For a change lets not argue about the 'science' of the issue. It
really comes down to the faith people have in the scientists who make this
claim. Whether or not you believe they had a bias toward this result or stand to
gain anything by coming to this conclusion (that if the climate is changing it
is due to human activity). Forgetting all of that...I
don't want to be the one to burst anyone's green energy pipe dream
bubble but as a country we are headed for bankruptcy. If the country where a
ship, it would be taking on water at an alarming rate. A carbon tax
would inevitably cause higher prices on every necessity of life while reducing
wages and making America even less competitive in the manufacturing world...all
at a time when we can ill afford setbacks in any of those areas.
I, too, see an ever-growing consensus among scientists on the reality of global
warming.However, I recommend that the best way to draw support from
us less-educated voters is not to point to little, short-term events like recent
droughts or local red burn days. Don't count the raised hands of those who
are one side of the other. Rather describe the persuasive scientific
observations that intellectual consensus is based on. We should be able to
understand it if climate scientists could learn from school teachers how to
present complex topics in lay terms.Is it the shrinking ice caps? A
huge collection of temperatures from all over the world averaged enough to show
a definite trend? The shifting lines of forest growth across continents? Is
the measuring and judging process as complicated and secretive as college
Thank you DN for an honest discussion about climate change. It has been a taboo
subject to recognize the obvious in the recent past.The carbon tax I
favor is one that recognizes the real costs of carbon and evens up the playing
field to promote renewable energy production that does not have hidden costs.
Regarding that hurricane fixin' to hit Florida during the GOP convention:
If this is caused by "legitimate human-caused climate change," that body
GOP chould be able to "just shut that whole thing down" so that it
doesn't cause any damage and disrupt their festivities. The
GOP will be celebrating Romney's fossil fuel-focused energy plan that
doesn't even mention climate change as an issue. I can hear the convention
chants: "Burn, baby, burn!"
I know the editorial content of the DNews is resembling the LATimes now thanks
for the new editor in chief.
Cap and Trade was originally known as emissions trading.Emissions
trading was the GOP (George HW Bush) driven answer to bring free market forces
into the equation to combat acid rain.And by most accounts, it was a
great success.Thank you GOP. I give you credit for this one.
David Brin wrote an excellent article (Climate Skeptics vs. Climate Deniers)
that for me, a one time skeptic, ended any serious debate on whether or not we
are causing climate change.
This statement by the author is simply not true: "The debate about whether
human-caused climate change is occurring is virtually over among qualified
climate scientists."Anyone can look up on Wikipedia a list of
"scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
(Search for the quoted text.) It's a pretty long list.Scientific debate does not come to an end just because one researcher changes
NPR's Planet Money team (a group of economic reporters) asked economists
who identified across the political spectrum if they could agree on any economic
policies and a carbon tax was one thing they all agreed on, though the very
conservative economist thought implementing such a policy would be difficult.
You should check it out. I don't think DN allows links, but the title is
called "Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate)."
What warming?Global temperatures have not risen since 1998, while
the supposed culprit of warming, CO2, has continued to rise. That means
something major is wrong with the computer models. It also means that carbon
taxes and other measures would not have done anything to reduce temperatures
over the past 14 years, nor would they have any effect in the future.The poll everyone still refers to (it's over a decade old) did not ask
whether mankind is primarily responsible for global warming, as implied by most
news reports. It simply asked whether mankind is having a "discernible"
effect on climate. Consensus falls apart when you ask whether mankind is
This article does nothing to further scientific understanding of climate change.
It's another in the long line of misleading, unquestioning, pro-man-caused
global warming pieces pasted in virtually every newspaper in the country.There are thousands of scientists who do not accept the alarmist
rhetoric of those clamoring for governmental action on climate change. The two
climate scientists mentioned in this piece have proved to be unreliable sources
of information on the topic. Richard Muller has never been a skeptic. It's
easy to find quotes, from him, dating back to 2003 in which he declares CO2 to
be "the greatest pollutant in human history". For him to claim an
about-face, in 2012, based on the BEST study, is laughable at best and should
make any serious person question his motives. James Hansen is even worse. He
has staged hearings and "tweaked" data since 1980 to further the warming
cause he champions. "Scientists" who claim that most or all
of the approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature over the last
100 years is man-made and that recent heat waves and other weather phenomena are
caused by humans, know perfectly well that it's totally unproved.
Fact CheckI checked out the source you mentioned, and discovered that
fewer than .01 percent of peer-reviewed papers in the field of climatology
disagreed with the scientific consensus, and that the majority of papers
expressing skepticism were from scientists in fields other than climatology. I
would say the consensus is fairly complete.
@Eric Samuelsen1) Your paraphrase of the Wikipedia article is off by
an order of magnitude.2) As revealed by Climategate emails, the peer
review process itself is biased.3) Richard Muller is in a field "other
than climatology." Are you saying his findings don't count? Then
what's the point of the article?
The main faulty assertion of this article is that argument over man-made
climate change is over,and now the battle is all about who can make
money on climate change and how they can.And that does not trouble
the left at all?I can't help but think if Bain capital was
profiting billions on climate change, the left would be howling.
It surprises me when doctors, such as Dr. Folland, who should be especially
respectful of the scientific method, are too willing to jump on the bandwagon
with global warming (oops, I mean "climate change") alarmists. Human
caused global warming is not science -- rather, it's a fashionable fad and
an unproven, dubious theory.If we follow Dr. Folland's
fraudulent prescription, we'll have fewer businesses, fewer jobs, less
freedom, and higher taxes, all with little or no proven benefit. I'd
prefer instead that we use our finite resources on things that have significant
PROVEN benefits. A carbon tax is a REALLY BAD idea.Congrats to the
4 out of 5 members of our congressional delegation who have more courage and
respect for true science than the global warming alarmists do.
Sorry "Sensible Scientist" you are not telling the truth. Look for
"State of the Climate - 2012" by the CSIRO and many other reports from
countries around the World. Stop spreading the garbage from Fox news
solutions to the concept that fossil fuel consumption is causing climate change
may be coming. Certainly all of us would prefer not to increase global
temperature. Sorry it won't work now. Maybe in the futere. "Cool
Planet" claims they can produce a high quality gasoline and with a 100%
negative carbon from miscanthus grass. We will see.
To Fact Check: The statement regards "qualified climate scientists."
There are exceedingly few qualified (read "published") climate
scientists who doubt that anthropogenic global warming is real. Ironically, the
chart on the right side of the Wikipedia page you suggest pretty much tells the
story. About 82% of scientists, and 98% of PUBLISHED CLIMATE SCIENTISTS agree
with the concensus position. Sure, one can always find outliers, there are
Ph.Ds in Biology who support Creationism. That really doesn't create a
"controversy" or "debate." Really, stick a fork in this one,
Casual readers of this thread need to be made aware that there are forces out
there that continually churn out disinformation in the form of "talking
points," which are promulgated by oil and energy interests. These interests
literally have trillions of dollars on the line. Deniers will counter that
global warming advocates also have a vested interest, in the form of government
grants, which they say skews the results in favor of climate change. I ask the
casual reader to compare the amount of money available to the average scientist
in the form of government grants, with the amounts KNOWN to have been paid out
to "outlier" scientists such as Willie Soon by Exxon et al. I
won't tell you the dollar amounts, you can research this yourselves. Then
come back and tell us which side is more credible.