NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It?

Question

Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?

Such seems likely to be alleged by hysterical alarmists in the press when and if they read a new study out of NASA which determined that "not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

Apparently some of you don't get the point. I never said Global Warming was a myth. However, the "debate" is far from over as to what causes climate change.

Answer 1

No, it is a media driven event, as they follow their liberal heroes around pushing their silly agenda. Here is how they have dealt with climate change in the past.

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."

In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."

In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

When presented with facts. The hysteria can be qualified.

Answer 2

You need to make up your mind.

"NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth"

"I never said Global Warming was a myth"

So which is it? Anyway, it's a fairly interesting finding from a scientific perspective:

"Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said."

My guess is that a lot of the right-wing media will cover this story and distort it to make it sound like global warming has been disproven, just like they did with the NASA story about warming on Mars.

I don't know if the general media will cover it - probably in the science section of newspapers at least. It's not terribly enlightening to the average person, since it doesn't have any broad impact on the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming theory.

Answer 3

Are you really this desperate? You present an article that contains experts speaking of the reality of global warming and present it as exactly the opposite because it claims "not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming" - ie that some to most still are.

Answer 4

Whoa there, carry your horses, chum. circulate back and study the item (the NASA one, not the main suitable suited-wing weblog). It would not say something like that. right it is the main pertinent paragraph: Morison cautioned that collectively as the cutting-edge decadal-scale ameliorations interior the stream of the Arctic Ocean will possibly not seem to be rapidly tied to international warming, maximum climate fashions are watching for the Arctic Oscillation will exchange into much greater strongly counterclockwise interior the destiny. "The events of the Nineteen Nineties may be a preview of ways the Arctic will respond over longer sessions of time in a warming international," he reported. This by no potential finally ends up interior the tip that "Carbon Dioxide isn't the reason at the back of the exchange in climate varieties", as you place it. It in basic terms shows that ameliorations in arctic ocean stream probably weren't by using international warming. in actuality, the NASA scientist concludes that this result might exchange into superior interior the destiny by using international warming.

Answer 5

so it's saying that "some things going on may not be global warming"...

what about the "other things" then?

I'm not going to say every climatic event is due to global warming... but it seems that some are...

Answer 6

In August, NASA also corrected errors in temperature. 1934 is now the hottest day on record, not 1998. (A Canadian scientist discovered the mistake).

That means temperatures were falling while CO2 was increasing. That man-made global warming theory creates more questions than it answers.

This documentary takes less than 5 minutes to watch. It explains climate change:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgVDugSuPOo

Answer 7

Perhaps on a few talk shows such as the one you have named yourself after and a few libertarian or conservative publications. Certainly not on the alphabet networks.

Answer 8

So, from your own quote, some of the changes ARE the product of global warming.

Answer 9

the only myth about global warming is that global warming is a myth

lets get you up to speed before you get brainwashed by right wing conspiracy theories:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

the "whats known" section is complete fact
the "whats likely" section is very likely
the "whats not certain" section could be what you call "myth"

-just in case you actually believe human activity isn't changing the climate - which would be false

-as far as it being a complete disaster- well it could be - or not

Answer 10

Sorry. I don't have time to answer right now, because I'm going swimming at the North Pole.