Sorry meant to have “390 ppm” of CO2.

The proof is all around us. It shouldn’t be of any particular political persuasion that this is a human made problem that we need to solve before it gets way out of hand. (Limbaugh was among the conservative elites first to propose that it is all a “liberal socialist conspiracy.”) Which is constantly being repeated for those who wish to keep it the same even as the earth changes.

RAE, you’re absolutely correct—unfortunately. As strongly as I believe in my position that anthropogenic GW is occurring, since the Climategate story broke, I’ve become much more circumspect in where I ask people to look for data—circumspect, me, a believer!

There is one way to try to filter through the fog that has worked well—or seemingly so—for me. First, over the last few years, I’ve spent hundreds of hours, maybe thousands, trying to ground myself as firmly as possible in the climate sciences, although as a layman, not as an actual scientists. I think I’ve learned enough to be able to make a decent assessment of whether or not a given scientist is using reasonable science, as best we know it today, and of whether his conclusions—whatever they may be—appear to be logical in the context of the science.

In my case, there are a *few* sources I still implicitly trust, such as NASA and NOAA, as well as some in other countries, such as the Academy of Sciences in Beijing, where many scientists, despite intense government pressure for them to shut the hell up, are raising the alarm. I can’t believe they would do that, given the grave danger that presents them (arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, possible accomanied by torture), unless they genuinely believe their conclusions are correct. And they damned sure don’t take their marching orders from Al Gore & Company.

The criticism that some people stand to make buckets of money is rather curious. Oilmen made and make buckets of money. Ditto automakers, overall, though in the current recession they’re struggling—in the U.S., but not necessarily elsewhere. For instance, while GM is in deep dookey domestically, it’s international operations continue to be profitable, though the profit margins currently are thinner than normal. Despite the buble burst in the IT industry bankrupted many people, some walked away enormously wealthy anyway. Sure, Bill Gates lost tons of money—but I saw just the other day he’s still worth $48 billion, as I recall. He won’t have any trouble paying his utilities or putting grub on the table anytime soon.

I could go on; every industry has had big-time winners. Is that somehow inherently evil? I don’t feel it is, as long as the money is honestly made.

BTW, it’s entirely possible to be wrong but still be honest. For instance, I doubt early oilmen even thought about health consequences, though if any did, I doubt they concluded there were any—the science either wasn’t in existence yet or hadn’t been applied yet to the question. Therefore, I believe they were honest in their push to expand oil production.

On the other hand, yes, there were, for instance, the Robber Barons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, brilliantly pilloried in Sinclair’s novels. If those are the people in the GW crowd you’re talking about—and they do exist—I agree completely. For instance, there are some—but not all—makers of wind turbines who insist there are not only NO health consequences, but that none are even possible. But the jury is still out on that—and I’m saying that as a strong proponent of wind turbines. Heck, I abandoned an apartment I dearly loved after putting up with construction of an apartment door immediately next door for over three years, 24/7, when construction on another began diagonally across the street on a much taller one. Well, I put up with it a few months, until I learned the project was going to take at *least* three years to finish. My health was affected by a lack of sleep, caused my the ceaseless noise. Sometimes, in desperation, I went to a motel about a kilometer away, the other side of other tall buildings that blocked the sound—just to get 40 winks.

IMHO, this whole argument is out of hand, with people all around spewing all sorts of nonsense, lies, and hatred.

Without CO2 we would be a far colder planet so when the density reaches 290ppm it should concern us. Such numbers haven’t been recorded for any of the heating these past 10,000 years of ice cores. So with the oscillation wouldn’t it just augment its effects? We are pumping in to the atmosphere carbon sequestered 100’s of millions of years ago and that does nothing? I don’t see how that could be. Humans are the only species that actually changes the earth. We cut down forests, burn them, pollute the oceans to blue deserts, divert rivers etc and that does have an impact and still is. Burning hydrocarbons was fine in the 19th century but not now. We should have heeded the warning we got in the 1970’s. Denmark did and now look at them. We should copy them!  We got to move on to cleaner forms and now the soonest possible. Yes bad things will happen to a huge amount of people if we don’t. 7 billion fire ants can kill an elephant.

Once trust is lost, it is, in my experience and opinion, almost impossible to regain. And this, again in my opinion, is the main problem in this whole issue.

We have been LIED TO and now DO NOT TRUST. The relatively few scientists whose political and economic agendas have allowed them to diddle the data to suit their situational ethics have ruined it for all the honest ones. We simply do not know who to believe. The avalanche of BS has buried our trust along with whatever “facts” happened to be in the way.

To C. Curtis Dillon: though I’m on the same side of this issue as you are, I should point out that considering you say you are a Stanford PhD holder, some readers may be inclined to run your name through a search engine. I input “‘C Curtis Dillion’ Stanford” intp Google, and was rather surprised at how few returns I got. And most (almost all) were right here at truthdig.com. I don’t know you’re actual status, but some of your opponents surely would seize on that knowledge, especially the apparent absence of any academic affiliations or peer-reviewed published research.

DaveZx3, it’s true that some who believe that anthropogenic global warming is occurring demonize any and all who disagree, and that’s really, really bad. But it’s no worse (but not any better, either) than those on your side who do the same to *their* opponents nor in acknowledging that while there are *some* scientists skeptical about any significant human role in clmate change, the great majority of scientists do believe that *and* the preponderance of evidence appears to back them up. (For the record, I’m not a scientist, but I have tried to educate myself considerably on the subject, especially the past few years. Your side also tends, at times, to downplay, ignore, or deny that some of the scientist-skeptics are indeed on the payroll of organizations with a vested interest, and not just those involved in fossil fuels and nuclear energy, but also including outfits such as Heartland.

Both sides have those guilty of ad hominem attacks, dragging in the irrelevant, and so on, and that’s to be strongly condemned. Over the past 24 years, I’ve lived in Tianjin and Beijing in China (3 years), Beaumont, Texas (2 years), Macau (4 years), Bangkok, Thailand (since 1994), and almost a year “commuting from here to Shunde, China in the Pearl River Delta between Macau and Guangzhou. All are heavily polluted areas, even Macau (because of it’s location on the Pearl River Delta, one of the post polluted regions on the planet. As a result, even if global warming is Al Gore’s Great Lie, I for one would like to have a cleaner environment.

Here in Bangkok there are days that in terms of the weather, the skies are clear—but due to the heavy smog, one can barely see the Sun. On rare days, it can’t be seen at all.

That alone seems to be a good reason to clean the environment up, especially since no one I know of has *ever* disputed the negative health consequences.

I recognize there is a vocal minority of trained scientists who have examined the data and find it to fall short. I listen to their arguments carefully, as I believe anyone in my position should.

But the scientist-shills for the oil industry, for example, are identical, in my view, to those the tobacco industry used to try to convince us that at worst, tobacco smoke is harmless and at best, a health mood enhancer. Ditto, BTW, goes for the same kind on the other side who work for outfits who brook absolutely no disagreement, or organizations such as makers of wind turbines, solar panels, and the like. They’re all suspect, at best, though they be sincere; their affiliations taint them.

As Dillon and others have stated, it appears the wider course to assume the worse and hope for the best. The climate sciences remain inexact; it doesn’t help that most people can’t distinguish between climate change and weather. The cooling scare of the 1970’s was based on 40*-year-old science, too. Lots of improvement since then. Not perfection, but progress.

Sometime ago, I spent a week or so pulling together links from organizations, public and private, all over the world: the great preponderance of evidence suggested that anthropogenic warming is real and dangerous. Even sources in *China* said so. (Hardly a bunch of tree huggers in the government there!)

Again, you’re absolutely correct to decry the tactics of some. Just remember they’re on both sides, not just mine.

By Fat Freddy, October 24 at 4:59 pm #

“I would call you stupid if you didn’t “sign on” to the ability to split atoms. I would call you stupid if you couldn’t defend any one of the multiple quantum theories. I would call you stupid if you couldn’t explain the difference between a muon and a quark. I would call you stupid if you said you could prove, by scientific method, the existence of electrons. I would call you stupid if you told me that light behaves as a particle and not a wavefront”.

Fat Freddy,  You can call me stupid all you want, but your post is both a muon and a quark. 

I will prove by scientific method the existence of electronic principles which have been considered to be the result of electron movment.  DUH!! 

I will prove by photonic theory that light acts like a particle and a waveform.  And I am not too dumb to know that particles can form waveforms when excited by an external source of energy. DUH!!

I studied quantum theory 30 years ago, DUH!!  (not saying I feel a need to remember it all) 

Oh, yeah, and we can split atoms.  That’s real news.  I think that happened before I was born. 

You have not intimidated me with this crap.  Also, I am not indimidated by climate change.  Interesting that no one has commented as yet on the McClean Press Conference link that I posted. 

Get with it Freddy, you gotta stay up.  You can’t just keep listening to what was happening yesterday.  New things are happening today.

stcfarms—good! now maybe you can work on using your considerable intelligence in learning how to communicate your knowledge to people in a way that convinces them to act to SAVE THEMSELVES AND OTHERS FROM CAPITALISM.

No Capitalism, much less excessive consumption, less filth, less selfishness (ot need for it) and anxiety, more cooperation for the common good.

Jeez, C. Curtis… you sure take your existence and your philosophies seriously!

I don’t think anyone is denying there is “climate change.” The argument is all about WHAT climate changes, by HOW MUCH, in what TIME FRAME and by WHAT CAUSES.

From what I’ve read, we humans, scientists included, are extrapolating our untested assumptions and sometimes rather glib opinions from glimpses into data of dubious origin.

WHAT CLIMATE CHANGES - we have significant records for the last few hundred years, and less complete geological records from before that, which in the overall scheme of things is a period analagous to one snapshot as being the record of my life. It’s a start but by no means enough to begin jumping to conclusions.

by HOW MUCH - let’s hear your GUESS - it’s got to be as good as mine. In other words nobody knows.

in what TIME FRAME - oh maybe over the next thousand years, or maybe not.

by WHAT CAUSES - natural and unnatural. It certainly makes good sense to do what we can to establish and maintain healthy “green” practises regarding our air, water and land. Beyond that lies the realm of hysterical voices wailing “the sky is falling.”

C.Curtis.Dillon, October 26 at 3:28 am #

“The Witnesses have no credible proof that their prophesy will come true.  Science is the proof….”

Sometimes we all do not get to see the proof of science.  Or as you say, understand the proof science.

Much of what we accept is based on the learned testimony of others or observing an effect of which the cause cannot be proven.  Like electricity.  Or whether light is a wave or a particle.  We may not have the proof of the cause, but we accept the measurable, scientific proof of the effect. 

If you were born in a dark cave, and lived your whole life in it, you might have the gall to deny the existence of the very sun, and all who would profess to such an outlandish idea. You may be the brightest scientist in the cave, but you are still a fool. 

Just because you do not experience the cause, do not deny that some, or possibly millions of others, have experienced it.  And do not be ignorant enough to deny an cause or an effect, just because you live in a cave.

Only fools deny that the climate is changing.  I never denied it.  I only question the nature of the change and what, if anything, man should do about it.

Funny the subject of Australia should be brought up.  The McLean Press Release highlights a recent study by 3 Australian Scientists on the subject.

An excerpt states:

“The paper also confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, an emissions trading scheme will exert no measurable effect on future climate”

The full report is available here:

http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/McLeanPressRelease.pdf

If you want a good idea of what is coming, look at Australia.  They have major problems and they are getting worse.  I suggest you go to Democracy Now and listen to Tim Flannery, a leading climate scientist from that country discuss what he sees happening.  This guy is not a quack!

As for the Witnesses, they are spouting biblical Armageddon while climate scientists are talking about what is happening now.  It is certainly your right to dismiss their stuff (I have too) but you are comparing apples to oranges with this argument.  If you had been following the debate as long as I have, you would have noticed that the science gets worse, not better with time.  The impacts being observed today were not even envisioned 30 years ago.  The acidification of the oceans was not discovered until recently but the impact is already major and growing.  60% of all coral reefs have been destroyed.  Now, you may not understand their significance but they are a major component of the aquatic life cycle and protect many islands from destruction.

The Witnesses have no credible proof that their prophesy will come true.  Science is the proof you have for the global changes already underway.  But, I will finish with the same statement ... are you 100% sure that the science is wrong?  Are you prepared to deny this might be happening and that we need to react?  If the science is wrong, it is only money that is lost and we all know that can be easily replaced.  If the science is right and significant climate change is all but certain, we will have to deal with the consequences for generations or longer.  Denying the possibility is playing Russian Roulette with the future.  I would rather stand on the side of caution than roll the dice that you are right.  From the science I’ve seen and the voices being raised, to ignore the warnings because they are inconvenient is dangerous.  A prudent man prepares for the worst and hopes for the best.  A foolish man prays for the best and does nothing.

For some really great science regarding climate change, please visit ClimateDebatedDaily.com, if you have not already.  I am sure you have, but just in case. 

This website has, in my opinion, accumulated more data, pro and con, than any other site I have seen.  It is where I got most of my information to make my personal decision regarding climate change. 

The following link covering a recent study showing the influences of the el nino, and la nina effects on ocean temperatures and air temperatures is a very, very good article. 

http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/McLeanPressRelease.pdf

C.Curtis.Dillon, October 25 at 4:06 am #

“See, I told you so!”  Now, print this statement, put it in an envelope and hide it in the back of your sock drawer”. 

In many ways I sympathize with the fact that you have
obviously labored on a project that you really cared about while no one listened to you.  That is real, and I commend you for your work and dedication.  In no way do I intend to diminish your effort.  You are a credit to science because you have an obvious passion for it. 

If I have diminished the efforts of true scientists, I apologize.  That is wrong and unfair to do, judging the work of those who I don’t know based on the ones that I do know.  It is wrong, and I am not happy with some of the way I have presented my view. 

BUT, I am throwing two more zingers in here. 

1.  Your sock drawer and message of “I told you so” is eerily reminiscent of an encounter I had probably 40 years ago with my local Jehovah’s Witness’  I told them I did not believe in their theology, and they warned me that I was going to burn in hell.  And they handed me a little booklet and said to hold on to it, so when it started to happen I would remember that I had been warned.

2.  I am sorry that no one believed you,, but it is a little presumptuous to categorize me, as you have no idea who, or what, I am.  I looked into Jehovah Witness and rejected it.  I looked into apocalyptic global climate change and rejected certain parts of it. 

Some things I look into I do not reject.  I do not need to recap my efforts at energy conservation, which I consider important and self-evident.

You did your job, you warned me.  I did my job, I investigated.  At this point, I am more worried that the Jehovah Witness’ may be right than anything else.  That would be really, really scary.  But we have all rejected that one, haven’t we?  So we’re safe, right?

Since we are into stupid analogies, let me throw out a cautionary tale.  Maybe those of you who deny climate change will get the analogy ... maybe you won’t.

During the Clinton administration, a federal regulator started campaigning to regulate over the counter derivatives.  She noticed that this was a very large and growing market and there were considerable abuses.  During her campaign, a major derivatives trader went belly up ... a warning.  The major banks, derivative traders and most of the major regulators (including Summers, Geitner and Greenspan) trashed her and forced her to resign.

In 2004, some economists, analysts and even bankers began warning about the exploding sub-prime mortgage market and many of the more exotic financial instruments that were being created with them.  There was major disagreement even among economists about the dangers involved.  Alan Greenspan had information on his desk about the sub-prime problem and chose to do nothing.  Everyone was protecting their lifestyle and cash flow.  The capacity for self-delusion trumped everything else so nothing was done.

In 2007, as Bear-Sterns was sliding into disaster, most on Wall Street were telling everyone that the problem was contained, that there was nothing to worry about.  Only when Lehmann Brothers went belly up and Merrill was being sold to BofA did anyone take the problem seriously and even then they downplayed the severity.  It was only when Paulson called them all to Washington and forced them to take TARP money did the extent of the crisis become evident.

The human ability to delude itself and to deny any bad news is the major cause of so much pain and suffering in this world.  Had the government stepped in during the 90s to regulate OTC derivatives and had Greenspan and others taken serious note of the sub-prime disaster screaming at them, maybe the meltdown would have been mitigated or even avoided but they chose to ignore the warnings and force us, the taxpayers, to foot a multi-trillion dollar bailout to save the whole system.

And now we visit the present.  A few on this stream have told me about how scientists can’t be trusted ... that we forge data and write anything to keep our money stream running.  Shoot the messenger is what this is called.  When you don’t like the message, kill the messenger.  Sound even vaguely like that poor regulator who was destroyed by Sommers and Greenspan?

I’ve been arguing with people like you for years with the same results.  You seek to find any crack, no matter how small, and wedge it open until it dominates the conversation.  I’ve heard all the arguments, over and over until I want to vomit.

You complain about us demanding you accept what we say without explanation as one of your reasons for not listening.  Well, for years we tried to explain the science and that didn’t work.  We went before congressional committees and were told the science wasn’t strong enough.  We were marginalized and called quacks.  During the Bush/Cheney administration, our data was changed or went unpublished because it argued against the “Drill baby, drill” mentality of the government. 

But we persist because we see a major disaster playing out in slow motion and no one wants to listen.  How would you have us explain it to you?  Please ... give us the formula to get your attention.  But, of course, you don’t want to listen because this is an inconvenience for you.

So, I will close with a simple request.  Because I’m old and won’t be around as the disaster unfolds, I will make my statement now “See, I told you so!”  Now, print this statement, put it in an envelope and hide it in the back of your sock drawer.  Then, when this all happens, when the climate is at war with you, drag the envelope out and read my words.  Then try to explain to your children and grandchildren about how you were too ignorant (oops ... there’s that word again) to see the truth and that you are sorry.

DaveZx3—There is often an element of self-interest and self-advertisement involved in science, but that’s all right—there are plenty of interests, so there should be a useful interplay of conflict and cooperation between different scientists’ views of things.  I am somewhat annoyed, however, with apocalyptic demands for instant belief and obedience.  I want to see the science, by which I mean the kind of science which deals with concrete physical facts.  For one thing, many of the predictions we’re currently being given are so catastrophic that there is no point in spending time and energy on prevention, which is now a hopeless cause; we must instead work on mitigation.  (In the most catastrophic scenarios even mitigation is hopeless, and we should all commit suicide now.)  We need to make important political, economic and social decisions, and we have to make them based on the facts available to us, not hysteria and above all not this business about how stupid everyone else is.  Some of you so need to put that one away—you’re not all that brilliant yourselves.

Anarcissie, October 24 at 7:18 pm

“I think a closer analogy would be something like this:  You’re in a parking lot, and your car is making a funny noise.  Ten people come along.  Five of them tell you that you need a new engine at a cost of $5000, and if you don’t get one immediately, the car will blow up and destroy everyone in the neighborhood.  When you ask them why they think so, they tell you you’re too stupid to understand the reason.” 

That is a very good analogy, though the destruction of the neighborhood is a slight stretch. 

Here’s another good one:  You visit your family physician because you are having some serious pain in your chest.  He tells you that you are going to die in three months, but a new wonder drug has been created that will save you.  It cost $100 per pill and you need to take 4 pills a day for the next 12 months.  You would like to keep living if possible, so you fork out the cash for 12 months, use up your your kid’s college fund and a big chunk of your 401k, (don’t write me that if I had Obamacare that the pills would be free) and cause other health problems due to a reaction to the drug.

A while later, you find out that Hydrogen Peroxide would kill the disease in your body with no side effects.  Hydrogen peroxide costs 67 cents per bottle
You have it administered and you become well.  When you ask your doctor why he did not recommend the H2O2, he says it is not accepted by the established medical community as useful in this case.  (or did he really mean Big Pharma can’t make a buck off of it because they can’t patent it? 

This is a true story with some of the details rounded off bor brevity.  It is one example of thousands that indicate to me that money and power are prime motivators in the science of corporations and governments. 

So pardon me if I exhibit my cynicism over your attempts to “save my ass”.

I have been trying to get the message out since 1963, oddly enough, it was
you that set me on a selfish path. First you told me that the sheep would never
live on islands made of trash and then you told me that I was wasting my time
on the groups when I should be building my island. I thought it over and
decided that you were right.

By KDelphi, October 24 at 6:25 pm #

Youre giving away your “individualized ” solution, and there’s only so much
plastic and ocean, if everybody wants one.

Fat Freddy:
’... Look at it this way: If your car is broken down in a parking lot, and 4 people tell you it’s the starter, and 6 people tell you it’s the battery, who are you going to believe? ...’

I think a closer analogy would be something like this:  You’re in a parking lot, and your car is making a funny noise.  Ten people come along.  Five of them tell you that you need a new engine at a cost of $5000, and if you don’t get one immediately, the car will blow up and destroy everyone in the neighborhood.  When you ask them why they think so, they tell you you’re too stupid to understand the reason.  Moreover, they tell you they, too, are too stupid to understand the reason, but wise men up on the hill have seen your car and made a determination.

The other five tell you all different things.  Some suggest you just run it until something actually breaks, others recommend this mechanic their cousin’s wife’s father knows about, yet others swear by a secret fuel additive from the supermarket. 

What are you going to do?  I would say in this situation you’re going to have to learn something about your car, unless you can get a really quick fix from Car Talk.

“Stupid” doesn’t get it.

The talking monkeys can all argue for the rest of the short time they can pull the putrid air into their lungs, find clean non poisoned water and uncontaminated food, these arguments create diversion, from the real. 
Giant balls of plastic floating in the oceans of the world, deforestation reaching unprecedented proportions, nuclear rabbit shit at Hanford Wa.. The decline of the temperate forests of western america. Heavy metals washed into the waterways of the world from the unrestricted and uncontrolled burning coal, ripping mountain tops of to get the coal to burn. Poisoning of all fresh water supplies by corporate mining, and agriculture, not to mention the 800 pound gorilla nuclear waste that has been pushed from our attention. If this isn’t enough then just the waste that is produced world wide should get someone’s attention. I am sure that many could add to this “short” list.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with global warming, the true stupidity is ignoring the industrial culture’s death wish.

NOW with David Broncaccio , last night, on Bangaldesh, underwater. (and “innovative solutions”—gawd)http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/543/index.html

Constantly calling for “others” to ‘save their own asses”, doesnt seem to make sense. Why arent you just doing it?After all, anybody would kill a child for a ham sandwich if they were starving right? Has anyone here actually been in a situation like that? If that is the case, then, almost everything is pointless. Except just saving your own,ass, as you put it. Who all here wants to live like that? If I actually thought that, I wouldnt have much desire to save myself or anyone else.

We need to abandon CAPITLISM and , work together as a species. If you have a plan and dont care about anyone else, why even talk about it. Youre giving away your “individualized ” solution, and there’s only so much plastic and ocean, if everybody wants one.

HOW DARE ANYONE CALL ME STUPID BECAUSE I DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY SIGN ON TO GLOBAL WARMING.  I HAVE BEEN READING BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE FOR OVER 30 YEARS, AND THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE CONSENSUS.

I would call you stupid if you didn’t “sign on” to the ability to split atoms. I would call you stupid if you couldn’t defend any one of the multiple quantum theories. I would call you stupid if you couldn’t explain the difference between a muon and a quark. I would call you stupid if you said you could prove, by scientific method, the existence of electrons. I would call you stupid if you told me that light behaves as a particle and not a wavefront.

The fact is, you are stupid because you are not qualified to make those determinations. It’s that simple. Yes, I’m stupid, also.

Look at it this way: If your car is broken down in a parking lot, and 4 people tell you it’s the starter, and 6 people tell you it’s the battery, who are you going to believe? Now, let’s say there’s 10 qualified mechanics, and 8.5 of them tell you it’s the starter and 1.5 says it’s the battery. You’ll probably be needing a new starter. Why? Because people are stupid, and you are stupid if you even consider listening to those people or try to make that determination on your own without the proper background. That’s why.

The corporations and the oligarchs who own them started the denial by doubt campaign. Millions of dollars and anyone they can find with a Ph.D after their names that could be hired to cook up whatever the power companies, oil companies etc wanted to keep the money rolling in on the status quo that has lasted for over 100 years. Is that what you are speaking about DaveZx3?

If scientists aren’t 100% does that make it wrong? Why can’t they be sure? If you don’t know the answers to those questions you don’t understand science in the first place. Educate yourself. Go to the sites you find and study on your own if you doubt. The same with evolution where the same tactics are in use to sow doubt. If it isn’t 100% then you doubt. Doubt is all you need to dismiss. That is how the game is played with a population that knows little about science and how it works and likes it that way. It makes them easy marks i.e. gullible.

Argueing will not change facts or minds. Perhaps those that cannot or will not
believe in science should continue as they always have and those of us that
have been ‘fooled’ by science should take steps to save our own asses. There
is no magic, 100% gaurentee that any of us are right and nature will be the
final arbiter as to who will survive.

C.Curtis.Dillon, October 24 at 11:47 am #

“If you want science, just tune into a host of science programs that try to make the theories presentable to a population that has no ability to understand science”. 

“You who deny what is happening do so from a lack of understanding which you cover by claiming the science is crap”

“You don’t know scientists very well if that is your belief”

I expressed an opinion that many, many people are not trusting science as they once did, and that it has become corrupt in the eyes of a wary populace, the same as politics has.

I actually never denied climate change, nor did I profess anything whatsoever about religion or God.

You read all that into it, and then you made the statements above which make a judgement about me personally, as though I am incapable of understanding.

The intolerance of intellectual elitists is as bad as the intolerance of fundamental christianity.  Both are religions of elitism and exclusion, and both profess to have all the answers. 

I am not as stupid as you think.  I made a post and all I learned is that what I believe is still true.  That you will be attacked by the intolerant when you question anything they do.

If you want science, just tune into a host of science programs that try to make the theories presentable to a population that has no ability to understand science.  I am a scientist ... a PhD from Stanford to be exact.  I was discussing CO2 loads with researchers at Georgia Tech in the 80s and there was deep concern even then.  You who deny what is happening do so from a lack of understanding which you cover by claiming the science is crap.  It is not.  There is disagreement on how bad and what some of the effects may be, certainly, because different scientific disciplines look at the problem in different ways.  When 85% of the scientific community agrees there is a problem, you should feel confident that something is wrong.

Is there crap science out there?  Sure ... I was involved in debunking the cold fusion theory so can say that sometimes science gets it wrong.  That is the nature of scientific inquiry.  But the climate change research has been debated, experiments have been duplicated and the theories have advanced ... that too is the nature of scientific inquiry.  This process has been moving forward for almost 40 years and the theories agree more with what is being seen with each passing year.

What I see in your denials is not science ... it is an attempt to say that science is crap and therefore the research is not valid.  It is just an excuse for kicking the can down the road a bit so you don’t have to make changes in your wasteful and reckless lifestyles.  But, the facts cannot be changed by pointing to a condition that you think makes everything worthless.  What you see happening is real and some of the changes have not been experienced in thousands of years.  They are not part of normal weather cycles.

However, I will repeat my final thought again ... what if you are wrong?  Can you be 100% sure climate change is just junk science?  Do you really think that scientists from all over the world are just doing this for money?  You don’t know scientists very well if that is your belief.  I’ve spent my entire 40+ year career around some of the best in the world and, with very rare exception, they were dedicated and committed to their work and their profession.  They would never forge data nor write anything that was not 100% honest.  The peer review process would eat them alive if they did.

Ask yourself if this denial is more about not wanting to make adjustments to your lifestyle and less to do with the science.  I’ve spent my life with science and am extremely comfortable with the climate change data being presented.  I’m not prepared to ignore an overwhelming stack of data that says something fundamentally wrong is happening.  And I’m not prepared to kick this can onto my children.  It may be too late to fix by then.

By Anarcissie, October 24 at 10:40 am #

I have come to the conclusion that science may have changed into religon when we weren’t watching.

Seems its no longer based on sound methods but faith. 

I try to find solid evidence for many studies, and all I ever find is science/religion, politics and money.

Pardon me for being pessimistic about where the process is going. 

I just love it when they send the attack dogs on me when I question anything, though.  It is worth irritating them just to watch them froth at the mouth.

I still don’t see any science here, except for gestures to it off stage left somewhere.

If I doubted Evolution, or spherical shape of the Earth, or that 2 + 2 = 4, someone could give me half a dozen web pages showing strong reasons for belief in these propositions, based on physical evidence, much of it available in daily life.

By contrast, Global Warming / Climate Change is presented as a series of apocalyptic scenarios reminiscent of the Book of Revelations along with the following political assertion: “We are smart because we know that some people over there are really, really smart.  Some of them even work in laboratories and wear white coats.  All those who disagree with us, therefore, are unutterably stupid.  Never mind the physical evidence.”  This is in a context where the theory is not merely a theory, but is going to become the basis of considerable, perhaps radical changes in people’s lives, which they’re expected to support voluntarily.

I don’t think you should be surprised that belief in this theory is declining.  Of course, the response of the most ardent believers is increased insistence that the people are stupid, not that they, the believers, may be doing or saying something wrong.

Why is it that I automatically become a religious nut?  Where did I say anything about religion?

My opinion, as stated, was that science has become corrupted by money and the need to publish consistently.  A statement that I will stand by and have plenty of evidence to back up. 

My opinion was that many are starting to suspect that science is corrupted.  (I will take back the statement: “People are starting to suspect that science is stupid”  Maybe that was a tad inflammatory. 

I have noted in my years of practicing science that you can certainly get a rise out of someone whose theories are not on solid footing when you suggest that their theories are not on solid footing.

They go right into the elitist mode and start attacking your dumbness, making you into everything from a Satan to a Jesus Freak to a Religious Fanatic.  Glad to see nothing has changed.

A real scientist welcomes having his theories challenged.

Welcome to the land of the intolerant!!!

A P.S. to my comments:

Those of you who believe God will come to the rescue ... what if he intends to stand back and see if you are smart enough to figure this one out for yourselves?  You are being exceedingly arrogant (one of the seven deadly sins if I remember my training right) if you believe that he will come riding to the rescue after years of your crapping all over his beautiful creation.  He might be angry enough to just pull the plug on this whole experiment and start over somewhere else.  And maybe ... I love this one ... maybe this is the second coming of Christ!  And all of you climate change deniers will be sent to hell because you failed to be waiting with the lamp oil when it arrives.  God gave you this planet and you are crapping all over it and then denying you are the cause.  He will not be pleased!!!!!

Gee DaveZx3 ... you’ve given us so much to think about.  Science is stupid ... but you are typing you crazy crap on a computer which is attached to a worldwide internet that uses fiber optics and satellites to spread your word everywhere.  You sit at home and watch Fox Noise every day on your big, flat screen TV and eat all the GM foods you can stomach.  You go to the hospital for a CAT scan, an MRI or a PET scan and have your gall bladder removed through a thin scope while the surgeon watches the whole thing on TV using a camera so small it can fit down a straw.  All of these things came to you via the stupid science you have such contempt for.

Atmospheric science is perhaps the most complex system ever studied.  It comprises the sun, the moon, the air and oceans plus a host of other systems all interacting to produce what we call weather.  We only have records going back a few hundred years and have to divine long-term weather trends using secondary methods like ice cores and soil samples.  There are thousands of dedicated scientists all over the world trying to develop models and theories about what is happening and they have made major progress but there is still much that needs to be understood.  We have just developed the computers that are powerful enough to start running real models that might give us some ability to forecast what is coming.  So, yes, some of the science is guesswork and based on the scientist’s best “guess”.  But you insult all of us by declaring yourself smarter and better informed about this than those who have dedicated their entire lives to figuring out what is happening.

As for cooling vs. warming, the early science was based on the theory that CO2 and other greenhouse gases would cause the atmosphere to get warmer.  Thus the first name “global warming”.  But those early theories did not take into account the impact of the oceans and currents which we now know have major influences on the weather.  The name “climate change” is perhaps a better way to define what is happening.  We now know that the only given in climate change is that things will get more violent and more extreme.  Some places will see lower temperatures while others will see higher.  There will be more violent storms (the Philippines have just suffered their THIRD hurricane in the last month) and local weather conditions will change drastically.  So you are right that it may be getting colder in your area but that does not negate the fact that climate change is real.

One final observation: if I handed you a Colt 45 and asked you to point it at your head and pull the trigger, would you?  Not knowing how many cartridges are in the cylinder!  I would guess your answer would be NO!  Because there is a risk that there might be a live round in the chamber.  So you are risk averse!  And yet, you are asking all of us to put a loaded “climate change” gun to our heads and to trust that you know enough about this subject that we will not be harmed.  I will suggest that you don’t know anything about climate change or even the science involved but are more than willing to put me and my family at risk because your “gun” might have a cartridge in every chamber.  So everyone here calls you an idiot because you are ... pretending to know something when you have no idea what you are talking about.

You may be right ... climate change is a big hoax perpetrated by a large group of scientists who want to pull a big gag on all of us.  But what if you are wrong?  Have you even tried to wrap your warped mind around the possibility that this is all real?  What will you say and think when all the science turns out to be right?  You are playing with my life and my family’s life and you have no right.  If you have nothing constructive to say ... SHUT UP!

It is not that the people are stupid, it is that the people are starting to suspect that science is stupid.

People are stupid, and people are not just, now, starting to suspect science is stupid, they’ve been around for a long time; a very long time. These are the same people that believe in that omnipotent, mythical creature that lives in the sky. They believe that everything we need to know is in a book that’s over 2000 years old. They believe that this creature will solve all of their problems if they just pray hard enough, and live their lives in strict accordance to the rules in that book.

The Climate Change debate, for whatever reason, has taken on the tone of the Creationism vs Evolution debate, with both its political and religious implications.

Only 39% (latest poll, up from 32%) of the general population believes in Evolution. Yet, 87% of all scientists believe that Evolution is a well established theory (many believe it to be fact). In that same poll of scientists, it was revealed that 84% believe that people are causing climate change. Almost as many scientists believe in GW as Evolution.

If people want to believe that their existence is the direct result of a Supreme Being, that’s fine with me, as long as they keep that belief to themselves. It has very little consequence. But when their beliefs justify the poisoning of the planet, it effects every living thing, and a line must be drawn. 

The correlation between public opinion of Evolution and GW are too great to be ignored.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1105/darwin-debate-religion-evolution

http://people-press.org/report/528/

DaveZx3,

Good to hear you have managed to remain unbesmirched by the taint of scientific
thought and education. Not all of us can be so fortunate! For example, 280 young
people this autumn were admitted to as freshmen to Caltech, an institution renowned
for teaching science. The sad truth is that their mid-range SAT score were only
2170-2300, and ACT scores (mid-50%, composite) just 33–35. Only 98% ranked in the
top 10% of their graduating class in high school. Moreover, they had inordinate
desires to perform community service, play music and follow scientific research.
Such losers! It really is frightening that these nerds will devote their lives to
scientific inquiry and the betterment of humanity while denying real men like you—
who can see, who believe implicitly—that science is a hoax, their rightful place
in the sun. It just ain’t fair.

eggroll, October 24 at 3:33 am #

“In science its about the going, but an impatient public keeps asking “Are we there yet?”

It is more probable that the impatient public has started to ask, “Could you stop the car and let me out”?

Science has become like a 24 hour cable news channel on a day when nothing happened worth reporting.  They have nothing to say, so they make something up.

The elite status given to science and education is starting to unravel as they show their absolute inability to solve the real issues and spend most of their time making money for their masters. 

It really is getting hard to take science seriously as they throw their theories up against the wall, like wet tissue paper balls, hoping they will stick.  In their desperate need to publish papers, they publish anything, short-cutting real scientific methods and destroying their credibility in the process. 

It is not that the people are stupid, it is that the people are starting to suspect that science is stupid.

I took the analogy of the ability to read silently (Plutarch’s sometimes-dismissed comment about Alexander the Great’s reading a letter from his mother in front of his astonished troops) to the challenge of getting up to speed in climate policy, because the onlookers could not understand how Alexander did it, and perhaps, that he meant deliberately to fool them and really wasn’t reading silently. We saw something similar in Steven Chu’s comment that melting of the Greenland and Antarctic would raise sea level 7 meters. Geodysists responded, well, not exactly. So the coverage was that scientists were at odds over global warming. In fact, the finer point was that rising is relative. For example, the crustal uplift in Greenland would cause the land to rise nearly a kilometer. If you lived in Greenland, sea level would appear to fall and in nearby Britain or Denmark it might seem unchanged. Halfway around the world in the Indian Ocean, the rise could be even 10 or 11 meters. In other words, the planet’s shape will alter to redistribute mass. As the debate devolved into detail, however, people tuned out, even the science reporters.

Another example is the recent re-emergence of biometeorology into public discussion, this time with the discussion of the ice-promoting (ice-minus) bacteria Pseudomonas syringae and its role in the water cycle by promoting raindrop formation. The notion that plants could make the clouds water them was earlier considered nuts, but now there are worries that GM crops that discourage growth of the bacteria may be contributing to drought.

In science its about the going, but an impatient public keeps asking “Are we there yet?”

I don’t understand why we changed the terminology to “Global Warming” from “pollution”. GW can mean different things to different people. Pollution, is a dirty word no matter who you talk to.

Perhaps, the term GW came about in an attempt to address the rising amounts of pollution in developing nations and how their localized pollution effects the entire world. 

I was born and raised and currently reside in Southern NJ, and I know a little bit about pollution. At one time, I imagine Northern NJ was one of the most polluted areas in the world. I also know a little about the effort that was/is required to clean up all of the pollution. What has occured in the Meadowlands area over the past 20 years or so is nothing short of miraculous. However, it has come at great cost. Taxes, regulations, and individual sacrifice have all been necessary to clean up the pollution and protect the great natural resource in our vast water table.  I really wish that the rest of the country would learn a lesson from what has happened in NJ over the past 120 years or so. Those who do not learn from history, are destined to repeat it. It looks like there are many who are going to repeat our mistakes. In NJ, our efforts have been somewhat thwarted by all of the pollution from Mid-Western coal burning power plants being carried by the wind the way the wind carried all of the dust from the Great Dustbowl. The Midwest learned proper land management because of the Dustbowl, it’s time they learned proper pollution management.

I think the best way to address Global Climate Destabilization, in this county, is to address the issues of pollution and conservation. Everybody understands pollution, and the quality of life concerns associated with it.

Still no science, eh?

Its amazing what disinformation can accomplish

“Some Americans Won’t Believe in Global Warming Until They’re Actually Melting”

Not SOME… but MOST.

There’s a price to paid for socially condoned, promoted and supported jingoism… and that is IGNORANCE of everything else. I know it will come as a SHOCK to many Americans but America is still only a SMALL PART OF THE WORLD. Like a child prodigy she came on the world’s stage bright and brassy… but “bright” dims, and “brass” tarnishes, leaving the owners with disillusionment and depression…

UNLESS they’ve been wise enough to quit their navel gazing and self-congratulations long enough to look up and join in as a fully informed, cooperative member of the WORLD’S societies.

America is a great place - for some, and in some ways. But there are plenty of other “great” places to live on this planet… and they existed long before America was even thought of. If Americans aren’t very careful those places will be “great” long after everyone’s asking America who?

By DaveZx3 asks me why it ‘always has to be ignorance…’

The answer to that is symbolized by the places I have lived. I moved from the Seattle area where I spent most of my life, to Hawaii, eleven years ago.

Seattle [like Portland OR, and San Francisco] is in the top 10 cities based on intellectual pursuits [book stores, libraries, Universities, education level, etc]. Hawaii, including Honolulu, which is as large a metropolitan area, wasn’t on the list at all. Las Vegas, known as ‘The 9th Island’, because of the large number of Hawaiian immigrants, was number 50.

I have been making my own observations since moving here: People who were educated in the Hawaiian Public Schools are among the most ignorant I’ve met - and that is not based on race, as my ‘Local’ friends include Ha’oles, Filipinos, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese Hawaiian etc. We rank 47th on the National Education charts, and most of our local kids do not go on to higher education. They have little money, and no interest [parents tend to be either Tourist Industry workers, unskilled laborers, or Public Employees].

My Hanai [adopted] Grandson is a good example: I tried to get him accepted at Kamehameha School [He was qualified] when the Big Island Campus opened. His father refused to fill out the application, even though I had offered to pay the tuition. Big David told me Davey couldn’t go ‘because it might corrupt his religion’. And, Davey could always be a Longshoreman, like Big David.

Davey lacked the credits to graduate from High School [He was ‘Home Schooled] and finally got his GED at 19. Now, he is 21, married, and working part-time at a restaurant. This is a very bright boy, or man, now. But, he is ignorant as a post! He cannot write using cursive letters, his spelling is non existent - yet, he beats me at Chess, can repair anything, and enjoys Science. He also believes in Global Warming, even tho it is not accepted at his Church.

Ignorant? You had better believe it. For many of my Local friends, if Rush doesn’t agree with something, or if the Pastor speaks against something, that ends the discussion. I print out subversive documents, like Health Care articles, or how we are doing in Afghanistan, for my ‘Mail Lady’ She listens to Rush as she works, and thinks Sarah Palin may be the 2nd Coming. She worries about her own job and whether she can afford her medical insurance, most of the time, but calls Obama a ‘Socialist’. Fortunately, she no longer tries to convert me, and forgives me for being a Communist.

Hawaii now is the proud innovator of the ‘Furlough Friday’. The schools and State offices shut down to save money - giving our poorly educated, ignorant kids only 163 days of school instead of the usual 180 days elsewhere.

Ignorant? You had better believe it.

Anything to survive may be the meme of the next century. For some it will be ugly, for others beautiful like those island communities.

They can turn to a coal to oil scheme, coal gasification and also tar sands, all very dirty and increases the GHG emissions.

The climate targets currently proposed by Washington are unbearably weak - far behind what the IPCC says would give us a 50:50 chance of avoiding disaster.

Tell President Obama and your senators to support a 40% emissions reduction by 2020 to avert global crisis:

http://bit.ly/40by20

We can do this if we can escape the meme of capitalism. Like you say the fiat
money is worthless except for what value that it’s slaves give it. 71% of the
world is ocean and with floating islands made from our waste plastic barrels,
bottles and styrofoam we could grow heirloom vegetation, collect rainfall and
make all of the energy we need from the sun and wind. Such a project would
require the combined wealth and labor of a billion people. The poor could
build the islands to get their own homesteads and the wealthy could supply
the tools and raw materials to get pure water, good food and green energy. It
seems like a fair trade and those that do not see the problem need not apply.

By Existentialist, October 23 at 10:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Really, I think one of the smarter motivations behind the Green movement is a
bit of old fashioned isolationism in the energy market.  If the US can create
and use its own limitless supply of good, clean, cheap energy this country can
prosper without relying on blood-for-oil campaigns marketed as ‘restoring
democracy’ to ‘unstable nations’ in the right and just name of ‘US peace
missions’ brand of interventionism It would be great if we could all be a little
more tidy in our doings, and learn to make the most of what resources and
ingenuity we have. 

Intolerant people may refer to americans stupidity all they want, for they are, by all measures, correct.

Only 80% of american children graduate from high school. Of that group only 30% of them every graduate from college (most, with crippling debt)American hospitals and high tech industries are forced to import knowledgable workers in from other nations that acually stress science. Compared to the other industrialized nations we are stupid, indeed.

Most americans still believe in ghosts and angels. They think an invisible man in the sky created everything that ever was, and will provide us with all our material needs, until the rapture, of course.

“The lord shall provide” is a piss poor fallback plan to running out of petroleum by-products.

Yes, boys and girls, we americans have once again been distracted by the pretty blinking lights. It is not one rouge scientist at the UN that thinks (not Believes) that the earth’s climate is changing due to human activity. It is nearly 99% of all climate scientists worldwide that think so. (the only ones that don’t think so are connected to big business and the neo-conservative think tanks they created) Just because a third of the USA got to enjoy a slightly cooler summer than normal, does not mean that everything is now hunky-dory. The entire world is on pace this year to have the second or third warmest year since we started keeping records. But we dim americans believe that since it was cool in New England this summer, that all is well.

If it is any concilation, the climate change deniers won’t have to worry about being behind the times much longer, for the climate is scheduled to reach some sort of “critical mass” right about the same time the oil runs out. (ironic, isn’t it?) The same time we run out of the energy we relied on too much, is the same time it will be too late to fix anything. the world economy will collapse, there will be wars over what is left, famine, pestilance, dogs and cats living together!

Maybe the god squaders are right, sure looks like your run of the mill apocolypse to me.

Some individuals, groups, co-opts, corporations and gov’ts are doing what they can to change things. Without a greater use of the information network to educate and allow those with the skepticism (for whatever reason) to go one-on-one to show just what-is-what. I have very little capacity. I do what I can with what I have.

The information is on going and in toto, overwhelming as to what is going on. Indeed so many things are going on we need and information clearing house to help process and correlate it. There are several good internet sites that do from http://www.realclimate.com/ to http://www.nasa.gov and many others.

Whatever we do there will be a lag time and that could be critical as well. We have little time it is just unknown how much before the feed back loops become self sustaining. Then we will have to adjust to a new climate and continue to use less carbon based fuels till we can tip it back to what we are used to now. (Some will be against that in say 2120, believe it.)

Change is hard for most humans but they also adjust to it. We can maintain our lifestyles, mostly, but we must be miserly on energy consumption till will can find an use solar (the nuclear fusion we are looking for) to its utmost.

Common on, those who deny global warming or think that some part it remains
controversial are the most dangerous kinds of idiots. We’ve gone two decades now
without taking effective action to prevent the worst, thanks largely to these idiots
and those who encourage them, like Exxon.

There is no cooling trend, as someone here suggested. That is to confuse weather
with climate. The global average temperature trend continues upward. It might go
up, or down, or pause, on short time scales, but the long term trend is ever
upward. We won’t be diving into a mini-ice age anytime soon, either.

The way to stop the meddling is to produce good food, pure water and clean
energy at a price at which the corporations cannot compete. Industry only
understands profit, not environmental costs. When corporations begin to lose
money they will go elsewhere where the grass is greener. It is not that people
lack power, it is that they lack the grit to use it.

By tommy_slothrop, October 23 at 2:01 pm #

However, I can see that my country has been meddling in the oil-producing
regions of the world for generations and shows every sign of intensifying that
meddling.  I can see that the people who live in those oil-producing regions
don’t like having foreigners with weapons around killing people, telling them
how to run their affairs and overthrowing their governments and have begun
to fight back.  I can see that my country’s military-industrial complex has used
our dependence upon imported oil as an excuse to pretty much take control of
the country.  I can see that the likelihood of future conflict over resources and
the U.S.‘s apparent preparation to dominate them militarily has resulted in the
political empowerment of the military-industrial complex in other countries
and an increase in militarism worldwide.

Night-Gaunt:
’... We must do something monumental for our species. We must change how we cope with something that is global. For the first time, and maybe the last, we must put aside our differences and work for all of us. ...’

Obviously the “we” above is a very large number of people.  So you have a political problem—convincing a large number of people that something must be done.

Probably, telling people that they’re idiots because they don’t share your beliefs and attributing their supposed delusions to Fox News or the oil companies will not convince many of them of the correctness of your views.

Again, I suggest presenting the science, by which I mean physical observations, not simulations, not polls, not the words of notable authorities, not hysterical excursions into imagined catastrophes, and certainly not fact-free abuse.

If it’s as late in the day as you all seem to think, you’d better get to work.

Despite having several degrees in the natural sciences and years of experience in the field I haven’t taken the time to check out the data to determine the validity of the anthropogenic global climate change hypothesis.  Most of the people in the field of climate science (not my field) support it and I assume they know what they’re talking about.  Over the years scientists have developed a pretty good process of peer review for determining the validity of just such hypotheses.

I might not be so trusting if it required me to do things differently than I would otherwise do.

However, I can see that my country has been meddling in the oil-producing regions of the world for generations and shows every sign of intensifying that meddling.  I can see that the people who live in those oil-producing regions don’t like having foreigners with weapons around killing people, telling them how to run their affairs and overthrowing their governments and have begun to fight back.  I can see that my country’s military-industrial complex has used our dependence upon imported oil as an excuse to pretty much take control of the country.  I can see that the likelihood of future conflict over resources and the U.S.‘s apparent preparation to dominate them militarily has resulted in the political empowerment of the military-industrial complex in other countries and an increase in militarism worldwide.

This is why I try to minimize my consumption of resources—especially energy resources.

Maybe all of the climate scientists worldwide have seen the same thing as I have and have come up with a climate change hoax in an attempt to ward off what appears to be an impending resource-war apocalypse.  I doubt it but I suppose it’s possible.

If that’s the case I’m still on their side.

You are right that the blame game serves no purpose other than to incite. I
agree that the effects of climate change can go either way because of the cold,
fresh water diluting the salt conveyor. A volcano can have a greater effect than
man in a much shorter time frame, if a mega volcano happens it would only
take a few weeks for the disaster to be global. There are certain effects that
can be deduced from the past. Water is the most valuable resource on earth, a
dozen civilizations have learned that lesson the hard way. Populations
routinely run in to the Malthusian bottleneck when they outstrip their food
supply, we are at that point. In a disaster humans have little altruism, if little
Johnny is starving his dad will kill you in a heartbeat for a sandwich. Global
disasters mean that no one is coming to help you. In any event those that can
adapt and survive will start the next gene pool. One could almost see it as an
opportunity.

By DaveZx3, October 23 at 12:11 pm #

We still face severe threats from climate change.  I just don’t know whether we
should recommend purchasing mukluks and snowshovels or bathing suits and
sunscreen. 

At any rate, a move away from burning oil, coal and wood in favor of
geothermal, solar, wind and water power is definitely a very good idea. 

It may be impossible to convince some to quit burning coal or oil if the temps
drop severely, no matter what the cause, when that is all they have access to at
the present time.

Yes “global climate change” was instituted by the scientific community and they were attacked for “changing the message” by those who are skeptical of its effects. For all the simpletons who care not for science or the scientific method that they have better things to do like work or look for work. They like most of us rely on others. I happened to be interested in science enough to actually work to think like one. I may not understand all of it but I know how they work.

Science is essentially a detective story: gathering observed data, correlating it and seeing what it shows. Also a hypothesis is sometimes used to get the research going. It doesn’t always lead to the expected or hoped for conclusion. There is enough evidence there to show that anthropogenic based climate change is real. It is happening and it is far worse than even the original predictions had forecast. [Computer projects are algorithms that show possible trends dependent on varying factors from forest fires to cloud cover. The worst case were considered to be 50-100 years away instead of possibly 20-50 years away as it seems now.]

“Why isn’t it hotter?” is the uninformed “dumb” question of the avg. skeptic. Temp. rise avg. 0.7C (1.7C) in the Mid West but since our climate and local weather is a dynamic system the effects vary from region to region. A little depth of thought can bring that up. The erratic weather is a sign of a phase transition from one state to another. Once it settles into a new self sustaining mode it will be very hard to reach that threshold again, and will take a very long time too, if we want to change it back. We have had ideal or optimum climate for the past 5,000 years.

No need to deracinate, but fretting isn’t a good mechanism for solving our own problems either. We must do something monumental for our species. We must change how we cope with something that is global. For the first time, and maybe the last, we must put aside our differences and work for all of us. It is an evolutionary test. [Behavior is as important as morphology in the need for survival and ecological harmony.] Nature normally works to return the system to balance. We just may not like the new balance.

Yes the weather patterns were starting to change dramatically even as far back as 1975 but the problem was noticed as early as the 1890’s. We may be puny but with enough of us and what we can do that no other life form can do here. Change the actual earth: from stripping forests to transplanting animals to damning rivers to cutting off mountain tops. You get the idea. Also as an analogy, enough ants can kill an elephant. We are the ants.

As for the sun, the upper atmosphere remains cool and it is the lower atmosphere that is warming. Ice is melting, the oceans are heating, over fishing, algae blooms, jellyfish swarms, long ribbons of phlegm and other organic detrius extending for miles are just some of what is going on caused by humans. like a small pebble rolling down the mountain gaining other rocks until it is an avalanche when it reaches bottom.

Less snow on the mountains means less melt so the rivers that they feed are slowly drying out including major ones like the Gangese. Serious problems for people when they can’t get water.

Ironically it is calculated by our present orbit that we should have gone into a cooling trend. But because of all the industry and pollution especially in the added GHG’s it has negated it and trended in the opposite direction. We must not break the 2-3 degree barrier or it will get very bad for us.

We need a carbon tax with the money going directly to carbonless technology. It may be too late to save the billions threatened with death from several related causes and add to that war which will occur with the unrest it will cause.

There’s a problem alright.  Probably much bigger than you suspect.  But calling everyone on the other side of your argument an idiot or an oil company scientist is very narrow-minded to say the least.

I have read about the the science of the climate change issue since the early 70’s.  I am in a position to have a legitimate point of view. 

There is serious debate in the legitimate scientific community regarding what is going on in the climate.  Lack of recent sunspots, cooling of the waters of the Pacific, rising air temperturs, etc.

There is no real consensus as to what causes these phenomenon.  But one thing I have observed, is that if you want to know the mean air temperature of the earth, look at the water temperature of the Pacific Ocean about four years earlier.  If the Pacific trends up, air will follow in about four years.

Pacific has trended up since the 70’s, but now has reversed and is trending down.  That along with a prolonged period without sunspots due to subsurface solar activity expected to last for a while, could predict a severe cold spell over much of the 21st century.  And that is very well researched science, my dear friends.  And I do not work for an oil company.

We still face severe threats from climate change.  I just don’t know whether we should recommend purchasing mukluks and snowshovels or bathing suits and sunscreen. 

At any rate, a move away from burning oil, coal and wood in favor of geothermal, solar, wind and water power is definitely a very good idea. 

It may be impossible to convince some to quit burning coal or oil if the temps drop severely, no matter what the cause, when that is all they have access to at the present time.

Those who deny (the Delusional) the scientific evidence for Global Climate Change say that those who accept the evidence see “the glass as half empty.” They say that they, the Deniers, see “the glass as half full.”

In actual fact, the glass is neither half full nor half empty. It is cracked and leaking. Devastating climate change is inevitable. The only objective we need to concern ourselves with is limiting its impact by reducing carbon emissions now.

As long as we live in a so-called “global marketplace” controlled by transnational corporations, the possibilities for change are negligible. Negotiating with these monolithic, archaic institutions has all the promise of dealing with a gang of psychopaths.

There is no way that the two sides of the argument will ever see eye to eye on
anything. Those that believe that there is no problem will continue as they
always have in the past and those of us that believe in climate change will go
live on the ocean and watch the brilliant deniers live it up. The science is out
there and has been well known for 50 years. The deniers want us to keep
explaining the science to them to waste our time. No one could possibly be
that stupid so it must be a ploy.

I never cease to be amazed how climate change deniers dont get the connection between the ‘facts’ provided by their ‘scientists’ and the oil companies.

By Xntrk, October 23 at 12:06 am #

“The decline in the number of people who believe in GW matches the steep rise in the ignorance of our population in general”

Why does it always have to be “ignorance”?  Can’t someone disagree with you based on science?  Isn’t there a word for someone who calls a person ignorant because they don’t agree with them? 

This excerpt from an article from the Washington Examiner today is only a tiny fraction of the news related to the coming cooling trend and possible min-ice age.  An ice-age, even a mini one would be 100’s of times more devastating in the opinions of many. 

“U.S. policymakers who cite “consensus” on man-made global warming as justification for anti-emission regulations are relying upon outdated and misleading material from the United Nations that deliberately omits the influence of natural forces, according to climate skeptics. In fact, a growing body of evidence now points to the emergence of another cooling cycle that could persist for decades”.

To enact the outrageous expenses of a cap and trade bill at a time when no one seems to know what is going on in the environment is irresponsible at best.

The present administration goes real slow on backing up the troops in Afghanistan because it is prudent, but let’s hurry up and pass a 1500 page bill on health care before anyone notices, and lelts get some foolish environmental bill going because it will help us drain some more money out of those gigantic irresponsible corporations that are providing jobs and health insurance to millions.

I am not a corporate lackey capitalist, but I say, take it easy.  Knee-jerking around because some goofy UN scientist is trying to find a way to spank the capitalists is no bandwagon to jump on to withot doing some serious thinking and research.

AND IF INTOLERANT PEOPLE DON’T QUIT CALLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE STUPID, I THINK I AM GOING TO GO TEAR MY HAIR OUT,  (oops, I don’t have enough left to tear out).  What is it with the Mahers and the Moores and their intolerant followers?  Why do we have to be stupid, just because we don’t believe in the BS you peddle?

A number of people have disparaged “Americans” for being too dumb to know the science and understand what it means.

All right, folks, just what is the science? 

Before you get started, let me remind you that science is based on the definition, observation and measurement of physical phenomena, not simulations, not polls of scientists, and not absence of belief in UFOs and astrology or consumerism.

Let’s Stop Calling it Global Warming

I hear it all the time, “If this is global warming, then why is it getting colder?”

Let’s all agree to thwart this nonsense by calling it, more appropriately, Global Climate Change, because while some places are getting warmer, some are getting colder. And that confuses the people down in Six Toe County.

Here in Toronto we’ve been experiencing colder, wetter summers. It’s a trend. It’s climate change. It happens when the artic gets warmer and the cold air gets pushed down to us.

There used to be one, large, cylconic above Hudson’s Bay, like the wheel in one of those Hot Wheels car shooters, that would shoot the Westerlies from the praries across Ontario and give us nice, warm summers. But a new, second cyclonic has developed. The summer air in now coming much more from the north making Ontario weather much crappier. By the same mechanism, the winters are getting warmer and wetter, interspersed with brutal cold streaks.

So, lets just agree to call it Global Climate Change and give those, “but it snowed in Texas” folks a hand in understanding all of this.

eggroll,

This story is an exceerpt from Newsweek, 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

HOW DARE ANYONE CALL ME STUPID BECAUSE I DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY SIGN ON TO GLOBAL WARMING.  I HAVE BEEN READING BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE FOR OVER 30 YEARS, AND THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE CONSENSUS.

In the summer of 1972, I was involved in a
meteorological study by the US Navy. The hypothesis
at the time was that the average global temperature had
risen about .5 degrees C over the previous half
century as global industrialization took off. This
view, despite its scientific nuance, was the official
view of the DOD. Heating per se was not the main
concern, rather it was the worry that even slight
changes in temperature could have profound implications for regional and
global weather patterns, wind (particularly
intensity), and sea currents. This in turn could affect areas as diverse as agriculture and submarine
navigation. There were even fears that greenhouse gas releases or cloud seeding could be weaponized.

After 37 years, the discussion about climate
disruption in popular forums has yet to reach this
level, despite the further rise in the average global temperature. Indeed, discussion often include such terms as “melting” or
“frying”, rather than imbalances in the dynamics of
the atmosphere and the seas. This is not just
American ignorance, but a general failure to educate
on the issue.

A fundamental principle of advertising is “monkey
see, monkey do” (aka “keeping up with the Joneses”).
Alexander the Great astonished his troops with an
ability to read silently, but only 2,400 years later
most of mankind had gotten with the program. We today
expect an average teen to be able to read silently, a
remarkably demanding skill that calls for creating a
narrator in your head. It is probably even more
demanding to expect people to comprehend planetary
dynamics as scientists managed already decades ago,
but it is needed if we ever expect to break out of
the current morass of silliness.

If someone could produce a painless, no cost way to stop global warming while allowing everyone to consume and waste as they presently do, 100% would jump on that bandwagon and the problem would be solved.  Without this solution, many resist any attempt to fix the problem because the repairs would cost them money and force drastic changes in their lifestyle.  As we have seen right here (Mr. Hensen) there are those who will grasp any thread to deny something is going wrong.  Unfortunately, even if their pants are on fire, they will persist in claiming it is only the sun getting warmer and not something they might have done.  Human stupidity can be counted on to make the problem worse and perhaps even irreversible.  Then they will scream and point at our political leaders who didn’t warn them of the impending disaster.  Science be damned ... their minister and the local power company knows better!

Perhaps one makes a self sufficient floating homestead and sails it out to sea.
On the ocean there are no weeds, bugs or drought. Energy is cheap, clean and
plentiful. Gone are regulations, rules and civilization. There are pirates out
there but they will not bother an aggressively defended island. Even if we are
somehow wrong about the Mad Max effect we will still be better off than the
sheep stuck with paying off the national debt.

By ChaoticGood, October 23 at 1:22 am #

How does one stop a few hundred million hungry people from moving in with
you?

I believe that food and water wars brought on by mass migrations of people will kill off millions of people.  It won’t take much for this cycle to begin.  A few crop failures in Russia, or China and India would be quite effective.  Once it begins, the need to survive will drive all other considerations from the political world.
How does one stop a few hundred million hungry people from moving in with you?

I am not so willing to give up trying to save the biosphere, I have however
given up on trying to save mankind.

By Xntrk, October 23 at 12:06 am #

The decline in the number of people who believe in GW matches the steep rise
in the ignorance of our population in general.

The decline in the number of people who believe in GW matches the steep rise in the ignorance of our population in general. We believe we can eat whatever we want, and live forever. Increasing numbers believe they have been born twice, and will live forever. And, the kids still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

Given a non-education system that has relegated teachers to the social level of poorly paid baby sitters, what do we expect? Rocket Scientists? Not bloody likely, is it…

The other half of this story is that no matter how many of the rest of the Earth’s population is willing to change their lifestyle, we are the biggest pigs on the planet. Our stupidity condemns them as well as us. About the only consolation is that the idiots in Congress and all the religious fanatics are doomed along with the rest of us.

It would be nice to live long enough to say “Told ya so. Neener, neener neener! You’re a rotten wiener…” Given the high level of smarts demonstrated by this survey, that is about the level of public discourse they understand.

In six years no one will believe, problem solved. Of course real science is not
so clear cut or as easy to manipulate as public opinion. Perhaps we should just
vote climate change out of existence since we claim to be a democracy.

That 77 percent was never solid. It included people who were
fanning themselves in heat waves and the Katrina footage was still
fresh in their minds. It’s always been a bare majority that seemed
to grasp the science, though the number who grasp the import of
the science is surely smaller still.

More amazing is the numbers who accept, without question, all
the nonsense surrounding the apocalyptic 2012 stuff.

Scientists ought to just say: “Hey out there… forget the science…
Nostradamus said so.” Or have some guy write a novel called, say,
“The Dictionary Code,” in which randomly chosen words on every
tenth page have been interpreted by “experts” and they are pretty
darn sure it means we’re fried, toasted, barbecued.