The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?

Sep 24, 2011 By CHARLES J. HANLEY , AP Special Correspondent
In this July 15, 2011 photo, atop roughly two miles of ice, technician Marie McLane launches a data-transmitting weather balloon at Summit Station, a remote research site operated by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), and situated 10,500 feet above sea level, on top of the Greenland ice sheet. Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that manmade greenhouse gases are warming the planet, accelerating the melt of Greenland's ice, and yet resistance to the idea appears to have hardened among many Americans. Why? "The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes one scholar who has studied the phenomenon. Analysts now see climate as another battleground in America's left-right "culture wars." (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

(AP) -- Tucked between treatises on algae and prehistoric turquoise beads, the study on page 460 of a long-ago issue of the U.S. journal Science drew little attention.

"I don't think there were any newspaper articles about it or anything like that," the author recalls.

But the headline on the 1975 report was bold: "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" And this article that coined the term may have marked the last time a mention of "global warming" didn't set off an instant outcry of angry denial.

In the paper, Columbia University Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct. Meanwhile, other powerful evidence poured in over those decades, showing the "" is real and is happening. And yet resistance to the idea among many in the U.S. appears to have hardened.

What's going on?

"The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton.

He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. .

From his big-windowed office overlooking the wooded campus of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., Broecker has observed this deepening of the desire to disbelieve.

"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of " said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

The solution: "Eventually it'll become damned clear that the Earth is warming and the warming is beyond anything we have experienced in millions of years, and people will have to admit..." He stopped and laughed.

"Well, I suppose they could say God is burning us up."

The basic physics of anthropogenic - manmade - global warming has been clear for more than a century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide traps heat. Others later showed CO2 was building up in the atmosphere from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Weather stations then filled in the rest: Temperatures were rising.

"As a physicist, putting CO2 into the air is good enough for me. It's the physics that convinces me," said veteran Cambridge University researcher Liz Morris. But she said work must go on to refine climate data and computer climate models, "to convince the deeply reluctant organizers of this world."

The reluctance to rein in carbon emissions revealed itself early on.

In the 1980s, as scientists studied Greenland's buried ice for clues to past climate, upgraded their computer models peering into the future, and improved global temperature analyses, the fossil-fuel industries were mobilizing for a campaign to question the science.

By 1988, NASA climatologist James Hansen could appear before a U.S. Senate committee and warn that global warming had begun, a dramatic announcement later confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a new, U.N.-sponsored network of hundreds of international scientists.

But when Hansen was called back to testify in 1989, the White House of President George H.W. Bush edited this government scientist's remarks to water down his conclusions, and Hansen declined to appear.

That was the year U.S. oil and coal interests formed the Global Climate Coalition to combat efforts to shift economies away from their products. Britain's Royal Society and other researchers later determined that oil giant Exxon disbursed millions of dollars annually to think tanks and a handful of supposed experts to sow doubt about the facts.

In 1997, two years after the IPCC declared the "balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate," the world's nations gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to try to do something about it. The naysayers were there as well.

"The statement that we'll have continued warming with an increase in CO2 is opinion, not fact," oil executive William F. O'Keefe of the Global Climate Coalition insisted to reporters in Kyoto.

The late Bert Bolin, then IPCC chief, despaired.

"I'm not really surprised at the political reaction," the Swedish climatologist told The Associated Press. "I am surprised at the way some of the scientific findings have been rejected in an unscientific manner."

In fact, a document emerged years later showing that the industry coalition's own scientific team had quietly advised it that the basic science of global warming was indisputable.

Kyoto's final agreement called for limited rollbacks in greenhouse emissions. The United States didn't even join in that. And by 2000, the CO2 built up in the atmosphere to 369 parts per million - just 4 ppm less than Broecker predicted - compared with 280 ppm before the industrial revolution.

Global temperatures rose as well, by 0.6 degrees C (1.1 degrees F) in the 20th century. And the mercury just kept rising. The decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record, and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record.

Satellite and other monitoring, meanwhile, found nights were warming faster than days, and winters more than summers, and the upper atmosphere was cooling while the lower atmosphere warmed - all clear signals greenhouse warming was at work, not some other factor.

The impact has been widespread.

An authoritative study this August reported that hundreds of species are retreating toward the poles, egrets showing up in southern England, American robins in Eskimo villages. Some, such as polar bears, have nowhere to go. Eventual large-scale extinctions are feared.

The heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher altitudes.

From the Rockies to the Himalayas, glaciers are shrinking, sending ever more water into the world's seas. Because of accelerated melt in Greenland and elsewhere, the eight-nation Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program projects ocean levels will rise 90 to 160 centimeters (35 to 63 inches) by 2100, threatening coastlines everywhere.

"We are scared, really and truly," diplomat Laurence Edwards, from the Pacific's Marshall Islands, told the AP before the 1997 Kyoto meeting.

Today in his low-lying home islands, rising seas have washed away shoreline graveyards, saltwater has invaded wells, and islanders desperately seek aid to build a seawall to shield their capital.

The oceans are turning more acidic, too, from absorbing excess carbon dioxide. Acidifying seas will harm plankton, shellfish and other marine life up the food chain. Biologists fear the world's coral reefs, home to much ocean life and already damaged from warmer waters, will largely disappear in this century.

The greatest fears may focus on "feedbacks" in the Arctic, warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.

The Arctic Ocean's summer ice cap has shrunk by half and is expected to essentially vanish by 2030 or 2040, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Sept. 15. Ashore, meanwhile, the Arctic tundra's permafrost is thawing and releasing methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.

These changes will feed on themselves: Released methane leads to warmer skies, which will release more methane. Ice-free Arctic waters absorb more of the sun's heat than do reflective ice and snow, and so melt will beget melt. The frozen Arctic is a controller of Northern Hemisphere climate; an unfrozen one could upend age-old weather patterns across continents.

In the face of years of scientific findings and growing impacts, the doubters persist. They ignore long-term trends and seize on insignificant year-to-year blips in data to claim all is well. They focus on minor mistakes in thousands of pages of peer-reviewed studies to claim all is wrong. And they carom from one explanation to another for today's warming Earth: jet contrails, sunspots, cosmic rays, natural cycles.

"Ninety-eight percent of the world's climate scientists say it's for real, and yet you still have deniers," observed former U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a New York Republican who chaired the House's science committee.

Christiana Figueres, Costa Rican head of the U.N.'s post-Kyoto climate negotiations, finds it "very, very perplexing, this apparent allergy that there is in the United States. Why?"

The Australian scholar Hamilton sought to explain why in his 2010 book, "Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change."

In an interview, he said he found a "transformation" from the 1990s and its industry-financed campaign, to an America where climate denial "has now become a marker of cultural identity in the `angry' parts of the United States."

"Climate denial has been incorporated in the broader movement of right-wing populism," he said, a movement that has "a visceral loathing of environmentalism."

An in-depth study of a decade of Gallup polling finds statistical backing for that analysis.

On the question of whether they believed the effects of global warming were already happening, the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering "yes" plummeted from almost 50 percent in 2007-2008 to 30 percent or less in 2010, while liberals and Democrats remained at 70 percent or more, according to the study in this spring's Sociological Quarterly.

A Pew Research Center poll last October found a similar left-right gap.

The drop-off coincided with the election of Democrat Barack Obama as president and the Democratic effort in Congress, ultimately futile, to impose government caps on industrial greenhouse emissions.

Boehlert, the veteran Republican congressman, noted that "high-profile people with an `R' after their name, like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, are saying it's all fiction. Pooh-poohing the science of climate change feeds into their basic narrative that all government is bad."

The quarterly study's authors, Aaron M. McCright of Michigan State University and Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State, suggested climate had joined abortion and other explosive, intractable issues as a mainstay of America's hardening left-right gap.

"The culture wars have thus taken on a new dimension," they wrote.

Al Gore, for one, remains upbeat. The former vice president and Nobel Prize-winning climate campaigner says "ferocity" in defense of false beliefs often increases "as the evidence proving them false builds."

In an AP interview, he pointed to tipping points in recent history - the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the dismantling of U.S. racial segregation - when the potential for change built slowly in the background, until a critical mass was reached.

"This is building toward a point where the falsehoods of climate denial will be unacceptable as a basis for policy much longer," Gore said. "As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, `How long? Not long.'"

Even Wally Broecker's jest - that deniers could blame God - may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade : It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."

Explore further: Strengthening community forest rights is critical tool to fight climate change

3.7 /5 (28 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists warn of climate catastrophe

Jun 18, 2009

The world faces a growing risk of "abrupt and irreversible climatic shifts" as fallout from global warming hits faster than expected, according to research by international scientists released Thursday.

Climate scientists told to 'stop speaking in code'

May 04, 2011

(AP) -- Scientists at a major conference on Arctic warming were told Wednesday to use plain language to explain the dramatic melt in the region to a world reluctant to take action against climate change.

Planned emission cuts still mean far hotter Earth

Sep 24, 2009

(AP) -- Earth's temperature is likely to jump nearly 6 degrees between now and the end of the century even if every country cuts greenhouse gas emissions as proposed, according to a United Nations update.

Dirty snow may warm Arctic as much as greenhouse gases

Jun 06, 2007

The global warming debate has focused on carbon dioxide emissions, but scientists at UC Irvine have determined that a lesser-known mechanism -- dirty snow -- can explain one-third or more of the Arctic warming ...

Scientists want polar bear protection

Jun 20, 2006

A U.S. climate researcher is leading a team of 30 North American and European scientists in urging the polar bear be listed as a threatened species.

Recommended for you

EU sets new energy savings target at 30%

14 hours ago

After months of tough negotiations, the European Commission recommended Wednesday a new energy savings target of 30 percent so as to combat climate change and ensure self-sufficiency.

User comments : 97

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nononoplease
2.4 / 5 (29) Sep 24, 2011
Why? Maybe because everything proposed to "correct" the problem includes "cures" that cause more damage than doing nothing?
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (44) Sep 24, 2011
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that man-made greenhouse gases are warming the planet


But reality [1,2] is a merciless taskmaster even of world leaders and paid climatologists!

The danger is that world leaders and leaders of science aligned themselves with two scientific falsehoods four decades ago:

a.) Anthropogenic climate change, and the
b.) Bilderberg model of the Sun as a stable H-fusion reactor.

Having failed to whitewash Climategate, their only escape is to:

c.) Admit deceit and risk retaliation, or
d.) Ban open discussion of Climategate.

Statesmanship is needed to resolve the situation and restore:

e.) Integrity to government science.
f.) Citizen control over government.

1. "Deep roots of Climategate" (2011)
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. "Video summary of research" (2011)
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
gimpypoet
1.7 / 5 (42) Sep 24, 2011
We believe the planet is warming, we believe that the ice is melting,and that the sea is rising. what I do not believe is that man has caused it or that man can stop it with current technology.EVERYTHING in nature has a cycle, and this is proven by the sun-spot cycle, the seasons of fall, spring, summer, winter, the yearly meteor showers, the orbits of planets around. need i mention more? the fact is that periods of warming and cooling have always happened. the el nino and la nina have been going on for a very long time, and the ocean currents have altered and the hydro-conyerer has stopped and started several times, before and since humans walked the earth. could we have hastened these processes? we could have. can we slow down these processes? Maybe so, but at what price. creating another ice age ? i think not. should we concern ourselves with trying to stop wasting resources? yes, but lets conserve for the right reasons, not because it generates dollars for the gov't machine.
Skepticus
3 / 5 (18) Sep 24, 2011
The simple reason is cheap oil can be had as a bonus while we are protecting our friend in the ME, never mind the fact that ME oil is only a minor part of the imported volume from other countries. To keep doing that, major financial resources must always be diverted to military-industrial cabals, and their bosses like to keep things that way.
sstritt
Sep 24, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (27) Sep 24, 2011
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that manmade greenhouse gases are warming the planet, accelerating the melt of Greenland's ice, and yet resistance to the idea appears to have hardened among many Americans. Why?
From the opposite reason, why the Japanese adhere on GW (Kyoto). Japan wants to keep prices of coal low, because it's importing/buying all fossil fuel consumed. IMO the global warming is rather real - but it's connection to human activity is not so rock solid, as it appears from some data (carbon dioxide levels in particular). I'm proponent of geothermal source of global warming: the people are only partially responsible for droughts due the atmosphere pollution with aerosols, but not for temperature increasing as such.
gimpypoet
2 / 5 (29) Sep 24, 2011
there was just as much written aboud an impendind ice age and this has not happened either. we do need some catastrophy to galvinize our world into one mind, but this global warming/freezing isn't going to be it. an asteroid strike or comet slamming us would force world co-operation, or at least whats left of us. the church never could unite the world because the leaders became lustful of money and the power to control. the build-up of the priest's sex scandals should signal the end, but too many people think they didn't do it. they should keep out of politics, and stick to their dark ages. there must be some bucks involved in it. oh wait i see it. they can save the souls of the people that are gonna die as the oceans boil, and only the dollars of the masses given at mass will stop the sea from swallowing up the coastal cities.maybe thats their angle, they are on the coast, they're trying to cover their own asses, before something goes up in them. oops did i type that outloud?
typicalguy
4.3 / 5 (46) Sep 24, 2011
As an American, I find it amazing that other American's take it for granted that our chemistry and physics skills can produce so much in our lives but when it comes to applying those same skills to the climate, scientists are 100% wrong. Virtually all studies that shed doubt on climate change were funded by oil companies and were not peer reviewed.

The big reasons for doubt in the US among different groups IMO falls into one of the following categories:
1. The belief that God would not give people power over the climate (fatalism).
2. Falling for oil company propaganda.
3. As more evidence mounts, oil companies have changed strategies from "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but CO2 has a very small responsibility and the sun is doing most of it".

You can see the reasoning I listed in posts here. The third is especially tempting to people because it incorporates acceptance of climate change with the fatalism listed in 1.
OverweightAmerican
1.6 / 5 (42) Sep 24, 2011
people are so self centered to think that we have an effect on the global climate. there are vast lands and oceans on this planet that are completely uninhabited by people.

The earth was warmer in the early middle ages and there weren't any cars or factories around then and there is no proof that global warming is not a natural phenomenon. In the early middle ages, when the climate was warmer, this was a time of huge wealth in europe, crops in the north grew much easier. We should not be so afraid of global warming.

Its just a political issue, not a factual one.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (33) Sep 24, 2011
Why?
"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this warming period.Best regards,
Ivar Giaever
Nobel Laureate 1973PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.
Ivar Giaever"
http://ktwop.word...gnation/
LivermoreJim
1.8 / 5 (34) Sep 24, 2011
Americans disagree with scams, and the increasing impression is that man-mad Global Warming is such a scam. Given the recent scandal of collusion and fakery of data by the climate scientists themselves, this should come as no surprise. The amount of tax money being thrown at these scientists to tweak their findings is regretable. No man-made global warming = no money for scientists.

Aside from the data fakery, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that global warming is occurring. And Dr. Giaever is but one scientist of many who find no credence in man-made Global Warming.

If truth played any part in the issue, then such warming would, in fact, be welcome. Geologists tell us that we are living in an inter-glacial period -- between ice ages, and that we should expect the ice to "soon" return.
randith
1.8 / 5 (30) Sep 24, 2011
"Climate scientists" may assume that global warming is man-made without disproving alternative explanations. But a true scientist doesn't.
omatumr
1.1 / 5 (35) Sep 24, 2011
The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?


Livermore Jim gave the answer.

Allergies develop from repeated exposure to toxic, government misinformation [1,2]:

a.) CO2 caused global warming.
b.) Industries emit CO2.
c.) Close the industry.
d.) Make "green jobs".
e.) Booming economy!

Deception started in ~1971 after world leaders, frightened by the threat of nuclear annihilation, adopted two falsehoods as scientific facts:

a.) Man causes Earth's climate change, and the
b.) Bilderberg model of the Sun as a stable H-fusion reactor.

1. "Deep roots of Climategate scandal" (2011)

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

2. "Video summary of research (1961-2011)"

http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Egleton
3.5 / 5 (20) Sep 25, 2011
It matters not.
The USA and the rest of western civilisation is circling the plughole.
The exponential function will save us all by collapsing industrial civilisation, exponentially.
Beat your chests, flap your gums.
It matters not.
Doschx
4.5 / 5 (22) Sep 25, 2011
omatumor's looking more and more like a bot by the day.
Don_Norris
4 / 5 (29) Sep 25, 2011
How long do we have to wait for denialists to work through anger to bargaining and then depression before they finally get to acceptance and stop all this futile raging against physics and mathematics?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (27) Sep 25, 2011
"Maybe because everything proposed to "correct" the problem includes "cures" that cause more damage than doing nothing?" - nononoTard

Every reasonable economic analysis shows that at worst CO2 abatement would cost 2 percent growth over the course of the century.

In other words the cost of abatement is essentially zero.

The cost of the disaster that will ensue due to warming on the other hand is at least an order of magnitude higher and the resulting environment is left significantly less conducive to life.

And then there is the moral argument of being responsible for the anticipated 30% extinction of all higher order organisms as a result of the anticipated warming.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (22) Sep 25, 2011
"How long do we have to wait for denialists" - Don

No need to wait. Just cull the Republican Menace.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (28) Sep 25, 2011
"Climate scientists" may assume that global warming is man-made" - RandTard

Fundamental physics tells us that it is. Fundamental ignorance of that physics and Exxon propaganda tells you what you have just written.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (27) Sep 25, 2011
"Given the recent scandal of collusion and fakery of data by the climate scientists themselves" - ConservaTard American

Sorry Tard Boy. You have fallen for a Denialist Scam.

No such collusion or fakery was exposed or found.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2011
"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" - Ivar Giaever

82 years old long time former physicist, now Senile.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (19) Sep 25, 2011
"Svensmark nailed it!" - StritTard

What a shame for Svensmark that there is no correlation between monitored cosmic ray levels and global temperatures over the last 100 years.

Can you explain that lack of correlation Tard Boy?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (25) Sep 25, 2011
"there was just as much written aboud an impendind ice age and this has not happened either." - GimpyTard

Sorry Tard boy. The scientific literature has never warned of an imminent onset of an ice age.

You are a fool who has fallen for the denialist scam.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (20) Sep 25, 2011
"EVERYTHING in nature has a cycle" - GimpyTard

And every cycle has a period.

What is the period of the current cycle and why has this period not been seen before in the climate record?
bscrambled
2.1 / 5 (24) Sep 25, 2011
Let's see, why do we think this is not a good theory
1) Unlike most scientific debates "deniers" are demonized; this is typical of faith, not scientific discussion

2) Proclamations of doom that have failed to come to pass.

3) Articles like this which are unbalanced, and do not give credit to the other side. For example, providing the dollars that the oil companies provide while ignoring the billions that are poured in by countries or organizations with a vested interest in promoting the environmental apocalypse. You can be sure that the oil companies will be profiting from the various green solutions, so it's win-win for them

4) Talking about our temperature records and ignoring the huge number of problems with the vast majority of our temperature sites

5) Talking about our climate like it's a simple, one variable (CO2) system, instead of a massively complicated system that we are just beginning to grasp

6) Ignoring water vapor and natural sources

The truth is in the middle
bscrambled
2.1 / 5 (21) Sep 25, 2011
Now after pointing out a few of the things that are wrong, if they want the American public to believe here's what they need to do:
1) Admit mistakes where they have been made
2) Dial down the apocalyptic rhetoric
3) Stop shoving minor ecological issues in the press on a daily basis as dramatic new proof, along with computer model forecasts

4) Admit the limits of our modelling capabilities..until our weather forecasts improve we aren't going to believe them anyway
5) Address the whole spectrum of causes instead of just CO2
6) Have open debates between teams on both sides

7) Give us natural solutions to improve the earth instead of sci-fi tampering with the climate
8) Promote incremental solutions / improve what we have instead of insisting that we shut it all down
9) Let's have these environmental orgs work towards improving the basic science of energy generation. They should be funding solar or geothermal like there's no tomorrow.
GuruShabu
1.8 / 5 (29) Sep 25, 2011
Any educated person "resists"to this Goebbels' propaganda.
Any educated person knows the weather is ever changing and as a result the sea levels have been much higher and much lower than today's levels. The CO2 levels also have been more than 200 times higher than today's levels. Where all the oil and coal came from? However, money is being the root cause of this bias. Not science!
Water vapour is by far the most influential green house "gas" but it cannot be taxed!
Wake up people! Reda another "error" committed to support Global Warming:"A greener Greenland? Times Atlas 'error' overstates global warming" (http://www.dailym...nd.html)
Skepticus
3.5 / 5 (21) Sep 25, 2011
How long do we have to wait for denialists to work through anger to bargaining and then depression before they finally get to acceptance and stop all this futile raging against physics and mathematics?


...About as long as Congress and GOP take to stop their campaign to destroy America in every way possible short of murder to take Obama's place. In short, an eternity.
Henry Galt
2.9 / 5 (17) Sep 25, 2011
VD creates a visible rash. Untreated it can present as mental illness.

Its nasty commentary should occasion the use of the "report abuse" button but for posterity I vote we leave the gibbering here to show future generations the extent of the cognitive dissonance and anger caused, in part, by its inability to provide evidence to support a belief system, fashioned by inimical others(which has never risen to the status of hypothesis), and the totally unscientific insistence that the very opponents it insults should provide refutation for the outlandish guess.
For decades now.

Maybe in Shadow-world discovering evidence to disprove the un-falsifiable is considered possible. Yes, that must be it.
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (61) Sep 25, 2011
As an American, I find it amazing that other American's take it for granted that our chemistry and physics skills can produce so much in our lives but when it comes to applying those same skills to the climate, scientists are 100% wrong. {..}.
{..}:
1. {..} God{..} (fatalism).
2. {..}oil company propaganda.
3. As more evidence mounts, oil companies have changed strategies from "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change but CO2 has a very small responsibility and the sun is doing most of it".


While I agree that the direction should be cleaner energy as long as it's not destructive to economies,.. you could make a similar point as yours, wrt to the industry that is climate science,... the atmosphere is hardly conducive to counter argument.

Also, the issue is the tiny amount of co2 that humans dump and that there's no historical example of how the earth reacts and adapts to such a surge in co2 in short time scales,... so "catacysm" is wild speculation.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (66) Sep 25, 2011
{..}
1) Admit mistakes where they have been made
2) Dial down the apocalyptic rhetoric
3) Stop shoving minor ecological issues in the press on a daily basis as dramatic new proof, along with computer model forecasts

4) Admit the limits of our modelling capabilities..until our weather forecasts improve we aren't going to believe them anyway
5) Address the whole spectrum of causes instead of just CO2
6) Have open debates between teams on both sides

7) Give us natural solutions to improve the earth instead of sci-fi tampering with the climate
8) Promote incremental solutions / improve what we have instead of insisting that we shut it all down
9) Let's have these environmental orgs work towards improving the basic science of energy generation. They should be funding solar or geothermal like there's no tomorrow.


The best post on this subject I've seen.

I would add one more,...

10) Stop politicizing it. To accept AGW one is asked to accept Socialism & redistribution of wealth.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2011
CHARLES J. HANLEY
No stranger.
http://www.physor...945.html

Excerpt from thread commentary:

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund" - Valanarris

Valanarris lists ten quotes to exemplify Misanthropists.

Physorg: 'science:physics:tech:nano:news'
See physorg logo at the top of the loaded page here.

To Physorg. Drop the 'news'. A disservice. We can fend for ourselves. Simply no commentary to wired news service reports and reporters will convince this Website. On the other hand - your readers provide you with the lack of discipline not to comment - providing you further encouragement to posting wired media service posts.
News stories win. Science loses.
You can't use the slogan:
Fair and balanced.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (67) Sep 25, 2011
... and that is the REAL reason AGW is not accepted. They're selling an already hard to believe catacysmic AGW in terms of tenths of a degree, AND the fine print says you must accept massive redistribution of wealth and socialistic engineering of standards of living. No one is going to buy this. Western countries are not going to tank their economies over a few tenths of one degree per century, and the faith that man has such an accurate handle on global climate.

If the solutions proposed were more realistic and in line with existing economic forces, and focused on technology (cleaning emissions) rather than big govnerment and stealing wealth from the west it may have a better chance. Algore and the left have adopted AGW and packaged it in their political world view,... THAT's THE PROBLEM,.. not "people are stupid".
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (59) Sep 25, 2011
"12 more American terrorists were murdered in Iraq this weekend. More will soon follow them into death. The more dead americans in Iraq the better." - Vendicar_Decarian

"The world needs more dead americans in Afghanastan & Iraq" - Vendicar_Decarian
PPihkala
3.7 / 5 (25) Sep 25, 2011
Before massive use of fossil fuels, about 100 years ago, CO2 was at 280 ppm. Now it is at 369 ppm. Any deniers for this fact? That human induced 80-90 ppm is acidifying the seas. It's also forcing more heat at surface, which will melt permafrost at arctic. That permafrost gone, we will have more heat forcing because of released CO2 and methane. And that effect will then feed itself to cause more releases. The earlier we stop this self-growing trend by limiting CO2 releases, the easier and cheaper it is. The longer we wait, the more the eventual effort will cost. And the more all the climate caused catastrophes will cost us. So stop fighting whether global warming is true or not and begin in earnest to talk about what is the best way to reverse the effects. We have already missed too many years since the first warnings were issued.
Sigh
4.4 / 5 (20) Sep 25, 2011
Why? Maybe because everything proposed to "correct" the problem includes "cures" that cause more damage than doing nothing?

That is no reason to deny global warming. It is a reason to find a different solution. If you think doing nothing is best, make your case for that.

I don't know whether you meant to explain people's motivation or to justify denial. But if someone were to deny there is global warming just because they don't like what people propose to do about it, they engage in deception, either of others or themselves.

I have even seen someone commenting on a physorg story on ocean acidification, asking whether that is a conspiracy, and all you need to understand acidification is high school chemistry.

I find it especially puzzling because one conservative value is supposed to be taking responsibility for your actions. Denying that an action has any consequences does not strike me as taking responsibility. Conservatives should be natural born environmentalists.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (26) Sep 25, 2011
It is a reason to find a different solution.

Identify the cause.
How can anyone take responsibility for natural causes?
frajo
3.5 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2011
The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this warming period.Best regards,
Ivar Giaever
Nobel Laureate 1973PS
I'm sorry, but a Nobel laureate who uses the term "degree Kelvin" seems to have lost a bit of his physics competence.
tommytalks77
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 25, 2011
The problem is american education is very poor and most people think the TV is enough to keep them informed...

Plus the fact that americans are so big-headed and have an ego bigger than their large territory and so they think america is the center of the universe and americans scientists are the only ones worth listening to and they don't understand that the rest of the world cares very little about what americans do/want and so such a ridiculous idea of a world spread scientific conspiracy would be possible since they believe that the rest of the world would play in unison with americans "elite" interests and politics and comply with such an absurd conspiracy...

Cave_Man
3.2 / 5 (21) Sep 25, 2011
you are all nuts, climate change is real we only need a VERY SMALL rise in temp from CO2 or other GHG 4 a staggeringly large amount of methane hydrates to be released, methane is much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and the reason the methane is there in the first place is likely from the last ice age, so any child could see the correlation between initial release of methane and it's eventual (long term) sequestering process which involves and ice age.

Also, the recent discovery that plane contrails have contributed to warming more than all other vehicle emissions should be a sign that we're not just talking about your gay ass hummer ruining the planet its our entire lifestyle. The oxygen concentrations in large metropolitan areas can get so low people will actually pass out from lack of air, and you say we can't change our environment

Instead of replying some bullshit response you pull out of your ass go inhale some ethanol fumes I bet it will fix your problem (being alive that is)
ralbol
4.3 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2011
Not just the Americans.

Earth is populated with a species that has, at most, reached the "teenager" level of consciousness.

Like all good teens, humans don't want to admit that the "paty" is over.

Don't want to admit that infinite growth is an impossible illusion, that supplies are dwindling, that filling the pool with junk, the air with smoke and turning the house upside down, will have dire consequences.

As a species, we've now reached the point where we have to become adults.

Look at your teens... they don't wat to.

Seems like Humanity doesn't either.
Birger
3.9 / 5 (16) Sep 25, 2011
The denialbots will cheerfully assume there is a worldwide conspiracy to fake several hundred thousand data sets that show a strong warming trend.

And a century ago the same kind of people would blame the bad economy on the jewish-communist world conspiracy.

Anything other than accept that eve ryine shares responsibility for the mess.
hush1
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2011
An example to sum up recent commentary:

An American needs atmospheric data.
Sends up a plane. Any type.
A German needs atmospheric data.
Sends up a blimp or Zeppelin. Any type.
semmsterr
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2011
Humans(especially Americans) are liberating sequestered carbon(fossil fuels) in the form of carbon dioxide at torrential rates and these dim-bulbs cannot see the connection? When in any of earth's "cycles" has this ever happened at this rate? Pity they can't suffer the consequences by themselves.
Sean_W
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2011
"He and others who track what they call "denialism""


Keep your eye on those infidels.
Angry denial of the denialists. Too scary. Boo.
deatopmg
2 / 5 (25) Sep 25, 2011
"The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?"

Answer - We simply see climatology for the totalitarian scam that it really is!!

Too much of the BS, distortion/hiding of data, hype, grant money, and ad hominem finger pointing typical of self-serving, power hungry totalitarian types, i.e. socialists, both national [NAZI] and international [iNAZI]. They're the same personality types.
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (24) Sep 25, 2011
To see Big Brother's worldwide grip on science today:

1. Video summary as "Big Brother" took control of science (1961-2011)
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf

2. Professor Ian Pilmer's new book, "How to get expelled from school"

http://joannenova...ew-book/

One of few politicians who understands the serious danger facing our formerly free society today, Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic wrote the Foreword.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
juztmythoughtz
4.3 / 5 (17) Sep 25, 2011
This yet again proves CONCLUSIVELY that Neutral Repulsion is a CONSPIRACY concocted by Big Oil and Gas, together with their puppet Prof Oliver Manuel, spam king of note, who is the BEST scientist that has EVER been arrested for kiddie molestation.

They concocted in order to undermine the science behind nuclear fission, such that cheap electricity will NEVER become available while carbon-based fuel can still be mined.

Manuel met with Big Oil and Gas leaders, including some ex-KGB Russian oil and coal barons, at the institution that he resides at, on some secret date, which is still classified TO THIS DAY under the guise of doctor-patient confidentiality, but we KNOW that the decision was taken to deny the existence of ALL supporting documents of the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun theory and that ANY questions that were raised regarding the validity of the pulsar sun theory had to be left unanswered, or replied on only by using circular logic.
juztmythoughtz
4.3 / 5 (16) Sep 25, 2011
Part 2

This sectretive meeting between the secret double agent Oliver Manuel and the oil and gas conglomerates also included fellow conspirators against advancement of the human race Hannes AlvenDontbelievemathsisrelevanttophysics and Kio Incoherent, who even took time off from (much-needed) English classes to lend his support.

Both these esteemed non-scientists have submitted extensive papers to various peer unreviewed journals, in which they harshly criticized the field of helioseismology, the flawed science which was used to determine that the interior of the sun consisted of 90% hydrogen and 8% helium.

They also submitted papers refuting the fact that humans are responsible for the rise in the median global temperature, even going so far as to blame it on the "5th column", the secret society that the Goa'uld have infiltrated in their attempts to take control over the human race
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 25, 2011
"New research from the University shows that past trends in climate must be very carefully understood before using them to model the future.

Climate scientists found that models are generally good at seeing past trends - but that there are important differences that must be recognised when predicting future climate patterns.

Researchers looked at these climate models to examine their trends in the Arctic and the Tropics, and found that eight of the 11 models studied did a reasonable job of reproducing these trends. However, most models could not reproduce the 1920-1940 warming particularly in the tropics, and additionally the researchers found that the models often got similar trends for different reasons."
http://www.physor...firstCmt
Nanobanano
3.9 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2011
I'm proponent of geothermal source of global warming: the people are only partially responsible for droughts due the atmosphere pollution with aerosols, but not for temperature increasing as such.


Do some math. I thought that at one time, well, for maybe a day...

then I checked specific heat capacity of magma, and for the hell of it, assumed the entire mid-ocean ridge system spued magma at the same rate as the Hawaiian volcanoes, and did the maximum energy as heat transfered to water, and it is insignificant, even over time scales of hundreds of years. By "insignificant" I mean 3 or 4 decimal places too small. That's for the thermal energy alone.

CO2 released by volcanoes does not matter, because it is more than offset by the sulfur dioxide, which is an anti-greenhouse gas, blocking out the sun.

The amount of energy required to melt the net ice volume loss in the arctic over the past year is a net forcing of around 7.9E20 Joules just for the heat of melting alone...
Nanobanano
4.3 / 5 (16) Sep 25, 2011
rygg:

What do you say to this?

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2011

LOOK at that, and quit LYING to yourself.

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2011

Look at that, 11 days ago. Look at that, by the time you figure quality of ice, the volume is at an all time low.

Do you even comprehend what the low-ball estimate of 90 centimeters sea level rise would do to the U.S.? Nevermind the 160 centimeters high end? The rest of the world?

This is happening, like it or not, and your precious "free market", which is actually a misnomer, is pathetically ill-equiped to deal with it, being run by capitalists who care only about their own multi-millionaire incomes.

But let's leave politics alone for a moment. There are some entire cities and possibly even entire countries which will be quite literally wiped off the map from 3 to 5 feet of sea level rise.
HarshMistress
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2011
@gimpypoet:
EVERYTHING in nature has a cycle, and this is proven by the sun-spot cycle, the seasons of fall, spring, summer, winter, the yearly meteor showers, the orbits of planets around. need i mention more?

Yes, and your next incarnation might easily be the NASA climatologist James Hansen. Then what?
Nanobanano
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2011
Ten years ago?

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2011

Wow, I mean, just wow. Look how much sea ice volume was lost...

Lose that buffer in summer and only thing left is Greenland's ice.

How long do you think it'll take to TOTALLY melt Greenland once the first complete sea ice meltdown happens?

In the year 2100, they'll probably be running air conditioners in the middle of WINTER to keep buildings COOL if this keeps up...

I don't know where they'll get the energy from, seeing as how all the infrastructure in Texas and Louisiana will probably be DESTROYED by the combination of rising sea levels and stronger hurricanes.

Then figure all the fresh water and brakish ecosystems which are going to be totally destroyed by salt water intrusion, one wonders what the fisheries, farming, and game are going to look like by then.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 25, 2011
Nano, my ancestors exploded out of Scandinavia over 1000 years ago because the climate had warmed even more than it is today.
Why was it warmer over 1000 years ago?
The fear being generated by IPCC,Algore and the other AGWites is based upon unvalidated models.
But the models provide the 'progressive' socialists with a different excuse to control the world's economies and people.
Ever wonder why the AGWites only response to their ginned up calamity is to raise taxes and and destroy an innovate, free market economy that has been demonstrated to enable creative, technical solutions to problems?
You do know Enron was an advocate for the Kyoto treaty? They wanted govt subsidy to sell natural gas just as GE and BP and Solyndra want and received subsidies for wind and solar.
Why wast money on this (http://www.npl.co.uk/TRUTHS)if the science is 'settled'?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (19) Sep 25, 2011
Look at that, 11 days ago. Look at that, by the time you figure quality of ice, the volume is at an all time low.

Summer just ended.
Doom1974
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2011
Nano, my ancestors exploded out of Scandinavia over 1000 years ago because the climate had warmed even more than it is today.
Why was it warmer over 1000 years ago?


Over Europe & maybe NA only. Not globally!!! In any case, do not worry, you will live to eat your words and lament your great - grandkids' living conditions.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 25, 2011
"Investigation of health effects of hydrogen sulfide from a geothermal source."
http://www.ncbi.n...12641180
Doom1974
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2011
I am really sick and tired of the amoeba brains posting here...I hope god has a better plan than this..She really has left some rotting brains around too long already..

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 25, 2011
Nano, my ancestors exploded out of Scandinavia over 1000 years ago because the climate had warmed even more than it is today.
Why was it warmer over 1000 years ago?


Over Europe & maybe NA only. Not globally!!! In any case, do not worry, you will live to eat your words and lament your great - grandkids' living conditions.

Gee, they only had little row boats to sail to Greenland and North America.
If the climate hadn't changed, again, North America would have been colonized by Vikings. Vikings did quite well in such a short time.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 25, 2011
I am really sick and tired of the amoeba brains posting here...I hope god has a better plan than this..She really has left some rotting brains around too long already..


What a rational, scientific comment!
But, it is a typical response of AGWites.
Jonseer
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2011
WE HUMANS are making the NATURAL CYCLES WORSE.

That is the reasoning behind Global climate change.

Currently we are in a warming cycle, so it is going to get warmer than it would have if we didn't pollute so much.

Global Warming does NOT SAY or infer that we humans control the weather.

Global Warming takes into the natural cycles of weather.

The problem with denialists is not only do they see everything in black and white, they hear everything as Yes or No.

Climatologists need to go back the fundamentals of communication and pay attn. to what the doubters are saying, because when they answer in shades of grey, allowing for uncertainty as they do, they add to the confusion.

NO CLIMATOLOGIST would EVER SAY and has never said that man is controlling climate.

IN fact, climatologists blame our UTTER LACK OF CONTROL over climate for global warming.

It is an incidental of our polluting ways, which NO ONE CONTROLS.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 25, 2011
Climatologists need to go back the fundamentals of communication

Good idea.
NO CLIMATOLOGIST would EVER SAY and has never said that man is controlling climate.

Yes, I think many have.
IN fact, climatologists blame our UTTER LACK OF CONTROL over climate for global warming.

Is that why they push for reducing CO2 and promoting schemes to inject chemicals to block the sun?
It is an incidental of our polluting ways, which NO ONE CONTROLS.

Ever hear of the EPA?
omatumr
1.2 / 5 (21) Sep 25, 2011
The danger is the drop in public confidence in the world leaders and leaders of the scientific community who refused to acknowledge obvious wrong in the manipulation of climate data (Climategate).

See comments on the story in PhysOrg.com about 911 events: Were the Twin Towers felled by chemical blasts?

www.physorg.com/n...ers.html

Our society is in danger when so many members of the public think our government had more to do with the 911 event than Iraq did!

Statesmanship is needed to resolve this dangerous stand-off and restore:

a.) Citizen control of government, and
b.) Integrity to government science.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
AAhhzz01
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 25, 2011
Ryggesogn2,

Nice posts, but the alarmists are drinking the koolaid and panicing over something that might happen in 100 or 1000 years.

Not really a new thing, I recall in the 1970s the great Ice Age scare...and a bit before that the Population Bomb.

They decry the oil companies tens of millions of dollars funding climate studies...and ignore the hundreds of billions spent all over the world to feed the studies that set out to Prove global warming.

Is it warming? Yes a bit. Is it caused by CO2? Maybe, because we really do not know enough to tell.

http://www.physor...998.html

and the models are flawed...poor workmanship...unless you can keep the "deniers" out of publication

http://www.physor...736.html

was trying to find the article that showed that thermal emissions from the earth were far in excess of the models predictions, and thus models would be showing a much greater positive feedback than observations allow. But I would just be called a denier
CSYGUY
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 25, 2011
My problem with Man Made Global Warming zealots are
1) they rely on a belief system to support their claims. You don't hear people saying "you don't believe in internal combustion"
2)They are teaching our children that the quality of the science is dependent on the nobility of your cause
3)The data has been manipulated to prove their belief system - move the monitoring stations and suppress data if they don't support your cause
4) No credence is given to rising temperatures caused by the sun. See temperature changes on Mars
5)They ignore the largest (by far) greenhouse gas' (water vapor) impact on regulating the temperature on earth
6)Their doomsday predictions appear to be the exact opposite of what is occurring
Nanobanano
3.7 / 5 (13) Sep 25, 2011
Look at that, 11 days ago. Look at that, by the time you figure quality of ice, the volume is at an all time low.

Summer just ended.


That was same day vs same day, rygg...

Maybe you should...look...at the link...you know, the one that shows you how, same day vs same day, almost all the ice is missing from 30 years ago...yeah...that one...
Nanobanano
4.5 / 5 (16) Sep 25, 2011
My problem with Man Made Global Warming zealots are
1) they rely on a belief system...
2)They are teaching...
3)The data has been manipulated...
4) No credence is given...
5)They ignore the largest (by far) greenhouse gas' (water vapor) impact on regulating the temperature on earth
6)Their doomsday predictions appear to be the exact opposite of what is occurring

1) no they don't. You just don't understand the data.
2) Yeah, 'cause doing good is somehow evil now, right?
3) That happened by accident in a few locations in Asia, as I recall. Check the link to the satellite photos of the ice. They didn't fake that.
4) The solar constant has only fluctuated by a fraction of a watt per meter, and stayed generally within an oscilating range described by a sine wave, which does not explain the persistent warming.
5) No they don't. You're just misinformed. Cloud models and water vapor models are studied extensively.
6) Check the link above...
Nanobanano
4 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2011
Is it warming? Yes a bit. Is it caused by CO2? Maybe, because we really do not know enough to tell.


A bit? A TAD? Maybe?

Have you seen how many record highs and record high minimums were set this year? Even I became a "believer" this year.

Texas had ALL TIME highs broken repeatedly this year for both individual locations and state records. Dallas-fort worth area broke, tied, and then re-broke their ALL TIME record high SEVEN times in one year.

was trying to find the article that showed that thermal emissions from the earth were far in excess of the models predictions, and thus models would be showing a much greater positive feedback than observations allow. But I would just be called a denier


That's ok for two reasons:

1) As temperature rises, the amount of thermal radiation escaping increases naturally according to the laws of physics.

2) The models are actually underestimating some "minor" albedo related positive feedbacks.
Veneficus
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 26, 2011
I am amazed that there are so many idiots here. One would think people reading this blog would have a decent (scientific) background and the common sense to see that global warming is real.
Why would I not surprised if the majority of the deniars here are American as well?
I think you all just made the writer's point...
AAhhzz01
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 26, 2011
Yes a tad.....0.8 C in 100 years is not a Holocaust.

As to record highs, what was the record high in Texas during the medieval warming period? Do you have a record from then? You know the warming period that was suppressed in the initial reports because it showed a remarkable similarity to the current trend?

What about the last decade that has shown an overall cooling? You know the one that the climate scientists were talking about in the emails they never thought would be public knowledge?

Frankly I am SKEPTICAL because of the hysteria and emotional involvement I see in the public discourse.

When before have skeptics of a scientific theory been compared to Holocaust deniers?

When before has a major scientific study tried to suppress the data it was founded on, and when pressed claimed it was destroyed?

When before has so much money been plowed into a field of science and detractors been personally and professorially attacked?

And why attack? Unless your hiding something.
AAhhzz01
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2011
and oh....Yes as temperatures increase more thermal radiation escapes.

Problem is the models did not allow for the increased escape, in fact they factored it in as a positive feedback.

If a model is so far off on a basic assumption like that...How come people are still defending it so viciously?

And the personal attacks are viscous, even here a Nobel winner in physics that wont agree and resigns from the APS ( Ivar Giaever in case you have not guessed )in protest is called senile. His knowledge and insight which I would submit to you all is far greater than anyone here is thus dismissed with a backhanded insult.

That is simply shamefull, if nothing else you should give due consideration to his viewpoint and be skeptical yourselves, at least enough to be willing to grant that the ones who are skeptical are acting in good faith and to the best of their abilities.

A vain hope likely, one can but hope that Reason and not emotional attacks and insults will prevail.
AAhhzz01
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
Nano, my ancestors exploded out of Scandinavia over 1000 years ago because the climate had warmed even more than it is today.
Why was it warmer over 1000 years ago?


Over Europe & maybe NA only. Not globally!!! In any case, do not worry, you will live to eat your words and lament your great - grandkids' living conditions.


Really Doom? You have global coverage of the sea temperature readings for year 1011?

Do post a link for that data would you?

Oh and while your at it post a link for the ice coverage in Greenland ( they did name it that for a reason you know ) and the arctic ice pack in the year 1011...would be most enlightening I am sure
Ronan
5 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2011
AAhhzz01: There are quite a few errors in your recent posts, but one in particular was so very egregious that I had to draw your attention to it. You said "What about the last decade that has shown an overall cooling? You know the one that the climate scientists were talking about in the emails they never thought would be public knowledge?", which I presume was referring to the "climategate" emails and the "hide the decline" quote. Those emails were written roughly a decade ago, and that specific phrase is referring to the deviation of some tree ring temperature proxies from the observed temperature trends starting in (if memory serves, and it may not) the 1980s or so. The decline being referenced, incidentally, was never really hidden; papers have been published, readily available to anyone who bothers looking for them, trying to figure out the causes of that deviation between the tree ring proxies and the actual temperatures. There's no secrecy there.
lengould100
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
The authors are clearly correct that denialism is an american thing, largly right-wing americans. Denialists need to inspect that item of information, esp. in the light of the fact that these are probably the very least scientifically educated among discussion participants in the world, and the most likely to declare that science is only secondarily accurate versus their religion.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2011
Some of the best work challenging the AGW faith has been performed by Canadians MacIntyre and Mckitrick from their little web site, ClimateAudit.
If humans have the capacity to make the climate warmer, it seems the Canadians would be most interested in increasing their growing seasons.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2011
The Canadian National Post has been giving a voice to those scientists who question the faith.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2011
Why has the term 'global climate change' been subsituted for 'anthropomorphic global warming'?
Who did that?
lengould100
1 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2011
The Canadian National Post
is one of the few ultra-right papers in Canada. Confirmation actually.
AAhhzz01
1 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2011
Thanks Ronan, I had been up about 22 hours at that point
( insomnia is a good thing for reading articles...a bad thing for thinking straight )

I stand corrected.

But I still hold that the emotional content/investment is causing these arguments, on both sides to descend into bitterness and outright viscous attacks.

I do believe that the science is still in its infancy, and the proclamations of doom are overdone.

I would rather see the debate happen openly without such hyperbole and personal attacks. The comments about Ivar Giaever were just cruel, doubly so if they were true.

But in the end humans will adapt, its what we are good at.

And who knows, perhaps adapting to a changing world will be to our benefit in the end.
jnjnjnjn
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2011
...Like all good teens, humans don't want to admit that the "paty" is over. ...

A lot less 'teens' should solve the problem. Strange no one mentions that.

J.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2011
The Canadian National Post
is one of the few ultra-right papers in Canada. Confirmation actually.

Confirmation then that 'global warming' is a socialist plot to control the world's economy.
Which is why so many here believe in it.
lengould100
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2011
Socialist plot? Get a clue. I've never voted anything but conservative in my (long) life, simply stopped voting when you stupid Neo-con reaganomics idiots took over that field.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2011
Socialist plot? Get a clue. I've never voted anything but conservative in my (long) life, simply stopped voting when you stupid Neo-con reaganomics idiots took over that field.

Define 'conservative'.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2011
This is from a Brit:
"James Delingpole is a bestselling British author and blogger who helped expose the Climategate scandal back in 2009. Reason.tv caught up with Delingpole in Los Angeles recently to learn more about his entertaining and provocative new book Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors. At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In other words, it's green on the outside and red on the inside. At the end of the day, according to Delingpole, the "watermelons" of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it."
http://reason.com...imategat
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 27, 2011
This is from a Brit:
"James Delingpole is a bestselling British author and blogger who helped expose the Climategate scandal back in 2009. At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In other words, it's green on the outside and red on the inside. At the end of the day, according to Delingpole, the "watermelons" of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it."
http://reason.com...imategat


Regretfully, I came to the same conclusion by tracing events back to the 1967 Bilderberg dogma of the Sun as a stable H-fusion reactor in equilibrium, Henry Kissinger's secret visit to China in 1971, and the dismantling of the Apollo program in Jan 1972.

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf
lengould100
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2011
Om and Ryg. You mistakenly confuse the "recommended remediation actions" for "the actual science". Agreed, many of the recommended remediation actions are dumb, socialist-leaning wastes of time and resources. That fact however does NOT alter in any way the actual science of climate change or AGW. Many other available remediation actions are simply good common sense reactions to a recognized threat, actions which any good CONSERVATIVE would take. Support for substituting anything we can for petroleum-fueled transport makes a lot of sense given what we know about the future costs of production and supplier base of imported oil, not at all a pretty picture. Support for substituting cost-effective solar electricity generation over coal-burning is also obvious. (See Sargent & Lundy engineering analysis that with a decent volume build, in areas of good insolation, solar thermal with thermal storage could produce electricity cheaper than dirty coal within just a very few years
lengould100
2 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
Obvious remediation actions: A) Solar thermal can now produce electricity at 12.5 cents / kwh, and claims it can have that down to 6.2 cents within 10 years. So, pass legislation to guarantee ALL solar generation a subsidy of 6.3 cents / kwh in 2012 and 2013, 5.3 cents in 2014, 4.3 cents in 2015 and 2016, 3.3 cents in 2017 etc. etc. until zero. Not picking any winners, letting the market decide if it can be done, and if so, who's the best. If it can't be done, then no-one will try and the subsidy will cost nothing.
lengould100
1 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2011
B) Buy off Shell Oil's patents which they have bought and are hoarding having only used them to sue Toyota for the inital battery packs in the Prius, on Ovshinsky's NiMH battery technology with public funds, and make them available at nominal cost to any American manufacturer.
lengould100
1 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2011
Also, figure out how to get the market to build sufficient HVDC transmission to make optimal use of all available renewable generation. Authorize FERC to issue bonds to pay for it, to fast-track the right-of-way approvals, and to collect fees for use sufficient to retire the bonds appropriately. Provide no taxpayer guarantee for the bonds, let the lenders decide what the risks might be (eg. very low).
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
@lengould100 said (concatenating):
Obvious remediation actions:... Also, figure out how to get the market to build sufficient HVDC transmission to make optimal use of all available renewable generation.


I'm sorry but that just SO reminds me of a very old Steve Martin joke: "Wanna make a million dollars? Easy! Just invent a car that runs on sand and generates peanut butter as a byproduct!"

My apologies to Mr. Martin if I'm not recalling this word-for-word after all these decades.
lengould100
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2011
Shelgeyr: Ok, that solution is simply one the I think would work. Feel free to get congress to implement yours instead. HOWEVER, my point is that battling solution choices doesn't change the FACT that the science is correct, to a very sufficiently high probability.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2011
That fact however does NOT alter in any way the actual science of climate change or AGW.

What 'science'?
Models are not science. If the model can't be used to decribe past climate how can it predict future?
Why do NASA and the NRL want to collect calibrated radiometic data from the earth if the 'science' is settled?
lengould100
1 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2011
http://www.ipcc.c...ts.shtml

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4) - Working Group I Report - The Physical Science Basis
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2011
Models are not science.


You are right.

Western civilization and scientific institutions collapsed while thousands of TV channels and computer screens displayed::

a.) Gladiator shows for macho males
b.) Soap operas for abandoned wives
c.) Computer models for scientists
d.) PBS programs for highbrows
e.) Video games for youth

Regretfully,
Oliver K. Manuel
Video summary of research career (1961-2011)
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2011
"We see that for models, the uncertainty in radiative fluxes makes it impossible to pin down the precise sensitivity because they are so close to unstable regeneration. This, however, is not the case for the actual climate system where the sensitivity is about 0.5C for a doubling of CO2 . From the brief SST record, we see that fluctuations of that magnitude occur all the time."
http://www.global...-pdf.pdf
barakn
3.2 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2011
Models are not science. -ryggesogn2

Newton modeled gravity using an inverse square law. He got lucky because the inverse square law using just two bodies admits exact solutions that repeat orbit after orbit after orbit. The math gets pretty sticky when trying to model the dozens of large objects that compose the solar system, but one could still use perturbation theory and crank it out by hand. Attempt to put a lander on the Moon or apply general relativity corrections to simulate centuries of planetary movement, though, and there's simply too much math. Computers are a useful tool for picking up the slack. Physical science is all about making a better model, a model that better explains observations. Use of computer models is not a sign of bad science, it is a sign that the new models, the ones that better explain observations, are by their very nature simply more mathematically complex than the older, less successful models they've replaced.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2011
What do the AGWites or socialists do when their models fail to predict observations?
Reminds me of how complicated astronomical models became when the earth was assumed to be the center of the universe.
How many are willing to reconsider the fundamental assumptions of their models when their models fail?