An inconvenient admission

The latest sign that the “consensus” about global warming is falling apart: The BBC is finally reporting that global temperatures have leveled off since 1998, and that there maybe, possibly, perhaps, conceivably, theoretically, hypothetically, probably-not-but-you-never-know, could be explanations for changes in temperature that don’t involve mankind and carbon dioxide.

Understand, there has been no greater media proponent of climate alarmism than the BBC. Its reach may not be as great in the U.S., but elsewhere in the English-speaking world it’s considered the gold standard for journalism.

If even the Beeb is now grudgingly acknowledging that other viewpoints on the issue may have some legitimacy — after going to great lengths to deny this possibility in the past — then perhaps we can finally have  a rational debate.

Or, if this clip of a filmmaker being cut off as he presses Al Gore on a question at a conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists is any indication, perhaps not.

80 comments Add your comment

pat

October 12th, 2009
4:26 pm

Don’t worry, they will continue to perpetuate this myth so long as it enables them to garner power.

Hillbilly Deluxe

October 12th, 2009
5:21 pm

It used to be excepted scientific fact that the world was flat. Things are often presented as fact, when the truth is, they don’t know one way or the other.

Michael

October 12th, 2009
6:29 pm

It used to be accepted that most adults knew something about grammar and word usage.

Tim Wheeler

October 12th, 2009
6:48 pm

The filmmaker was cut off not because he was challenging Gore, but because his time was up. This was not a one-on-one debate, but a Q&A at a conference where the ground rules clearly set out that everyone who got to the mic was allowed one question and one followup. It was simple fairness to the 10 or so people waiting behind him, not censorship. SEJ saw to it he had a chance to ask any questions at all, since Gore normally doesn’t make himself available to the media. See: http://sej2009.sej.org/2009/10/polar-bears-censorship.html

Andy

October 12th, 2009
8:41 pm

I just read the article with the link above. Perhaps you should read the entire article and not offer the scientist opinion as evidence that global warming is fictional. You republicans seem to have this habit of cherry picking the scientific opinions that most agree with your own. All of us can see the ice sheets in Anartica, Greenland, and the arctic melting and falling away in news stories that occur frequently. You can offer explanations of switching between hot and cold cycles, but I don’t see you offering any evidence to support your views.

You once said that carbon dioxide is not unhealthy, but if happen to be underneath a blanket of CO2 for any length of time, you will die just as surely as if you parked your car in a closed garage with the engine running and you are in the car.

Scientists have said that if the entire antartica ice sheet melted, sea levels worldwide would rise 200 feet. So just a 3% melt rate would increase sea levels 6 feet. Most of Georgia south of the fall line would probably be underwater if the melt rate were anywhere close to this figure. Are you are willing to give up South Georgia if your assumptions are wrong and most scientists are right about global warming?
And would you be willing to accept the consequences of mass migration away from coastal areas and towards higher ground if you are wrong?

mike

October 12th, 2009
9:03 pm

Andy –

“Are you are willing to give up South Georgia if your assumptions are wrong and most scientists are right about global warming?”

Or as some others might say, “Are you are willing to give up New York City if your assumptions are wrong and most intelligence agencies are right about Iraq’s WMD program”?

John Galt Jr.

October 12th, 2009
9:05 pm

Andy, what if mother earth did this to herself anyway without any help from man? Whose fault is it then? You know what the fall line is anyway? There was an ocean there at one time. Hello. Who or what caused the last warming? What caused the last ice age? Maybe I need to get some beachfront property just south of Atlanta.

Shaneeeeeeee Fananeeeeeeeee

October 12th, 2009
9:28 pm

Obama and his administration are the biggest bunch of cry babies ever. Fist the Olympics now Fox News, I think these people have their priorities mixed up.

Gore gets private jets while we walk

October 12th, 2009
9:56 pm

Tim Wheeler wrote “…since Gore normally doesn’t make himself available to the media.” That’s the problem.Gore won’t face his critics because he’s unable to defend his ridiculous claims about global warming.This is strictly a money making issue for Gore as he jets from one SUV to another while not resting at his giant power devouring home.

Joan

October 12th, 2009
10:27 pm

Well, I should be safe. If it warms up to much it won’t happen in my lifetime, and since the country is going to he.. in a handbasket, global warming is going to be the least of the country’s problems. When we start burning our trees for fuel and cooking in this country, Obama will have the America he wants.

ATL

October 12th, 2009
10:42 pm

Keep it up Kyle. When your grandkids are roasting in an unstable world due to climate change, I’m sure they’ll look back on your calls for inaction and be so proud.

artatlarge

October 12th, 2009
11:27 pm

I’ll give you one thing, Mr. Wingfield…you are consistent.
But cherry-picking your data does a disservice to all. Plus, due to the efforts of such corporate apologists as yourself, almost half the people in Britain don’t think that global warming will effect them.
Also, global warming is about much more than temperature. It is also about more severe weather, and many more incidents of it. It is about more and longer droughts is some places, floods in others. It is about earlier springtimes, followed by more short blasts of winter. It is about rapidly retreating glaciers, rising sea levels, greater populations of insects and other pests due to the changes in weather patterns. It is about the rising acidity of oceans.
You republicans will do anything to maintain an unsustainable status-quo, whining about the expense involved in efforts to keep from ruining the planet, and yet with the next breath you claim that the effort to save the planet is about making money for the owners of “green” industries and businesses.
You yourself won’t be satisfied until we reach the tipping point, and natural disasters become more and more commonplace, accompanied by disease, crippling poverty, food riots, environmental displacement of peoples who can no longer live in effected areas, and a calamitous divide between the “have it all and won’t give up a single dime” and the “so poor, hungry, and desperate that we’ll fight in the streets to survive.”
Your calls for inaction, your choosing a single set of data to prove a point for an entire world and entire generations, and your refusal to acknowledge what even George Bush finally admitted only serve to make you look ignorant, greedy, heartless, disingenuous, and somehow pathetic.
If you weren’t so serious, I’d swear your work was all parody.
But I must give you credit for something else, too….
You manage to keep your head in the sand and up your butt at the same time.

Loran, Whatayagot?

October 12th, 2009
11:39 pm

What are the socialists going to do when one of their main premises for strong-arming economic, political, and social policy collapses under them? Why find another horse to ride… like global cooling. They’re relentless.

DebbieDoRight

October 13th, 2009
12:24 am

My thoughts mirror his – “These people are so stupid they make me question evolution,” Bill Maher.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/03/bill-maher-slams-gop-clim_n_308501.html

Gerald West

October 13th, 2009
5:08 am

What kind of fools believe that mankind can poison the air and the oceans without cosequences? The rise or fall of climate tempertures in one or two years doesn’t indicate a trend; that’s a logical fallacy. The trends of the last several years indicate accelerating climate change; some of it caused by man-made pollution.

Why ignore facts and reason, and rely on anecdotes, wishful thinking, and a misunderstanding of statistics?

Richard

October 13th, 2009
6:44 am

To someone back there with the comment about people beliving the earth was flat: Aristotle demonstrated that the earth was a sphere. No educated person in the last 2400+ years has belived it was flat.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

October 13th, 2009
6:52 am

Seems to me that most of the critics complaining about Kyle “cherry-picking” are indeed the most flagrant cherry pickers, the people whose primary argument on global warming is “post hoc ergo propter hoc,” even when the “post hoc” is proving untrue. Typical of people whose religion – here global warming – blind them from the truth.

Bob

October 13th, 2009
7:00 am

Tim Wheeler, nice try ! Gore did not answer the question and would not for a reason. By his predictions some years ago, we should have had 4 more hurricane katrinas and a 5 foot rise in sea level by now. The ocean, according to al would rise twenty feet in twenty years or so, where is the water ?

Bob

October 13th, 2009
7:02 am

c’mon gerald, we do not know what pace the climate changes, saying change is accelerating now when you don’t have a clue what pace it should be on is laughable.

F-105 Thunderchief

October 13th, 2009
7:10 am

The fact is, global warming, or not, the United States needs to develop clean, renewable energy to: increase security by reducing dependence on radical Islamic oil; increase prosperity by developing and marketing these technologies to the rest of the world, so they don’t have to depend on radical Islamic oil; and last, but not least, reduce pollution. Now, let’s quit bickering about global climate change and get this done.

F-105 Thunderchief

October 13th, 2009
7:11 am

Knuckleheads.

Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST

October 13th, 2009
7:26 am

Saxby Chambliss will be voting for Cap and Trade because of the LARGE Ethanol subsidies in the bill. As all you know I am a lobbyist for the Ethanol industry and Dad loves playing golf at expensive courses.

Will

October 13th, 2009
7:31 am

Today’s AJC front page story relating to Georgia’s bipartisan raising and spending of “PAC” money could not offer more proof of the fact that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties when it comes to gross indifference to leadership and our Grand Republic’s well being. The only difference is, when one of the two parties is out of power, that party will preach fiscal responsiblity. When that party is in control, it will ignore fiscal responsibility.

I continue to be amused by republicans showing up at Tea Parties and believing that they speak for this growing movement. Little do these politicians know that they are going to be in for a big surprise next November when distaste for democrat spending does not automatically translate into votes for the opposition party that voted almost in lock-dtep for eight straight budgets republican administration budgets, containing more than 40,000 earmarks, that moved our Grand Republic from a budget surplus to a trillion dollar deficit.

Tcp

October 13th, 2009
7:57 am

Thunderchief has hit the nail on the head…petroleum reserves are dwindling at a pace that require action to avert economic disaster. By the way, over the last five years the average global temperature has been higher than any previous five year period since man became “modern”. The trend is still upward. By picking out only 1998’s data and ignoring the relatively cool year of 1999, the blog is guilty of bias. Additionally, the recent “levelling off” was predicted by climatologists and is expected to end by 2014…and no, I don’t know the reasoning I just know that the prediction existed several years ago. If the warming ends of its’ own volition great…but as Thunderchief said, we still have work to do.

madmommy

October 13th, 2009
8:28 am

I am of the frame of mind that in 20 years when we run out of oil and fossil fuels, we will not have the same issues that we are speaking about today. Just think about it, since everything is created using petroleum and we are running out at a fast pace, then all the worlds issues with global warming will be solved.

I just hope that sound sience wins out on this war. While I think we pollute oceans, rivers, and select areas with garbage, I still think we need to understand more about what is going on than whats to blame. Just looking at one area where there has been a major increase in production on one by product (CO2) and saying the case is solved is bad science. You need to rule out all factors, not just create one hypotheses and run with it cause it would be the easiest sale.

Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST

October 13th, 2009
8:28 am

Here is the original ABC story on Saxby’s PAC program. Saxby collected just under $500,000 from lobbyist and spent nearly $250,000 to play golf. Saxby sure can run by a reporter, hard to believe that Saxby was 4F during the war. PS you have to watch a 5 sec commercial before Saxby comes on.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8677408

bob

October 13th, 2009
8:49 am

We do need clean energy but the democrats cannot get the treehuggers to accept nuclear energy.

Atlanta Native

October 13th, 2009
8:54 am

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

Which has more impact on Earth’s temperature the sun or humans?

Now that “Global Warming” has been changed to “climate change” does this mean that as the earth cools through 2014 we should burn more fossil fuels to maintain the temperature?

To whom or what do we owe a duty to keep all shorelines intact as of specific date and use our extraordinary human powers to force the earth to bend to our will? What is that date?

As the earth has wa

William

October 13th, 2009
9:05 am

Most of you are relying on science to explain global warming…Al Gore is not a scientist! Most people pushing this global warming is agenda or ideology fed–like most of you! You ignore and brandish the scientist who disagree with you and hail those who agree. So what is the truth? Your ideology fed by your ideology type scientist! You did starve an oil based economy of oil by refusing to drill. You did cause gas prices to soar costing the poor money that could be used for food and shelter. Yes, you progressive liberals did that! You turned to GREEN energy that is going to take years to add jobs and replace the energy supplied by oil. In the mean time you gave the oil companies and those speculators the opportunity to make billions–and they did. Your fervor to make this a better world has assisted the depression to continue. Hey, maybe you feel good about yourself tearing down America. That seems to be the liberal way!!

Cutty

October 13th, 2009
9:08 am

More than enough reason to stick with the status quo, eh Wingfield? Let’s use up all the world’s natural resources and then worry about what we’ll do when we get to that point. Opposing global warming is fine, but even oil companies admit we can’t suck petroleum out the ground forever.

Atlanta Native

October 13th, 2009
9:08 am

I look to the global warming debate and see the equivalent of people pouring over Revelations to determine the end of the world. People need an end, and with one’s religion as science, then people look to science for their doomsday scenario. The fact that, millions of years from now, the sun will expand to engulf the earth is just too far away to accept. Also, there is no guilt attached to this. Just like those who look to Revelations for the sin of the people of the earth and determine that the sin is so great now, the end days must be near, so do those who worship at the altar of science feel collective guilt and see the end is nigh. How to assuage the feelings of guilt? Take responsibility for the temperature of the earth and try to do something about it. But to what end?

The questions I ask above are serious ones. Look into your heart and ask why you believe that global warming is inevitable unless we all do something. Remember that the main emitters of greenhouse gasses on the planet are livestock. Should they all be slaughtered? Isn’t the main emitter where we should start? Should 3rd world countries be required to greatly reduce the number of animals that breathe, belch and emit flatulence? If not, why not?

RAMBLE ON!!!

October 13th, 2009
9:17 am

OMG!!!

You moonbats keep your head in the sand.

The arrogant jackass ducks the question, “no one told the polar bears that”.

I guess when he was done inventing the internet, he started talking to polar bears.

William

October 13th, 2009
9:25 am

RAMBLE ON!!!

October 13th, 2009
9:17 am

I am not as enlighted a you! While I have my head in the sand, you have yours stuck in an ideology. What is the difference?

William

October 13th, 2009
9:30 am

Oil up to near $74 in Europe as dollar weakens. I bet you progressive liberals want the Euro to succeed as the world’s money exchange. Replace American but first you have to replace the dollar–right?

David Axelfraud

October 13th, 2009
9:37 am

When Owl Gore sells his 10 private jets, his 10 bedroom mansion and his fleet of SUVs, I will listen to him. Um…nah, I would never listen to that pantie waste of a girly man.

David Axelfraud

October 13th, 2009
9:38 am

Atlanta Native, you make some good points but the difference is the religious sector of the country doesn’t want to bankrupt America over their views. They also don’t want a government takeover of every industry in the name of religion.

David Axelfraud

October 13th, 2009
9:40 am

Cutty, you’re contradicting yourself as a lib. First, if the Earth has been around for millions of years then how could it just “end” the resources. Two, not one scientist can say how or when oil would end.

David Axelfraud

October 13th, 2009
9:42 am

F-105 Thunderchief, we have tried. Maybe you should tell the environmental whack jobs to move to North Korea. Nuke Energy is the cheapest source of energy around. Even France, YES FRANCE, has gone with that concept. Clean energy is too expensive to produce and would bankrupt normal middle class Americans.

Drill here. Drill now.

Nuke Energy.

David Axelfraud

October 13th, 2009
9:44 am

DebbieDoRight

October 13th, 2009
12:24 am

My thoughts mirror his – “These people are so stupid they make me question evolution,” Bill Maher.

Now Debbie, you seem to contradict yourself as well. You libs always preach tolerance and anti-hate speech yet you post a comment by Bill Maher calling people with whom he disagrees with, stupid.

pd

October 13th, 2009
9:50 am

there is too much air pollution, period. Whether its causing the earth’s temperature to change has caused us to be distracted. There can be no doubt that Atlanta is polluted in the summer. You can see it with your eyes. Clean it up.

RAMBLE ON!!!

October 13th, 2009
9:51 am

William, nice spin.

That’s why he doesn’t allow questions, turning the mic. off is a pain.

That’s why Obama is scared of Fox news. He can’t turn the mic. off on a tough and relevant questions.

David

October 13th, 2009
9:51 am

Back in 1974 we were told that oil reserves would be depleted in 30 years. Even today, huge new discoveries of oil are reported.

They must keep the ruled occupied with invented crises otherwise they may ponder the manner in which they are ruled.

Churchill's MOM

October 13th, 2009
10:08 am

Wingboy, I am opposed to Cap & Trade but it has passed the house and both of our Senators will vote for this job killer because Saxby likes golf and Johnny does what Saxby tells him to do. Welcome back to Georgia.

Atlanta Native

October 13th, 2009
10:08 am

David, I was making a parallel, not taking a swipe at religion or science, just human nature.

Still – What is the correct temperature for the earth? I have never heard an answer to that question and await an answer.

I am also curious what the correct shoreline of the earth’s oceans is?

For both questions, what is your source?

Also, what about all the livestock that emit the majority of greenhouse gasses? Slaughter them all? After that will we still need to deplete our GDP through cap and trade? Even if it works? If so, what does that say about one’s motive in this debate?

Before we all deify Mr. Gore, how much money has he made off climate change?

Also, if CO2 is now a pollutant, should I give up exhaling that CO2 all day? Isn’t it irresponsible to own pets, since they pollute? As for polar bears and other large animals that emit tons of CO2, should we not be focusing on decreasing their numbers?

Also, rather than focus on emission, why not absorption? Since 3rd world countries actively engage in deforestation, should they not be penalized for cutting down trees that absorb the harmful pollutant CO2? With the loss of the Amazon rain forest, is that not grounds for a righteous country like the US to invade, stop their cutting of trees and re-plant the rain forest? What economic sanctions are proposed against South American and African countries for their wholesale destruction of CO2 absorbing trees?

When looking at the solutions on the table and those not on the table, what motives do we see?

booger

October 13th, 2009
10:44 am

Andy,

I think the news stories showing ice sheets melting were in fact Al Gores little movie. Other than that I have not seen them. And the truth is that the Antarctic ice pack is growing, and has been for many years. There was a large chunk which broke off of one end of the continent, but ice was growing on the rest of the continent. The Greenland icesheet was also miscalculated. There was a news article where a sailor was standing on ice sheet which according to Gore didn’t exist. A review of data showed 1937 to be the warmest year in recorded history. Independent reviews of the methods used to collect temperature data have revealed unreliable and sloppy collection data collection. And the continued assertion that most scientist agree with global warming is just false. Most government sponsored scientist may agree, but many of them do not agree. These have been fired or put under a gag order for not following suit. Oh and by the way, the polar bear population has been growing.

All of these questions and we are to believe computer models can predict the climate 100 years from now. By the way, much of the temperature data used in the predictions were also created by computer models. It’s all very sloppy and self serving science.

RAMBLE ON!!!

October 13th, 2009
10:52 am

The audacity of it all is Mr. Internet Inventor flew in his carbon-spewing jet to pad his deep pockets with his the shy is falling documentary (sic).

I’m sure as well, like in all the other lectures, if you were to photograph the parking lot outside of these lectures, 85% of the vehicles are gas guzzling 4 runners, jeeps, etc…

The arrogance of liberals is mind numbing. Do as I say, not as I do.

RAMBLE ON!!!

October 13th, 2009
10:53 am

whoops…SKY is falling

Ga Values

October 13th, 2009
11:04 am

In many ways this reminds me of TARP, most of us on this board were opposed to it and saw it as a waste. Cap and Trade is a bigger waste but both of our Senators are in the pocket of lobbyist so they will vote for Cap & Trade and our economy will sink further.

RAMBLE ON!!!

October 13th, 2009
11:05 am

Even the BBC wonders what happened to Global Warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Libraryjim

October 13th, 2009
11:28 am

For those who say ‘we never offer proof’ of the non-human causes, try Googling “Global Warming a Chilling perspective”. There you will find charts, diagrams, maps, historical trends, and fossil records. It’s just one of many such websites that are out there if you really have an open mind and want to search for them, instead of just saying “you don’t have proof — so there! Nyah, nyah!”