CNN Anchor Asks If Approaching Asteroid Was Caused By Global Warming

Outside the Beltway

CC0 Public Domain image via PxHere

CNN Anchor Asks If Approaching Asteroid Was Caused By Global Warming

Doug Mataconis

February 10, 2013

Comments

CNN Anchor Deb Feyerick must have been asleep during science class:

After wrapping up a Saturday afternoon segment on the impact climate change may have had on the extreme winter weather that hit the Northeast this weekend, CNN anchor Deb Feyerick turned to a feature on a large asteroid that will just miss earth as it passes by this weekend.

“We want to bring in our science guy, Bill Nye, and talk about something else that’s falling from the sky, and that is an asteroid,” said Feyerick. “What’s coming our way? Is this the effect of, perhaps, global warming? Or is this just some meteoric occasion?”

“Except it’s all science,” Ney said rescuing Feyerick. “The word meteorology and the word meteor come from the same root, so…”

Ney went on to discuss the asteroid which has missed impacting earth by 15 minutes. He says if this body were to impact over a populated area like New York City, that municipality would be completely leveled.

I suppose Nye is too much of a gentleman to point out just how much of an idiot that question revealed Feyerick to be.

Here’s the video:

43 responses to “CNN Anchor Asks If Approaching Asteroid Was Caused By Global Warming”

Franklin

February 10, 2013 at 10:00 am

He also might be too much of a gentleman to point out that his name was misspelled in the article at least twice.
Just Me

February 10, 2013 at 10:16 am

I assume she skipped one too many science class.
Dave Schuler

February 10, 2013 at 10:17 am

She graduated from Barnard so I’m guessing that it’s an acquired disability.
JKB

February 10, 2013 at 10:18 am

Well, Nye hasn’t revealed himself to be to smart about AGW either.

But, “You are not a rocket scientist, are you?” would have been a good question for this fine product of probably one of our finest universities.
Justinian

February 10, 2013 at 10:32 am

Feyerick is not an idiot. Her question is merely reflective of the idiotic times in which we live.

A year ago I read an article about how an unusually large iceberg, the largest in fifty years, was just calved in Greenland. The article reminds us that “it was an iceberg that hit the Titanic”. It went on to tell us how seriously global warming needs to be taken. The article appeared under a syndicate, such as Associated Press or some such; it was printed in hundreds of newspapers.

Of course, the article did not say that the iceberg was calved (as they all are) off a glacier, and if anything is evidence of global cooling, not warming. And, of course, it was not an iceberg that hit the Titanic; it was the Titanic that hit the iceberg, as anyone who knows anything of the disaster is aware. And, again, there is nothing really estraordinary about occurrences that happen every fifty years: they are rare, but not unprecedented.

But the editors allowed to be printed this obvious spinmobile from the global warming scientists. (Unlike everyone in physics, chemistry, astronomy and so forth, those in the field of global warming insist on being called scienctists, and so I have italicized the word and suppressed the urge to put it in quotation marks.)

If manmade emissions of carbon dioxide can cause especially large icebergs to calve and possibly hit ships in the area, especially when volcanic eruptions which emit thousands of times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere don’t, why cannot carbon dioxide cause asteroids to fall from the sky?

It is as fair a question as any other in the global warming debate (excuse me: global warming indisputable assertion of fact; same reason for italics as above.)
cd6

February 10, 2013 at 11:28 am

I like your reasoning. “A year ago I read a bad magazine article. Ergo, global warming is a hoax.”

Checkmate, liberals.
rudderpedals

February 10, 2013 at 11:47 am

It doesn’t seem sportsmanlike to go after n00b newsreaders but that’s just me
11B40

February 10, 2013 at 12:01 pm

Greetings:

Unless, of course, the mere mentioning of global warming/climate change/climate whatever advances the narrative in a Josef Goebbel’s “Big Lie” kind of way so appreciated by our current rulers and the low information voters they so love.
matt bernius

February 10, 2013 at 12:02 pm

@Justinian:

Of course, the article did not say that the iceberg was calved (as they all are) off a glacier, and if anything is evidence of global cooling, not warming.

Care to take a breath and explain the logic of that statement?

If manmade emissions of carbon dioxide can cause especially large icebergs to calve and possibly hit ships in the area, especially when volcanic eruptions which emit thousands of times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere don’t, why cannot carbon dioxide cause asteroids to fall from the sky?

The entire “Volcanoes add more C02 into atmosphere than Man” has been scientifically debunked countless times. For a start see:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
JKB

February 10, 2013 at 12:29 pm

Look, she’s just a new reader who had to improv a segue, which she did poorly. The video above doesn’t show it but she’d just did the AGW tie in with the NE blizzard as she led to the Nye interview. Then when doing the lead in, she went to asteroids since that was apparently what Nye was there to talk about. Look, meteors are nature, global warming is nature, blizzards are nature, they are all connected somehow in her closed-system mind.
de stijl

February 10, 2013 at 12:48 pm

@Justinian:

the article did not say that the iceberg was calved (as they all are) off a glacier, and if anything is evidence of global cooling, not warming

Please explain your logic here. I’m sure it will be very enlightening.
Justinian

February 10, 2013 at 12:51 pm

@matt bernius:

In response to the following exchange:

Justinian: Of course, the article did not say that the iceberg was calved (as they all are) off a glacier, and if anything is evidence of global cooling, not warming.

matt bernius: Care to take a breath and explain the logic of that statement?

Icebergs are calved off of glaciers that are advancing. A clear case of global warming. Also, a glacier on Mount Ranier is retreating, as can be seen from the fact that the glacier is not so far advanced as it was when the road was built right next to it some fifty years ago. Another clear case of global warming.

The entire argument may be summed up as follows:

Major Premiss: When glaciers advance, it is evidence of global warming. Global warming is causing the glaciers to advance.

Minor Premiss: When glaciers retreat, it is evidence of global warming. Global warming is causing the glaciers to retreat.

Conclusion: Everything is evidence of global warming. Global warming is causing everything.

If Deb Feyerick, like all the rest of us, is expected to believe that global warming causes glaciers both to advance and to retreat, then why is she ridiculed for asking whether global warming can cause asteroids to come frighteningly close to the earth?

As I said at the outset, she is merely reflecting the idiotism of the times.
Justinian

February 10, 2013 at 1:47 pm

@de stijl:

In response to de stijl:

The entire “Volcanoes add more C02 into atmosphere than Man” has been scientifically debunked countless times. For a start see: [and then links to two articles and a web log.]

Narrow (and somewhat boring) answer The first article did not address major eruptions such as at Mount St Helens and Mount Pinatubo. It merely concerned what is coming out of Mount Kilauea, a very quiet, but still active, volcano, and other, “normal” volcanic activity.

The real substance of second article is by two established volcanologists. The first asserts that an explosion of the magnitude of Mount Saint Helens emitted no more carbon dioxide than 2.5 hours of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, and the second volcanologist agreed. Although I would want more than just two persons to attest to such a thing, I have no authorities to cite on my side, and must therefore cede the point.

The third article is a web log and of doubtful reliability.

Broad answer Nevertheless, it does sound fishy to me that changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, of under one twentieth of one percent of the whole, can cause largescale climate change when the earth, as a whole, glides by entire major volcanic eruptions with hardly any discernable effect on the climate. Also, every single plant on the face of the planet is respirating carbon dioxide in and releasing oxygen out. Just as rain does indeed clense the atmosphere of particulate matter, just so do plants keep the carbon dioxide level at its current level of about 1/3 of 1 percent of the atmosphere.

Both these considerations show that the earth has a resiliency to maintain its overall climate, however violent may be the latest hurricane or snowstorm.

* * * * *

An analogy In the early part of the twentieth century, lots and lots were known about the spread of disease, but almost nothing was known about the human immune system. It was a scary time indeed in which to live. Why we didn’t all die of communicable diseases was one of the greatest scientific mysteries of the age.

There was a time when every model of the earth’s climate had the planet freezing over. None of these computer models were credited with being reliable because they were discordant with known reality. Now, all of a sudden, we are to believe computer models that the earth is going to warm catastrophically, when the researchers don’t even let others examine the computer programs and hide them, calling them trade secrets.

Obviously there are dynamics at play making the earth a safer place than these models project. Physical science still does not know the dynamics of the earth’s climate to be able to produce a publishable computer model that will pass a reality check.

In the meantime, I’m not installing mercury-filled lightbulbs into my home, whose toxicity if they should break is known and is beyond reasonable dispute, nor will I fall for any of the other components of the global-warming set of agenda.
ptfe

February 10, 2013 at 1:58 pm

@Justinian: Except for the massive flaws in your understanding of ice dynamics, you’re entirely right.

(1) Icebergs come from both glaciers and ice shelves. The most visible and largest icebergs of the last decade have come from the ice shelves off Antarctica; these are, by definition, non-glacial, as they form in the ocean.

(2) Obviously your definition of an advancing glacier is failing you. A glacier “advances” when its leading edge moves ahead, but this isn’t the same as the glacier expanding or growing. All glaciers of significant size move downhill, regardless of whether they’re losing mass or not. In fact, one of the concerns with the large glaciers in Antarctica is that, with the loss of the ice shelf, some of them are now being exposed to open air, which is increasing their melt rate and causing them to flow more readily; the result is a shrinking glacier, even though, in your universe, this would be an indication of “advancing”. (And, actually, water is a lubricant, so more melting upstream typically leads to additional flow rate — i.e. if the glacier starts melting, it tends to move quicker, causing the glacial mass to descend, warm, and melt even more.)

(3) Actually, the fact that a glacier juts into the ocean is the only specific indicator that an iceberg will calve from a glacier. Take a look at this glacier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobshavn_Isbr%C3%A6 — not only is it retreating, but it continues to calve. “[I]f anything is evidence of global cooling.” Pure, uninformed bullshit.

But, you’re right, the calving glacier is not a sign of global warming; glaciers do this anyway. What is an indicator of warming is that the iceberg in question is calving from a glacier that has (overall) significantly lost mass.

Ultimately, glaciologists don’t give a crap whether a particular glacier is advancing or retreating; they care about the fact that the overall ice mass is declining, which means a glacier is shrinking. In places like Mount Rainier — where glaciers are moving down significant slopes — this causes the glacier to appear to retreat, as the downfalling mass melts much more quickly than everything above it, so the leading edge moves back (this is simple loss of mass at the front edge); with thick glaciers in Greenland that are jutting into the ocean, the glacier may appear in any given year to advance a small amount, but the net effect of each season of the last 20 years has been a loss of mass (i.e. a thinning).
ratufa

February 10, 2013 at 2:06 pm

@Justinian:

Increasing temperatures, up to a point, cause increased snowfall (hint: warmer air holds more moisture; every drop of snow that falls had to evaporate from somewhere).

Increasing temperatures cause melting in areas that were barely below freezing before the increase.
matt bernius

February 10, 2013 at 2:13 pm

@Justinian:
Wow, to quote Shakespeare, all of your posts are “a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

I’m not sure where to start. You’re explanation of your initial claim that “calving is is evidence of global cooling” makes no argument other than to set up a strawman that “people who support global warming suggest that advancing and receding glaciers are both signs of global warming. Beyond being a strawman, you don’t even justify your initial assertion — all your response does is call climate change people idiots.

More so you ignore what actual scientists (here used as a catch all phrase — i’d love to see some proof that claim that Climate Change scientists don’t go by their field title) have stated on the subject. See for example, this article, which notes that calving isn’t a reliable indicator for climate activity, but that glacier trends remain an important measurement —
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFM.C62A0913T

Additionally, I would add that on the topic of calving, it’s important to note *when* glaciers are calving (there is evidence that the season is lengthening and moving progressively earlier in the year), *how often* they are calving, and at what relative latitude they are calving (i.e. are they calving higher than traditionally seen).

Finally, I should note that it’s perfectly in keeping with climate change models that some glaciers are advancing. The issues is where, on average, they are advancing or receeding.

As far as your response on volcanos, it can basically be summed up with with your characterization of “skeptical science” as “The third article is a web log and of doubtful reliability.” Note the message on the websites “about” page:

Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

This is conducted using scientific process with full citations. BTW, here’s another one of those “dubious” summaries of the data — you know actually linking to the data — http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/volcanic-vs-anthropogenic-co2/

And really your actual admission that you don’t know what you are talking about comes here:

Although I would want more than just two persons to attest to such a thing, I have no authorities to cite on my side, and must therefore cede the point.

You don’t like the answer — one that is published via the peer review process — and so you choose to more or less dismiss it, while admitting that you can’t actually summon counterfactual published data (you know there’s a thing called google).

And yet you continue to assert that your position (i.e. skepticism based on personal belief rather than hard data) has some sort of equal footing in this debate.

BTW… on the volcano subject, a quick google search will find numerous scientific papers that back my assertion, not yours. But I’m sure that’s some vast conspiracy…

And of course, you’re arguing from logic versus feeling.
ptfe

February 10, 2013 at 2:31 pm

@Justinian: Wow, your conspiracy theories are amazing.

“There was a time when every model of the earth’s climate had the planet freezing over.” When? Name the authors of these models. Go ahead, amuse us all.

There are multiple computer models relating to global climates; organizations like the IPCC use these multiple models to come up with a reasonable assessment of how the climate may move, as well as the bounds of that motion. Some of the models are not freely available — i.e. the developers use them for commercial purposes — but any that are developed under government grants are available. Have you contacted any of the designers to find out if you could get ahold of them, or are you relying on heresay to say “they won’t release them!”?

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a concern because of the volumetric increase. Think of it like BAC: you have a couple drinks, you’re going to hit 0.04%, and you’re probably ok. Double your intake, and you’re at 0.08%, and you really shouldn’t be driving. Up that to 0.12% and you’re probably unable to walk right. Increase to 0.16% and you’re going to black out. Increase to 0.2% and you’ll pass out almost immediately. If you get to 0.24%, you’ll be unconscious, with the possibility of death. But in every case, you’ve only very slightly changed by a fraction of a percent of your total blood volume. In the last 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by over 25%. And the current slope has that increasing by about 5-10% every decade. In other words, we’re heading for a 50-100% increase in CO2 volume in about 100 total years (starting in the ’50s). That’s huge in atmospheric terms, and if you think it can be blamed on volcanoes, you have a significant burden in showing that these volcanoes are suddenly spewing out such huge volumes of CO2 that they aren’t able to be taken up by natural processes over the course of several years (which is what normally happens).

Mercury in CFL: Really feeble argument. Typical CFL bulbs have about 4 mg of mercury, though many are down at the 1 mg level at this point. OSHA exposure limits (ceiling limits) are 0.1 mg/cu.m. So if you break a CFL bulb in a totally sealed 40 cu-m space, you’re at this level (if you wait for the vapor to disperse). Just for reference, a typical room is 3 m tall, so that means a bulb broken in a 10’x10′ room will get you there. But, again, the room has to be sealed, and you have to sit in it and breathe the air. And remember, this is the OSHA standard — it’s not the toxicity level. Pretty lame, Milhouse.
Justinian

February 10, 2013 at 3:05 pm

@matt bernius:

In reply to matt bernius, immediately above.

You are right: I should not have asserted that the calving of the iceberg, if anything, was evidence of global cooling. Nor is it evidence of global warming, according to the highly informed response of ptfe. Therefore, we are all in agreement that it isn’t evidence of anything. Then why did a group of climate scientists put forth a press release linking it to global warming (excuse me, global climate change)? To advance their political agenda.

I am faulted for dismissing a web log of 247 comments. I am supposed to have looked at the “about” button instead to find the credentials of the lead author. Sorry: but when pointed to a web log of 247 comments, obviously I could not reasonably be expected to read it.

And what are the credentials of the author of its lead author? He is, and I quote,

John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.

This guy is paid to promote the agenda of climate change. It’s right there in the title of his place of employment: “Global Change Institute.” He is not a faculty member at a department of climatology. He is not neutral: no way, no how.

And now, after having exposed someone who is paid to advance the global climate change agenda, I am faulted for not immediately accepting the opinions of two volcanologists, who, so far as I can tell, might be part of the same network. Then I even cede the point, since I was unable to provide any expert testimony for my assertion. What more do you want?

It isn’t a conspiracy theory when a place calls itself the Global Change Institute. It is a conspiracy fact. The people in these places must spout the same party line or they will lose their jobs.

And notice the very high bar that is placed, with burden of proof set on the other side:

To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

And how are we to know that the “science” of these papers does not come from researchers, like Mr. Cook, who are paid to arrive at a result that comes up one way and not the other? Oh, but they are scientists.

Again: there was over a hundred years of sincere, scientific controversy surrounding the Copernican hypothesis that the Sun was the center of the universe (which, in fact, it isn’t, come to think of it). Now, in the 1970s, climatologists tell us that the earth is cooling, and something drastic needs to be done. No, that didn’t work. In the 1980s, that the earth is warming, and much, much needs to be done. That didn’t work either. And so it is now that the earth’s climate is changing, all due to manmade effects, not the fact that it has changed, is changing, and will always change because that is how things are. But we are all flat-earthers for not believing, immediately, what comes out of the Climate Change Institute.

Every time a mercury-filled lightbulb breaks in a family’s home, a child suffers at least some brain damage as a result. Why don’t you email John Cook to find out how this is not so terrible, or is not in any way linked to the fact that Global Warming theorists bamboozled Congress into requiring such a thing. I’m sure, seeing how he is paid, he will think of something. His continued employment, after all, depends on it.
Justinian

February 10, 2013 at 3:57 pm

@ptfe:

In reply to ptfe, who wrote

“There was a time when every model of the earth’s climate had the planet freezing over.” When? Name the authors of these models. Go ahead, amuse us all.

I will not be able to meet the exact burden of proof you have placed upon me, but will substantiate the assertion nevertheless.

The time was way back in the early 1990s. I was out on the job market, and there was an opening in climatology nearby. I was interviewed.

The person told me (so nearly as I can remember after all these years), “You must know that climatology is a very young science. It’s not like celestial mechanics or chemistry. For example, the biggest prize in climatology is to come up with a computer model of the earth’s climate.” (Obviously, prize is meant in the form of professional recognition, not an actual result of a competition.)

He continued: “No one has yet come up with such a model. All the models anyone has come up with so far has the earth freezing over. It has the planet cooling some, which causes ice to form, which reflects back sunlight, and the process repeats, until the planet is solid ice.”

Oh how climatology has advanced since that interview! It has made more progress in the past twenty years than celestial mechanics was able to make in the hundred years after Copernicus. It has obtained, as they say now, indisputable evidence in favor of anthropogenic ~~global warming~~ global climate change. And all caused by minute changes in the perfectly normal and harmless gas of carbon dioxide.

And it is so much further advanced than fluid mechanics, which has been the subject of mostly unsuccessful analysis all the way back to Newton. Mathematicians still cannot mathematically model the turbulence of air across an airplane wing, and what actually happens must be measured in a laboratory. Turbulence is just too complicated to be reduced to computer models yet.

What a blessed age we live in that climatologists can come to such results in a field that must make fluid mechanics look simplistic, and come up with these results so quickly and so indisputably. It’s just incredible!
Tyrell

February 10, 2013 at 5:16 pm

@Justinian:Headlines: “Monster Blizzard Hits NE” Is this evidence of global warming?
I have read books about freakish weather and climate. Among other occurrences and things I read:
“Dark Ages”: it was actually a time of darker, cloudier weather. Due to a volcano or something ?
Anyway, the earth cooled off and this led to less crops = less food = weaker population = more susceptible to the plague. But I always wondered why some people recovered from the plague disease and others did not get it at all, even they were around all the others who did.
Hurricanes as large as several states – eons ago.
Weather and climate was much more volatile long ago.
rodney dill

February 10, 2013 at 5:54 pm

Just own it liberals.
al-Ameda

February 10, 2013 at 6:06 pm

Well, her question just discredited the whole notion of Climate Change.

Can we move on to discrediting the critics of Todd Akin?
sam

February 10, 2013 at 6:13 pm

Make you a deal Rodney, we’ll cop that if you guys cop to this:

Fox News Claims Solar Won’t Work in America Because It’s Not Sunny Like Germany:

“The industry’s future looks dim,” intoned host Gretchen Carlson at the beginning of the segment…She and her co-host went on to ridicule Obama’s “failed” solar subsidies, adding, “The United States simply hasn’t figured out how to do solar cheaply and effectively. You look at the country of Germany, it’s working out great for them.” Near the end of the segment, it occurred to Carlson to ask her expert guest, Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, why it might be that Germany’s solar-power sector is doing so much better. “What was Germany doing correct? Are they just a smaller country, and that made it more feasible?” Carlson asked.

Joshi’s jaw-dropping response: “They’re a smaller country, and they’ve got lots of sun. Right? They’ve got a lot more sun than we do.” In case that wasn’t clear enough for some viewers, Joshi went on: “The problem is it’s a cloudy day and it’s raining, you’re not gonna have it.” Sure, California might get sun now and then, Joshi conceded, “but here on the East Coast, it’s just not going to work.”

Two things. Apparently Joshi thinks the East Coast starts somewhere north of Florida and the Southwest is not part of the United States.
al-Ameda

February 10, 2013 at 6:38 pm

@sam:

Two things. Apparently Joshi thinks the East Coast starts somewhere north of Florida and the Southwest is not part of the United States.

Maybe they were confused, after all, maybe they meant “Germantown” and aren’t there about 4 or 5 of those here in America?
Scott O

February 10, 2013 at 7:47 pm

@rodney dill:
I think you’re a bit confused. She’s a news anchor, not a VP nominee.
Barry

February 10, 2013 at 9:29 pm

@Justinian: “Of course, the article did not say that the iceberg was calved (as they all are) off a glacier, and if anything is evidence of global cooling, not warming. ”

I’m fascinated by this – please do go on.
Barry

February 10, 2013 at 9:41 pm

@Barry: (sorry for a redundant comment)
mattb

February 11, 2013 at 9:09 am

@Justinian:
So basically you have no argument and no scientific data to back up your side.

This gets to be the bigger problem with modern “conservatives’ like you — you are acting like the liberals you so dislike. You want to be a self styled intellectual, and yet, you refuse to actually act like one.

Again: there was over a hundred years of sincere, scientific controversy surrounding the Copernican hypothesis that the Sun was the center of the universe (which, in fact, it isn’t, come to think of it).

DO YOU REALIZE HOW STUPID THIS POINT IS?
You are talking about a scientific community made up of (a) far fewer scientists who were (b) connected by far slower means of communication and (c) dealing with far less accurate equipment which was (d) far less readily available. It was a fundamentally different world and one in which the scientific method had yet to be fully developed. Not to mention there were other serious cultural factors at play.

To forward project those conditions on the world is the height of anachronism.

Look science is extremely conservative by it’s nature. And the fact is it resists change. So, if anything, the rapid acceptance of climate science and the publishing of that material in peer related journals should be taken as actually pointing to the fact that things are probably further along than many realize.

The fact is that there is no serious question within the scientific community that climate change is occurring at an unnaturally acelerated rate. You cannot be a science-based skeptic of that question.

Or if you think you can make that argument, don’t refer back to ideas of ‘fluid mechanics’ — find peer reviewed publications that make your argument. Because if you can’t… then guess what, it’s a BS argument. Because if it can have been proven, then someone would have published on it.

Your anecdotes don’t mean shit when it comes to science. And the fact that you seem to think that they do says far more about your tenuous grasp on the scientific process and the broader state of Climate science (which encompasses a lot more than simple climatology) and the fact of climate change.

Where legitimate skepticism (i.e. fueled by science versus personal belief) is possible in the climate debate is (a) to the specifics ways that human activity effects the climate and extent of that effect, (b) the broader/long term effects of climate change, and (c) what can be done to mitigate those effects.
mattb

February 11, 2013 at 9:34 am

@ptfe:
Dude, you need to preface those sorts of quotes with a bit of Bill Murray:

Dr. Peter Venkman: Back off, man. I’m a scientist.
ptfe

February 11, 2013 at 10:14 am

@mattb: The most effective appeal to authority for Justinian apparently would have been more along the lines of, “I’ve worked in the private sector — they expect results.”
john personna

February 11, 2013 at 10:42 am

@JKB:

Let me guess JKB, you think you’re our “science guy” and have it all over Nye?

(No, Nye actually has pretty good science, but casting that before modern American conservatives is like seed on barren ground.)
john personna

February 11, 2013 at 10:46 am

@Justinian:

Actually no, we don’t have to use crude advance/retreat measurements. Radar can directly measure ice load on Greenland from above. Link.
john personna

February 11, 2013 at 10:47 am

@rodney dill:

I’m not sure Rodney, rather than “was it GW,” shouldn’t she have been less bullied by her liberal bosses and asked the real question?

Was it Obama?
Adam Jenson

February 11, 2013 at 1:26 pm

@matt bernius: That’s a cute argument, and it may even be true, but it does not change that fact that volcanoes have a much greater impact on climate then human activity. Ever hear of the 1816 “Year without a Summer”? It was caused by a volcanic eruption AND a decrease in solar activity (we of course all know the sun has NO effect on climate *cough*). The temperature fell by 0.4–0.7 °C and it caused major food shortages across the northern hemisphere.
Franklin

February 11, 2013 at 1:49 pm

Awww, isn’t that cute? Someone learned a factoid from WorldNutDaily and wants to share.
charles jandecka

February 11, 2013 at 2:33 pm

It is only fitting a woman would ask this question. She has touched on an ancient truth. Currently called “Mother Nature,” the cosmic energy of the universe is actually the feminine deity Shakti (Hinduism). That being the case, then turbulence created on Earth thru pollutions and the like would naturally ripple outwards into space which may then cause stuff out there to radically oscillate.  Actually what is written above is pure nonsense … the Biblical record being incontrovertible.
matt bernius

February 11, 2013 at 3:00 pm

@Adam Jenson:
No one here argued that large volcanic eruptions cannot have a short term effect on climates. But there is no evidence of their influence on long term climate trends (i.e. the multi decade warming trend we are currently in).

On the other side, there is an increasing amount of reviewed, scientific evidence that suggests that human activity (i.e industrialization) has been causing a long term rapid, sustained increase in global temperature at rate of change far faster than the earth has experienced in the past.

So unless you can bring actual scientific evidence of that, rather than a single historical example of short terms effects on a microclimate (geographically speaking), you have in no way made any sort of worth while point or, in any way, disproven what peer reviewed studies have demonstrated.
Tsar Nicholas

February 12, 2013 at 8:57 am

Fortunately CNN’s audience is so tiny that this sort of nonsense can’t dumb down the populace any further than they’ve already been dumbed down. So there’s that.

As for this Deb Feyerick woman, a journalism degree + leftism as a political ideology + zero real world experience = idiocy on a staggering scale. And although CNN itself has little to no relevance Deb Feyerick definitely is relevant. She’s an archetypal example of the sort of demographic that’s placed the country on a one-way ride towards being a de facto banana republic.
Justinian

February 12, 2013 at 6:36 pm

@mattb:

Outside the Beltway is demoting this blog, but I do feel I should reply to mattb’s post, above. Matt wrote

The fact is that there is no serious question within the scientific community that climate change is occurring at an unnaturally acelerated rate. You cannot be a science-based skeptic of that question.

This is simply false. A Nobel laureate in physics resigned in protest from the American Physical Society after that organizaiton passed an official resolution saying that anthropogenic climate change was “indisputable”. Ten thousand others signed a petition asserting their dissenting opinion on climate change. I myself know persons who work in physics who know how difficult, how very difficult, science is to perform, and have a hard time believing that climatologists can really have a handle on the earth’s climate to that level of detail.

I am accused of BS for not citing peer-reviewed articles. If that is the standard, then every entry on OTB, for the past ten years, is BS. You probably have never done any real research yourself if you think someone can just go find peer-reviewed articles for the purposes of making blog entries. And, notice, I don’t see any of the proponents of global warming theory citing peer-reviewed articles here. No, burden of proof is entirely on the other side.

Those who sincerely doubt the theory of antrhopogenic global warming are being vilified and called non-scientists. Those who do not toe the global-warming line are being forced out of their jobs if they are in climatology, and the fear is that the tyranny of the global warming theorists will spread. The scientific community has seen this malignant dynamic happen before under Lysenkoism (see the Wikipedia article if this is new to you). Those studying biology in the former Soviet Union had to make sure that nothing they wrote could possibly work against the peculiar genetic theories held by Lysenko. Those that did had their careers, and sometimes even their lives, ended. We in science are very much concerned that these same dynamics are being witnessed here. We are already seeing the careers of perfectly fine and well trained climatologists being ruined, and we can only wonder when, and where, these dynamics will end.
Rich

February 12, 2013 at 8:18 pm

Wow the trolls have come out in force. But for this? Panic must be on the rise amongst the initiates.
bill

February 12, 2013 at 10:06 pm

@Tsar Nicholas: and they remind me of people who would sign this!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/ban-dihydrogen-oxide.html
matt bernius

February 14, 2013 at 12:02 pm

@Justinian:

A Nobel laureate in physics resigned in protest from the American Physical Society after that organizaiton passed an official resolution saying that anthropogenic climate change was “indisputable”. Ten thousand others signed a petition asserting their dissenting opinion on climate change.

The Nobel Laureate in question — Ivar Giaever — work is in the area of Semi-Conductors. Likewise, the majority of signers of the Oregon Petition are researchers whose area of expertise has nothing to do with Climate Science (most are Mechanical Engineers, other signers include Medical and Veterinary Doctors).

While all these people have expertise, none of it is particularly applicable to climate science (which despite you’re constant reference to Climatologists, goes far beyond Climatology). Expecting them to voice an expert opinion on Climate Science is like asking a Podiatrist to give qualitative reviews on Neurosurgury. Pretending that just because someone’s a physicist, they have special insight into all things physics and all subjects physics is bunk.

I am accused of BS for not citing peer-reviewed articles. If that is the standard, then every entry on OTB, for the past ten years, is BS. You probably have never done any real research yourself if you think someone can just go find peer-reviewed articles for the purposes of making blog entries.

First, I am actually in the process of getting a PhD, so I know more than a bit about research and the availability of excellent resources like Google Scholar (not to mention countless other research repositories).

But, to your larger point, you were making a science based claim and yet could not present any serious science to back up your claim. And the fact is, if papers were out there that supported you (and other denialists) they would be easy to find. However, the majority of denalist material has been published in venues that have no peer review (such as your claim about Volcanoes, which comes from Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth”, which was not reviewed by outside scientists).

So please, come back when you actually have data to back up your points.
matt bernius

February 14, 2013 at 12:11 pm

@Justinian:

And, notice, I don’t see any of the proponents of global warming theory citing peer-reviewed articles here.

Bullshit. Pure and simple Bullshit.

All of the sources I linked to contained citations to peer reviewed material. Or were produced by government agencies that release all of their data.

So don’t try and pull that type of out right lying.

Again, so me some actual science to back up your bias… Or STFU.