There’s a plum tree just outside the window of the kitchen. Every year it blooms for about two weeks, the bright pink blossoms filling the tree, adding a nice bit of color to our back yard. When we first moved here eight years ago, the plum tree budded in early February, and I remember thinking to myself that this seemed a little early compared to where I grew up in Mississippi. For the next several years the plum tree budded in January. This winter, however, the plum tree began sprouting buds in the third week of December.
A couple of days ago my teenage son and I were talking about nature, and he told me how ‘boring’ the Mississippi Delta was when compared to Puget Sound. I told him that each kind of land has its own language of sorts, and reminded him of the sounds of the doves, the cicadas, and the crickets in the Delta. I didn’t want to bore him, so I didn’t continue the description I had in mind which included watching the dark thunderclouds rumbling through on a hot summer afternoon, the near-constant brisk breeze of March that announces the welcome arrival of spring weather, the swarms of dragonflies hovering, swooping, crazily swerving to catch the hated mosquitoes that have always plagued the Delta since the days before it was drained, when it was just one vast swamp.
Yes, every distinct region of land has its own language (and old sailors will say the same of the seas around the world)...and as with the languages of humankind, the languages of the land are changing.
Last month Dallas got blanketed with snow...and then a great snowstorm covered almost entire northern European continent. There was an incredible satellite picture of the entire British Isles covered in the stuff. The conservative pundits and climate-change deniers made a great to-do about the wintry blast — after all, if ‘global warming’ was true, how could there be record-breaking cold weather?
Not really — it’s not that simple. Read this summary of research published by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2007:
There is some speculation that global warming could, via a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation, trigger localized cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling, or lesser warming, in that region. This would affect in particular areas like Scandinavia and Britain that are warmed by the North Atlantic drift. The chances of this near-term collapse of the circulation are unclear; there is some evidence for the short-term stability of the Gulf Stream and possible weakening of the North Atlantic drift. However, the degree of weakening, and whether it will be sufficient to shut down the circulation, is under debate. As yet, no cooling has been found in northern Europe or nearby seas.
Do you see the bolded sentences? The scientists knew what could happen and said so... and pay particular attention to the last sentence, because it looks like that cooling has been found. So is this proof of global warming?
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
Leaving aside any comments on the content of this article; which editor either did not tell Glenn to close the HTML coding on page three of the article, or was unwilling to do so him/herself? A spelling mistake on a newsflash piece is one thing. It's understandable. This, by contrast, is a whole different ball game!
2 - Ruvy
Glenn,
As to the content of your article, there is no question that the climate is changing. In addition, there is no question that man-made pollution is aggravating this climate change.
The real issue is not that this is so; the real issue is that we are not sure whether this is an issue of climate swing (this is what the climate-gate e-mails were trying to erase records of or fudge, so as to push their case) or if this an issue of irreversible climate change. The fact of the matter is that we just do no know.
We may well be seeing an example of what was warned about in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" and the novel, "The Sixth Winter" - an ice age that will last 100 millennia - or we may be seeing an example of the mini-ice age of two centuries ago, where people skated on the Hudson River to the west of New York City and had barbecues on the Thames.
This has nothing to do with ideology - this has everything to do with the lack of facts and the massaging of those facts extant for political and financial gain.
3 - FCEtier
I always go back to what my dear friend, Miriam Goldberg says, "It doesn't matter if we believe in global warming or not, we should take good care of our environment."
4 - Glenn Contrarian
I LISTED THIS ARTICLE AS POLITICAL OPINION. I guess I don't have to guess who wouldn't want an article about global warming in the Politics section.
5 - Lisa McKay
Glenn, just to respond to your comment #4 (and I also sent you an email, but since you made a public declaration, I'll answer it publicly):
I moved the piece. You lay out a very good case for the scientific basis for global warming, and the piece is, on the whole, more about that than it is about the politics of the thing, and that's why I moved it.
We never move articles because we don't "want" them in a particular section, and no individual editor would ever do that, our politics editors included. Articles go where they go, and those decisions, when the lines are fuzzy, are made on the basis of what the article is mostly about. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about where those lines are drawn.
6 - Dr Dreadful
Be that as it may, Lisa, the science is pretty much settled. And the major dispute over this subject is political.
7 - FCEtier
Here's an item dated Jan. 22, 2010
8 - RichardC
If there is Global Warming shouldn't there be global warming? All I see is global cooling.
9 - fcetier
Dr. D,
Considering the article I posted above, #7, maybe the science ISN'T settled.
10 - El Bicho
"If there is Global Warming shouldn't there be global warming? All I see is global cooling."
You obviously don't understand the concept. In fairness to you, the scientists named it poorly because they usually don't have to deal with the ill-informed weighing in on matters
11 - Dr Dreadful
FC,
Because of a typo??!!
12 - pablo
You can tell all you need to know about the author's lack of impartiality and indeed prejudice by this sentence of his:
"The climate-change deniers don't have their story straight"
It is indeed typical of those that are in his camp concerning this phenomenon. Instead of being honest, the author is dishonest in his approach to a civil discussion on this issue.
First of all until recently the phrase was "global warming" which is no longer being used by those that claim that man is causing the climate to heat up. Instead they now use the term "climate change".
Then the author uses the cute but derogatory terminology of "climate change deniers" instead of being honest and using the correct terminology, which is those that question human caused climate change. Everyone knows that the climate changes. Also by using the terminology of "deniers" the author is subtly inferring a connection between those that question human caused climate change and holocaust denial.
Perhaps the author would care to comment on why Professor Phil Jones has recently stepped down from his top position as a climatologist recently due to the Climategate scandal. Or perhaps the author would care to comment on why the Arctic Ice Pack is growing at a very high rate currently.
Climate change deniers? Please Glenn you can do better than this dribble can't you?
Oh and the human caused global warming folks fall into ONE camp. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Please help us IMF and World Bank, only you can save us!
13 - pablo
Arctic Sea Ice Not Following Consensus - Grows in area 1 1/2 times the size of Texas. :)
14 - Dr Dreadful
First of all until recently the phrase was "global warming" which is no longer being used by those that claim that man is causing the climate to heat up. Instead they now use the term "climate change".
It's not true that the phrase 'global warming' is no longer used. Both phrases are used commonly and, in many instances, interchangeably, although they don't really mean the same thing.
Perhaps the author would care to comment on why Professor Phil Jones has recently stepped down from his top position as a climatologist recently due to the Climategate scandal.
Do you really think he shouldn't have, Pablo, under the circumstances?
Or perhaps the author would care to comment on why the Arctic Ice Pack is growing at a very high rate currently.
Yet the overall extent of Arctic sea ice is still well below normal, and the long-term trend continues downward. And the ice is thinner. And Summer 2009 was still its third-lowest extent since records began.
Oh and the human caused global warming folks fall into ONE camp. The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Please help us IMF and World Bank, only you can save us!
What the fuck are you talking about? I can't claim to speak for Glenn, but I for one couldn't care less about the World Bank.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Pablo -
How about you provide a link to prove your point? You see, that's what I try to do - provide PROOF of what I say...
...and part of that proof was the fact that the Arctic is currently 10-15 degrees WARMER than normal. Now how is it that it's so much warmer in the Arctic, yet YOU say (without ANY backup) that that the ice is growing 'at a very fast rate'.
Methinks you've been watching a whole lot of Glenn Beck.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Lisa -
Do you see the comments on this page? No offense, but it looks they THEY could tell that it's a political article about a political issue...even if you thought otherwise.
The article was written to help those who are climate-change deniers (who are obviously uncomfortable with real science) to understand that what they see outside their windows is NOT representative of the world as a whole, that a snowstorm in one area means little in the grand scheme of things.
Please excuse me if I sound somewhat bitter...but I strongly feel my bitterness is justified. But apparently, if I'm to get this article in the politics section where it belongs, the only way I can do that is to change it to meet your...expectations.
I will do so.
17 - fcetier
Politics VS Science
Suppose the topic was "eugenics"? Scientists were pressured to go along with the politics on that topic.
Glen, if you're trying to convince readers to change their opinion (if it differs from yours) on this subject, why all the fuss about the category? Stay on topic. Give us more facts and benefits. Give us more unbiased evidence. After the scandal at IPCC, can we trust another agency like the NAS?
Is there a way with this topic to have randomized double blind studies? Can scientists working independently with different sources of funding produce repeatable results?
18 - roger nowosielski
Good questions, Chip.
19 - Lisa McKay
Glenn, I guess I fail to see why that conversation can't take place right here. Where it seems to be taking place, by the way.
We publish articles every day that overlap categories, just like this one does.
20 - Cindy
I am surprised that a writer would not be notified in advance about something like a change of category. I would think Glenn should have gotten the chance to make his case for the politics section before he was just told what has been decided about his work.
I think it's really objectionable. I would be horrified if I wrote a piece for one section and it was moved without any consultation. Seems insulting.
21 - Dan(Miller)
I rather think this comment by the chair of the IPCC says a lot:
The chair of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has made no personal comment on the glacier claim: But yesterday, at an energy conference in Abu Dhabi, he responded to British newspaper articles criticizing his chairmanship of the IPCC. "They can't attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won't sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown. In fact, I will float much higher," he told the Guardian.
Hot air does cause that sort of rise.
The "science" concerning the disappearance by 2035 of the Himalayan glaciers has, in fact, been challenged and shown to be non-existent. The recent climategate kerfuffle also attacked, with some success, the "science" of other aspects of global whatever. It's like the story of the boy who cried wolf; do it often enough and get caught, and it's difficult to believe him. And, in any event, belief should play no part in the discussion. Belief should be left where it belongs, in religion. People believe in God, but there is no scientific proof of which I am aware that She exists. That's cool in religion, but not in something marketed as science.
Dan(Miller)
22 - pablo
Glenn 13 15 and 16:
Comment 13 where I said:
"Arctic Sea Ice Not Following Consensus - Grows in area 1 1/2 times the size of Texas."
Three links for your perousal, two of them MSM reports, as I would not want to link to conspiracy sites.
Arctic Sea Ice Not Following Consensus
An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing
Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking
As for your comment to Lisa regarding wanting to "help" climate change deniers, what a bunch of bunk. If that were true, which it isn't you would not continue to use the derogatory untrue label of "climate change deniers" as referenced by me in comment 12. Again allow me to reiterate for you. NO ONE is denying that the climate changes. I assume that you understand the english language pal. Someone who is a climate change denier by its very definition "denies" that the climate changes. Of course the climate as we all know has been changing for eons. But we all know that you will not stop using that untrue and derogatory terminology even though it is incorrect. So I doubt very much that you are trying to change anyone's mind that disagrees with you. It is a repugnant terminology as well as meant to cast a demeaning and snobby remark in the interest of not having a civil debate, or quite frankly any debate at all on this subject.
Dread 14:
As to what the fuck I am talking about with reference to the World Bank and the IMF in regards to global warming, you could have googled it, however I have done that for you in the url listed below.
Any one (not you) who was at all politically aware of what they were trying to do in Copenhagen knows that the centerpiece of that summit was going to be that the World Bank and the IMF be in charge of the carbon trading derivative scheme for the planet. That is what the fuck I was talking about dude.
World Bank IMF Carbon Credits Copenhagen
23 - FCEtier
Did anyone see that movie, "All the President's Men" ?
There was a scene in which the editors of THE WASHINGTON POST were meeting to decide where each story would go: city, politics, travel, national, etc.
No writers were present and none were consulted. I know that was just a movie, but I think that's one of the prerogatives of editors.
As writers, we submit articles. There is no guarantee that any of our submissions will even be accepted. If they are accepted, they are accepted at the discretion of the editor(s). If I write an article that is a character study of a football coach who got elected to public office, it could show up in any of several categories.
What's this got to do with global warming?
24 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
There's no doubt that there will always be a changing climate. The issue here is the Carbon Dioxide scam that is causing the fear & intimidation in society about our supposed demise if we don't change our ways. This allows for the pillaging of citizens in the name of "Alternative Energy" which is non-existent.
Here's an interesting coverage from John Coleman: GLOBAL WARMING:THE OTHER SIDE
25 - pablo
Dan(Miller) comment 21
Excellent comment, allow me if I may to add a bit to what you have said.
Regarding Rajendra Pachauri the head of the IPCC, he is currently being accused by numerous sources of having a direct conflict of interest in the area of global warming.
More Global Warming Scandals Implicate IPCC Climate Scientists
UN climate chief jabs back at allegations of financial impropriety
Pachauri's Lucrative World of Climate Change
Pachauri reminds me alot of our own huckster former Oil and tobacco man Al Gore.
Regarding The "science" concerning the disappearance by 2035 of the Himalayan glaciers scandal, it was none other than the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) that was responsible for this debacle. For those of you not in the know about this phony environmental outfit, it was started by none other than former Nazi SS member Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands, who also incidentally and co-incidentally was the founder of the Bilderberg Group! Surprise surprise, how the ruling smarmy fascist global elite are always there at the cutting edge of deceit. Prince Bernhard cares about Mother Nature about as much as Exxon Corporation, to be raped pillaged and paved over.