Global Warming claims are completely over-exaggerate and flawed
Chatterjee 09 – staff writer for the Dartmouth Independent (Neera Chaterjee: “Prof. says climate change exaggerated” 02/24/2009 at: http://thedartmouth.com/2009/02/24/news/climate RC)
Claims about the allegedly dire effects of global warming may be exaggerated, Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said during a Thursday lecture at the Rockefeller Center. Michaels, who is also a state climatologist and professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, discussed the research published in his new book, "Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know." "The discussion surrounding global warming has become wildly extreme," he told a packed auditorium. "You either believe it's the end of the world unless we do something about it right now, or you're a denier." Michaels criticized scientists' widespread acceptance of the computer climate change models, saying that the models have projected higher temperatures than have actually occurred in recent years. "[There is a] systematic failure of computer models," he said. "What warming there is, is at or below the lower limits of computer models." Prevalent claims that global warming is occurring at an ever increasing rate are troubling, Michaels said. Charts of recent temperatures show constant, linear warming, he said. Scientific literature, which Michaels said
should present an equal distribution of positive and negative conclusions about climate change trends, is overwhelmingly pessimistic, Michaels said. This phenomenon can be partially attributed to the "small inbred community" of scientists who peer review global warming research, he said. There is also evidence that individuals, societies and economies can adapt to warmer temperatures, Michaels said. Agricultural adaptations may allow corn to grow at higher temperatures, he said, while crops like soybeans and sugar cane thrive in a hotter climate. When heat waves occur with higher and higher frequency, there are fewer deaths during subsequent bouts of high temperature, he added. Current means of addressing warming may exacerbate the extent of the climate problem, Michaels said. Cap-and-trade systems and energy taxes take money out of the hands of investors and drain capital from companies that could produce innovative technologies, he said.
No Warming – exaggerate
The media plays a major role in exaggerating climate change – there is no existential theat
Weingart, Engels and Pansegrau 00’ - *Peter Weingart: Professor of Sociology and former director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies, **Anita Engels: assistant professor of sociology, Centre for Globalization and Governance and ***Petra Pansegrau: from the Institute of Science and Technology Studies (IWT), University of Bielefeld – (“Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media at: http://pus.sagepub.com/content/9/3/261.abstract RC)
However, scientists, policy makers, and journalists have all experienced the problems and complexities resulting from this “success” story. Communications about climate change have abounded in mutual accusations of downplaying or exaggerating risk, of sensationalism, “bad” science, inciting public hysteria, and even conspiracy.1 In many cases, the media have been accused of exaggerating scientific claims for the sake of the story. In Germany, the picture of the half-submerged Cologne cathedral has become the icon of the threat of global climate change, and similar catastrophic visions have been dramatized in TV docudramas: one depicting the scorched earth of the dried-up Rhine Valley, another portraying a huge chunk of the Greenland ice cap breaking off and creating an immense tidal wave, which buries large portions of the North German plains. While some skeptics claimed that they had proof that climate change was no more than media hype, climate scientists themselves were accused of publishing exaggerated predictions to attract public attention and thereby facilitate the acquisition of research funds.There is some evidence that the skeptics’ counter-movement against the global warming alarm has been much stronger in the U.S. than in Germany.2 In the U.S., this backlash has had serious repercussions and heated the climate change debate further. Accusations about self-interested climate scientists were countered by news stories about “skeptical” scientists paid directly by the oil industry to call into question the credibility of the global warming hypothesis.3 Finally, scientists from all over the world who were involved in writing and reviewing reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) experienced the vagaries of all these scientific assessments in a highly politicized field.4 It is evident that neither the seriousness of the issue nor its global scope caused its communication among science, politics,and the media to be unproblematic and unequivocal. Instead, it appears that the problem is perceived, and these perceptions are communicated, with great variance in the three spheres. This variance, as we will discuss later, leads to specific risks of communication.
A leading scientist in the Global Warming Movement has admitted to making over exaggerated claims – the impacts are minimal.
Rose 01/24/10 – (David Rose: writer and investigative journalist. “Glacier Scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified” at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG RC)
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders. Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’ Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation. According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’. The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF. It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source. The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121. Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’. Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’ In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air. Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25. ‘My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now,’ he said.‘But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesn’t seem to me that exaggerating the problem’s seriousness is going to help solve it.’ One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’