...it is increasingly clear that the assault on the Christmas tradition by those who oppose action on global warming goes far beyond the inevitable reduction in late December snowfall we will face when the country is 10°F warmer (or more) by century’s end.This is just an outright lie. The IPCC forecast calls for a warming of 2.0 and 11.5°F -- the likelihood of 10°F or more is really quite small, yet Romm portrays none of that subtlety.
Warning: Do not take your science news from environmentalists. They are as biased as the skeptics, and will stretch science and even lie to make their points.
3 comments:
David -- you are very, very wrong and have no business calling me a liar.
I choose my words carefully, unlike you. I am a scientist, not an environmentalist or an extremist.
I am, unfortunately, quite confident that if we continue on our current emissions path and the forces of denial and delay triumph, the country (especially the relevant part!) will be 10°F warmer (or more) by century’s end — for two reasons.
The first reason I am confident of this is that I did NOT make the claim that you criticize me for making -- namely that the Earth will be 10°F warmer by 2100. The claim I made is in fact considerably more likely than your simple analysis would suggest. The part of this country that currently gets much snow is part of a mid-latitude landmass, which is typically predicted to experience a temperature rise about 50% higher than the global average (basically the land typically warms more than the oceans, and the warming is greater the more north or south you go).
That means most of the United States will warm 10°F if the planet as a whole warms 6.7°F -- pretty much in the middle of the projected range -- and this is especially true if you throw in Alaska!
The second reason I am confident of this is that, as I have blogged many times, the planet is clearly showing evidence (actually, multiple pieces of evidence) that global warming to date is at the high end of what the climate models were predicting — and on top of that the sinks already appear to be saturating.
If we don’t act fast and stabilize below 500, I (and many others) believe we’ll probably hit 700+ ppm this century, and some studies suggest 1000 (if we lose the Amazon).
I see you are a science journalist. You should not be as quick to assume a scientist does not know what he is talking about.
So now you see that your repeated claim I am I liar is completely unjustifiable — but I am not going to call you a liar for attacking me for something I didn't say.
I do, however, expect an apology both on your website and on mine.
After Joe Romm linked the Minneapolis bridge collapse last summer to global warming, I think he firmly established his alarmist credentials.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/6/164642/0801
Joe Romm is an alarmist. He weasels around his rhetoric by carefully inserting caveauts that make his assertions meaningless. In the past he has claimed that "science" supports sea levels rising by 20 feet by the end of century, but get's bent out of shape when called on it. "Facing 20 feet" of course does not mean 20 feet. It means something maybe much less. Notice his post here includes the disclaimer "quite certain" which really means "I really don't know". So then why make the claim?
Joe is not a climatologist and has a reputation for exaggerating and misusing climate data. He is an environmental advocate and not a scientist using climate data as a profession.
Joe is a hypocrite, as he works for an organization, CAP, that invests in timber clear-cutting, and companies that profit from coal, oil, gas and mineral extraction.
Post a Comment