Global warming deniers show craziness of conservatives

Conservatism used to be intellectually respectable. As a teenager in the early 1960s I regularly read serious stuff by William F. Buckley and other deep thinkers in National Review.

My mother was a die hard Republican. I shared her commitment to conservatism until I went to college. Back then, there wasn't any conflict between "conservation" and "conservatism."

But now, right-wingers have a well-deserved reputation for being anti-scientific, dedicated not to reasoned arguments and facts, but to shrill sound bites with no substance.

Today the Copenhagen summit on climate change kicked off, encouraged by the EPA's conclusion that greenhouse gases threaten public health and the environment. Which, of course, they do.

No sensible person would deny either that global warming is occurring, or that the effects of climate change are even more serious than predicted.

Crazy conservatives would, though.

And this is demolishing the credibility of a political philosophy that used to appeal to admirers of science like my mother. Now it is extremely rare, in the United States at least, to find a conservative who wholeheartedly accepts scientific truths.

Evolution. The big bang. Global warming. These are facts. Ignore them, and it is impossible to be in tune with reality. That's a huge handicap for a politician.

As is falling prey to basic thinking errors. Such as, something is either right or wrong; there are no shades of gray to truth, no gradations of correctness. Isaac Asimov wrote a great essay about the "relativity of wrong."

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.

The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." The implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

Thus the global warming-denying crazies are going wild over the stolen emails from a climate research center. They've seized upon a few comments by scientists that supposedly cast doubt on some conclusions about global warming.

Actually, this isn't true. The American Meteorological Society says that the emails don't have any impact on the society's position on climate change science.

For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the same thing. So does a statement by Nature's editorial board.

Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

Yet Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and other mouthpieces of the conservative movement ignore facts and keep on preaching their gospel of unreality. Here's the You Tube proof that they're as stupid as Beavis and Butthead.

Fortunately, there's a strong argument that global warming deniers are going to pay a big political price for their idiocy.

Reality has a way of biting back. It can't be Swift Boat'ed in the mindless fashion today's conservatives like to play their political games. The deniers will do anything to confuse the public, just as the tobacco industry tried to obfuscate the dangers of cigarette smoking.

However, the Earth can't be fooled.

When it keeps warming, as it almost surely will, voters will see even more clearly what is becomingly increasingly obvious: the conservative movement in the United States is the party of know-nothing (as well as no-nothing, since they're against everything important that needs doing: health care reform, job creation, energy independence, and so on.)

Comments

[Michael]

I'm not a scientist, nor an intellictual type. Just a workin guy. I start with this disclaimer because I don't want to appear to be trying to advance any agenda. All I can possibly know about climate change..global warming...ETC is what I read or hear.

On another blog post Randy left a comment containing a link to a vid that shows, at least to my un-developed mind that this whole thing might not be as cut and dried.
http://neithercorp.us/media

Nobody (but Republicans) can possibly deny us Earth dweller types got some serious probs we gotta deal with. Polution bein the bid deal to my mind. I'm just not sure climate change ought to be on the forefront of the stage.

Regards,
Michael

http://neithercorp.us/media

[Canada Guy]

Michael, you can believe anything you want, including that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so. The media is creating a "debate" about global warming that just doesn't exist in the scientific community.

As for the comment about a political price, I suspect if some of these politicians are still around in 20 to 30 years, in the end, they could be up against the wall.

[Rain]

The problem is the phrase global warming. For a scientist, they understand that might lead to an ice sheet some places, to no winds, to lots of winds, but they know that a rise in the average temperature of earth's atmosphere will be a big problem; but too many people equate global warming with their climate at the moment. By the time they get educated (media isn't helping), it could well be too late to change it.

The other issue being raised by the right is whether humans are playing a role in this increase of carbon dioxide. Evidence in ice indicates earth has never seen such a rise to know what it will mean for humans. Measurements also give some pretty solid evidence for where it's happening that this rise is human caused, but it takes sophisticated thinking to be able to use this data and most people aren't liking sophisticated thinking and a lot couldn't do it because they haven't been trained to use logic or data. They want simple answers and the Limbaughs will give it to them. Fox will give it to them. By the time they realize what is happening, it will be too late to change it-- if it isn't already.

I recommend a show called How the Earth was Made for the cycles earth has gone through. Conditions where man could thrive have been tiny. It's kind of frightening and our time of being 'in charge' is so miniscule as to not even count. It wouldn't take much to send us right back to barely surviving-- if the human species even can the next shift. We are fools to ignore the history of the earth and what we are doing.

Personally I think religion (at least in the US) does play a role in how some are ignoring this data because they see there being a god in charge and therefore it's okay whatever happens.

[Michael]

Canada Guy...I honestly have no personal interest or agenda in the issue one way or other. What I'd really like to believe is that what we at the bottom of the information food chain are getting the facts without any hidden agenda. I have some doubts.
"We report, You decide" really ought to be "We distort, and tell you what to believe".

I like Rain's observation about regular folks weakness in the complex thinking department. So true, which is why I'm no longer a Christian believer anymore.
Quoting Brian's excellent article;
"The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong."

I found this blog site somehow in searching for motorcycle stuff. Found to my delight a really smart man saying eloquently what I have thought and felt yet was unable to articulate I.E. Church of the Churchless. I bought his books and am trying to read 'em.
So all in all this is some pretty cool stuff.

Regards,
Michael

[Randy]

It just doesn't seem to be that hard to find what appears to be legitimate skepticism and real concern on the way this climate change thing is developing. It's not just right wing crazies. It's a bigger tent than that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20091207&articleId=16437

Is it just another scheme to rip everyone off?:

"Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives:

The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

[Blythe] Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity -- in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases..."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16449

[Blogger Brian]

Rain, I think you're right about most people not wanting (or able) to delve into the complexities of important subjects like global climate change. Sound bites grab their attention, and that's often as far as people dig into something. That's why I liked this embedded video. Including the Beavis and Butthead clips was inspired, since much of what passes for political discourses these days doesn't rise above the B and B level.

I also agree that religion is playing a role in global warming denials. True believers think that God is in charge of the world, so why worry? And/or they believe that man's destiny is in heaven, not Earth, so what's the big deal if the planet gets screwed up?

Michael, glad you're enjoying this blog. It's interesting how looking for one thing on the Internet leads to another.

[Randy]

Here's the libertarian take on the climate change debate from Lew Rockwell:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/lost-left-climate-morass136.html

[tucson]

I don't know. Climate change 'denial'? Sounds rather religious to me, rather like denying Christ as Lord and Savior to the true believers. I prefer climate change skeptic or climate change agnostic or climate change atheist to be more fair terminology.

I also notice that it is now more PC to say "climate change", rather than "global warming" because on the whole over the past 10 years planetary temperatures have not warmed but actually cooled somewhat. However, there is no denying changes in weather patterns. But is this man-made? Should we disrupt economies and increase taxation on already burdened economies as well as more beaurocratic control over our lives on the basis of theories and "groupthink".

I am not a conspiracy oriented person, but I think a lot of this is manufactured by businesses who would profit from climate change legislation and people who would like more power via growth in government and regulation of our lives. Perhaps some of them are sincere with good intentions. Maybe they think we are too stupid to do what is right and we need some higher authority (Lord Government) to keep our habits under control. I think they are right. Surprised? Because I think collectively we ARE stupid and can't control our consumption and desires.

But no one is going to turn the 21st century industrial/consumer paradigm around. No government, no regulation, no tax is going to change human mentality and desire for more stuff. Change in the way we live will come only when eco-systems collapse and shortages and suffering ensue. Much like the busy intersection where they don't get around to installing a stoplight until somone gets run over.

I'm not going to sit here and say that climate change is bunk because it is obvious that climate changes and IS changing. What I and many others are agnostic about is what is causing the current changes. I suspect natural and made-made influences combined... like deep space ionic storms, changes in ocean currents and smog. But my gut says natural cycles are the big player in this as they have always been throughout the ages.

Despite the collective consciousness of many scientists, there are many very bright scientists who are on the fence or entirely skeptical, and ANY honest scientist will admit that the current changes are not 100% guaranteed man-made unless they are fanatics or zealots... Remember religion?

Until we are as sure about the cause, the cure and the existence of a fixable problem in the first place as we are about the sun rising in the morning I say back off on radical environmental protocols that are costly and possibly misguided and unnecessary.

Here is what one climatologist has to say:

The hoax of man-made global warming is being exposed. Recent evidence of the doctoring of data by top climate scientists with political agendas to make it show warming that wasn't there and hide recent cooling is just the tip of the iceberg, one that is not melting as alarmists have been proclaiming. Let's review a few related facts.

Temperatures have always fluctuated naturally on this planet. Looking back over the past 100 years, the earth warmed from 1900 to around 1940. There was global cooling after that until the late 1970s.

It warmed again in the 1980s and 1990s, with that warmth peaking in 1998. There has been no warming since then even as CO2 has increased during the entire period. Eleven straight years of increasing CO2 and we're still cooler than 1998.

As of the 2009 growing season, the U.S. has now gone a record 21 straight years without a widespread drought in the Corn Belt. Soybean yields this year are easily a record. Corn yields were just shy of a record because it was actually too cool in the Upper Midwest. Climate models from man-made warming alarmists have consistently predicted increasing droughts along with yield-reducing excessive heat.

As a meteorologist who understands these models and appreciates our challenge to get the weather forecast right, it has amazed me that the public has been so easily bamboozled into believing the exaggerated 50-year cataclysmic climate forecasts.

Would you keep believing the same weatherman if he was wrong 11 forecasts in a row, then tried to sell you on his "long range" forecasts?

The problem is that the source of these errant forecasts and flawed interpretations are biased scientists, working with leaders of groups with the same thing in mind. Their goal is to have a significant influence on governmental policy as it relates to regulating carbon dioxide. A key element to success has been manipulated data and propaganda.

"Climate change" to "climategate"

Global warming has been twisted into a powerful issue that has attracted millions of loyal followers who believe the "debate is over," as Al Gore stated. Realizing that the warming had stopped after 1998, they even changed the name to "climate change."

"Climategate," as it's now being called, is just evidence of what some of us scientists have known. We have been witnessing an unprecedented, coordinated campaign to prove the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and blame greenhouse gases using "whatever works" strategies.

The urgency to pass costly legislation has to do with shoving it through while many still have the illusion that it's worth the hefty cost and that the planet is still warming. Ironically, cap and trade in full force and doing what they claim it will to the earth's temperature would make a difference of only a tenth of 1 degree over the next 50 years. The natural cooling since 1998 is far greater than that.

The 2009 hurricane season was quiet, the third in the last four years to be below preseason forecasts. This, after very active 2004, 2005 and 2008 seasons, shows more evidence of the natural variability. Atlantic basin activity is not determined by global temperatures, but from a natural 25-year cycle.

The sunspot count continues to be at the lowest level in a century. Looking back in the past, there appears to be a strong link between an inactive sun and a cooler earth. The sun is the source of incoming heat on this planet. It has cycles that we haven't been around long enough to study and understand clearly.

We do know with certainty that all of the many temperature fluctuations in the past were caused by natural cycles or events. These natural cycles will continue with or without human beings. That's why temperatures have gone up and down the past 100 years, even while man-made CO2 has gone up every year.

One legitimate C02 link: Plants

The biggest legitimate link involving CO2 is with plants. We know that increasing CO2 increases plant growth and crop yields. CO2 is essential to all life forms on earth. Treating it as pollution is about as absurd as believing we can predict our climate 50 years from now. We also know that the warmer our planet has been in the past, the more life it supported. The most devastating blows to creatures on earth from temperatures came from cold.

Powerful evidence of life doing better because of increased CO2 and warmth comes from digital satellite observations that were processed, refined and compared to changes of satellite-based maps of vegetation collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's series of AVHRR (Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer) sensors. The digital satellite observations were processed into maps by NASA's Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies project.

The time frame for this comprehensive study is significant. It studied the years of greatest warming this century. The scientists concluded: "Between 1982 and 1999, 25 percent of the Earth's vegetated area experienced increasing plant productivity."

They assumed that "increasing CO2 caused plants to grow better" but "carbon dioxide fertilization couldn't be solely responsible for the change; climate change must be playing a role as well." Part of this was from more sunshine in the tropics and part of the increased plant productivity was from warmer temperatures in the high northern latitudes.

I believe in reducing all forms of real pollution, recycling, conservation and developing renewable energy. I also believe strongly in telling the truth. The truth is that CO2 is not pollution and that man did not cause much of the global warming that occurred in the last 100 years.

Don't believe the cleverly constructed presentations using distorted data from agenda-driven groups. They consider their hidden interests to be more important than the truth. They often use well-intentioned and credible people to help perpetrate the scam. Don't believe them.

We need to hold our policymakers accountable for their decisions, basing them on truth and the best interest of our country and planet. Don't believe me, either. Educate yourself on the subject, verify that everything stated here is the truth, and then believe it.

Put all that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Blogger Brian]

tucson, the last decade actually was the warmest on record. The earth isn't cooling, it is warming. That's a fact. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400905.stm

This is why I like the term "deniers." Anyone who says global warming isn't happening is denying the facts.

[Nw]

Global warming skeptics are guilty of using the simple minded technique of connecting the end-points of the hot El-Nino year of 1998 to the cooler year of 2008 and calling that a downward trend.

That is not how a trend is computed. The outliers have less influence than that.

This link explains in more detail:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/skeptics/

And comments for Figure 1:

"Even the highly “cherry-picked” 11-year period starting with the warm 1998 and ending with the cold 2008 still shows a warming trend of 0.11 ºC per decade (which may surprise some lay people who tend to connect the end points, rather than include all ten data points into a proper trend calculation)."

Thank you Brian for continue to hammer away at the topic of Global Warming Skepticism.

[tucson]

OK. Just for giggles and grins I will say that global warming is definitely happening and it is happening because of human activity and unless we do something about it we're fucked. Or at least our children and certainly our grandchildren are fucked, really really fucked. Polar bears will drown and little girls will be swept away by floods or fall into fissures in a parched earth.

Of course there really are honest purists who have gone back to the land and live as our stoneage forebeares did. Except for their campfires, occasional flatulence and exhalation of CO2 they are having a pretty minimal impact on the troposphere.

What gets me are all these self-proclaimed environmentalists who continue to consume manufactured products made from non-renewable resourses that have a half-life of 100,000 years or more in landfills. The industries that produce them produce carbon emissions. They drive cars, ride airplanes, throw away trash, use electricity, wear clothes made at least partly from polyester, buy computers, Ipods and the list goes on and on as long as you want to make it. I love these people who buy their packaged, manufactured organic foods, put them in their oh so PC reusable hemp shopping bag and then drive away in their oh so PC Prius to their home filled with gadgets and manufactured products galore.

I say quit all the jibber jabber and walk the walk. Quit complaining and be consistent. GEt real, get honest and get back to the land or shut up. Wear skins and grass skirts. Eat wild berries and succulent grubs. Make your shelters from sticks and adobe and warm yourself by burning dried cow dung.

Do you think mankind is going to revert to that? Do you think industry is going to come to a halt? Because that is what it would take, according to some experts, to have even a remote chance of averting a disaster that is almost inevitable even if ALL human greenhouse gas emissions were to stop today or even ten years ago.

That isn't going to happen. This Copenhagen thing is a sham. Industries will continue and modern life will go on until it can't. People want their stuff and their comforts, period, andthat won't stop until they're forced to. Do we want an authoritarian global police state to enforce this? Hordes of youthful enviro-cops with green hats knocking on your door at 3 AM to see if your thermostat is down to 62 degrees?

I'm afraid this thing will have to run its course like a disease. Like the common cold or a case of poison oak. There is no cure, you just have to ride it out and see what happens.

Of course you can try to stem the tide. Go ahead. Even I do little things that might help. Like I said, I ride a bike. I buy in bulk. I dislike going to Wal-mart, malls and shopping. I buy as little as possible. Except for this computer and my HD TV I'm kind of a Ludite. Hell, I was using an old computer running Windows 95 until a couple of years ago. I wear old clothes. I recycle and yes, I actually do use a reusable cotton shopping bag that says "Save the trees" on it (wish it didn't). When they say "paper or plastic?" I proudly, in my most environmentally conscious voice say, "neither" and produce my planet saving bag. But I'm under no illusions.

It all amounts to trying to piss in order to fill the Grand Canyon. This thing is too big to stop. Yes, I'm pesimistic but let's get real. You can't even get the evil monkey puppet in Iran to realize that nuking Israel is a bad thing to do or get the Taliban to quit beating their women, let alone trying to get China and India to stop their industrial expansion. All these new toys are too new and fun for them. Environmentalism is miles away from their list of priorities in the burgeoning third world.

so indeed the beat goes on and where it goes nobody knows.

[Blogger Brian]

tucson, I agree that many Green people -- me certainly included -- don't walk the walk as well as we talk the talk. My personal carbon footprint is pretty damn large, living as we do in a fairly large house 20 minutes from downtown Salem, which we visit almost every day.

But we don't have to give up technology and modern conveniences to deal with global warming. Tom Friedman makes the case well in a recent New York Times column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html

Excerpt:
-----------------
This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.

What we don’t know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before. We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible” in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic” warming.

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.

[tucson]

B.B. I am sort of in agreement. However, some responses:

"What we don’t know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before...and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic” warming."

--That's a big problem, the word "potential". We don't understand all the dynamics in this. So, I say rather than disrupting economies based on 1% theories, let's do more research until we really have a handle on this thing. Acting on panic and hysteria usually is not wise.

"When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about."

--The problem is sort of like a homeowner who buys flood insurance on high ground in the desert when the real problem is they live in an earthquake fault zone and they should have bought quake insurance instead. We don't know if we live in a flood zone, a quake zone or what type of zone.

"But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels."

--None of this is developed, except nuclear, to any significant degree that would keep the engine of modern economies running. Solar panels are very expensive and resource-energy demanding to produce. Much of it is subsidized and is not economically feasible on its own. If we all drive electric cars, then there is going to be a much greater draw on the power plants, thus more carbon emissions from that. But I'm all for at least trying. A cleaner planet is a good thing.

I have always thought methane has not been talked about enough. There is enough excrement in the world going into sewage plants and oceans that could be harnessed for methane production and methane is very clean burning. As long as critters are shittin' there will not be a short supply.

[Leila]

Do some searches on the conclusions by Japanese scientists, if you think it is only the Americans who are denying global warming.
They accuse the media of being part of the problem.
Now, the Bolivians want the US to pay because their glaciers are melting. I hope it is not due to a natural occurrence like volcanic activity. Is anyone checking?

[Leila]

Years ago many white college grads were careful about what they put into landfills - for instance, disposable diapers were a no-no.
Now, I can just see them telling blacks or Hispanics what they should do with their diapers or how they should do better recycling.
Let's face it. It is easier to accuse another white person (especially a strong Republican) of not caring about the environment - but those illegals who cross the desert and leave all kinds of trash - hmmm. The Democrats will never stand up to them. Secretly, they want the Republicans to do that dirty work.

[tucson]

GLOBAL WARMING BELIEVERS SHOWS CRAZINESS OF PROGRESSIVES...

http://neithercorp.us/media

This is a link to a 75 min. film called "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

If your browser is not compatible with the media, you can read a similare expose' here:

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

I find it rather suspicious that the comment on this forum by NW which provided the Global Warming Swindle media link seems to have disappeared. But I'm a lazy searcher. I could be wrong...but if I'm not?

[Blogger Brian]

tucson, no global warming comments or links have been deleted. Since the commenter "Nw" is supportive of mainstream climate change science, which shows that global warming is occurring, I'm doubtful that he/she would have included that link in a comment. I don't remember it.

The only "Nw" link that I changed was adding a link to a comment where it was inadvertently omitted, and shared in a follow-up comment. That was on the "Sarah Palin is wrong" post, the link being to a different site.

I'll share my own new link. This is from PolitiFact, a highly respected fact checker on political claims. (The Portland Oregonian runs a story from PolitiFact almost every day on page 2.)

PolitiFact checked into the stolen climate change research emails and found that they don't undermine the case for human-caused global warming.
http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/11/climate-change-e-mails-and-copenhagen/

Here's some concluding paragraphs:
--------------------
So, what we do know is that these e-mails clearly demonstrate some petty professional backstabbing and a degree of skepticism within the CRU circle about opinions that do not match their own. They also raise the question of whether researchers fudged, manipulated or tossed out data that contradicted proof of global warming, but until CRU completes its own investigation, it's impossible for us to make a call on this point one way or another.

However, we can say this with certainty: The e-mails do not prove that global warming is a hoax. In fact, there's overwhelming evidence that temperatures have been rising and are continuing to rise. Just take a recent report issued by the United States Global Research Program, an arm of the government that, since 1989, has been coordinating and integrating federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. The report states that "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. ... Warming over this century is projected to be considerably greater than over the last century. The global average temperature since 1900 has risen by about 1.5ºF. By 2100, it is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5ºF."

[tucson]

Dear Blogger B.,

I can't find the post I was talking about after more exhustive, laborious, thorough, painstaking, time-consumning, monumental effort. Maybe it was on another blog, or possibly I am entering the first stages of a slow decline into dementia and a life in a wheel chair and diapers being spoon fed a tasteless unrecognizable gruel most of which ends up as an unsightly drool cascading from my lips onto my shirt. But I digress.

Maybe the commenter will chime in and resolve this grave issue for us, but it doesn't matter. I posted his/her link above. I challenge global warming activists to watch it. But most won't. Once our minds are made up. That's it. Mine included. I smell a skunk and his name is Al Gore.

I am not particularly impressed by the email scandal either. I think there is enough information contrary the mainstreaqm media version of global warming science, as evidenced by the links I provided above, to render that petty dispute rather insignificant.

Obviously dumping billions of tons of pollutants into the environment is stupid and shortsighted and humanity needs to do something about that. I am just not sure that enough is understood about this to enact sweeping legislation that will disrupt economies and cost trillions of dollars that nobody has on the basis of theories and possibilities.

Personally, I don't bet on 1% odds something will happen. If I did that with orange juice futures I would be broke in no time.

[Nw]

Message to tucson, there never was a link; you are imagining it.

First of all I'll state that I am fully open minded, I have no ideological drive regarding the global warming debate, either way.

That said, the evidence for global warming is overwhelming. Even without the temperature data, just look at your favorite glacier. All glaciers worldwide have been melting; I call that Nature's thermometer. And they are melting faster than predicted. If you think melting glaciers have no impact on anyone, take a look at this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/science/earth/14bolivia.html?_r=1&hpw

Look at yearly new high temperatures versus new low temperatures:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp
Current 2X more new highs than new lows.

The Global Warming deniers show the futility of their ideological cause by their behavior: Attack the messenger ("look at all the CO2 emissions of Al Gore"); fixate on one item, like the stolen e-mails; etc.

Where is your peer reviewed science, Global Warming Deniers? Truth is, there will never be any. Because the truth is, the planet is warming.

[tucson]

NW,

I had you mixed up with someone else. Sorry.

Have you looked at this?:

http://neithercorp.us/media

I do not DENY that something is going on with the climate. I do DENY that anyone knows for sure why or what it is.

[Nw]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

[tucson]

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

Alert! Alert! Google war!! Man your battle stations!!

Go ahead, put up a counter comment and then I'll put up a counter to that. Make my day. Tit for tat ad infinitum.

There is plenty of disagreement among experts as to what is going on.

[Blogger Brian]

tucson, my point in this post is that if a paper is peer-reviewed (and I couldn't find mention of the journal that this paper was supposedly published in, other than a claim that it was "peer reviewed), it will be taken seriously by scientists.

[Update: I looked over the paper that appears on the Science and Public Policy Institute web site:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf

I didn't read it closely, but didn't see any indication that it was published anywhere but on the web site, which is the work of global warming skeptics. See:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf

So this "Institute" doesn't have scientific credibility.]

Regardless, if the author of the paper makes sense, his conclusions will affect the debate over global warming. If this is another example of a single person typing out a rant against the IPCC consensus, then it won't. The scientific method doesn't proceed with a Googling war.

Yes, it's possible to go on endlessly trading links back and forth. That's why I trust experts in a field who have done the peer-reviewed literature study themselves, have discussed the evidence in open forums, and come to considered conclusions -- which is what the world's climate scientists have done in the IPCC reports.

[tucson]

OK. I hate reading technical articles so let's say you guys are absolutely, 100% correct and the fundamental cause of Greenland melting and eventual planetary climate chaos and the death of billions is CO2. Never mind that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is only about 0.5% since the industrial revolution began. Fine. A butterflies' wings fluttering in Africa causes a hurricane to devastate Miami Beach. Chaos theory and all that. Possible. I can accept that.

But..are we going to stop the manufacturing/consumption paradigm of modern civilization? Will Amish values be emulated world-wide? Will we ride horse-drawn buggies and eschew TV, cars and scooters, carbon based energy, plastic, metals, etc. etc.? Will it do any good since the snowball of destruction is already rolling and gathering steam?

If they are right industrial civilization will have to stop dead in its tracks, and even then, according to some, it is too late. Who's going to stop it? As I said somewhere else it is just going to have to play itself out and where it ends up nobody knows. This is not to say we may as well just go belly up, party hard 'till we die and not try to do something about it. Each of us can do our small part, but obviously we have a monster too big to handle.

I will say that about 5.5 billion fewer people on the planet would be a good thing environmentally and eventually those that are left will adjust and build a new life possibly based on more sound ecologic values, but the cliche' is that history is doomed to repeat itself. We are too clever for our own good, but not wise enough.

[Robert PaulHoward]

Since "[w]e are too clever for our own good, but not wise enough[,]" then why not "just go belly up, party hard 'till we die and not try to do something about it" - since it is perceived that "obviously we have a monster too big to handle"?

"A good thing" (apparently) = "about 5.5 billion fewer people on the planet." Hooray. Apparently "good" advice is thought to be suggested.

Robert Paul Howard

[tucson]

Hey, I was wondering, since I have been running off at the mouth lately, when some of my old pals would show up. Good to see you again Bobby. How you been?

[jim]

global warming facts and myths?

you decide

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths