If you were trying to be ironic, that statement would work well.
- So many "possible", "might be" and other maybes in this report--why not question the lack of journalistic integrity and proof? Too much speculation here--it is commentary, not reporting.
- Reply to this comment
- Just another sign of taking advantage of the political situation to put your plans into place, rather than, after a thorough analysis, doing what is best for the population of this country.
I don't ever recall having seen so much ramrodding of legislation through the system, with so little analysis, by people who seem to know so little about the topics.
It doesn't bode well for upcoming topics like health care. Given this approach, do you think the upcoming proposal for health care will be thought out, well planned, based on solid economic and health care data and actually read by the legislators before signing? I doubt it. - Reply to this comment
-
- So many "possible", "might be" and other maybes in this report--why not question the lack of journalistic integrity and proof? Too much speculation here--it is commentary, not reporting.
- I stand by my statement. There is certainly plenty more evidence in the news media and elsewhere, beyond this article.
I still contend that performing a rush job and never reading what you approve as a representative of the people is irresponsible. It's a bit like counting millions of paper votes in an hour and declaring a winner.
Dubious to say the least.
- The President and Congress can handle more than one thing at a time. More than half of the country overwhelmingly voted for President Obama, and 2/3 of the country still supports him. America voted for Change. It is nice to see progress in protecting the planet for the future.
- Reply to this comment
- Agreed - consider the source. I wonder who funded him, really?
- Reply to this comment
- How sad that all of this misses the point. It doesn't matter if you "believe" in global warming or global climate change.
3 things matter:
1. That we reduce consumption and pollution
2. That we reduce our dependence on energy from countries who hate us
3. That we create (green) jobs at home so Americans have good work
The government is taking steps to make that happen. And this is report on another non-issue from the "Party of No". This red herring doesn't help us get those 3 things done. I congratulate the government on making an effort. - Reply to this comment
-
- Riiiiiight! Yea, that's right. We'll use wind power, except in teddy kennedy's backyard.We can't have that. Yea, we'll go away from all that nasty petroleum power. I just can't help but wonder about all the products today that are petroleum based. Not to worry, the messiah will fix it.
We'll encourage Iran to go nuclear for their power but we'll go windmill.
Yea, right.
If you can't see this power play for what it is, you are a lost cause.
We have the ability to use clean coal. We have enough oil of our own. I find it interesting that we get 60% of our oil from Canada. Canada, the great vast wonderland of beautiful country, forests, water, hunting, clean air, yadda, yadda, yadda. Somehow Canada manages to obtain it's oil without ruining the environment. Just how does that happen?
As for "party of no", please, lemmings, get new lines.
- xlib - no one calls President Obama the "messiah" except Fox propaganda, Rush, and other right-wing hate blogs. So please save your lemmings comments for your own echo chamber.
And luadda22, give the President a chance. We want better national security and less pollution along with the green jobs. Or do you not care about Americans getting back to work?
- "We have the ability to use clean coal. We have enough oil of our own. I find it interesting that we get 60% of our oil from Canada."
A.) There is still no such thing as 'clean coal' (something which the current president doesn't seem to understand). Eventually, the coal industry will be forced by market forces to put their money where their propaganda is and develop 'clean coal' technologies to the point where the term means something. When that happens (next year or 50 years from now) we'll have 'clean coal'.
B.) We have enough "oil of our own" in ALL of the known oil fields in and around the 50 states of the U.S. (including those which aren't being drilled at all) to provide for all of our oil usage for 2.8 years...which is precisely why we import 67 percent of all the oil we use. The total amount of new oil deposits which have been found in the last 30 years in this country will provide for our needs for a little less than 1.5 years. The U.S. is the most drilled and studied piece of oil producing geography on the planet. There are no mysterious miracle oil fields about to be found here.
C.) 21.6 percent of the oil we import comes from Canada. We import 67 percent of all of our oil, so Canada supplies 14.47 percent of our oil.
- Riiiiiight! Yea, that's right. We'll use wind power, except in teddy kennedy's backyard.We can't have that. Yea, we'll go away from all that nasty petroleum power. I just can't help but wonder about all the products today that are petroleum based. Not to worry, the messiah will fix it.
- Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.
______________________________________________________________________
More concerned with media appeal than with getting it right, typical Obama policy. - Reply to this comment
-
- If our goal is in fact to address the issues that you suggest, we would be employing the use of nuclear energy.
- "If our goal is in fact to address the issues that you suggest while creating an even greater disaster, we would be employing the use of nuclear energy."
There, I've fixed that for you.
- Martel
You said "If our goal is in fact to address the issues that you suggest while creating an even greater disaster, we would be employing the use of nuclear energy."
I can only assume that your comment completely excludes the millions of compiled hours of previous nuclear use, or that you have no idea of the use of nuclear power.
- They believe whats convenient-that fits their agenda and then they stick it to us.
We have an economic crisis,a, health care crisis-these are issues Obama was elected on. What do we get? A global friggin warming bill.
The planet might have a future-but I wouldn't put even money on us having one. - Reply to this comment
-
- The President and Congress can handle more than one thing at a time. More than half of the country overwhelmingly voted for President Obama, and 2/3 of the country still supports him. America voted for Change. It is nice to see progress in protecting the planet for the future.
- running2ks, you are not correct. 103 million registered voters did not vote for Obama. The only reason Obama won was that "none of the above" was not on the ballot.
- luadda22, I was correct. MORE THAN HALF of the nation voted for him. That is a fact. And check the polls: His popularity is well over 62 percent. That is math. Sorry you don't agree with math.
- running2ks, don't know where you get 1/2 the nation voted for Obama. The population of the US is (approx) 306 million, of that number 169 million are registered voters, of that number only 69 million voted for Obama. That leaves 100 million registered voters that did NOT vote for Obama . My math shows that only 40% of registered voters voted for Obama. AND only 22.5% of this nation voted for him. Popular rating may be 62%, but his approval rate is not.
- luadda22, please don't waste time splitting hairs--it was obvious I was speaking about voters. You missed the point, again, by trying to play semantics. The larger picture is that more than half of the voters went for Barack Obama. The turnout was enormous. And his popularity is not the only reason people keep supporting him.
enriqueGonzales, turn off Fox news. You've been OutFoxed by the Acorn red herrings. You just don't understand that the turnout was huge because more people were inspired to vote this time around. And as for voter irregularities, you don't need to look any further than Republicans--they are fans of voter suppression and intimidation (you can look all of this up, if you turn off the Fox Propaganda). George W. Bush didn't even win his 2000 eleciton--and yes, the Supreme Court determined that.
- "Why did Acorn receive 4 Billion dollars of our tax money?"
Why do pigs fly?
(ACORN has received $38 million dollars from the federal government since 1998, and currently receives anywhere from 1 to 2 million dollars per year. Over 95 percent of it is spent in an effort to obtain low income housing for the poor.)
I really shouldn't be so rude, though. It's intolerably impolite to dispute right-wing ideology with objective fact.
- The way I see it all those who believe this global warming hoax figure the argument is over even though all their actions are based on nothing more than theory. The proposals they are pushing will cause more harm than if man made global warming actually existed.
- Reply to this comment
-
- You know what else is called a theory? Gravity. But you don't see a lot of people wandering off the top of a high rise to test it out. The standard of proof required for something to be called a law or fact is incredibly high in science. What is a fact is that the vast majority who are experts in the field are persuaded. I'd sooner listen to the opinion of people who actually know what they are talking about, than those who don't.
- To JulianClarke--take a peek at any first grade science book...you'll be educated on the LAW of GRAVITY. Not the theory.
- It's easy to disagree without the requirement of any kind of proof. Hey, we live in a country where freedom of the press and speech guarantees us this civil right. But on a scientific issue, let's let the scientists settle it among themselves. The scientific accuracy of an observation or theory is never decided by debate among the chattering masses. On global warming, there's been a scientific consensus in the last 15 years at least. Even our National Academy of Sciences recognizes this fact. The science is there and pretty persuasive. Show me the people saying it's all a hoax and I'll show you groups who are obscure, who can't be traced to a credible history of objective, nonpartisan efforts to understand global warming, suggestive of hidden agendas, or simply individuals who have opinions but without command of the facts.
- jon2012-2009
You state....
'Show me the people saying it's all a hoax and I'll show you groups who are obscure, who can't be traced to a credible history of objective, nonpartisan efforts to understand global warming, suggestive of hidden agendas, or simply individuals who have opinions but without command of the facts."
IPCC members, some of whom have asked to have their names removed from reports, and had to threaten lawsuits to have names removed, have called out the actions of the IPCC. Science never has, and never should be about consensus...it is about what can be observed, tested, and measured. If the science on AGW is solid, it does not need you or anyone else to defend it...the facts will speak for themselves. The facts as they now sit, are that the models that are being utilized by AGW supporters do not even have the ability to tell us what weather was in the past when the relevant numbers are entered into their formulas...if they can not even explain the past...why do you trust them to forecast future climate conditions?
You put forth your opinion, while calling out others for not providing facts...but where exactly are your facts?
- Once again we have a guy with a PhD in economics making conclusions about earths climate. The EPA was completely right in its judgment, although not in telling him to suppress his research. If he should be given a platform, then I fully expect the Fed to hire a climatologist to give an opinion on the WallStreet bailout. For equal time, of course.
- Reply to this comment
-
- I read that he also has a degree in physics. Also you do not suppress information that does not support your hypothesis. Do you know what a "hypothesis" is, it's basically a "guess" that has not been proven yet.
- The fact that the guy has a PHD in economics and not in climate science is very relevant. People spend decades studying these fields and when people wade in, by cherry picking data from a few papers, it is generally not very credible. A lot of the so called debunkers of climate change, are non-scientists, scientists in field unrelated, or scientists who work for oil lobbies. I do not know all the credentials of the man who made this report, which may be in good faith. However, the consensus of scientists who actually work in the field is around 97% that climate change is happening, and that man is a significant contributing factor. Consensus is how scientific theories become accepted, like the theory of gravity. This level of consensus from the experts is certainly more persuasive than the evidence for invading Iraq, which we had no problem doing, with extremely flimsy evidence. The evidence we have is strong, certainly strong enough to take the cautious steps we are taking towards reducing our carbon output. If the situation with climate change is a dire as believed, it could take many decades to turn this ship around, better to start taking steps now, even if there remain a few doubters.
- The fact that the guy has a PHD in economics and not in climate science is very relevant. People spend decades studying these fields and when people wade in, by cherry picking data from a few papers, it is generally not very credible. A lot of the so called debunkers of climate change, are non-scientists, scientists in field unrelated, or scientists who work for oil lobbies. I do not know all the credentials of the man who made this report, which may be in good faith. However, the consensus of scientists who actually work in the field is around 97% that climate change is happening, and that man is a significant contributing factor. Consensus is how scientific theories become accepted, like the theory of gravity. This level of consensus from the experts is certainly more persuasive than the evidence for invading Iraq, which we had no problem doing, with extremely flimsy evidence. The evidence we have is strong, certainly strong enough to take the cautious steps we are taking towards reducing our carbon output. If the situation with climate change is a dire as believed, it could take many decades to turn this ship around, better to start taking steps now, even if there remain a few doubters.
- JulianClarke said: "The fact that the guy has a PHD in economics and not in climate science is very relevant. "
Its incredibly relevant! Rightwingers keep hammering us over the head with the Oregon Petition, signed by 38,000 'scientists' saying that Global Warming is bunk. And the number of those scientists who are climatologists? Nil. A mere handful. What the Oregon Petition does is expose rightwingers as being COMPLETELY uneducated about science, to the point where they couldn't distinguish a meteorologist from a climatologist if their lives depended on it (when rightwingers keep telling me that atmospheric models can't even predict the weather for next WEEK, much less next century, I have to laugh. How did these people come to be? And what is to be done with them? Where did we get people so completely uneducated, and yet so willing to impose their uneducated opinion on the rest of us?). Rightwingers are a group of people that wouldn't for the life of them hire a plumber to fix their car, but have NO trouble taking the opinion of a crop scientist (or economist) about the climate, over that of a climatologist. What is to be done about such profound ignorance???
- What we may have here is more of the false choice between economics, politics and climate. Bush said that CO2 policies would be bad for the economy, when they could actually create jobs and advance technology. This is a false choice that no one questioned when it was stated. Now we have a bad economy AND huge CO2 emissions, a lose lose situation.
- The EPA was bound by law to include Carlin's report. There is peer reviewed published research behind all of Carlin's points. The unprecedented short time to produce comments, less than a week, makes the 100 page survey all the more remarkable.
Climatology's rise as a science is over the past 20 years as a reaction to the huge sums of money being poured into CO2 research, worldwide. You can't be a published climatologist at the moment without having drunk the CO2 koolaid.
How gold pays for 