Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Planet Wreckers: Deniers of Climate Science Are On the Ropes -- But So Is the Planet

Posted 2 years ago on June 4, 2012, 1:41 p.m. EST by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

By Bill McGibbon

It’s been a tough few weeks for the forces of climate-change denial.

First came the giant billboard with Unabomber Ted Kacynzki’s face plastered across it: “I Still Believe in Global Warming. Do You?” Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, the nerve-center of climate-change denial, it was supposed to draw attention to the fact that “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” Instead it drew attention to the fact that these guys had over-reached, and with predictable consequences.

A hard-hitting campaign from a new group called Forecast the Facts persuaded many of the corporations backing Heartland to withdraw $825,000 in funding; an entire wing of the Institute, devoted to helping the insurance industry, calved off to form its own nonprofit. Normally friendly politicians like Wisconsin Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner announced that they would boycott the group’s annual conference unless the billboard campaign was ended.

Which it was, before the billboards with Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden could be unveiled, but not before the damage was done: Sensenbrenner spoke at last month’s conclave, but attendance was way down at the annual gathering, and Heartland leaders announced that there were no plans for another of the yearly fests. Heartland’s head, Joe Bast, complained that his side had been subjected to the most “uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists,” which was both a little rich -- after all, he was the guy with the mass-murderer billboards -- but also a little pathetic. A whimper had replaced the characteristically confident snarl of the American right.

That pugnaciousness may return: Mr. Bast said last week that he was finding new corporate sponsors, that he was building a new small-donor base that was “Greenpeace-proof,” and that in any event the billboard had been a fine idea anyway because it had “generated more than $5 million in earned media so far.” (That’s a bit like saying that for a successful White House bid John Edwards should have had more mistresses and babies because look at all the publicity!) Whatever the final outcome, it’s worth noting that, in a larger sense, Bast is correct: this tiny collection of deniers has actually been incredibly effective over the past years.

"In other words, a small cadre of fervent climate-change deniers took control of the Republican party on the issue. This, in turn, has meant control of Congress, and since the president can’t sign a treaty by himself, it’s effectively meant stifling any significant international progress on global warming. Put another way, the various right wing billionaires and energy companies who have bankrolled this stuff have gotten their money’s worth many times over."

The best of them -- and that would be Marc Morano, proprietor of the website Climate Depot, and Anthony Watts, of the website Watts Up With That -- have fought with remarkable tenacity to stall and delay the inevitable recognition that we’re in serious trouble. They’ve never had much to work with. Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp. That’s MIT’s Richard Lindzen, who has been arguing for years that while global warming is real it won’t be as severe as almost all his colleagues believe. But as a long article in the New York Times detailed last month, the credibility of that sole dissenter is basically shot. Even the peer reviewers he approved for his last paper told the National Academy of Sciences that it didn’t merit publication. (It ended up in a “little-known Korean journal.”)

Deprived of actual publishing scientists to work with, they’ve relied on a small troupe of vaudeville performers, featuring them endlessly on their websites. Lord Christopher Monckton, for instance, an English peer (who has been officially warned by the House of Lords to stop saying he’s a member) began his speech at Heartland’s annual conference by boasting that he had “no scientific qualification” to challenge the science of climate change.

He’s proved the truth of that claim many times, beginning in his pre-climate-change career when he explained to readers of the American Spectator that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life.” His personal contribution to the genre of climate-change mass-murderer analogies has been to explain that a group of young climate-change activists who tried to take over a stage where he was speaking were “Hitler Youth.”

Or consider Lubos Motl, a Czech theoretical physicist who has never published on climate change but nonetheless keeps up a steady stream of web assaults on scientists he calls “fringe kibitzers who want to become universal dictators” who should “be thinking how to undo your inexcusable behavior so that you will spend as little time in prison as possible.” On the crazed killer front, Motl said that, while he supported many of Norwegian gunman Anders Breivik’s ideas, it was hard to justify gunning down all those children -- still, it did demonstrate that “right-wing people... may even be more efficient while killing -- and the probable reason is that Breivik may have a higher IQ than your garden variety left-wing or Islamic terrorist.”

If your urge is to laugh at this kind of clown show, the joke’s on you -- because it’s worked. I mean, James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who has emerged victorious in every Senate fight on climate change, cites Motl regularly; Monckton has testified four times before the U.S. Congress.

Morano, one of the most skilled political operatives of the age -- he “broke the story” that became the Swiftboat attack on John Kerry -- plays rough: he regularly publishes the email addresses of those he pillories, for instance, so his readers can pile on the abuse. But he plays smart, too. He’s a favorite of Fox News and of Rush Limbaugh, and he and his colleagues have used those platforms to make it anathema for any Republican politician to publicly express a belief in the reality of climate change.

Take Newt Gingrich, for instance. Only four years ago he was willing to sit on a love seat with Nancy Pelosi and film a commercial for a campaign headed by Al Gore. In it he explained that he agreed with the California Congresswoman and then-Speaker of the House that the time had come for action on climate. This fall, hounded by Morano, he was forced to recant again and again. His dalliance with the truth about carbon dioxide hurt him more among the Republican faithful than any other single “failing.” Even Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts actually took some action on global warming, has now been reduced to claiming that scientists may tell us “in fifty years” if we have anything to fear.

In other words, a small cadre of fervent climate-change deniers took control of the Republican party on the issue. This, in turn, has meant control of Congress, and since the president can’t sign a treaty by himself, it’s effectively meant stifling any significant international progress on global warming. Put another way, the various right wing billionaires and energy companies who have bankrolled this stuff have gotten their money’s worth many times over.

One reason the denialists’ campaign has been so successful, of course, is that they’ve also managed to intimidate the other side. There aren’t many senators who rise with the passion or frequency of James Inhofe but to warn of the dangers of ignoring what’s really happening on our embattled planet.

It’s a striking barometer of intimidation that Barack Obama, who has a clear enough understanding of climate change and its dangers, has barely mentioned the subject for four years. He did show a little leg to his liberal base in Rolling Stone earlier this spring by hinting that climate change could become a campaign issue. Last week, however, he passed on his best chance to make good on that promise when he gave a long speech on energy at an Iowa wind turbine factory without even mentioning global warming. Because the GOP has been so unreasonable, the President clearly feels he can take the environmental vote by staying silent, which means the odds that he’ll do anything dramatic in the next four years grow steadily smaller.

On the brighter side, not everyone has been intimidated. In fact, a spirited counter-movement has arisen in recent years. The very same weekend that Heartland tried to put the Unabomber’s face on global warming, 350.org conducted thousands of rallies around the globe to show who climate change really affects. In a year of mobilization, we also managed to block -- at least temporarily -- the Keystone pipeline that would have brought the dirtiest of dirty energy, tar-sands oil, from the Canadian province of Alberta to the Gulf Coast. In the meantime, our Canadian allies are fighting hard to block a similar pipeline that would bring those tar sands to the Pacific for export.

Similarly, in just the last few weeks, hundreds of thousands have signed on to demand an end to fossil-fuel subsidies. And new polling data already show more Americans worried about our changing climate, because they’ve noticed the freakish weather of the last few years and drawn the obvious conclusion.

But damn, it’s a hard fight, up against a ton of money and a ton of inertia. Eventually, climate denial will “lose,” because physics and chemistry are not intimidated even by Lord Monckton. But timing is everything -- if he and his ilk, a crew of certified planet wreckers, delay action past the point where it can do much good, they’ll be able to claim one of the epic victories in political history -- one that will last for geological epochs.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/04-0

73 Comments

73 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Push alternative energy.

New and improved Green Tech. Now with liquid Metal Battery for efficient storage and supply.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

You have got to watch this vid: The liquid Metal Battery - another piece to the puzzle.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html

Additional Liquid Metal Battery links.

http://lmbcorporation.com/

http://lmbcorporation.com/files/flyerFinal.pdf

[-] 1 points by tomdavid55 (93) 2 years ago

Here is a brand new song about saving our planet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R_jT015UdU&feature=youtu.be

See also:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQ1WOC9RgY

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

There is no denial argument. We have concrete observational data that provides a direct link between GHG's and global warming....verifiable, repeatable proof:

American Meteorological Society's 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming.

Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere.

With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques.

A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.

This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

Here is the actual paper: ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

This paper was published 6 years ago. Care to elaborate on the scientific evidence collected since 2006 and what it tells us?

I count NINE greenhouse gases listed in their research-not just CO2.

There IS a connection between greenhouse gases and the atmosphere and global warming.

There is also a connection between the atmosphere and clouds and global warming. And water vapor and global warming. And solar events and global warming. And the rotation of the freaking planet and global warming.

[-] 1 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

How much would it hurt to be cautious and try to prevent something terrible that may happen, instead of plugging our ears and going "na na na na na! I can't hear you!"

Is it worth a few measly pieces of paper to risk having your kids live in an increasingly dangerous and unsafe environment?

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Preventing something that MAY happen is different to me than preventing something that WILL happen. I'm far more cautious and alarmist about something that has been proven WILL BE HAPPENING, than I am about something that could happen...but might also not happen.

The more scientists observe the actual real-time reactions of the planet and the atmosphere, the more they realize needs to be observed.

The only truly dangerous environment is one where bias and hysteria control one's ability to discern truth from error.

[-] 1 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

So you're not prepared for a fire in your home? Or getting mugged? Are you prepared for when your tires are slashed? Do you prepare for a DD whenever you go out for a drink?

This is the same exact thing, except on a larger scale. For a measly amount of 1% money, we can make changes to prevent something terrible that may happen. Why do you hate humanity so much that you don't even want to protect the planet that we live on? Are you that enamored with 1% greed? The only reason more isn't being done is because BP, Exxon, etc. are paying Congress and others to sit on their asses and "debate" something that is proven through thousands of pages of scientific evidence.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

You seem to confuse preparation with prevention. They are not the same.

Preparing for a fire in my home doesn't mean that a fire won't happen anyway. I can prepare NOT to get mugged, and still be mugged. Same with the tires.

Why is it that because I refuse to comply with your panic that the default must be that I "hate" humanity? Or that I love greed? Are you so narrow minded that you cannot see the myriad of choices between one extreme and the other?

Maybe I think that WHILE the scientific community does more research and determines EXACTLY how the atmosphere works to it's fullest extent-that the money would be better spent feeding people, getting them clean water, building shelters for them, etc? Maybe I'm able to prioritize based on what is happening TO people today rather than on what MIGHT happen to the planet tomorrow.

You also seem to have a problem understanding that even MILLIONS of pages of scientific blathering would not equate with hundreds of pages of scientific EVIDENCE. Evidence is recorded, observable, solid reality. PREDICTIONS based on evidence are only predictions-they are not proven evidence. Theories are not PROOF.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Betsy, Betsy, Betsy.....tsk tsk tsk.

You also seem to have a problem understanding that even MILLIONS of pages of scientific blathering would not equate with hundreds of pages of scientific EVIDENCE. Evidence is recorded, observable, solid reality. PREDICTIONS based on evidence are only predictions-they are not proven evidence. Theories are not PROOF.

You still don't know how science operates, what the definition of a 'theory' is, and what constitutes proof.... yet it doesn't stop you from throwing those words around like you do understand them.

There is a small group that does modeling and predictions for climate, and rightly so they get grief, for modeling is the easiest to assail. But we have a preponderance of observational evidence, proof as you would state, that indicates that you are wrong.

We are standing on a rail road track. You ask is the track active, has it been used? We inspect the rails and see that the track has been used in the past by the markings left in the rails. Therefore a locomotive engine exists (GHG's amplify earths heating), it's run this track before.

You then ask is the engine coming again? We put our ears to the track and listen for vibrations. We hear them.... (atmospheric temperatures are at record levels, the oceans are heating up, the Arctic is melting, ocean acidification is taking place). Now we see the light of an engine down the track.

Now you want to know when exactly will the train get here.... because your real aim is to play chicken with the train. You want to wait until the last possible second to jump the track and avoid the train.

Or maybe a better analogy.....

You live a growing town. There is an intersection a few miles away that motorists and pedestrians have been writing in about, saying that its dangerous and getting more so. A few accidents have happened but, luckily nobody has been killed yet.

A study is done by the town Traffic Board and they conclude that as traffic increases with the town growth accidents will surely increase to the point of fatalities unless some measures are taken to control traffic at that intersection now..... it's just a matter of time. Of course traffic control measures like signs, and traffic lights cost money.

But before you shell out cash, you are asking for a prediction for when that first fatality is going to take place. Modeling can't give you that and you know it.

So really the question is, what is the acceptable level of fatalities to take place for you before you act? How many have to die before you accept the Traffic Boards recommendations to act? What is your level of proof?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Your analogies are embarrassing to both me and the world of science. Both trains and traffic RELY COMPLETELY on humans knowledge and human behavior to make them operate in any way-good, bad, or otherwise.

The ENVIRONMENT and ATMOSPHERE DO NOT.

NATURE-in the form of viruses, plagues, diseases, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, ice ages, meteors, tornadoes, wildfires, and even lightening strikes have killed more "life" on this planet than humanity ever has. And humanity has just begun to learn how to detect or anticipate them-we are eons from being able to control or prevent them. Yet you think that humans can control or prevent the behavior of the freaking ATMOSPHERE?

Well of course you do....it's just like a train or a traffic intersection to you. What stupidity.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

And therein lies the crux of the problem. You believe that we have no effect on our surroundings in the face of objective evidence that we do. All eco-systems are interconnected. What we do, how we behave, what resources we use, affects all living things and systems.

But you believe in a free ride. That despite actual physical laws of the universe that state 'for every action there are reactions', you believe that we are immune to this.

This is the apex of ignorance.

As I stated in another post:

Every high school level kid who took biology should understand this. It's the simple petri dish experiment. Inoculate a petri dish with any organism and chart it's growth rate. The growth rate is always exponential (that darned hockey stick graph that denialists hate). The organism takes over all the resources in the dish until it kills itself off in a mass extinction.

Look at the chart of our global population growth rate, and tell me how we are doing:

http://www.susps.org/images/worldpopgr.gif

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Oh. My. Hell. You just keep providing more and more observable evidence that you are incapable of responding to me without FIRST making some completely untrue assumption about what I think or feel or believe. Do you even realize how Unscientific and biased such behavior is?

This is the apex of arrogance.

I KNOW we have an effect on our environment. I also know that carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that actually BENEFITS both humans and plant life and that currently, according to the HISTORICAL record-we're on the LOW side of CO2 concentrations.

I also KNOW that the IPCC never included ANY measurements of the CO2 being pumped into our oceans every day by the underwater volcanoes that they were AWARE of in the early 2000's. And I know that using more current technologies we have discovered THOUSANDS more underwater volcanoes since then. In particular-UNDER THE FREAKING ARCTIC ICE CAP.

Tell me, oh wise science man, oh ecosystems are interconnected one, grand puba of for every action there are reactions-what is the probability that underwater volcanic action has NO PART in the REACTIONS of both the acidity AND the temperatures of our oceans? Is there ANY possible way that they just MIGHT be the major cause for ice MELTING in certain spots while not melting in others?

You're doing it again. Those stupid analogies. Even my 11 year old knows that comparing an organism introduced into a petri dish to the human race on this planet is ridiculous in a hundred ways. Would you like me to elaborate?

Oh, and just so we're clear, it was the scientific discoveries like vaccinations, and advances in technologies like warmth and preventative medicine that CAUSED the human population to explode exponentially in the past 200 years or so. Was that "scientific intervention" a good thing or a bad thing to you if we suddenly theorize that it is one of the major drivers of the POSSIBLE, FUTURE extinction of the human race???? ALARM! ALARM!!!

you seem to have admitted that you're a world population control person...maybe the earth is heating up to shrug off some of the less heat tolerant among us-and thus reduce the population-just like u want to. That would make you cooling the planet a scientific intervention that would only cause more overpopulation

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Yes I made this assumption "You believe that we have no effect on our surroundings in the face of objective evidence that we do." based on your following statements:

Both trains and traffic RELY COMPLETELY on humans knowledge and human behavior to make them operate in any way-good, bad, or otherwise..... The ENVIRONMENT and ATMOSPHERE DO NOT.Yet you think that humans can control or prevent the behavior of the freaking ATMOSPHERE?

Yes, by controlling our behavior. If our behavior is affecting the atmosphere, (which is happening) then it follows that by modifying our behavior we can change those effects. For example, right now people in Mexico City need oxygen stations because the air is unfit due to smog. Smog is created directly from the burning of fossil fuels, we can control that.

That's not arrogance.... thats fact.

Large fish stocks have fallen by 90% since 1950. That's due to over fishing. Can we control our behavior to modify this? Absolutely.

I also know that carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that actually BENEFITS both humans and plant life and that currently, according to the HISTORICAL record-we're on the LOW side of CO2 concentrations.

You could have fooled me. Oh and your statement above completely contradicts your previous post of a scientific study claiming " “ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) — You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today". How far back do you want to push the goal posts?

Tell me, oh wise science man, oh ecosystems are interconnected one, grand puba of for every action there are reactions-what is the probability that underwater volcanic action has NO PART in the REACTIONS of both the acidity AND the temperatures of our oceans? Is there ANY possible way that they just MIGHT be the major cause for ice MELTING in certain spots while not melting in others?

Good question and right up my area of interest for research. I guess what bothers me most is the assumption, by either you or the pundits and blogs you get your info from, that some very intelligent PhD's from around the world in various fields haven't thought about this and have looked into it. Now that's pretty arrogant to assume.

Turns out there are various ways to differentiate anthropogenic CO2 and inorganic naturally occurring CO2 in the oceans. The most sure way is to separate them isotopically. The C-13/C-14 ratio's are different for each. These procedures were in place a long time ago, so when the amount of CO2 is measured in seawater, we have what percentage is contributed by volcanoes (inorganic), which portion is contributed by sea live (organic) and what is our contribution through fossil fuel burning (anthropogenic). It turns out that volcanoes are not the answer.

Another myth with volcanoes is that they put out more CO2 than humans do:

"Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011)."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

The same goes for the heat contribution for undersea volcanic activity. The US Navy has a huge interest in mapping the sea floor under the Arctic and use thermal arrays tied behind our submarines. Thermal gradients affect how sonar operates, so they are very interested in possible areas that may cause interference.

The USCG also has participated in extensive research determining thermal gradients and their contribution to 'Polynya's (small open ice areas in the Arctic). The answer in all cases is No. The heat is coming from currents in the subtropical areas.... and yes those areas have been looked at for volcanic involvement.

You're doing it again. Those stupid analogies. Even my 11 year old knows that comparing an organism introduced into a petri dish to the human race on this planet is ridiculous in a hundred ways. Would you like me to elaborate?

The earth is a closed system, with finite resources, very much like a petri dish is. I used the introduction of only one organism to simplify the example. If you add hundreds of more strains of different types of organisms, the results are the same in the end, although the drama is a lot more complicated.

We have the option that they don't. We are able to modify our behavior and prevent a negative outcome. Should we choose to.

Finally you wrote:

you seem to have admitted that you're a world population control person...maybe the earth is heating up to shrug off some of the less heat tolerant among us-and thus reduce the population-just like u want to. That would make you cooling the planet a scientific intervention that would only cause more overpopulation

I have never pushed a specific policy. Policy is in the realm of politics and science and politics should not mix.... I never claimed to know what the best solution would be. But is population a problem? Yes. How does one address that? I don't know.

Speaking of arrogance.... I'm still waiting for your admission of error for the gross misuse of the term 'scientific theory'. Show us all you are not as arrogant as you seem and at least admit when YOU are wrong.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"Speaking of arrogance.... I'm still waiting for your admission of error for the gross misuse of the term 'scientific theory'. Show us all you are not as arrogant as you seem and at least admit when YOU are wrong."

Wow. Really? I was hoping you'd drop it so that I wouldn't be forced to defend my position which I believe makes you look even more silly.

YOUR definition: "Definition: Scientific theory noun

A concept that has been well tested, and is accepted as an explanation to a wide range of observations."

Do you see the word "an" in that definition? It does not say "THE". As I read and understand your definition, all it says is that a theory is accepted as ONE explanation to a wide range of observations.

Now, according to every scientific site/class/book I've ever read, attended or experienced, it is the observations made that are the FACTS-the theory is just a proposed explanation for those facts. Every scientist I have ever encountered will acknowledge that a "theory" is not a "fact" because a theory can always be disproven but a fact cannot.

Scientific method- Observe something Propose a theory to explain what you observe Use the theory to predict future observations.

Agreed?

In the scientific world when the predictions of a scientific theory are proven to be inaccurate or false, the theory must either be abandoned or changed to incorporate the new data. Correct?

Then, the THEORY that predicted that AGW would be causing specific events to occur on this planet today, that are either NOT happening on this planet today, or, are happening to a much lesser extent than was formerly predicted MUST either be abandoned or changed. THAT is and always has been my core point.

I honestly do not believe how I used the term was "wrong". If due to my own lack of clarity, you were forced to interpret what I was saying as a "gross misuse of the term", then I deeply and sincerely apologize for that lack of clarity.

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

A proposed explanation is a hypothesis. .A scientific theory is just what geo said. "

"A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; "

apodictic- Clearly established or beyond dispute.

Scientific theories DO NOT MAKE "clearly established or indisputable" propositions.

"based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”

Rather than assumptions, incorrect computer modeling, and the complete lack of ability to measure our ATMOSPHERE in real time until recent satellite technology. The actual, observed, real time observation and measurements, the EVIDENCE we uncover every single day is proving that the ESTIMATES used in the past are FLAWED and INACCURATE. According to scientific theory and method-this means that the AGW theory needs to be adjusted or abandoned.

It's not at all scientific to cling to an idea you want to be true or real when new data suggests that doing so would be CRAZY.

[-] 4 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

So far all I was doing was clarifying the definition of the term "scientific theory". It does go beyond hypothesis. I didn't see were geo said indisputable. As to your last statement,of course, new data should not be ignored. One point. Precision measurements of CO2 have been available since 1956 and do not rely on satellites.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You want something measurable? A good reason to get rid of fossil fuel?

There is no such thing as "clean" coal.

Images for coal ash spill Tennessee

http://site.pfaw.org/site/R?i=fpQqgmTwryElDB-lATsbNg

Inside the Tennessee Coal Ash Spill - The Daily Beast www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/17/toxic-tsunami.html Jul 17, 2009 – Inside the largest industrial spill in American history. How coal ash ruined one Tennessee town—and why it could happen again.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=coal%20ash%20spill%20tennessee&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CH8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Fnewsweek%2F2009%2F07%2F17%2Ftoxic-tsunami.html&ei=31DOT4LmFaec2AXUgJ3NDA&usg=AFQjCNGcmOoJvtF81B833De-0yUWqAtvjg&cad=rja

Images for coal ash spill lake Michigan

http://www.google.com/search?q=coal+ash+spill+lake+michigan&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=XXK&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsu&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=sFLOT_OrOOGJ2AWW0JHPDA&ved=0CHMQsAQ&biw=1120&bih=552

U.S. EPA Sued over Toxic Coal Ash Disposal

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=coal%20ash%20disposal&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CIUBEBYwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecology.com%2F2012%2F04%2F06%2Fepa-toxic-coal-ash-disposal%2F&ei=ZlPOT8LMCuXs2QXh-ITSDA&usg=AFQjCNFBocwNfqbAJ8OgOTcCPMAQ_bXdEw&cad=rja

Environmental Groups Target Coal Ash Disposal

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=coal%20ash%20disposal&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CIgBEBYwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.martenlaw.com%2Fnewsletter%2F20120502-groups-target-coal-ash-disposal&ei=ZlPOT8LMCuXs2QXh-ITSDA&usg=AFQjCNG9u8v_Tsr-yPpPfURKmPdToX_cKA&cad=rja

Coal Ash Sites Across the Country - Sierra Club

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=coal%20ash%20disposal&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CIkBEBYwBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Faction.sierraclub.org%2Fsite%2FPageNavigator%2Fadv_bigpicture_coalash_map&ei=ZlPOT8LMCuXs2QXh-ITSDA&usg=AFQjCNE5cCCZmgGjyoIhILJA0dblS-Ow4Q&cad=rja

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

many just don't care that the climate is changing

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Leave it to you to key in on the word 'an' and ignore, 'A concept that has been well tested'. and 'explanation to a wide range of observations."

As with Evolution which is a scientific theory (Intelligent Design doesn't qualify as a theory), AGW is the only explanation that accounts for entire range of observations encountered. There has yet to be a replacement theory, specifically from the denial camp that does that.

I never called scientific theory 'fact', however, your implication is that it is a guess.... is simply not true... it is the accepted, tested, description of the systems and operations of the subject matter.

Scientific method- Observe something Propose a theory to explain what you observe Use the theory to predict future observations. Agreed?

Agreed? No, wrong again, you're definition of the Scientific Method is wrong. You don't make an observation and propose a theory.... this may be where your confusion stems from. You observe and put forth a 'hypothesis', which is quite different from a theory. Then devise experiments to test the validity of the hypothesis. They are not interchangeable. Although aggregates of hypothesis that have been tested are used to create a working theory.

In very simple terms an untested hypothesis is an educated guess.

Another thing. Do not confuse the modeling efforts put forth by various climate study groups as the actual Theory of AGW. I see you are doing that below in another post.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

I am TOTALLY willing to insert the term 'hypothesis' into the formula. It doesn't change what I'm saying at all. That YOU read my use of the word theory as implying a "hypothesis" is your fault because you assumed that I was either unaware of the word "hypothesis" or was using the two terms interchangeably. I was not.

My response that theories were not "FACTS" was to someone else who introduced or implied the idea that they were. You responded to my comment which wasn't directed at you.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

By first having the term 'theory' in your definition of the Scientific Method as opposed to hypothesis, you do use them interchangeably. You are not being honest here.

However, if I responded to a comment that wasn't directed at me and misunderstood you, I apologize. As a theory is not a fact but the accepted, tested, best explanation of all the available facts. There has not been put forth an alternate theory to AGW that explains everything that we are observing, remains true.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Oh..and one more thing-BOTH of the links you provided as "proof" that volcanoes do not emit more CO2 than human beings-are based on "ESTIMATES". Both reports use the word repeatedly.

I am simply not willing to accept an ESTIMATE as being more reliable than an actual READING or MEASUREMENT. That is why I SPECIFICALLY said above-

"I also KNOW that the IPCC never included ANY measurements of the CO2 being pumped into our oceans every day by the underwater volcanoes that they were AWARE of in the early 2000's."

If YOU as a scientist have as much complete faith in estimates as you would in actual, established measurements (facts) then you and I will most likely never agree on much of anything. Human beings are fallible. Even scientific ones.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I can see City and Car pollution

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I won't accept any fixed number from a scientific report. It sends up a red flag. All data is reported with error bars... statistical ranges of values... because instrumental and observer bias has to be factored in.

The term estimate is more than valid. Volcanoes generally do not put out fixed volumes of gas, but ranges of gas. When you add up up ranges of gas you are estimating. There is no precise number. Therefore, your lack of acceptance of this term is not reasonable.

"I also KNOW that the IPCC never included ANY measurements of the CO2 being pumped into our oceans every day by the underwater volcanoes that they were AWARE of in the early 2000's."

The IPCC is not a scientific organization but a political one. To consider their reports to be nothing more than political bias would be very reasonable. I think we can agree on that.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Settle down now, go make us a flag.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

excuse me

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

? That was for Betsy.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

ok.

[-] 0 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Look, if you want to cover your ears and pretend that Science isn't true, you are free to lock yourself into your church and tell yourself anything that you like. But when something may happen (with a lot of scientific EVIDENCE backing up that notion) that affects all of us, I think its time that we told God to "Shut The Fuck Up; the grown-ups are talking now and your fantasy isn't helping anyone!"

Its not even that hard to reduce the amount of likely culprit gasses that WE produce that could be causing this. All it takes is some regulations, really just some filters on these smoke stacks, asking auto-makers to make engines that are reasonable (everyone doesn't need a vehicle that can haul 8 tons or that can match a race car,) asking plastics manufacturers to make more of the recyclable types of plastic and less of the non-degradable kind, banning plastic shopping bags and getting everyone transitioned into reusable bags, etc. Its not that hard.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Is it that you can't read at all, or is it just a lack of comprehension?

I'm telling you, repeatedly, that SCIENTIFIC evidence keeps popping up that UNDERMINES the co2 theory because the actual behavior of the planet HAS NOT HISTORICALLY done what co2 alarmists want to convince us that it WILL do in the future. But you keep right on covering your ears and pretending that something will happen that has not in the past even when co2 measurements in the atmosphere were quadruple what they are today. Go ahead.

You act like filters haven't been ALREADY added to those smoke stacks. They have. Read a little. And you believe that EVERYONE drives a vehicle that hauls 8 tons or matches a race car. And that plastics manufacturers are NOT making more recyclable products and less non degradable ones. I don't know where in the hell you LIVE, but in the world I live in, and have traveled in, THOSE THINGS ARE HAPPENING you idiot.

[-] 1 points by DoubleVoice (115) 2 years ago

Blah blah blah "Look at me I'm the 1% I'll make any excuses I can to keep polluting. Fuck you planet!"

All of those studies that supposedly "refute" thousands of scientists' conclusions about the environment are funded by oil companies and right wing think tanks in order to keep the 1% from spending more money. Because the bottom line is obviously more important than having a habitable planet in a hundred years.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Blah blah blah "Look at me, I can make wild, inaccurate accusations about people I've never even met! Any excuse to push my agenda forward. Fuck you facts!"

Who funds "all those studies" that supposedly prove what you think they do? Al Gore and the left wing 1%ers who want you to buy THEIR products and technology-which keeps going bankrupt. Al Gore owns several very large, VERY energy INefficient homes-one with on the edge of the ocean-now why would a man who is convinced the sea levels are going to RISE-and that we are destroying our planet with our energy consumption-DO such things?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the sea will rise and farmland will turn to dust

new farm will open in the north and the equator will become more turmoil

[-] -1 points by Harrigan (2) 2 years ago

are you strung out or just pulling your meaningless comments from a script?

[-] -1 points by shadzworth (-394) 2 years ago

BR,you have demonstrated an exceptional tolerance of ignorance and endured too much Drone propaganda,but you still come back swinging with the truth,you kick ass.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

I only want to know what is TRUE. And so does the majority of the people on this planet. Those who are called "deniers" do not always fit the description given to them by others who don't really care about what is true or not. They are not DENYING that the climate is changing. They just know it has changed BEFORE. They are not DENYING that man has an influence on this planet and it's atmosphere, nor are they heartless, cruel people who don't care about the planet. They DO care. That's WHY they want to know ALL the facts before humanity goes running off in a different direction that ends up hurting the planet more.

I don't believe the human race developed industry or using fossil fuels in an effort to KILL the planet. I think they used what they had and over time they learned about the impact they were having on the planet. I've seen HUNDREDS of industries modify their old practices to curtail or limit their impact as much as possible.

But past human experience SHOULD be used to formulate future human environmental impacts. We go "green" for example-how does our use of those energies affect this planet? Can we predict with absolute certainty that we will not find out in 50 years that we're still affecting the planet in negative ways-just DIFFERENT ways?

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

This paper was published 6 years ago. Care to elaborate on the scientific evidence collected since 2006 and what it tells us?

The observational data collected since 2006 confirms that we have an energy flux imbalance of roughly 3.5 W/m2. The effects of this additional energy is easily seen in the oceans. Major ocean currents are warming at a rate that is faster than the earth on a whole.

I count NINE greenhouse gases listed in their research-not just CO2.

Yes, physical scientists have been researching the effects of many, trace gases and their contributions to the radiative imbalance for quite a few years. CO2 can be thought of as a key indicator, much like the DOW Jones Index or the S&P 500 are key indicators of the thousands of stocks and how they are performing.

There IS a connection between greenhouse gases and the atmosphere and global warming.

Well, that is a start now isn't it. Nice to see others stop this portion of the denial dialogue.

There is also a connection between the atmosphere and clouds and global warming. And water vapor and global warming. And solar events and global warming.

Absolutely, and they are and have been taken into consideration. There are volumes and volumes written about these factors in the major journals and how they each contribute to the overall energy budget.

And the rotation of the freaking planet and global warming.

See, just when you were doing fine you had to throw this bit of misinformation in. The rotation of the planet has an effect on daily temperatures in the sense of going from light to darkness. It has zero effect on long term global climate change. Now if you had stated that 'orbital path fluctuations' or 'eccentricities of our orbit' around the Sun was a player in climate change, I would have agreed with you completely.... but you didn't.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"It shows, moreover, that changes in climate signals can have global implications on Earth’s overall rotation."

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0210rotation.html

I said they were CONNECTED. Period. Don't get your panties in a bunch. :)

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

How they are connected is extremely important. Changes in climate signals have a possible impact on the earths rotation is far different than saying the earths rotation has an impact on the climate.

The direction and magnitude of the drivers is very important: " Of course these effects are very small, but observable by advanced scientific techniques."
Which means that it's an interesting fact but what is the value of its overall contribution? From the sounds of it, very negligible. I'd bet the moon has more of an effect on the earths rotation than our atmosphere, and overall, our planet losing a few seconds of daylight or adding a few seconds of daylight a year would do little to explain the 3.5 W/m2 of radiative energy we have gained since 1850.

Sorry just saying that they are connected is not good enough, in of itself the statement has no real value. Yeah, I do get my panties in a bunch about it because I am a physical scientist. Details like this are important. It is the manipulation of details, either intentional or not, that leads to misinformation and the obfuscation of truth.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"How they are connected is extremely important"

My statement had nothing to do value of affect. So trying to fault me as if it did is stupid.

And for someone who DOES think that details like "HOW things are connected is extremely important", I would think that you would downplay the "importance" of CO2 contributions to global warming since the actual measurements demonstrate that the PERCENTAGE of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is microscopic compared to the OTHER greenhouse gases that comprise the bulk of it. CO2 is approx 0.03% of the mix. You know...kind of like the effects of the rotation of the earth-almost negligible. Right?

I also think you'd be a nitpicker about the FACT that for as far back in history as we can calculate, CO2 increases ALWAYS FOLLOW the actual warming periods themselves. They have never preceded them.

But it seems that small, insignificant statements upset you rather than the BIG, HUGE, propaganda ones. :-)

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

My statement had nothing to do value of affect. So trying to fault me as if it did is stupid.

I didn't fault you. I told you that just stating that they are connected is valueless. Stating that there is a connection implies there is value in your statement, not stating the actual value makes the statement have zero utility.

I would think that you would downplay the "importance" of CO2 contributions to global warming since the actual measurements demonstrate that the PERCENTAGE of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is microscopic compared to the OTHER greenhouse gases-such as water vapor-that comprise the bulk of it.

Those values are understood and have been for 150 years. The absorption spectra for water and CO2 are different, and were investigated then. The discovery that trace amounts of CO2 had large effects on heating was published in 1896. Nothing at all like the effects of the climate on the earths rotation. You are comparing apples to walnuts, not even oranges, and you want an agreement with that? No.

I also think you'd be a nitpicker about the FACT that for as far back in history as we can calculate, CO2 increases ALWAYS FOLLOW the actual warming periods themselves. They have never preceded them.

And like most you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about what the theory of AGW really states. Climate change has always happened. Your data which comes from the ice cores indicates that, and what it shows is that when the earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the earth's orbit (Milankovitch Cycles). The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet.

This is the core idea of AGW. It's not that CO2 is the sole source of global temperature change.... thats absurd. The additional CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuel will amplify the warming from the ambient CO2 already in the atmosphere. This increased warming will then cause the oceans to release more CO2 and methane (which is in less qty but a stronger GHG) from the oceans and Arctic, which will cause more warming - creating a positive loop.

Propaganda? The oceans are measurably heating. The permafrost in the Arctic is melting. Methane is being released by the Permafrost. The Northwest Passage is now free of ice year round for the first time in human history. The oceans are becoming acidified because of the increase in CO2. The predictions of the theory are coming true one by one.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

That you determined that I "lack of understanding about what the theory of AGW really states" from that statement makes me question your scientific method skills even more.

That co2 CAN amplify and DOES amplify warming I'll agree with. The question is HOW MUCH can it/does it/will it in the future. It's ability to amplify warming is offset by many things, including negative feedback loops-like the one that has halted temperature increases for the past 15 years even while the measurable c02 in the atmosphere has increased. It's a THEORY for a reason.

"The Northwest Passage is now free of ice year round for the first time in human history."

You just lost ANY credibility I was willing to give you with that completely outrageous and bogus claim. If you can show me ONE credible source that states and can PROVE that the Northwest Passage is "free of ice year round for the first time in human history" I'll eat a cowpie.

http://globalbrief.ca/blog/2012/02/06/toward-a-canada-russia-axis-in-the-arctic/

"For four of the last five summers, the Northwest Passage has been free of ice in early September and open to non-icebreaking vessels. Eighteen ships sailed through in each of 2009 and 2010, and 22 ships in 2011."

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

"That co2 CAN amplify and DOES amplify warming I'll agree with. The question is HOW MUCH can it/does it/will it in the future. It's ability to amplify warming is offset by many things, including negative feedback loops-like the one that has halted temperature increases for the past 15 years even while the measurable c02 in the atmosphere has increased. It's a THEORY for a reason."

Thank you for providing even more evidence that you don't understand science. A 'theory' as used in science, is not an educated guess, as the common understanding of the word is, and your usage of it attests to.

Definition: Scientific theory noun

A concept that has been well tested, and is accepted as an explanation to a wide range of observations.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory

The answers to 'how much' is measurable and has been measured, direct observation. 3.5W/m2 of surplus radiated thermal energy since 1850. While the air temperatures may have plateaued, the ocean heat content hasn't. That measurable surplus of retained heat has to go somewhere, and thats where it is, to the point that warm water aquatic species are now making their way into the Arctic because of the change in the currents.

"we find that the post-1900 surface ocean warming rate over the path of these currents is two to three times faster than the global mean surface ocean warming rate. The accelerated warming is associated with a synchronous poleward shift and/or intensification of global subtropical western boundary currents in conjunction with a systematic change in winds over both hemispheres." http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n3/full/nclimate1353.html

For information on feedback loops.... all of them in play, one needs to consult the Geologic Record. Here there is ample proof what lays in store, from the Carboniferous Period through the Permian extinction.

The first recorded attempt at traversing the Northwest Passage was the voyage of John Cabot in 1497.

Collingridge, Vanessa (2002). Captain Cook. Ebury Press. ISBN 0-09-188898-0.

Other expeditions of record most notably, Drake, Cook, Hudson, Parry, Ross, etc. provided mappings of the Passage, until Robert McClure became the first to cross it from west to east in1854, and he accomplished that partly by sled. After all this, including up to the early 1900's, it was finally concluded that using the Passage was not possible.

Now if you can find an earlier reliable description showing that the Passage was indeed open and in use, please provide it or otherwise start munching on that cowpie.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

You stated "The Northwest Passage is now FREE OF ICE YEAR ROUND for the first time in human history."

The Northwest Passage has NEVER been "free of ice year round". It IS "free of ice" for certain periods of time every year, but those times are limited. YOU SAID it is free of ice YEAR ROUND-which means there is no ice in it for consecutive 12 month periods!!! It freezes back over and does not become "clear" of ice until Aug or September-in which some vessels make the crossing-and then it becomes impassable again. That is not "year round" for crying out loud.

Actual detailed records of the Northwest Passage began in 1972. And several other ships made the crossing long before then. Here's an article detailing at least 12 vessels that made the crossing before the "recorded" history on it began in 1972.:

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-reporting-about-northwest-passage.html

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Ah ya got me there, a mistype made in haste. My apologies. I meant it opens up in Summer now, when it never has before in recorded history.

However, the Northwest Passage up until now wasn't even being considered for commerce of any type, that's how ice bound it was.... and no longer is.

For instance, the first boat to make the transit was the St Roch which took 2 years to do it. It was specifically designed to deal with ice:
Hull: Douglas fir with Australian gumwood outer hull; rounded hull to allow ice to slide underneath; steel plate covering bow*

Survived 12 winters stuck in the ice for 10 months at a time

King George VI awarded the prestigious Polar Medal to Henry Larsen and the crew who sailed during the 1944 voyage because this was such a very special accomplishment. http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/page216.htm

As time went on more and more ships, virtually all of them ice hardened or actual ice breakers were the only ships to make this transit. When I first visited the Arctic in 1992 on the USCG Polar Sea, the ice was 25 feet thick in the summer around the North Pole. Today it is less than 8 feet thick.

So it is no wonder that as we enter the 2000's more and more ships are making the transit.... the Arctic is melting. Here is a graph showing the number of transits made and types of ships.... looks a little familiar in shape doesn't it? The hockey stick shape is no accident. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Transits.png

And here is the actual Canadian Coast Guard Report detailing Climate Change in the Arctic from which the graph originally came: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a535430.pdf

It's a very good read and I suggest that you do read it.

But that's the BEST you can do for a response? It doesn't help your case. You just helped me indicate that the Arctic is indeed melting.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

OMG. Whenever I, or others I have observed (science) type quickly, or “in haste”, they produce typos-misspelled words or improperly formed sentences. When YOU typed in haste, you exaggerated every single aspect of a statement, yet your spelling and syntax was fine. For example you said “ice free” as opposed to “passable”, “year round” instead of “seasonally” and “in human history” instead of “in recorded history”. Since “speed” has an effect on your ability to speak honestly and accurately, and no one here can determine when you are typing with “haste” or not, are we to trust you to control your speed or simply give you the benefit of the doubt?

Now, since I never said anywhere that the Arctic ice was NOT melting, you are working on the pure ASSUMPTION that I am somehow in denial of that. (not very scientific of you) History and science have demonstrated that ice always melts and temperatures always increase when Earth has come out of an Ice Age hasn't it?

You stated above that “the first boat to make the transit was the St Roch which took 2 years to do it. It was specifically designed to deal with ice” (1940-1942)

According to the actual LINK you provided-the St Roch was also “The First vessel to complete the Northwest Passage in one season (1944)”

Now, common sense and critical thinking makes me ask YOU, the SCIENTIST, -what was it that caused the ice in the NWP to melt from the point where it took 24 MONTHS to cross it to the point where it was passable in one season in less than two years time? How far in the past would that “cause” have to have started in order for the dominoes to fall in 1944? And what happened AFTER 1944 that made it impassable again until later years?

Here's just one example (out of hundreds) of a scientist stating something that undermines the C02 argument:

“ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) — You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences. “

Now, reading that, COMMON SENSE makes me ask you, the SCIENTIST, why it is that we CURRENTLY have CO2 levels as high as they were 15M years ago, BUT our temperatures are 5-10 degrees COOLER and the sea level is 75-120 feet LOWER, and we STILL have a permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and PLENTY of ice on Antarctica and Greenland?

WHY isn’t the SAME LEVEL of CO2 today causing the EXACT SAME conditions to exist on the planet if CO2 levels are the major driver that determines such things? Shouldn’t humanity’s ADDITION to the C02 levels be making things WORSE than they were then?

It isn't worse. It is cooler, and lower, and more icy. WHY?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

First off, this isn't a professional paper that I am writing. I am responding to an internet forum. As such, I have several ideas in my head as I type. Most of them portray accurately what I intended to state. Once in a while they don't.... you caught that off time.

I apologized and restated the idea as I had intended to write it. I don't have the luxury of proof reading every word I type several times before 'publication'. At least I admitted my error... I have yet to see you do the same when fallacies that you print have been pointed out. You just stop addressing the issue. A perfect example is your definition of what a 'theory' is. Where is the admission of error on your part? I'm still waiting.

Now, common sense and critical thinking makes me ask YOU, the SCIENTIST, -what was it that caused the ice in the NWP to melt from the point where it took 24 MONTHS to cross it to the point where it was passable in one season in less than two years time? How far in the past would that “cause” have to have started in order for the dominoes to fall in 1944? And what happened AFTER 1944 that made it impassable again until later years?

These questions have all been considered and addressed already. I point you to the oceanographic and geophysical journals for answers as there is no room here to regurgitate it all. The overwhelming evidence points to AGW.

Here's just one example (out of hundreds) of a scientist stating something that undermines the C02 argument: “ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) — You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences. “

What makes you think that we aren't headed exactly in that direction? 15 million years ago the CO2 levels didn't jump 100ppm in 100 years, but increased over a period of roughly 10,000 years. The rise in temperatures and ice melt happened over a long time.

What we are experiencing today is a very, very sharp rise in CO2 levels. If you look at the heat content of the Earth's bioshphere, (air temp is just ONE indicator) it has taken a tremendous increase in a very short amount of time. We can see the thermal radiative flux increase as well since 1850.

The clear....CRYSTAL CLEAR implication that you don't need modeling to understand is that we will experience those very same temperature increases and consequences that we have seen in the past.... as shown by this paper you produced.

It isn't worse. It is cooler, and lower, and more icy. WHY?

The Southern Ocean circulation has been insulating Antarctica, this is also explained in AGW theory. The Arctic will be affected first, and indeed it is. But Antarctica doesn't get off either and warmer currents are making their way south. Only the eastern portion of Antarctica is showing stable conditions. Western Antarctica is being affected. Portions of the Ross Ice Shelf that have been stable for 15,000 years have collapsed.

The ocean currents have changed already. The train is coming down the track. At what point in this game of chicken will you acknowledge the evidence and agree to do something before the locomotive runs us over?

[-] 0 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

How much CO2 is in the air anyway?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Is this the best you can do? A hit piece written by a guy who is NOT a scientist?

[-] -1 points by Freemantake (-21) 2 years ago

Global warming is about redistribution of wealth and nothing else. It has been debunked time and time again. Sorry Gore, the game is over

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Some Global Warming policy suggestions have been about wealth redistribution. Gore is a politician, not a scientist.

Nothing has been debunked on the science of AGW.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sent this day 6/05/2012 An Open Letter Addressed to The President of the United States of America and to all of the currently seated members of Government. Please Handle and deliver/share as you would a letter delivered by the USPS.

Mr. President and all currently seated members of Government,

While we wait to see the results of the recall election in Wisconsin and find out if they will have a corporate owned governor ( Walker ) or a peoples governor ( Barret ) - and the nation "is" watching as is the world.

The people of the USA and the world would like to know.

What ever happened to truth in advertizing? There is no such thing as "clean" coal.

Images for coal ash spill Tennessee

http://site.pfaw.org/site/R?i=fpQqgmTwryElDB-lATsbNg

Inside the Tennessee Coal Ash Spill - The Daily Beast www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/17/toxic-tsunami.html Jul 17, 2009 – Inside the largest industrial spill in American history. How coal ash ruined one Tennessee town—and why it could happen again.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=coal%20ash%20spill%20tennessee&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CH8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Fnewsweek%2F2009%2F07%2F17%2Ftoxic-tsunami.html&ei=31DOT4LmFaec2AXUgJ3NDA&usg=AFQjCNGcmOoJvtF81B833De-0yUWqAtvjg&cad=rja

Images for coal ash spill lake Michigan

http://www.google.com/search?q=coal+ash+spill+lake+michigan&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=XXK&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsu&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=sFLOT_OrOOGJ2AWW0JHPDA&ved=0CHMQsAQ&biw=1120&bih=552

U.S. EPA Sued over Toxic Coal Ash Disposal

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=coal%20ash%20disposal&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CIUBEBYwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecology.com%2F2012%2F04%2F06%2Fepa-toxic-coal-ash-disposal%2F&ei=ZlPOT8LMCuXs2QXh-ITSDA&usg=AFQjCNFBocwNfqbAJ8OgOTcCPMAQ_bXdEw&cad=rja

Environmental Groups Target Coal Ash Disposal

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=coal%20ash%20disposal&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CIgBEBYwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.martenlaw.com%2Fnewsletter%2F20120502-groups-target-coal-ash-disposal&ei=ZlPOT8LMCuXs2QXh-ITSDA&usg=AFQjCNG9u8v_Tsr-yPpPfURKmPdToX_cKA&cad=rja

Coal Ash Sites Across the Country - Sierra Club

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=coal%20ash%20disposal&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CIkBEBYwBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Faction.sierraclub.org%2Fsite%2FPageNavigator%2Fadv_bigpicture_coalash_map&ei=ZlPOT8LMCuXs2QXh-ITSDA&usg=AFQjCNE5cCCZmgGjyoIhILJA0dblS-Ow4Q&cad=rja

Spread the word.

Green Tech. New and improved - now with Liquid Metal Battery for efficient power storage and distribution.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

You have got to watch this vid: The liquid Metal Battery - another piece to the puzzle.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html

Additional Liquid Metal Battery links.

http://lmbcorporation.com/

http://lmbcorporation.com/files/flyerFinal.pdf

Support green energy technology - industry - jobs. Save our world save our economy.

Rework free trade agreements as they are currently detrimental to the Business, Employment, Economic and Environmental health of the USA and in extension the world.

Put an end to outsourcing for Profit over People and the environment.

Stop world wide corporate abuses of people and environments.

These are issues of the people the country and the world.

Issues our government should be addressing with true dedication to the people and the world.

Governmental approval is what now? Overall 10% approve? Who are they? Consider that 90% do not approve of you.

Reign in corporate abuse here at home and around the world.

Thank you,

Dan

[-] 1 points by Freemantake (-21) 2 years ago

Oops! EPA administrator admits an unfortunate truth about Obama A top Obama administration official in the EPA made a startling admission. Basically he said ‘it was really tricky trying to shut down the coal industry but we did it!’ - another gaffe by Obama that probably won’t matter anyway because the press doesn’t really care.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by grapes (3552) 2 years ago

James Inhofe? Isn't HE, and NOT our mulatto President who actually REPRESENTED the true interests of the United States at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

While neither are scientists your point is made moot. They are both politicians.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3552) 2 years ago

Although both are politicians, there IS a huge difference between the ones who count on the "God up there" to bail us out and those who do not. Many shots of "whiskey" are the true path of enlightenment for those who pilot the craft of state (this explains why Islamic leaders of states have NOT been enlightened yet due to the Prohibition).

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

There isn't a politician in office on the national level that cares about this country, alcoholics or not.

[-] 2 points by grapes (3552) 2 years ago

They really care about drinking the Sea of Gallo dry and peddling their fracking "visions" to us mortals, though. Boy, do we know how to suck!

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

It's driving the climate guys mad that the planet is awash in newly discovered oil and gas. I mean it is serious even Israel has exploratory wells being drilled.

We have still have control in the US and energy prices are gratifyingly high but the most serious challenge facing us is not the US but all the off the wall places like Poland, Israel, the Balkans and dozens more that will soon become net producers rather than controlled consumers.

The price of crude is about to tumble uncontrollably and third world usage is going to skyrocket and we will lose control of the pricing in the US. We all know what happens when energy is cheap, economic boom times! All our work to strangle the economy will literally go up in smoke! Prosperous people don't need socialism!

I want to tell you something, between the new carbon reserves and the decline of the unions, things are about to get very bleak for progressives. I simply have no idea what is going to happen.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

All our work to strangle the economy will literally go up in smoke!

You want to strangle the economy during the recession? You think you are a leftist or progressive by doing this?

sniff... sniff I smell a fraud.

[-] 1 points by tomdavid55 (93) 2 years ago

Here is a brand new song about saving our planet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R_jT015UdU&feature=youtu.be

See also:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQ1WOC9RgY

[-] -3 points by lkindr (58) 2 years ago

Climate science has been manipulated by politically motivated grants since the early 1970s. Cosmology has been similarly manipulated since even earlier. The mainstream media do a good job of managing public beliefs by making it look like scientists are in agreement about most things, but they're not at all. The 1%, or ruling class, uses the media to divide the people against each other so that we're easier to manipulate, divide and conquer. It's the Sun's heat output that obviously controls Earth climate. CO2 has little effect. HAARP and chemtrails are likely to have much more effect than CO2. There are lots of HAARP and chemtrails deniers, despite the Senate Church Committee's findings after the Watergate hearings that covert government operations have been doing horrible things to the public since the end of WW2, such as mind control experiments, psyops, chemical and biowarfare experiments, destroying the black power movement and student movements, promoting drug addictions etc.

A 1992 government book, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases, shows that the conclusion by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research was that the most effective global warming method of mitigation ... is the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft! That strongly suggests that chemtrails have been made for that purpose, but they likely have the opposite effect of that claimed, i.e. warming, instead of cooling.

The education system and the media teach us to hate those who have different views, but that's the downfall of most groups, including entire nations and empires. Psychologist, M. Scott Peck, wrote The People of the Lie in 1983 after investigating the causes of the My Lai massacre by American troops in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. He explained that successful groups, or nations, develop pride and the belief that their group is never wrong. So most Americans were unable to see that it was wrong for the U.S. to be involved in war against Vietnam. It seems that Liberals are a group that tends to believe it is intellectually superior to others, while Conservatives are one that believes it is morally superior to others. The 99% cannot be effective in bringing needed changes by continuing to fall into such thinking patterns. We need to maintain open minds and humility and seek to understand everyone's concerns. Peck said followers are immature and leaders need to share leadership and teach followers to be fellow leaders. I like Win-Win, a kind of consensus, which seeks to understand all sides' main concerns and find solutions that satisfy all such concerns, instead of just a majority or a major financial contributor's concerns. So one possible solution I can think of is to study the issue more thoroughly and relinquish all attitudes of superiority and of regarding those with different views as enemies.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

You're an ass. Want to help with global warming? Keep that mouth closed when spewing forth misinformation like this.... it will help minimize the CO2 and methane that you personally contribute.

[-] -2 points by lkindr (58) 2 years ago

More unscientific derogatory remarks that play into the hands of the 1% or the 1% who divide the people against each other for their own short-term benefit and everyone else's detriment.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

It's your preceding derogatory remarks about my chosen profession that brought about my response.

HAARP and chemtrails over hard science. Blow me.

[-] -3 points by DJdoodles (-56) 2 years ago

You can manipulate science so easily because the scientific method is used. Experiments can be repeated, and often are. Observations can also be repeated. It's been proven without the slightest doubt that Global Warming is real and comes from CO2. Your conspiracy theory is weak.

1992 was a long time ago. 20 years is an eternity in the field of science. Much has changed since then.

[-] 5 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

You're also an ass..... as the statement below proves beyond a doubt.

You can manipulate science so easily because the scientific method is used.

The scientific method is a set of rules used to remove personal, experimental, and instrumental bias. To keep the data as objective as possible..... precisely so that it does not become manipulated.

[-] -1 points by lkindr (58) 2 years ago

It's unscientific to use derogatory terms, like conspiracy theory, to counter anyone's argument. The scientific method has been abused by the 1% ever since especially the late 1800s. They have suppressed anything that they considered a threat to their status. Tesla, the inventor of alternating current electricity, had many other inventions in the works that would have made electricity freely available to everyone, but the power company owners suppressed that technology. In health care they promoted allopathy, because it's the most profitable, not the most healthful. The main advance in the 20th century was in advertising, not in technology. The 1% used advertising and other propaganda to divide the people in how they perceive reality. Liberals perceive themselves as intellectually superior to others, while Conservatives perceive themselves as morally superior. Liberals perceive coming disaster from climate change. Conservatives perceive coming disaster from Biblical End Times and the progress of Islam. Scientific method has been used against the common people more than it has been used for them. The 1% took over science in the late 1800s by controlling advertising in scientific periodicals, by controlling publication of profitable scientific textbooks, by funding science through grants by controlling government spending and via foundation grants etc.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago
  • Tesla, the inventor of alternating current electricity, had many other inventions in the works that would have made electricity freely available to everyone,*

Prove that.... just another baseless conspiracy theory.

[-] -1 points by lkindr (58) 2 years ago

Just another unscientific derogatory remark.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Because proof is asked for? Proof is the basis of science.