Media Snow Job: Weather Events Used to Cast Doubt on Reality of Climate Change
To hear certain cable news figures tell it, the existence of winter weather raises doubts about the reality of global climate change. Can the Earth's climate really be getting warmer if it's still snowing, they ask. Such a simplistic non sequitur might be funny were it not for the melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels, and the misinformation imparted to viewers by those entrusted to inform them.
"[T]he press has accepted the basic threat of [global] warming and is now prepared to address the cost and feasibility of various solutions," writes Curtis Brainard in a recent issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. Apparently, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and various anchors on Fox News missed that memo; either that, or they actually believe the fact that it snowed in Las Vegas during December or that there was snow and ice on the ground in Washington, D.C., in January contradict the fact that the Earth's climate is getting warmer. If so, they don't know the difference between weather and climate. If not, it would seem they knowingly deceive their viewers.
Given that understanding science can be difficult for even the intelligent and open-minded, allow me to suggest that cable news anchors and hosts check their facts at a website whose information they should be able to digest: the Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Change for Kids. According to the EPA's website for children, weather is "whatever is happening outdoors in a given place at a given time" -- including "daily changes in precipitation, barometric pressure, temperature, and wind conditions in a given location" -- while climate refers to "the total of all weather occurring over a period of years in a given place." The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says on its website that climate refers to "the average of weather over at least a 30-year period (emphasis added)." This includes average weather conditions, routine weather sequences (the changing of the seasons), and specific weather events (blizzards and hurricanes). So, winter snow showers: weather; global average temperatures over the last half-century: climate. And just for the record, climate scientists have made quite clear that short-term changes in the weather, let alone a specific weather event like a cold snap or winter snowstorm, have absolutely nothing to do with the evidence that the Earth's climate is warming.
Indeed, the suggestion that December snowfall in Las Vegas or January ice in D.C. are somehow relevant to discussions of global warming reflects either a profound ignorance of basic science or a juvenile attempt to deceive viewers. Yet some media figures participate in this snow job nearly every chance they get.
In one particularly inane episode, on the January 28 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck had a car sit idling outside the television studio during his show. Beck said it was "for no apparent reason, other than it's really cold in New York." But Beck's stooge in the idling car, Stu, said he wanted to make the point that former Vice President Al Gore "look[ed] ridiculous" for testifying before Congress about the perils of global warming when there was "snow all over the East Coast." By keeping the car idling, "[w]e're just doing our part for global warming," he added. Got that? A man sitting in an idling car to do his part "for global warming" thinks Al Gore looks ridiculous for testifying about climate change in winter, when there is snow on the ground.
On January 28, after Gore testified about climate change before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, MSNBC's Chris Matthews said on Hardball that Gore "can't seem to get his message pegged to the backdrop" because he came to Washington, D.C., to "sell global warming" while the city is "under ice." Similarly, in February 2007, when a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on climate change was cancelled because of severe winter weather conditions in Washington, D.C., CNN's Wolf Blitzer called the situation "ironic." Suggesting that cold weather and snow cast doubt on the reality of global warming, Blitzer said:
"[T]he House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee was scheduled to hold a hearing on all things global warming this morning. Ironically -- get this -- it was canceled because of the winter weather conditions here in the nation's capital. It's cold out there."
Of course, lost in all this "irony" about the weather are the facts about global climate change. The planet is getting warmer. There's no debate about that; there is a scientific consensus. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level," according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 Synthesis Report.
Yet the snow job continues. During the introduction of his December 18, 2008 show on CNN, Lou Dobbs said that "unusual winter storms are dumping snow in unusual places across Western states, and a huge snowstorm is headed toward the Northeast," before asking: "This is global warming?" Throughout the show, Dobbs repeatedly teased the segment about the storms by falsely suggesting that current weather conditions have some bearing on whether global warming is occurring. More recently, on the February 2 edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, host David Shuster noted that there was snowfall in London, across Southern Europe, and into Morocco, and asked: "So where's the global warming?"
In an article noting that climate skeptics had seized on a recent cold spell, The New York Times reported that "Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said that any focus on the last few months or years as evidence undermining the established theory that accumulating greenhouse gases are making the world warmer was, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, a harmful distraction." To that I would add the quips of cable news figures who can't resist focusing on the most recent winter's snowfall or cold snap to suggest that such weather events are at all related to the issue of global warming.
While we probably can't expect Beck, Hannity, and the rest of the fine folks at Fox News to behave differently, Blitzer, Matthews, and others in the mainstream media should know better and should resist the temptation to use a cold or snowy day to suggest that such conditions call into question the fact that our planet is facing a climate crisis. It's factually incorrect. It's not witty. And it perpetuates the falsehood that the science on global warming is not settled, which undermines the incentive to begin acting to address the problem.
So, for those journalists who actually take the facts and their own credibility seriously: enough with the snow job. You really look silly. And if you don't believe me, have a look:
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-24-michaels_x.htm
"It also insists that what is depicted on the screen has already started.
"Did you know," says the site, that there were more tornadoes recorded in May 2003 than in any other month?
I looked up federal tornado statistics, and indeed they're going up, and there was a peak in May 2003. Then I determined the number of radar stations and their type. When our first radar-tracking network was established in the 1960s and '70s, the number of tornadoes rose proportionally, then leveled off until the new Doppler radars came online in 1988. It took a decade to put this system in place, and the number of reported tornadoes went up accordingly.
Then I plotted the number of severe tornadoes. If anything, it's going down. So the flashy Doppler radars are merely detecting more weak storms that cause little, if any, damage.
The Web site also implies that global warming is making hurricanes worse. Christopher Landsea, the world's most aptly named hurricane scientist, has studied the maximum winds in these storms as measured by aircraft and finds a significant decline. "
January 2009 global temperature anomalies:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=01&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=01&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
So it was noticeably cold in the upper midwest and northeast parts of the U.S. and western Europe - areas that make up very small fractions of the Earth's surface. It was quite warm almost everywhere else. The small areas of cold are some key populated areas where important policy is made. As a result, it provided some good propaganda for the contrarian political hacks.
I do not see global warming as a useful term in discussing how peoplekind are ruining the earth for the rest of us. I prefer the term climate change, a term that covers hot spells, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, droughts, and snow. I don't understand people who deny climate change. After all, the weather was perfect on February 21, 1966 and has been going to hell ever since.
This article is hilarious.
The important fact is that climate change genuinely is more complicated than a simplistic warming trend. This is where the climate change deniers are really causing a lot of harm. They prevent any rational discussion. Greenhouse gas levels could cause warming, but warming could trigger an ice age, or it could intensify weather extremes like hurricanes. *ALL* of those possibilities are bad, and they're still bad whether or not human activity is the cause.
And has anyone ever considered that less pollution might be a good idea even without climate issues?
Geez, I would have thought the troglodytes would have gotten tired of bloviating by now. Yes, kiddies, there are a handful of cranks and head-in-the-sand types who can cherry pick all sorts of "proofs" that human-driven climate change is a myth, but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence(that's how real science is done) points towards human activity driving rapid change in the biosphere. Too bad if you don't get it; that's just how it is, children.
Real science is data based and reference to "Authoritative" opinion is religion - not science .Such references sometimes may be interesting but are not evidence. You simply make unsupported assertions as do most AGW believers. Please refer to the actual data bases that point towards AGW. Then a reasonable dicussion of the interpretation of the data is possible.
There is no reference to "Authoritative" opinion in the comment by doriath. There is a reference to "preponderance of evidence." Data can't point to anything. Data has to be explained by science. A scientific theory or model combined with data can be used to understand what nature is doing. So the earth is warming - see my other post with data - the averages since 1880. How do you want to start a reasonable discussion?
According to Bill Gray, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, there has been a cooling trend since 2001, based on ocean temperatures. He said that contrary to what the global warming Cassandras hold, increases in carbon dioxide have contributed only a small fraction of the roughly one degree Fahrenheit warming that has been observed since 1850.
His prediction is a modest naturally driven global cooling over then next 15 to 20 years, similar to what took place from the 1940s to the 1970s. Then, there was hysteria about the coming of the next ice age.
Though reducing emissions is desirable, he says that as a scientist, global warming claims are overblown.
Bill Gray is good as to his predictions about HURRICANES...so ask him about that, otherwise consult an anstronomer and he will point to Venus as a good proof of global warming.
IT IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT THAT WHEN YOU INCREASE THE DENSITY OF AN ATMOSPHERE, IT''S TEMPERATURE GOES UP...
JUST LOOK AT VENUS PEOPLE PLEASE...
I live in mid {Longview area} East Texas. When I was a kid and a young man we had snow storms and ice storms at least a couple times a year. It has been at least a decade plus since we had measurable snow. Last Ice storm was about 2001 in January. The snow line has pushed North about 90 to 100 miles.
Wow, how about that, one dingbat I never heard of contradicting literally thousands of other climate scientists. I'm convinced! Maybe you can find someone to tell us gravity doesn't exist either, 'cause I really hate gravity!
Bill Gray is not a source for global warming science. His ideas have been discredited, his climate science has not, because it does not exist.
True AGW believers like John Delicath get very disturbed if anyone questions their faith in the IPCC - Al Gore paradigm - "The science is settled " they cry fearing factual discussion.
Because of the inherent variabilty in Northern Hemisphere land climate and uncertainties in the relaiability of many of the land based data , for purposes of discussion the Hadley Center Sea Surface Temperature data set provides the most reasonable picture of what the actual global temperature trend is. (Google Hadley Cru scroll down to SST GL)
This data shows the following.
1. Global Sea Surface temperatures have been falling since 2003.
2. Peak temperature was 1998
3. From 1903 - 2003 global temperatures rose a little under 1 degree.
4. 2008 was cooler than 1997 . 11 years during which CO2 rose 6% with no net warming.
5. From 1941 to 1975 temperatures dropped while CO2 rose steadily.
6. There is little empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 makes much difference to temperatures.
There is a whole body of Solar and Ocean Current data which sugests that the earth may be entering a Dalton minimum with significantly cooler temperatures for 20 - 30 years . The lack of development of Solar Cycle 24 is ,every month it continues,making this crop reducing cold spell more likely. If it does develop we will need more CO2 to maintain food supplies to feed the 3 billion extra mouths expected by mid century.
I sugest that John practices what he preaches and checks
fact check your fact checking, the hadley center data shows blatant warming trends
I'm copying and pasting from the parent site:
Fact 1
Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it.
Fact 2
Temperatures are continuing to rise.
Fact 3
The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle.
Fact 4
Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone.
Fact 5
If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix.
Elefantnhaus - as is typical of AGW proponents you seem unable to distinguish opinion from data. Look at the numbers I referred to - they are the "facts ". in this case your quoted fact number two is simply a lie the rest are opinions. Look at the numbers I quoted and form your own opinion.
I was born by the Caribbean; the beach I used to go every Sunday is gone.
Sea levels are rising in the tropical regions of the world obeying the laws of physics. Equatorial glaciers are disappearing at an alarming rate.
Why don't we see that in the news? The only issues we see is that there is a blizzard here and there in the winter (Helloooo?) but there is no coverage of the real warming that is taking place in the regions of the world that are warm (warmer) already.
The misinformation campaign is a disgrace; once the Equatorial glaciers disappear for good there will be no water to drink and irrigate crops.
The earth's climate had cycles of warming and cooling long before humans arrived on the scene. Therefore, humans are not causing climate change.
Lung cancer existed long before tobacco arrived on the scene. Therefore, tobacco does not cause lung cancer.
Forest fires existed long before humans discovered fire. Therefore, arsonists do not cause fires.
Q. - freakin' - E. D.
Correlation does not equal causation.
The "Global warming when it's snowing out!?!?!" idiocy reminds me a bit too much of hearing people say "A monkey don't just turn into a man whenever he wants'ta". I believe the bottom line in both cases, is that a lot of people can't fathom events that unfold over a span longer than their own lifetime, and bigger that what they can directly observe.
Why is it that the harsh cold winter we have been having in the U.S. this year is explained by global warming advocates as an indication of an extended "weather" pattern rather than climate change (they point out the difference in the two). But at the same time the severe drought and hot spell in Australia, something that's not new to the history of the world, is being blamed on global warming and not just the "weather".
Climate changes. Always has, always will.
"Come on in when it's rainin'. Go on out when it's gone." (The Good ol' Grateful Dead)
So if we do something that causes climate to change it's OK?
Carbon dioxide is the new Bin Laden, and we can longer afford to take chances.
What do we need? Another war, of course. A "Global war on climate change"(GWACC)-or maybe the more sonorous "War on Warming" (WaWa). Instead of Cheney's Halliburton, we could have Gore's Carbon Trade and Cappers . We can create the Carbon Enforcement Administration (CEA), and the Department of Atmospherial Security (DAS). This will give us an even greater scope for intervention-military or otherwise-abroad, and we wouldn't have to confine our adventures to the Middle East-we could slap sanctions on Mexico for having too many wood burning fires, Argentina for having too many cattle (methane flatulence), and China for violating the Smokestack Non-proliferation Treaty.
Climate hysteria is to the radical left what "terrism" is to the radical right- a control mechanism that instills fear and trembling in the masses, and seeks to render them passive as their rights and liberties are slowly degraded, and their standard of living erodes to the point of squalor.
"Argentina for having too many cattle (methane flatulence), and China for..."
Eructation, rather.
Yes, eructation, correct. And I should have wrote "atmospheric" as opposed to "atmospherial"
I keep telling people that we should stop calling it Global Warming. It's much more complicated than that. We should call this process CHAOTIC CLIMATE CHANGE. That way, we can move on from the silly conversation about a snowstorm in Denver proves nothing's happening. The fact that we can't get past this, is a good justification for more science instruction in K-12 schools.
You are right.
It should never have been labeled "Global Warming".
Too many people take that at face value, rather than educating themselves about the actual effects of climate change.
Climate change, OK, but is it really chaotic? I didn't think it was.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
