From NASA's website:Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors
to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling
study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the
atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.The study, conducted by Andrew
Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified
the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared
radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such
as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as
providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be
unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect.
The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.
Continued from NASA's website:A companion study led by GISS co-author
Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of
Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of
the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent,
and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is
the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon
dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect.
By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the
radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.The decade just ended was the warmest on record, and this current year is on
track to be the warmest ever. That sounds to me like warming is still going on.
This is one of those letters that makes me slap my palm to my forehead.Scientific understanding of the link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature
goes back to the 1860's.Atmospheric CO2 is today at the highest
level in the last several hundred thousand years, and climbing fast. Isotopic
analysis of atmospheric CO2 proves the increase comes from combustion of fossil
fuels.The claim that there has been no warming in the past 16 years
and therefore global warming isn't real is completely false, and is based
on an egregiously dishonest interpretation of historical temperature data.
It's the same as observing that because a 12 year old isn't
significantly taller a week after his birthday than he was a week before his
birthday that humans don't get taller as they mature.If you get
your "news" about global warming primarily from right wing blogs and AM
radio I can see how you'd think global warming isn't real.If, however, you get your science news from actual professional science
journals, you'll get an accurate, fact-based, and completely different
education on the subject.
Go watch "Chasing Ice." Although I harbor some doubts that even that
compelling documentary about the accelerating worldwide meltdown of glaciers
would sway the author, who seems firmly entrenched in the global climate change
deniers' little camp.
Mr. Thompson,It is nearly impossible for me to reconcile your
statements with reality. You say you have been following the science for
decades yet you make statements so easily shown to be false (or at least half
truths that obscure the real truth). Sorry.
Bottom line: On October 13, 2012, the Daily Mail posted an article crediting the
UK Met Office with saying that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article
went viral this week. One day later, however, the UK Met Office disavowed the
Daily Mail article, saying it did not say global warming had stopped and was not
contacted by the article’s author. According to the UK Met Office and tens
of thousands of other scientists worldwide, global temperatures are still
rising.-earthskyUK Met also stated that the graph used in the Daily
Mail was not theirs, as claimed by Daily Mail. Maybe you need to
follow these things just a bit closer.
Completely false. 2000 to 2010 was the hottest decade in recorded history. That
I figured out what's wrong.It's called "selective
listening".This is common with people who only get their information
from one or 2 very biased sources -- Try changing the channel ! --
only Rush Limbaugh and some at FauxNews along with other college-drop-outs are
denying Global Warming is real.FYI - Rush Limbaugh denies tobacco
causes cancer and lung disease, does that still mean 60 years of Science is
wrong and the Media is disconnected as well?!
And people like this letter writer wonder why they lost the election???The sky is round, we aren't the center of the universe, the sun
doesn't revolve around us, the earth is older than 5,000 years, and the
climate is definitely changing because of man. It's not really
disputable. Their persistence in denying will all but guarantee more
losses in future elections.
The disconnect isn't between science and media. But hey, that's OK. As
long as we can maintain deniability, an illusion such as it is, we can indulge
our inner lazy and not do a thing about it. That's the utah armchair
Saw an interesting study by Simply Statistics, showing how Fox News abuses
statistics to bend the truth. Fascinating, all the things you can prove when you
change the baseline or axis on charts or change the scale to make a decrease
look like an increase.Oh, and the earth is flat.
To the auther: Please list 5 sources that support your claim.
Gullibility is alive and well in Utah.
If there was ever a reason for the Senate to ratify the UN treaty to protect
those with disabilities it is this letter.
To "Kalindra" here are some sources:"Greenhouse effect
is a myth, say scientists" UK Daily Mail"Greenhouse effect
is a myth, say scientists" from Cambridge Chronical"1930s
photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today" UK Register"New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"
Forbes"Past warming shows gaps in climate knowledge - study"
Reuters"Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again" WSJ"The sun shines some light on global warming orthodoxy" National
Post"The Great Global Warming Fizzle" WSJ"Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer" UK Register"Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming
Theory" American Thinker"Global Warming: Scientists'
Best Predictions May Be Wrong" Science DailyOk liberals, are
those sufficient to determine that climate change is a natural thing, or at best
man has little to do with it. Do you also see that the climate models are
wrong, and have yet to give accurate results?
No link? You have got to be kidding! Ice cores, which date back tens of
thousands of years show the that cooling and warming fluxuations coincide with
CO2 levels. I suggest you go see "Chasing Ice" about a photographer, who
was a global warming skeptic. The real disconnect is between science
and conservative media.
Blah blah, but these same people just know that Obama was born in Kenya, tax
cuts increase revenue and that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear bomb hidden
somewhere.They knew all that without proof or consensus but now need
the last few scientists employed by the oil companies to agree with the 99.99%
that don't work for Big Oil that see the link in burning fossil fuel and
climate change. When will a consensus be necessary for their own tin
foil hat theories?
To "nonceleb" you are falling for the trap. There is a difference
between believing in climate change and believing in man made climate change.I have not heard of any credible scientist that says that the global
climate is not changing. The dispute is what is causing the change. It is man
caused or a natural cycle?The interesting thing about the two
viewpoints is that the people who believe that climate change is natural believe
that the climate should change, while the people who believe that man is the
cause of the climate change want it to remain constant (contrary to past
RedShirt,You're quoting opinion pieces and the right wing echo
chamber of denialist talking points - all of which have been thoroughly refuted
by actual climate science. Are Forbes, The Daily Mail or the WSJ climate
science journals? Not remotely.But, you do quote an article from
Science Daily. Good for you. Did you bother to actually read the entire article?
Is there _anything_ in the article that resembled the authors saying "and
therefore anthropogenic global warming is not happening"? Nope.Moreover, here's what the article's primary author, Dr. Gerald
Dickens, said in a 2009 TV interview on the subject of his research, "As far
global warming, that is just a huge problem. I can give you my own personal
opinions. I think it’s going to take a radical view of a change in
lifestyle, as well as new technologies. And it’s really going to take a
combination of both."Next time you cite scientists'
research as evidence that global warming isn't man-made or siginificant, I
challenge you to actually email the authors and ask them if whatever
they're saying translates into "I don't believe in global
warming." Let us know their response.
To "Screwdriver" when are the liberals going to realize that scientific
studies are not deemed true by a consensus, but are determined true or at least
mostly true once they meet a 95% confidence interval for their models?If a consensus was all that was needed, then using your logic, the Earth is
flat, the sun revolves around the sun, the speed of sound could not be broken,
man cannot fly, tectonic plates do not exist, women are less capable than men,
non-whites are inferior to whites, washing your hands is irrelevant to spreading
illness, etc...The ironic thing is that by declaring a consensus,
you inhibit actual discovery because you scare the scientists away from
disproving the consensus."In questions of science the authority
of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual"
RedShirt: "I have not heard of any credible scientist that says that the
global climate is not changing. The dispute is what is causing the change. It is
man caused or a natural cycle?"Hmmm... isn't the author of
the letter saying that temperatures _aren't_ going up, that global warming
_isn't_ happening? Isn't that the basis of the whole "no
temperature change in 16 years" theme from the denialists?But
now you're saying that temps _are_ rising, but that it's not human
caused?Yes, significant climate change has in the past been natural.
It's also been very much slower than what we're experiencing now.
The changes we're seeing now are happening tremendously faster
than anything that can be accounted for naturally. And these changes are
accellerating as the feedback cycle between CO2 in the air and temperature
change is amplifying.The "smoking guns" pointing to
anthropogenic global warning are all around you. You just have to recognize them
for what they are.
To "Blue" yes I read the article. Did you? The point is that even the
best scientists don't know what is going on. The article stated "No
one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon
emissions, but a new study suggests scientists' best predictions about
global warming might be incorrect."If the best predictions are
incorrect, why are they incorrect? Do they assume that the role of CO2 is
greater than it truely is? Do those scientists even have an accurate model?Here is the key that your ilk fails to recognize. If the best models
are wrong, why are their conclusions deemed correct?
Your comparison is flawed redshirt. We're not dealing with the middle ages
but a >95% confidence in the scientific method which has over time convinced
a near consensus of climatologists that releasing a great deal of CO2 into the
atmoshere does actually change climate patterns.You are not Galileo
in this scenario but someone like Vincenzo Maculani.The only unknown
phenomenon here is how the oil industry can get you to shill for them completely
unpaid. My solar panels and hybrid save me money. Lots of it. Try to
argue against that.
BlueSalt Lake City, UTSave your breath.RedShirt is
about as hardcare far-right-wing FoxNews Limbaugh Glenn Beck fan as they can
come.The only source for is "information" comes from only
one or 2 biased sources, and only after getting 2 enthusiastic thumbs up from
"The Blaze".Everything else in the world is a distorted,
liberally warped view of the world and isn't real.He has his
guns, gold, and bunker in Southern Utah.He'll be safe - and
we'll all be safe - right where he is.RedShirt - remember, you can come out safely about 120 days after the mushroom clouds
@redshirtthe very fact that every one of your "sources" are
opinion pieces not scientific studies show the error of the letter writers
logic. why is it that the far right always accuses everyone else of the poor
behaviors they are engaging in? [out down the opinion pieces and pick up some
actual scientific studies.
@ RedShirt: Those are not sources - they are newspaper articles and opinion
pieces and many of them have been thoroughly debunked - as have the sources they
cite.Name 5 sources - scholarly scientific journal articles that
show the formulas and data that support your position.You should be
able to find about 24 of them. During 1991 and 2012 that is how many journal
articles were written that reject global climate change or deny that humans are
responsible.On the other hand, there were 13,926 articles written
during that same period that accept global climate change and the premise that
humans are responsible.
To "Blue" you don't understand science. Just because temperatures
have not statistically risen, that does not mean that the climate is stagnant.
The climate consists of more than just temperatures.As for the rate
of change, the Ice Cores from Greenland have shown that the earth has warmed
faster on its own, than what we are currently experiencing. So, the rates is
not an indicator of human involvement. Read about the Younger Dryas event where
global temperatures dropped 10 degrees in less than 50 years. Then rose by 4
degrees in a few years. Man had nothing to do with those changes, yet the
change was faster than our current rate of change.Where is the
evidence. So far you have offered no proof that man is causing any warming.
You are basing your opinion on faulty models.To "Tolstoy" it
is obvious that you didn't read any of them. They are interviews with
scientists who have written the studies. If you had read any of them, you would
see where they reference their work.To "Kalindra" you said
to supply references I supplied more than enough. Go and read them with Tolstoy
then get back with me.
RedShirt: "To "Blue" you don't understand science."Pretty much guarantee you're wrong."The climate
consists of more than just temperatures."True, but climate also
is based on temperatures."Where is the evidence."Would it do any good to show it to you? Melting glaciers? Melting sea ice?
Warming oceans? Thawing permafrost? Ocean acidification? Rapidly changing
ecologies?How about isotopic surveys of carbon in the atmosphere
establishing the burning of coal and oil as the source of what will soon be 400
ppm of CO2 in the air?Tell you what - just Google "NASA Global
Climate Change Evidence." There's plenty there to get you started.
That's a collection of hard scientific evidence assembled by smart,
careful, honest climate researchers.This is a good debate to have
and we need to be thorough and clear about the scientific evidence for manmade
climate change. This matters too much to let it disappear into the smoke and
noise generated by denialists.American public policy on climate
change needs to be based on scientific reality, not distortions invented for
right wing blogs and FOX news by Exxon sponsored "think tanks."
Re: "This is one of those letters that makes me slap my palm to my
Blue, you're fighting a hopeless battle trying to convince some folks about
climate change. (Or any of a couple dozen other issues, for that matter.)Being capable of understanding that kind of thing requires at least some
intellectual capacity. I submit that quality is sorely lacking in those who
refuse to investigate and learn the truth.You will probably never be
able to convince any of them otherwise. And they lack the intelligence to
consider any information beyond what they have been led through gullibility to
There is no proof that climate has been effected by man.The
fallacious "Chasing Ice" does not prove man made climate change.One would need prove the ice has not receded in the past. Which it in
fact has.The fact is Ice natural melts and grows. And has done so
over several year periods. One would also have to prove there is
causal link between man and the ice melting.That has NEVER been
proved.If you base it solely on the basis that two things are both
increasing, then you can show a whole host of silly ans nonsensical things are
causing climate change. You must prove a casual link.It
is disappointing that all left has left is diminutive insults and name
calling toward the right and conservatives.That is not proof either,
but evidence of leftest desperation.Someone who claims to have the
facts on their side has no need of such childishness.
Okay, Truth, then can you PROVE that what you are saying is absolutely true?Can you PROVE that the current period of warming is NOT due to increased
human activity?Can you show us a time anywhere in history during
which there were over 7 billion humans on earth pumping almost immeasurable
quantities of carbon dioxide, water vapor, and various chemicals (most developed
only recently by humans in laboratories) into Earth's thin and delicate
atmosphere?In other words, while you are asking others to prove to
you what is causing global warming, can you PROVE to us that we are NOT the
cause?Go ahead and PROVE us all wrong.
Red Shirt -- have you actually read any of the articles you listed in your post
at 12:49? If you would take the time to read them, you might discover that many
of them DO NOT support your claim. Here is an excerpt from one of them. This
is from the article you list with the title "Past Warming Shows Gap . .
"At present, CO2 levels have already risen from 280 parts per
million to nearly 390 ppm since the Industrial Revolution and could exceed a 70
percent increase during this century, a rate much faster than the
Palaeocene-Eocene event, Zeebe said.While this would cause initial
effects, much worse could follow in the coming decades and centuries as the
oceans, land and atmosphere tried to deal with the higher CO2 levels, he
said."The carbon that we put into the atmosphere right now is
going to stay there for a very long time. Much of it will stay there for tens of
thousands of years." As I said, if you will actually READ the
stuff you're touting, you might make some shocking discoveries.
What we call truth in the world of science is almost as fluid as want
politicians call truth. Surely much of what we believe to be hard science true,
we will change our minds on in the years to come. With that in mind,
being a believer in a God and Savior makes the environmental issue a lot easier
to navigate. We have been given the earth by our loving God, who is all
powerful, with the charge to use what it provides for our needs, and take care
of it. I totally comfortable with a blend of using the resources given us, and
being mindful of the earth's needs, without being chicken little about it.
We do the best we can, and the Omniscient God above will help us when needed.
I also believe that He, in His wisdom, made the carbon dioxide
symbiotic relationship between animal and plant life to help keep things in
balance. As the population grows, the CO2 rises so we can grow enough food to
feed the growing world population.God has been great so far, so I
think I will stick with His plan, and skip the environmentalists' agenda.
To "Blue" you still don't get it. Yes the climate is changing,
just like it always has. The problem that your ilk is having with everything I
have presented is coming up with a scientific study that meets the 95%
confidence interval that links man made CO2 with the warming.Do you
or do you not know of a study that meets that criteria?Since no
study or model meets that criteria, why do you and your ilk insist on believing
the conclusions made from faulty models and studies?Your latest
posts show that you don't understand the issue at all. Please go back and
actually read what I have stated.
Many years ago, I took a Meteorology class at the U of Utah. One thing I learned
& has stuck with me is; the average temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius
since 1850 (the start of the Industrial revolution).Carbon Dioxide
is a by product of coal & was used in Victorian Britain and elsewhere to
power factories. Since then, other hydrocarbons have been used since to keep
industry going. To say there aren't natural cycles in the
temperature would be as fool hardy as saying man does not affect his
environment. Its just a matter of what ratio (natural v man made ) is affecting
Wally West,Great comment.Redshirt et. al.I
am sure the scientific community already understands and has accounted for every
point you mention and thousands of others you and I are not aware of.Christian 24-7,Science is not as fluid as you indicate.True God has given us the earth. He has also given us our brains and bodies.
But we can mess those up. There is no reason to believe we can’t do the
same to the earth (surely our bodies and brains are more sacred than the earth).
It’s the “take care of it” part we seem to be missing. It is
a commandment, not a promise that He will do it for us.As to
balance. What you describe is not seen in other systems. Where we have over
polluted, the system can lose the balance God put into it and become unstable.
He will only protect us from ourselves for so long.We have dominion
(control) over the earth. We can, in fact, change it.the truth,I recall similar arguments about there being no causal links between
smoking and cancer. Many died believing the well-funded campaigns to deny it.
@one old man@Twin LightsIt is up science to prove those
hypotheses. Not me.Science has proved the causal link of carcinogens
causing cancers.Science has NOT proved man made climate change.Just because, supposedly, the average temperature has risen 1 degree
(keeping in mind there iwas no way they could measured the tempurature of the
world in 1850) does not mean it is not natural.The causal link is
everything, and not basing on supposition (just like the bad science of
evolution).You can suppose whatever you want but that is NOT
the truthHolladay, UT@one old man@Twin LightsThe
causal link is everything, and not basing on supposition (just like the bad
science of evolution).You can suppose whatever you want but that is NOT
science.10:17 a.m. Dec. 6, 2012============ So then, ...what is it are you trying to say here, "the truth" that God does not exist?You lost me, quite honestly.And as for "Science" - there's far more physical evidence
supporting evolution, than there is support a 6,000 year old earth. I believe in God, Heis the great Scientist, Evolution is real, and it
took Him 4.5 billion years to get the earth to this stage.So you
There is a complete disconnect between what is going on in the science and this
letter writer. It is well-established that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the
presence of it is responsible for warmer temperatures. It is also
well-established that "no warming in 16 years" is a baseless claim since
every since year in the 2000s was warmer than the 1990s average. That suggests
that there is still warming, and that the reason for the 14 years claim (not 16)
is the fact that 1998 was very anomalously warm due in large part to a strong El
Nino at the time. Doesn't change the fact that even the La Nina years in
the 2000s are above the 1990s average.
@Roland Keyser"The decade just ended was the warmest on record, and
this current year is on track to be the warmest ever. "The
current year is on track to be the warmest for the US. It is, however, only on
pace to be something like 5th or 6th warmest globally if I recall correctly.@Redshirt"Ok liberals, are those sufficient to determine that
climate change is a natural thing, or at best man has little to do with it. Do
you also see that the climate models are wrong, and have yet to give accurate
results?"No, because I study atmospheric science and actually
pay attention to the broad scope of the science rather than just focusing on a
few things the IPCC overestimated (like himalayan glaciers) to notice the things
that are in line with the models or that the IPCC underestimated (arctic sea ice
loss). Some little article in the Daily Mail is not going to make me throw away
my atmospheric science textbooks."the people who believe that
climate change is natural...the people who believe that man is the cause of the
climate change"Any decent climate scientist knows both factors
are at play.
To "atl134" lets get this straight. You said that "the IPCC
overestimated (like himalayan glaciers) to notice the things that are in line
with the models or that the IPCC underestimated (arctic sea ice loss)."
Which means that their model is wrong, and cannot correctly predict outcomes,
but the results taken from the incorrect outcomes are correct?Again,
you say that a bad model can give good results. Since when is that true?
re: LDS Liberal 11:13 a.m. Dec. 6, 2012**And as for
"Science" - there's far more physical evidence supporting
evolution, than there is support a 6,000 year old earth.**What!?
Dinosaur bones are older than 6 millenia? Stop the presses... well the ones
owned by Rupert Murdoch anyway.
@LDS LiberalAs I have said it is up science to prove scientific
hypotheses.Scienece has not or can not proved or disproven God.I NEVER said the earth was 6000 years Old, that is just the
interpretatioon of some who have tried to put disparate scriptures together
that may not go together. I personally do not believe it. 'Create'
is more properly translated as "Organize" which means existing
material, and we have not told concerning previous earth state or the existing
material.But back to climate change, science proposes it is man
caused, science must prove it is.So far all it has is suppostion
and conjecture, and linking things where there is no provan link other than
assumption.So let us stop with this childish twisting of words and
putting non-written words in other mouths and the feigning of not understanding.
@Redshirt1701I'm saying that there are people who focus only on the
things the IPCC got outside their uncertainty limits, whereas there are plenty
of predictions that are still trending within the uncertainty bounds. They just
don't get attention in media because they aren't outliers in either
direction (like himalayan ice, or Arctic sea ice). I'm saying to not throw
out the baby with the bathwater. The models aren't perfect, but just
because they can't seem to get a good grip on one thing or another
doesn't mean that they're completely useless.
"Which means that their model is wrong, and cannot correctly predict
outcomes, but the results taken from the incorrect outcomes are correct?"Redshirt, do you understand the science, or how science works? And
I'm really not being snarky, I'm just saying that a lot of your
comments really don't seem to show much if an understanding of how science
works. I'm not saying you have to just agree with everything science says,
science does make mistakes, and it is constantly correcting itself. (One of the
beautiful things about it.) but do you understand the process, and how to apply
it to your outlook on the world? I'm also wondering how much of
the actual climate research you look at, not just the stuff critical of human
caused climate change, but the stuff that actually supports it, and the stuff
that argues against the deniers stance. And are you looking at it objectively?
And yes, before you ask, I do look at a lot of the information the deniers put
out. Cause it really doesn't seem like you are really aware of
the subtleties of the argument. I'm just saying.
RedShirt, Science can not explain something as common as
"magnets".Does that mean we haven't learned what they
can do, or how we are affected by them?of course not.You
really don't know what Science is, and what it is not.
To "atl134" if what they are saying is outside the uncertainty limits,
that means that their model is WRONG.Also, the strength and number
of hurricains have been calculated, temperature rises have been miscalculated,
along with the effects of water vapor and clouds.With the climate
change models, the only thing that they get right is that the climate changes.
They show no link to manmade CO2, nor do they show that man's influence
contributes any significant change on a global scale.The problem
that you, "LDS Liberal", "mark" and your ilk, don't realize
that science has standards. For papers to be published in scientific journals
for hard sciences they depend on a 95% confidence interval to establish that
something is mostly correct, or accurate. The only way that climate model
studies have been published is by ignoring the established rule of 95% CI.To "LDS Liberal" do you think that if we can't explain a
simple magnet that we can model a complex system like a planet?You
are the one who does not understand science. If you did, you would realize that
if a study has significant flaws, then then the conclusions drawn from it are
@Redshirt1701"if what they are saying is outside the uncertainty
limits, that means that their model is WRONG."The vast majority
of their projections are within the uncertainty limits. For someone who rants
about 95% confidence, you sure seem unable to accept the idea that 95% is not
Professor Phil Jones (yes, the same Jones who was caught up in the
“ClimateGate” scandal – which, btw, never turned up any
evidence of scientific misconduct), was often quoted as saying that the data
from 1995-2009 did not show significant warming. It did show warming, which was
statistically significant at the 90% confidence level – but not the 95%
that is the accepted cutoff. Well, after adding in the data for 2010, the
warming trend for this period is now, according to Jones, significant at the 95%
level.. . . sorting through all of this noise in the climate data
is not for the amateur. Of course, now that climate change is a
politically-charged issue, the internet if full of exactly that – amateur
analysis of the data. This is definitely an area where substituting one’s
own analysis for the consensus of scientific opinion is probably not a good
idea.- Steven Novela
A lot of the comments validate the observation in the original letter. Most
people are completely unaware of the work of people like John Christy, Roy
Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKittrick, Roger Pielke Sr.,
Roger Pielke Jr., Judith Curry, and others who object to the politicized tactics
of those who declare the debate is over (it isn't), that there is a
consensus (there isn't), and who have created the appearance of science by
unduly influencing the editorial process in the scientific and popular media.
There is, in fact, credible science refuting the claims of alarmists like James
Hansen and Gavin Schmidt of NASA, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, and others.Most of us get it that we've been in a warming trend, which was
preceded by a cooling trend, with a warming trend before that. Somebody please
prove that it's due to atmospheric CO2 using data instead of computer
models, and that mitigation (if even possible) is somehow preferable to
adaptation. Until then, please stop with the carbon tax and green energy