@LagomorphYou deny facts. Your so called
"scientists" have a record of being WRONG. They were wrong about the
increase in temperatures (We haven't warmed in 17 years); they were wrong
about the Arctic sea ice being gone by 2014-2015 (it's actually grown by
60%); they were wrong about the increase in killer storms and hurricanes
(didn't happen).The Left also has a proven track record of
LYING and misrepresenting the facts in order to push the hoax of AGW. The
University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit's leaked documents
and e-mails proved their "researchers" were cooking their data in order
to show warming where there was none. Our leftist media also likes to do their
part by publishing bogus photos to try and push the myth of AGW.For
people like you who lack critical thinking, AGW is a religion. For Marxists
like Obama, it is a way to control the people. AGW sounds so much better than
"Marxism", or "totalitarianism."Sadly, you are
oblivious to the sacrifices that your religion (AGW) is going to require of you.
The new EPA regulations are just the beginning. This is Obama's
"fundamental transformation of our nation."
Here are the stages of denialism in response to a major problem. It's
clearly applicable to climate change, but also to civil rights struggles (race,
sex, sexual orientation), HIV/AIDS, marriage equality, automobile safety, and a
host of other issues. It seems to me the typical timeline is 20-30 years.A. Deny there is a problem.B. Concede there is a problem, but
deny culpability.C. Concede culpability, but deny ability to fix the
problem.D. Concede ability to fix the problem, but claim it costs too
much.E. Concede that the fix is affordable.From here it can
go two ways:F1. If it's too late to fix the problem, complain that
the problem could have been fixed if only people had started working on it
sooner.F2. If not too late to fix the problem, take credit for
recognizing the problem in the first place.
RG: "@ airnaut: you asked for my position on evolution. Not really related
to AGW but..."I see airnaut's question as relevant because
there is a very high correlation (in my observation of various discussion
boards) between skepticism of evolutionary theory and skepticism of AGW (and
vice versa, also with credence of both). Many of the leading creationist
organizations (e.g. AIG, Discovery Institute) are also AGW denialists. I see
creationists use similar modes of thinking as many AGW skeptics. For example,
they often display a lack of understanding of how science works as a process,
they often misuse fundamental principles (e.g. the laws of thermodynamics), they
cherry pick data and quote mine publications, and they appeal to untestable
supernatural mechanisms. Arguments from incredulity abound. I think it is
natural that one would be curious how a science educator who is an AGW skeptic
would approach evolution. For many, the ideas are in opposition and for similar
reasons.RG: "I don’t require my students to 'toe the
line' to pass my class, however. They can make up their own minds, but they
must know how evolution works."Glad to see you can differentiate
in your teaching.
Yet more evidence of global warming from the AGU:"California’s winter tule fog — hated by drivers, but needed
by fruit and nut trees — has declined dramatically over the past three
decades, raising a red flag for the state’s multibillion dollar
agricultural industry, according to new research."
You know, it would be valid to make the exact same arguments against the IPCC
and its devotees as this author makes against "deniers." In fact, some
very credible climate scientists have done so quite convincingly.
@high school fan:The Associated Press have a history of using
bogus/fraudulent photos in their goal of pushing the hoax of AGW.In
2013 the AP published a picture of what was supposed to be a large lake that
formed at the North Pole due to Global Warming. Unfortunately, there were
couple of problems with this photo: 1) It wasn't a lake, but rather a small
melt pond which are common, and form naturally every summer on Arctic ice floes,
and 2) The ice floe that contained this small melt pond wasn't even at the
North Pole, but had drifted several hundred miles south.AP's
retraction:"Editors, photo editors, and photo librarians –
please eliminate AP photo NY109 that was sent on Saturday, July 27, 2013. The
caption inaccurately stated that 'the shallow meltwater lake is occurring
due to an unusually warm period.' In fact, the water accumulates in this
way every summer. In addition, the images do not necessarily show conditions at
the North Pole, because the weather buoy carrying the camera used by the North
Pole Environmental Observatory has drifted hundreds of miles from its original
position, which was a few dozen miles from the North Pole."Nuff
But please you a proper photo since nowhere in the United States will you find a
power plant spewing pollution into the air as this is portrayed to be doing.
Take away the cloudy day and the entire picture presentation would change. If
this is in this country then it is an old photo.Just give an accurate
picture please since this country has come along way in the last thirty years.
It is ironic that Barker invokes Galileo. Galileo's contribution to science
was to elevate direct observation above the theoretical model. When the two
disagree, direct observation holds the trump card.Today we have
climate models predicting catastrophe, contradicted by the thermometer. Barker
sides with theoretical models that have already been proven false.The anti-Galileo.
One way the Left tries to shut global warming skeptics up, is the call them
“deniers.” I’ve learned that when they resort to this term,
they’ve already lost the argument, and must, resort to these silly,
sophomoric, ad hominem attacks. This is necessary when the science and facts
don’t back up your assertions.Let's talk about deniers,
shall we?* The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, released early this spring,
showed no warming for the past 17 years! Basically, their flawed models grossly
overestimated any warming we were supposed to have had.* We were
told in 2012 by the AGW “experts” that arctic sea ice would be gone
by 2015. It’s actually grown by 60%.* We were told of the
certainty of an increase in deadly storms due to AGW. Didn’t happen.* Over 1,000 e-mails and 70+ leaked documents originating from the
University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in England, showed that
their "scientific" data was being cooked to show warming, where there
was no warming.This hoax is being propagated to push the new economy
crippling regulations by the EPA; completing Obama’s “fundamental
transformation” of our nation.
Re: Pops "Skeptics say we should focus our efforts and resources on known
problems and deal with climate change if and when it happens, as it doesn't
seem at all likely based on the data we have collected."Climate
change is happening now.
Re: Patriot "The gross exaggeration of the left regarding climate change
is more about politiics than it is science to be sure. " From
my reading of environmental literature I don't believe even a significant
minority of "environmentalists" are leftist. My perspective it leftist
and I can tell.
@GaryOVirginia Beach, VAFrom the responses, I see that Global
Warming Deniers are fighting to the last breath.There used to a lot
of Flat Earthers back in the day too, and there are still a few around.Global Warming deniers will probably follow that same path, with isolated
pockets of them existing for generations.They are quite the
phenomenon, and probably deserving of a study.7:30 a.m. June 14, 2014============ Agreed.Great post as usual.Flat Earth, Global warming deniers...Right along side -- birthers, Moon Landings hoxes, Chemical Contrails, Civil
Rights being a Communist take over, and Flouride in the water being
Government mind control.Funny -- They always been tied to the
uber-far-right for decades.
Pops.... I can't answer to what extent CO2 is having( or even methane), but
I can see the evidence as it impacts my job. For example, there is this one
web site that tries to sell that global warming isn't happening, that
actually it is global cooling that is going on.... and they point to Ice Sheet
levels in the Arctic.But this is how it is impacting my work in real
life. We had a client that wanted to put up a new rig in a newly opened area
of the arctic shelf. The issue we ran into last summer was that arctic tundra
had thawed so much that it would no longer support the weight of the rig. We
rely on a frozen sub surface to provide a weight bering foundation. But the
tundra thawed more than normal... and the rig had to be pulled out and brought
south for the winter.The side effect is there is a lot of CO2 and
Methane trapped by the frozen tundra. As the tundra thaws, these gases escape
greater amounts. Over a decade, methane breaks down and in part produces CO2.
And the cycle continues.
This article is propaganda at its finest, with a large dose of hypocrisy thrown
in for good measure.I'll restate the science. It is well-known
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The amount of warming due to a doubling of CO2 is
easily calculated, all other things being equal. But all other things are not
equal, and climate researchers have been trying for decades to figure out how
the rest of the climate system responds to increasing CO2. Alarmists claim that
positive feedbacks will result in catastrophic climate change and even thermal
runaway, and point to their computer models as proof. Skeptics point to data
from the real world, which disagree with the computer models and fail to show
any discernible influence from increases in atmospheric CO2. Alarmists say we
should act just in case they happen to be right. Skeptics say we should focus
our efforts and resources on known problems and deal with climate change if and
when it happens, as it doesn't seem at all likely based on the data we have
collected.Then there's the politics - "ugly" is the
only word that comes to mind to describe that.
@ GaryO: In 50 years, high school students studying history will write
essays analyzing how so many people could be duped into believing in the AGW
scare -- not just that the earth has warmed (which it has, and which it always
has, between cooling periods, and even the "deniers" accept that there
are natural heating/cooling cycles, in fact, it is the AGW proponents who seem
to forget about these natural cycles) -- but that people believed in computer
climate models that tried to predict climate a hundred years in advance, but
cannot explain the current data including the 15 years of no warming. Go back
10 or 15 years, and read the predictions that our coasts were all supposed to be
underwater by now. Didn't happen. Plus, the predictions of 15 years ago
said we had 5 years to fix it, or it was forever too late. According to those
predictions, we shouldn't bother now, since it is too late. About every
year, we are told we have five more years to fix it. (Boy who cried wolf.) If we
will yet warm, it would be more efficient to plan for warmth than try to stop
Tyler. When you see a truck transporting food to your grocery store with solar
panels get back to me, ok?
From the responses, I see that Global Warming Deniers are fighting to the last
breath.There used to a lot of Flat Earthers back in the day too, and
there are still a few around.Global Warming deniers will probably
follow that same path, with isolated pockets of them existing for
generations.They are quite the phenomenon, and probably deserving of
@Thid Barker – “When the supply of energy (or anything else is
decreased) and the demand stays the same or increases, the prices ALWAYS
increase commensurate to the gap!”So you passed Econ 101, but
then did you move on to Econ 201… the class where they teach you that as
the price of one product rises (e.g., oil) other products (e.g., natural gas,
solar, wind) become relatively cheaper inducing a substitution effect? Add to
that the fact that as demand increases for the other products production
increases, economies of scale are realized and they becomes cheaper still.With a revenue neutral carbon tax this is the only economic effects
we’re likely to see (household will be no poorer) and this increase in
demand for alternative energy will drive innovation and further declines in
cost.And we help the environment, make oil sheiks and oligarchs
poorer, reduce the wealth and influence of countries that hate us, and become
more energy independent.I fail to see your problem with any of
It takes power plants to produce energy so that this story can be on the
internet, so climate change nuts can comment that the world is comming to an
end. They are all probably sitting by an air conditioner, and then they will get
in their energy guzzling cars to go to the store. They are a bunch of feel good
"Mary Barker - a liberal - teaches political science at Syracuse
University’ and that makes her an expert on climate change?"No, it makes her an expert on the political influences effecting the
discussions."The radical EPA is a prime example ...."
Radical and EPA.... pretty much enough to stop listening right there." However what liberals love to do is create their own crisis... "Kind of like the NRA and their constant cries that storm troopers are on
their way to take our guns away.Listen Patriot... you are doing
exactly what you are accusing others of doing, using hyperbably and
exaggerations to make a point. I don't debate your point that there are
those who are trying to use science to promote their political and social
agendas. But lets not be part of the problem, lets bring reason into the
middle.@HAHAHA - "he bigger burden of proof becomes the
obligation of the denier. " Ummmm, yep. You nailed it. If you have a
competing theory that goes against what is accepted as the norm... yep, the
burden of proof and defending your theory is up to you...
What a splendid op-ed. We need to find ways to burn less fossil fuel.
Regulation, as the EPA has proposed, is one way, certainly a step in the right
direction. Two days ago, in another strong op-ed in this paper, Gerald Elias
advanced another proposal: to put a fee on carbon at the source (wellhead, mine,
or port of entry) and return the proceeds, as a kind of dividend, equally to
households. The dividend would more than offset rising costs for most of us.
The fee would tilt the market, without further intervention from the government,
strongly in favor of clean energy development.We need to find good
ways to get moving -- climate change is not just real -- it's an urgent
challenge that we need to meet.
Kent De Forrest. Even liberals are forced to live by the economic laws of supply
and demand. When the supply of energy (or anything else is decreased) and the
demand stays the same or increases, the prices ALWAYS increase commensurate to
the gap! We need energy to produce food and every other life sustaining
commodity and to transport it and whether you like it or not, we are STILL very
much dependent on fossil fuels! Poor people who can least afford higher costs of
living will suffer the most and no amount of rhetoric from the chamber of
commerce can change that one iota! Food prices and unemployment will increase
markedly because of this fooling misguided decision by our "leaders".
Stay tuned for the realities of economics!
@patriotCedar Hills, UTBruce R McKonkie made a key observation
once when he said that extremism in any form is bad.========= You realize that this applies just as much to Tea-Partiers, Gun rights for anything, Birthers, No abortions, ever, for any
reason, The Earth is 6,000 years old, God's going to come and
clean up the Earth, and Global Warming deniers.
In other words, as with all things dealing with the leftwing, everybody else has
to make the allowance for their double standard. The writer goes on and on with
a pompous, wordy claim that boils down to the idea that the bigger burden of
proof becomes the obligation of the denier. Apparently because of some unspoken
all knowing theory, that the pompous and arrogant are just smarter the everyone
else. And yeah you can complain, but it really always comes down to politics. It
is 98% of the same crowd, coming down on opposite sides of the issue.
Furthermore, if we just pretended for a minute, that the climate alarmists are
correct, what is the value of us changing our lifestyle and economy? If what you
claim is true, the do-gooders need to be over in China and India taking charge
of their lifestyles and economies. After-all, they are the biggest culprits of
producing global warming now and in the future.
What an excellent article – thank you DN for printing it (I’m
pleasantly surprised).But I’d bet a year’s pay that its
utterly sound logic won’t change the mind of one denier whose mind is
already made up. Seriously, what is it about partisans that make
them so completely impervious to logic and reason? Really… I
want to know… can anyone please explain it? Oh, and check out
David Brin’s article if you want more details on how to tell climate
skeptics from climate deniers.
@The Rock"Climate Gate involving East Anglia University demonstrated
that the data has been massively manipulated."There are two
global satellite datasets in operation since the mid to late 70s, RSS and UAH.
Many climate skeptics (including the managers of UAH actually) argue that
satellite datasets are superior because you have less to worry about when it
comes to things like variable density of site locations etc. One would expect
that if the non-satellite records were faulty they'd have trendlines far
from those satellite records. However, the allegedly "massively
manipulated" CRU dataset, along with both NOAA and NASA datasets, have
trendlines during the satellite era that is in between those two satellite
Mary Barker - a liberal - teaches political science at Syracuse
University’ and that makes her an expert on climate change? This is
laughable. Listening to this liberal noise reminds me of an atheist speaking
about those crazy blievers ...mocking anyone who doesn't swallow his
atheistic babble. The gross exaggeration of the left regarding climate change is
more about politiics than it is science to be sure. The radical EPA is a prime
example of the non-science methods used to decide enviornmental policy. As I
said - the majority of noise from the left regarding climate change has little
to do with saving our environment and more to do with driving socialist politcal
policy. Bruce R McKonkie made a key observation once when he said that extremism
in any form is bad. Our current goverment is the poster child of extremism and
it is all bad!! Carbon emmisions are bad - that's a no brainer and that is
why power plants have scrubbers on their stacks. However what liberals love to
do is create their own crisis with a mixture of some science and a heavy dose of
poltical propoganda and then demonize anyone who pushes back.
@RG"What makes today’s scientists wiser than those in the 1970s
who told us a new ice age was coming? "Back in the 70s the
majority of climate papers were still saying warming. There was never any global
cooling consensus. The cooling claims came from the anthropogenic aerosol
emissions, which do have a cooling effect (think hairspray, etc) and that was a
real issue at the time. However, in the 70s we started strongly regulating them
because they were also a contributor to our massive urban pollution "global
dimming" problem (this is why the air today, while quite bad, is still
better than it was 30 years ago).
RGBuena Vista, VA@ airnaut: you asked for my position on evolution.
Not really related to AGW but: ======= I asked that
because for someone who believes in evolution - by your own definition - as
intelligent design [things happen naturally, but God designed it that way...]Can not apply that same line of "thinking" to AGW.If
we as mortal mankind can now change natural laws of evolution via, modern
medicine, anti-biotics, heart and lung transplants, neuro-natal surgeries and
deliveries, ect...Why are you being so close minded as to the
possibility that Man - by dumping toxins into our enviroment - can not have any
effect on the environment?Tell you what - Try a 2nd grade
experiement.Make a terrarium.Introduce known toxins - upset
the balance of any element, and see if the plants can "evolve"
fast enough and adapt to keep from dying.
@ Roland KayserI have never met anyone who heard of a debate before
they heard that the debate was over.When that is how you start the
conversation it is clear that they don't want a debate.Climate
Gate involving East Anglia University demonstrated that the data has been
massively manipulated.When researching greenhouse gases you have to
start by asking one thing: "What do greenhouse gases do?" They
don't create heat, they do retain heat. Water vapor (humidity) is the most
significant greenhouse gas on the planet. Humid areas don't cool down at
night. Dry desert areas do.How do we test for greenhouse gases? We
look at the difference between the high and low temperatures (temperature
differential or TD).I personally studied this. Desert towns were
selected (to factor out humidity), well inland from the coast and above 2000 ft
in elevation. I chose July 1st thru 10 and looked at the years 1975 through 2010
in 5 year increments. Only sunny days were included to stabilize the
results.The TD was between 31.4 and 31.6 degrees F. The TD was
stable. Conclusion: Global Warming is a Myth and I have the data to back it up.
An excellent and well thought out op ed. Thanks to DN for publishing it.
@ airnaut: you asked for my position on evolution. Not really related to AGW
but: The evidence for evolution is incredibly strong, and I believe it happened.
However, I also believe that God created the earth and its lifeforms. I
don’t claim to know the exact way these two beliefs fit together. I am a
bit unsure on how Adam’s body came to be, because I like Bruce R.
McConkie’s literal interpretation of Moses 6:22. I agree with NIH director
Francis Collins, an evolutionist, former atheist, and current Christian in many
ways. I loved his books on the subject: The Language of God and The Language of
Science and Faith. Unlike some biology teachers, I don’t require my
students to “toe the line” to pass my class, however. They can make
up their own minds, but they must know how evolution works.
@Utah Blue Devil,Gore is only an example of those who zealously promote
the AGW hypothesis. I did not inject him into the debate, as you suggested; he
injected himself, as have many others who know little about the subject. As you
admit, he is NOT a scientist, and it shows. The reason he is still important is
that he is the one who popularized the saying “the debate is over.”
It is NOT over. Google Wallace Mayo’s May 17 Roanoke Times column (Mayo
is a member of the American Meteorological Society) debunking the “97% of
scientists agree with AGW” argument. What makes today’s scientists
wiser than those in the 1970s who told us a new ice age was coming? Their ideas
are based on climate models which have FAILED to predict our current temps or
absence of warming for 15 years.One other issue worth addressing is:
Is warming (if it is happening) all bad? Sure it can cause all kinds of harm,
but it will prevent all kinds of harm caused now by cold. I've seen studies
where it will be a net benefit.
To the Rock: If the first thing you heard about global warming was that the
debate was over, then you didn't listen to anything for decades. Nobel
Prize winning Swedish physicist Svante Arrenhuis showed mathematically that
increased CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to increased surface temperatures. He
did this in 1896. A scientific panel presented a report on the dangers of global
warming to president Lyndon Johnson. There have been 20,000+ studies published
in peer reviewed scientific journals in the decades since then.So
after many decades of research, we can say the debate is over. Global warming is
occurring, it is being either caused by, or greatly exacerbated by, human
activity. The only real debate is about how bad things might get. If you
didn't start paying attention till recently that's no excuse.
re: TucketYou may want to research the claim that total Antarctica
ice is increasing. There definitely is an increase in the seasonal
SEA ICE that surrounds the much more massive LAND ICE of Antarctica. It appears that the loss in land ice is exceeding the sea ice gains for a net
loss in Antarctica ice, but don't take my work for it there is plenty of
information about it on the internet.
What would Galileo do? The new EPA guidelines and global warming deniersBy
Mary BarkerFor the Deseret News[The most (only?) level
headed reporter at the Deseret News -- Thanks Mary!]========= RGBuena Vista, VAI teach college biology. In my nonmajor
class we also discuss how science is done. When politics is mixed in, science
suffers. [Interesting, You do not believe in Global Wrming, fine -
you have your opinion --Butas a "Scientist" and teaching
biology in college -- I have to know your Scientific posititon regarding
There was a report by 50 scientists who agreed 97% on global warming. Thousands
of others vote for or against the idea of global warming. I would rather have
warming than cooling. lt may also be true that alternatives such as photovoltaic
is coming on strong and some interesting research on energy storage. I would
love to have my own home energy and storage independent of the power company. I
am all for research in this direction. But how do I respond to reports of
antarctic melting when the antarctic in other areas shows the greatest ice
coverage in history. Or to reports of increased tornadoes in Oklahoma when
there are fewer.?
Congratulations to the DNews for including the reasoned arguments of Mary
Barker. A rare and delightful exception to the typical barrage of right-wing
nuttiness that graces your pages.
"... deniers try to minimize the issue and attack the scientific enterprise.
Mocking is common. "Very true. Calling those who do not believe
in "Climate Change" deniers is mocking.The very first thing
I ever heard about global warming was "the debate is over". When one
party starts a debate by saying the debate is over, I get suspicious.Turn
out that those who fund climate research only give grants to researchers who
produce the desired results. In a few years all researchers, doing active
research all agree, "There is Global Warming and it is caused by man"
(or else I would lose my job).I could go on, but why.I
wish the Deseret News would simply drop the name calling by stop using the term
"Climate Denier". It is an attempt to mock and discredit by calling up
a reference to holocaust deniers. Such name calling is beneath the dignity of
any reputable newspaper.
Thank you, Mary Barker, Barry Bickmore, and the many others doing what they can
to bring some sense and action to the problem. The good news is that
most of the kids - the youth - understand. They may keep quiet, but they are
tired of hearing ideologies, obsolete assumptions, and reality denial from their
parents, many of their teachers, many of their bishops and priests, and most of
our state so-called leaders. The kids know better - they'll come through.
Keep up the good work.
@Liberal Ted: "Not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity,
it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."--Source: US
Geological SurveyHad you been writing prior to the industrial
revolution, you would have been correct. At that point volcanic CO2 emissions
did exceed that of human activity.
RG.... the problem is that you did eactly what you complain about by injecting
Al Gore into the issue. He hasn't been on the forefront of this issue for
some time now. Resurrecting his name is doing exactly what you claim you
don't want - inserting politics into the fray. He is not a scientist,
never claimed to be a scientist - even after staying at a Holiday Inn.Al Gore is irrelevant. He is a politician, and that is it.We know
man impacts the environment. This is not in debate. It is to what extent, and
the implications of that impact are what is being debated. We know Fukashima
has a long term impact on that part of Japan. We know the impact of deceased
wetlands on water quality. We know the harm airborne and waterborne mercury
has. We know the impacts of smog to the respirator system. There is plenty we
agree upon - debating Al Gore is totally unproductive. We don't
know the source, nor the long term impact of global warming. And that is why
further research is the justified thing to do.
Thid,Even the Chamber of Commerce study couldn't come up with
those "massive" cost of living increases, though I'm sure they
tried. This is the sort of fear-mongering conservatives are using to try to keep
us on the drill, baby, drill program big oil wants. Lots of people,
including some commenters here, claim there is still a big debate going on. But
that debate is all going on in a small corner of conservative politics. The
scientists are strangely almost unanimous on the issue, and those few studies
that point the other direction usually end up being funded by Exxon-Mobil and
its friends. Surprise. Barry Bickmore, cited in this article, is a scientist who
has looked at the actual science, not simply what is being reported in the news.
I'll trust him on this one.
The trouble with "climate change" is the lack of scientific research and
having most scientists on board. Not everyone's research matches up.
There are too many holes and conflicts in the argument. The other issue is, a
scientist can explain how something is happening and other scientists can look
at the same data and duplicate it. You look for holes in arguments. Once it is
nearly impossible to find a hole, then it is considered fact, until someone can
prove otherwise.The fact is there is little data and consensus among
scientist on what if anything is happening. They're still trying to figure
out if farting cows are the problem. A volcano produces more emissions than
humans. Why don't we focus on plugging up a volcano?The issue
I have, is the climate change side is making big money off the federal
government, which is borrowing money on our backs to pay for programs that have
had zero progress. We can store millions of songs on a phone, but, can't
figure out a better battery or solar power? Exactly what have they been doing
with the money?
I teach college biology. In my nonmajor class we also discuss how science is
done. When politics is mixed in, science suffers. Many scientists support AGW
because they must "toe the line" to be accepted by peers or even
employed. The IPCC reports are authored by bureaucrats, not scientists, many of
whom disagree with the conclusions. It is true, some "deniers" may be
ignoring evidence, but that is at least as true for ardent supporters, like
Gore, who will not even debate the issue (hmm, I wonder what he is afraid of?)
Debate is scientific, but refusal to debate is not scientific. Fearmongering is
not scientific. Blaming every weather anomaly (too warm, too cold, etc) on AGW
is not scientific, since it is not falsifiable. So many people today cite
hurricane Sandy as "proof" of AGW. It is no such thing. It was only a
category I. Hurricanes have always existed. Contrary to Gore's predictions,
hurricanes have DEcreased. The computer climate models have been wrong. They
don't explain the 15 years of nonwarming we've had. The gross
overstatements of AGW supporters have convinced many skeptics to react by
Excellent editorial and an accurate description of deniers and so many people of
power in the GOP. The GOP has become the party where ignorance is revered and a
badge of honor. Teddy Roosevelt would have nothing to do with today's GOP.
The unfortunate results of these EPA restrictions on energy production will be
massive increases in the cost of living, especially for food and higher
unemployment (your job will be affected as well)! The poor of the earth will be
effected most! You might need your food storage after all, compliments of a
climate change hoax! So unnecessary and so contrived, driven by junk science and
political agendas! Brace yourselves folks, its going to be very difficult to eat
and stay warm.
American corporations have a long history of paying slick public relations
spokesmen and outlier scientists to promote dangerous products.The
good old petroleum industry fought off efforts to remove the potent neurotoxin
lead in gasoline, until 1995. They funded scientists to do alternative research
showing that lead was a naturally occurring part of our environment.Similar tactics were used to allay public fears about the dangers of smoking.
(warning label in 1966), asbestos (partially banned in 1989) and lead in paint.
(mostly banned in 1978)It is critical that public opinion be shaped
by the best data available, and not by pr campaigns funded by greedy special
Yes science needs skeptics. Especially when science and politics are so closely
Exactly. Thank you.
Wow....I am surprised. A well thought out position on climate change on the DN.
I think all scientist can agree something is going on. It is the natural
state of the planet... change. What is most in debate is cause, mans
contribution to that cause (if any), and what we should do about it. Unfortunately politics gets involved here.... and logic, reasoning, and
scientific method all get tossed in exchange for pithy slogans and agenda driven
rhetoric. There is considerable yet we need to know, but at the same time there
is plenty of actionable evidence to which we should be responding to. We know
lead, mercury, all sorts of heavy metals, all are bad for people and the
environment. Lets act on what we know, and objectively research what we
don't.... and leave political aspirations and agendas out of it.