Reader comments
Science is not settled

“We the willing, led by the ignorant, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, with so little, for so long, we are now qualified to do anything, with nothing.”

I think this quote sums it all up, from the President right down to the liberals and mad scientists.

And, even more so, the science-illterates of the just-prior administration.

Yes, it is true that science has ultimately crushed the myths of the day -- from disproving the "earth is flat" or "the earth is the center of the universe."

However, one cannot refute existing evidence of climate change using the "gut feeling" or previously held beliefs about how the world works. If anything, the science of climate change is refuting the previously held belief that somehow burning carbon-based fuels and increasing carbon into the atmosphere would have NO effect on the climate and broader environment. We know burning fossil fuels spews a host of toxins into the air our children breathe and causes health problems that hamper our quality of life and increases our health costs.

Why keep the status quo? Who benefits from it? Definitely not families with premature illness, death, and financial challenges due to the high price of fossil fuels. Refuting climate change benefits the oil industry -- which 90 percent is owned and controlled by state-owned companies and governments, many of which don't act in America's best interests (e.g., Saudi Arabia, OPEC, Iran, etc.). Actions to combat climate change will change the equation on how we fund these countries in the future!

It's too bad here in conservative heaven that we have an almost complete monopoly on climatologists, and everyone outside is ig'nernt.

A letter writer that understands how science works. Too often posters claim that there is no debate. There is always controversy in science. When someone tells you that it is settled, you had better grab your wallet before they do.

Watch more Fox Hate network! The uninformed run for god and guns spewing rhetoric rather than facts. The ignorant are the ones like abundance that follow what they hear rather than researching facts. Sheep will follow the leader over the cliff.

Skeptics of climate change are critical for the continued supremacy of the global industry and the politcal strength of oil-based countries, such as Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. Sending our soldiers and money overseas is good to facilitate the success of these nations and maybe, just maybe, free market of oil forces will help these nations become free politically and more friendly to America!

What a bunch of moronic posts! Science is supposed to be about skeptism, especially when driven by dubious computer models. Those that continually push the "oil giant" excuse for skeptism, fail to grasp the amount of money going to "green" industry companies for little or no gain in climate change. For instance, GE stands to gain billions from the cap and trade legislation and there are many more. I will gladly change my opinion on climate change if someone can explain to me the cause and effects of previous warming and cooling episodes (to include the ice age hysteria of the 70's) and why we have actually cooled since 1998, despite the fact that CO2 levels have risen.

"Please" you can continue to watch ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and NBC because they are the type of sheep you seem to choose. You have absolutely zero "facts" to back up your jibberish.

To "Please! | 7:36 a.m." how about we listen to the Geological Society of America which has an article titled "Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?" In that article, they state "at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy." So, a minimum of 2/3 of global warming is cosmic ray fluctuations.

Or, how about we listen to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which has the article "The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate" Which says "Cross-correlation of the decadal- to centennial-scale monsoon record with the atmospheric carbon-14 record shows that some, but not all, of the monsoon variability at these frequencies results from changes in solar output."

Hmm....not Fox news, ligitimate sources seem to say that solar fluctuations account for a lot of global warming.

This much I do know, at the time of the dinasaurs, it was hotter than now, at other times in the earths history, (the ice ages) it was cooler. The earth throughout all history has been changing temperatures.

When I was young in elementary school, we were told that scientists had determined there was only a 20 year supply of oil left.

As I was growing up, I was worried that if the Vietnam war didn't end, that I would be drafted to go to it. I was told that we needed to fight it because if we didn't stop the communists there, dominos would fall and pretty soon the whole world would be communist. - that was one heck of an expensive mistake.

I guess my point is this, I have learned to be skeptical of what the so called "experts" say.

Official Statement of the American Geophysical Union: The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system-including the temperature of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the lenght of the seasons-are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmosphereic abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

Official Statement of the American Meteorological Society: "Their is adequate evidence to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surfaces are warming, and that humans have significantly contributed to this change."

Great letter for the wrong reason. Science is never settled and that is its strength not a weakness. In the real world we rarely have "all the facts" and need to make calls based on what we know now and what the threat is. Waiting for science to "decide an issue" is only a dodge to put off making a decision.

So, even if the issue is not "settled", does it mean we should not be better stewards of the environment? I just talked to a guy who saw the Cuyahoga River burn in 1969, and that mess was cleaned up. We have done good things to improve our calloused treatement of the planet, but we have so much more to do. Stop fretting and arguing about the issue and just do it. Or do you love pollution and causing other harm to the planet? Do you have a personal investment in pollution?

A scientist would not claim human caused global warming is a fact any more than they would claim that evolution is just a theory. However, scientists do claim that human caused global warming is the most likely explanation for the facts we observe. How certain are they about the most likely part? they are very certain. There only seems to be doubt on letter to the editor forums.

Wonder where those people at the American Meteorological Society will get a job after they have been found so flat footed wrong. Oh at some other leftist think tank, I'm sure.

@ Anonymous 10:31: Keeping the environment clean is a necessary and worthy cause. Tranference of wealth to the southern hemishere, putting the US in the dark are not the solution. Our free society and economy brings about this "luxury" of a clean environment. China and India are putting their people and growth first, the old soviet is a rust belt of toxic pollution, activists should go over there and clean up the mess that the communists made.

Fact: there are tens of thousands of scientists worldwide who disagree with the conclusions reached by these "official" scientific societies and organizations.
Fact: observations show that global temperatures and CO2 levels have leveled off during the last decade.
Fact: NASA admits that they don't completely understand how the earth's carbon sinks work. More CO2 is absorbed during some years compared to others.
Fact: NASA admits that atmospheric CO2 has leveled off and the most likely culprit for "future warming" is methane, yet government policies still zero in on CO2 reduction.
Fact: Even if the United States, Russia, and other developed countries reduce their CO2 output, it will all be a wasted effort if China and India continue on their current course, or if we get one big volcanic eruption that spews tons of GHG into the atmosphere.
Still feel comfortable with Cap and Trade?

re: Please! | 7:36 a.m. July 10, 2009

Actually, its lemmings that blindly follow another over the cliff.

re: finally | 7:26 a.m. July 10, 2009

Exactly. Science is fluid, dynamic, & just when you think something is absolute it isn't.

Religion, on the other hand, is the antithesis of science.

I continually see your posts that humans are not affecting global warming.... so is it your opinion that all is well, and we should just continue down the path we are on? That there is no oil problems and we don't need to pursue alternative enegy sources? that pollution and human action on the planet are just fine, no change in direction needed?

because that is what you sound like, and that is a most ignorant position....