I'm not completely certain I understand the visceral rage and some of the irrational responses that many of the global warming deniers express. It is plainly not a well-reasoned, lucid disagreement.
Most of these people, as far as I know, don't own coal fired power plants, nuclear facilities or want to burn down the Amazon rainforest to create soybean plantations.
It's difficult at this point in time to work up any sympathy for those now whining about what they consider a "lack" of balance in the climate change debate. It's nonsense.
For more than seven years we've had a U.S. president that seems to have taken considerable pride in his lack of awareness about almost everything, including an issue like climate change, and who has gone out of his way to thwart, censor, ridicule and deny that climate change is of any real importance.
We've had a Republican led Congress for most of these seven years, who had trouble pronouncing "global warming." So do most of the Republican presidential candidates right now.
Republican Senator James Inhofe (former chairman of the Environmental and Public Works Committee) once said that global warming was the "biggest hoax perpetrated on the American people." Is Inhofe really the best that the voters of Oklahoma can come up with?
We have had years of various front groups funded by Exxon and friends, whose main role in life was to sow confusion about global warming and climate change.
Finally, we've seen an assortment of info-entertainers, especially on FOX News, who have made their bones calling the entire field of climate science essentially a fradulent activity.
Climate scientists, overwhelmingly, believe climate change, which includes global warming, is quite real. They also believe, overwhelmingly, that humankind has contributed to major climate change patterns.
But unlike so many of the feverish fantasies of a lot of the deniers, real science is continually verifying and rechecking conclusions and outcomes. That's one of the reasons it is called science.
Is there debate over the extent of manmade (anthropogenic) influence on climate change? Of course. Do we know exactly how water currents and wind, for example, might affect climate change? No but climate scientists are continually studying it.
Is there debate on the amount of resources that should be devoted to mitigation versus adaptation? It's ongoing. Are new studies and investigations being implemented? Very definitely.
Not only do climate scientists use mathematical modeling to develop hypotheses, but they look at such things as historical records, study satellite data, make glacial melt observations, scrutinize borehole findings along with permafrost melt.
Unlike some of the deniers, climate scientists are interested in long-term climate change not short-term weather variability.
It is time to get on with real debate about a real issue that has the very real potential to make life very unpleasant for all existence on this planet, possibly much sooner than many scientists thought conceivable only a short while ago. We have already lost valuable time because of idiocy.
"Manmade Antarctic Melting, Indeed"
Still haven't had time to research my first real post on climate change, but in the meanwhile here's an excellent article by Steven Milloy - I've included some key quotes below ...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323645,00.html
"Adding to the mix is the most recent IPCC report, which says that the upper ocean adjacent to west Antarctica warmed by 1 degree Celsius from 1951 to 1994. But global surface temperatures actually declined from 1940 to 1976, even as manmade emissions of carbon dioxide dramatically increased."
"The bottom line is there is no established linkage between manmade emissions of greenhouse gases and any melting in the western Antarctic."
Just in the way of a promise
I've decided to finally begin counter-posting on Walter Winch's blog, with rational arguments (also known as facts, with source references to back them up) to refute the idea that any global warming is due to man, specifically due to carbon dioxide produced by man's activities.
I am not interested in ad hominem attacks either by me or to me - if you engage in those, I will ignore you. Rather, attack my arguments, not the messenger. I've had enough of the misinformation I've been viewing in various publications as well as this blog, and it's time to let people know what "non-consensus" facts are.
If you think you can participate in a rational discussion without insults, or emotional appeals, and stay focused on what the science is and are willing to provide your source information for what you say, I welcome you.
I'll try to make my first real post later today - look for "Climate Change: Part 1".
ET
Winch is on target
The science is so overwhelmingly in agreement on this issue. Those in denial are exactly that. No scientific basis other than believing what they want to believe, including the erroneous notion that global warming is a "liberal" conspiracy. Go ahead with such rants. It only perpetuates the lunacy.
At the very basic, a simple elementary science experiment shows that trapped CO2 can also trap heat. We know it. We also know that atmospheric CO2 has gone from about 280 ppm in early 1800s to nearly 400 now. The fastest rise in recorded history going back 600,000 years. We know it. The result, warming temps, particularly in the northern latitudes. We already know it. The result, melting ice caps and land ice masses, more water and land surface, less sun reflection, more heat retention in oceans, more altered ocean currents which affect climate patterns. What's so hard about that? If one can get beyond this "liberal Gore" crap perpetuated by the screamers and deniers, if one can open their mind for even an hour to read, they might understand. But obviously for some, refusal rules. Unfortunate.
hoax of global warming?
Are you the best that KC has to offer? The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma is a fine Man and I resent your portrayal of him as not the finest. You are a typical Liberal, if anyone disagrees with you or express a different opinion, then the name calling begins and you are ready to organize a lynching party. YOU BELIEVE IN THE RIGHTS OF ANYONE TO speak their mind until they don't march with you and then they have no opinion or right to express themselves. Liberals do it to conservatives on Religion, polution education and on-and-on. We don't agree and we are hmophobe, right-wing. ANything that has the level of thought precess of al gore whose family still owns STOCK in EXON corp and then crys about the big oil companies is a liar and cheat and stupid. I like that, maybe I could become a lib? NA!
Much more money on the other side.
All of these "scientists" work from government or private grants. If there is no global warming crisis there is no funding. I am always amazed how one sided uninformed parrots always accuse the people that disagree with them as being paid off. The global warming alarmists get no federal or private funding if they admit there is no crisis. Compare the money Exxon supposedly spends on global warming studies compared to that of all governments. I am guessing it is not even close.
Climate Change Deniers
Well said. Most of the denier dissembling amounts to no more than the circulated talking points of the fossil fool lobby.
It's astonishing when you take a stroll through the truly arcane lists of names and their interconnection with 'non-profit' (ha, what a joke!) 'free enterprise' foundations. The more you look the closer and more tangled the links are between the global polluters club and the front groups pushing the denier cause.
The fossil fuel anti-AGW spin amounts to no more than reckless disinformation in the service of the very narrow and short-term interests of a handful of people who want to profit by imposing the burdens of their hazards onto others.
The denier lobby believes ordinary Americans are, by and large, too stupid to realise they are being duped. It's up to those ordinary Americans to prove them wrong.
Fran
consensus
The greatest obstacle to scientific advancement is scientific consensus
That quote is from a presentation given by Dr Robert Johnson. He is not funded by the oil industry.
Balance
Time to add some balance to the Star's blog roster. Let's get away from a man who demonizes his opponents and uses ad hominem attacks:
...irrational...
...screamers...
...front groups...
...deniers... (allusion to Holocaust denial)
...idiocy...
...feverish...
...had trouble pronouncing "global warming."...