No field of science is ever completely settled. We don't know every detail
of how gravity works, but that does not mean we should question the heliocentric
theory of the solar system. The same is true for global warming, we don't
know every detail, but we do know that it's happening, and we know that
carbon emissions are the most significant cause.
We have scientific evidence from atmospheric monitoring posts that the
world's CO2 level is higher now than any time in the last 10 million years.
You can watch the arctic ice pack, the Greenland glacier, and for that matter,
every glacier on the planet melt away practically in front of your eyes. Those
glaciers were over 10,000 years old, and now they're disappearing. The sea
level is rising. The added water vapor in the atmosphere, and the loss of an
anchor point for the arctic vortex, is resulting in extraordinarily violent
weather, with increasing frequency that seems to be accelerating.And
you want to deny that any of this has anything to do with dumping greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere? Nothing to do with digging up and "liberating"
all that carbon that Mother Nature took hundreds of millions of years to
sequester beneath the surface so we could have a temperate biosphere?What is wrong with you? On what possible basis can you simply close your eyes
to the evidence right in front of us? Industry financing?
"Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have
been warming over the last 15 years. "Actually natural forcings,
like the weakest solar cycle in a century, suggested we should've been
cooling the past decade if there were no anthropogenic climate change, but
instead we had the warmest decade in the modern record.
Science isn't ever settled, on that point he's right. But that
doesn't mean there can't be consensus on something. Consensus means
that given the evidence, there is currently no reason not to believe something
is the way it is. Gravity is a great example, and we've found it's
not as simple as originally thought, but that doesn't change its
fundamental reality. Consensus comes into play when the vast majority of
scientists studying a given phenomenon agree that it's likely, unless new
evidence can be provided to the contrary. Currently, the scientific community
has reached consensus that global climate change is real, and it's likely
man is the contributing factor.I think it's amusing that people
believe people can't have that big of an impact. Humans have shown
tremendous ability to completely demolish entire ecosystems throughout the
world. It's true that we won't destroy the whole Earth, but the
process of regeneration is one that won't be conducive to our current form
There's a vice grip on relenting to the impact of new information from the
ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party. This is no longer about
political persuasion and resisting drastic in favor of gradual change in
society, it's a blatant disregard for those engaged in scientific inquiry.
When facts get in the way of the narrative, drop the facts first.
"On Feb. 20, Cruz told CNN’s chief congressional correspondent Dana
Bash that global warming is not supported by scientific data." As to global
warming itself - who needs science? The Arctic Ocean will soon be an open sea
at least half of the year. The Greenland ice sheet is melting. The permafrost
in Alaska is thawing out - it isn't perma any more. Sea level is rising at
an alarming rate, threatening coastal communities and sea level countries. I
can only conclude that Cruz is not only ignorant of science period, he
can't make an unbiased observation of the physical world.Cruz
also demonstrates the downside of religion in our civic life (though it has an
upside too). Cruz like his father simply turns to the Bible when the real world
gets too tough.
Some part of the atmospheric science is certain, including the near certainty
that CO2 levels have risen over the past century. The respectable theory
postulates that as this increases it will lead to a dramatic increase in global
temperatures. However, the theory did not anticipate that global
temperatures have not risen over the last 15 years. Surprisingly, there are a
few glaciers that have grown. The uncertain aspect of this issue is that
extraordinary volcanic eruptions could reverse this trend overnight.Beyond the question of settled science, the political solution proposed
(national carbon credits) to solve the problem is the most questionable aspect
Krauthammer “There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that
science is settled, static, impervious to challenge,” Well of course, all
science is theory. But in the sciences and in mathematical statistics we deal
with likelihood. In math stat we actually have likehihood functions to express
the likehihood something is a correct hypothesis. From this point of view,
global warming is pretty close to being an established fact, like 99.99%.
As with everything - the far left uses fuzzy logic to promote political causes.
Global warming is one of those things. We get some half baked far fetched
hysteria garbage from a known liar - Al Gore - and the left starts foaming at
the mouth and barking and running in circles that the polar ice caps are melting
and we have to shut down all coal fired plants and all drive electric smart
cars. Anyone who dares cast doubt is labeled a flat earth idiot. Same ole same
ole. Is it any wonder there is such a HUGE rift between the left and right in
Republican science is the science you do to make yourself feel good, or to make
sure you don't have to do anything at all. Or, maybe it's the OJ
defense strategy; a shred of doubt is all you need to discredit everything.
@ A Quaker:You've made some debatable contentions as if they
were settled science. You provided a classic example of what this article is all
about. There was probably higher CO2 levels during prehistoric times
when there were massive volcanic eruptions contributing to the demise of
dinosaurs. Other than that, how are CO2 levels determined from 10,000,000
years ago? Theories and guesstimates don't equate to established,
undebatable science. It's truly interesting how some people
perceive their own viewpoints as "settled science" when they no longer
desire to debate that viewpoint or have a hard time doing so.Dr.
Charles Krauthammer is a very intellegent and well educated man. His assertion
to claims of settle science being a mockery to true science ring true.
Scientific advancements are often driven from debate, even if one side
can't see beyond their own personal perceptions. Many current
environmentalists (and commenters on this page) seem totally closed minded to
this.A person can be a true believer in man-made climate change
without having to claim it's settled science. The obvious fact that
additional data could eventually surface to either support or repute belies the
"settled science" assertion.
@ Esquire:What established facts can you offer as proof that
"99% of science" agrees on this issue... as you stated? It would seem
you are trying to bolster your argument with made-up stats.@
Marxist:Same question and assertion applies to you with your
"99.99% established fact" statement. Where did you get that statistic
from? Since when do made-up statistics from the top of one's head help to
settle anything? It simply causes that person to lose credibility.Having to revert to such tactics demonstrates this is far from being a fully
decided issue... except to closed minded individuals incapable to even seeing
anything beyond than their own viewpoints.Also, you state that
"Cruz often turns to the Bible whenever real life gets too tough". What
proof have you of that statement? In actuality, he seldom turns to the Bible in
political debates or anywhere else except possibly in church. Made up statements
in an attempt to discredit others with whom you disagree is subversive and
juvenile.This issue (and article) could and should be debated a lot
"Only the Sith deal in absolutes."
God created the earth to provide a place for the human family to learn, progress
and improve. God first created the earth and all living things spiritually, and
all living things have great worth in His eyes.The earth and all
things on it should be used responsibly to sustain the human family. However,
all are stewards — not owners — over this earth and its bounty and
will be accountable before God for what they do with His creations.Approaches to the environment must be prudent, realistic, balanced and
consistent with the needs of the earth and of current and future generations,
rather than pursuing the immediate vindication of personal desires or avowed
rights. The earth and all life upon it are much more than items to be consumed
or conserved. God intends His creations to be aesthetically pleasing to enliven
the mind and spirit, and some portions are to be preserved. Making the earth
ugly offends Him.The state of the human soul and the environment are
interconnected, with each affecting and influencing the other. The earth, all
living things and the expanse of the universe all eloquently witness of God.
Svante Arrhenius showed that increased carbon in the atmosphere would lead to
higher temperatures. He did this in 1896. All Gore had no influence on his
@CopaceticDr. Krauthammer also knows who butters his bread. Scientist
know the CO2 levels from 10,000 year ago by taking ice samples that were created
during this era. Yes science results can change and be altered. But we have
alot of evidence at this time that indicates the earth is warming at an
incredible rate. Also, 98% of climate scientist (not Fox politcal analysts)
agree with this assessment and think man's CO2 emissions have played a role
in it. Lets leave science to the scientist and politcs to our friends at Fox.
When Al Gore says we have "Consensus".. we have consensus.But I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.According to Webster it means "a general agreement about something : an
idea or opinion that is shared by ALL the people in a group". So unless the "group" is defined as Al Gore and people who agree with
him... we don't have full "Consensus" yet.Not even all
climate scientists claim to have consensus on this. A majority vote is not the
same as "Consensus". Even a super-majority. Consensus means
"ALL" in the group.We may not have consensus... But we do
have enough evidence that we need to do better on our emissions to start paying
more attention and doing everything we can to limit or eliminate what we consume
and what we emit.So I think we should individually do everything we
can to limit our consumption and our pollution. But we should NOT try to use
this as an excuse to establish the new world order, meaning Global Governance
(by a group of non-elected people who may or may not represent the will of the
My post was taken from lds.org.Might I also add Mormon 8:31
"Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the
face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and
deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations;"And
again Mormon 8:38 "O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell
yourselves for that which will canker".It seems that ancient
prophets who saw our time were more concerned with the pollution of the soul,
and the pollution of the soil.We should concern ourselves with
exercising appropriate stewardship of all that God has given us. We must
maintain the earth, the land, the water, the air, and all things to keep them
beautiful.But at the same time we must also keep the commandments of
God. Honesty, morality, chastity, sexual purity, pure thoughts, purity of
heart, caring for the poor among us, not consuming and spending more than we can
(debt), kindness, love, charity. None of us are perfect. But we
can keep our environment clean in every way.
The impact of global warming in the region has been controversial since an
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report wrongly claimed in 2007 that
glaciers in most of the greater Himalayan range could vanish by 2035The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has
found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern
Himlaya, are in fact advancing Scientists have measured new ice in
Montana's Glacier National Park and atop Colorado's Front Range
mountains. In northwest Wyoming, there is photographic evidence of snowfield
growthAll seven glaciers on California's Mount Shasta are
growing. This includes the state's largest, the three-mile-long Whitney
Glacier. Three of Mount Shasta's glaciers have doubled in size since
1950.The Nisqually Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. The Emmons
Glacier on Mt. Rainier is growing. Glaciers on Glacier Peak in northern
Washington are growing.
@ FT:You missed the age question by 1000x. Ice glaciers are
admittedly 10,000 years old. But Quaker is claiming we have more CO2 levels now
than anytime in the last 10,000,000 (that's ten million) years. A person can't make conclusions from a vastly earlier era using data from
sources only 1/1,000 of that timeframe. In other words, it's impossible for
ten thousand year old glaciers to reveal anything from an era nearly ten million
years before they existed.Where exactly does your 98% statistic come
from? Hopefully, that wasn't another arbitrary figure from the top of your
head. If so, it means absolutely nothing. A valid source would be much more
helpful to establish any credibility. BTW: Dr. Krauthammer has
previously written more science related articles that most people commenting on
this post have probably even read. Perhaps you missed the part in the article
which quoted him as saying he doesn't take a stance on either side of the
global warming debate. He simply contends that it's absurd for either side
to claim any "settled science".So who exactly is it that
"butters your bread"?
@Copacetic: That big dinosaur extinction event was 66 million years ago.As for how they determine historical CO2 levels, you'll have to ask
a scientist. I know it has something to do with ice core samples, fossilized
plankton, petrified tree rings, limestone formation and things like that.I did look up the articles again (in both National Geographic and WSJ)
about the 400 ppm levels recently measured, and it referred to the Pleiocene as
the last epoch that had levels that high. The Pleiocene was from 3 to 5 million
years ago, not 10 million as I thought I had remembered reading, so please
accept this correction to my post.@2Bits: You're confusing the
notion of consensus with the notion of unity. Having sat through many a Quaker
business meeting, I can assure you they're not the same thing.Besides, who are you going to believe? Civil servant government scientists
and university researchers from every Western nation on the one hand, or public
relations flacks and hired spokesmodel scientists for the fossil fuel industries
on the other? Who's got money on the line in this "debate?"
Settled or not... we all know we need to take care of this planet (it's a
commandment).So we should do whatever we can to care for it. But
we need to get over this attitude that if somebody else doesn't get as
radical about their conservation or their environmentalism as YOU do... I am
terrible.We can all have differing levels of radicalization on
this... and still be OK.It doesn't mean I WANT polluted air, or
I LOVE polluted water, or I HATE the planet.We all want clean air,
clean water, and no... nobody wants to destroy the earth.If we can
accept that.... we can all get along a lot better, and focus on making progress,
instead of just shouting past each other (when we all really want the same
thing, just different paths).
A Quaker,I got my definition of "Consensus" from Webster's
dictionary (online). So maybe he got it wrong?Or maybe it is you
who has the wrong definition of "Consensus" in his head."Consensus" doesn't mean a majority vote, or most people mostly
agreeing. It means all are in agreement (at least that's what
Webster's Dictionary says).But I acknowledge that
"Consensus" is an oft mis-used word.So by the definition they
evidently use in Climate Science... maybe it does just mean most people
agree.Regardless... we all need to work, not just talk.As long as I am doing my best... I think that's all you can expect of me.
I'm not responsible for how you, or everybody else in the world acts.
Pretending you can control the world, or how much they pollute, is delusional
(IMO).And thinking if anybody isn't as radical as you are about
it they are wrong... is a thought process that leads only to frustration. We all like the earth. Nobody wants it to be destroyed.
Don't try your Jedi mind tricks on me Krafty, it only works on
@ CopaceticKrauthammer is a medical Doctor. I would take his opionion on
a medical issue over a climate scientist but not when it comes to global climate
change. The 98% number of climate scientist who agree upon CO2's impact to
the earth's changes are easy to find. Just google it. My issue with
conservatives or liberals is they always think to know more than anyone else.
What they have is opinions. When it comes to science I'll leave it to the
people who practice it and have to have their findings supported by their peers.
When it comes to politics I'll go to politcans. Krauthammer is an
entertainer as well as a Doctor and he knows Fox's audience and management.
He'd be out of a job if he came out and refuted the climate deniers.
Straddling the fence as he is let's him hold on to his job while providing
some type of credence to him being a man of science and deep thought.
Tell these guys to get Utahans to ignore the inversions.
Opinions is like the weather. Any one know a man of principles.
The consensus of scientists has been used as a political tool to stir people up
to a false notion that we have some great influence over our planet.The problem with this is it takes away from the science of climate change. Our
climate has been changing all the time. Our earth is not going to be the same in
every spot. And it is important to look at how we are effecting climate change
so we can make well thought out adjustments to better care for our
environment.Unfortunately the climate conspiracy theorists have
gotten a hold of this science and are using it to form some political movement
to turn everyone but the very elite back to the stone age (insert Al Gore's
extravagant life style anywhere). They exaggerate claims, falsify and fabricate
data, and coerce and abuse peoples dedicated work to prop up their political
movement. They are even going as far as attempting to silence those who have
different scientific findings then their limited world view.Climate
alarmists have lost their credibility and are taking down the very important
work of climatologist the world over.
“'There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that
science is settled, static, impervious to challenge,' Krauthammer
wrote.”---------------------------------This is a point
I've been making for at least the last couple of decades.The
puritanical kind of mentality that has risen from those who are arrogant enough
to declare anyone voicing a note of skepticism regarding the "science"
of global warming/change/etc. is so utterly antithetical to true science it is
disgusting to any true scientist, of which I'm one.If
"consensus" were the only criterion for determining scientific
"fact" (i.e., "settled science") then the evidence in 1998
showing that the universe is not only expanding but that the expansion is
**accelerating** would have had to be discarded.As any student of
physics 101 knows, the force of gravitation as we knew it for the prior couple
hundred years (not much more "settled" than that) simply didn't
allow for such a thing. It was **impossible**! Yet, the evidence proved
otherwise and so all the "settled" science that precluded such fact is
now in the process of revision, using mysterious terms like **dark** (as in,
inexplicable) matter/energy. It's all very unsettling.
Wow, what a feeding fest. It is amazing though to see a topic like
"climate change" that is about first of all an earth that is over 4
billion years old, and human influence that likely is about 50,000 years old,
when agriculture started, discussed within the context of a decade and ice being
added to some glaciers in the last couple of years. It's
actually disheartening though to see something as important and complex as our
environment reduced to biblical stories, political talking points, and random
observations, all the time choking on air that you can taste.
The necessary piece of evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes global warming would
be a mathematical correlation between changes in atmospheric CO2 and global
temperature. But there is no correlation. A lot of very smart people have spent
30 years and billions of dollars trying to find it, but without success. There
is no amount of anecdotal evidence - which is about all we ever see any more on
the subject - that will overcome this simple fact, that based on the empirical
data, atmospheric CO2 does not drive global temperature.
The idea about the effects of increasing CO2 on the atmosphere has existed in
the scientific community for years. Al Gore just publicized it. If
we continue to pollute the earth it eventually will be unfit to live on. If we
continue to reproduce we will use up every resource we need. The earth will
survive just fine. We however will be extinct.
Here we go again! It I a all going to come down to two men huddled around the
last berry bush? This crowd ought to do something constructive in life besides
looking at every cloud in the sky and counting the number of water drops in a
wait...Al Gore said it was a settled science. Isn't that enough?? The man
invented the internet I'm certain his global warming hysteria is just as
accurate. Hey...how about that heat wave on the east coast!!! If anything
liberals are predictable.
Below is a quote of facts from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).Read it and judge for yourself. Thicker on top, more down underFebruary 5, 2014"Arctic sea ice extent remained lower than
average in January, and just within two standard deviations of the long-term
average. Arctic temperatures remained above average, even as cold winter air
embraced North America. The retention of more sea ice in September 2013 has
increased the overall thickness and volume of the ice pack compared to recent
years. Antarctic sea ice remains significantly more extensive than average."