This conversation is closed.

Have the "global warmers" lost the messaging battle?

One of the worst things the global warmers did was forecast, initially, monotonic warming. If only they had said, "There are natural variations in climate that may lead to stagnation or even temperature reversals, but the overall trend spanning decades will be for warming to occur."

To "see" the effect of global warming you have to factor in ocean temperatures, not just atmospheric temperatures because most of the excess heat will go into heating the oceans. What is ominous now is that we had a strong El Nino in 1998 leading to record warmth. Now we are going into a cooling phase that may last decades where temperatures may rise minimally. When warming again starts 20-30 years from now it will be much worse because the global warming will piggy back "normal" warming trends e.g. a strong El Nino.

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change moved the goal posts. They weren't worried about their computer models if no warming occurred for a decade (it didn't), so then they said they wouldn't be worried if no warming occurred for at least 15 years (no warming has occurred for the past 16 years). Now they say they won't be worried about their models unless warming doesn't occur for 20 years.

Now we have the worst case scenario for the global warmers. They have had to scale back from the worst case scenarios, maximum warming, to the prevailing view that we are not likely to see maximum warming. To the scientist this is science adapting to new data; to the non-scientist it looks like waffling.

Global warmers have lost the messaging battle; unless Americans see sea level rise at least six inches nothing will be done to lessen carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide levels will mean nothing to the average American unless they can see clear tangible effects of these elevated CO2 levels.

  • thumb
    Jun 28 2013: Yes, and I am not sure they ever had it.
  • thumb
    Jun 22 2013: When Al first hit the streets with this Global Warming stuff, I was taken aback. Back in the 70s, we were supposed to be in another ice age by this time. We missed the bullet.
    But the thing that bothered me was the solution to this warming problem was to cut back on the use of fossil fuels. Could it be so simple? I hit the books. So, what did I learn. Global temperature is in a constant state of flux. Sun spot today, volcano tomorrow. No rhyme, no rhythm, it was what it was. Al was pulling our leg and after he invented the internet too..
  • thumb
    Jun 1 2013: It seems to have evolved into two mantras: "EVERYBODY PANIC!!" and, " GOT WARMING??" Maybe we should revoke Mr. Gore's Nobel Prize and use the cash to innoculate the issue from political infection and get to the facts. My theory is untried in politics but might be worth a try.
  • May 31 2013: This question is making AL Gore sick.

    The "Warmers" have changed the message to match reality. Now it's all about changing weather and yet we have had fewer tornadoes (yes even this year) and hurricanes per year.

    Is there an average warming - I have trouble with this because facts have been skewed by both sides.

    Is there weather changes - I saw statistics this morning on the number of hurricanes and tornadoes over last ten years and they are going down. I believe where they hit is the real problem.

    I believe a better message would be to save the enviornment. One visit to China and I am convinced we have it made in the USA in this field. Not saying there isn't room for improvement for the number 2 country.
  • thumb
    May 30 2013: If it wasn't for Al Gore we probably could have had a sensible discussion about climate change.Like "Look guys we're pretty sure this thing is happening and we probably should do something about it. Afteral if we're wrong all we've done is waste our time but if we're right and do nothing it could end badly. OK?" Instead we we had Al "Chicken Little" Gore telling us the world was going to end unless we took immediate action. Hyperbole never helps a reasoned discussion.
    • May 30 2013: One thing that didn't help is that there were 8 computer runs and the iconic hockey stick graph was just one of the eight runs---and the only one that showed such dramatic warming.

      What I don't understand was why when the whole global warming movement got going that no one mentioned that CO2 was rising between 1940 and 1975 yet temperature was stagnant or declining? They KNEW that factors other than CO2 could have a dramatic impact on the climate that were more important than CO2, so why present the simplistic model as CO2 goes up, climate automatically follows? Now we are beginning to understand the role of aerosols and cloud cover.

      Now the warmers are stuck with the realization that they said initially that, "If there was a "pause" in warming for a decade there might be a problem with the computer models." No warming occurred for a decade. Then they said, "If there was no warming for 15 years there would be a problem with the computer models." There was no warming for 16 years. Now they are saying, "If there is no warming for 20 years, there is a problem with the models." When you move the goal posts for whatever reason it doesn't look good.

      As I understand it the most recent Norwegian study is comng in at the lower estimates of warming by the end of the Century. Also, a study in Nature suggests that even though temperatures were 8 degrees warmer in the past than they are now that most of the Greenland Ice sheet survived.

      An interesting NASA study by the Langley Research Center showed that a solar storm dumped gigawatts of energy into the upper atmosphere, the thermosphere, and CO2 and nitric oxide were global COOLING agents. Naturally the anti-warmers went bonkers.
  • thumb
    May 30 2013: They started Cap and Trade in Calif this year.

    But I'm a hoping that they have lost the message battle ...
  • May 29 2013: Depends on what you mean by "lost."

    If your criteria is getting congress to actually do something about global warming, there was never a chance that any messages would succeed. Congress will do something about global warming only when business is hurt by global warming, and not before.