County Fair
Print

A Fox News Science Lesson

August 09, 2011 4:42 pm ET by Jocelyn Fong

Those who watched Fox News over the weekend were treated to a brief but ambitious science lesson on "Why CO2 Can't Cause Warming":

Why Co2 Can't Cause Warming

Oh boy. Let's take these one at a time.

During the segment Fox's global warming expert, Joe Bastardi, who is employed by the WeatherBELL meteorological consulting firm, declared that the theory of human-induced climate change "contradicts what we call the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So to look for input of energy into the atmosphere, you have to come from a foreign source."

It's not clear what to conclude from this except that Fox and Bastardi are not familiar with the greenhouse effect. Climate scientists aren't claiming that humans are creating energy. They're saying that humans are trapping more energy by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Duke University scientist William Chameides, who called Fox's claims "utter nonsense," explained via email:

It is true that global warming requires a source of heat. In this case it comes from the sun. What CO2 does is trap a larger amount of the heat from the sun, preventing it from escaping and thus driving up temperatures. To argue otherwise is to argue that the greenhouse effect does not exist. In fact the existence of the greenhouse effect was established by scientists more than a century ago. It would be impossible to explain the temperatures of Mars and Venus, as well as the Earth, without invoking this effect.

Bastardi went on to claim Le Chatelier's Principle "says that any system in distress, physical or chemical in the atmosphere, tries to return toward normalcy. And that is why you're seeing temperatures level off."

In fact the notion of a system moving toward "normalcy," or more accurately, toward a new "equilibrium," explains why greenhouse gases do cause warming, rather than "Why CO2 Can't Cause Warming." By preventing infrared energy from efficiently escaping to space, increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere make it more difficult for the earth to maintain its previous energy balance, and thus its previous temperature.

Kevin Trenberth, Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, explained via email that the system "re-creates equilibrium" by heating up, since the surface and atmosphere radiate more at a higher temperature. As a result, "it reaches a new equilibrium but at a higher temperature," he said, adding: "And of course we keep adding more CO2 so we have not reached that new state yet."

Though it appears that Bastardi cites Le Chatelier's Principle in a general sense and not in reference to any specific process, the principle does have implications for "the uptake of fossil fuel carbon by the ocean," according to David Archer of the University of Chicago's Department of Geophysical Sciences. He said, "Without Le Chatelier's principle, the climate crisis would be much worse than it is, but even with this buffering, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising and will continue to remain elevated for tens of thousands of years into the future. So to suggest that Le Chatelier's principle is going to save us is wrong." And the principle certainly doesn't establish that "CO2 Can't Cause Warming."

And that's not all Fox got wrong.

Bastardi claimed that human-induced climate change is implausible because "When you look at carbon dioxide, it increases 1.5 parts per million a year. We contribute 3 percent of that, which means the human contribution is 1 part per 20 million." Chameides says it's "not true" that human activities represent such a small fraction of the annual increase in CO2, adding: "Isotopic data show that the increase is mostly traceable to burning of fossil fuel."

And as the Congressional Research Service explained, the human CO2 contribution is important even if it makes up a small amount of the atmosphere because it affects the Earth's carbon cycle and "the oceans, vegetation, and soils do not take up carbon released from human activities quickly enough to prevent CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere from increasing ... As a result, the atmosphere contains approximately 35% more CO2 today than prior to the beginning of the industrial revolution."

Bastardi also claimed that "We have warmed up overall over the last 20 to 30 years, over the last 200 years because of the sunspot cycles. You can trace it to the sunspot cycles and you can trace it to the movement of the ocean." Chameides responds:

Bastardi attributes the warming to: a) sunspots - no there has been no secular trend in sunspots over the past 2 - 3 decades; b) the ocean - no, data show that the ocean has heated up over the past 20 -30 years; in other words the ocean has absorbed heat from the atmosphere not the other way around. 

Lastly, Bastardi claimed that satellites allow us to "measure the temperatures without having to readjust things." In fact, satellite temperature data do require adjustments, as Roy Spencer, who maintains the UAH satellite temperature record, has explained.

Watch it:

Previously:

Scientist Calls Fox's Global Warming Headline "Patently False"

Fox News Maligns Scientists With Baseless Accusation Of "Doctoring" Sea Level Data

Fox Twists Scientific Research To Announce A "Mini Ice Age" -- Again

Stanford Scientist Criticizes Fox Distortion Of His Climate Study

Fox Tries To Debunk Global Warming, Fails Miserably




Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Liberal in the South (August 09, 2011 4:48 pm ET)
      21  
      sounds like a bunch of liberal data to me


      <sarc>
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tyren (August 09, 2011 5:41 pm ET)
        12  
        After all, science has a well-known liberal bias. ;)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by SeattleJeff (August 10, 2011 6:38 pm ET)
          2  
          So does the truth!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Meremark (August 10, 2011 7:25 pm ET)
               
            -

            FOX FOOLs (Friends Of Outright LIARs) ought to be circumspect about lifting open the lid of the sarcophagus of bullsh!t with which they cover up Science. Lest the suppressed true facts of Science FOX opens into view becomes for them a Pandora's box out of which erupts Murdockalypse.

            After learning the 1st Law of Thermodynamics viewers might start studying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every Action (of Energy) there is an equal an opposite (Energy of) Reaction.

            And a sample Test Question for a homework problem to calculate Newton's 2nd Law in the case of nine-eleven op, (just in time for the Xth Anniversary Toronto Hearings), FOX viewers could readily prove for themselves that thermodynamic Reaction Energy out of each Tower was more than 100 times (unequal) GREATER than the Action Energy (reported to be) in each Tower.

            Science facts are not only 'stubborn things,' but also long-lived. The same calculation 100 years ago or 100 years from now goes on proving (after all eye-witnesses are dead) there was explosives someone pre-planted in the Towers, somehow, for some reason.

            Unlike FOX FOOLs, thermodynamic true facts don't lie. Also unlike FOX's FOOLs, science facts are admissible testimony in a court of law.

            -
            Report Abuse
            • Author by GreenLantern (August 10, 2011 8:44 pm ET)
              1  
              Although facts are facts, faux did win a court case (loaded with activist judges in Florida) that said it was allowed to tell lies in the news which is why they can lie with impunity now and call themselves a "news" show. They cannot broadcast in Canada or England because law there says that lying cannot be called news. So despite the facts and the truth, faux gets to lie with impunity even into court. Sad but true.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by johnsta (August 09, 2011 6:25 pm ET)
        9  
        No one really knows for CERTAIN man is creating global warming, YET Fox is CERTAIN that it is not the cause.

        More like the fossil fuel industry is heavily influencing their reporting somehow.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (August 09, 2011 7:11 pm ET)
          6 1
          Actually, nobody has said anything about man creating global warming, but what we're currently doing are increasing and expanding its effects.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by CoolSlaw (August 10, 2011 1:57 pm ET)
            3  
            Actually, nobody has said anything about man creating global warming, but what we're currently doing are increasing and expanding its effects.


            That's not an acceptable answer because it frames the argument correctly. If it's going to fly in our new right wing media dominated culture it's got to be broken down to:

            GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL? Y/N

            MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? Y/N

            You've brought too much nuance and data to the discussion, dumb it down!

            /sarc
            Report Abuse
        • Author by kamrom (August 10, 2011 12:54 am ET)
          5  
          And even if, even IF we could somehow conclusively say "No, humans can not ever contribute to climate change." And even if that was in any way a sane statement, it still leaves one glaring problem: We Exhale CO2. Because it is toxic to us.

          Since there is no pipeline to another planet to get rid of the CO2 we pump out, it doesnt really have anywhere to go. So even if all that they say about global warming was true, we're still filling the atmosphere and the water with things that kill people.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by homunq (August 10, 2011 9:11 am ET)
               
            That's like saying "And if the that weren't rat poison, eventually you could drown in it, so it would kill you just the same". True, but totally irrelevant. There is nothing like a toxic level of CO2, the problem is warming.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by poproxx77 (August 10, 2011 6:34 pm ET)
              3
            Are you being serious?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by MiddleLeft (August 10, 2011 9:48 pm ET)
                 
              Kamron is apparently not a student of science or global warming, and he should read more. We each 'Merican put average 20 tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere by the energy and products we use. It mostly goes back into the ocean and plants but not fast enough so it builds up in the air (and screws up the ocean). Hope this helps.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by kamrom (August 10, 2011 10:56 pm ET)
                   
                ...I cant figure out if you are sarcastically supporting me against the previous poster, or if you mean what you just said. It kinda shifts halfway through and, try as I might, I cant figure out which way youre going :(
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Morwalk (August 12, 2011 2:31 am ET)
                     
                  Hey, MiddleLeft, I think kamrom is on our side. Try to make nicer.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by kamrom (August 10, 2011 10:59 pm ET)
                   
                But, yes, i was generally simplifying the issue. Whats the point of going into detail with people who will never ever agree with you no matter what? Its a waste of my time and everyone elses too.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by PremisedPerfect (August 10, 2011 2:59 pm ET)
        2  
        Actually, it's Christianist. The first law of thermodynamics nonsense is their principle argument for Creationism. Seriously.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rtejon (August 10, 2011 7:46 pm ET)
          1  
          Yet they also want it to excuse our own failure of stewardship as mandated in Genesis.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by kabniel (August 09, 2011 4:50 pm ET)
      27  
      This is just sad. What prompts a man to display so proudly such profound scientific ignorance to millions of people? Has he no self respect whatsoever?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by beDecent (August 09, 2011 5:12 pm ET)
        9  
        Must not. Wouldn't you be embarrassed to put your face on these claims?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nothingtoseehere (August 09, 2011 5:26 pm ET)
          15  
          I wish you could put a tracker on all the people who watched this on TV, to see how it gets repeated. "It sounds scientific and came for FOX, must be true..."

          Really sad.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by tfd829 (August 09, 2011 6:44 pm ET)
          13  
          He's not much of an "expert"- a high school science teacher could easily refute his claims. I mean as far as global warming rebuttals go this is pretty damn lame.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Unreality (August 10, 2011 3:49 am ET)
            9  
            A 9th grade STUDENT could refute his claims- well one educated when I was in 9th grade.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by JohnJay60 (August 10, 2011 7:12 pm ET)
                 
              Does a conservative who steps into a warm glass greenhouse that is growing seedlings in winter believe the nursery is violating the 1st law of thermodynamics?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by evmin971064 (August 10, 2011 3:43 pm ET)
               
            I suspect any decent student who has taken first semester chemistry could refute some of these arguments. Thermo is taught in first semester and equilibria in the second. Anyone with an even rudimentary understanding of these concepts would know what BS this is. As for high school teachers putting forth a credible argument, it would depend on where. I will bet that, somewhere in Bible Belt, there are HS teachers who had their students watch this segment as part of their homework.
            Damn liberal laws of nature.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by CoolSlaw (August 10, 2011 1:52 pm ET)
        3  
        This is just sad. What prompts a man to display so proudly such profound scientific ignorance to millions of people?


        Money.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by villabolo (August 10, 2011 4:05 pm ET)
          1  
          "What prompts a man to display so proudly such profound scientific ignorance to millions of people? Has he no self respect whatsoever?"

          Why should he or anybody else be the least bit ashamed? He is an moron who is judged by imbeciles.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wizbing (August 11, 2011 3:29 am ET)
               
            He is a moron if he believes what he is saying. But whether or not he is a moron, the people giving him his orders know what they are doing, because these lies are coming from multiple sources at Fox and elsewhere. That means that there are people at Fox and behind Fox who are deliberately misleading the public on global warming.

            This is an issue of vital importance to the world, and it is evil almost beyond my comprehension to organize a campaign of lies about it, using a phony news agency as a front. It is sickening and frankly, frightening.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Morwalk (August 12, 2011 2:33 am ET)
                 
              Agreed, wizbing, but actually, I would say terrifying. I am glad there are others who feel the way I do. I wonder what we can do about it. I tend to share articles like this on Facebook and annoy people.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by Invent a Scandal (August 09, 2011 4:52 pm ET)
      9  
      Any jackass in distress--physical, chemical or fecal--is still welcome to audition for Fox News.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (August 09, 2011 4:59 pm ET)
      18  
      Le Chatelier's Principle goes out.

      Le Chatelier's Principle goes in.

      Le Chatelier's Principle goes out...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Laurence Glavin (August 09, 2011 5:04 pm ET)
      8  
      I've heard that Virgin Airlines is considering going into the space travel business. One place where space travelers may want to vacation is the planet Venus, where heat builup from the atmosphere has caused the surface temperature to approach the melting point of lead. Great for clearing the sinuses.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by m.welker (August 09, 2011 5:04 pm ET)
      15  
      Joe Bastardi, who is employed by the Weatherbell meteorological consulting firm and is not a scientist, declared that the theory of human-induced climate change "contradicts what we call the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So to look for input of energy into the atmosphere, you have to come from a foreign source."


      I laughed my b@lls off reading this.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by kamrom (August 10, 2011 12:59 am ET)
        6  
        ...Im somewhat hesitant. I mean really. Who has the name "Joe Bastardi"? Theres just no way someone would be that silly.

        Also, love the first line of that article. In the very first sentence it sums up his job, and why he's totally unqualified to make such statements.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by chazmanr (August 10, 2011 10:02 am ET)
        4  
        The jokes really do write themselves, don't they?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Egbert Sous (August 10, 2011 11:11 am ET)
        2  
        1. "Energy may not be created or destroyed[; it may only change form.]" Applies only to closed, non-dynamic systems. The Earth's climate is not one of them. In any case, nuclear reactions (reactions in which matter is irreversibly converted into energy) throw a spanner into the First Law of Thermodynamics. (Joe, when you get up in the morning and see the bright yellow ball in the sky, that's energy stuff being created.) Bastardi must have skipped second semester physics when he got his bachelor's at Penn State.

        2. Le Chatelier's Principle is a principle of chemistry, not physics. In any case, it applies only to one-step chemical reactions. Anyway, what it says is: if you put more stuff into one side of a chemical equation, you'll get more stuff on the other side of equation. Thus, everything balances out. So, following Bastardi's logic, if it's really, really hot in Dallas, there will be artic howls in Paris. Mon Dieu!

        Joe started out doing the "drive time" weather on a radio station in Philly. With his ascension as climate change denier-in-chief on Fox, he's proving another immutable law: The Peter Principle.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by HughG (August 10, 2011 11:44 am ET)
          2  
          Nuclear reactions don't really "throw a spanner into the First Law." They merely follow a redefinition of "energy" to the general case, including mass. Einstein's most famous equation, E=mc^2, is actually what redefines the mass-energy equivalence, which is manifested in nuclear reactions.
          The First Law still stands.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by NotSure8 (August 10, 2011 12:47 pm ET)
             
          You started off right with #1, but are refuting the wrong thing. The issue is that the planet is not a closed system. It gets energy from the sun, and ejects it into space, both ny way of electromagnetic waves. Carbon Dioxide reduces the amount that gets sent back into space.

          HughG is also right about the matter -> energy conversion, but would like to point out that it is not "irreversable" like you claim. If it was not reversable, we would not be able to take advantage of nuclear reactions for energy or destruction.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by jjamele2880 (August 10, 2011 1:51 pm ET)
          1  
          If "energy may not be created or destroyed," doesn't that mean that humans are not responsible for trash on the sidewalk or the beach, either? Isn't that just re-arranged energy?

          I wish I had known this when I was a kid- when my dad asked me to take out the garbage, I would have responded "what garbage, you atheistic lib!"

          It would have helped that my father was, in fact, an atheist. Still, I don't think he would have taken my theory in the spirit in which it was offered- the scientific one.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by stullivan (August 09, 2011 5:07 pm ET)
      14  
      "Bill Nye the Science Guy" he ain't; h*ll he isn't even Beaker from the Muppet Show.

      I don't know who this guys is playing to. First - Thermodynamics has way to many syllables to be taken seriously as anything other than some liberal elitist college-learned indoctrination propoganda. Second - "Le Chatelier's Principle" sounds like some kind of socialist marxist facist communist ideaology. Sounds kind of French, maybe if he renamed it "Le Freedom Principle" he would get more tbaggers and foxbots to take it seriously.

      "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
      — Dr. Who
      Report Abuse
    • Author by progusa (August 09, 2011 5:08 pm ET)
      13  
      The conservative reasoning on this issue is indicative of their approach to many issues. Instead of believing the overwhelming scientific evidence, they make whether or not climate change is happining and whether or not people are causing it their idealogical issue. They put themselves in a position where they have to lie to their faithful.

      Why not acknowledge the problem exists and then argue for conservative solutions? Obviously, because it would not be in the interests of the oil or auto industry. Why do people fall for this misinformation?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tfd829 (August 09, 2011 6:13 pm ET)
        10  
        Their objections have never been for scientific reasons. Just like evolution.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (August 10, 2011 8:55 am ET)
          6  
          Yep. That's just how they thynk.

          And I also seriously LMAO with their absurd butchery of the First Law of Thermo. (Or rather, it's application to AGW.) You've got to be sofa king stupid to take that remotely seriously. What a bunch of morons.

          ---------------------------------------
          IMHO
          UTOPIA
          Report Abuse
      • Author by dommanno3075 (August 10, 2011 1:46 pm ET)
        1  
        Why not acknowledge the problem exists and then argue for conservative solutions?
        Because "conservative solutions" is an oxymoron.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by beDecent (August 09, 2011 5:11 pm ET)
      12  
      He's just saying words that the audience will accept as truth because they don't understand and won't question it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Ratu01 (August 09, 2011 5:16 pm ET)
      7  
      and cigarette smoking does not cause cancer....
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (August 09, 2011 5:17 pm ET)
      14  
      The Troglodytes like to refer to the First Law of Thermodynamics to refute Evolution, as well.

      Of course, for this Law to help their case against Evolution or Climate Change, the Troglodytes have to disregard one minor detail... THE F***ING SUN!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Disputed Zone (August 09, 2011 5:25 pm ET)
        12  
        It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics that idiots say "disproves" evolution.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (August 09, 2011 5:47 pm ET)
          5  
          DOH! You are correct.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by danielsangeo (August 10, 2011 1:24 am ET)
          4  
          I have never figured out how the Second Law somehow "disproves" evolution, myself.

          Take a fertilized ovum. It's a single cell that splits into two cells, then four cells, then eight cells...and so on, and so on...until the cells begin to change and specialize, eventually turning into a baby. This is an increase in complexity and, according to those that ascribe to the "Second Law Disproves Evolution" crowd, the very fact of reproduction is somehow wrong. Strange, huh?

          And this is the depth and breadth of understand of those that say the First or Second Law disproves global warming...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by datruthfarmer (August 10, 2011 12:38 pm ET)
            1  
            The Second Law of Thermodynamics- "The change in Entropy has to be greater than or equal to zero."- only works in a Closed system.

            If you take the Sun, Meteorites and the cold vacuum of Space out of the equation, they would have a point.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by John Puma (August 10, 2011 2:51 pm ET)
            2  
            Increase in complexity (increase in order) can be overcome by the expenditure of energy, which is what is happening in all living systems.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by HughG (August 10, 2011 3:29 pm ET)
              1  
              I don't know; I work with a couple of dudes who don't seem to expend any energy.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by tfd829 (August 10, 2011 5:57 pm ET)
              1  
              Exactly.

              And since the sun easily provides enough energy to drive increases of complexity / order on the planet, the second law does not falsify evolution.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by albertsenj (August 10, 2011 3:50 am ET)
        7  
        As I understand Conservative Orthodoxy, the actual problem with the First Law of Thermodynamics is that, like so many other laws, it is an example of excessive regulation stifling the economy.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rtphokie (August 09, 2011 5:22 pm ET)
         
      This view of things is actually pretty simple to explain. When you look at things from an Earth centered universe, it's easy to assume that everything, including energy, is created by or on the Earth.

      This "scientist" just needs to be introduced to The Copernican Model of things. Then it's a simple matter of catching up with the other 450 years of science.

      Easy-peasy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete x tp (August 09, 2011 5:29 pm ET)
      7  
      I didn't even know that MMfA allowed us to type "Bastardi". I'll have to keep that in mind.

      On a more serious note: This guy is paid to lie. It's as simple as that. In fact, I can't find a single statement in his "report" that is not the opposite of the truth.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tfd829 (August 09, 2011 6:10 pm ET)
      17  
      Sooo, by their logic, a car with the windows rolled up on a hot day won't heat up because that would be creating energy and thus violates the 1st law of thermodynamics?

      Did these people take junior high science at all?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mathazar (August 09, 2011 6:31 pm ET)
      6  
      The three laws of thermodynamics can be summed up as:
      You can't win
      You can't break even
      You can't get out of the game.
      I reckon Faux should have had a fifth grader on for balance.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (August 09, 2011 7:19 pm ET)
      9  

      Bastardi's statement that "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed" fails to continue the narrative and doesn't mention that nasty little fact that energy can be converted.

      All energy on this planet comes from the sun or it came from the sun and has been stored here in several forms.

      While there is natural conversion taking place all the time, nothing in nature converts energy like humans do.

      With the exception of water turbines and fuel cells, most of the conversion methods humans have developed are very inefficient, so a huge amount of energy we convert is wasted.

      In the form of heat.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by AllanIsKing (August 10, 2011 4:56 pm ET)
           
        All energy on this planet comes from the sun or it came from the sun and has been stored here in several forms.

        The Earth has a molten core
        Which comes from gravity not the sun

        Doesn't this also affect the temperature?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by draftedin68 (August 10, 2011 6:14 pm ET)
          1 1

          With the exception of material from outside our solar system (possible but remotely so), every atom of Earth originated with the formation of our sun.

          Earth does indeed emit heat from within but it is energy stored since our planet formed - see above.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (August 10, 2011 6:28 pm ET)
               
            "With the exception of material from outside our solar system (possible but remotely so), every atom of Earth originated with the formation of our sun."

            This is not correct. The vast majority of what makes up the Earth and you and me came from the supernova explosion of another star, not our current sun. Some of these higher elements (such as uranium) experience radioactive decay and produce much of the energy inside Earth. Thus, you could see the creation of uranium in an ancient star as a way the energy that is now being released was stored. This has nothing to do with our sun.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (August 10, 2011 6:23 pm ET)
          1  
          Actually, most of the heat in the Earth's core comes from natural radiation, which also does not come from the sun. It is true to say almost all energy on Earth comes from the sun.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by hankscorpio (August 09, 2011 7:29 pm ET)
      1 4
      ……………………………………..________
      ………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
      ………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,
      …………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
      …………………,?………………………………………………\,
      ………………./…………………………………………………..,}
      ……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
      ……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
      …………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
      …………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./
      ………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/
      ……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
      ………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../
      …,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../
      …………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”
      …………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\
      ………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__
      ,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
      …..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\
      ……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\
      …………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__
      ……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
      …………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\
      ……………………………..,< `.._|_,-&``................`\
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hankscorpio (August 09, 2011 7:30 pm ET)
        3  
        Well that didn't come out quite right.... but anyways, where do they find these idiots?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by draftedin68 (August 09, 2011 7:34 pm ET)
          2  

          I think you need to save the image as an ASCII file and then cut and paste it.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by highlyunlikely (August 10, 2011 1:39 am ET)
        9  
        that's less gibberish than Pilot in one of his more coherent posts.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (August 10, 2011 7:48 am ET)
          1  
          Here's a link to the comments from the guy I mentioned the other day. It's possible he's still here under another name.

          If he is, he's keeping his ties to the relatives of the rich and famous to himself this time.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by villabolo (August 10, 2011 4:09 pm ET)
        3  
        "……………………………………..________
        ………………………………,.-‘â"


        "Well that didn't come out quite right.... but anyways, where do they find these idiots?"

        That didn't come out right? I could have sworn you were simply quoting those idiots.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by WilliamP (August 09, 2011 8:57 pm ET)
      1 1
      "When you look at carbon dioxide, it increases 1.5 parts per million a year. We contribute 3 percent of that, which means the human contribution is 1 part per 20 million"

      Not to split hairs, but:

      3% of 1 part per million is .045 parts per million.
      Divide 1 part per million by .045 and you get 22.222, making it

      It's really 1 in 22 parts per million instead of 20, so I guess he's close enough on the math.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jimieli (August 10, 2011 12:38 am ET)
      1  
      Great site makes it easy to understand.

      http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v7i1f.htm
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Nihilist (August 10, 2011 1:07 am ET)
      1  
      http://www.lukesci.com/2011/08/10/fox-news-offers-nonsense-science-lessons-to-disprove-global-warming/#more-195
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Nihilist (August 10, 2011 1:08 am ET)
      1  
      read this
      Report Abuse
    • Author by yoiksaway (August 10, 2011 2:03 am ET)
      6  
      Not one climate change denier here to make a comment? Not one?

      Too many facts. Move on.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jstevens79 (August 12, 2011 2:21 pm ET)
           
        Why bother? The people who believe this nonsense are incapable of listening to a reasoned argument.

        For instance: y'all make fun of the first argument, yet it is, in fact, scientifically correct. Atmospheric CO2 does not, in fact, warm the atmosphere. The Sun, residual compaction heat and radioactive decay do, but not CO2.

        And the idiot who didn't realize that CO2 absorption is, in fact, a chemical reaction just highlights and underscores how blind, deaf and dumb the religion of Global Climate (make up a new term) is.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by John Puma (August 10, 2011 6:40 am ET)
      6  
      You know, the French don't have a Le Chatelier's principle.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NotSure8 (August 10, 2011 9:27 am ET)
         
      During the segment Fox's global warming expert, Joe Bastardi, who is employed by the WeatherBELL meteorological consulting firm, declared that the theory of human-induced climate change "contradicts what we call the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So to look for input of energy into the atmosphere, you have to come from a foreign source."

      It's not clear what to conclude from this except that Fox and Bastardi are not familiar with the greenhouse effect.

      Aw, you're being too nice. I would have said that they weren't familiar with THE SUN!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by chazmanr (August 10, 2011 10:00 am ET)
      4  
      Bastardi, Fox's climate expert. The jokes write themselves.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mookworthjwilson (August 10, 2011 10:15 am ET)
      4  
      Leave it to FOX to find the world's stupidest "scientist"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Morwalk (August 12, 2011 2:40 am ET)
           
        If this "scientist" believes his claims, he is stupid. I don't think he actually does, though. Consider who is employer is. I don't even think Fox believes what it reports. I call Fox News Faux News and simply consider it the television equivalent of The National Enquirer.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by round guy (August 10, 2011 10:57 am ET)
         
      Little known fact: Le Chatelier's Principle explains why we can't boil water.
      It's because every time we try to heat it up it just keeps returning to "normalcy."

      Science is an amazing thing.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tmc1138 (August 10, 2011 11:58 am ET)
         
      As and engineer that has actually taken a couple thermodynamics courses I am enraged by what I'm reading. I'll have to track down the video to see this whole thing. This is absolutely ridiculous!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by scooter51 (August 10, 2011 12:02 pm ET)
      2  
      there is absolutely no end to the depth of stupidity that Fox displays. This proves to me that they not only actively strive to be ignorant, but they actively try to make everyone else as uneducated as they are.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ionysos (August 10, 2011 2:37 pm ET)
         
      Where does Fox News want to take us, back to the Stone Age? I wish Carl Sagan was still alive. Or better yet, both Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Independent04 (August 10, 2011 6:07 pm ET)
         
      Wow. I have my masters in chemistry so I think I have a good idea of what is being discussed in this instance. The logic used by Bastardi to "disprove" global warming is in this case is simply ludicrous.

      The fact that he implies that energy is being created (i.e. by man), shows right away he is a hack. I watch Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. I don't necessarily hate Fox, but its very disappointing to see this information perpetrated in such a matter by ANY organization.

      I still can't see why this issue has been so heavily politicized in the media.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tf2261 (August 10, 2011 11:28 pm ET)
         
      Le Chatelier is French! How can he be reliable ?
      Report Abuse