Reader comments
Climate debate one-sided

There has been a debate and its over! So get over it!

First mistake: using the word "scientist." I'd say 95% or more of scientists know very little about climate science. So it really doesn't matter what that 95% believes.
How about we find out what climate scientists believe? You know, people who actually know what they're talking about?

Excuse me, but the things I learned about global warming 20 years ago are now coming to fruition. I guess they don't teach much about that when you're getting a GED.

The debate began a couple decades ago when there was time to mitigate some of the problems we NOW face. Because of arrogance and greed, and bushco, the problem is much more dire.

The American people are willing to do what it takes to maintain livability on Earth. That's why we rejected the party of Bushco. Only greed-driven selfish people can't admit there's a problem.

All you say is true. But your point is?? This is the way it is done. There is no other way. Fall in line or we will do to you what we do to other disenters. It is only a matter of time before we have re-education gulags for people like you.

While it is true that there are at least two sides to every argument, it doesn't mean that there are two GOOD sides to every discussion. Most climate scientists, with the exception of ones funded by petroleum companies, or wacky right wing think tanks, are convinced of man's role in global warming. Heck, all you have to do is look at a graph of average global temperature next one of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and you can see that something is going on.

Ever heard of Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute? Those are quasi-religious organizations that insist that there is no such thing as evolution, and that all of Creation took place roughly 6,000 years ago. The people that work there like to call themselves "scientists" also. What's your point?

I'm old enough to remember lots of scientific studies that showed no harm in tobacco use. Most of these studies were funded by organizations that had vested interests in the outcome, such as tobacco producers. It has since become almost an article of faith among the left to simply discount any studies funded by such organizations.

But even though I read example after example of scientists pushed towards pro-global warming conclusions by funding sources and political forces, I fail to see any comparable skepticism applied to their studies.

This "science" has become thoroughly polluted by political interests.

Global warming _has_ been debated, exhaustively, in the appropriate forum - peer-reviewed professional science journals.

The debate _has_ been vigorous and exhaustive. The data have been analyzed in more ways than you can imagine.

It's all there for anyone to see. All you have to do is go to the library and look, and the know the difference between science journals and op-ed pieces.

What you're seeing now is not "debate," you're seeing a last-minute desperation PR blitz sponsored by industry and political groups who don't care a whit about the planet, they care about their money.

To "liberal larry | 6:41 a.m." here are 4 sources that are not funded through oil companies. Also, one of them has a graph that shows solar cycle duration and temperature increases. Amazingly they are much more closely related than CO2 and temperature increases. When you look at it, the temperature increases before CO2 increases.

Read the following articles:

"The Geologic Record and Climate Change" by Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University

"Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?" by Nir J. Shaviv and Ján Veizer

"The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate" by Yongjin Wang, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Yaoqi He, Xinggong Kong, Zhisheng An, Jiangying Wu, Megan J. Kelly, Carolyn A. Dykoski, Xiangdong Li

"180 Years accurate CO2 - Gasanalysis of Air by Chemical Methods" by Georg Beck (This one shows that there are some serious data errors in the IPCC data for CO2)

I did. I looked at 2 graphs of Average Global Temperature (one taken via satellite and one taken at measurement stations around the globe) vs ambient CO2 concentration. The data was for the last 12 years, and the temperature on both graphs is distinctly trending down as ambient CO2 has steadily risen. The publisher of the report? A top scientist at the EPA. He concluded his report by stating that the earth is in a period of global
cooling until the year 2030. Hmmm. That supports the findings of a recent NASA study that shows global climate change is caused by natural solar cycles and not CO2. Now that's an inconvenient truth.

To "liberal larry | 6:41 a.m." now that I have given you some non-oil funded sources of information showing that solar or cosmic ray fluctuations are responsible for warming, lets go over some studies that prove various points of Global Warming to be wrong:

"Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979" which shows that this last winter the sea ice levels were nearly equal to 1979. FYI 1979 was the first year satelites were able to give an accurate measurement of sea ice, which happened to be during a cooling cycle.

Florida State University tracks the cyclone energy, and has a web site dedicated to this. According to GW, cyclones should be getting stronger as the earth warms, yet their graphs show a decline in overall energy since 1993.

"Change is a cold certainty" where the University of Adelaide along with other scientists explain that the total ice in Antartica is either constant or growing in size.

"MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon" is about a MIT professor who explains that Triton (an uninhabited moon) has been showing signs of global warming at the same time the earth is.

For an issue upon which there is no debate, I sure read a lot from climate change deniers in the letters to the editor of this newspaper.

The letter writer suggests there are "plenty of scientists" who don't subscribe to global warming. I challenge the letter write to name even one. But I've got two catches:

1. The scientist actually needs to be a climatologist (because a biologist, for example, isn't going to know anything more about climate than my accountant or any other random person).
2. The climatologist can't be on the payroll of an oil company, an energy conglomerate, a conservative think tank, or a business lobby.

If you can find me one person who meets these two criteria and doesn't subscribe to climate change, I will never post on this topic again.

Spoken like a person who doesnt know what science is. Someone who gets his news from rush et al. You are irrelevant, get use to it.

I would love to debate a global warming advocate. There are so many examples of flawed science or open propaganda disguised as science.

A couple facts. About a year ago a scientist discovered that the temp readings coming from Goddard were in error. These are controlled by the godfather of global warming James Hansen. Hansen admitted that there were errors causing global temps to read higher than they actually were and yet this didn't change a thing.

It is being reported over and over again that the ice caps are melting. What gets little report is something like covered in the Dnews just a few months back: Last year, in a surprise over 2 million square miles of new ice sheet was formed.

The polar bear story, poor bears losing their home. Not so, a short little story based on a couple isolated incidents. What is rarely reported is that there are more polar bears now then at any time in reported history and that the population continues to increase.

Lies, dang lies then environmentalists.

Oh I would love to debate one of these alarmists and just use their own facts. It is a lie!

The point comes down to two questions. What is the optimal global temperature for the planet and humanity? Is the current temperature rise within normal variation of historical earth temperatures? Would on off you manmade experts please answer these.

The manipulative Obamafest media made it clear in the last election that they have no desire to present any point of view other than the intolerant left-wing interprettion of everyhting.

Y2K was a big deal too. NOT

Environmental sensitivity is a great idea - mass hysteria is not.

Is that you Al? Your up late.

It is an inconvenient truth that many find you to be a hypocrite and an unauthoritative source on the subject of the climate. And all your disciples who are the beneficiaries of this hoax ought to be ashamed. And you call oil profiteering immoral?

Al, it doesn't matter how many times you keep screaming "the debate is over, I am right, and you must concede," it will never make it true.

Now, go back to bed and dream on.

I remember 40 years ago they were teaching global cooling and a new ice age right around the corner.

It is amazing how the weak minded can be manipulated by those who wear the title of educator, scientist, or authority.

Real education my friend, GED or otherwise, is about learning to think. If I were you I would demand a refund because I believed they failed to do their job. However, I do believe they succeeded in their indoctrination which pretty much sums up higher education today.

"There are plenty of scientists who do not believe in man-caused global warming..."

Who are they? Please list them.

What scientist haven't done is communicate global warming to the public. The deniers get their info from Limbaugh, Oreilly and the rest of the entertainers.