What Does A Climate Scientist Think Of Glenn Beck's Environmental-Conspiracy Novel?

Gee, Mr. Mann has a problem with the book - what a shock. IMHO, Michael would be better served figuring out new ways of "Hiding the decline".

Mr. Mann and other "writers" for Propaganda Pseudo Science make some nice coin from the lecture and book circuit promoting climate change. Not much money to be made showing the truth. Basically Mr. Man makes a living of promoting climate change.
Man made climate change only happens with air conditioning and on small areas GLOBAL man made climate change is still just a dream.

@imikeh,

Humanity has raised CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. CO2 traps long wave radiation. More long wave radiation means more heat in the atmosphere. Now, using simple A=B, B=C so A must = C aritmetic, we can see that humans have changed the amount of heat in the atmosphere*. We can debate about how much 'till Kingdom come, but to say humans have not affected the global climate is simply absurd.

As for the money comment, I would much rather believe someone who make a couple grand for selling his books on climate change than those people who spend millions upon millions 'informing' the public that their billion dollar oil company can't possibly be the cause, and those people making a few bucks off a book are just in it for the money.

*Yes, I know it's far more complicated than this, but this is the TL;DR version.

This is a disgraceful smear article against someone the author simply disagrees with. Why this garbage is given a platform is beyond me. Popsci has officially become an opinion page and is therefore being removed from my bookmarks and RSSfeed. sad.

@imikeh

Care to support your opinion with credible sources and facts?

It frustrates me that people continue to discuss how they don't believe in man made climate change. Putting political agendas aside, I'd like people to actually discuss why they don't believe in man made climate change, and what evidence compels them to believe that. I encourage people who have strong opinions that man doesn't contribute to global warming to read peer reviewed empirical research on the subject (even if it is very difficult to understand) and refrain from using Internet websites of biased organizations to formulate opinions. There are plenty of reviews out there that people can access free of charge that discuss the matter, which may be easier to comprehend for the layman. I am in now way trying to condemn people's opinions in a comment section of popsci. I am rather trying to promote good scientific practice and encourage people to be responsible citizens by looking into what is considered "credible" in the scientific community.

I found this to be an excellent and well written article.

It's seems there is confusion about what "hide the decline" actually means or implies. It does NOT refer to temperature data. It refers to tree ring proxies that typically correlate well with temperatures. The "trick" involves plotting reconstructed temperatures along with other proxies to find correlations.

This decline in tree rings (again, not temperature or other proxies) has been openly discussed in scientific literature (http://tinyurl.com/b3xohqc).

The fact is, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change (http://tinyurl.com/a78wy4v), and it's not because they're getting rich off of it (have you ever met a climate scientist?). It's because the evidence in favor of it is absolutely unequivocal. Global warming is happening, and humanity is affecting it.

I think this is a great article, not because it was well written, but because it sums up the climate debate.

Two people (writer of book/writer of article) with different opinions and a belief system. Yes, opinions and beliefs. Both sides. If you don't think derived reason from scientific theory is a belief, then your not questioning enough.

Each side takes leaps of faith(not in the religious sense) with their logic or reason. Then gets angry at the other side for lack of debate on the topic.

Here is a comment to the authors: you both sound the same.

(1) We can all agree that Pop Sci is a left leaning rag (left leaning for some time, raggish in the last few months of shoddy writing and abusive diatribes). So, them printing a contrarian review is expected.

(2) As far as contrarian reviews go, this one was modest and better thought out that you would expect if it had been written by Nosowitz or other common contributors to this publication.

(3) Some of the criticisms are valid. The "humans as batteries" thing is ridiculous (and was, even in the Matrix).

(4) Some of the criticism are not valid. Ghost writing is very common, not just in "media driven publications" like Mr. Beck's writings, but in books "written" by Presidents or other famous/important people as well as in genre literature (Stephen King, for example, has had many ghost writers through the years to increase production). Wholesale purchasing of titles is less common, but does still regularly occur in fiction where there is a plethoria of good writers, but only a few brand names that assure the publisher of sales.

(5) World Bank is hardly a bastion of free enterprise economics. They are, however, heavily vested in microloans in 3rd world nations who would suffer the brunt of climate change. Some climate change would actually move the grainbelt northward - expanding the amount of landmass useful for cultivation into Canada and Siberia, which would result in an increase of total food/wealth production for the globe - just not for the 3rd world.

(6) What part of the environmental movement is not about telling people what they cannot do (or must do)? Concrete cells are a bit of hyperbole, but as boring a symbol as that might be, it isn't a hard one to interpret.

(7) Contradicting a consipracy theorist (the greenies are out to get us) is more convicing without a consipracy theory (the koch demons are funding it).

(8) Sustainability is a terrible goal - because it leads to stagnation. Needs, shortcommings, peril, and even greed drive innovation. Imagine if the world had stopped with sustainability before the iron plow, the mechanical tractor, or the Green Revolution. We would still be at the whim of famine and drought, most of our potential advances would have been wasted in the minds of men tilling the soil by hand, and we would still be one space rock away from extinction (these days we might just save ourselves).

(9) Mr. Beck thanks you for the attention. His book was going to sell millions anyways, but the more people who disdain it and denegrate it, the more money he will make on it (remember - media driven publication).

Intellectuals used to make comments here. It seems that POPSCI has become a sounding board for Becks followers. Your ability to read and regurgitate books by Beck doesn't make you intelligent.

I don't Understand why many people seem to think that climatologists are out to get them. They are the people who know the most about this subject. why would anyone take the unsubstantiated claims of a talking head like Glen Beck over the peer reviewed research of an expert like Dr. Mann? There is very little argument in the scientific community that humans have produced enough CO2 to effect the global climate and without a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions there will be negative consequences for the global population. Why Would we ignore these experts and their research?

This is analogous to taking your sick child to 10 doctors and having 9 of them tell you he has cancer and needs to start chemo immediately. Yes, the chemo will cause many negative effects in the short term, but it gives that child a chance to survive in the long term. any good parent in this situation would ignore the 1 doctor who told him his kid was fine and immediately start treatment. Why should we act differently when the entire global population is at risk?

@jargund Completely agree, popsci used to have a lot of great articles. Now so much of it is just opinion, it's lost a lot of credibility from more than a few of it's reader. I agree it was simply a smear article. I walked away from this article with no more information than when I started it, that's just wasteful.

I believe in climate change, but I'm not about to smear anyone that doesn't agree. You want to change people's minds on climate change popsci? Then more articles with less opinions. No one's stupid here, we all saw it was a smear article on a fictional book from a conservative. Well guess what, I'm a Republican that has read popsci for over a decade. RSS deleted until you work your problems out.

State of Fear

I like the concept of a real scientist ripping into works of popular fiction. "Bad Astronomy" had a good run there. I would however, first, like it to be on a book (or movie) that I would actually read, and second, not be agenda driven.

So, less preaching more science please.

I did a little math to get an idea how much humans actually affect green house gas.

Lets be clear this is rough math and isn't using data I collected from my own science experiments but is from digging on the internet.

Co2 is the main gas we humans have been accused of killing this world with, so lets measure that.

To properly measure how we cause global warming, we need to measure our output of those gases into our atmosphere.

Source : Historical response of SI for European tree birches (B. pendula and B. pubescens) to global atmospheric CO2 increase from 287 to 356 ppmv. The training set includes mean SI values for herbarium material (•) collected in The Netherlands and Denmark ...
The reconstructed CO2 record shows a fluctuating pattern (Fig. ?(Fig.2).2). Inferred CO2 minima with averages of ˜275 ppm by volume (ppmv) occur at ˜8,680 years B.P. and between ˜8,430 and ˜8,040 years B.P.; prominent maxima with values of 300–325 ppmv occur at ˜8,640 years B.P. and between ˜7,920 and ˜7,270 years B.P. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129389/)

So from this we can assert that a long time ago the Co2 has reached an excess of 300+ ppm. Currently, as in from data taken in 2007 ... the Co2 ppm rose from 280 pre-industrial age to 380. And in a study done in 2011 is now a wopping 390.(ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt)
Of this, the associated contribution from humans or Anthropogenic contribution is more like 35% of that increase. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm)

So in essense we have increased the CO2 from 280 to 390, or since 300 to 325 has been found in a natural enviroment.
280 is 71.79% of 380 or an increase of 28.21%.

So if we have Anthropogenic contribution 28.21% of the increase to the CO2 levels, which is highly doubtful considering that natural causes could have added to this increase.

According to a study done in 2005 gageing gase's contribution to the green house effect. (http://web.archive.org/web/20060330013311/http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf)

Gas Formula Contribution(%)
Water vapor H2O 36 – 72%
Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26%
Methane CH4 4 – 9%
Ozone O3 3 – 7%

As you see CO2 is responsible for roughly 26% of total greenhouse production. And this is with clear skys in mind. Cloudy skys assessment puts CO2 down to 22%.

So we then take our Anthropological contribution of 28.21% of the 26% = 7.33%. to get our actual affect on the atmosphere.

So we humans in the modern day are only responsible for 7.33% of green house affect. And this is assuming all increase in CO2 is caused by humans.

Lets take another look at it from a more reflective standpoint. Volcano eruptions on a yearly measure only about 1% of what humans produce each year. This is a common comparison when people argue the importance of human expulsion of CO2 in the air. However, massive volcano eruptions have been known to cause epic scale CO2 levels on the planet. An example of which( the snow earth period was ended about 550 Ma, by a colossal volcanic out gassing that raised the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere abruptly to 12%, about 350 times modern levels, causing extreme greenhouse conditions and carbonate deposition as limestone at the rate of about 1 mm per day. Thats far past lethal to humans. Forget global warming, we would just die is anything like that happened today. Thats an extreme example, but I think you get the point.

I think it's important to know that no where in here am I trying to say that we shouldn't move to cleaner, renewable sources of energy. I just think people are alarmists on both sides trying to stretch the truth for political advantage. Yes, we have an impact on the environment...no it's not huge. We still should respect our planet and reach for technologies that will bring us forward.

Great review! Makes we want to go out and get the book today! Love Glenn Beck. Thanks, PopSci!

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

TABLE 4a.
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of Greenhouse Effect
% Natural
% Man-made
Water vapor 95.000%
94.999%

0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%
3.502%

0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360%
0.294%

0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950%
0.903%

0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072%
0.025%

0.047%
Total 100.00%
99.72

0.28%

I was sure I missed something but I only had to research during my lunch...lol.

I wonder if Beck's protagonist overcomes the environmental conspiracy by buying gold from Goldline.

Rampant outgassing from Glen Becks anus is killing wolves people!!! We nee to put a plug in it before some pencil necked tree hugging gatherer has a stroke! Seriously!!! Popular Science should rename themselves to 'Liberal Politics' or something to that effect....

Disgusting that an inexplicably influential celebrity would buy a work of fiction, put his name on it and then tie it in to his political rants. There is just no way he believes what he is saying but he's getting rich that way. Same goes for anybody on the other side. They are a scourge on society, encouraging us to enjoy mud-slinging, getting quickly bored with real dialog. We are as much to blame as they are for this. I used to enjoy a show on CNN called Crossfire, until I realized what it really was (pure mud-slinging entertainment).

Glad to see some of the posters above doing some calculations rather than just passing along talking points from folks like Beck. Yes, mankind's contribution to CO2 may be relatively small but it may represent a tipping point. Climate change (periods of warming and cooling) happen naturally but on a much longer time scale. A degree a century is a remarkably fast rate. I think the actual measurements indicate that the rate could be even faster. Even still that is not the most worrisome detail.

Can this warming accelerate? If we start seeing even rapider melt off of glaciers in the next few years, the acceleration is almost certain to be serious. Perhaps at the moment, the melt water is keeping some ocean currents cooler than they would normally be ... like an ice cube in a glass of water. At some point though, this cooling feedback effect will be gone and things will get much worse quickly. By then it will be too late so we'd better figure it out well before then.

What? PopSci is spouting climate change nonsense and smearing people who disagree, all under the guise of "science"? Wow, what else is new?

Quit with the politics and lets have some real science...

aaronomics101 said:
"So we humans in the modern day are only responsible for 7.33% of green house affect. And this is assuming all increase in CO2 is caused by humans."

The greenhouse effect is responsible for the Earth being 33C above what it would be otherwise. So, assuming we're responsible for 7.33% of that, humans are responsible for 2.41C of that temperature.

Obviously using multiplication of percentages and such is silly in such a complex system, which is why they use the most powerful computers on the planet to calculate these things.

First off this book was not written by Glenn Beck. The true author of the book is Harriet Parke. Glenn Beck paid her to let him publish the book under his name. She is listed at he ghost writer of the book. Glenn Beck is nothing more than a plagiarist that paid for another authors work.

Read about the reality of Agenda 21 here. http://www.salon.com/2012/11/19/i_got_duped_by_glenn_beck/

As much as some of us would like to think, we really don't understand the environment as much as we'd like, nor how it manages to regulate itself. Take for example, the rabbit infestations in Australia, or the spread of other invasive flora and fauna across the globe.
Even based off of rough calculations, 7.33% of change in the natural world could be a massive amount. I'm sure those poor fools who first set loose a bunch of rabbits in the Australian outback thought they were doing a great thing. But then combined with an elimination of native predators and the perfect breeding climate, the rabbit population exploded quickly becoming a prime pest eating all the vegetation in an already strained environment. Even today the country is spending billions of dollars fighting what has become the cause of many problems including species loss, soil erosion, and native plant loss.

The arguments that 'human causes' are too small to be influencing the change in climate May have some merit. But you have to consider the other side of that argument too.
Sure, letting loose tons of extra CO2 might prove harmless in the end. But then again, like the Australian rabbits, it could prove an incredibly expensive problem that our future generations will curse us for in centuries to come.

Weighing the potential consequences against present difficulties, I'd really rather have the public and the government taking a much harder look at climate change than continue this pointless mud-slinging.

There is comparable warming of other bodies in the solar system with Earth. It is caused by the sun. Although people should be doing more to prevent contributing to the ruining of our planet, to say coal plants, cow farts, and SUVs are the cause of climate change is just plain funny.

Also, the energy output required to make the steel in all the worlds currently existing windmills won't be recovered by those windmills for another 125 years. Solar is not much better.

@thetawake
you've got to be kidding. We have enough trouble understanding climate on the Earth. Do you really believe we have any idea about what is happening to other planets and moons? As for the comment about windmills, you don't seem to have much of an understanding about energy production and utilization. Furthermore, those very windmills won't be around in 125 years which would make such a "fact" about their efficiency all the more astounding, if it had any merit.

@tertertert,

I just used a calculator. I could have done it long hand if it made sense. Many natural factors influence the increase in CO2 besides humans. However in those studies they make the direct correlation between the rise in CO2 and the industrial revolution.

That kind of observation is just speculation and wouldn't hold up as fact. The true facts here are hard to prove, because we can't track our own CO2 as it moves through the atmosphere. All we can do is measure it leaving certain factories, and calculate what the average car produces multiplied by how many we think are running.

@Qyygle,
The same could be said for us existing in the first place. The whole "butterfly effect" theory grows old, because I won't apologize for being born. The cold hard truth is this, there are alarmists on both sides. They want you to believe we need to dramatically change our course or X will happen soon. Not all climatologists are pushing socialistic agendas, and not all Conservatives hate science. I bet it's more like a silent majority of each get caught in this crossfire of panic mud slinging.

Overall, I would be happy if we pushed towards newer, cleaner technology... but not at the cost of free enterprise being crushed by over regulation.

Wasn't this the guy that was caught falsifying climate data? Why do we give him the time of day let alone review a book of Fiction? Glenn Beck did not write this but it does have his name on the cover. Why? Because he owns the publishing company that put the book on the shelves!
There is no doubt that humans have change the climate of the world. But to say that we are the ONLY cause and we can do anything about it is absurd. Also the statements made by some other people about using solar and wind to replace our energy in 10 years is a dream. If we covered the US in solar panels it wouldn't make enough to support our current needs. Also, these solar farms are now causing massive erosion problems in many areas where they are installed. No talk about this in any Popular Science magazine I've seen. You have to clear cut everything to put them in, and nothing grows underneath them. Big improvement. The number one killer of Bald Eagles is windmills. As long as China can pollute as much as they want, there is no level playing field so we can't compete with them and there is no point in putting more restrictions on us that will just destroy our economy. The best we can do is be reasonable and do what we can where we can.
The far left slant of this magazine is why I would love to stop my subscription, but there is no alternative so I try to ignore it the best I can. It is getting to the point where it is no longer tolerable though.

Mr. Mann must be related to Jerry S. as they both live in alternative universes!

Few people believe that our climate is not changing. It is changing, whether for good or bad or whether it will reverse itself is impossible to know.

What we do know is that their is tremendous arrogance in the academic "liberal" scientific community. To go against certain belief systems or "laws" that have been blessed by the very strident (man is always the problem) members of this community is heretical.

The fact is man and its manmade system are very puny and weak compared to natural occurrences. Sunspots, up until Margaret Thatcher needed a scapegoat for her policies, have always been generally considered responsible for large climatic shifts on the planet.

There is much evidence to support that position, both historically and now!

Much like the flat-worlders of Galileo's time, the academics have jumped on the "man is responsible" for all the problems of the world bandwagon by making climate change OUR problem.

The fact is that most non-academic meteoroligists have no clue as to why things are happening other than the aforementioned sunspots (thats from the AMA). The models and evidence does not exist to answer these questions in any other way because their is such a short history to the models and any evidence.

I think Mr. Mann would best serve the public by going into some other field that PSU is better noted for like agronomy and let the serious work on this subject stay with professionals!!

Let me see, since when is the world bank an expert on global warming? Oh yes, if voters just keep promoting global warming alarmists who support global cap and trade, it means more money for the world bank....especially if the U.N. starts pulling the strings and works with the world bank to take from the "rich" countries to give to the "poor" countries. Everyone would like to be Robin Hood if they can get away with it. It is all about power and for scientists like Mr. Mann, it is all about keeping the flow of "free" government money going into his pockets. It's better than a pozy scheme because the government is part of the scam.

What About This?

Either you believe Beck or you don't
Either you believe Mann or you don't
Either you believe the earth is 6000 years old or you don't
Either you believe in human caused global warming or you don't

Regardless, is there a problem with harnessing wind and solar power? How about liquid thorium reactors?

Couldn't these forms of energy benefit all of us? Couldn't these forms of energy be used in poor areas and countries without the massive infrastructure currently in place for fossil fuel production and use?

There sure are a lot of disturbing people making comments here. I just joined to add my thoughts and wonder if this is like our local newspaper where it's the few same people constantly expressing contrary Easily contrived negative thoughts?

It amazes me that so many people are not only ignorant of climate change but downright obstinate about the notion that people are causing it. Propaganda is alive and well. You don't release billions of metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without measurably impacting it. Everyone waiting to quantify this damage only prolongs inaction and indiscretion.

"Sustainability is a terrible goal that only leads to stagnation." I'm not sure why I'm addressing your argument when you can't even spell shortcoming. Still, giving you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to identifying them, where is the shortcoming in permaculture? Are you so fixated on progress that it limits your ability to conceive of an efficient plateau?

Eh, *I* could write a book.

The Conspiracy: Become powerful enough people have to work for me (or my agents) or die.

Means: Be the only source of something everyone needs.

Step 1: Genetically engineer food plants that can survive global warming.

Step 2: Patent them.

Step 3: Help warming along, and wait.

In version b, it's a cartel. This leaves open the possibility of sequels.

And if no publisher will touch it?

It's TRUE! They're trying to hide it!

URL www.the*(666acwe36- - - 234avaer. . . as 56 (((((

404 ERROR
SITE NOT FOUND

It's like they believe if they scream it loud enough climate change will just cease to exist...

@jargund was right on!

Since when is Popsi an opinion based magazine!?

I have read this magazine for over 30 years!

After reading this opinionated, smear-fest article, my subscription ends immediately.

Mr. Mann should be fired!

If he is, let me know and consider my subscription renewed...

It's a book review...it's meant to be opinionated...

This is a radio DJ gone viral for a while. Believe or follow what you want from him, we know where Glen is really at.

Do the right thing and put him in the same category as his old DJ neighbor back then, Howard Stern. It's all about drawing attention. Anything else is just a bonus.

The picture you used of Glen told me exactly what to expect of this "review" before I read one word of it. More hateful drivel from the left.

Of course there is climate change. It changed from yesterday to today, and it is likely to change again tomorrow.

To me, climate change is like sitting in front of a nice, warm fire. Sometimes the burning logs resettle and kick out more heat, sometimes the sun gets more active and kicks out some more heat. Me farting in the room, adding some methane and CO2 to the air, has no effect on the temperature in the room, or the planet.

I think the underlying problem is education. Judging from some of the rants and babel coming from the comment thread, it is clear that many people don’t understand what is going on within our climate. The information they need can only be found in education… on the subject of course. I read through this page and see people whom believe our planet is:

Just going through its cycles
Temperatures will decline eventually

This is all political (My personal favorite)

The sad truth is we may not know what is going to happen to our planet, but we know that through scientific observation, the changes that have occurred over the last several thousand years are not consistent with what we know our global cycles (and carbon levels) to be over the last quarter million years, and our industrial existence could seem to be a factor (facts proven with science, not opinion).

In my opinion, there is clear evidence that climate change is occurring. I have read scientific journals explaining the typical patterns of our climate over time, looked at photographs of receding glaciers over the past century, and noticed that in the last three years, my garden in the Pacific Northwest has thrived later and later in the season (As of today, we have not even experienced our first frost and we may not before the end of the year). I have even taken classes in environmental studies to help better my understanding. Now this is all just my opinion, like that of Mann, Beck and everyone else on this thread I feel that my ideas are more logical then that of others. We might be fine, but then we might be frogs in a pot of warming water. And with my first child on the way, I hope that as a global force we can join together in the fight to help our planet survive us now that we can survive on it.

It's definitely a lack of education. People are quick to have strong opinions about things they haven't researched properly...it's not that some of these people aren't smart, knowledgeable, or logica individuals, it's just that they haven't read through the existing literature of credible scientific research, and most likely won't unless their educational background is a speciality in scientific disciplines that pertain to climate change. People get their opinions from like-minded individuals who, like them, aren't experts on climate change research.

Similarly, there are other individuals who aren't educated in the matter and develop strong opinions about what they are told is going on with our contribution to climate change (example: the author of the article). The only difference is that these individuals' strong opinions (though unwarranted when used to vulgarly denounce other parties) are grounded in the consensus of a scientific community...

Just because someone does something for a living doesn't mean they are any good at their jobs. I'm a senior software engineer and I have met many terrible programmers. Don't assume a climatologists word about global warming is without error just because he gets paid to do it.

Our contribution to the green house effect is measurable but ants are measurable too, doesn't mean one will ruin a picnic.
You have to have perspective that makes sense. We need to heed the info our scientists are giving us, but never without confirming what we can through multiple sources, and means.

@aaronomics101

That's very true, but you're preaching here because that means you want people to not trust the words of climatoligists on the chance that most of them aren't good at their jobs. 98% of a large scientific community, much of which consists of individuals who have devoted their lives and careers to researching the matter,assert that we are effecting global warming. It then becomes irresponsible to negate or distrust them based on the chance they are bad at their jobs.

As for where their funding comes from, you may want to research that matter for yourself. We heed the warning of scientists because they are the best source for the subject. You have to have perspective that makes sense, and the perspective that makes sense is the peer reviewed scientific consensus of unbiased research on the matters of climate change.

People use ghost writers all the time. Its great for the ghost writer because they get their work published and they get paid. Their work also get more exposure because they are attached to a big name. In the end, they may get things published under their own name in the future.

So stop being a hater of Glenn Beck. Listen to his radio program, he doesn't preach hate. He actually would stand up for all of you and defend your right to your opinion.

Seriously???? Seriously???? Glenn Beck???? WTF are you guys smoking??If ever there was a guy bought and paid for by big business to hoodwink the sub 100 IQ masses, THIS IS THE GUY!!!
THIS is the guy who IS the villain in the movies for God's sake. He has Nazi Tourette's. If you want to have a clear conscience on climate change, IGNORE THIS DICKHEAD!!!! Seriously. Honestly, give all your money to the church and leave your trailer to Hank, just do not listen to this asshole, whatever you do!!!

@Ferdia: Are you concerned about the "sub 100 IQ masses", because they include you? Your style of writing would indicate so.

Sigh did any of you read the tital?

What Does A Climate Scientist Think Of Glenn Beck's Environmental-Conspiracy Novel?

Did any one think this was not going to be leaning to the left. It is sad beacuse all of you beleive you are smart but all you can do is whine and moan. I read the comments to see you guys bicker back and forth it is quite funny but it has just gotten sad. If we are always fighting we will rip ourselfs apart. on the note of climate change most climate data is publicly avaliable look at the data and decide for yourself.

-BIP

@TheKID11, I'm not sure where your 98% came from. I'm not saying there isn't evidence that we affect our environment. But from what I've heard the science has dis-tractors on both sides of it. There are some who back the science up and some who are against it. When has there been a poll regarding all scientists who could make such claims?

Lets be honest here, I am not a climatologist. I can't refute anything one based on the fact that the science involved is far more different than computer science from which I have intimate knowledge. But, climatologists require funding to continue their craft. Needing to constantly find reasons to continue to receive it. As, long as computers need programming...I will always have funding for mine.

That's why their science field is tough. If they claim they found something, they must then prove their findings time and time again among many other of their peers to get support. If a few disagree it takes longer for that to turn out. Just because a politician agrees, or confirms it.. doesn't help the process.

@aaronomics

Thank you. I think that is a valid assessment of all science fields in general. Negative findings are always harder to publish than positive findings. However, the statistic I gave you was off because I was trying to remember off the top of my head. It is 97-98% of professionals in the field supporting man made global warming.

This comes from an analysis in 2010 in the journal PNAS. William anderegg et al.

They look at the number of articles that provide data for evidence of mans contribution to global warming. These articles number in the thousands.

Other articles find a similar percentage of 97% but their analysis is not as in depth and relative as the 2010 paper (as well as currently relevant), and focus more on opinions of people in the field and not necessarily the findings. Although, it's important to realize how much 97% is web it comes to the abundance of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. This is why I agree with your last statement "just because a politician agrees or confirms it...doesn't help the process." Only the scientists within the field who have devoted their lives to this research can beat assess what the data shows and if anything what we could do about it. Politicians are the reason it even is a "debate." Because so few politicians are actually doctoral scientists, or have ever read an empirical research article/understood it (let alone 1000s). People believe in what their party leaders say, but in the case of global warming they should be listening to the experts: the scientists.

All things are as they should be, including climate change and climate change skeptics. Without the skeptics , who would the rational men of the world laugh at?

For example: Gravity is not real! Watch as i jump off this cliff. (man wearing a parachute safely lands) Thousands are easily fooled by cheap tricks.

Up here in Canada i have seen temperatures from -83 (without the wind -55) to plus 40. Thats celsius. ( for you americans its -117.4 with the wind , -67 without to plus 104.) The last time we had -117.4 was 1997 or 1998, i forget it froze so much of me, the last time we had any cold was 2007, when it hit -40 for 2 weeks, (which is the same in farenheit and celsius)

Keep denying the reality fools! We havent had a real winter here in 5 years. Literally, it doesnt get cold anymore. (not like we are used to) I paid a 400 a month gas bill in the coldest months of 2004, now im paying around 100 to heat an equally sized space with comparable insulation, in the coldest months.

Global warming is saving me money, and making my winters nicer, thanks!

@TheKID11, Agreed.

I would like to present the following facts and evidence:

1. Terra's (the earth's) average temperature over the past few thousand years loosely follows a sinusoidal curve.

2. Plants grow more when temperatures are higher.

3. Plants make sugar according to variants of the following equation:
6 CO2 + 6 H2O + λ --> C6H12O6 + 6 O2

4. The carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide (water) in the above equation come from the atmosphere.

5. Dihydrogen monoxide and carbon dioxide are the two biggest contributors to the greenhouse effect.

6. Plants and other organisms die in cooler weather.

7. Dead organisms decompose into various substances, including gaseous carbon monoxide and gaseous dihydrogen monoxide.

Therefore,

1. Increased greenhouse gases --> global warming --> more plant growth --> decreased greenhouse gases --> global cooling --> more organism death --> increased greenhouse gases. Repeat ad nauseum.

2. GLOBAL WARMING IS IRRELEVANT!

@TIMGG

No it's not, because we are contributing to the greenhouse effect beyond plants contribution ad natural temperature cycles. Also, plant species that feed us and allow us to SURVIVE cannot grow and flourish in droughts and extremely cool temperatures, which is what excessive global warming can bring. Your educated opinion is too simplified and escapes other important facts, such as how global warming effects human livelihood and survival.

The left slant of this publication is why I read it. You just got another subscriber. Thanks for the great article.

@thekid11 - @aaronomics101 - this whole debate is a joke.

There are far to many assumptions at the base of either sides argument to ever find a 'truth'. So what will happen is both sides will flex their muscle and one will win over the popular opinion.

@a__pizza__pizza

Great analysis!

"This is sarcasm."
-sarcasm

I wish you would elaborate on what assumptions and contribute a little more to the discussion than just pointing out the obvious.

Oranges are orange.

The author states "wind and solar energy could provide 70% of our energy needs in the U.S. in less than two decades."

All this talk about 'alternative' energy makes me laugh until my sides split.

Today, in 2012, US total 'alternative' energy is 7% - and most of that is from 50 year old hydroelectric power dams. Solar power supplies less than 1%. Wind is a little bit more.

Despite massive Govt. (taxpayer) losses, er, subsidies – solar and wind conversion to electric has made pitiful advances to the electric grid over the the last 30 years. To convert to a minimum of 25% of the energy system to green by 2025 solar and wind would suddenly require miracle breakthroughs of 1000's% of efficiency. And breakthroughs of 1000's% in manufacturing.

Would you try to fly on a battery powered Boeing 747? How about the trains that move most of the cargo in the US? Think you can move tens of thousands of tons daily by batteries?

The US can be energy independent within 10 years with natural gas. In fact, we have so much gas, we can export huge amounts to countries like China and to Europe for vast amounts of money. For many years to come. Can you say 'no more deficits'?

Please remember, horizontal fracking is still basically new technology. It gets more efficient and cleaner every year. Private companies - not the Govt. - continue to invest many, many Billions every year in research and development. And create new jobs and new tax bases.

Want to pay 100% more for the stuff you buy every day? Go Green, baby!

@Mustbeyou

I'm exhausted from debating with people about this, so I'll be brief.

Firstly, the statistics you posted are wrong. The contribution of renewable energy is nearly double what you said.

1. The prediction of "wind and solar energy could provide 70% of our energy needs in the U.S. in less than two decades" is nothing more than that: a prediction. Same as your prediction about hydraulic fracturing.

"Please remember, horizontal fracking is still basically new technology. It gets more efficient and cleaner every year. Private companies - not the Govt. - continue to invest many, many Billions every year in research and development. And create new jobs and new tax bases."

The same exact statement could be said about renewable energy technologies, except the advances In renewables are occuring a faster rate than hydraulic fracturing. Please read up on te breakthroughs in solar just in the past year.

"breakthroughs of 1000's% of efficiency. And breakthroughs of 1000's% in manufacturing."

Although this statement is inaccurately quantitative (though you stated it as objectively qualitative), this is exactly what's happening in renewable energy technology research, which is why the article quote you presented at the top is an accurate prediction based off of advances in research and manufacturing.

The US needs to advance renewables, fracking technology, and maintain its status as a world competitor for oil. Once the technology and manufacturing for renewable energies becomes advanced enough (as stated in future predictions) than we can transition to renewables and stop damaging our global environment.

The biggest problem with so-called "climate change" is its roll as a justification for the Carbon Credits Trade (also known as Cap & Trade) which was concocted to effect global wealth redistribution.

It is backwards PSEUDO-science. First came a perceived need for worldwide wealth redistribution, then a scheme was concocted - The Carbon Credits Trade (aka Cap & Trade) to effect worldwide wealth redistribution, then a justification was concocted for Carbon Credits Trade (aka Cap % Trade) which was originally called "Global Warming."

So-called "Global Warming" was discredited because advocates had manipulated and culled data, and deliberately made grossly inaccurate predictions of imminent catastrophic warming and rising seas - none of which occurred. Then the bottom fell out when e-mails were discovered discussing manipulated data.

The term "Global Warming" was dropped, and the term "Climate Change" became the mantra -- by the very same people who championed "global warming." So the nexus of fraud and predetermined agenda rightfully haunt the new "Climate Change" mantra, and, by inference, the Carbon Credits Trade (aka Cap & Trade).

The next big problem is with the field of Climate Change science -- it has become infected with unabashed advocates of wealth redistribution and carbon credits trade. And these advocates believe that any means justify the end goal of global wealth redistribution -- casting every change in temperature anywhere, whether a slight warming or cooling, as heralding catastrophic global "Climate Change" -- the only solution to which is Cap & Trade (aka Carbon Credits Trade.)

And the funny part is -- Carbon Credits Trade (aka Cap & Trade) would do absolutely nothing to alleviate "Climate Change" if it were occurring.

@DoctorM

Please stop trolling. Your comment was so backwards, paranoid, non sensical and "fraudulent," that it would just be embarrassing if you actually believed in any of it.

@the kid 11
I do not have the slightest doubt that there is climate change, it has always happened and it always will. I can not tell you how much man is responsible for it, but so can nobody else with any accuracy. One of the problems is the short time span we really have been observing the climate with any accuracy. Another one is the modelling that is used to make predictions, and of course the often vastly exaggerated claims made by sensation seeking individuals in the debate. Dr. M. certainly has some valid points.
In some countries in Europe you pay a carbon tax if you buy a new car. The higher the fuel consumption of the car is, the more you pay. Does not matter how much or how little you drive it. The money thus raised does not go into any carbon eliminating programs, it goes just into government spending. Cap and trade schemes are just a way to redistribute money from the achiever nations to the dunces, fostering corruption and paying for golden beds for 3rd world potentates, who have no inclination to improve the lives of their subjects. Certainly not paranoid and fraudulent, but the truth.

@TheKID11

I would be happy to give you a few assumptions.

Here is a grand assumption for you: the world is flat. Seems reasonable. Science of the time approved.
Here is a change in that assumption: the world is round. Seems reasonable. Science of the time approves.

Here is a grand assumption: Carbon dating is correct.
Here is a grand assumption: Science is progressive.
Here is a grand assumption: 'Earth' needs human intervention (help).

If carbon dating is incorrect, would you say that climate theory is also incorrect?
If Science isn't always progressive then could one of the solutions be more harmful than the deemed problem?
If 'Earth' doesn't need human help - could it simply solve its own problem?

The crux of the climate change theory is the impending 'threat' to humanity. Without this 'threat', there would be no reason for the theory to exist in the first place.

Climate Science has gone the way of 'proving the threat'. And 'solving the threat'. This does not allow the science to be objective. They are now active participants in the solution as well as the cause.

Conspiracy isn't needed when someone is the game maker, the game player, and the game referee.

If anyone takes Beck any more seriously than a pissant, they can't have an IQ amounting to anything above room temperature. Beck hasn't taken any science courses, let alone obtained a degree. He is on par with that hatemonger Westbrook Pegler, and by now I think just about every generation has at least one of these clowns. For Sarah Cypher, she has no integrity - shame on her. I am a professional writer, and, frankly, she is not welcomed in any of my circles of colleagues and friends. 'nuff said here. To anyone who has been following the science of climatology, Mann is belaboring the obvious. The only issue is when the proverbial asymptote is reached, i.e., the tipping point, where there can be no repair. Actually, we are beginning to find out that the IPCC may have understated the problem, given recent data from the polar ice caps. Just a cursory review of the articles in Science, for example, will confirm this. As to any "plot to create a socialist world government", too bad it were not true; it would make the planet a more humane place in which to live. Alas, however, so many people would rather romanticize in their Ayn Rand delusions of "idyllic" life in the Hobbesian state of nature.

loads of points of view going in every direction, I tend to think that we will keep debating one way and the other for decades to come, not actually getting anywhere, but feeling like we are getting somewhere, and then one day we will wake up and realise that the worst has actually happened and there isnt a bloody thing that we can do about it anymore, then everybody will start to blame everybody else in earnest.

damn shame really, I quite like this planet.

Climate change is pschological warfare against normal people. Guilt-edged voodoo is the biggest weapon as was recently demonstrated in London. Never underestimate the power of guilt.

No one asks the most important question: What is the ideal temperature of our planet?

And the next one: How do we get there from here?

The answers to those two questions should drive the dialog. If our planet is too cold right now, warming is good. If our planet is too warm, cooling is needed. The dialog and debate is futile and is only theatrical politics without answering these fundamental questions.

Respectfully,

ThermoMan

This article starts off with the author being shocked that Glenn Beck doesn't write his own books and then just bears down on the silliness of the premise of a fictional book. Get someone who is objectionable next time PopSci or at least someone who knows how to properly review a book and not just poo-poo an idea. This guy mentions the Matrix but I wonder if he disliked the movie just because it had an equally "implausible" premise.

I,ve had the chance to read a few of Mr Becks books.In general they,re a waste of time .Basically one long continuous boreing uninformed idiotic rant.I have better books to read and better things to do with My time.I,m surprised anyone with more than a grade school education reads His books or listens to Him.

I keep hoping that one day this whack-a-doo will come out as just a troll of astronomical proportions, no luck yet.

Well, I'm a huge advocate of solar energy, and I even have an all-electric car, a little Mitsubishi MiEV. I love it.

But, I saw no paradox in the Agenda 21 book. Obviously, many environmentalists believe that we humans are a scourge upon the planet (except for themselves, of course, even though most of them drive cars, eat meat, use things made out of plastic, use cell phones with lead solder in them, have electrified houses on the grid, fly in planes, and (horrors) produce more baby humans just like the rest of us do).

It seems sometimes that the environmentalists really care about preserving dead dinosaur juice (oil) above preserving the modern conveniences of life.

The belief that mankind in general harms nature leads to the inevitable conclusion that nature should be protected from humans by isolating us in a concrete enclosure, where we cannot harm nature.

Limiting the population somehow is also a major goal of radical environmentalists, even through mass forced abortion and infanticide, as practiced in China (and was once advocated by an Obama appointee).

It's not a huge step after that to use mass extermination of unnecessary humans as a method of protecting the planet (of course, politicians and those environmentalists who believe that would be exempted - They're saving the planet, after all).

History is full of genocide, mass murder, and mass confinement for much less consequential reasons than the survival of the planet (usually the reasons are merely political) - And those atrocities usually start out under the guise of helping the common man.

That's what has half of the US population freaked out of their mind over Obama's stated agenda. The other half must never have opened a World History book.

As John Stuart Mills said years ago:

Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.

These commenter s infer liberal political association with anything which doesn't confirm their worldview. Climate Change (not the weather), Age of the Earth, The proper use of lady-parts.

My good friend characterizes such drivel as driven by fear. And he is such a dummy; Twin fellowships in OB-Gyn and Psychiatry.

And good grief, how politically motivated are you when you espouse the thoughts of G Beck. He couldn't even keep a job at Fox, and they kept Sarah Palin.

So when you can refute the science reviewed by and nearly unanimously endorsed by the real experts call back. No better yet don't.

Popular Science isn't always real science. Climate scientists are no scientist at all. They have been caught making up data. They ignore facts and make up fantasies.

what do we need scientists for when aaronomics101 can figure the whole thing out with a few scribbles on a napkin?

To Michael E. Mann. "Play with the edge and you can be cut" If your Science is fact. It will not be deney. But if all to make you Money. You will pay.

The best thing that can happen to the environment is if Glenn Beck "passes on." Let's "pray" for that day to be soon.

http://www.rainydaymagazine.com
"We Entertain When It Rains"

How deliciously ironic that Michael Mann's smear of Beck's next novel ends up making Beck's point quite well! Yes! - we should trust Mr. Mann to tell us what to believe! He and his fellow taxpayer-funded university experts are the only ones who know how to run the planet so we should trust only them and ignore the voices that warn us of the loss of our cherished individual freedoms... Great Review - now I've GOT to go out and read the book - I'm sure that Michael Mann doesn't see the irony.

1) How can Michael Mann say that Agenda 21 was in fact "ghost"-written by Harriet Parke - when Harriet Parke's name gets such huge billing on the cover of the book? That's hardly what I call "Ghost" writing... Right there he is attempting to smear Beck. 'Ghost' writing is what the people who write Obama's speeches do. They're not given any credit at the beginning or end of his speeches.

2) "I feared I could not accomplish the task objectively." Michael Mann should have quit while he was still being honest... Instead, he asserts that since Beck was not the principal writer of the book, that freed Michel Mann from "any conflict of interest" (Huh?!?!?) - That's one of the funniest lines he's ever written. If he'd even made any attempt to be objective, then the article would have been 95% about Harriet Parke whom he seems to claim is 100% the actual writer of the book - since Beck "simply purchased the right to claim he’d written the book" (again with the smear words). In actual fact, Mann's article was completely focused on Glenn Beck. The overwhelming focus on Beck proves the article is not about the book but was attempting revenge on Beck for exposing Mann's earlier frauds. I honestly don't think Mr. Mann is capable of discerning truth from fiction.

3) Yeah, OK so Beck is making money off a work of FICTION... That makes the news? Since when did that become smear-worthy in America? Has Mr. Mann denounced Al Gore for making $100 million dollars off the Qatar BIG OIL COMPANIES that fund Al Jazeera and whom he blames for causing global warming?

4) Let's compare apples to apples - Are the taxpayers funding Beck's work of FICTION with millions of dollars the way they do Michael Mann's works of FICTION??? I didn't think so. I thought free enterprise was what this country was founded and grew strong on, so why the angst if Beck makes money off promoting a book he likes. Furthermore, I assert (without proof) that Beck had at least as much of a hand in writing/modifying/tuning his book as Obama will in his inauguration speech... else why did Beck change writers in midstream? & If Sarah Cypher "edited" an early draft of the book, then whose writing was she editing -Beck's? My assumption is that Beck fleshed out an outline and then hired writers/editors to fill in the fictional stuff that keeps it entertaining (love stories, human interest, character development, etc. I've got several outlines for novels of my own already on paper that I wish I could afford to hire a writer/editor to fill in those human elements - I just don't have the knack for that kind of writing.

5) How can anyone read Michael Manns' writings with a straight face? The climate change hockey stick has been widely discredited by the simple fact that there has been no actual global warming for the last 16 years (and other reasons that proved he fudged the data to match his 'hockey stick').

6) I'm not surprised that Mann mocks Beck's imagery of humans-isolated-from-nature in concrete cubicles so they cannot have any negative impact on Mother nature. Mann simply doesn't get it. Like most progressives, he takes himself too seriously and doesn't see that that is a plausible future outcome if the environmental wacko's are allowed to have their way. - I'm talking about the ones who want everyone to be vegan (but it’s OK for animals to eat each other), who don't allow access to natural resources - even when it can be done with minimal impact... Who uncompromisingly put thousands of farmers out of business and force their orchards to die of dehydration rather than find a timely, workable compromise for the delta smelt, etc ad-infintum. To the rest of us, Obama's EPA are the Eco-terrorists and it looks like if we let those people continue to be in charge, we'll all be living in concrete cubicles and denied access to nature.

7) Michael Mann discounts George Orwell's dystopian vision in his 1984 novel; yet it's happening all around us! I'll assert (again without proof) that many progressives could read 1984 and think, "Sounds good to me - so what's his point?"... My point is that - to conservatives - Beck is accurately describing a plausible outcome if Progressives get their way. Orwell should not be discounted! It's time for everyone to read 1984 again and notice the parallels in the progressive movement. Underneath it all, progressivism is based on socialism, which is based on the ideals of communism...and look what the Soviets did to their population! - forced them into gulags... which is kinda like what Beck's bleak future novel is describing with the concrete cells. Forfeit all your property rights in the name of the environment! - That is precisely the methodology of the EPA under Obama's administration. If Van Jones hadn't been outed for the communist he is, then no doubt Obama would have appointed him to run the EPA by now. The 'green' party is just the new face of communism and if you doubt that, then it would be wise to dilute the left's Kool-Aid you've been drinking with some conservative articles like "Is Green The New Red (Communism)?" by Ellis Washington on World Net Daily
http://www.wnd.com/2010/10/215837/

Progressives do not believe in property rights, individuals or individualism... They falsely believe that big government is the answer to every problem, while ignoring mountains of evidence that 'big government' brings huge problems with unintended consequences of it's own.

8) I don't know where Michael Mann got the laughable notion that the World Bank was 'founded on free market principles'... If it were, then it would be run apolitically - independent of governments, and have to compete in an open marketplace against all the other banks and earn a profit to stay afloat. He obviously hasn't got a clue what 'free-market principles' are. Even if he could back his assertion that it was founded on free market principles, it is hardly being run in accordance with them, so whatever reports they come out with are hardly apolitical though Mr. Mann swallows them.

Many of you cherish your individual freedom and the environment... but you also lack a healthy fear of what happens when government is entrusted with too much power.

Conservatives love the environment too! Sarah Palin threw Republicans in jail for playing footsie with the big oil companies in Alaska, yet progressives mock her mercilessly. I think that what they most fear is unrestrained Corporatism - in which greedy corporations rape both the environment and the taxpayers... Genuine conservatives (not RINO Republicans) agree!... but what progressives don't get is that crony corporatism requires the kind of corruption that only comes with BIG Government protected by a corrupt media in order for it to thrive.

Capitalism, as practiced in it's purest form - uncorrupted by Big Government - does not rape the environment or the taxpayers.

Big-government - funded by Crony Corporatism (not capitalism) is the problem yet big-government is the direction progressives keep pulling towards. Be very careful what you wish for... All those poor proletarians who thought they would find freedom under communism once the Czar was gone, learned the hard way that communism is just a Utopian dream fed to foolish tools in order bring an oligarchy into power - a dictatorship of a few elite individuals... and woe unto those who are not part of the elite. Once the elite takes over, the proletarians, the progressives, the environmentalists, will be swept away under a dictatorship dedicated solely to perpetuating itself by the enslavement of the masses.

If Michael Mann’s side wins, they will learn too late that they have not only lost their cherished freedoms, but the consequences for the environment will be FAR worse!

If Mr. Beck has an 'agenda' it is to promote FREEDOM for the individual - including you and I and Mr. Mann. In contrast, Mr. Mann's agenda is to promote serfdom under a regime of know-it-alls who get to run the world government and tell everyone else what to believe, what kinds of toilets we can have, what kinds of lightbulbs we must use, what kinds of cars we can drive (if any) and where we can live (or more importantly, cannot live)... Seems to me that Mr. Mann's review proved Beck's point quite well!

p.s. I found myself agreeing with the commenter who said, "This is a disgraceful smear article against someone the author simply disagrees with. Why this garbage is given a platform is beyond me. Popsci has officially become an opinion page and is therefore being removed from my bookmarks and RSSfeed. sad."