Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Global Warming

When it comes to global warming, there's times when I feel like I'm in the middle of one of those old Looney Tunes exchanges:

Bugs Bunny: Shoot him [pointing to Daffy Duck]

Daffy Duck: Shoot him [pointing to Bugs]

Bugs: Shoot him

Daffy: Shoot him

Bugs: Shoot me

Daffy: NO, SHOOT ME!

BANG!

Maybe it's because of stories like this...

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Scientists:  Global warming is a problem

Me: No it isn't

Scientists: Yes it is

Me: No it isn't

Scientists: Yes it is

Me: OK, maybe it is

Scientist: No it isn't

BANG?

Comments

[M1EK]

The Daily Telegraph?

Come ON.

[Tim Haab]

M1EK,

Granted, a conservative slant, but the purpose was more toward pointing out that reputable sources with large audiences are sending mixed messages. Simply because it's conservative doesn't mean it's wrong. That would be like saying that anything the NY Times is wrong because it has a larger liberal readership than conservative.

[Dano]

Bob Carter is a willful misleader.

WMI = 9.0275

_______________

Willful Misleader Index (WMI)

Scale: 1-10

1 = Ideologue who only selectively reading work with words that appeal to narrow worldview.

5 = Innocent, new to issue, seeking information.

10 = Shill, paid mendacicizer, employee of PR firm.

_______________

Best,

D

[DW]

okay, so are the scientists shooting you or your reader? I'm confused.

[odograph]

I find the fact that you see yourself in opposition with "the scientists" to be very enlightening.

And it is of course emblematic of a wider social dynamic.

[M1EK]

No, Tim, the Telegraph is willfully political. The NYTimes has an unconscious liberal (really just an elitist urban) bias. Not the same thing at all.

The NYTimes would report the true state of science even if it opposed their political aims. We already know the Telegraph won't.

[Tim Haab]

M1EK,

ALL English newspapers are political (I just checked with my English friend to make sure I could say that comfortably)--The Telegraph, the Guardian, The Independent, The Times, all of them. My point is, poeple read them and take what is written as fact--even if they are slanted. And the facts on global warming are confusing. But, instead of dismissing entire news sources based on their slant, I instead prefer to try to decipher fact from opinion. And in an article/editorial that claims to use "temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia"--a reputable source--I have an obligation to ask, IS THAT FACT? I don't know at this point, but I am sure there are plenty of people out there that believe it.

DW,

That bang was supposed to be the global warming explosion (hence the question mark).

[Robert Schwartz]

"That would be like saying that anything the NY Times is wrong because it has a larger liberal readership than conservative."

And you would believe anything in the NYTimes because?

[odograph]

Tim, the easy questions to ask are:

- how many sets of climate records exist?
- do those records agree in a simple numeric sense?
- given those sets, do scientists agree on the extrapolation to an "earth temperature?"
- does Bob Carter use a standard extrapolation?

I'd guess, as a casual observer that questions like "how do we average the air column" and "how do we average the ocean water column" would lead to an array of answers. Do they agree on 1998-2005 cooling?

For what it's worth, this graph shows a climb:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/

[Dano]

Tim, the issue is that Bob Carter is a willful misleader and he uses the language of the obfuscators and propagandists to mislead the reader.

If one is more inclined in a worldview to get an emotional response from certain phrases, one is more apt to be duped by this sort of language, used liberally in this op-ed; in my experience, this sort of reader fails to follow-up on the 'facts' given, thus locking in their dupedness.

I'm not sure why you wrote this post, as it is confusing and lacks the clarity of thought that I associate with your posts.

Best,

D

[Tim Haab]

Dano,

If I'm batting .900, I'll take it.

[joshua corning]

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

this might be the graph Mr Carter was using...and the global temp clearly shows a slight decline in global mean temp between 1998 and 2005.

have fun all. :)

[joshua corning]

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/

and this little toy from nasa clearly shows the slight decline between 1998 and 2004...it doesn't have 2005 on it

[David Jeffery]

Nice one Joshua. That graph is pretty telling when you read it alongside Carter's story isn't it? Carter talks about a trend up from 1920-1940 and then down from 1940-1960 and then up again as if these are just all random ups and downs that even out, but if you look at the whole century it looks like a pretty strong solid rise in the first half, a little bit of choppy consolidation in the middle and then a second strong solid rise in the second half.

If that was a graph of the Daily Tele's circulation or stock price I don't think its CEO would be describing it in quite the same way as Carter does!

[joshua corning]

If that was a graph of the Daily Tele's circulation or stock price I don't think its CEO would be describing it in quite the same way as Carter does!

Well if people were claiming that such a rise was unprecedented then that CEO would.

The question is not if there is a rise but if that rise is outside of historical norms, which it is not.

That rushing sound you are hearing between your ears would be the whole argument of human induced global warming being flushed down the toilet.

But take a look at the second graph I pointed to...the one from nasa. It shows the same temp in 1980 and 2003.

ouch! That has got to hurt.

But i should not be so mean to you David. I mean at least you are honest and forward enough to actually make a reasoned arguement. Unlike say dano who's response is to first attack Bob Carter, calling him a "willful misleader" without actaully expaining why or how or where and then to attack Tim's post as "confusing and lacks...clarity" again without actually putting forth a reasoned arguement.

[joshua corning]

speaking about scientists here is one that might agree with Carter.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

[odograph]

A while back Joshua, I put forward:

"The goal, the princple, should be support for basic research held to a high non-political scientific standard."

You rejected that, saying in part:

"Trying to postulate this pure idea of good basic science verses inpure bad political motivated science is a lie. It is all political and you can never get away from it, and the best solution in removing the curruption of science is to not fund it. Let the ideas fight it out in the private sector rather then giveing a certian side the goverment seal of approval depending on who happens to be in office."

... I think you've kind of abandoned the right to name scientists ..according to you it is all a lie.

[joshua corning]

"The goal, the princple, should be support for basic research held to a high non-political scientific standard."

I agree that science should be held to high non-political standard...but in the context you were trying to defend federal funding of science and i was simply pointing out that federal funding by default puts it on political grounds and the only clean way of removing politics from science is to stop funding it with public dollars.

But yeah quote me out of context to make your BS stick...that is constructive.

[odograph]

That was before you pointed to a NASA sudy, right?

[joshua cornings]

That was before you pointed to a NASA sudy, right?

Nasa story?? You must mean the little toy I found here:

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/

...hey i never said it wasn't political...i only ment to point out that it seems to conflict with the hockey teams "consensous" and agrees with the points made by Bob Carter.

But you would have to be crazy to think that what NASA does is not political.

Ever hear of the space race and the cold war?

[odograph]

In related news, Global Warming Skeptics Take a Page from Big Tobacco's Disinformation Playbook

[joshua corning]

Well there is a corrilation with cancer and smoking...probably becouse smoking couses cancer.

Trouble with global warming is that there is no corrilation between increased CO2 and rising tempretures...i mean why was it hotter 800 years ago when CO2 consentraions were lower?...and why the platous instead of a steady gain in temp? and why did most of the temp gain over the last 200 years happen when there was the least amount of CO2? And why did the Temp rise start before the industrial revolution, before large amounts of were poured into the atmosphere?

[odograph]

Why should I care when someone repeats tobacco lobby talking points?

[Dano]

odo, he's just showing you how easy it is to incorporate Tobacco FUD phrases and disinformation tactics into a different issue (although I think Philip Morris would object to the every-other-word-misspelled tactic, tho...).

Best,

D

[Kimber Kenobi]

I got a kick out of this. I'm reading this for my Environmental Issues and Public Policy course and every week I'm supposed to pick a post to reflect upon... this week, well, you can read my post:

Well, I was hopeful for some more interesting material for this week's entry (stuff more like the overwhelming amount from the 22nd) and nada, so I'm falling back to this which reflects my general thoughts at this point... the comments were terribly ridiculous as well. So much argument out of something taken too seriously ... seesh, I understood what he meant! Just read it in its intention, then get a kick out of the amount of arguing it illicited... This got better reaction than did some of the other stuff posted that WAS serious...

--KimberKenobi