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.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
80 comments Add your comment
Kyle Wingfield
October 13th, 2009
12:07 pm
Ramble On, thanks for bringing this discussion back full circle…to the very article I wrote about in the first place…
booger
October 13th, 2009
12:20 pm
Library,
Imagine that. A web site about global warming which has charts and diagrams which support global warming. Even the most ardent global warming scientist admit there is no proof, just computer models. And there are many web sites which show just the opposite of your contention if you really have an open mind.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
12:29 pm
Atlanta Native, I complemented you on your points. Wasn’t knocking you or anything.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
12:30 pm
booger, good point about computer models. Computers predicted the Yankees to win the WS for 10 straight years. It also predicted that USC would win for the last 7 years.
Peter
October 13th, 2009
12:35 pm
That must be the reason why Bush had all the Climate Science reports changed during his administration……
Yes Kyle let’s cut all the trees down and pollute everything for Money…… You have got it so together !
booger
October 13th, 2009
12:46 pm
David Axelfraud,
Thanks. The real scary thing about the science being used is that a great deal of what they call raw data is also generated by computer models. Do we really think we know what temperatures in interior Africa, or Siberia were 100 years ago. These figures are produced by computer models, and the fed into the climate change computer models as data. This is sloppy science.
Atlanta Native
October 13th, 2009
12:52 pm
I just wanted to be sure David.
Notice how no one ever can tell you the correct temperature for earth or address livestock emissions or penalize the third world?
Andy
October 13th, 2009
12:53 pm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090205142132.htm
The Snark
October 13th, 2009
12:57 pm
Kyle, let me pose a serious question for you and ask you to think about it and come up with a serious, well-though out answer:
Why in the world is it “conservative” to argue that the planet is not warming?
I mean, seriously — every self-professed conservative seems to have adopted the advocacy of the anti-global warming position as a core belief. I am damned if I know why. I see no inherently “conservative” principle at issue. Is it just because so many of the people alarmed at climate change are perceived to be liberal?
Dude, science is science. Let the scientists debate and the politicians formulate policy. But for heaven’s sake, don’t let politicians enter a debate about science. Neither they — nor you — have the chops to assess the science.
Andy
October 13th, 2009
12:57 pm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113143438.htm
The Snark
October 13th, 2009
12:58 pm
Hey GA. VALUES: Sorry to break the news to you, but TARP passed the break-even point a while ago, and is on its way to making a profit.
Paul A
October 13th, 2009
1:15 pm
Don’t tell Van Jones. He call you an a$$****.
Don’t tell Al Gore. He’ll cut off your microphone.
What about Prince Charles? Now he drive around in his 12 cylinder Aston Martin gas guzzler without regret.
Learn something you enviro-moonbats… The earth takes care of itself. After 6 billion years it can handle whatever…. Asteroids and comets smash into our planet and yet somehow life moves on.
“Global Warming” is just another way for government to exercise control of populations.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
1:18 pm
The Snark, debate is needed. Debate is good. The problem is Al Gore has stated that the debate is over when there never was one to begin with. Another problem is the fact that if you want to debate the subject libs call you names like flat-earthers and nazis.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
1:20 pm
Paul A, anytime the government tells you something is important it never is. During the 70s, Time ran a story about the coming Ice Age. Never happened. The government said that Stimulus was needed to help the economy. It failed. Unemployment is at 10%. The list goes on and on and on. People should make up their own minds and the damn government should stay out of it.
Cutty
October 13th, 2009
1:21 pm
Yeah Axelfraud, we just have dinosaurs walking around now that will replenish oil reserves. You can ‘outtalk’ all the people you want, but your view is a bit too N. Ga backwoods for me.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
1:21 pm
Can any of you global warming believers please ask your congressman/woman if they drive a hybrid, have solar panels on their ten bedroom mansions, or if they fly commercial?
crickets….chirp….chirp……
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
1:23 pm
Cutty, I live in Chicago, finished at Duke and make a nice living for myself. Didn’t grow up in N. Ga, comrade. Oil is not going to run out.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
1:24 pm
Cutty, curious, in all of my science classes, including advanced physics, biochemistry and biology classes, I never heard anyone say that oil came from dinosaurs.
Kyle Wingfield
October 13th, 2009
1:56 pm
Snark: I don’t know that it is “conservative” or “liberal” to argue either side of the scientific debate. I do know that it is factual to observe that temperatures have leveled off over the past decade and that this isn’t what climate models had predicted, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask why this is so — whether there are factors that the models either hadn’t considered or hadn’t given enough weight, whether some of the assumptions fed into these models (which of course dictate what they will produce) were wrong, whether we might cut carbon dioxide emissions all the way to zero without prompting any significant change in the climate.
I do know that it is factual to observe that a growing number of scientists are asking some of these same questions. It is only right in my mind to let this debate play out — not to declare “consensus” because one believes that to be true or expedient, nor, similarly, to declare the whole thing a hoax.
Even if one accepts that the climate is changing — for whatever reason — it does not follow that government must intervene heavily in the marketplace, particularly by picking winners among various companies and technologies. A straight tax on carbon dioxide would achieve the same goal — reducing CO2 emissions — more efficiently and with less market distortion. The fact that so many politicians talk about the urgency of addressing climate change but ignore options like this (or dropping tariffs on ethanol imports…or dropping subsidies for domestic ethanol even though it only increases emissions…or responding to market impulses to increase nuclear power generation…and so on) makes people like me doubt their sincerity, and their motives.
It may be that none of this matters to people who favor bigger government anyway. Which I suppose — your answer, finally! — is why this issue has conservatives and liberals so polarized.
Ga Values
October 13th, 2009
2:26 pm
The Snark
12:58 pm
Better try fact check before sticking your foot in your mouth.
Ga Values
October 13th, 2009
2:33 pm
The Snark
12:58 pm
We are so far under water we can’t see the bottom, check the facts.. Or did the NYT forget to post the profit from AIG & GM. Thank you Saxby and Johnny for throwing our (borrowed from China) money away.
http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table
Ga Values
October 13th, 2009
2:36 pm
Kyle Wingfield
1:56 pm
Saxby will be after your head for telling the truth about Ethanol as most of know he is Senator Ethanol.
The Snark
October 13th, 2009
3:07 pm
Fair enough, Kyle. Thanks.
The Snark
October 13th, 2009
3:09 pm
GA. VALUES:
The Snark always checks his facts. Here is a more recent analysis from
Daniel Gross:
http://www.slate.com/id/2226517/
Ga Values
October 13th, 2009
3:28 pm
The Snark
3:09 pm
There is a big difference between “Might” and “will”.. most reputable business publications are saying LOSS. The Chrysler ,GM money is gone, 1/2 of the AIG is lost and the money that has been recovered will be put into loosing projects like Johnny’s $15,000.00 gift to homebuyers.
“Is TARP Profitable?
The huge government bailout could have cost taxpayers $700 billion. Now it looks like it might break even.”
tcp
October 13th, 2009
3:39 pm
It amazes me to see the level of debate…has anyone checked peer reviewed journals lately? The actual scientists are no longer investigating whether global warming is happening but are now looking at the effects and gauging how various life and climate processes will change. If you’d like to get to the answer…go to the actual science…the bloggosphere is badly contaminated with BS. They no longer debate so the bloggers have to, I suppose. Oh, global cooling has been the focus of one study…not surprisingly conducted by a psychologist.
The Snark
October 13th, 2009
4:04 pm
GA. VALUES: A fair comment. But you started out saying that “we are so far under water we can’t see the bottom,” and that is simply not true.
TaxPayer
October 14th, 2009
9:41 am
Kyle,
I hardly think that you have stumbled upon some earth-shattering discovery with this revelation that the BBC now backs off their former stance. Further, our ability to have a rational discussion has never hinged on such a basis. It just takes two or more rational people with a desire to truly discuss/debate an issue with no underlying motives beyond the search for knowledge and understanding. Once you toss something such as politics or profit into the mix, as usual, all bets are off. With that said, first and foremost, a model is a model and it will always have its limitations based on numerous constraints. Over time, we tend to make advancements that allow us to improve our models and these improvements do tend to alter calculations. Further, the better the model, the more confidence we will have in that model’s ability to ‘predict’ the future. However, one must always be aware that it is just a prediction — it is not a statement of fact and it likely never will be simply because there is too much uncertainty regarding possible future events to ever allow us to create the ultimate magic 8-ball. Scientists know this and they always have, even if some of them do, from time to time, let their human traits mask that fact. So, if it is rational debate you want on this issue, seek out scientists instead of politicians and reporters. Of course, once you do that and acquire some new level of knowledge, the question remains — what will you do with it?
Finally, regarding the data that breaks out of the past strong correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature, there is certainly plenty of activity out there in the scientific community that is geared toward learning more from that information. Personally, I would just be thrilled to see more government funding going toward these areas rather than into bigger and better bunker busters, for example. Of course, that’s just me — a maker of love, not war.
One final thought before I leave on the topic of models and consensus, are you one of those that promotes the need for pre-emptive measures against countries that you perceive as a future threat and if so, what model do you prescribe to and is there a consensus regarding its use.
griftdrift
October 14th, 2009
1:13 pm
Kyle, is it factual to state “the consensus…is falling apart”?
Bish
October 19th, 2009
3:59 pm
Citizen Wingfield and doubters, here is forensic evidence of climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjeIpjhAqsM
The photography of James Balog is irrefutable. Balog began his project doubting man’s contribution to climate change. After documenting the extreme ice melt in all corners of the globe for the past several years, he has witnessed first hand the havoc carbon pollution has wrought.