Global Warming

Response from Justin, who for some reason refuses to post. Hmph.

That sure is a nice little rhetorical hackjob by Stossel.
First, a few words about his credibility on such exposes:

He has ties to the global warming denying (and industry funded) CEI, which went about defending him when he cited imaginary scientific studies in order to bash organic foods. He has "investigated" numerous pet issues of the CEI over the years and, shockingly, has found that they are dead right on every issue!

Both CEI and Stossel have used research out of context in deliberate attempts to mislead the public about issues concerning climate change and basically anything else he and they want to portray as they see them.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=131
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel
http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-tampering.html

So, basically, take anything he reports with a giant grain of salt. He is a fervent libertarian and perceives science's conclusions that we need to regulate our industry to reduce our pollution as nothing but the boogy man of "socialism."

Now I'll respond to what he's actually reported on as either errors or exaggerations on the part of Gore and the IPCC.
Take note that he has nothing at all to say about the IPCC findings other than attempt to smear them as being lackeys for evil socialist governments. All he can do is attempt to imply they are not objective. Which I find hilarious coming from him.

But this article, written by scientists, does a good job of showing how hollow all Stossel's criticisms are.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/

And here is some info on the various "impartial experts" that Stossel has on his piece:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2006/oct/20/102000626.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272

It is also notable that NONE of the experts used in this piece have ANY peer-reviewed research that proves their assertions. What they are espousing is simply their own personal opinions, nothing more.

I will leave you with some actual scientific conclusions and analysis, but that will likely not do anything, because believing the considered (and peer reviewed) findings of the people that actually study and understand this stuff is apparently not as good as going with your gut (and the free-market ideologue with the spotty record of journalistic integrity and accuracy who happens to have a gut just like you).

But don't let fact that EVERY major scientific body in the US whose member's expertise pertains to the matter have issued statements congruent with the IPCC conclusions influence your viewpoint.

Conclusions aren't made on rational input, they are made on emotions and ideological fundamentals.

I recommend to all of you that if you become injured or sick, don't go to see a doctor or anything crazy like that. Go boil some chicken bones and mix them with pig blood and toss them up in the air, then read their position to figure out what is wrong with you and what you should do. Or maybe just pray.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/CliSciFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/peerreview.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5524/2011a

Finnigan, Dan and anyone else who is swayed by such uninformed tripe as Stossel's work, the site I cited earlier is written by climate researchers that take the time to break down the science used and also critique the reports that one might stumble upon searching the interwebs. I've included an article from Nature that discusses it and corroborates their credentials. It is a great place to go and gain a better understanding of what the state of the science really is and what sort of methods are employed in this kind of research.

The fact that a group of scientists were so fed up with the twisted sensationalism and misleading media coverage of their research that they felt compelled to create a website (in their free time) to provide rebuttals to the punditry and spin that attempted to twist or discredit their conclusions should illuminate how distorted this issue has become outside of scientific circles.
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7020/full/432937a.html

To all:
If you are actually serious about trying to understand the state of climate science I am very happy to provide sources and information to anyone who asks. I'm not an expert by any means, but I have been reading journals and publications for the last 10 years, and I found that the question was overwhelmingly resolved long ago. I'm not sure, but I might be able to give you something a little more substantial than a 20/20 piece.

The simple fact is that the vast, VAST, VAST preponderance of data shows that we are at least significantly contributing to the observed warming, that the warming will only increase and that the effects of this warming will be very deleterious to the industrialized world. The case for action regarding our energy policies is completely justified based on the research and has been for quite some time. Not to mention that aside from purely environmental considerations, our present energy policies are placing us in increasingly precarious economic situations as well as exacerbate global security issues in a number of different ways.

The debate should be over what to do about this, not whether it is really happening. That is a question for the researchers, we can only act on their findings. We face enough questions created by their conclusions to occupy our mental energies.