The best science available suggests that without taking action to fundamentally change how we produce and use energy, we could see temperatures rise 9 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit over much of the United States by 2090.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110507305.html
Lets see how realistic that is. According to NCDC, the US is warming at 1.2 degrees per century. (Half of that is due trend to upwards USHCN adjustments, but that is a different conversation.)
During the past decade (2000-2009) US temperatures have been falling at a rate of 7.3 degrees per century.
So where does the predicted 9-11F rise come from?
It appears that the political support for catastrophic global warming is rooted in people who have their heads planted firmly up their nether regions.
BUT
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/nasa-global-warming-could-plunge-north-america-and-western-europe-into-a-deep-freeze/
The MSM is not interested in finding the truth. They know they have a story they can turn into the next “cold war” scare to build readership of their useless rags. They have no desire to kill this golden goose.
Journalists, democratic politicians, greenies and lawyers…………………….. Incapable of seeking or understanding the truth.
If you draw a line from the trough around 1995 to the peak in 2005 it has about the same slope as your red line and their prognostication.
Might have been a (repeated) typo.
Might be blind, pig ignorance.
Might be a scam.
All of the above. Or, if it’s worse than we thought, just the last two.
Enjoy your extra hour of sleep….☺
I have well researched proof that since last Sunday the temperature at my house has fallen 10f and if this keeps up I will be under a glacier by the end of December.
Here in the Northern Hemisphere it has been observed that the days are getting shorter and if it continues the Northern Hemisphere will be plunged into darkness by next June!
OH NO! Mr Bill!
Once again, Steve, this is an opinion piece, not a news article or editorial. The writer is not on the Post staff; he is a fellow at the Center for American Progress.
It is not correct to attribute this to the Post.
You do this repeatedly. Do you not understand the difference, or what?
He is just reflecting the official crap being recited by the authorities.
So? What does that have to do with it?
This is not the Post’s prediction. It’s Bracken Hendricks’s opinion, and he’s not affiliated with the Post in any capacity.
Stating that the Post is making this prediction is simply incorrect. It has nothing to do with the content. Since you strive to be correct in all your posts, I feel confident that you will stop doing this.
Perhaps you can persuade the Post to allow an “opinion” piece by Steve .
It is against their “Progressive Nature” to allow open discussion on “Settled fantasies”.
As I have noted on multiple occasions, the Post routinely–as in every day–prints conservative opinions. The op-ed page is evenly divided between liberal- and conservtive-leaning writers.
Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn’t read it.
The Enquirer write and allows both sides of the issue to be published also.
You are right I do not read WAPO unless some brilliant article is linked to that site such as this piece of junk which reduces the credibility of the publisher. They have editors that should be able to determine the worth of publishing garbage opinion pieces.
In my line of work I had customers in the News business from papers to radio and Television as well as internet so I talked to people in the industry.
My niece’s husband was an editor for a local paper, his job was to decided what was fit to print.
Again, Mike, this has nothing to do with the inaccuracy of Steve’s page title. It’s factually and obviously wrong, and none of you, Steve included, seem to care in the least. You just keep going off on tangents about who the author is friends with and where he’s getting his information from and how the Post is just liberal propaganda.
Every word of that could be completely accurate and it still wouldn’t make the page headline right.
Why do you think I write this blog?
Whatever your motives for writing this blog, they are completely irrelevant to whether or not this headline is correct.
It is not.
Why don’t you care? Oh, it must be those “motives.” Accuracy isn’t important, only motives?
One of Joey’s buddies. When he was referring to “Leading scientists” he was probably referring to America’s leading Climate scientist (in his own mind) Joe Romm! He did use the plural so maybe Joe is suffering from Schizophrenia or he included Big Jim in the group referenced.
Not relevant.
It isn’t relevant that scientists are constantly feeding this crap to the press? LOL
Why do you think I write this blog?
Pay attention.
Mike’s reply was not relevant to my comment, which is what he was replying to.
The content and who the author is friends with has nothing to do with the simple and obvious fact that this was not the Post’s predicition, as you stated.
Oh, LOL.
In some countries the publisher is responsible for all that is published and can be sued for liable for not restricting what is published. That is why they have editors. The fact that this is an example of quite a bit of what is published in WAPO puts it in the same league with HUFPO. If it was published in the “Comedy section where it belongs I do not think Steven would have mentioned it. WAPO has a tendency to lean a bit left when publishing.
WAPO has a tendency to lean a bit left when publishing.
Not in the op-ed pages, it doesn’t. You’ve already stated that you don’t read it. I do, every day. It’s my hometown newspaper. The op-ed pages are balanced between liberal and conservative opinion.
But, more importantly, you’re still thinking in terms of the content. The content doesn’t matter. Opinion columns do not necessarily reflect the paper’s editorial position, and often, like this one, are written by individuals not affiliated with the paper at all. These are simple facts.
The Post always prints George Will’s regular “Global warming is BS” columns. It printed Palin’s “Global warming is BS” column. Does this mean that the Post thinks global warming is BS?
The headline is wrong, and you’re all trying to hide behind content and politics and everything else on the face of the Earth rather than simply admitting that it isn’t right. Not one of you will man up and say, “Yeah, you know, Steve, I agree with you and everything you say, and this column is a steaming pile of bullshit, but, you know, in the interest of accuracy, it’s actually not the Post’s prediction.”
Why is that?
ChrisD:
The MSM are all guilty of promoting this Bull. I am sure there are front page articles available reflecting just this level of virtual reality / fantasy.
In reality it is you that are guilty of promoting the fear because you still subscribe to junk journalism rags like the WAPO. Without the support of gullible Sheeprle such as you the MSM would have realised they needed to provide real science to exist. It seems the Sheeple want fantasy rather than science and the op-ed piece shows that WAPO is promoting the fantasy.
Still not relevant. Sorry. The content has zero to do with this. It is an error of fact to say that this is the Washington Post’s prediction. It isn’t.
You have all the sublety of a ………….
And in regard to this:
How does that square with this and this?
If you’re going to claim that the Post is “promoting the fantasy” by printing this op-ed, is the Post also promoting the idea that global warming is BS by printing those?
You can’t have it both ways.
You have all the sublety of …
Pointing out simple facts does not require subtlety.
You just seem to never understand what is going on.
Oh, no, I understand perfectly what’s going on. Anyone without blinders can see what’s going on. It’s not that difficult.
This opinion piece was as factual as one claiming scientists are now researching the visitors from off planet that were having a picnic on the Washington Mall last week.
Would that get printed?
Jon Stewart had his rally there last week. I suspect you are correct.
I have to agree with ChrisD. Reporting this as “The Washington Post says . . . ” is inaccurate and is ultimately counterproductive.
The heartbreak of proctocraniosis.
Is that the definition of being PC? 🙂
Does the article contain the text: advertisement or commercial information or
propaganda? If not the entire content of the article falls under the journalistic responsibility of the paper or magazine that publishes it.
If not the entire content of the article falls under the journalistic responsibility of the paper or magazine that publishes it.
Then so do the anti-AGW op-eds by Will and Palin and others. They’re all opinion pieces. An opinion piece does not necessarily reflect the editorial position of the publication that contain it, and it is factually incorrect to ascribe those opinions to the publication. This is a simple fact of journalism that some people here, including the blog owner, seem unable to comprehend.
ChrisD says:
November 7, 2010 at 2:24 pm
This is not the Post’s prediction. It’s Bracken Hendricks’s opinion, and he’s not affiliated with the Post in any capacity.
they printed it, they own it.
it’s called “responsibility”
Then they also “own” Sarah Palin’s and George Wills’s columns. This means that they both endorse and reject anthropogenic global warming. Please explain how this is possible.
If you think this is the Post’s prediction, you don’t understand op-ed pages. It’s not at all uncommon to find two columns with diametrically opposed opinions on a particular issue on the same Post op-ed page. If that isn’t proof that the page doesn’t represent the Post’s editorial stance on issues, I don’t know what would be.
So in your world, newpapers are not responsible for what they print. That is why they have Nazi, Al Qeada and KKK columnists on their staff.
And the scientists who feed them the garbage are certainly not culpable.
You seem bound and determined to ever avoid discussing science. I can’t think of a single time when you have done that.
So in your world, newpapers are not responsible for what they print.
No, in my world, the opinion expressed in an op-ed isn’t necessarily the newspaper’s editorial opinion and should not be ascribed to the newspaper. I’m trying to help you understand this simple concept.
You seem bound and determined to ever avoid discussing science. I can’t think of a single time when you have done that.
Then you haven’t been paying attention.
Steven:
I have seen Chris misuse the word science a few times on this site.
Folks, just remember that this is all a word game for ChrisD. He doesn’t get it that his mind travels on a different wavelength. Not bad, just different. Best to just ignore the silly word game and go on with life as though there is no ChrisD. Reminds me of Bot topic on the WUWT site.
i have advocated several times ignoring chrisd
but he makes a salient point on this issue, in the context of a political argument.
IMHO, politcians are liars, newspapers are liars and are almost always factually incorrect.
it’s all moot anyways.
Chris D, you may be ‘technically’ correct , and maybe the title might have been “Article in Washington Post predicts . . ” Others, as noted, think that if a paper prints an article, they ‘stand behind it’.
But that isn’t even the point as I see it. The article predicts 1 degree warming per decade, which is just plain ridiculous based on the the plot Steve shows.
Your carrying on about it OVER and OVER again shows why a lot of the readers think you are being ridiculous. Nitpicking everything that is put down.
. . and you wonder why the posts are picking on you so much . . .
Sorry, it’s not nitpicking. Claiming that a newpaper said something it didn’t say is serious, significant, and incorrect. And Steve does this repeatedly.
Your carrying on about it OVER and OVER
Only necessary because Steve and the rest of you (with two exceptions, for a change) don’t seem to get it and keep bringing up thnigs that aren’t relevant.
if a paper prints an article, they ‘stand behind it’.
If we believe that the Post stands behind this, then it must also stand behind these, all of which appeared on the Post’s op-ed page:
“The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue. ”
“The [CRU] e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.”
“The president should boycott Copenhagen.”
Do we all think that the Post “stands behind” these statements? No? So it only stands behind some of the stuff on its op-ed page?
I get it now. This article wasn’t in the Washington Post. Hackers must have put it on their web site.
Yes, Steve, that’s it exactly. Your penetrating insight and keen understanding of what I wrote is quite remarkable.
Chris,
Like the Washington Post, I also am not responsible for what I write. Please don’t try to attribute anything I say to me.
I am assessing you with a $1.5 million civil fine for arguing about stupid stuff.
Let me try to make this simple.
You write the stuff on this blog.
Neither the Washington Post nor anyone on its staff wrote, or necessarily even agree with, Hendricks’s opinion piece.
That is the difference that you seem unable to understand.
And pointing out that you claimed someone said something that they didn’t say isn’t “stupid stuff.” It’s called “accuracy.” You seem not to care much about it.
No seriously. I am not responsible for anything I publish.
Incidentally, Martin, here’s what you said last time Steve did this exact same thing and I complained about it:
Apparently not, eh? This is a “guest post.”
And here’s why this isn’t nitpicking. There’s a big difference between the Washington Post saying something and some unknown guy from a progressive think tank saying the same thing. One of them feeds the “scumbag liberal MSM feeding AGW propaganda to the public” theme, and one of them doesn’t. And the comments here indicate that it worked perfectly.
If you don’t think Steve does this on purpose, you’re living in some alternative universe with unicorns and rainbow ponies.
steve…WHY DO YOU WASTE YOUR TIME ARGUING WITH HIM??
ChrisD is a tool.
That said, he seems to be correct on this point. Just because a media outlet publishes an editorial viewpoint doesn’t mean they endorse said viewpoint.
ChrisD has developed his own little, nay miniscule, niche art form: identify a granular truth which seemingly opposes a much larger proposition, and by sticking like a mollusk to said granular truth, attempt to nullify the larger proposition. He has no interest in testing the actual viability of the larger proposition, just a tenacious interest in frustrating those who are interested in doing so.
It’s a winning formula, if not winning an argument but frustrating your opponent to distraction can be considered a winning formula.
Like I said, a tool (living under a bridge).
I couldn’t care less what anyone at the Washington Post thinks. I use these articles as a vehicle to highlight the garbage these people are being fed by the scientific community.
Chris is just fun to torment.
Hehe, yes, so much more fun than just posting stuff that’s actually true. What a bore!
You might want to note that so far three of your fans have agreed that I’m right on this.
Look, here’s how this should have gone.
Chris: Golly, Steve, the Post didn’t actually predict this, is an op-ed.
Steve: Say, Chris, that’s right. Let me fix that headline:
“Moron Tree-hugger Regurgitates Ludicrous ‘Prediction’ in Post Op-ed”
See? Easy-peasy. You don’t actually need to lie to make your point. I wouldn’t have even commented on this post if the headline had been accurate.
Take AGW theory.
ChrisD has demonstrated no ability, nor desire, to defend the theory.
He simply wishes to frustrate those who express principled doubts about it.