I am not sure how we should judge climate change, the successor to global
warming. 1. Any conclusion based on records kept must by taken
with some salt, we have only been keeping records world wide for what, 150
years? The Earth is how old? So we are only seeing a small portion of a grand
picture. Maybe we are a bump on a rather large curve, graphically speaking.2. Is carbon the villain? Computer models say so, but I have also heard
"garbage in, garbage out" as referenced to computer models, are we
imputing the correct data to identify carbon as the culprit? Is it the only
factor?3. Speaking of other factors, what about solar radiation, is
it a constant or a variable?4. Greenland used to be called
'vine-land' or some such title as it was warm enough to grow grapes,
or so I recall elementary school classes. Maybe we have been in an abnormally
cold cycle and are returning to a former 'normal'.5. I am
of the opinion that alarmists seem to ring the town bell to alarm the citizens
in order to sell their particular brand of snake oil cure(s).
CO2 is a natural element. The amount of CO2 has been higher than now and lower
than now. The temperature of the earth varies all the time. The more CO2 the
better for plants. Increased plants and animals are a result of warming.
Increased CO2 is the result of the increased plant and animal life dying off and
decomposing. Increased CO2 follows periods of warming. We have had both
sustained periods of cooling and sustained periods of warming just in the last
century. The University of East Anglica and others falsified data to bolster the
AGW "theory". Scientists can be corrupted by money - it sustains their
jobs! Consensus is not the scientific way.Facts are facts.
"overwhelming consensus that global warming is happening"The
only overwhelming consensus is from Al Gore ...and that will continue as long as
he continues to make millions off of his propaganda campaign of global warming.
The real "inconvenient truth" is that Al lied and his little campaign is
backed by bad science. By the way ... notice how all the foaming at the mouth by
the left has died out over global warming since it first spun up a few years
To "LDS Liberal" let me be simple. We know that the temperatures on
Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and other bodies within the solar system are warming,
using similar techniques to what we have here. Does it really matter how far
back the records go, because if you look at climate records since about the year
500, we are still in a cool period and are warming back up to the appropriate
temperature.Don't you find it interesting that they the end of
the "Little Ice Age" as the baseline for global warming? If our
baseline is the end of an cold period, shouldn't we look at a longer period
so that we can see temperatures before the ice age?You should take a
look at the distribution of the weather stations that are used for the models.
They don't track the air temperature over the oceans, nor do they have many
sensors in the polar regions, Africa, south America, and Australia. We only
have accurate data since 1979 when the satellites were put into orbit and began
to measure temperatures around the entire globe. The interesting thing is that
the satellite data shows no warming in 33 years.
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTYou should read up about there is
warming on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and other bodies within the solar system. How
can those bodies be warming at the same time the Earth is warming if the warming
is due to man produced CO2?8:07 a.m. May 14, 2013============== How did they know what the tempertures were on
Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and other bodies within the solar system from say
1690-2013 ?We've only been keeping records at Salt Lake
international airport since 1961.
Re: "Most Americans have drawn the right conclusions . . . ."And that's what galls the radical greenies so much. It's just sad
that so much is being made over a genuine non-issue.Is the world
warming? Probably, at least since the Little Ice Age ended.Do our
activities contribute? Probably. Some tiny percentage of the warming since 1850
is likely attributable to radiative forcing produced by CO2 we've released
into the atmosphere.But, suggestions we can change that percentage,
or that we should bankrupt our society or reorder our culture to do so, are
simply unsupported.Anthropogenic global warming, if it exits, is
such a nuanced and subtle effect that it must be teased from raw data that
actually show a slight cooling over the last 80 years. And, it bedevils
theorists, since it has yet to be effectively or reliably modeled.Add raw-data cooling, Antarctic ice expansion, a 17-year AGW "pause,"
the satellite data, and sea-level constancy, and the issue clears considerably
-- AGW panic is more religious crusade, than scientific phenomenon.
To "Tyler D" you still have not followed your own advice. You have
shown that you refuse to look at who is funding the AGW studies that claim that
CO2 is the driver of global warming.Answer these questions, and your
eyes might be opened:Who is funding the AGW studies? What do they
have to gain from the AGW studies?You should read up about there is
warming on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and other bodies within the solar system. How
can those bodies be warming at the same time the Earth is warming if the warming
is due to man produced CO2?
@Twin Lights "Sea ice is decreasing and dramatically so."As
I said, it's good to stay current. After the near-record minimum in 2012,
what did we have this past winter? The fastest refreeze on record. More ice gain
than we've seen in any previous year. The Arctic Ocean now has plenty of
ice. NOAA needs to update its website.Meanwhile, the ice area in the
Antarctic has been above normal every day now for over a year.Keep
in mind that the satellite data goes back only to 1980. Three decades is
minuscule when compared with the age of the earth. No one really knows yet what
"normal" is, or what the past extremes were.We do know that
when ice is removed from the surface, the ocean radiates more heat, thus
regulating the earth's temperature in ways perhaps not anticipated by
If you took every body in the whole world put them in Texas, every one would
have enough space to live fine. As I compare Texas to the whole world it's
a pin head in comparison. Th think that a pin head of people can change any
thing is doubtful. To say ay thing about Global worming isn't man made is
like saying I don't like children. To say anything about children is like
saying you don't like life. If you don't like life is saying you
don't believe in God. I smoke cigarettes. I know the game their playing.
Shame on then and allow me my Free Agency. Belief is only what you can count on
or depend on.
Nate,From the NOAA website: "The sea ice area for the Arctic
shows near-record minimums since 2002. . . . The recent years represent a
unique event because they show a year-to-year persistence of minimum ice extents
. . . Sea ice area is now significantly below the level of the 1980s and
earlier."Sea ice is decreasing and dramatically so.Redshirt,Are you saying that NASA endorses climate change? Also,
is that a net increase in farmland or that some land becomes arable and other
farmland loses utility?Thinkin\' Man,Search for
Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change (at the NASA website). The
trend is clear.Mountanman,No we are not left wing,
anti-capitalists. " . . . we must clean our air, and we must
address the issue of global climate change. We must also act in a serious and
responsible way, given the scientific uncertainties. While these uncertainties
remain, we can begin now to address the human factors that contribute to climate
change. Wise action now is an insurance policy against future risks." That
was George Bush. Reagan and Thatcher were willing to consider climate
issues.Yes, there are nuts on the climate change side. But all
issues have them.
Global Warming has degenerated into a total political game to be exploited for
political gain and economic gain. It's real, but the people pushing it
the hardest don't really care. They only pull it out when they need to
win some votes or make money.If it's not mainly about
politics... why did we get 2-3 letters about it in the DMN every day leading up
to the 2008 election... and as soon as the election was over, even though
nothing changed... these people went silent?If you really care...
you care whether a Democrat OR Republican is in the White House. People who
give it a rest just because there's a Democrat in the White House may not
even be able to admit it to themselves... but it's obviously more about
politics than it is about the planet.If you're just as vocal
whether there's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House... I respect
you. There's not many like you out there.
@atl134 "...those who think climate change is a hoax never seem to point out
this significant underestimate."So sea ice is yet another thing
the computer models got wrong. Did they get anything right?@HS Fan
"Mother Nature has always culled those species that extend the carrying
capacity of their environment."Carrying capacity is a limit.
Mother Nature has never seen a species "extend" it.@Tyler D
"Leave your engine running in a closed garage...."How did
you get your car to emit CO2? Mine emits CO. I'm kind of jealous.We're enjoying all the lectures about science, though. We really are.
MountanmanThe famous quote you use "A fool and his money are soon
parted" should be adapted for this discussion. It should be "a fool and
his money are a good party". In our case the fools throwing the party are
the oil and gas industries and we're all sucking down their petrol puries
at a glutenous rate. The smart folks are the ones looking for cabin and beach
front property in Greenland.
1.Leave your engine running in your closed garage a ½ hour if you believe
that, and…CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) does not equate to CO (Carbon
Monoxide) maybe this is where all the hysteria about CO2 comes from.
To "atl134" according to NASA, if by the year 2050 the average
temperature has increased by 0.5 degrees C then the Earth would be capable of
producing 135 million tons of additional food.Why do you want to
have future generations starve? Why are you against global warming and the
ability to produce more food for the world's growing population?You also realize that we don't actually know what the arctic ice levels
should be since we only have been accurately measuring the extent of the ice
sheet since 1979. You know, that period when we had several years of extremely
cold winters and had unusually high amounts of ice. How do we know what the ice
levels should be?The other question is how do we know what the CO2
levels are or even should be? Right now there is only 1 data point being taken
for atmospheric CO2, and it is doing it through indirect means. Other research
shows that the actual atmospheric CO2 is more variable than the accepted data
point shows. Read about direct chemical readings for CO2 measurement and how
the data points being used may actually be reporting data that is too high.
Climate has natural cycles and El Nino-La Nina events. They, scientists,
shouldn't be surprised by natural phenomena from the history of the earth,
we've known about for decades. But they are.
Why is sea ice melting in the Artic a problem in peoples minds, when it has been
melted before in history. Glaciers are larger now than they were 8,000 years
ago? Carbon levels have been as much as 10 times what they are now, the earth
didn't burn up.
By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level
during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are
today.From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling
caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and
coastal areas that are still above sea level today. The period 900 -
1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest
climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established
settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was
about 370 meters above current levels. Hansen from NASA says the
models of earth warming are not in line with what is happening. The earth has
been warmer than now, and sea levels have been significantly higher. Because
Bangladesh is so low is no argument for pretending to be God. CO2 is a good
thing at double or triple what it is now. Hansen says the CO2 amounts added to
the atmosphere have not raised the temps as the models show. Again the real
question is what is the Temperature AGW advocates are trying to achieve?
There is an old adage that really holds true in this discussion; a fool and his
money are soon parted. One can recognize who is the fool by those who will part
with their money in the useless solution to an invented problem; carbon taxes.
P.T. Barnum was right when he said, "Another sucker is born every
What warming? According to all the experts, global average temperature has been
statistically flat since 1998. And yet special interests like this letter
writer, who make their living on the bogus "consensus" argument, use a
different statistic about the warmest years ever.So CO2 has hit 400
ppb and temperatures have NOT risen. Doesn't that tell you something
interestedLogan, UT@atl134. My Professors were very clear.Joe Blow They teach at USU. Where do you get your info from?2:09
p.m. May 13, 2013=========== Really?Then your
Professors aren't being clear NOR truthful...The Utah State
University Climate Center's found that over the past 40 years, Utah has
warmed twice as fast as the global average. Both have ominous implications for
our future economic and population growth. But many people — including
most Utah political leaders — will shrug this off, doubting climate change
because of arguments against it in the mass media, including the Internet.Our annual snowpack is shrinking, according to Robert Gillies, State
Climatologist for Utah. After studying mounds of data and compensating for
weather cycles, he recently announced that Utah's precipitation ratio has
shifted by 9 percent. ~ source, Deseret News April 25, 2012
@RedShirt – “To "Tyler D" you should follow your own
advice…”I have and frankly was astounded by what I
found… oil companies and even some Middle Eastern governments funding not
only “research” that would disprove AGW (with little to show for
it), but billions of dollars in propaganda (including large stock ownership in a
certain television network named after a cunning red predator) meant to confuse,
distort and obfuscate the science (which kudos to them as it looks like money
well spent).To your point about governments funding real scientific
research, please refer to the earlier comments by Twin Lights… the global
conspiracy necessary to pull off what you suggest would be unprecedented, at
least to anyone not easily given to the conspirator’s particular brand of
connect-the-dots paranoia. And to all those who keep saying CO2 is a
natural substance and nothing to worry about (like the foremost scientifically
minded politician of our time, Sarah Palin), I have two responses.1.Leave your engine running in your closed garage a ½ hour if you believe
that, and…2.Please read up on the planet Venus…Reached comment limit…
@Nate"The climate models didn't see this stuff coming."Climate models have natural cycles and El Nino-La Nina events. They
aren't surprised by natural phenomena we've known about for decades.
The 00s were .2F warmer than the 90s which is slightly below the pace most
climate models suggested. One thing they did significantly underestimate was the
decline in Arctic sea ice which is already a decade ahead of where the model
thought it would be in terms of low september sea ice minimum extent (I find
that those who think climate change is a hoax never seem to point out this
significant underestimate)."The warmest La Nina year on record
was 2006."I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing that out.
@atl134. My Professors were very clear.Joe Blow They teach at USU.
Where do you get your info from?
@atl134 "2012 was the warmest La Nina year on record."Sorry,
no. The warmest La Nina year on record was 2006. (NOAA tripped you up by
re-classifying.)"...cherrypicks 1998...La Nina years..."
etc.You make my point. The climate models didn't see this stuff
coming. What else don't they see?
@RedshirtSome areas will improve for farmland, others will get worse. It
depends on where in the world we're talking about. Canada will improve in
that regard, Bangladesh would be decimated (most of their rice crop is grown at
elevation levels so low that a meter of sea level rise would basically devastate
the nation of 180 million that live in an area the size of Wisconsin). Studies indicate that we already grow enough food on the Earth in order to
feed everyone, we just have distribution/inefficiency issues (the waste rates of
food in this nation are very high). Sun data matches up with warming
pretty well from 1880-1980, but the last 30 years it has not matched up well at
Irony of the Day: The "follow the money" people who refuse to actually
follow the money. The loudest scientific voices for the status quo are openly
funded by Big Oil. Who, pray tell, is funding the honest scientist who worries
about the effects of pollution? Certainly not the Big Polluters.
To "atl134" actually, NASA said that warming the globe is actually good
because it is opening up so much more farmland. Some estimates say that by the
middle of the this century we should be able to feed 140 million more people
around the earth. Isn't that a good thing?
To "Tyler D" you should follow your own advice. Just look at who is
funding the AGW research and who will benefit the most from it. The governments
that are funding that research will be able to gain more control and increase
taxes on people and businesses so long as AGW studies show what the government
desires.To "LDS Tree-Hugger" there are many scientists that
would also agree that the man-made climage change is a hoax.Read
"Bright Sun, Warm earth. Coincidence?" from the National Post."1930s photo shows Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today" UK
Register"New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole in Global Warming
Alarmism" Forbes"The Sun shines some light on global warming
orthodoxy" National Post"Sun's Direct Role in Global
Warming May be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report" Duke University"Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a
solar-output model for climate change" Proceedings of the National Academy
of SciencesApparently many scientists admit that the CO2 based
models are wrong, and that the sun may actually be causing the warming. But
that doesn't fit into the tax codes, so the governments won't advance
The idea that the global warming crowd is altruistic and the anti-alarmists have
all been bought off by big-oil is a load of hooey. Those screaming the loudest
are the ones positioned to make the most money trading carbon credits, etc.JoeBlow,We’ve seen with the Solyndra fiasco and other
alternative energy debacles that BO is NOT the one to select which ones should
get federal seed money. I’d say none of them should get federal seed
money so long as run deficits exceeding or approaching one trillion dollars.
@interestedNobody says CO2 is helping. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and
greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. Anyone who believes otherwise is grossly
negligent on the matter. I half wonder if you are interpreting their use of
"helping" incorrectly where helping means "helping to increase the
@Mountanman"For examples, the East Coast of the US and Russia both
experienced a colder than normal winter this year."We had a top
ten warmest January-April globally. You seem to like cherry-picking the areas
that work to your advantage rather than looking at the big picture. I bet
you'd point out snow in Pennsylvania today (ignoring that out west cancels
those anomalies out because it's almost 20 above average today). "Acid rain? Acid rain is caused by nitrogen or sulphur oxides, not
CO2!"Yes, and we regulated those sulphur oxides with cap and
trade legislation and now they are not nearly the issue they used to be. @NateThe 2000s were .2F warmer than the 1990s. 2012 was the
warmest La Nina year on record. Part of the reason there isn't an upward
trend the past 15 years is because it cherrypicks 1998 (largest El Nino in over
half a century) as the starting point and ends with 4 of the last 5 years being
La Nina years.
"Many of my thoughts on the whole climate change come from my 3 university
professors who study this thing every day."Care to name those
"3 university professors who study this thing every day"?and
point to their studies?
Can anybody tell me where the 98% consensus comes from? The best I could find is
a poorly written survey that would lead even a right wing nut job to agree with
climate change. Many of my thoughts on the whole climate change come
from my 3 university professors who study this thing every day. They essentially
taught that climate change is happening, that CO2 is helping (not causing) the
change, and not sure how much impact co2 actually has.
Global warming is a myth because glenn beck says so. And it's all because
the thermometers weren't calibrated properly so it's actually getting
MountanmanHayden, IDAl Gore has done very well hasn't he,
speaking of a "blatant ad hominem"?9:23 a.m. May 13, 2013============ Ya, speaking of a "blatant ad
hominem"...Al Gore made his money just like YOU advocate, the
good old fashion CAPTIALIST way, the Stock Market.Mostly via Apple
stock.It had Nothing to do with global warming or tax credits, and everything to do with guys like you buying iPods, iPads, and SmartPhones.
Nate – “The history of science is full of examples of scientists
being all wrong together.”That’s a fair point but
applied to this issue, taking a status quo approach may lead to big trouble.First, many of the solutions are things we should simply be doing anyway
(or should we continue supporting petro-oligarchs many of whom hate us?), and
not only will some of the solutions not harm the economy, they could have
tremendous upside potential.Second, the risks of doing nothing range
from no harm to catastrophic, with even the most conservative scientists saying
we are likely to see some negative and costly effects. Do we really want to roll
the dice like this on our only home?Third, on almost every other
issue the innate conservative mindset is to tread lightly, proceed with caution,
and be generally (socially) risk adverse. I hardly think that mindset is best
represented by slogans like “drill baby drill!” At least one would
have thought so back in the days when conservatives’ main concerns were
tradition and societal cohesion, versus what it is today – the idolatrous
worship of the almighty dollar.
@Alyssa Gill "...2012 was the warmest American year on record...."...but globally was beaten by 1998, 2010, 2005, 2002, 2009, 2007, 2003,
and 2006. Most importantly, 1998 is still the warmest year on record, and the
trend is ever-so-slightly downward. We've gone 15 years without any
significant warming.This is why climatologists are puzzled. It is
isn't what the alarmists had predicted.Our mistake was in
accepting the climate projections as if they were an experimental result, when
they were only a hypothesis. The actual experiment is showing different results
than were anticipated.
@Mountanman – “blatant ad hominem". Thank you! You perfectly
described this entire global warming hoax. Couldn’t agree
more… it’s what you find consistently and ubiquitously from the side
without science on their side. @Mountanman – “who would
pay carbon taxes and who would get the money=following the money! Al Gore has
done very well hasn't he…”So is man-made climate
change a hoax on scientific grounds or by the “follow the money”
logic? As far as means to address it, I have seen a wide variety of
proposals ranging from (admittedly) big government type tax approaches to
self-contained (no money flowing to outside programs) scenarios like
cap-and-trade. I have also seen tax proposals that simply channel all revenue
directly back to the gas consumer, the logic being that this will only drive a
change in behavior and not increase government tax revenue.So if we
adopted one of the “revenue neutral” approaches simply meant to make
burning fossil fuels more expensive relative to alternatives, is it still a
hoax?And thank you for reiterating the first point by name dropping
Who should we believe?....98% of the world's scientists,
universities and our own personal observations, or(3) am radio
college drop-out snake oil salesmen hacks who will say ANYTHING for a $buck ?[If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say it was cheaper and easiler
to pay off greedy radio rodeo clowns and fooling 10 million listeners, than
paying off 10,000 colleges and Universities world-wide to twist Science.]
"Acid rain is caused by nitrogen or sulphur oxides, not CO2!"Good move. When you are wrong on the facts, change the discussion."People now call that system "cap-and-trade." But back then the
term of art was "emissions trading," The immediate aim was
to break the impasse over acid rain. But global warming had also registered as
front-page news for the first time that sweltering summer of 1988; according to
Krupp, EDF and the Bush White House both felt from the start that emissions
trading would ultimately be the best way to address this much larger
challenge.Excerpts from Smithsonian Facts from solid
@ Tyler, "A blatant ad hominem". Thank you! You perfectly described this
entire global warming hoax. And as far as following the money, the best answer
to that debate is who would pay carbon taxes and who would get the
money=following the money! Al Gore has done very well hasn't he, speaking
of a "blatant ad hominem"?
@Twin LightsLet's get current. The consensus has gone from
being alarmed to being "puzzled." Climatologists are wondering why
temperatures in the real world are so much lower than the climate models had
predicted, and what it is they don't understand about the Earth's
climate that they had thought they understood. Temperatures are threatening to
fall off the low range of what the models admit as possibility.The
history of science is full of examples of scientists being all wrong together.
That's the nature of the game. They posit a hypothesis, and then design an
experiment to test it. In this case, the hypothesis was the climate model. It
was found to be inadequate when it came to predicting actual results.Science fads come and go, and the "consensus" was never as solid as
you make it out to be. We must take good care of the Earth, but that
doesn't mean we have to jump on every fad that comes along.
@Twin Lights – “Given this letter will cause a huge reaction let me
just say that refutation of the science requires us to believe one of the
following:”And that is exactly the dots that few seem to
connect… especially (it goes without saying) on the Right.@Mountanman – “Proponents of man made global warming are left
wing, anti-capitalism socialists bent on implementing carbon taxes as a way to
enforce their Marxists (communist) economic control of the world... The most
effective way to spot a hoax is follow the money!”It should
also go without saying that you can be almost guaranteed to be on the wrong side
of an issue when your opening salvo (masquerading as an argument) is a blatant
ad hominem assault. And by all means, follow the money… PLEASE!!!
Acid rain? Acid rain is caused by nitrogen or sulphur oxides, not CO2! Nice try
but wrong again!
"Proponents of man made global warming are left wing, anti-capitalism
socialists bent on implementing carbon taxes as a way to enforce their Marxists
(communist) economic control of the world."Well then, G HW Bush
was an "anti-capitalism socialist" looking to enforce his Marxist
economic control of the world.Cap and Trade was initially called
emissions trading. It was introduced by G HW Bush as a way to combat acid rain.
And it was very successful in doing so.Google
"political History of Cap and Trade" at Smithsonian dot com to verify.
Proponents of man made global warming are left wing, anti-capitalism socialists
bent on implementing carbon taxes as a way to enforce their Marxists (communist)
economic control of the world. In other words, man made global warming really is
a hoax promoted by junk science. The reality is the earth has actually been
cooling since 1996. For examples, the East Coast of the US and Russia both
experienced a colder than normal winter this year. Global warming caused that
too? Advocates might be more believable if their "solution" was
something other than them getting money (carbon taxes)and he rest of us paying
it. The most effective way to spot a hoax is follow the money! Those that are
duped pays it and those that perpetrate it gets it! Happens every time.
"well that's great but who's money?"If the
government wisely seeds potential breakthroughs, that is a plus.Obviously every attempt will succeed. But the "who's money"
question is a good one.Now, I am sure that people will cite
Solyndra. And thats fine. It is a good example of poor execution and a waste
of taxpayer money.But, that does not mean that we throw in the
towell.How about Natural gas. How about the Govt seed some money to
start installing fueling stations along the major E/W and N/S corridors. Look
at the Pickens plan. If we got the long haul 18 wheelers on Nat Gas, maybe we
would pass the tipping point.Unfortunately, our politicians, both R
and D, push what gets them the biggest return in the way of campaign funds.Why is it so hard to see that the Money corrupts our politicians to the
point where they do the wrong things constantly?Get the union and
corporate big money out of the election process and much of the other problems
will fix themselves.
If a person is so worried about climate change and what the Oil and Gas industry
is doing why don't they go find a product or process that can give the
industry some real competition? I think wind mills are useful and solar panels
can be if they are used the right way. But wind and solar will not compete with
oil and gas.I hear so many people say that we need to invest in new
technology. well that's great but who's money? Are they willing to put
their money on the line? maybe its time some of these people try to do something
themselves rather than expect the government to do something.
Human beings are just one of many animal species that have inhabited the Earth.
Mother Nature has always culled those species that extend the carrying capacity
of their environment. Critics of human caused global warming are powerful and
rich. It's those forces that seem likely to lead us down the similar path
of thousands of other animal species that failed to adapt and now are extinct.
Given this letter will cause a huge reaction let me just say that refutation of
the science requires us to believe one of the following:That
thousands of scientists in nearly every nation, culture, language, and of every
political stripe are all being persuaded to go against the "real"
science because of money or some secret cabal of fantastic scope. So powerful
is either the money or the cabal that virtually none go against it.Of course, scientists rarely go into science for money. And, given that even
crime syndicates have folks who leave on peril of their lives, a cabal would
have to have much more persuasion than even such syndicates can muster.ORThat scientists with advanced degrees who study this for a
living are ignorant of simple "facts" that talk show hosts and other
amateurs can cite. Any one of these "facts" entirely dismisses the
conclusions of the science or shows that the trends we are experiencing are
completely natural.Of course the question here is how could the
scientists have missed this key and obvious evidence? To say there is no
incentive to be the contrarian belies the facts of science as it is practiced.
The World just hit 400 parts per million, every year it keeps going up. Every
year the temperature records somewhere in the World are broken and the Artic sea
ice reaches a new summer low.Heavenly Father gave us a world to care
for, he only gave us one world! I don't think he intended us to use up all
the resources so quickly with abandon! Will we continue to listen to the Oil and
Coal companies or the science. Prime Minister M Thatcher (right Wing as they
come) listened to the science on climate change, admittedly she was a Chemistry
graduate, not an armchair climatologist. Just a thought.