Did anyone watch John Stossels report on global warming?

Question

I wasn't home, I had to record the program. Did anyone watch this? Was it good and informitive?

Did Mr. Stossel's report stand up to the science du jour?

Opinions and thoughts about the show please.

Gee Bob, is it any worse than Dr. Hansen claiming half of New York City would be under water by now? Where his appology?

When did science become a consensus of like minded thinkers anyway? What ever happened to science being objective? Was it too much work?

Answer 1

I did not get to watch it, I was on a fishing trip. But I read the transcript, it sounds like the debate is not over.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/10/20/abcs-stossel-takes-gore-movie-talks-dissenting-scientists

.

Answer 2

I missed the Stossel report, but what I read about it on newsbusters (thanks for the link!) was a little disappointing. He talked to Christy and Spencer who are good scientists, but it doesn't sound like he talked about anything of substance. For example, Spencer and Christy just published a peer-reviewed article about a negative feedback they found over the tropics. They believe this is confirmation of the "infrared iris effect" hypothesized by Richard Lindzen. This is a hugely important discovery.

I didn't see the work of Anthony Watts discussed or Roger Pielke or Stephen McIntyre or Stephen Schwartz or Hendrik Svensmark.

Did Stossel talk to any of these guys?

Answer 3

Nah, I quit wasting my time on Stossel years ago. He would be interesting if he actually brought something to the issues he covers. But he doesn't. He is only interested in manufacturing controversy for self promotion and advertising dollars. I checked his article at abcnews.go.com/2020 so I could be fair in answering your question. Already answered above - same tired old debunked stuff. Nothing original.

For anyone who is interested:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

nice answer eroticohio

edit:
Bob - Thanks for the link, I had no idea Stossel was so one sided. I thought he was just a self promoting buffoon. He's much smarter than I gave him credit for. He's a neoconservative freak who packages his tripe as "news" instead of commentary to foist it on the unsuspecting. Makes you wonder about ABC and Disney. Well, if you didn't already.
edit:
Eric - Yeah, I'm attacking his message and him personally. He's a proven biased commentator promoting lies. That is not debate.

Answer 4

It was the usual inaccurate Stossel stuff. See:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1133

for lots more examples.

"Stossel's errors are often so obvious that one wonders how they could have ended up on the air. "

Also:

http://www.ewg.org/reports/givemeafake

ABC apologized for that one.

The show was simply a few "skeptical" scientists saying what they've been saying. Nothing new. Certainly nothing that changes anything or any minds. This is still truth:

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

EDIT Ron C - You are confusing John Stossel with someone who actually thinks. Of course he was incompetent in even understanding the skeptics. newsbusters is cut from the same cloth - just mindless "conservatism".

eric c - I'm not attacking his character, I'm attacking his competence. Much different.

Answer 5

I couldn't say, Jello. That depends on your perception of the science du jour. Why don't you check it out and see for yourself? You can read the transcript here:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3751219&page=1

And watch the segment here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_FI0U5JOtoo

Needless to say, I found the whole thing old, tiresome, and completely unconvincing. The show seemed like it was meant solely to stir up controversy and ratings for Stossel's segment, and it will completely fail to convince anyone who wasn't convinced from the get-go. It was, in short, a complete and total waste of time.

Answer 6

There's no such thing as "science de jour." Science is science is science, that's why they call it science.

I don't tend to watch any information-based program that doesn't present a balanced view. I have a journalism background and I'm funny that way, wanting more than one viewpoint so I can take the information presented and chew on it some before I digest it.

Answer 7

Have you noticed that instead of attacking what John Stossel said, the alarmists try and attack his character. One of the points in the report is that people are trying to stifle debate. The people above are proof of it.

Answer 8

I didn't see his report, but I read his article. He doesn't seem to be saying anything new, and nothing he says can serves as a real challenge to the global warming data. I sense a number of parallels between the arguments against global warming, and the arguments against evolution. The evidence in favor of global warming is not as overwhelming as the arguments in favor of evolution, but nevertheless there is a similarity. In both cases, virtually all of the scientists who specialize in the field that is relevant to the theory in question take the evidence seriously. All biologists take evolution seriously, and virtually none of them think the theory is simply wrong (many think the theory has limitations, and virtually all of them expect future development of the theory, but that's just the nature of science). Something very similar can be said about global warming. Virtually all climatologists take the evidence for global warming seriously, although some of them are less concerned about it than others. I suppose you could call this "a consensus of like minded thinkers," but it would be foolish to claim that their consensus implies a lack of objectivity. The more likely explanation is that the evidence is simply too strong for experts in climatology to ignore.

What is interesting is to notice who the critics are. In both cases, the most severe critics (those who grab public attention by claiming that the theory is wrong), are either non-scientists, or scientists from some other field. Their opinions can be found in the popular press, but you can't find them in any peer-reviewed scientific journals. So when Stossel asks "Why don't we hear about the other side of the global warming argument?" the answer might be that, from a scientific perspective, there simply is not much to report on. It is in the nature of science to question every aspect of a theory, but the overall conclusions keep turning out the same: The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that we should favor environmental conservation. We can't say for certain what will happen if we keep polluting at our present rate, but we do know that all of our best projections show big problems if we don't find ways to cut back on our environmental impact.

We should keep in mind that having scientific expertise in one field does NOT mean that you have expertise in all fields, but being called a "scientist" does give you immediate public credibility in popular headlines. Thus you can find headlines saying that "Scientists question global warming" – but this is ambiguous in a couple of ways. You have to ask at least two questions: 1) What is the field of expertise of these scientists? 2) In what sense do they "question" global warming? Since scientists tend to question virtually everything, it is really no big news that they question various aspects of global warming. But would they say that we should go on with business as usual and not be concerned about the evidence for global warming? No. Practically no scientist (and absolutely no climatologist) would say that.

As you imply in your question, we need to keep in mind the logical fallacy of "argument from authority." Just because experts say something, it does not mean that it must be true. You cannot use "experts say so" as a premise in a good logical argument. Nor does the lack of expertise in a particular field mean that you can't make a good argument about a theory in that field. Nevertheless, when virtually every scientist in a particular field of study takes a certain theory seriously, the burden of proof is upon the critic to show where the theory is wrong, and so far the critics of global warming have been unable to do this.

Concerning a specific issue mentioned in the article, Stossel is partially correct in pointing out that melting arctic ice does not necessarily raise sea levels. But it depends on what ice we are talking about. The North Pole is basically a big floating ice cube, so melting it would not affect sea level. But in the case of Greenland and the South Pole, the ice is sitting on land, so melting would raise sea levels.

As I see it, global warming is just one of many good reasons for thinking that we should try to minimize pollution. I don't want to argue global warming issues in depth at the moment, but I do want to say one thing about Stossels' libertarian concerns. He concludes by saying "And the politicians would have one less excuse to take control of our lives." The implication is that national and international pollution control policies amount to government controlling our lives. Well, yes, if you are planning to dump tons of pollutants into the environment, then I'd say that you should expect the government to take some control over your life. Even if, in the long run, the predictions of global warming did turn out to be wrong, I don't think future generations would look back and say "What a bunch of idiots! They should have just kept dumping carbon into the atmosphere." No, they are more likely to thanks us for erring on the side of caution.

Answer 9

Reading the transcript, not surprisingly Stossel doesn't discuss the science, he discusses the politics. Boooooooooring.

Answer 10

No, didn't see it. Watch An Inconvenient Truth. You can rent it. We have a global problem and you should worry.