Glen Beck is an idiot…

13 comments

With the record snow falls that many folks in the country have seen this year, there has been a disturbing amount of people who are wondering what happened to global warming, even going so far as to suggest that all of this snow means that the idea of a warming earth is completely busted now.

Well, first of all…we ARE getting warmer…that much is a FACT, and the data supports it.  The only thing that is even remotely up for debate is whether or not WE are responsible for the warming or it is simply a natural occurrence.

But, Glen Beck decided to make some comments that were idiotic, and thankfully, some other talking head on MSNBC set him straight.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Features
  • http://None New Independent

    Admin, although I hesitate to call anyone an idiot, I would agree that basing weather predictions on singular instances isn’t wise. I felt the same way when JFK jr and Al Gore did it.

    But I must take exception to your statement that “we ARE getting warmer”. Although Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), is 100% convinced that warming has occurred, he admitted in an interview this past Saturday that the amount of warming since 1995 not statistically insignificant at the 95 % level.

    He also states that we don’t have enough precise data to compare current conditions to previous periods—so any correlation we might try to make must be viewed with great caution.

    I’m re-wording, of course, and my version shouldn’t be trusted. What do you make of the interview with Mr. Jones? Here’s the link. I hope it works.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

  • admin

    I took a look at the article, and he DOES say that statistically significant warming has not taken place since 1995, but he also states that during that time, “The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”

    I agree that we have to approach measuring these things with caution, but the science indicates that every precaution has been taken to examine the data carefully and thoroughly, and that data shows that we are warming.

  • http://None New Independent

    Admin. Close to the significant level? Close? It might be that achieving statistical significance in scientific terms would be more likely for longer periods; but measuring for a longer period might very well indicate a negative trend as well. Right?

    After all, he says that since 2002, the trend has actually been negative by 0.12 C. While this, too, isn’t statistically significant, at the very least we have to admit that nothing has been proven. So can we really say that “we ARE getting warmer…that much is a FACT”?

    I am still trying to figure out what he is saying about concensus among scientists. I think he is saying that the majority of scientists (and even he, himself) doesn’t think the “debate is over”. How do you read his answer to question N.?

    One other point for now. How can we accurately compare climate today to climate in past times if, as Mr. Jones says, “Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below). ”

    Yet he goes on to say “So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

    Not statistically significantly from each other? How can he say that if he doesn’t consider the coverage adequate?

    What do you think about all that? Has anyone else on here read the article?

    Thank you.

  • http://None New Independent

    Admin. I haven’t satisfied myself that I know all about this issue. But here is another turn in the Glenn Beck issue.

    http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/

    What do you think about this?

  • admin

    New Independent…

    This is one of those subjects where I tend to get pretty worked up about, and I don’t want to come across as trying to force my opinion on others…but on this issue, I truly don’t think it is an opinion, it is a scientific fact.

    Having a scientific background, I look at the evidence, and it is clear to me that GLOBALLY, we are getting warmer. What is NOT clear, I don’t think to anyone, is what the results of that warming will actually turn out to be. Lots of folks are suggesting that these mega-snows are the result of global warming, not evidence against it. Personally, I think the events this winter are more related to the El Niño than anything else.

    I think from the link you gave to the interview with Phil Jones, I think that it is pretty clear that he feels that global warming IS happening, and he is working on removing further doubt. As he states in this question…

    E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

    I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

    I wasn’t sure what video you wanted me to watch on the Glenn Beck site, so I’m not sure what to comment on just yet.

    I understand your skepticism. There is still much to learn, and you are not alone. And, as with all issues like this, once people make up their mind, it is awfully hard to change it. However, if I felt that the scientific evidence was suggesting that global warming is NOT taking place, then that’s the position I’d have on it. I don’t view this as a left/right issue at all. My main problem lately has just been with the folks who have used the huge snowstorms to suggest them as proof that global warming is NOT happening…and that just isn’t the case.

  • http://None New Independent

    Admin. What evidence do you have available that is not available to Phil Jones?

    As the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, he had access to climate data from many sources from around the world. And apparently the CRU was one of the most important suppositories of climate research data. Which would mean he surely had available to him all the land, sea and atmospheric data as well as any anecdotal information.

    And all the articles I’ve viewed this past week relies heavily on this very data

    Yet Mr. Jones couldn’t see any statistically significant rise in global temperatures.

    So what source of information do you have that would lead you to believe that global warming has occurred?

  • http://None New Independent

    Admin. Sorry. I didn’t realize that link lead to some sort of catalog. As of 6:57 pm, the one I was talking about is the second one on the left there. Entitled “Media shamelessly Attack Glenn” Selective Editing at it’s Worst.

    They’re just talking heads so it really doesn’t matter much to me which is which. It looks like the lady edited parts of it to make it seem like Glenn Beck said something he didn’t. But I don’t care about that.

    As someone with a scientific background, I was wondering what you thought about the science guy saying it was “unpatriotic” to question global warming. That they were denying science.

    Now it may very well be that Mr. Science Guy took Mr. Phil Jones a little too seriously. That’s understandable because lots of people seem to have done that. But should anyone with a scientific background question anyone who is “questioning” science. Isn’t that the very essence of science?

  • http://None New Independent

    As if to underscore the importance of questioning science, just this past Sunday, Nature Geoscience retracted an article about sea levels rising due to global warming. You can read about it at

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo780.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

    I’m afraid this issue has been clouded with emotion and driven more by ideology than truth and logic. As an example, you might want to read the article

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science

    And note how the author simply attacks those who question the issue without providing a shred of new evidence.

  • http://None New Independent

    Admin. Another turn of events concerning climate change.

    The UK Met office is proposing a new international analysis of land, surface and air temperature data.

    Although the proposal stresses that the MET stands by it’s initial data-set, it feels

    “they are fundamentally ill-conditioned to answer 21st Century questions such as how extremes are changing and therefore what adaptation and mitigation decisions should be taken.”

    Do you read this the same way I do? That they’re not sure what actions we should be taking?

    Here is the proposal.

    ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/SESSIONS/CCl-XV/English/DOCs/pdf/inf15_en.pdf

    Is anyone reading this? I can be patient if someone is digesting and researching. But I don’t want to waste my time if no one is reading.

    Thank you!

  • http://None New Independent

    How ironic. Glenn Beck believes in man-influenced climate change. He even uses the term “idiot” to describe those who might think otherwise. At least that’s what he says in an interview with USA Weekend.

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20100219/ENTERTAINMENT01/100218001/Don-t-judge-Beck-by-his-cover

    I wonder what evidence he has that would lead him to this conclusion that escaped an expert in the field (Phill Jones)? And perhaps he can advise the MET on what 21 century actions we should take—since they are not sure.

    Can you see why I don’t really care what talkings heads say? You’d need a score card to keep up with them.

    Thank you.

  • admin

    Well, basically talking heads are useless…they are self-important blowrods that just like to hear themselves talk. I don’t listen to any of them. Truthfully, I think Jon Stewart is about the only “talking head” on TV that really gets it right. But, I don’t really listen to him all that often, either.

    New Independent, for every article I link to telling you why global climate change is taking place, I’m sure you can find one that says it isn’t, so really, we just end up going around in a circle.

    What it comes down to is that the evidence that I’ve heard has convinced me that global warming is a reality. The only real question may be whether or not humans are the cause, but I believe that at the very least, we are a contributing factor.

    It is hard for me to cite you a specific study or article that has lead me to my belief. I didn’t just decide this over a day or a weekend. This is an issue I’ve followed for almost 20 years, and during that time, I’ve never heard anything to convince me otherwise. Sure there are some uncertainties, but even with those accounted for, I’m fully convinced.

  • http://None New Independent

    Admin.

    I hope you don’t think I’m putting this forth just to quarrel. I’m not. I’m just pointing out that every single aspect of support for global warming has become suspect; from the CRU, the MET, from the heat sensors; from melting glaciers, to tree ring data, to the affect of climate change on food sources in Africa—all of it—has been called into question.

    And isn’t it curious that all the errors are in support of global warming? Not yet has there been data that was adjusted upward. What’s left it anecdotal and we both know that can be presented from both sides ad infinitum.

    Just this last thing and I’ll leave it alone because, as you’ve said, it is very hard to change a person’s mind after they have made it. We can present our cases as best we can and after that it just becomes personal. No need to do that.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Text+-+SciTech%2529

    Thank you!

  • New Independent

    Here’s something to keep an eye on. As we’ve seen, most of the claims about global warming have been proven either exaggerated or outright false. Will this turn out to be another example? History says it will but you never know.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/05/methane-bubbles-arctic-raising-warming-fears/