The climate change debate: Man versus nature

Oct 03, 2011 By Anuradha K. Herath
Scientists are studing how the Sun effects Earth’s climate. Credit: NASA

The public discussion on climate change has become so polarized that some scientists don’t even acknowledge there is a debate. Climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Gavin Schmidt, is one of those people.

“There aren't 'two sides' to the science, nor to the policy response,” Schmidt said. “This implies that the whole thing is just a matter of an opinion – it is not.”

Another group of would disagree with Schmidt. In June, the Sixth International Conference on Climate Change took place in Washington D.C. It was organized by The Heartland Institute, headquartered in Chicago, and its primary objective is to “dispute the claim that is a crisis.” In 2008, the organization published a report titled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.” Its president, Joseph Bast, talking to the journal Nature recently, discussed public opinion on climate change and the ongoing debate.

"We've won the public opinion debate, and we've won the political debate as well," Bast said "but the scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration."

The climate change debate, as it discussed in the mainstream media, appears to be divided into two major sides. One side argues that the current global warming is caused by human factors while the other side insists it is occurring because of natural forces. In the latter argument, two natural causes that dominate the conversation are solar changes and changes to the Earth's orbit.

The Sun's Energy

Scientists and astronomers have studied the impact of the Sun on the Earth's climate as far back as the early 1800s. Historians have traced the earliest such studies to the research of Sir William Herschel, who tried to link the frequency of sunspots to the price of wheat. His belief was that the number of sunspots would be indicative of the amount of the Sun's energy that is received by the Earth. That energy would affect the amount of wheat produced, which would affect the price.

Herschel’s study didn’t make a big impact at the time because he did not have access to historical temperature records to make any useful comparisons. However, there has been a significant amount of research conducted since then to show that variations in the Sun's energy output have an impact on changes in Earth’s climate.

Alterations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun over time. Credit: oceanworld.tamu.edu

A research study published earlier this year in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics provide more evidence of this link between the Sun and the Earth. Through their analysis of historic temperature deviations, geomagnetic activity and the frequency of sunspots, the authors concluded that “the Sun has a significant role to play in the long-term and short-term climate change.”

“With more and more data available, it may provoke some thought to further explore the solar influence on Earth's climate with geomagnetic activity acting as a possible link,” said lead author Mufti Sabi ud din, scientist of the Astrophysical Sciences Division at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in India's Department of Atomic Energy. “It may evoke some response so as to bring to the fore the substantial role of the natural forcing at work on the observed climate variability.”

Mufti, however, did note that the evidence of the Sun and other natural forces being the primary cause for climate change is still inadequate.

“We do not rule out the natural forcings at work,” he said, “but there isn't enough quantitative evidence to say that natural forcings are the dominant cause of current climate change.”

Pointing out the geopolitical sensitivity of the topic itself, Mufti was careful not to rule out anthropogenic effects.

“We have made it amply clear that the anthropogenic origins cannot also be ruled out,” Mufti said.

According to Schmidt, while the Sun does have some impact, it is definitively not the reason for current patterns of climate change.

“There is an effect,” Schmidt said, “but it is hard to detect in surface records, and is certainly not responsible for recent trends.”

Orbital Change

Another natural occurrence that has caused major changes in the Earth's climate in the past is shifts in the Earth's orbit. Consider the Sahara desert, for example. There is a wide acceptance among scientists that the Sahara transformed from a fertile grassland to a desert because of a change to the Earth's orbit. This shift in how the Earth circled the Sun affected the amount of sunlight that region of Africa received.

The Earth's orbital tilt is said to vary between 22 and 25 degrees roughly every 41,000 years. While a natural event such as this could bring about major changes to the climate, some scientists are warning that there is a possibility for reverse feedback. In other words, instead of an orbital tilt causing climate change, such as the one that took place in the African continent, current changes in climate could end up causing changes in the Earth's axial tilt.

A shift in the Earth’s orbit is said to have transformed the Sahara from a grassland into a desert. Credit: Map by Robert Simmon and Reto Stöckli

In an article published late last year, Astrobiology Magazine reported on such a prediction: “Scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory say that the current melting of ice in Greenland is already causing the tilt to change at a rate of approximately 2.6 centimeters each year. They predict that his change could increase in the years ahead.”

The Politics of Climate

Hundreds of scientists around the world have conducted research that show human activities contribute the most to today’s climate change. We are changing the Earth’s atmosphere by emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, most of which comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Other human activities include agriculture and changes in land-use patterns. They all work to tip the Earth’s energy balance by trapping more heat.

Even scientists who think human activity is the main cause of climate change don't deny that these natural changes will cause temperature fluctuations on Earth. However, their argument is that in the current cycle of climate change, the impact caused by man is far greater. But there’s no indication that the two sides of the climate change debate will reach any common ground in the near future on what scientific evidence is showing, or what policy decisions should be adopted.

Perhaps the most well-known spokesperson for climate change, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, recently attracted a lot of media attention for his emotional rant against climate skeptics. When he spoke at the Aspen Institution in Boulder, Colorado in early August, he compared climate skeptics to those who argued that smoking was not harmful to human health in the 1960s.

"There are about 10 other memes that are out there, and when you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap, over and over and over again,” Gore said. “There is no longer shared reality on an issue like climate, even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened."

Although the climate scientists who say that the climate is changing (about 97 percent by some estimates) far outnumber those who don’t, Gore's comments indicate the strength of the message of those who argue against climate change.

The Brookings Institute released a report in April on the public opinion on climate change in the United States and Canada. In a survey of 2,130 people, the report found that there is a progressive decrease in the number of people who think there is “solid evidence of global warming” and an increase in the number who think there is no solid evidence. In the fall of 2008, 17 percent of people did not believe in global warming. In the fall of 2010, that number had increased to 26 percent. Even though the number of climate change believers has decreased, the majority of people still believed that the Earth is undergoing global warming and most of them (61 percent of Americans and 57 percent of Canadians) felt it was a “very serious” problem.

Moving On

Despite knowing the difference between weather and climate, both climate supporters and opponents, usually in politics and media, often can't refrain from using short-term weather patterns to bolster their respective arguments. Harsh winters are used as evidence of no global warming while scorching summers are used to support the viewpoint of human-caused warming of the Earth. Individual seasonal weather events such as a “snowmageddon” or heat waves cannot be directly attributed to either argument of the climate change debate because such events alone are temporary affects. Climate change, on the other hand, is a long-term problem. However, an increasing frequency of such extreme weather events can be another indication that climate change is in fact a reality.

In this complex and seemingly never-ending debate, there is now an increasing number of scientists and other observers who say researchers and policymakers need to move on, to respond to the Earth's reactions to global warming instead of still debating whether or not it is a reality.

Climate change effects nearly every other sector of society. Take, for example, public health. Some of the diseases that impact global populations the most, such as malaria and diarrhea that kill millions each year, are highly sensitive to climatic conditions. Then there is the inequity of these risks. China is now the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases, but developed countries, primarily the United States, is still mainly responsible for causing climate change after having emitted the most pollution for the longest time. But the populations that suffer the most from climatic changes will be those in developing countries – countries that have contributed the least to climate change and populations who have the least access to resources that could help them deal with the consequences.

There are numerous other reports which show the impact of climate change on various other sectors such as agriculture, energy, insurance and even national security. Schmidt expressed the urgency of addressing climate change now.

“The consequences of increase, and they increase quite rapidly as the temperatures rise,” Schmidt said. “The faster we act, the less bad the peak warming will be. It will take a long time to turn this around.”

But Schmidt rejects the idea that there is a point of no return.

“This idea that there's just one point, I think that makes people complacent now and then it would make people fatalistic afterwards,” Schmidt said. “Whatever the situation is, there will be choices that we can make as a society that will make it better in the future or worse. The longer we let it go without doing anything, the worse the consequences will be before it comes back down and we get it back under control, but there's never a point at which there's nothing that can be done. There is an urgency to acting but it's not because there's a point of no return.”

Explore further: Fall foliage season may be later, but longer on warmer Earth

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate is warming - despite 'ups and downs'

Dec 28, 2010

Periodic short-term cooling in global temperatures should not be misinterpreted as signalling an end to global warming, according to an Honorary Research Fellow with CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Barrie Hunt.

Plants protect from climate impacts

Aug 02, 2011

Native vegetation must be restored to protect Australia’s unique ecosystems from the impacts of climate change, according to scientists from the Australian National University.

How Earth's orbital shift shaped the Sahara

Dec 21, 2010

A change in the Earth’s orbit, many scientists believe, transformed the “Green Sahara” into what is now the largest desert on the planet. While scientists are still trying to find out if the ...

Chatbot auto-tweets replies to climate change arguments

Nov 04, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A software developer has created a "chatbot" program for Twitter to automatically detect set phrases associated with arguments put forward by those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, ...

Monsoons spinning the Earth's plates: study

Apr 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists have for the first time shown a link between intensifying climate events and tectonic plate movement in findings that could provide a valuable insight into why huge tremors occur.

Recommended for you

Last month was hottest August since 1880

3 hours ago

Last month was the hottest August on record for global average temperatures over land and ocean surfaces, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said on Thursday.

Unforeseen dioxin formation in waste incineration

7 hours ago

Dioxins forms faster, at lower temperatures and under other conditions than previously thought. This may affect how we in the future construct sampling equipment, flue gas filtering systems for waste incineration ...

Crowdsourcing could lead to better water in rural India

8 hours ago

With more than 10 million service points, India's rural drinking water system provides a real monitoring headache for public health officials. To help address the challenge, a three-continent research consortium ...

User comments : 40

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Gezza
3.7 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2011
Thank you...

Neuron Regression

Global Beer Warming is indeed caused by the sun and not those little CO2 bubbles floating up from the bottom of the glass.

www.blahblahblah.com

Oliver(hic)

Former(hic) NASAcist
Mayday
3 / 5 (22) Oct 03, 2011
Great article. As a person who wants to do good, I am perplexed by the AGW movement. It appears to be a movement without a measurable goal. Stabilizing the Earth's climate at some arbitrary point on a graph is simply not a possibility. Once one accepts that fact, what exactly should a good AGWer be trying to accomplish? And how/when will I know that I've accomplished it? Without real answers to these questions, how does one justify their AGW vitriol?
Jeffrey_
3.5 / 5 (23) Oct 03, 2011
The "Heartland Insitute" cited in your article main funding is derived from the Fossil Fuel Industry and primary purpose is to promote the position of doubt and confusion over Climate Change to stop any public policy measures to curtail oil or coal consumption. This is a "carbon copy" campaign that was used by the Tobacco Industry.
You fail to quote or refer to the leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen of NASA, who has in his book, "Storms of My Grandchildren" addressed the issues you listed as reason that Global Warming is "natural". He expains clearly why it is not "natural" and is induced by human burning of fossil fuels and the release of CO2 in the atmosphere, many thousands of times more so than "natural" influences! The New York Times this fast October 1st issued featured a front page article on the effects Global Warming is having on our forests. There are others, such as, the ocean ecosystem and water chemistry change known as, "ocean acidification". It is happening now!
Jeffrey_
2.8 / 5 (18) Oct 03, 2011
The "Heartland Insitute" cited in your article main funding is derived from the Fossil Fuel Industry and primary purpose is to promote the position of doubt and confusion over Climate Change to stop any public policy measures to curtail oil or coal consumption. This is a "carbon copy" campaign that was used by the Tobacco Industry.
You fail to quote or refer to the leading climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen of NASA, who has in his book, "Storms of My Grandchildren" addressed the issues you listed as reasons that Global Warming is "natural". He explains clearly why it is not "natural" and is induced by human burning of fossil fuels and the release of CO2 in the atmosphere, many thousands of times more so than "natural" influences! The New York Times this fast October 1st issued featured a front page article on the effects Global Warming is having on our forests. There are others, such as, the ocean ecosystem and water chemistry change known as, "ocean acidification". It is happening!
ahmedgnz
3.7 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2011
Non-biased reporting does not consist in taking a "no side holds the truth" stance as the writer of this article does when presenting a fringe group of oil-industry "scientists" with a posssible axe to grind on equal sceintific standing with the consensus of the world's leafing scientists and climatologists. There is such a thing as truth in science after all and it consists of reproducible evidence gathered by tests and observation that stand up to the scrutiny of a consensus of experts in whatever scientific field. The evidence for man-made global warming is mountainous and the consensus among bona-fide climatologists overwhelming. If the world should move on and accept the reality of man-made global warming (as an supermajority in the US and a virtually unanimous majority over the globe do), then "SCIENCE" writers like Herath should move on too from giving equal footing for these fringe, oil-industry "scientists," who are a step above those still claiming the Earth is flat.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (31) Oct 03, 2011
Why do people assume govt funded 'science' has no political agenda?

Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (70) Oct 03, 2011
Great article. As a person who wants to do good, I am perplexed by the AGW movement. It appears to be a movement without a measurable goal. Stabilizing the Earth's climate at some arbitrary point on a graph is simply not a possibility. Once one accepts that fact, what exactly should a good AGWer be trying to accomplish? And how/when will I know that I've accomplished it? Without real answers to these questions, how does one justify their AGW vitriol?


Not true. Their goal has been stated quit explicitly. Redistribution of wealth, anti-capitalistic policy, and the adoption of left-wing politics for the social engineering of energy use. They wish to skip the phase two debate,.. that is, how to deal with the problem; They assume the above. This is AGW biggest road block not the "deniers".
Noumenon
4 / 5 (67) Oct 03, 2011
The prerequisite of becoming a bona-fide climatologists is to adopt the AGW paradigm.
Pressure2
1.3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2011
I take issue with the articles explanation as to why the Sahara desert was once green. I think it is as simple as the ice ages. During the last Ice Age the Sahara would have been in the temperate zone, therefore green.
Jonot
2.9 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2011
Ah yes, the old "oh, all criticism is funded by the oil industry" nonsense. Exactly what proportion of university research grants went to studies attempting to disprove AGW? And what proportion went to studies attempting to prove AGW? If you appreciate what science actually consists of (and you are not some political hack with a Grand Cause based on faith), you'll realize that there's a fundamental problem with the current approach. Scientific theories are supposed to be strongly challenged, and indeed they only have validity if their conclusions are falsifiable. In fact, if you believe in AGW, then you should support funding for an enormously increased number of anti-AGW studies. The emotive knee-jerk response of AGW advocates to criticism is a classic "tell" of someone who is trying to persuade you through bluster as opposed to evidence. If you have a problem with "oil industry funded studies" then you better do something about getting some publicly funded critical studies.
runrig
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2011
Great article. As a person who wants to do good, I am perplexed by the AGW movement. It appears to be a movement without a measurable goal. Stabilizing the Earth's climate at some arbitrary point on a graph is simply not a possibility. Once one accepts that fact, what exactly should a good AGWer be trying to accomplish? And how/when will I know that I've accomplished it? Without real answers to these questions, how does one justify their AGW vitriol?


Just burn as little carbon as you can
runrig
4 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2011
I take issue with the articles explanation as to why the Sahara desert was once green. I think it is as simple as the ice ages. During the last Ice Age the Sahara would have been in the temperate zone, therefore green.


........... Which was a function of the Earth's axis tilt. Look up "Milankovich cycles"
mememine69
2.3 / 5 (18) Oct 03, 2011
When the Former Believer Majority sees the thousands of scientists actually marching and acting like its the ultimate crisis they say it is, we will only then vote yes to taxing the air to make the weather colder. No prob!!
It's sad because climate change has done to responsible reporting and all of science what nasty priests did to the Catholic Church.
emsquared
2.6 / 5 (14) Oct 03, 2011
Just burn as little carbon as you can

See, this is the problem.

For AGW proponents, carbon is the end-game. It is everything.

That's not reality. The single great tragedy of increasing atmospheric carbon concentrations is acidification of the oceans and while it is arguably worth decreasing your emissions for that reason alone, things like habitat destruction, environmental degradation (pollution, litter) and bad resource management are much greater threats to any given ecosystem or species than a warming climate, even a rapidly warming climate.

There are many and diverse things you should be doing, not just cutting carbon. Most of them linked to your consumption habits; of water, energy, materials (esp. plastics), everything.

We (the West) have a disposable culture, a society centered around instant gratification, if you care about climate change, the environment or mankind's ability to cope with these things, you should be changing your role in the disposable culture.
Jotaf
4.5 / 5 (16) Oct 03, 2011
Wow. Is the author of this article trolling us?

1) There aren't two sides. The guys doing the science all agree.

2) The counter "articles" and "conferences" are all organized by coal/nuclear energy conglomerates (the names you read in the article -- Heartland Institute, Indian Atomic Research Center...). With such a vested conflict of interest, doesn't it blow your mind that anyone would even consider it "research"?

3) "We've won the public opinion debate, and we've won the political debate as well," Bast said "but the scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration." -- I'm speechless. Scientific research is not the kindergarten; not everyone gets their turn to say something. It's not subject to opinion. It's subject to study and fact. I trust other engineers' and scientists' opinions on their area of expertize, because they are thousands of times more knowledgeable on them than me.
Nanobanano
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2011
Scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory say that the current melting of ice in Greenland is already causing the tilt to change at a rate of approximately 2.6 centimeters each year. They predict that his change could increase in the years ahead.


Yep. Because Greenland is an asymetric ice cap and not centered on the pole, melting it must clearly cause the axis to change it's tilt, and possibly change the length of the day as well, due to conservation of angular momentum.

Not to worry too much though, I figure by the time Greenland melts completely, it would "only" shift the axis by several dozen to at most a few hundred feet.

Moving the poles by the alleged 2 or 3 degrees in this article would take something a hell of a lot more than "global warming". Maybe a huge meteor, or if you thermolized all the limestone and converted it to CO2 you MIGHT change the mass and momentum distribution that much...maybe.

A degree is like 69 MILES.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (13) Oct 03, 2011
The interior of the earth is not solid. Low frequency oscillations in the mantle could provide the force to shift the access.
Ever try to spin an uncooked whole egg?
hard2grep
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2011
Thank god we don't fully accept global warming; that would end in undeniable finger pointing.I wonder who gets blown up first by putting the overpopulated world in harms way...
tysoncable
3.5 / 5 (12) Oct 03, 2011
regardless of who's right, it would seem stupid beyond belief to not prepare for the worst case scenario and drive innovation, technology and resources profoundly forward creating new markets, industry and economy during this period of global warming and financial crisis.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 04, 2011
US science became more like that in the old USSR [1] after trading away space supremacy [2] to avoid the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation and adopt:

A. The Bilderberg solar modal of a STEADY H-fusion reactor "in equilibrium" [3], and

B. Anthropogenic global climate change as the "common enemy"

C. To unite nations [4].

CO2 did not cause global warming [4]. WikiLeaks [5] reports a major UN climate program is "basically a farce."

References:

1. Lysenkoism
www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html

2. No More Dreams, Mr. President
http://claudelafl...ams.html

3. The Bilderberg solar model
http://adsabs.har....3....5G

4. "Deep roots of the climate scandal (1971-2011)"
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

5. "Clean-energy credits tarnished"
www.nature.com/ne...20110929

Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Parsec
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2011
Why do people assume govt funded 'science' has no political agenda?


Because it doesn't. To claim it does is evidence that you do not understand the peer review process, and how difficult it is to get funding for any project. I can't remember what the ratio is now, and it depends on who is doing the funding, but something between 8 and 20 deserving projects get unfunded for one one that gets the go ahead. Scientists, not politians are doing the vetting.
xvi
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2011
former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, recently attracted a lot of media attention

Yes he deed. In the Netherlands that is. He attracted attention by driving a very environmentally unfriendly car (1ltr / 6km)
Practice what you preach mr Gore!!
jsdarkdestruction
2.1 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2011
Oliver, do you not know of phase 2 of the plan? see kissinger and nixon knew about neutron repulsion and it being the main source of the suns and the universes power but chairman mao did not. as the world all followed their lead in the conspiracy they said it was to prevent nuclear war. however under the guise of that the united states had different reasons. as the climatoligists/scientists destroy our economy and power while funneling money to third world nations for supportung the scam the chinese will soon grow too strong and overpopulated for anyone but the us to even have a chance of stopping the chinese from taking over the world, at that moment neutron repulsion will be officially "discovered" and cheap easy neutron repulsion energy will be used both to power production of weapons and supplies and as weapons of mass destruction themselves in neutron repulsion bombs. saving the united states and allowing us to finally take over the whole world without looking like the bad guys...
Sigh
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2011
Their goal has been stated quit explicitly. Redistribution of wealth, anti-capitalistic policy, and the adoption of left-wing politics for the social engineering of energy use. They wish to skip the phase two debate,.. that is, how to deal with the problem;

I have invited you to contribute to phase 2. You did not respond. ryygesogn2 at least tried, offered something that has worked for localised problems. The generalisation was not convincing, though.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that 97% of climate scientist are socialist conspirators. You can remove the incentive for the conspiracy by offering a free market alternative. Changing the incentives is itself a libertarian, free market solution. Why is there none of this in the public debate? I would like to see alternative solutions, but all the intellectual effort of the free market advocates seems to go into denying that there is a problem.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (60) Oct 04, 2011
I have invited you to contribute to phase 2. You did not respond


I don't need conspiracies,.. big gov left wing, anti-capitalists, politically have claimed ownership of AGE. This is a fact.

I have posted many, many times, that the free market will ultimately be the solution, not social engineering, not redistribution of wealth, nor expecting people in a free nation to volunteer to a reduction in standard of living. Eventually oil/coal will become more and more expensive, at which time alternative markets will open up. There is time despite the bs hype.

Alternatives must compete with oil/coal on a level playing field, such that people are motivated by their own intrinsic individualistic desires to use it. Only then will such alternatives be adopted on a large scale.

Also posters many times, .. I'm all for a serious manhattan'esque project funded by government to develope alternatives,.. i.e. fusion, and safer old fashioned nuclear.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (60) Oct 04, 2011
Assume, for the sake of argument, that 97% of climate scientist are socialist conspirators. You can remove the incentive for the conspiracy by offering a free market alternative. Changing the incentives is itself a libertarian, free market solution. Why is there none of this in the public debate? I would like to see alternative solutions, but all the intellectual effort of the free market advocates seems to go into denying that there is a problem.

Drop the conspiracy non-sense. To be a climatologist is to be a AGW advocate. To be a sociologist is to advocate using societal statistics to engineer solutions, ... to control the behavior of the masses. Both camps see energy use and western high standard of living as The Problem which needs to be controlled, a negative. I see free-market and imdividualism as a positive natural force not to be tamed, but as the quickest means of adopting alternatives to a meaningful scale.
LuckyExplorer
3.3 / 5 (19) Oct 04, 2011
WOW! It is once more very astonishing what else is discussed here, ...
anything but not the real topic. -
Only opinions but no facts.

Fact one:
There are more than just one parameters that have an influence on the climate

Fact two:
There were also fast changes in former times

Fact three:
There is a man-made factor

Fact four:
Never before were so many people affected by such a change

Fact fife:
The climate change can (will) be a problem due to the high population on earth

Fact six:
It is the first time that mankind can recognize the causes and has the chance to counteract that trend

Fact seven:
All of these facts have nothing to do with socialism, communism or capitalism, that has only to do with brains and intelligence
Short bloke
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2011
When ex pollies refer to the tobacco debate re harm to health similar to the comments of Al Gore in the above article, think of poor Bruno and his death by fire whilst chained to a post. He was condemned to death by his religious masters, simply because he held the fatal belief that the earth orbited the sun. Are we now expected to believe that the evolutionary physical processes extant in the universe cannot possibly be eventually understood by mere mortals now called climate deniers? Perhaps the path to an understanding of that we find difficult may be strewn with impediments and dispute; however, when politicians butt out, its generally called scientific debate.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (60) Oct 04, 2011
I would like to see alternative solutions, but all the intellectual effort of the free market advocates seems to go into denying that there is a problem

No, denying cataclysmic bs, many are for cleaner energy. The conservative solution is already in place. Many are for cleaner energy,... it just takes time and must occur naturally in accord with free market principals. The political left want to "fix it now" even though THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES any where near the scale of oil/coal in use,... while the conservative right understand we have to evolve off oil/coal naturally.

Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (56) Oct 04, 2011
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." - EDENHOFER UN co-chair IPCC Group III
Short bloke
1 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2011

It is my pseudoscientific belief that change to the Earths orbit caused a gravitational thermal effect that resulted from the slow grouping together of the great planets in a relatively small volume of the solar-systems space. Thereby resulting in excess warming, followed rapidly by excess cooling in a close time frame - summer changing to winter and back to summer. Now that the Great planets are beginning to move further apart, our climate will again slowly return to that considered to be the norm. Perhaps mall variations in our climate results from Jupiters position and time of orbit.
Change to the Suns radiation ability is also affected by the postulated gravitational thermal effect.
Jimee
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2011
Just let the rich continue to poison the environment and us until they can make enough profit to just kill us and do as they please.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 04, 2011
From what I hear, the bored, out of work rabble protesting "the rich" are poisoning the air about them by not bathing.
PluviAL
2 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2011
Could (glaical Isostatic Adjustment) GIA, add to the tilt of the earth?. Mass is distributed equally and instanly when ice is melted, but slowlly when it is built up. Additionally, there might be feedback loops, from subsequent geolgic effects of the large masses changes effecting geologic activity. (Author's theory: called Geomotive Force, not published.).

Giving equal weight to political denial of the facts, is aproblem, but that is "politics" in the USA. Those who support proactive action, need to be more effective in appealing to the public that feels threatened by the discussion. Unfair discussion is the opposite of scientific edicate. Unfortunatley, due to the structure of the media, and our old-clunker-democracy, it is the stuff of current politics.
larkforsure
1 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2011

[ SOS ] Complaint with IBM China CSR on Centenial

Please Google:

Tragedy of Labor Rights Repression in IBM China
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2011
Global Beer Warming ... thats a serious problem. Perhaps one of the big international brewers will fund a study. The results will be that taxes on beer should be reduced .. oops I forgot, the results come after the research. Damn climate change pseudo-science got me confused!
hush1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2011
lol
Yes. Must be Oktoberfest.
Desertphile
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2011
Dr. Schmidt is 100% correct: the debate on the subject among scientists is over, and has been for decades; what remains is the debate about what to do about the problem.

For over 100 years scientists have been demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global temperature increase:

Joseph Fourier in 1824 and 1827
John Tyndall in 1859
Svante Arrhenius in 1896
C.J. Fox in 1909
A. Angstron in 1918
Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916
E.O. Hulburt in 1931
S.G. Callendar in 1937
Professor Gilbert Plass in 1950
Carl Sagan in 1960
Stephen Hawking in 1960
Isaac Asimov in 1968
Wally Broecker in 1975
Richard Feynman and "The Jasons" in 1980
Desertphile
1 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2011
For AGW proponents, carbon is the end-game. It is everything.


Only homicidal schizophrenics are AGW proponents. I assume you meant ton write "people who accept the facts and evidence that show human-produced CO2 has caused and is causing global climate change." And yes, you are correct: our CO2 is "everything" (i.e., the major cause).
Desertphile
1 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2011
Drop the conspiracy non-sense. To be a climatologist is to be a AGW advocate.


No climatologist in the world advocates AGW. Nearly all of them do the exact opposite.