Talk:Climate change

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search




It's looking bleak for global warming alarmists. The newest evidence is slowly laying the global warming crisis to bed. For the last 10 years, the earth has been cooling down (,25197,23411799-7583,00.html) and the methane in the atmosphere is demonstrating patterns that are inconsistent with the theory of industrially generated global warming ( Leading politicians and scientists are speaking out against the false consensus ( The MSM in general tends to be biased in favor of the man-made global warming hypothesis, so many of these revelations aren't getting that much publicity; however, these sources are reliable. One of them is the horse's mouth himself.

My question is, given the high probability that man-made global warming and quite possibly global warming in general will be discovered to have been a myth all along, how will some on this site respond to it? Are you guys willing to accept that you might be wrong? Please note that until very recently, I was on the pro-global warming side, although i never was convinced that it was a crisis, and I always understood the KYOTO talk to be a huge red herrning.

"It is "fair and accurate," for example, to say that most climate scientists believe human activities are contributing to global warming, so there is no need to take a "neutral point of view" with regard to this question."

Can you provide a source such as a well-known polling corp. to support this claim? Because this climatologist cites Gallup as measuring that his colleagues disbelieve in it 2:1. [1] I hate to bust up the page which was supposed to be a model of NOT giving disinformation, and on one hand, Cato itself is biased, but OTOH, it's a high-profile sort of site and I've never known them to be SO biased as to run a falsehood, especially since this citation can be verified with or the societies which this Climatologist mentions. I'll change it to something...less controversial for now, and please provide a source if you re-post this. This could be interesting... :-)

Richard Lindzen, the climatologist who wrote the column to which you refer, is one of the few working climatologists who continues to cling to a position of global warming skepticism. It appears that his column was written in 1992, and the opinion poll to which he refers was conducted in 1991. That's 13 years ago, which is a long time. In the ensuing years, considerable new scientific evidence has accumulated, and scientific opinion has moved more strongly toward consensus in support of the conclusion that human activities are contributing to global warming. But even so, the survey to which Lindzen refers doesn't support his claim. You'll note that he doesn't provide a citation specific enough to let you find and read the survey itself. However, I did a Google search and am pretty sure that it is the same survey that was cited by Rush Limbaugh and columnist George Will, who used it in 1992 to make an argument similar to Lindzen's claim. The full citation is as follows:
The Gallup Organization, A Gallup Study of Scientists' Opinions and Understanding of Global Climate Change, November 1991. Available from the Center for Science, Technology & Media, 6900 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD.
Here's how that same survey is described in a brochure by the Environmental Defense Fund, titled "The Way Things Really Are: Debunking Rush Limbaugh on the Environment":
These numbers, apparently lifted from a George Will syndicated column of September 3, 1992, 23/ are supposed to reflect the findings of a Gallup poll taken in late 1991 to ascertain the opinions of research scientists concerning global warming. Even though polling is of doubtful relevance for determining the scientific truth of any proposition, it should be pointed out that nowhere in the actual poll results are there figures that resemble those cited by Will or Limbaugh.
Instead, the Gallup poll found that a substantial majority of the scientists polled, 66 percent, believed that human-induced global warming was already occurring. Only 10 percent disagreed, and the remainder were undecided. [2]
Of course, the EDF has an agenda (as does the Cato Institute). However, I see no reason to believe that its agenda is less trustworthy, and unlike Lindzen, the authors of their brochure have provided a full citation to the actual Gallup poll. I took a look on Gallup's website, and they don't appear to have online access to surveys that old, but if you want to try to find a copy and report back here on what you find, please do so.
As for the positions of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, those are both a matter of public record. Here are links to official position statements that they issued last year:
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (the most prestigious general scientific body in the world) has issued a number of reports reaching similar conclusions. In a 2001 report, for example, it stated that the IPCC "does an admirable job of reflecting research activities in climate science." You can download that report, or simply read the accompanying press release, from the following URL:
--Sheldon Rampton 22:06, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)


I just noticed that there are ZERO Congresspedia articles linking to climate change. Artificial Intelligence 07:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)