How do you identify whether Global Warming is occu

Started by pb940072, 07/18/2012 02:25PM
Posted 07/18/2012 02:25PM Opening Post
What are the porported causes of global warming? Does the porported cause(s) yield the effect of Global Warming?

The media seems to get hung-up on temperature, and especially (relatively) short-term temperature trends. We hear stats about local temperature, or US temps, and how we are having the warmest summer, or the coldest winter, ever. We hear about how we are having the worst number of atmospheric storms in 10 years. But it seems that the evidence to support global warming should focus on the globe in general, shouldn't it?

Not asking a question from a 'Red' or 'Blue' point of view. Shouldn't we focus on the causes, and determine whether those causes exist?

Thanks for any thoughts...
Posted 07/18/2012 06:37PM #1
The phenomenon that you are referring to is primarily driven by the sensationalist media and a few zealot scientists that fuel their need for disaster stories. This is the way it has always been with the media. While the media blasts us with speculative ideas about "worst tornado season ever", and "warmest June on record", the facts are usually overlooked. They completely ignore that the long-term tornado record shows that this is a mild season, or that we are in a record low period of hurricanes to hit our country, or that there have been many periods of warmer temperatures than today.

First, before we focus on causes, we focus on the actual temperature (and other data) records, and the evolving science of the proxies to measure such things. Then, if something unusual is measured, the focus can swing to causes. Unfortunately, the most activist of climate scientists focus on causes first, then try to find data that fits the premise. This blatant violation of the scientific method is overlooked by the media in their lust for sensational stories. It may take years, or even decades, to unravel the bad science. For example, none of the catastrophic predictions that Dr. James Hansen has been making since the 1980's have ever come true. The media completely ignores that he has been wrong 100% of the time and faithfully prints whatever new catastrophe he predicts for the future.

As we have noted numerous times here, there are thousands of good scientists using ethical methodologies publishing thousands of peer-reviewed papers about climate and related effects. There reports, while exciting from a scientific progress perspective, show that nothing scary is going on and aren't sensational enough, or are too technical for the scientifically illiterate reporters, to attract media attention.

What is very exciting to the reporters are outlandish hyperbole such as Dr. Hansen's "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death." Or similarly outrageous emotional statements by Kevin Trenberth, Peter Gleick, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones, etc.