Six Quiet Climate Villains

Shouldn't this list include the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. They destroyed in a few weeks the confidence Al Gore spent decades to build.

Also, "villainize" those who speak against climate change but aren't published, but didn't the CRU actively prevent publication of those who disagree?

"Many climate-change skeptics put on an air of authority, masquerading as working members of the academic or scientific communities." -- Rebecca Boyle

Speaking of masquerades... Ms. Boyle did you miss the incriminating emails that exposed the distortion of global warming models by the academic, global warming charlatans?

The villains behind global warming: weathermen, cattle, and the readers of Popular Science. I had to double check the publication date on this article. I thought it might be from April 1st edition of Popular Science.

This article is as biased as those you seek to refute, even more aggressively so. Why dont you post some hard data and let people decide what to believe for themselves? If the data stands up for itself, then people can see that. The only reason there is need to ridecule people is to try to shame them into beliving as you do without actually showing them why. Maybe you dont believe the data is conclusive yourself or you wouldnt have a problem publishing it.

Great points JCincy and dontcallmechief!

The reason there are so many skeptics is because there is so much to be skeptical about. The faces of global warming such as Al Gore push their own agendas like religion and laugh their way to the bank.

Now that I know which side you're on and the contempt you hold for climate change skeptics (excuse me, deniers), I won't be renewing my subscription. I hope others do the same.

Take this from someone who is about to graduate with a degree in Atmospheric Sciences.

The data isn't always straightforward. For example, the idea of global warming itself is a little skewed, because with more research we've been able to figure out that it really causes more extremes (both cold and warm). Like how last summer we had some of the hottest temperatures on record and how this winter we saw one of the coldest winters (for some spots like the east coast of the U.S. that got pummeled with snow).

Plus, there's MANY parts to factor in to figure out what could be causing climate change. Is it anthropogenic pollution? Is it increased activity of the sun? Could it be less sunlight reflected from the earth due to snow and ice melting at the poles? Or could it be due to less ozone reflected UV radiation in the stratosphere?

The thing is, this issue in anything but simple. And we as a society wish to put things into black and white as much as we can. There's no simple answer.

In my mind, it doesn't hurt to be cautious. If things are on as bad a course as climate scientists say they are, then great, we're trying to be proactive before it's too late. If we do nothing and pass it off as arrogance that we could even conceive we could have any effect on our planet, then we might be in even worse shape down the road.

You guys are amazing. My thanks in advance to everyone who actually reads the article carefully before diving into the comments. The rest of you are doing nothing but confirming several of the points Rebecca makes above. Thanks for being you!

Lets face it, writers for the most part are leftist liberals. It's what comes with a degree in english, besides a very bleak career path. As a liberal, for anyone to speak out against Gore (other than a massage therapist) is blasphemy. Sure the planet gets hotter, but then it gets colder, and then...wait for it, hotter again. They are called seasons. As for an average change of global temperature over a span of time, well we really dont have the data or equipment to truely test the hypothesis of global warming. That being said we most DEFINATELY DO NOT have ANY way of trying to pin and untestable hypothesis on a particular cause. Therefore it is idiotic not to mention pretentious to presume that humanity has any effect on global climate change. However, in Mrs. Boyle's defense, pretention comes with the territory for liberals and english majors and their french hats, expensive coffee, and clove cigarettes. Speaking of which, lets see how much carbon Starbucks adds to the atmosphere.

Really? James Inhofe? The guy is a garden variety authoritarian sadist who's been bought and paid for by the oil industry. He's never put together a credible argument, he just gets in peoples faces and yells and tries to intimidate them.

You know the milkshake scene from "There will be Blood"? That's this guy.

I created an account just to comment on this article. I have subscribed to popsci for about 7 years now and have been enjoying the magazine less and less. It seems like every second or third issue for the last two years has featured a cover story about how the world is ending and how we can stop it. I have been dealing with it because there's also some good information in the articles.

This article, however, draws the line. I can't believe how political my former favorite science magazine has become...calling out politicians by name? Attacking industrialized agriculture?

I particularly liked your comment about how to vanquish big beef. You complain about how 30% of all land on earth is used by animals, then you suggest eating free range chicken. Free range chickens take more space to raise and gain weight much less efficiently. If you were really worried about emissions and land use, the way to go would be the method that evolved from free range to efficiency in order to feed the world, which you call "factory farming" for the negative connotation it implies.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about everything. If the science on this matter was settled, there wouldn't be so many people that didn't believe it. I'm sad to see that I'm not "ahead of the game" for reading popsci, as you suggest. I must be on the other side of the issue, and thus evil, if I don't believe why our planet was in a period of warming up to 2000 is completely solved. Therefore, I will not be renewing my subscription when it comes up. Moreover, I am saddened at the thought that my subscription fees could have paid for one meal for the person who thought this article was professional enough to publish.

This article is WAY too biased on the side of science!

I mean NUMBERS?! MADE BY ACTUAL SCIENTISTS?!?! Fairy Tales!

To those about to jump on me about the leaked emails, they didnt say that GW doesnt exsist or that the temperatures were hyped.

Steve Carell? he's behind all this, and a cow, I knew it all along

@JohnMahoney,
Exactly proving my point. Nothing intelligent to say so you flame people.

This article is absurd.

"Most Americans still believe humans are to blame for this, but there are plenty of climate villains who are working to shift public opinion the other way."

Climate villains looking to shift public opinion. HAHA!

You mean the people who don't agree with you? You call them villains? I hate that I love so many articles from popsci and despise some others. It discredits the other things that I read.

okey there is just one major contridiction i notice here.

"the bottom line is that Lomborg is a political scientist, and he’s not qualified to contradict the work of climate scientists"

what about gore? he has absolutly no scientific training and the mans word is considered gosple.

i would take the word of a scientist with training in at least some science on this issue befor i listent to a moron who believes he is responsible for the internet.

and as for the cows that are killing the planet, what about all of the millions of bufflow in the plains, and the hundreds of thousands of caribo in alaska before whites came to america, they would pump out as much if not more of the same gases.

secondly the cows firtilize the ground feeding plants which take away co2 and make o2 so the cows gas is compisacted for naturaly.

I believe in global warming... I believe the Earth has been warming up since the last ice age. I also believe there are a myriad of factors which affect Earth's temperature besides human and animal emissions (for example, solar output).

While I don't believe humans are solely responsible for global warming, I do believe we should to everything in our power to reduce our impact on the earth.

It worries me that some of these leftist loons want to counter act global warming, how do we know our efforts aren't going to harm the environment more? How do we know this isn't a path the planet was going down already, and by interfering we are actually getting in the way of natural processes?

This is a political propaganda piece

Typical "climate change" liberal dishonesty

It reminds me of keith olbermans "worst person in the world"

Pure politics of type you claim to be against in your piece, YOU are the one making this political as are the high priests of this phony religion

So many provably untrue things you say

You said "But it’s a heck of a lot warmer now"
You must not have gotten the memo, it's "climate change" now, that way when it's not "a heck of a lot warmer now" the coldness ALSO PROVES CLIMATE CHANGE (Don't say warming don't say warming, ooops you said warming)

I'm sure you'll point to this or that studay showing that even though clearly it's NOT warmer (I wasn't born yesterday, it simply IS NOT WARMER WHERE I AM) it really is, who are gonna believe me or your lying eyes/skin

These number get modified before going into ANY report, and of course we should just trust that you are doing it for a good reason cause we just aren't smart enough to realize that any numbers that don't show warming need to be adjusted up (Pure coincidence)

Ever heard of the "Micheal Mann Nature Trick", funny you don't mention it here, that's because there is no room for debate, you worship these beliefs and anyone who disagrees is an appostate

If the numbers don't come out right you just adjust them to "Hide the Decline"

Google these terms people, the numbers are being rigged, instead of going after REAL problems (YES THERE ARE REAL POLLUTION/ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN THIS WORLD) we must fight CARBON... Why? Because then we can tax EVERYTHING (And of course just chance that the only way to fight global warming is a new tax on EVERYTHING) Everything required carbon to create or transport to you EVERY THING

You said "Plenty of people were responsible for the bungled opportunity that was the United Nations Climate Change Conference last winter"

Not really, the main problem is that someone released the emails of East Anglia University before the conference to save us from enviro dictators who want a world tax on EVERYTHING/CARBON

They are rigging the numbers, the emails make that clear

NONE of the results of Micheal Mann or ANY of these so called scientists can be reproduced, the un adjusted numbers aren't released, the data used to create the hockey stick just can't be released

You must take it on faith, like religion that Micheal Mann wouldn't lie to us, he would never use a "Nature Trick" to make his hockey stick graph shoot up at the end

If it was real we could see the numbers, but no these numbers are only for the high priests of your religion to see, "just trust us, we are saving the world"

The claim that anyone who disagrees with you isn't a real scientist because the high priests of your religion haven't approved them by publishing them in politicaly controlled publications is the biggest lie

We saw in the east anglia emails how the "scientists" worked to prevent anyone who disagreed from being published instead SHOWING US THE NUMBERS AND SCIENCE INVOLVED

Time after time we see people rigging the number and FLAT OUT LYING about for instance Glaciers melting in the himilayas, and you just keep repeating your nonsense

None of these people has credibility, the world is NOT warming (I can walk outside and see that, you are LYING I mean just flat out LYING when you say "But it’s a heck of a lot warmer now", it flat out IS NOT, anyone can see that, we don't need scientists to rig charts to show us, we know that the weather today is NOT "a heck of a lot warmer now"

It could even BE warmer, You MAY even be right about global warming

Dishonesty like this claim and the way you simply dismiss and ignore HUGE problems like the himilayan glacier LIE and the east anglia corruption makes it so people no longer believe you

I don't know if you are one of the brainwashed zombie masses or one of the high priests of this religion, it doesn't matter, it's just dishonest

now that's some cow hatin right there. going green is good, very good to use responsible sources of energy ect. especially when those sources are available all over. I believe is climate change, but not like ya'll with the chaos. the earth is resilient and massive, where does science get off with all the figures? Millions of years old, changing constantly. I'm not worried about a thing just these cow haters 'cause I like burgers.

To say that scientists who are not climatologist have no right to question the conclusion of climatologists is a moot point. It's not the conclusion they are questioning, it's the methods. Anyone who has passed a college statistics course is qualified to judge whether the "infallible" climate scientists have properly applied the principles of statistics in their data interpretation.

If they had used the scientific method and actually proven their theory that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are going to be responsible for catastrophic climate change, there wouldn't be such a controversy. But they haven't used the scientific method, they've used politics- aka a "consensus". A consensus doesn't prove that a theory is true. If it did, we shouldn't be arguing over the Fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Christianity is the religion with the most followers. We have a consensus.

For Ms. Boyle to accuse Bjorn Lomborg of "Pseudo-Academics" is the height of irony.

I'll give you one right here. THE CLIMATE NEVER STOPS CHANGING!!!!!!! Why does everyone have to be so stupid. Stop polluting my air and water because it's mine!!! Property laws people. Amend them to specifically include the air above your property and viola! No more polluting your neighbors air! It's ILLEGAL! Then we get ready for climate change. Why? Because nothing we can do will ever stop our climate from changing!!! :D
How's that for black and white?

Dear Pop Sci, I have been reading your magazine and coming to your site for years. But you go to far when you're telling I shouldn't eat a freak en burger because it's bad for the environment. I sick of all your biased opinions, George Bush is not the source of all the world's problems and I am canceling my subscription to your magazine.

Keep the politics out of it!

Entertaining article. Thanks for the humor break.

Can I say talking points directly from the White House? Ms. Boyle obviously has done NO research into what she wrote about. You only Need to go to www.climatedepot.com to completely debunk everything she and the talking points provided by the White House have pointed out.

I find it hard to believe that for a supposedly scientific magazine they would publish such a piece. This article gives me pause to the credibility of the entire magazine now.

Sincerly,
VERY disappointed reader.

Ms. Boyle, your climategate denialism is showing.

Hilarious. But obviously too subtle for most!

I have been a loyal subscriber to your magazine for over 15 years. After reading this absolute DRECK masquerading as "objective journalism" I am canceling my subscription IMMEDIATELY - and I am additionally removing all links to your magazine from my website, twitter, and wordpress blog.

Now that I see you have bought into this eco-marxist CRAP fully, I promise to give your publication a MILLIONS DOLLARS of free advertising in my social circles.

The kind of advertising that will insure anyone I speak with never purchases, reads, or subscribes to what was once a respectable magazine.

It has been my experience that any discipline that includes the word "science" in the name isn't one.

Physics is a science. Chemistry or geology are sciences. "Earth science", "environmental science" and "social science" aren't sciences. Neither is "climate science", because you can't do experiments, you can't come up with falsifiable explanations, and the people who claim to be "climate scientists" refuse to modify their THEORIES when the FACTS don't support them.

People who change their theories to fit the facts are scientists. People who bend the facts to fit their theories are frauds.

Ken Mitchell
Citrus Heights, CA

No, your worst villain is the Crazed Sex Poodle, Albert Gore’s alter ego. Valiant efforts like writing this article can’t turn the tide. For a while, you had everything going for you. Now your own troops are demoralized and defecting. Liberals will not be laughed at. It’s over, Ms. Boyle.

Hey, you know what they say:

No one expects the Climate Inquisition!

But apparently it's here. Who knew that Popular Science would one day be giving Monty Python a run for its money. (Not to mention the Catholic Church of a half a millennium ago. Science did its part in lighting the way for the Church back then. Is it now time for the Church to return the favor and, drawing on lessons hard-earned, help liberate science from its new, approaching Inquisitorial Dark Age.)

This article was a joke. You ought to be embarrassed and shame-faced for printing it. When a science magazine comes to resemble a Monty Python skit you know you have a serious problem.

The worst thing is they actually think these nasty attacks are "science"

Attacking the opposition is what passes for "science" in the "climate science" world (And apparently now at popsci too)

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the last several ice ages ended or began without the influence of industrialization. Still waiting.

Man, what a load! Sometimes this magazine is very difficult to take seriously.

Suppose that AGW is real. That doesn't tell us enough to do anything useful about it. We must have a reliable and non-controversial metric to evaluate it quantitatively. This would allow us to determine (1) if our "solutions" (whatever they might be) are doing the job, and (2) when we can stop crippling ourselves and our industrial economy in our efforts to stop whatever it is that's causing the change in the metric. Unfortunately the items so often quoted by Warmists are not reliable metrics. (Think tree-ring data - that obviously is no good.) In theory there is a good one but it's not terribly sensitive and there's probably a serious phase delay, but it's a good worldwide integrator and so much better than spot measurements at weather stations. I refer to sea level. Now like pretty much all other old MIT men world-wide, I take a lot of data just for the hell of it. One such data set I have been accumulating since the 1960s is sea level. My measurements show no noteworthy change. NONE. My tentative scientific conclusion is that there is no net warming, caused by human activity or any other factor. None. Reports to the contrary I must tentatively classify as hysteria or propaganda.

I might conjecture that the Warmists are not really interested in a reproducible metric. Lacking a metric, they can always claim that whatever we're doing to solve the problem isn't enough - we need to do more of it. How convenient - they can push us to destroy the modern economy and industrial civilization, with no good place to stop along the way. This should eventually satisfy the Greens and other Luddities. But it won't do the Earth much good, since we'll all be huddled around campfires by then. Campfires fueled by wood. Talk about a carbon footprint!

As scientific types know, you don't have to take anyone's word for this stuff. Get your own data. All sorts of important measurements can be done with simple equipment. Read Millikan's "The Electron" for some inspiration about measuring fundamental constants with simple stuff you probably have lying around your kitchen. Or, if that's too high-tech, look up early measurements of the gravitational constant. Shoot, this stuff is easy! (Some of it is, anyway.) If you are just picking between "authorities," though, you aren't doing science. That's fandom, or religion, but not science. This pitiful article is a case in point.

I have to admit I've grown disappointed in Popular Science in recent times, too. Too much lecturing, and far too much uncritical acceptance of the climate "consensus" when the real-world data is getting less certain all the time.

And I really don't need to see any more "ecotopia" articles showing shining cities of metal and glass that are somehow constructed without a vast industrial infrastructure of mining, smelting, forging, transport, and the other heavy industries that actually build skyscrapers and shining skylines.

There are plenty of nations that use very little energy per capita. Most of their people are trying to move here.

Re: Lomborg: "But the bottom line is that Lomborg is a political scientist, and he’s not qualified to contradict the work of climate scientists."

That's an interesting take for the author to have considering that she has degrees in journalism and history. Hardly the stuff to allow her to pass judgment on the subject that she deems herself worthy to call herself judge, jury and executioner.

"Most Americans still believe humans are to blame for this."

I'm afraid not. Polls have shown for some time that the majority of Americans do not believe that AGW is occurring or is a serious problem. One of the many misstatements in this article that recognizes none of the collapse of the scientific case for significant AGW. It means that the majority of Americans are "villains." Who must be "vanquished." Language used by True Believers, not rational adults. True Believers who are happy welcomed, encouraged and manipulated by the great corporate and political interests who will profit from the AGW hoax.

But the true "villain" is science itself, and those left in the field with the courage and integrity to risk their grants, tenure and careers to alert the public that a vast...shall we say, exaggeration, is being perpetrated n this issue. The scientific case has simply collapsed. It was never really made, but the "hockey stick" upon which the entire case rests, was always a crude fiction. the computer models have never matched the empirical reality. The ice cores, the tree rings, the"rising oceans," the supposedly dwindling but in fact expanding polar bear population---these and so many more have turned out to be mistakes or outright frauds. Exposed as such by more "villains."

Popular Science. Another once-intriguing publication destroyed by a generation of gullible, ethics-free useful idiots clinging to their faith in Regressivism. So many villains, so little time.

@rebeccah and @john
I see blame for so many things. At big oil, big pharma, now big beef, soon big mexican restaurants for the powerful greenhouse emissions they cause. Money and power, greed, can be a motivation for those people. You can see/ understand that. Why can't you see that the same money, the same power, the same greed may possibly be at work here.

There is too much money here, too much power at stake to take without disbelief. The damage by following cap and trade too high. The cure is worse than the disease and the cure is not designed to cure. Only get a cut out of any time anything moves, is created, is destroyed. Wealth, power, control. Too much to trust the messengers.

Even the doubtingest doubter would love green power, if it makes sense. Cold fusion, I'm there. Solar why not, if it makes sense. Not cap and trade. Never cap and trade. Even the believingest believer has to admit with that much money, power and control at stake. The concept of cap and trade does not make sense. It will not save anything. It will not help you or me or the earth. Sorry, I wish things were so simple, they aren't. I'm sorry but you have to try again. Don't let them destroy you or me because they told you it's "us" against "them". Believers vs doubters. Dems vs repubs. Left vs right. People will accept any amount of degradation as long as they think they are hurting the enemy more. They know that. I do too. Don't allow them to do this to us, you or me, one and all.

Ms. Boyle,

Your satirical piece is hilarious. The irrational defenders you have too have me laughing hard. It must be so refreshing to all live life so devoid of objectivity or reality.

For a real villains list, this is is the one to use if you desire honesty.

1) Corrupt scientists who falsify climate data for their profit. Like Dr. Phil Jones, East Anglica University.

2) Illiterate hacks who popularize false science for their own profit. Like Al Gore.

3) Zealous Gaia worshipers who blame man for everything in an effort to advance their cherished-yet-debunked socio-economic theories. Like most of your defenders here.

4) Corrupt politicians who make huge profits for their friends and selves by blatantly lying to people. Like Obama.

5) Chemophobes that would rather hundreds of millions die than scientifically-proven safe chemicals be used properly. Like Rachael Carson.

6) Uneducated, sensationalist journalists who advance their activism and have no sense of integrity or ethics. Like you, Ms. Boyle.

Maybe you and your editors could work on adding more science for Sci and less populism for Pop.

People still don't understand that global warming skeptics doubt that humans are the principal cause, not that GW doesnt exist.

theglobalwarmingtruth.com/

I really shouldn't be surprised that Popular Science...oh excuse me, that should be "Pop Sci", has become one of those publications which, with the passing of the torch to younger staff, has abandoned its long and proud history of objectivity and disinterested coverage in favor of a blatantly partisan stance and biased and subjective articles. Shame on you.

It amazes, and saddens me some, to see the grande dames of the print news media such as the New York Times, and the venerable weekly and monthly magazines of general and specialized interest, such as yours, as they flounder in the increasingly desperate search for the way to keep circulation from slipping away entirely. We readers...well, former readers for the most part...can almost feel the rising panic in management and staff of these once great edifices as they seek what apparently seems to them to be the great secret to stemming the huge loss in circulation which they have suffered for years.

What is saddest is not the looming (and by this point all but certain) deaths of these once-great publications, but the self-delusion which keeps the staff and management from taking necessary steps to save their publications and their jobs. Because they are deceiving themselves about what the problem is and what can be done to fix it.

The print media industry has already written the narrative of its demise. Like the old newspaper practice of writing celebrities' and public figures' obituaries long before their deaths, the news media and related media have been preparing the story of their demise for a few years now. But unlike an obituary for Madonna, the news media and magazines are already easing out their story about how they died. Tossing it out there so that they can "soften up the beach" and prepare the public for when it really happens. That way they can control the story, and thus write history before it happens. The sad thing is, they are so wrong about why they will have died. What's sadder: it was entirely avoidable...that is if they hadn't let their vanity and partisanship get in the way.

They want to world to think they are dying because of the "free news" of the internet. Yep, o woe unto them, the Internet killed the newspapers and magazine industry. That bastard Internet! That's the story they're putting out; that's the story that soothes their egos and allows their world view to remain intact. It almost looks like they're intentionally failing so that they can "prove" this scenario.

How else to explain the NYT's ludicrous attempts a few years ago to charge for virtually every bit of the Tines online? It failed miserably...as some would say was always the intended result. But it isn't the Internet which is killing off the tree media: it's the arrogance and ignorance of the publishers, managers, editors and staffers.

It's their arrogance in dismissing, and often overtly insulting, anyone who might remotely support an idea which smacks of political conservatism. It is beyond rational dispute that the news industry is a politically monochrome institution. Somewhere around 90% of the entire industry's population of reporters, editors, managers and publishers, down to its proofreaders, fact-checkers, support staff and photographers, describe themselves as among the most politically liberal members of American society. It might be nice to think of the press room gang, truck drivers and distribution team as Archie Bunker-type blue-collar heroes, etc., etc. Except the old printing operation that took 100 guys in little newspaper hats has been forever replaced by a $20-million computerized production line run by 5 middle-manager types. And those guys are hardcore union men, along with the truck drivers, distributors and circulation managers.

So it's no secret that conservatives are few and far between in the news media. They're simply not welcome. Now, if the news industry followed those principles of objectivity and disinterested coverage which they used to proudly parrot (they don't even bother with the facade today), there would be no problem.

Indeed, the news industry once was pretty good at that stuff. From, say, the 40's through the mid-70's, sticking pretty much to the "5 W's (and 1 H)". There was no opinion masquerading as fact; the personal perspective, much less the biases, of the reporter were usually absent; and news was covered without regard (in the best of cases) to who was involved and what the consequences might be for parties involved.

But with the coming of Watergate, and the lionization of Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee and reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, all that went to hell. Reporting became "a calling". From a vaguely disreputable undertaking seen to be largely peopled by job-hopping low-grade alcoholics who had failed at many other jobs, news reporting was transformed into a sort of spiritual quest, a modern reshaping of the Grail legend into the search for Truth by the (Self-)Righteous Knights of the Holy Typewriter.

And it only got worse, as "the news" was changed from the traditional search for reliable information about events of all types which had occurred in the community, into a way to "change the system". Kids left high school intent on becoming "journalists" now, who would "make the world a better place". Anyone who felt a need to improve the lot of mankind (and that's what they called humanity then) before, say, 1975, became doctors, nurses, teachers, firemen, policemen, pastors and members of the Peace Corps. After Watergate, everybody wanted to be Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.

And non-liberals stopped becoming reporters, uh, "journalists". And true to human nature, those liberals who remained couldn't stay intellectually honest. They often skewed stories to help Democrats and hurt Republicans; they spiked anything which might hurt their team. This kind of partisanship has reached its apogee with the coming of The One. It was embarrassing to watch the way the news media prostrated itself for Obama. It's still going, as scandal after outrage after crime is intentionally going unreported.

And finally, why have the newspapers and magazines lost their subscribers? Because that majority of the news-users, the news-buyers, area actually conservative and libertarian in their outlook on things in general. We're actually a majority of the market. We're the heavy news-eaters. We're intelligent; we're successful; we're experienced; and we can tell BS when someone serves it up to us as BBQ. We're tired of being pissed on by the news media. Of being ignored if we're lucky, insulted and accused if we're not. It is primarily the rise of an far more objective news outlet in Fox News which has hurt the traditional news media the most. Even in their mockery and frothing accusations against Fox News, the leftward leaning media members prove the case against themselves: because if they were able to look with unbiased eyes they would see that Fox is not a conservative organ, but a more nearly objective news organization than has been available for some three decades.

From Fox's astounding success has flowed the conservative blogosphere, which is cutting gaping wounds into the traditional news media. We consumers of these blogs and news aggregators don't require pristine objective reporting; we just want bias and interest acknowledged, and we'll make the decisions from there. That inability to admit bias is what has hurt the traditional media the most, by far.

And now "PopSci" has made the same mistake. I promise you, that if you follow this path, you'll die too. Just like the NYT; just like Newsweek; just like MSNBC and even CNN. For they are all stumbling toward their deaths. And all because they can't bring themselves to admit that their arrogance, their bias and their slanted coverage has driven their readers and viewers away.

The global cooling/warming/climate change hoax has nothing to do with average temperature changes, reducing real or imagined pollution, or any of the other purported motives.

If it had anything to do with climate, credible scientists would be debating methods for coping with change, rather than proposing responses that have been limited solely to political power grabs and economic redistribution.

Once you strip away all of the parrots, posers, politicians and their ilk, there are only about two dozen "scientists" actually doing original research in the climate field, and less than a dozen of that group who have been at the forefront. The failings of pal-reviewed literature and near total lack of review by professionals in the statistical field aside, if one pays attention and listens to these core 8-12 "high priests" of climate science, their words do not support the proposed response.

Richard Alley of Penn State, one of that core group, is on the record as having identified periods in the pre-industrial age when temperatures changed by as much as 10 degrees in a decade, far more drastic than the 1-3 degrees per century that computer-game simulations have postulated.

So on one hand we have virtually unquestioned evidence that natural forces can alter global temperatures by 10 degrees in a decade, and on the other hand, we have some poorly reasoned, untested hypotheses claiming that man might possibly alter temperatures by less than 3 degrees over a century.

If the real goal is to address actual changes in climate, do you:

A. Spend all of your efforts attempting to prevent a hypothetical and insignificant level of purportedly anthropogenic change that may or may not happen?

or

B. Develop methods to cope with the virtual certainty that we will experience dramatic levels of change over which we've had no influence, and have no hope of mitigating?

Sorry drones, but the climate scientologists' own words appear to have outed the true motives.

I'm a published physicist with extensive experience in computational physics and modeling complex systems - atomic structure, electromagnetics and the hydrodynamics of plasmas. I'm also an AGW agnostic. Why?

1. Because it's too easy to tweek computer models to get them to do whatever you want. Even the best models carefully applied have a 3db error and the effects they're trying to predict are smaller than that. I've closely followed the history of climate models and frankly, they suck. Basing a huge change in world economic structure on such evidence would be insane.

2. Because I've seen first hand what happens when grant money comes down on one side of a subject. See Dark Matter and String theory. AGW is has a huge built in monetary incentive to find cataclysmic results.

3. Because so called "science" magazines like Scientific American, New Scientist and even Nature have abandoned science for politics. And I'm not talking AGW, I'm talking that they've come down on every politicized science and technology issue on the left for years. They're party line support for AGW fits the pattern.

4. Because of articles like this. It's obviously been written by a true believer with a political axe to grind.

This kind of article doesn't do your magazine any favors. As far as I'm concerned you've violated any kind of "science" qualifications and have been relegated to the "politics" bin. It was nice knowing you.

Oh come on PEOPLE! I've been reading PopSci since I was 7 years old! I am certainly not moved to any particular political party or activist movement just because PopSci writes an article about it. I've seen them be wrong before and they'll be wrong again. No biggie.
And by the way PopSci puts out these "touchy" articles because they get way more hits then a standard piece would. Just look at how many people commented on this compared to their other articles.

"I've seen them be wrong before and they'll be wrong again. No biggie."
- - - -

Um, no. This one's a biggie.

They can make an incorrect factual assertion about tectonic abduction zones, and go on to learn more and correct themselves. They can forecast ocean current variations and goof it up as long as they're honestly applying scientific inquiry and just getting the numbers wrong. They can put the wrong month on the front of the magazine and I'd likely just laugh and keep reading.

What Popular SCIENCE Magazine cannot do (if they wish to remain a respected publication) is what they have done here: they cannot jettison rigorous scientific examination and observation-based inquiry and double-checks based upon initial skepticism, and instead buy into and become shills for a cultish "believe us because we're good decent liberals like you, and not BigOilDemons like Those Bad Guys over there" Know-Nothing movement such as AGW.

They cannot unquestioningly accept that someone has discovered - proven, even! - that ours is a system driven solely by positive feedback, that will soon degenerate into the climate equivalent of laying the microphone down in front of the speaker - a requirement for believing the next step, i.e., that it's coming soon - without wondering aloud how the system has survived over millions and millions of years already. (Look! Over there! A perpetual motion machine!) They cannot just keep looking the other way and humming loudly when it's pointed out that CO2 lags temperature. They cannot become part of a movement that happily risks the deaths of millions as the price for keeping the Good People - the Correct-Thinking People - in charge of our lives. At its core, that's why AGW was invented.

Yeah, I've eagerly read Popular Science since I was in elementary school, and I'm fifty-three now, and this is just . . . sad to see. All good things must end, I'm told, and I'm beginning to believe it.

I just hope they find the people who stole our science magazine and put them out in the public stocks so that they can get some new feedback on their descent into drivel. They've been going to the same parties with the same people for too long, and they're now believing each others' transparent lies with a fervent and breathless zealotry that reminds me of arguing theology with airport Moonies. Ick.

You obviously haven't even read Lomborg, Rebecca. He fully embraces the IPCC science but takes issue with proposed policy responses. Sheesh.

Good article. A little too aggressive for my taste though. The comments are funny... and a little depressing. A lot of people saying they 'end their subscriptions' because you 'should have read this' or 'should have read that' and 'obviously haven't read so-and-so's work'. I don't mean to be condescending (well, maybe a little), but I can only assume these people are reading articles about climate reports, rather than reading the reports themselves (or articles on climate emails, rather than the climate emails themselves). Google's a good start.

I created an account and went through all the password/email hassle just to mention that I am canceling my subscription, largely due to this article. It is not the only reason, but it is definitely the last straw.

Rebecca, don't let these people get to you. We can see the symptoms all around us, if only we take an open look.

On my knee, for example, is Sparkles, my darling little cat. She is purring as I type, but do you know what makes her so purrrrr-fectly special? She's the proof of climate change.

Every year for the best five years or so she has shed less and less fur because her summer coat now lasts her through the temperate winters.

Every see the canada geese in upstate NY in winter. They're there because of climate change. Why fly south when it is warm up north.

Rebecca, they are villains, every one.

You go, Green Girl. It's great to see environmentalism with a feminist muscle behind it.

Your description of both Bjorn Lomborg and his work is factually incorrect and that would have been obvious had you actual picked up even one of his works or read his bio.

(1) Lombrog is not a "social scientist" but a statistician who made his name analyzing social science and economic data. He is highly qualified to examine the data produced by global warming computer models and the dependent economic models upon which the actual political decisions are based.

(2) Lomborg TAKES THE RESULTS OF GLOBAL WARMING CLIMATE MODELS AS A GIVEN. At no point does he ever undertake to examine whether the climatologist can actually predict climate a century ahead. He simply assumes that they can.

What he does do, which is radically different from most, is to take the mainline (most probable) predictions of the all four major climate models instead of the most extreme and least probable predictions. He then examines the ECONOMIC projections based on the most probable climate predictions.

Lombrog IS UNDENIABLY QUALIFIED to study economic predictions. Lomborg's great sin for warmist is that he calculated that the economic cost of preventing the most probable degree of warming dwarfed the benefit gained. To my knowledge, no one has seriously challenged his math on the economic predictions.

You're wrong that there is not a zero sum tradeoff between fighting global warming and fighting real undeniable harms like malaria. Preventing malaria requires material resources such metal mesh screens for windows and doors to keep mosquitos away from infected people. Significantly raising energy cost significantly raises the cost of everything, period. Higher cost for materials means fewer life saving materials. Fewer life saving materials equals more dead human beings. Even a journalist should be able to handle that math.

You mock climate change skeptics for being uninformed and yet you make a mistake that could have been avoided by 30 minutes of googling. You need to do your basic job instead of lecturing the rest of us.

Of course, this is nothing new. I read Popular Science religiously as a teenager circa 1980 in the middle of the "energy crisis". I remember similar articles mocking those who claimed that there was physical shortage of oil in the ground but just political interference with petroleum markets. Well, four years later the "energy crisis" evaporated and we are today so awash with oil we worry we are altering the climate with it.

This is the same type of hysteria by the same people for the same selfish reasons. In the end they will prove just as wrong.

I think that all of this global warming talk has over ridden the real man-made climate issue – the problem of tidal surges. I have been reviewing data that confirms that since the 1960s tidal rhythms on the eastern shores of the Atlantic have been erratic and the net tidal fall (the difference between high tide and low tide) has increased since then by upwards of 2 inches. This has resulted in a noticeable increase in beach erosion – exemplified by the tons of beach sand that we must import to rebolster our shores here in the Hamptons (thank you tax payers). Extrapolating this change across all of the oceans of the world (hard data is not available so as any good scientist would do I assume that it must be the same everywhere) then we are on the imminent verge of cataclysmic catastrophe.

What caused it and what can we do about it, you ask? The cause is obvious. The Apollo moon missions left hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds of debris on the moon. That increase in moon mass has been adding to the increased tidal activity. It is as plain and obvious – irrefutable I would say – as the nose on your face. In fact, no one can deny it. But that’s only half the problem. Remember man didn’t just add mass to the moon; that mass was a direct transfer from earth in effect doubling the gravitational effect of the man-made impact on the tidal motions.

So how do we fix it? Some just want to leave it alone, after all it’s been like that for decades. But I say we need to bring all of the countries of the world together (except for the huge, poor countries, of course) and develop a ray gun that can vaporize the moon debris before it is too late. Doing this would, naturally, consume all of our economic resources but as long as the government is in charge and no one is making a profit on it, who cares? We’ll just call it a jobs bill or stimulus or something!

So, now is the time to act. This may or may not be a real problem (and the data that I will never show you definitely suggests that it might be real) but why take a chance? The future of our children is at stake.

And, oh yeah, George Bush is dumb.

There's one to add to the list - Don Blankenship of Massey Energy.

Wow! I feel like I'm living in a story by Orwell or Bradbury. What's next? Adding an Office of High Inquisitor to the National Science Foundation? I am disgusted even though I do believe we should do something about global warming.

But let's get out of burn the heretics mode here people. Climate is complex, chaotic, and not subject to controlled experiments. We have some serious error bars -- even in the IPCC report! Given the IPCC report -- no skeptics needed -- the question does turn to economics. Do we spend trillions now to switch over to expensive alternatives, or do we spend a few billions in basic research and switch over a few decades hence?

If you want to get economically literate people to endorse climate action now, you need to present an economically reasonable plan such as this one:
http://www.holisticpolitics.org/GlobalWarming/

This unbecoming, unscientific, vilification is making the oil company shills look rather respectable by comparison.

Opinion:

All that I will say is that articles for this mag should only reflect pure, un-biased, un-modified facts.

Some light humor is ok depending on the subject, but opinions should NEVER make it to see the light of day.

This is really sad and highly disappointing.
And Popular Science should be ashamed for publishing opinion pieces.

(See, PopSci publishers? Noticed how I identified this comment? At least follow that idea)

PopSci, it’s disappointing to read an article of this tone in what once was a fine source of reference. Rather than offering source material and fresh insight into cutting edge technology, you went the route of personal attack and scolding your readers. That’s a vehicle that’s failed many other institutions mostly because it insults the intelligence of your audience. And an intelligent audience is your target market.

I’m a skeptic not so much because of the data that’s been produced, but more for the lack of evidence for the scientific breakthrough that successfully producing the data implies. The ability to successfully model what is arguably one of most complex systems known, global climate, being impacted by a barrage of influences, both large and small, would be a revolutionary turning point in computer sciences (for one). Think of the other complex systems this method of modeling would be applied to: medicine, economics, mathematics, physics; the list would go on. If the AGW conclusions were truly irrefutable, the methodology used to arrive at those conclusions would be self evident by it being quickly snapped up and applied to the broader scientific community.

The truth is that climatology is a young science. More time is needed for it to mature. Tainting it now with half-baked results and sensationalism will lead to the same results seen in other sciences in their ill-spent youth (lobotomy, anyone?). The agenda being driven will result in deterring its growth, adding years to reaching its full potential and real benefits.

So PopSci, challenge me by thinking beyond a narrow world view. Invite me to research, to explore and to draw my own conclusions. And for the sake of your own magazine (and careers), stop preaching to me.

Six Quiet Climate ??Villains??

Isn't "Apostates" the correct expression?

I can imaging Galileo looking down on the religio-environmentalists who publish this pap and rolling his eyes in disgust.

What do we do with the apostates? Would Torqemada recommend the rack or the comfy chair?

Six Quiet Climate ??Villains??

Isn't "Apostates" the correct expression?

I can image Galileo looking down on the religio-environmentalists who publish this pap and rolling his eyes in disgust.

What do we do with the apostates? Would Torqemada recommend the rack or the comfy chair?

"But the bottom line is that Lomborg is a political scientist, and he’s not qualified to contradict the work of climate scientists."

In the religio-environmentalist's world, an appeal to authority is a valid substitute for facts and logic. Not to mention the side benefit of distracting from same facts and logic.

The only villain responcible for global warming

The FREAKING

<<<<<>>>>>>

SUN

[“Part of it does related to how open-minded people are to information. It’s the ones that are close-minded that are of course the biggest problem,” he says.

How to vanquish: If your local Brick Tamland starts talking about global warming, change the channel.]

Be open minded to our opinion. Be closed minded to others.

Four legs gooooood. Two legs baaaaaaaad.

I like to point out when people contradict themselves. I usually can't do it with one copy/paste.

Oh and good job working in the "Brick Tamland" reference. The best way to defeat an enemy public opinion war like this is to help the people think of them as clowns. I'd say you are only a few years of practice away from a promising career in local politics.

I don't know why everyone is trying to refute climate change. It's real and it must be stopped! Who needs four seasons anyway? Year in and year out the climate is not like the year before. It's either a little warmer or a little colder every year and we should not stand for this. LA is a great model of what the rest of the world should achieve: 72 and sunny year round. Talk about consistency baby! No climate change there.

Popsci just wants to be a grown up like EVERY OTHER NEWS AGENCY!

All of the acronyms CNN and FOX and BBC and all the big ones make the big bucks by getting all 'serious' and taking a stance.

Now all we need is Popsci to have a 'Scientific Debate' like they do on the News where people just yell at each other and dont show evidence.

HEY GUYS! Do you remember when jurnalism was credible and mattered? Well... that is what is happening to Popsci.

Ill admit that Global Warming is very probably happening, but the reasons are the sketchy part. And the Liberal vs. Conservative in magazines should not be there. It should be totaly unbiased, BUT I am not naive as to expect them not to lean to one side or the other. After all if the big 'news' productions do it you cant really expect other news sites not to follow their lead, no matter how much they shouldnt.

The mechanism by which carbon dioxide absorbs infrared energy can be explained by the science of absorption spectroscopy.

If you don't know what that is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy

That's pure science, in fact the same science that predicts the absorption of microwave energy by water... the reason your microwave oven works.

Can't argue with that...

Here's a little on CO2 and infrared energy:
http://bob-sez.com/11/greenhouse-effect/

We know CO2 absorbs infrared energy. How much CO2 do we produce transporting ourselves and our food all over creation? How about heating our homes and office buildings? How about cramming mountains worth of coal through incinerators and into the atmosphere to produce baseload electricity that goes unused in the middle of the night? We generate a massively disproportionate amount of CO2 in increasing volumes. And that CO2 absorbs infrared energy radiated from the planet's surface after a day of exposure to the sun.

I distrust cap-n-trade as much as the deniers. But I see a massive opportunity to convert our electrical generation plants to burn hydrogen produced by electrolysis--running wind-generated electrical current through ocean water.

But, we have the best Congress money can buy... Not to mention big oil execs sitting on boards of directors of big media who are busily feeding disinformation to the masses quite effectively as evidenced by the denialist postings here.

Yes, the Earth has gone through Milancovic cycles of warming/cooling over tens of thousands of years... but we're thousands of years ahead of schedule with our 100 year trend.

Global warming has nothing to do with Al Gore, who incidentally made the bulk of his fortune on Google stock. He at least was able to bring some attention to the phenomenon.

I took the time to sign up here so I could leave this comment. Because of this article I have signed up for a subscription to Popular Science so that I could then turn around and cancel it. Like many others who have posted here I am now going to evoke the name of Al Gore, because I am completely ignorant of the science of Global Warming and I see other likeminded people blame him so I will too. Anyone can see that the Sun and Moon glow cause climate change, and this is just a liberal hoax plot to bring about the New World Order of Anti-Cow Vegetarianism Cap $ Trade Marxism…or NWOACVCTM. In the future I hope all fields of science become extremely politicized like this, so instead of having to do any actual balanced research on the subject I can base my opinion on what my party thinks is true. In closing a double Al Gore on you Popular Science! I’m now going to uninstall the internet from my computer because I used it to read your website.

PopSci is the real villain for publishing this propaganda.

Publish a false, misleading and, biased article, get a lot of hits for a day or two, then lose readership when people figure the site is too biased to bother with in the future.

Way to go! I won't be back...

We should have googled “climate villains” before frivolously commenting. We would have known that Ms. Boyle engages in a serious ritual popular among her AGW coreligionists. The only remarkable thing is that she narrowed down the list of “villains” to 6 from the more common 15 (17 in the Rolling Stones Magazine). She is onto something. Who in their right mind can remember so many villains? Getting rid of this inflation must do some good.

The other bold move is reserving one of the 6 valuable villain spots for “us”. We are all sinners, you see? It reminds us of the dermatology professor way back who fixed the number of eczema causes at exactly 15. He listed 14 specific causes with the 15th being “eczema for unknown reasons”.

Ms. Boyle is onto something with her reduction but it should be further refined to be worthy of a scientific publication like PopSci. She needs to bring the Devil into the system. I am sure that she will immediately recognize the elegance of the proposed solution. Satan allows her to eliminate all other secondary villain characters in the eternal struggle of good and evil. She will also still have “us” to work with.

We are eagerly awaiting Ms. Boyle’s next paper and we volunteer to peer review it again.

The one thing I hate most about our school systems is the impression placed upon every student that the best way to make an argument is by satire. I really do get tired of reading mocking posts by people who disagree with me. If you have a different opinion, provide support and a direct argument to mine.

On every side of a discussion, there are absolute wackos that make easy targets for dissenting opinion. The people who say, "Well we had a colder winter than normal this year, hence no AGW." are not the brightest forces behind the opposition to the theory of AGW. Likewise, the people that predict worldwide catastrophe unmatched within one month if we don't change our ways are out of touch with reality.

That being said, it is equally dim to make arguments against such flimsy stances without addressing the difficult to disprove ideas thrown out by each side's learned portion. There ARE, regardless if the AGW believers want to believe it, many scientists who disagree with AGW. Some of them are directly involved in Climate studies, others have similar occupations which give them a means to produce a somewhat learned opinion. Seek these individuals out and disprove all of their theories if you really intend to kill AGW skepticism.

As for the inclusion of this article in PopSci, I don't really mind from a journalistic sense. I think that a magazine does by default contain opinion and even if I disagree with it, I don't see it as a letdown. If this was published by the AP, then I'd have an issue with it. A "Journalist" is strictly someone who writes for a Magazine or Newspaper, which places no requirements for their work to be fact based and non partial.

However, I don't agree with it in the slightest and can't deny that I feel slightly disappointed in the demagoguery of open inquiry on a site that should be open to other views. If it was flipped to discuss the opposing views to AGW without calling them out as ignorants, I think it would make an incredibly interesting article. Instead, the author chose to dwell on personally attacking each person who has a different opinion than she. I hope she comes to understand how petty it makes her look when she looks back on this in the future.

Horrible hot mess of an article, Rebecca. The best takeaways from comments to date and the commenter:

1. GW is different than AGW - Weatherman700
2. 'Free Range' animals have a bigger impact on the environment by many metrics than do those from feed-lot/industrial-ag - Rodfarva00
3. You are turning a science debate into a moral debate. Facts out the window, opinions = good/evil - SLNuke87
3.5 In turning the debate into good/evil, you allow yourself the luxury of dismissing those with good reasoning with ad hominum attacks, as you do with Lomborg - Smeger
4. The real villians in all of this are spelled out perfectly by Sencho's comment 7/2/10 1:19am
5. Arguments from authority along the lines of '99% of all climate scientists believe in AGW' are bunko - JunkScienceSkeptic pointed out one reason: The gatekeepers of data are only a handful of folks.

Horrible hot mess of an article, Rebecca. The best takeaways from comments to date and the commenter:

1. GW is different than AGW - Weatherman700
2. 'Free Range' animals have a bigger impact on the environment by many metrics than do those from feed-lot/industrial-ag - Rodfarva00
3. You are turning a science debate into a moral debate. Facts out the window, opinions = good/evil - SLNuke87
3.5 In turning the debate into good/evil, you allow yourself the luxury of dismissing those with good reasoning with ad hominum attacks, as you do with Lomborg - Smeger
4. The real villians in all of this are spelled out perfectly by Sencho's comment 7/2/10 1:19am
5. Arguments from authority along the lines of '99% of all climate scientists believe in AGW' are bunko - JunkScienceSkeptic pointed out one reason: The gatekeepers of data are only a handful of folks.

Horrible hot mess of an article, Rebecca. The best takeaways from comments to date and the commenter:

1. GW is different than AGW - Weatherman700
2. 'Free Range' animals have a bigger impact on the environment by many metrics than do those from feed-lot/industrial-ag - Rodfarva00
3. You are turning a science debate into a moral debate. Facts out the window, opinions = good/evil - SLNuke87
3.5 In turning the debate into good/evil, you allow yourself the luxury of dismissing those with good reasoning with ad hominum attacks, as you do with Lomborg - Smeger
4. The real villians in all of this are spelled out perfectly by Sencho's comment 7/2/10 1:19am
5. Arguments from authority along the lines of '99% of all climate scientists believe in AGW' are bunko - JunkScienceSkeptic pointed out one reason: The gatekeepers of data are only a handful of folks.

I'll say it again. Climate change is inevitable. If you ever get a chance to come through AZ hit me up and I'll show you why. It actually makes for a beautiful day of hiking.

People should realize that even with leaked e-mails showing that data was manipulated aside, that the need for a scientific community to have a general CONSENSUS means that the scientific data we have is most certainly NOT CONCLUSIVE.

That's the thing about (F)actual science.....
If it isn't scientifically proven, it's still only a theory.

To all of you scientists that support the global warming THEORY: If you want people to believe you, the ownus is on YOU to provide irrefutable EVIDENCE of mans carbon emissions causing global warming. Shaming people into believeing something that isn't a proven is an abhoration of what science is supposed to be.

We should pass some laws about owning greenhouses because of all the greenhouse gasses they produce.

I am going to build a greenhouse and heat it with used tires because they burn so hot (much hotter than my copies of Popular Science) and I "feel" that it is good for the environment.

I plan on cooling my green house in the summer by burning coal using the updraft to cool off my greenhouse.

I also won't be renewing my subscription.

Among other absurdities Boyle criticizes China (which "emits more sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide than any other nation") and says "How to vanquish" is "At the voting booth." Um, China?

I also can't believe they included a giant photo of a congressman and strategically positioned it under the "How to vanquish: At the voting booth" text. Accident? Ahem. I can picture the staff tittering over their cleverness. Very high school newspaper.

An inconvenient truth is that China and India have approximately zero interest in hobbling their economies on the warming altar. Does that trouble the author? No. Full speed ahead. It'll all work out, somehow--and only lying, contemptible fools could disagree.

If PopSci wants to run a piece analyzing the climate issue, go ahead. But that wasn't an analysis, that was more like an outburst by a snarky, arrogant teenager.

They should dismiss the author and admonish her editors.

@ on the way out:

EXACTLY! Why do no publications ever go into all of this actual and great scientific data that shows how man is destroying the climate?

All i ever hear is that because i disagree, i should do my "homework" F**k that. I am not the one trying to convice people that the sky is falling. The ownus is not on us!

I honestly thought that the guy on the left was Steve Carell hahaha

@ Soulsworm - it is Steve Carell. Brick Tamland is his character (the weatherman) in Anchorman :)

For those of you who like stats though, here's one for you. By my count, 30 people have registered to Popsci and commented here since this article has gone online (not including me). Many of them claiming to be loyal subscribers for years who are canceling their subscription, or ridiculing the author. Now either this article really did cause such an outrage for this to happen, or people are just creating multiple accounts to harass Rebecca. My vote is on the latter. That's just ridiculous if true.

For those saying "what about gore? he's no scientist!" the article never mentions the guy. Stop using your stupid arguments that don't apply to the article- If you don't like the article fine but use some points that make sense... Also I dislike Gore for one reason- he's a politician. But honestly his doucheyness pales in comparison from most especially ones with backgrounds in the oil industry.
And really no one in this conversation really has a valid opinion on climate change because we aren't experts who study it for their profession. It just comes down to who you want to believe and who you trust to tell you what they know truthfully.
Personally I believe scientists who lives are devouted to studying this stuff and not some politician who only cares about his re-election (and securing the sponsors to pay for like oil companies or stupid hipsters)

@briany
">" representing that it is part of this larger group
Climatedepot > CFACT > Cooler Heads Coalition > Competitive Enterprise Institute who's funded by among others, Texaco, Pfizer, Ford, Phillip Morris, GM,American Petroleum Institute and Exxon. This was off a quick google search... The funding info for all these conservative think tanks originates from Media Transparency which is a left leaning think tank whose money originates mainly from wealthy democratic politicians and democracy alliance... So if you're anti-global warming feel free to cherry pick these facts to support your leftist conspiracy rants; if you believe in global warming, to support your corporation rants.

Now for my biased take (Warning: Gross simplifications ahead! Its really not worth reading): It seemed like the leftist think tanks funded by wealthy liberals were a reaction to right wing ones funded by companies... Seems like the companies motive is money (duh that is the only motive for a company, I mean that's the point of them which is fine until they meddle with politics) while the liberals are trying to stop the companies and keep their jobs (as politicians). So both are trying to covertly manipulate the public for their own personal interests but honestly I distrust corporations but that's not saying much as my view of politics isn't much better... By the way this wasn't me attempting to fool you (and myself) into thinking I saw the facts (if you can even call them that...which you really can't) THEN formed my opinions instead of having an opinions and picking facts I like to justify my narrow view of the world and the fact I know "the truth" (<-- haha) but whatever... I'll be surprised (maybe guilty for wasting someone's time) if anyone bothered to read this far haha and yes this has nothing to do with the article

@bobby b
Way to be a douche about it. Yeah, lowbrow I know but I don't feel like typing a fully dignified response.

@woothead
I did read it and I like where you're coming from buddy :)

Becky, Becky, Becky! I really enjoy the controversy your article created, but I do not enjoy the "Fox News" approach ("fair and balanced"????) Most of your readers are here because we enjoy reading articles focused mostly on science, not on visceral, knee jerk, infantile blather. You are understandably frustrated over global warming. Unfortunately you just abused and wasted a fantastic chance to educate your readers and win over converts to your cause. You are also, clearly, writing articles in a vacuous, ivory tower. Before you publicly and shamlessly criticize Bjorn Lomborg, have the courtesy to at least fully read his writings. Before you summarily dismiss the importance of other world problems, go visit and speak with a woman dying of HIV/AIDS, a dying, malnourished child (have you ever seen a child dying of malnutrition?...isn't saving a dying child a bit more urgent that curing "global warming"?), and speak with a man suffering and dying from malaria. Look these people in the eye and tell them that fixing "global warming" is just as important, and as urgent, as saving your lives and easing your suffering. This is just my opinion, but please pull your head out of your tucus and use your position in a more adult, responsible manner. I enjoy your magazine a great deal. I looked over some of your other articles and they are very intersting and useful. Good luck!

This is the worst article ever written .. Who ever wrote this should be fired immediately. Everyone needs to unsubscribe from this magazine.

Global Warming is bunk. Even if it is happening you can't control the earth's climate. If your really concerned start praying.

We should re-name this Magazine.

No more Popular Science, More like Political "Science".

PBO

My first comment on any article and I am sad to say its a negative one. Shame on PopSci and shame on Rebecca Boyle for abusing her position there! The least of all greenhouse gases and the one needed for plants to grow and create oxygen to breathe and you STILL think its bad to have a lot of? Plant more freakin trees! You have to be a flaming idiot if you believe that CO2 causes global warming, it is not a cause but an effect. Warming causes increases in CO2 not the other way around, read the data and examine the graphs for yourself, not the ones AL (I invented the internet and want to sell you carbon credits)Gore has, but the ones from which he pulled his information; then decide.

"For those of you who like stats though, here's one for you. By my count, 30 people have registered to Popsci and commented here since this article has gone online (not including me). Many of them claiming to be loyal subscribers for years who are canceling their subscription, or ridiculing the author. Now either this article really did cause such an outrage for this to happen, or people are just creating multiple accounts to harass Rebecca. My vote is on the latter. That's just ridiculous if true."

Exactly, the retarded strategies is so one sighted and clearly evident.

Some even admitting to subscribing just to post and cancel.

We don't need your "fake" subscriptions and one sighted opinions either so good on you for cancelling your subscriptions, go away from this site HAHAHA !!!

i've been around for a while and will be a POPSCI member for life. The long Jabble of comments about how they cannot
prove that climate change is not man made is hilarious. And the Political games and strategies used to try and pretend it doesn't exist is
so evident!

If YOU stand next to an industrial chimney, for only using
ONE example, look up to the MONSTARIOUS chimney and tell me that what YOU see pumping out of that chimney 24/7 YES 24/7 has no effect on the envrionment, then Ha,
there must be something quite seriously wrong with you or of course someone is PAYING you seriously to pretend to be seriously mentally challenged.

STOP trying to debate the obvious, we don't care about your GREED for money and power, do something that's actually good for a change, save the earth in the long run !!!

Well done Rebeccal, i'll have a cup of tea with you ANY time my dear !

I'm an atheist but I have to say: MY GOD. How can you people read science magazines and yet be so unremittingly ignorant of the real world???
The climate is in flux. Human civilization is likely to suffer. The Earth will go on. This will be a blip on the geological record. It is us and our children who will lose out. It doesn't matter if you don't believe 97% of Climatologists are lying. It really doesn't. Because in the end it will be you and your philosophy that is proved foolish by history.
This article is tongue-in-cheek, in case you didn't understand that. Never-the-less the points it makes are serious.
If the science tells us, and it does, that our way of life is in jeopardy, shouldn't human beings who believe the science argue tooth and nail to convince the ignorant of the danger. the science is proven people no matter what made-up arguments you use. From here on in this IS a moral argument. Save our children or condemn them to clean up our mess.

This artical didn't even TRY to be un-biased. It was a complete political attack from a SCIENCE MAGAZINE!

The only real evidence I could find for climate change in this artical was the moth story. Of course the moths would change color, they adapt! If a forest had gone through a drought, and the plants turned less green, the moths would change color to adapt. It has no negative affects on the moths themselves.

If pop-sci ever put up an artical with REAL avidence for global warming, somone please send me the link. Until then I am never buying this magazine again.

There is nothing wrong with having a healthy amount of skepticism when looking at issues that can possibly have a huge impact on peoples lives. Too often people become so focused on a single issue, they overlook other viable solutions to the problem. History teaches that regardless of how intelligent we think we are or how firmly we are convinced of a particular truth, we can be wrong. The best way to prevent the disastrous effects of poor decisions is to remember that the ends never justifies the means.

This article does show Popsci's bias against those who question the global warming belief. For example, Stuart Fox's Popsci article "House Passes Landmark Greenhouse Gas Bill" on 7/1/09 when he called non believers "the lunatic fringe". Another example is Editor John Mahoney’s comment above or the “Future of the Environment” link above.

Sometimes you have to wade through all the “green” and carbon neutral Popsci perspective bias in articles to get anything out of the magazine. Popsci does have a great How 2.0 section.

Good grief, this site and it's magazine is so biased and firmly parked in left field.

Well said Darthsadrac, I wonder how the deniers of climate change would feel if we pumped all those greenhouse gasses
into their filthy mansions, i can just see it, before passing away they'd yell, "O ok i now beleive these gasses are really nasty... but hey i got rich denying it existed."

This is all a big scam.

Theyre creating a problem to fix.

I made a new account primarily to say this:

@Kickstand27: Please stop using the word "ownus." It is not an English word. If you think it is, the ownus is on you to prove it!

But also this:

The biggest crime in this article, as has been pointed out, is the missed opportunity to really delve into the legitimate science of the climate change debate. I find it hard to imagine a less informative, less interesting, less helpful article than the one presented, except perhaps one written entirely in the Wingdings font.

I don't want to delve into the debate over AGW, except to say that much of the data is far too complex and unreliable to make for conclusive science, and anyone who is interested in the science of climate change should take steps to read the relevant studies and scientific articles. It's a field in which two scientists can examine precisely the same set of numbers and draw two completely different (and contradictory) opinions. It's more movie review than science, and part of the problem is the sheer depth and breadth of the available data. Moreover, even if you decide that climate change is taking place, and that human beings are responsible, there is still a much more complex and important debate to settle: whether it's worth the time and financial resources to actually do anything to prevent it.

I just can't wait for them to start saying that large amounts of people must cease to live or the stupid ice caps will melt. This whole earth was once an ice cap, started melting long before we came around.

What pea brain lie would they have sold us when the planet was in an ice age?

Its just a new "IT" industry, y'know? Theyre trying to create an industry like the internet that will sustain the population growth. I just don't want my grand kids picking up "oil patties", it just gross and sickening.

I just think this oil spill timing is a little too convenient.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence laughs at this nonsense.

I just am afraid of it because soooo many people know this is a scam...what are they going to do with us?

They are literally selling ketchup popsicles to people with white gloves on, sand to Iraq.

"Though he lost his chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when the Republicans lost the upper chamber, Inhofe can still do plenty of damage. One senator can do a lot to stop a carefully crafted climate bill (or any bill, for that matter), thanks to the byzantine rules of the Senate. This is important, given recent movement toward a climate vote sometime this summer."

Our senate is byzantine??? I think that it prevents the form of a fascist government. Where one know it all thinks he has the "answer" to save us all.

Our president is backed by the worlds banks, you have to have allot of faith in him to not think he has their interests above ours....seeing that he's UN general secretary...thereby holding two offices in government...which is....actually..treason.

I mean look at them all huddled around like he's david miscavige. Creepy.

Its obvious tha popsci is a cheerleader for these eco nazis.

Interesting!

Interesting!

Interesting!

Cool!

Cool! We, as inhabitants of this planet, need to be more responsible for our actions.

Please stop with the scaremongering. Its getting old, remember global cooling in the 70s, or global warming in the 40s? The majority of people in this country don't believe in this man caused global warming because the science supporting it is complete and utter garbage. I know it grabs the readers attention, like the endless stories about high voltage power lines, BPA, and celphone radiation, but it's just completely irresponsible. Stop helping the fascists for God's sake!

Good Job Boyle way to piss everyone off!

BOTTOM LINE:

We cant prove that the planet is warming or cooling
-not enough data

We definately cant find a cause for POSSIBLE warming or cooling.
-any responcible scientist will agree

You cannot attack the cause of a problem when you cant prove that there is a problem.

PLEASE PLEASE don't recycle and repeat (burp) the old 'meat worse than car' myth - highly misleading... makes virtuous veggies think they are ok to fly and drive a lot when they are not THAT much in (carbon) credit in reality

Expressed at the level of the individual, (with all livestock feed etc impacts factored in) you would be hard pushed to clock up more than 1 ton of CO2e (a year) through meat eating alone. 2 tons CO2e sensible max. Although overdosing on a kilo of processed steak every day might take it up to 3 tons.)

In contrast, 15,000 miles a year in an average inneficient car is 6 tons... as is 24 hours of air travel...

12,000 miles a year in an average car is 4 tons

4 is bigger than 2!
so... usually...
Cars worse than meat.

Stuart, where are you??? I'm laughing my ass off at the reaction to Becky's fail!!!!!

I'm a little surprised this conversation hasn't gone down the Frank Luntz street yet.

For the most reliable data on greenhouse gasses increasing in the last 50 years please refer to Charles Keeling's measurmenets --which can be found on wikipedia or on the Scripps institute's website:

www.scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/program_history/keeling_curve_lessons.html.

They are by far the most reliable and accurate method and data set available, period.

However, this does not imply causal relationships. One could infer, I think substantially, when compared to the amount of CO2 trapped in core samples from antartic ice pack that this increase in the last 40 years is not only significant, but exponential.

Keeling's unbiased observations are just some data...not the interpretation. But, some of you wanted data, so here you go...enjoy.

Matt

BTW the guy was an analytical chemist and started his efforts without an agenda 50 years ago...not only is the data accurate (measured CO2 in the atmosphere) but it is repeatable--the variations are not due to drift in the measurement equipment etc...the guy perfected the technique early on and tried to find better ways.

This is good data. The data is not BS. But, it only proves that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising, as measured, for the last 50 years.

The harder thing is getting agreement on what is the cause and what is the effect of rising CO2 levels. The fact that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere above Hawii have increased significantly since 1960 is indisputable.

Matt

I'm not a scientist, nor that knowledgeable about this specific point, but it was my understanding that the disagreement was about the effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere as opposed to the existence. Perhaps I have it wrong though, but it has always been the way I heard it. Either way interesting information, zupatun.

At least, the dissent among clear thinking dissenters. There of course for any cause will be a share of morons who don't understand, or try to understand, the actual issue at hand.

Can't believe you Marxist Environmentalist are still trying to make farting cows a global warming issue!!! Get over it. Try some real science for once and keep it out of politics...can't prove it so you idiots keep trying to side step Scientific method...Your entire agenda is to politically jamb your business and philosophies down people’s throats instead of using the free market, which you continue to fail at because the "science" you rely on is CRAP. Oil and coal is SOOOO BAD, hey guess where it came from your little fuzzy animals and plants!!!!!!! Farting cow amount to 1/100,000th of a percent of what the earth releases and produces naturally. All your "Models" and data are starting to fall apart because your science is junk.

@zupatun - so this "good data" shows an 8 TEN-thousandth of ONE percent change over 50 years and you are calling that a significant increase in CO2 levels? Which may or may not be caused by mankind, and may or may not be causal in global warming (or cooling) computer model.

This man caused global warming is a subjective belief supported by the accuracy error of our measurements and empirical assumptions.

Deamonization of political figures is not science. This article is dispicable coming from a science oriented site.

Its funny, seems Mrs. Boyle has yet to write anything for PopSci.com since this article. Seems the management does care about public opinion. And public opinion is that we are tired of having bad and falsified "science" crammed down our throats by "PC" liberals who have no scientific background.

@ friedguy....is that what you think? It was a holiday weekend you idiot.

Some of you right wing extremists need to closely examine yourselves. Look in the mirror.....is that really the person you want to be? Hateful because you don't agree with someone's point of view? Could it be the points made in this article are valid? Not even a possibility? Really? OMG....I fear for this country....the Ann Coulters and Sara Palins and their extremist followers are going to make a move to Canada very, very appealing.

Why are you extremists even reading a science magazine? I mean if the lord didn't have someone write about it in your precious bible then it can't be true anyway right? The earth is only what......6000 years old?

Pahleeeze..........

Wow, this article is in a "science" magazine? Looks more like a political agenda magazine: High on smearing, low on facts, and those facts are very dubious. How dubious? Well, I'll just take the very first one listed, that "Most Americans still believe humans are to blame for this, but there are plenty of climate villains who are working to shift public opinion the other way." The reality is that in the latest Gallup poll, only 50% of Americans believed that global warming was caused primarily by man. It is one of the polls on the following page:

www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx

I guess half the people now constitutes most the people, right? So I guess either your facts are so bad that your article's factual integrity is very dubious, or you're outright lying to readers. Which is it, ineptitude or propaganda?

I don't like the way Pop Sci has made an obvious move to becoming an agenda/propoganda magazine. It makes it far too annoying to bother reading. And from other comments on this story I can tell I'm not the only one. Looks like I'll be visiting PopSci less and going over to MIT's Technology Review more. At least they still stick to hard science.

CHALLENGE to Deniers.
Okay. Let's do this properly.
If the science is shoddy...
If scientists disagree...
If the data shows warming is not happening...
Lets SEE THE DATA. Give us CITATIONS. Link to legitimate scientific papers that disprove global warming.
All you critics out there who don't believe in AGW, show the reasons for your beliefs. Gallup polls show OPINIONS not facts. Lets not have any straw man argument or appeals to emotion. No logical fallacies: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies. No attacking motives of researchers, attack their data.
If AGW is a scam, a hoax, a lie, prove it once and for all. Lets get this done.

@DarthShadrac

Quite the contrary, YOU are the one that is claiming that we are changing our environment. therefore, the ownus is on YOU to show (beyond doubt) that we are.
I have heard a lot of talk about all of this scientific data supporting it, but have never seen it. Furthermore, the most credible information that comes anywhere close to proving your belief was found to be manipulated.
YOU want to change the world and its habits. It's up to YOU to show us why we should believe you and follow suit.

@ skygeeek
Way to point out that the guy above you was being a douche and then doing the exact same thing by generalizations and blanket statements about those who do not get behind the "science" (consensus=/= scientific fact), calling us all religious extremists.

I for one am fairly liberal. I do like un-mainipulated scientific FACTS(if your POV's side had the facts you wouldnt need a consensus) to be presented in my science, though.

@kickstand27
I sure didn't mean to call EVERYONE a religious extremist. I'm sorry if it came across that way. But the really negative and hateful comments on here seem to have that right wing extremist slant.

And lets face it....there are a lot of comments that seem to suggest the writer is a douche. I'm sure you probably think I am one too....Oh well....

This article mentions "pseudo-scientific skeptics," but forgets to mention "pseudo-scientific supportors" of climate change, there are many on both sides.

@Skygeek

The downfall of society is to be unable to see anyone who disagrees with you as anything but an "extremist". Unfortunately, due to the politics at play lately, that has become the argument of choice. Everyone that doesn't think exactly like you is an extremist.

Plenty of people, scientists included, have cast their own doubt about the issue. Here is a link, albeit wikipedia, to a list of scientists who disagree with some or all of the climate change theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I will repeat what I've said before: The only people you can convince by belittling another person's views are the people who already agree with you. You can do so much more with a direct discussion that goes directly to the core of the issue, but not so much the person himself.

Here is a link to an article which highlights one of the issues with climate change proof. It, as the article says, does not DISPROVE climate change in any way. It does however show the exact kind of thing the skeptics are concerned about.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

Money quote that exhibits my problems. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate". This doesn't mean that AGW is NOT happening, just that we don't have the precision in measurements to make a complete sell.

There is a certain degree of give we should give to scientific theory. We all thought the world was flat at one time until we sailed where we should have fallen off the edge of the world. However, with the changes being suggested because of potential AGW, it's not worth the risk to make the jump without being absolutely sure.

@TimBaker
Out of that list of scientists there are only two climatologists. The rest are geologists, meterologists, physicists etc. Of the two climatologists, neither of them deny warming is taking place. One believes warming is happening but will have poasitive benefits, the other believed it is happening but was natural.Marcel Leroux cites solar activity as a possible cause of current warming. this has been disproved. Vulcanism can also be discredited.
The Climategate researchers have been vindicated by two separate inquiries. they were at fault in dealing with requests from deniers not with manipulating or faking data.

@Kickstand27

Seriously? The data is publicly available. There is a slew of climate data showing the climate is being changed. Google is quite easy to use. given that the scientific consensus is that climate change is real the onus is on deniers to find the evidence to disprove it. THAT is how science works - falsification. I am not telling anyone how to live or how the world should be, far from it. And again I re-iterate the data has not been manipulated. Furthermore if you have not read the scientific evidence purporting to demonstrate climate change how in god's name can you have the arrogance to say that it is wrong??? You haven't even READ it???
Once again for the benefit of slow learners. I am not telling anyone how to live. I am not advocating any curbs on emmissions or way of life. What I am asking for is a shred of honest dealing from deniers. By honest dealing I mean show me a body of scientific research conducted by climate scientists (not petro-chemical experts, geologists, chemists OR astronomers) which disproves the theory of climate change. It will be interesting to see how few studies we get. I'm waiting...

@DarthShadrac

As stated below, there is no doubt really that carbon emissions have increased and that there is warming on SOME scale. I've no problem with that. The question is if the two are related directly, or if it is a natural occurrence of fluctuation.

You are mistaken in your interpretation of climatologists as the ONLY people who are qualified to have findings on this subject, however. A climatologist does not have the area of expertise for EVERY effect that global warming should have on the environment. The effect on glaciers for example might best be analyzed by a glaciologist. The EFFECT on the atmosphere would be best judged by an aeronomist.

http://ieg.or.kr/abstractII/G0102523037.PDF

"While these results indicate that direct solar total irradiance forcing is unlikely to be the cause of global warming in the past decade, the acquisition of a much longer composite solar irradiance record is essential for reliably specifying the role of the Sun in global climate change."

As stated above, it is unlikely that the sun contributed to warming that may have occurred in the last decade, but without a larger dataset, a complete conclusion cannot be drawn. I'm not making the point that it IS solar irradiance, I'm just pointing out an important fact about statistical theory.

Up to a point, a conclusion drawn from a sample size becomes more accurate as the size of that sample increases. It's debatable on this subject if we really have all the data needed to draw definite conclusions.

This article on climate change is trash. I would expect better from PopSci. Rebecca has no facts, just her bleeding heart. For some facts, I refer you to "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]".

@friedguy: "Its funny, seems Mrs. Boyle has yet to write anything for PopSci.com since this article."

... which, as I write, was published 7 days ago.

I love the smell of schadenfreude in teh morning...

I feel like such a goof ball. I didn't realize this was satire. I should have guessed that with the wild unsubstantiated assertions, the picture of Steve Carrel, complete absence of any science, etc. You had me fooled.

Bob Rahm

Nice hatchet job. It's good to see that instead of reasonably addressing the (often very legitimate) claims against anthropogenic global warming, Popular Science has decided to go the "populist" route by turning anyone they disagree with into villains.

I've had a subscription to this magazine for well over a decade now. I rode through the moronic "crap you can buy" phase that lasted several years (and still persists to some degree). The outright chuggging of the anthropogenic Kool Aid makes me seriously considering discontinuing that subscription; it is a disgusting level of anti-intellectualism on the part of what should be a reputable magazine instead of a political rag.

Re: Lomborg: "But the bottom line is that Lomborg is a political scientist, and he’s not qualified to contradict the work of climate scientists."

Had Ms. Boyle actually read any of Lomborg's work she would not have made such a stupid comment. Typical unintelligent liberal journalist. You're incapable of separating better ways to address climate change from denying climate change. Funnier still that you disparage Lomborg for have credentials far superior to the sex poodle.

Simple common sense.
Arrhenius said you add a photon of energy to a Greenhouse gas (GHG) to get the Greenhouse warming effect (GHE.)
You do NOT just add GHGs like the IPCC and climate scientists say.
When the amount of photons coming in is limited (1366 Watts per sq. meter) then the number of GHGs needed to put these photons to permanent use to get our 32C of GHE warming, leaves an EXCESS of GHGs in the air. You can't get more GHE warming if there are no more Photons available.
Simple common sense proof is that when the GHG water vapor increases from 33% to 100% when it rains, you do not get more warming.

You do not have to be a climate scientist to understand this. I would expect however that supposed science writers at Pop Sci would understand this.

I do understand however the reactions of writers when they see their entire world crumbling. When a cause they have devoted their lifetimes and beliefs to, turns out to be scientifically false, and unjustifiable. So Face reality. Just don't try to cram your lies down our throats, or you get cancelled subscriptions.

Sorry guys but more CO2 just does not cause more warming. When the number of incoming photons decreases when the sun goes down, the temperature also goes down, in spite of more CO2 being produced. When the incoming number of photons goes down, the number of GHGs is use for the GHE also goes down and the number of excess unused GHGs goes up. AGW, that more GHGs causes more warming, is false. More GHGs ONLY causes more warming when there is an excess of photons. BUT that is not the case on average at equilibrium on Earth.
My alternate explanation can be found in a paper "Gravity Causes CLimate Change" at www.scribd.com.

I had been a subscriber to Popular Science since 1965. It used to be one of my favorite magazines. This article has nothing to do with popular or science.

Popular: The people (outside the People's Democratic Republic of California) have figured out that global warming is a scam. Every recent poll says they have lost the faith. The religious arguments have become tiresome. The players, so called scientists, are steeped in scandal. You are out of touch with Popular.

Science involves facts and numbers. This article uses name calling and appeals to authority.

It is time for a Regime change at Popular Science. I used to read Popular Science to find out what is new and to learn about evolving technology. I suggest you poll your subscribers (while you still have some) to see if this kind of faith based opinion is what they want. You owe us an apology.

But go ahead, drive a great magazine into ruin. Perhaps a revived and rejuvenated Popular Science will rise from the ashes. If not, it used to be fun.

@ formersubscriber:

Clearly, you're just some braindead Conservative and don't know anything about anything and you hate Mother Earth and you're some kind of idiot who doesn't believe in science and all this math that all these scientists who agreed with something so they could keep their job say is right.

(That's sarcasm.)

I MEAN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, YOU'RE A "VILLAIN".

Regardless of the quantum of man's contribution to global climate change, it seems logical to me that man would be better served by spending money preparing for the changes instead of wasting that money on CO2 reductions that will have dubious benefit.

Well, this article is "proof" as to why I dropped Popular Science magazine a few years ago! This position you have taken is sadden by the fact that Science is done by having "no consensus" driven agenda..True Science is done with vigore, with any hyprothesis measured and tested repeatedly...Climate Science dictates only a few know climate science only towards the Agenda present today. I still enjoy the other articles but when it comes to the environment, you guys go TOOO far! Sad, very sad! I move on after "deleting" it like I did July's edition...

I used to have a subscription. Actually my dad started it and I faithfully waited for my PS to show up every month for over 30 years.

It is "Science" like this article on Global Warming that caused me to let my subscription expire.

Science requires data.
130 years of data collection in a system with 100,000 year cycles is a single point of data.
You can't even draw a line on a graph with a single point never mind deducing a curve.
And don't mention tree ring data. 11 tree samples culled for their compliance to the wishful thinking of a "scientist" does not create a data set. This should have been obvious when the implied historical temperature curves did not match historically known temperature events.

And one more thing, when the entire trend (.6 deg) falls within the margin of error (2.5 deg) you need to collect more data not demand global change.

And to think I had hope for your eventual reformation to reality.

I guess its good bye again.
Andri

James Inhofe and Tony Hayward (he of BP "fame") could be twin brothers, in appearance if not in actions.

It's absolutely amazing...!

What a pathetic bunch of hooey. The photos intrigued me enough to read the article - uh - editorial. But instead of learning something new, I read the same ol' tired garbage that comes from the left.

Because some time has passed since Climategate and the news today that a British inquiry found "no evidence of fraud" there will no doubt be more crap like this that lectures all of us idiots.

If this were grade school, our parents would advise us to "Just ignore them. They'll eventually get tired of hearing themselves talk." The problem is that some of them find their way into positions of power.

"But it’s a heck of a lot warmer now. Most Americans still believe humans are to blame for this..."

This is not true. Despite the gaming of the system through the use of correlation as causation, anecdotes as scientific evidence and a popular vote of scientists to be accepted as proof of facts, the majority (62%) still question the validity of global warming being significantly caused by humans and want more evidence first. What percentage of CO2 is produced by humans? How are humans even capable of producing the increase shown in the charts in "An Inconvenient Truth"? (Calculate the numbers, don't assume the increase is all human because the ocean and other sources play a significant role). And, by the way, the US consumes about 25% of the world's energy because it produces about 25% of the worlds goods and services. While we can and should conserve where we can, there will never be parity to percent population (5%) unless we decrease our economy by around 70-80% (the range providing an allowance for possible decrease in energy use due to conservation and anticipated technological advance).

The biggest villains of all are the people who cannot have a reasonable discussion about "Global Warming/Climate Change" but resort to calling names.

I have noticed a decided move to the left in this magazine, which is about "Science", and will not be renewing my subscription when it expires. I will miss some of the articles, which are about technology and science, but they are becoming fewer and fewer as opinion based articles take over.

Wow, PopSci has jumped the shark. At least they waited until after the Muir Report and Penn State whitewashes. Instead of addressing the merits of the claim the article resorts to name-calling and appeals to authority. So, who's being anti-scientific?

Bottom line is that the climate models have failed in predicting the actual global temps notwithstanding attempts to fabricate surface temperature data at the CRU and NASA or just "losing" contradictory data.

Add to that the innumerable "scientific" retractions in the 2007 IPCC report (HimalayaGate, AmazonGate, SunGate, et al).

How about the following "Villains of the Global Warming Scam":

Al Gore: has millions invested in "green" energy
Kleiner Perkins: has billions invested in "green" energy
The United Nations: poised to collect billions from cap and trade
BP: heavily invested in "green" energy
Enron: invested heavily in cap and trade
Radical environmentalists: can impose their views on consumption and lifestyle on the premise that alternate lifestyles "harm" the planet

I don't care about politics, I don't care about science, I don't care about universities and researchers.

What I care about - is when I step outside -

I see an eagle soaring above my head. I see foliage blooming, in all its beauty. I see trout in the clear, drinkable river water that's about a 10 minute walk from my home. I see deer, foxes, birds - all of nature in all its beauty.

Too see such a noble, elegant cause - nature - politicized like this ... disgusts me.

In my opinion, this whole issue is a travesty. It makes me sick.

Why, why on earth do researchers need to write letters back and forth about how their work is biased? Seriously? You'd think people working for the cause of nature would have more noble motives than to lie.

On the other side, my own side, how can you deny that chemicals and pollutants do nothing to the environment? Are you foolish? They do harm the environment. I've heard some industrialists cackling away on how DDT was given a bad name. Absolutely sickening.

In any event, I'm a conservative - who appreciates nature. I love nature - it's irreplaceable. To one issue that we should all agree on, seeing division like this is absolutely disgusting. Put the foolish arguments aside, stop trying to defend the indefensible. Look at the issue rationally - protect nature, and our planet.

For being a science magazine you show a lot of political bias in this article. It's very dissapointing. For example, you said:

"Did you know, for instance, that your TV weather man (or woman) likely doesn’t believe in climate change.."

Well shouldn't that tell you something???? Either our weather men and women or morons or maybe they have some reasons for thinking this way. I would prefer you interview some of them, understand what the disagree with regarding climate change and then comment on the merits of their arguments or is that too much to ask?

My once-favorite magazine should change its name to "Popular Consensus."

@TimBaker
Thank you for your considered reply. I am pleased that at least one critic of AGW has the honesty to engage in a reasoned debate.

You are correct of course in saying climatologists are not the only, or indeed the best, people to judge the effects of climate change.
However we are not talking about the effects here, we are talking about the theory of anthropogenic climate change itself.
The various effects and ephemera attributed to climate change by scientists and more often by the media and by NGOs are almost certainly not all directly correlated with AGW, and scientists in various fields are best placed to judge this.

Climatology however is what is on trial here.

I agree of course that the bigger the sample size the more definite the conclusion that can be drawn.

However, the global mean temperature has been shown to be rising. That is a demonstrated fact. (Despite the hacking of the CRU the only evidence of scientific malfeasance related to the cock-blocking of certain disliked individuals. The emails presented as the smoking guns of the supposed climate hoax were nothing of the sort which is evident on a close examination of the literature. )

This scientifically gathered data is backed up by the subjective observations of cultures all over the world. There are no longer any other credible candidates to explain this rise other than the production of greenhouse gases through human activity.

My CHALLENGE to deniers remains unmet.
Perhaps I should offer a James Randi-style monetary reward for anyone who can hand me my plate of humble pie?

$50 paypal reward folks come and get it!!!

I feel like most of you are missing the point. Maybe focusing on "Global Warming" is blinding us to the totally obvious issue, which is: It will ALWAYS be in our best interest to reduce the amount we polute this planet! Whether it's an issue of climate, our health, or our continued survival, we will always be better off in the long run when we find ways to support our lifestyles that pollute the world less.

What ever happened to the Scientific Method we all learned about in middle school science class? This hypothesis has NOT been proven but apparently the political and sicentific establishment has too much invested in the theory of Global Warming to allow any serious and open debate. Just as the author has so aptly demonstrated; those who don't agree are "Villians"! Not really fostering a healthy exchange of ideas, is it?

The fact that Pop Sci has allowed such a biased artlce to grace their pages is a travesty. What ever happened to objective journalism?

When Pop Sci takes political positions and allows it's writers to editorialize, then the price is the loss of readership. So Pop Sci, say goodbye to customer #1488444. I hope some day you're able to regain your journalistic integrity.

As for me, it's time to give up my subscription.

I agree with mhannig: reducing pollution is always a good idea. Period. We can categorize the negative effects under a simplistic (and I believe, inaccurate) title like "Global Warming," but the fact remains that we are emitting a lot of substances into the atmosphere that are really, really bad for humans--not just carbon monoxide, but toxins like dioxin and PCBs.

However, I see an emissions problem on this and other message boards that, while less physically toxic, tends to obscure the deeper physical pollution problem: a number of people on this board are emitting hot air at an alarming rate. In particular, anyone who uses the terms "liberal" and "left" or "leftist" as an accusation needs to refocus on the actual topics here and not just immediately discount those who disagree for their political views. The same goes for those who flame the accusers, of course.

Some points to consider:

1) The thesis of this article is that the people named in it are holding back progress in the science of climate research by attacking existing research--and worse, existing researchers--often with no evidence to back their counterclaims.

2) Whenever ANYONE asks you to do (or not do) ANYTHING, ask yourself, "Cui bono?" (Latin for "Who benefits?") Is it a short term benefit for a major corporation's stockholders, or is it you and your descendants? What are climate skeptics selling? What are climate researchers selling?

3) When you go to bat for the viewpoint of those standing in the way of climate science, do you really believe that limiting such research will help you and your loved ones--especially in future generations? Do you really believe that just writing off the effects, or ignoring desperately needed infrastructure improvements that will help lower emissions, will give you any more than a minor tax break? When was the last time either major U.S. political party gave you a tax break that wasn't just a temporary rebate? Have you saved any money at all by ignoring the effects of pollution? In fact, other than having more entertainment choices than you had, say, even five years ago, much less 25, is your life any easier at all?

@ itwa5me, I found several things wrong with two of your posts

1. Are you saying Popsci blew up the BP oil rig?
2. Intelligence is measured in I.Q. points, not ounces
3. What does ketchup have to do with this?
4. Popsicle is a registered trademark
5. The saying is coals to Newcastle
6. President Obama is backed by the American People, not the world's banks
7. The position is Secretary General
8. The actual Secretary General of the UN is Ban Ki-Moon, not Obama
9. Even if Obama was, it is still not treason because he would not be holding two government positions in the government of the United States
10. It's, not its
11. You spelled the word "that" wrong
12. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps some people would find the use of the term Nazis offensive? They killed 17 million innocent people because of their beliefs, and emotionally scarred millions more. Please, read up on the atrocities that the Nazis commited in the concentration camps, then tell me if you think that it is still acceptable to use in the context that you used it in.

Like Baghdad Ali, Inhofe is just doing his job. And like the holocaust deniers, young-earth and flat earth advocates, his point of view deserves equal consideration in debate.

Add me to the list of non-resubscribers. This has just gotten to be too much!!!

There's no such thing as "Climate Science"...it's not a standard department in the major schools. There is Atmospheric Science which most "Climatologists" are part of.

Most people speaking about climate are not qualified to do so.

One mans villain is anothers hero. James Inhofe is my hero in Congress on environmental issues .

It is now apparent that propaganda and opinion molding is the editorial policy at Populist PseudoScience.
I must bid it adieu, and cease wasting my time.

WOW - Rebecca - Let's get personal with the titles. You seem to have touched a nerve or two with your scientific skeptical readers. Do you really know any of these folks who you have slammed? Some of these are heroes to their supporters. Do we as readers get to nominate you as a “villainous chicken little”.

Wow - PopSci just took a dive off the left side of the pool! This will adversely effect any future subscriptions.

I would recommend a retraction or at least an explanation...

I let my subscription run out over a year ago, and this is a perfect example of the type of article that drove me away.

I did not see the source reference for "Most Americans still believe humans are to blame for this," but a quick scan of the comments should show that popsci's target audience is not among the "most".

Popsci please stop sending me "deals" until after you change format back to covering science. Until then you and NASA can enjoy the short spiral to irellevency.

Since I'm one of these "villains" (aka skeptics), if this agitprop crap appears in the dead tree edition of PopSci, I'll be cancelling my subscription. After all, I'm sure you don't want to filthy your magazine with my tainted financial contributions.

Heavy on agenda and politics, light on science. I read the whole article and am pretty disappointed that it was allowed in a magazine that prides itself on science. There is little to no data or science in the article, just pontificating. I hope this isn't a trend that will continue with this magazine. I'd like to keep subscribing, but won't if this keeps up.

Lets get a few things out of the way first:

I'm a registered Republican.
I'm moderate...thus not Republican.

I drive a Hybrid Car.
It's not a ugly "I'm A Hybrid" car, but a Ford Fusion, and I only bought it after having my previous car for 10 years.

Global Warming or Climate Change has NOT BEEN CAUSED by Human Factors....ALONE.
However human factors have contributed to the acceleration of the change to a degree that humans have to notice and change what they can!

The whole "did we humans CAUSE this" argument is, I'm sorry, BS! The fact is that our present ways of doing things, to include the rice paddies, and our livestock have CONTRIBUTED to the trend. Anyone with any basis in any science has to recognize this!
Remember the old "the straw that broke the camels back"? It doesn't have to be a huge delta to have huge implications.

My fear is that all these small considerations, and delays will severely impact my 2 children and that to save a buck here and now most of you will damn them and their children to a world that is in suffering, except for the privilaged few.

What an astoundingly ignorant and biased screed . I immediately looked for Ms Boyle's credentials and cannot find them .

The first false statement is "it’s a heck of a lot warmer now." No , here's a graphic from Richard Lindzen showing how insignificant the change over the last century has been versus springtime climate in Boston : CoSy.com/Science/Lindzenlineplot800.gif . We're about as warm as we were 80 years ago , and the current cycle of a few tenths of a degree rise looks an awful lot like the first half of the last century .

But at a more fundamental level , the basic physics of the alarmists ( actually both sides of the debate ) is pathetic . The temperature of a point in our orbit can be calculated simply by adding up the energy from the whole celestial sphere around us and , by Stefan-Boltzmann , taking the 4th root . That gives a temperature of about 279 Kelvin , 3 times closer to our measured temperature than the ~ 255K temperature , the coldest possible temperature the alarmists can calculate , which they assert as their null hypothesis . Starting from that biased , confounded basis , it is not surprising that it is impossible to find a simple quantitative explication of how to calculate the "greenhouse effect" for any particular set of spectra .

It's sad to add PopSci to the too many formerly esteemed institutions like Scientific American and the NAS who have bought into this eco-lysenkoism . Fortunately , the well founded fear of their Pinky and the Brain scheme to take over the planet has raised an army of rational skeptics to actually bring some solid science back to this politically stifled field .

-- See www.CoSy.com --

To the nitpickers: there may be typos and inaccurate punctuation.. This is not English class.

For the government to get paid on global warming, they have to convince the people of two things:
1. Global warming exists
2. If you turn your money and power over to them, they can fix it.

Co2 makes up 380 parts per million of the earth's atmospheric gases. Let's break it down a little bit... if gases were people in a football stadium of 10,000 and you wanted co2 to stand up and show themselves, there would be 4 people.

Four co2 particles per 10,000...

Out of all the gases in the atmosphere to be mad at, is it pure coincidence that co2 would be the one the government could regulate and tax the bejesus out of?
Is is also coincidence that this regulation fits in perfectly with the agenda of socialist goverments the world over?

No one can deny the fact that the earth has warmed up and cooled off countless times for millions of years without a single car or factory to blame.

It's amazing how the global warming community ignores the burning sphere in the sky where the temps in it's corona (outer area) can reach 1 million kelvin (almost 1.8 million degrees fahrenheit). Solar activity couldn't change things on earth?

We are always ten years from a catastrophe according to the global warming bunch. Doesn't matter when you listen to Al talk. 8 years ago or last year, we are always ten years away from fire and brimstone. Maybe he should just say thirty years and give himself some time.

I'm a service guy (outside alot) and I was colder last winter and the year before than I have been in many years.
Sigh.... but if it snows, it's global warming, if it doesn't it's global warming. Fog, rain, fires, snow, tornados, hurricanes or lack of any of the above....It's all global warming. It's like trying to reason with a 2 year old.

This hoax has been pulled many times over the ages I'll bet.....It just involved a witch doctor, offerings and a volcano.

A note to pop sci: With every passing year that the oceans don't take over people yards, you are losing credibility.

I believe that man has effected Global change, but I do not believe that all the facts are known. For those who remember, in the 1970's climatologists were announcing the onset of the next ice age, thirty years later it is global warming. Not all data that is collected points to one outcome. Some of the things we are doing in the name of conservation take so much energy to produce, IE: ethanol from corn, that the savings are dubious especially with the lower fuel mileage that cars receive when using it. The ATP's from ethanol are lower that the same quantity of fossil fuel.

Al Gore is sited as an expert in the article, but what really are his qualifications? He is not a trained climatologist, but a politician and and attorney who has bragged publicly about the vast amount of monies his law firm will make in carbon credits.

Sure we have climate change, some man made, some natural such as volcano eruptions, earthquakes strong enough that we have slight axis shifts, etc.

Has mankind raped the earth? Sure, but he has done so for centuries and the earth has been very resilient and forgiving.

Congrats PopSci.

You've managed to destroy multiple of decades of good-will with your readers in less than...couple of years?

Enjoy your aura of 'greeness'.

Perhaps you can get enough warmers to make up for the rest of us turning our back on you.

Henceforth, your email will be marked as spam.

BTW, you may want to network with the management of Newsweek on some good Chap 11 lawyers.

They might come in handy.

Well, I have enjoyed reading this magazine for a couple of years, sort of. Now I must cancel my subscription. If I'd known the writers were such bed wetting liberals I never would have allowed the first issue into my house. Maybe the signs were there and I just ignored them. But this article really takes the cake. Climate change? Come on, give me a break. Al Gore? The man couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it. He couldn't lie his way into the White House (like Obama did), so he chose to be the spokes person for possibly the biggest farce the world has ever seen. Good by Pop-Sci and your sister publication Popular Mechanics. No more.

I was trying to decide whether to renew my physical copy subscription which lapsed. The mag's low price makes up a bit for its shortcomings, and it has been a good "candy" read. I also have fond memories from reading the magazine as a kid in the 1960s and 70s. On the other hand, the magazine has become increasingly irrelevant and inane, and lately makes the National Enquirer look like a respected news source by comparison. It's almost as if you were trying to go out of business. Breathtaking irresponsibility, really, when you think about it. The most adolescent corporate behavior since the frat rats ran Kmart into bankruptcy.

Fortunately you made up my mind with this article. Your "change the channel" advice is a good idea. But you will be the channel I will change away from.

PopSci has become a not-so-quiet open-debate villain, has bought into the cult of the narrow-field expert and its disdain for generalists who see a wider field of view, and has become a collection of child writers pretending to be grown-ups but failing miserably. I will not renew, and I will mark your emails as spam. I will also refuse to subscribe to or purchase any other Bonnier magazine, including American Photo, Field & Stream, Science Illustrated, Outdoor Life, and Popular Photography.

Goodbye.

Global warming deniers can come up with all kinds of things to say about it to cast doubt on the science. And apparently it's lots of fun to throw mud at Al Gore. However how about something straightforward? Hmmm - I see that the island of Tuvalu in the South Pacific is about to be evacuated. Apparently rising seawater is making it uninhabitable. Also an island which had been in dispute between India and Bangladesh - well, apparently it is sinking beneath the water at high tide now, so the countries have decided to abandon the dispute. Global warming deniers can say a lot of things, but I don't think they can easily explain why the seawater is rising without admitting some Global Warming is taking place. But some people can deny the truth even when it's staring them in the face. This is what is called "empirical evidence". It doesn't depend on science, just on observation.

Bodryn

After reading the previous comments, I think that PopSci needs to do a story on how the smallest brains correlate to the biggest mouths. Thank you PopSci, and I will never let my subscription lapse as long as you continue to present truly scientific articles like this one in the face of science denyers. But if you truly want to get back the previous commenters as readers, just do a story on the science and truth of creationism.

Only those people who agree with you are qualified, usually.

This is sad. I have been reading Popular Science for well over fifty years, and I have never gone to this magazine for religious insight. If you have to bash instead of refute those who disagree with you, it isn't science. My guess is it won't be popular for long either.

I haven't the time ( or inclination ) to read all the comments, so maybe this will go unchallenged.The climate debate is only the lesser part of long term problems that have been creeping up on us and will force change, whether we like it or not. Presently we consume resources as if they were limitless, when they clearly aren't.Leaving a terrible legacy of worked out mineral deposits, and shortages of many raw materials because we cannot distinguish between consumption and prosperity will make us hated by our descendants. Cradle to cradle philosophy in manufacture will require to become widespread and recycling of the elements essential for food production will have to take precedence over the convenience of present day sewage treatment.At the heart of this economics will have to grow up and recognise that it is essentially about human behaviour, with all it's deceits and hypocracies.

The many comments on this article contain much more scientifically grounded facts than the article itself. I subscribe to Popsci to learn about new technology, inventions, and ideas. I am not interested in having to wade through all this climate change crap. I will now be looking for a different magazine to subscribe to that doesn't have it's head up Al Gore's butt.
I will not be renewing my subscription.
Goodbye popsci.

One 'fact' is easily dismissed in this article: 30% of land area, 33% of arable land is used by livestock.

Think Sahara, Gobe, Green Land, Alaska, the arid lands of the western United States, Australian outback, the vast majority of the Amazon, the high deserts of the mountains around the world, swamplands, jungles, middle east deserts, arctic of Canada and Russia. Smaller areas are the cities and towns of the world.

You want me to believe that 30% of the land area is devoted to livestock. Beware of any report, including U.N. reports, where the reportees have a vested interest in the outcome of the report.

Did you know that you emit over 1,200,000 liters of CO2 every year? That's over 4.4 tons! (4400 pounds)

How much are you willing to pay in carbon tax to breathe?

Will there be a cap-and-trade system for exercise? You staying in shape is killing the planet- you breathe and produce more CO2 when you're out running.
Remember that 4.4 tons only applies if you stay at rest (12 breaths per minute).

Why not try breathing less to lessen your impact on the planet? Blue is the new green, after all.

I've been receiving the paper version PopSci for a few years now and have enjoyed much of it. But I've been getting more and more sick of the political slant it's been taking with regard to "Going Green".

This article caps it off. It wouldn't even be able to make it into Wikipedia with statements like "it's a heck of a lot warmer now", and "most scientists", etc. And rather than point out the fallacies of Bjorn Lomborg's statements, this article simply dismisses him or anyone that doesn't have their PhD in Climatology as "not qualified to contradict the work of climate scientists" - as if no one else can follow research and compile data.

I may be taking my reusable stainless steel water bottle and iPad elsewhere.

I don't know Rebecca Boyle. I do know that she is a true believer in man-made global climate change. The sad fact is that this incredibly biased article passed by the editors and was printed is a sad testament to what has become of our educational system. When the most expensive idea in history, Cap and Trade, is being forced on us because of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, (which were higher in the past, without man,) I smell a rat. Who will benefit? Not PopSci. This article was the last straw. You are fired.

Re: Scientists Made Ice Age Predictions in the '70s
WRONG
In fact the vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

The MEDIA predicted an Ice Age in the '70s. Most egregiously a 1974 Time magazine article called Another Ice Age?

I love that none of the AGW deniers has tried to claim my $50 yet.

$50 $50 $50 $50

Come and get it folks...

Bodryn,

Yes, "Realists" can come up with all kinds of things to say because we know "true Science". We don't believe in "consensus based" science. Prophet Gore is nothing but a retired politician and gives "no credence" at all towards Climate Change. www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm gives all of what you promote, to which is sad to see. Go here if you can and check out what really is happening!

www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2546.post

2 millimeters= .08 inches That's eight hundredths of an inch! Your joking, right Bodryn!

Of course, if your an advid "Alarmist" then I'm wasting my time.

Remember it was 22 years ago Hansen stated "'We had better get something done next year, or else" unquote...Really! Hhmmm, I'm still here! ;-)

Wow. Really PopSci? I'd gotten tired of the one sided, Global Warming tripe in the magazine, but was willing to put up with it for the other articles. No more.

I'm doing my part to save the earth by not renewing PopSci or PopMech subscriptions.

Congratulations. Hope that ipad stuff works out well for you.

I'll stick with Gizmodo and Lifehacker from now on.

Let me start of by saying I don't believe in all the hype about global warming. Data accumulated from NASA has shown no increase, but a decrease in overall worldwide temperatures over the last 65 years. I just finished a thesis on Planetary Atmospheres and Climates in the summer of 2009.
Regardless of my opinions and views, this is a SCIENCE magazine, not a political propaganda for crazy and outrageous liberal ideas. I am very disappointed in author Boyle, and she needs to keep her writing thoughts focused on SCIENCE with facts and logic and not finger pointing as most liberals do. Was she drunk when she wrote this article?

Regards,
Disappointed Reader

When did PopSci start writing opinion editorials? No matter what side of the fence you are on climate change I believe we can agree that painting those who disagree with your opinions as "villains" is the sure sign of a weakness. Spend more time promoting your views and less time attacking the views of others. If this type of editorial continues, I for one will not support it with my continued subscription.

@DarthShadrac:

Your offer is a sucker bet. Your opinion doesn't seem changeable, and therefore, the $50 doesn't seem worth my time.

My God, where did this article go? Was the trip worthwhile?
Let’s see… “Six Quiet Villains” so, I guess there “are” no hero’s here.

The politicians are soulless bastards (no new news there).

Administrations are conflicted with greater economic issues (yeah, walking and chewing gum – always a problem there).

The global community is flaccid.

The Meteorologists just plane aren’t (scientists, competent, - or, basic intelligent life forms).

The Cows have gone over to the dark side.

So, it’s up to us to save the planet by drinking tap water…
Nah, it just doesn’t do it for me…

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There “is” some science involved here… (science being observational science – where by some one, some where, measured some thing.)
Actually, a lot of some ones over a long period of time have been measuring some thing.
The Quality and the Metrology of the measurements may be questioned, - but, the overall trend is inescapable.
The planet “is” warming up… kinda…
Where the various groups come to blows is over:
What is causing it?
Will it stop on its own?
What (if anything) can – Presidents, Politicians, Corporations, and/or individuals, do about it.
The Scientists have colluded with a wider band of Academics to purport a wide variety of calamitous scenarios.
All supported by their theoretical math models.

They do this for three reasons….
1, It sells books.

2, It provides them with more research grant money. No body ever got funded – cuz, everything is OK. The worse the disaster = the greater the flow of R&D funding. Just look at the BP oil hemorrhage. BP hadn’t spent a dime on developing hardware and procedures for plugging a deep ocean blow out – until it happened.

3, It gives the Science/Nerds a level of street-cred that they could only dream of. Now, they can sit down with Oprah and hold hands while awaiting the dire end of civilization as we know it.

That’s not a bad deal – Adulation, Fame and Fortune – just to bemoan some thing that you can’t do any thing about – and, for the most part, no one else can disprove. You get to be a hero without getting your hands dirty – or, breaking a sweat.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem with data is that it’s a two edged sword… One can only whip up a really good panic if one selects the data thru ones agenda filter… Then one must extrapolate that data in such away that it compounds exponentially to it greatest calamitous conclusion in the briefest possible time frame. One must ignore factors of inertial masses and thermodynamics in order to accommodate the disaster’s time table. This sci/fi disaster flick approach to publishing climatology papers plays well for the Science/Nerds. If they can get every one else to change their lifestyles to suite their agendas – and, then nothing happens then – obviously, their warnings being well received – the disaster was avoided. Of course, by this time the book money and the grant money have been spent. The Phd’s are well into retirement. Then two or three hundred years later it all happens…

But, was it science or drama?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That fickle data that the Science/Nerds love to massage – contains a period call the MWP (medieval warming period). It, also, contains periods of pseudo ice ages (years without a summer). These well documented periods occurred during times when the world’s population was insignificant to climatology. Thus proving the climatologically trends are bracketed more by natural events and by man’s.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Still, a “thank you” is in order.
The inevitability of the consequences of global warming – though amplified and accelerated – are quite accurate. The Polar Caps and Glaciers “are” going to melt. The sea levels “are” going to rise. The great thermodynamic engine that wraps our planet will adjust accordingly. For those presently living in fertile regions with moderate climates, this could be a very bad thing. For those presently living on coasts or in flood planes, this will be a very bad thing. For those living harsh arid regions, this “could” make things worse… or, with the associated redistribution of rainfall – it could completely transform their environments in the most positive of ways.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The planet is (once more) on its way to a new normal.
As it has always been, humanity is along for the ride.
In bygone ages, mankind had to react to these changes.
The difference this time aroud is that we know that it’s coming.
The disappointment lies in the global response.

We assign the Human Species as being the alpha sentient life form on our planet.
The result of billions of years of evolution. (Or, the result of a slow weekend for a Deity).

We now stand as the penultimate sentient life form on our little slice of heaven.

To date, this self impressed epitome of intellect is mired in politics typical of groups with large numbers.
As in any large organization faced with a crisis, no action may be taken until blame is assigned
Once the guilty parties impeached, then there are two possible courses of action.
If those found guilty are powerful, they are promoted to management or administrative positions of authority.
If those individuals are scapegoats, they are fired – thus motivating the other goats.

The water’s a rise’n.. and, globally – Mankind is standing there like a deer in the headlights of an on coming Buick.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

When those Glaciers (the only local source of fresh water) are gone… large populations are going to migrate looking for food, water and land.
When the polar caps melt… all those people along the coasts are going to migrate looking for food, water and land.
All those populations are not just going to conveniently stay where they are and die.
There are no unspoken for land masses. They are all accounted for.
Where ever these people head, the people that are already there – aren’t going to be happy to see them.

It would be nice to know what processes are driving this phenomena.
It would be nice to understand how far it's going to go and how fast.
Based on self interest alone, it is a subject worthy of study.
What I would like to see is a proactive response to a known threat.
We seem more predisposed to do this kind of thing only militarily.
Not so much when it comes to the environment.
We seem to expect proactive commitments from other populations - while demonstrating none from ourselves.

We may not be able to save (or, lead) the world, - but, we could be doing considerably better seeing to our own interests at home.

You should rethink the future of your magazine. As a long time subscriber I think you have gotten off the middle of the road path and swerved onto the liberal side, this will cause a fatal collision if you are not careful. You have a great magazine, DON'T SCREW IT UP! Report SCIENCE not politics...

this article seems to consider global warming as a bad thing... just the opposite! Global warming leads directly to a significant drop in the crime rate!

This past winter, the north-east experienced much colder temperatures as compared to the last several decades... the drop in temperature was reported to be a definate result of man-made climate change (i.e. global warming)- the immediate result of this 'snowed-in' winter was a dramatic drop in the crime rate for most north-eastern cities...

Therefore, logically... global warming leads to a drop in the crime rate!

@Boomshadow

Yeah, wonderful rebuttal there genius.
Also my offer obviously IS worth your time to post an empty reply though?
Think of it this way even if you don't convince me, you can educate all those other misguided souls who believe in AGW.

And by the way, it IS possible to change my mind, I have done it lots of times.
People who can never change their minds are rationally deficient.

I've been a Pop Sci subscriber for 40 years and have watched as the magazine has gone from informing to an agenda for the green revolution and the mystery of carbon reduction at whatever cost without a benefit except to those who would benefit from subscribing to this agenda. For three years I have read about how humans have caused global warming. Anyone ever wonder why Al Gore never takes questions or debates the issue? He couldn't stand the heat and James Hansen couldn't get support from his own organization. I have read the left causes (Sierra Club,Global Warming Science and Public Policy) and the right (IPCC Report, Climate Audit, Climate Depot, Heartland Institute, Marshall Institute, Mackinac Center and American Solar Energy body of works. Don't talk about Senator Inhofe trying to undermine the green movement if none of the greenies wants to debate the issue. Not sure if I want to continue to read PopScience if it doesn't get off their advocacy bent.

Quiet children. Stop stamping your feet and holding your breath and turning blue.

It would be nice if we were not changing the climate by our increasing use of fossil fuels. Nice. But, unfortunately the evidence supports the conclusion that we are. The north pole ice melting away and opening the passage to shipping; the rising seas swamping the low lying island countries, etc.

Is there a question as to whether CO2 acts as greenhouse gas? Not really.
Is there a question as to whether humans have been burning fossil fuels at ever increasing rates? Not really.

It is a simple mass balance. CO2 in the air, being absorbed by plant life, and reemitted by animal life. A nice balanced cycle. But then we add CO2 from fossil fuels, carbon that had not been free in the atmosphere for millions of years. So atmospheric CO2 increases. Unless there is an outflow of CO2 away from the atmosphere, or unless there is some other mechanism to capture the CO2 the buildup is unavoidable.

Are there natural sources for CO2, yes. Can we control natural sources??

Can we control our own burning of fossil fuels? Yes. Will we . . . . eventually, but at what cost in terms of lost life and land.

Bottom line, the existing fossil fuel energy companies have a clear vested economic interest in denying global warming. They have power, and $ to influence politicians. They will never admit to reality, when that reality challenges them to do something different.

One false note in the article, and the UN report, 30% of the earth's land being used for grazing animals is simply impossible. The UN report must have used bizarre definitions of land use to come up with such a figure.

I am surprised at how some people who read Popular Science can be so reactionary. If nothing else, science teaches us to wait until all the evidence is in before forming a conclusion. The reaction by too many here is to discount climate change. The preponderance of evidence points to a climatic shift regardless of the cause. Just because you don't like the evidence doesn't mean that it is incorrect or irrelevant. I believe you will feel the truth of the evidence over the next few years. If not, I am prepared to be incorrect but I am not angry about it. If anything, I wish what I see in the evidence is wrong, because given the resistance by so many otherwise intelligent people we will be far to late to correct human behavior to stop at least our contribution to the problem. It is also sad to see religious people like Imhof oppose change because god would never allow such an event to occur. Time will show us which side of the argument is correct. I, for one, will continue to subscribe to PopSci.

This argument is getting waaaayyy to fun to just be limited to popsci comments!
I just made this to see if I can get a good discussion going (seeing how most of you scream about the other side doesn't want to talk.) This will probably fail but you never know. (I also wanted to try this after seeing it on lifehacker)

http://tinychat.com/globalwarmingflamefuck

This whole global warming theory is pure garbage. we had warming up through the mid to late 90s then things turned around and we have been in a cooling trend since then. The reason is that we are in a period of very quiet solar activity which decreases solar output from time to time, we had some very cold periods in the 1800s due to the Maunder minimum. Climate is very cyclic, however this time around some corrupt people such as Al Gore have seen a big money making opportunity by creating this huge fraud so they could make billions of dollars. I have taken Popular science for many decades, however this time I threw my renewal notice in the trash. Popular science has lost all credibility when they threw in with the global warming fraud!

I have been a subscriber for a while now... but no longer.

Popular Science used to be about SCIENCE not leftist or right wing OPINIONS. If you want to do an article on climate change then give me some scientific data. Do not bring me an over-glorified hate list.

The persons mentioned might indeed be impeding climate change legislation or they might be skeptics... To steal a line from Obama, "Let me be clear", I DON'T CARE. They are entitled to their opinions; this is America. Developing an informed population, as your article seems to emphasize, involves INFORMING them of FACTS. Person's opinions, even those mentioned, are their own and I do not read Popular Science to see a critique of them.

That said, the last example is reprehensible. Agriculture is not perfect I admit; however, Beef is a staple product. It will not go away and I doubt everyone will totally switch to chicken... (I know I won't) Beef feeds the world, and you will never convince developing countries or the G20 to abandon it. Instead of just switching to chicken why not offer a way to harness the methane and move forward. Oh wait someone did, and Dirty Jobs covered it. http://www.tv.com/dirty-jobs/dairy-cow-midwife/episode/1189546/recap.html

By the way, there is no such thing as free range chicken. There are no herds of chicken in a pasture somewhere. They are merely raised on grain in a yard or pen, and still live in a chicken house. Surprise!

Lastly, if enough chickens were raised to feed everyone on the planet that is not some version of vegetarian then, guess what, we'd have a methane emission issue from livestock all over again!

Anything claiming to be a "Science" or "Scientific Theory" that is based principly or primarily on the examination of cow farts is, in my opinion, highly suspect! Note though more recent statements from the Grand High Priest of the Environment, the Great and Poweral Al, (Pay no attention to what went on behind the curtain in Portland, OR) that those precious and wise cetaceans, our beloved whales, are pumping out our salvation by the barge load around the globe in each of oceans. Yes sound science teaches us that for every action (and evidently bowel movement), there is an equal and opposite reaction. Whale crap apparently is the kryptonetic counter to cow poop. Nope, it's not just Star Trek IV anymore folks, whales really are the environmental saviours of earth.

Make it SEVEN Villians; adding POPSCI as # 7.

Tell a lie often and repeatedly enough, people will begin to believe.

Climate fluctuations are cyclycle, historical and archaeological studies have shown. As a "science" publication, you should stick to the facts. There are none on "climate warming" it's all theory.
Follow the money trail and political posturing to see who is profitting from this myth. As an American consumer and taxpayer, I don't think I'm the culprit.

However, you sir/madam, in my opinion, are either:
1. An idiot, which limits your perspective.
2. Politically inclined, which blinds any perspective.

Thank you for letting me "slide" this comment in.

Oily yours,

lgg

Nice job, Rebecca - I enjoy any article about global warming because it brings out the wing nuts every time. Very entertaining. Facts are a mere inconvenience to these folks. So, thanks for presenting some facts about climate change, and giving your readers the opportunity to think about the issue instead of emote.

What's most fascinating to me is to realize that 99+ percent of those who spend their lives studying this matter say global warming is a monumental problem that must be dealt with, and 98% say it's caused in part by human activity, but millions reject this in order to get the truth from right wing talk show hosts. Amazing.

Pop Sci, keep up the good work.

This article is a classic. "If you do not agree with (belive as, act as, look like,etc) me, you are not only wrong, you are not welcome and probably the spawn of the devil."

It is an attitude that has been around since the beginning of people, and it is sad that we have not learned more tolerance.

The problem with Anthopomorphic Climate Change proponants is that they activly attempt to shout down anything but total agreement with their view. Even the attitude of 'I mostly agree but have some concerns' will bring the priests and priestesses of climate change to scream "SKEPTIC DEVIL" from thier pulpits.

It is so sad that the internet and anonymous freedom of speech has, instead of bringing us together, fractured us back into small, intolerant tribes.

Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement.

I see the typical skeptics uneducated of actual facts, (on the list), and deniers of real science are on here with the usual finger pointing to the East Anglia email debacle. And of course they are behind on the facts again because Michael Mann the scientist singled out for responsibility in that so-called cover up has been exonerated by a two level investigation. Of course skeptics won't accept it, nor do they question just who the heck broke the law and hacked into a university research center to begin with. Isn't it odd no one has been implicated? Something like that strikes at the very heart of privacy and rights, but it's OK if it's to help the skeptics out.

Every time I see a comments section like this jammed with deniers from the get go, I always wonder who they work for-- oil or coal?

I've been a subscriber to PopSci for more than 3 decades. I also was involved professionally in various aspects of energy and conservation as a scientist and computer scientist for 20+ years.

The evidence for climate change and global warming is simply overwhelming, from Greenland ice cores to changes in bird and insect migration and habitat. Every aspect of the earth's biosphere that's been examined points in the same direction, that the earth's climate is changing, and that the reason for that change is more solar energy being retained by the biosphere.

Having said that it is the case that a number of factors affect how much solar energy is absorbed versus how much is reflected back out into space. Solar flares, precession of the earth's axis, reflectivity of the earth's surface, and absorption / reflection of the atmosphere are all factors, and show up in the historic records.

The only factor, however, that contributes to warming of the atmosphere and tracks both recently and in the historical record is CO2 levels. The only possible source of such increased CO2 in recent history (the last 200 years or so) is human activity.

So far as I know there's been no other credible or widely accepted contributor put forward to explain this observed increase in CO2 levels, e.g. solar flares or axial tilt.

The warming of the atmosphere does not mean that everywhere is simply hotter. What it does mean is that there's more heat energy absorbed by the the earth than is re-emitted. The increase will continue until re-emission equals absorption. Generally this new energy balance will mean a hotter planet, with a more extreme climate. As this higher heat content manifests many changes will occur. There will be melting glaciers and warmer, more acidic oceans. The weather across the planet becomes more volatile and extreme as greater amounts of energy are distributed from the equator to higher latitudes.

To those who believe this to be a political issue I would suggest that's pretty much like playing Russian roulette as a test of religious faith. While it's not possible to predict with certainty all the effects global warming will have, it's also not possible to assign other than a significant probability of a major environmental catastrophe extinguishing species, wrecking economies, and reducing earth's population by tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people.

Oh my god! Some of the commenters of these posts are the most retarded bunch of idiots I've ever seen! I would have expected more from people who read Popular Science! What's all this stupid talk of revoking subscriptions and such?! When I saw all these bad comments, the first thing I though was: "The world is screwed!"

How can you people be so blind as to not only shrug off Eco-friendliness, but spit in it's face!

You people should really look at yourselfs in the mirror! Because all a see is a bunch of Jumbo-Hummer driving, drill-baby-drill MONSTERS!

Just look at the BP oil disaster! Do you people ENCOURAGE that kind of behavior! And the reason oil is being dug up in the first place is to fill our HUNGER TO DRIVE BIG HUMMERS! And not care for the world we live in!

Use your common sense people! Does SMOG look good to anybody! Do you people laugh at a forest being felled!

These things are very real, very dangerous problems, and you people are not only going to ignore them, but ATTACK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO STOP IT!

By speaking out, I believe Popular Science is doing a tremendously beautiful thing to help out the environment. And I will read their articles happily knowing that they will not succumb to you people's evil malice.

Jerks.

This article has illustrated the worst of mankind’s current behavior - the total absence of the ability to discuss almost any topic without heated rhetoric and near contempt for opposing points of view! It has become a daily dose of sad news - not because of specific events, science, politics, or religion, but because all of us have become angry at everyone else. I don't believe there is much hope for us anymore; not unless we can get together and agree on something. Let's start with something simple, does anyone disagree that we need oxygen to survive? Perhaps if we can agree on one thing, we can find more common ground to stand on [at least until Florida sinks :-)].

Ok, please let me cough and laugh at this article. The absurdity of it! HAHAHA!! Ok, now to do something that will totally surprise the author-I'm going to start a logical debate or the logicality and credibility of the author. *cracks knuckles* Let us begin.
Pre-notes - I have no factual reason for believing evolution so any statements exceeding 3000 years I find to be slightly (or more so) off and are for the readers benefit. Also being as I am a high school student any flaws found should signify a lapse of competency of the author. If me not having a degree bothers you I will, for your benefit, point more flaws out logically, or if forced cite sources.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>Facts<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

-Scientific process
---1)Make hypothesis (Story's is that these people are bad)
---2)Create experiment (Postulated facts that, OH NO, were written with invisible ink! No Facts!)
---3) Analyze (Well we'll just theorize what we can from no facts.)
---4)Repeat for accuracy (Well its been repeated but it's all like this- I get no facts[or ones that are obviously false])
---5)Create conclusion (Well based on no fact there should be no bias)

Global climate change happens *gasp gasp* but even without us it happens (take a look at those ice core records- oh look the author didn't cite! Guess since they have no need to I don't either. But to show courtesy, I'll let you know where to look if the information is published here- aka if the author has balls enough.... courage enough to show her faults. Look oh say from 15 million yrs to 10 million yrs ago and look at the fire and ice(woops this was before to much ice).

Author is a scientifically biased person, and therefore did not accurately cover their information. One is not able to create a discussion from postulations nor theories without it in itself being a theory built on a house of cards.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>Opinions:<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Seeing as she failed horribly at being scientific, she must have a degree in journalism not science.

Seeing as she failed horribly at being a reporter, she must have a degree in science not journalism.

She must not have a degree.

She shouldn't be writing(journalism) for a scientific journal.

Being as there are no facts presented by her, her reasoning is questionable, so we can assume that the theory is plausibly false, therefore the article should be skipped or thrown out.

This should be comment 201 unless it was ninja'ed. I hope this was logical or I'll have to post again. And I forgot to add my witty taunts I fount in the comments! They go:
IF global warming is caused by CO2, then prove you care about reducing it by reducing your talk.
This page uses a white background-that uses the most energy.
Beans are an indirect cause of global warming! Strike out burritos that give gas!
And my favorite:
I'm sorry, did I tell you the way it was?

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS CUTTING ATTACKS! NOT FOR YOUNG AUDIENCES! TOO LATE!

*cry*
I got ninja'ed!
But at least I got 202 and 203!

Between this article and the one on nuclear "waste" you folks at Popsci have really shown your ignorance. In that respect, you are following in the footsteps of another once noble science magazine, Scientific American. Those people have been hopeless for more than ten years. Luckily for me, I have not bothered to read PopSci for even longer than that.

Good riddance. Rest in Peace.

As a long time reader of Popular Science, Scientific American, and other media that seek to explain complex scientific developments for the lay person, I am very dissapointed and disheartened by the beligerant, right wing tone of many of the preceeding comments.
I agree with the content of the article, that the reactionary trend in american politics is the greatest impediment to the social and economic changes necessary to mitigate a decidedly unfriendly environment that we have ourselves created.
It is nothing less than a tragedy that ignorant conservatives are poisoning public dialog in ways that will undermine the chances for not merely human well being, but human survival.
For my part, I will support media and writers that continue to communicate a picture of our world that is well researched and coherently presented.

@jamestp
Ok, we both agree, political BS is a major problem. But the point we(all the rightys) are trying to say is, WHY is this scientific? For example, if I were to say, "Well I think that if the world spun backwards, we would fly off is true," I should be able to support it with some facts, otherwise I would be a moron and an incompetent twit if I supported and promoted my preposterous theory!! Give me a break! This whole article is a disgrace to the word science! We could talk about possibilities, no problem. But until you come to the understanding that this article has no data what so ever and treats all of what it says as common knowledge, or closer yet, common fact, we are dealing with not 'popular science' but 'popular deception'. Telling a theory as fact is lying you know.

Sincerely,
an average crazy righty, lefty, double winged, ex-illogical moderate

In part I believe humanity plays a part, but I wonder what percentage is truly humanity caused & what percentage is just naturally caused by nature?

Scientists aren’t exempt from fooling us either. While they have an education & while I respect them, Scientists are still humans after-all.

Well, to those of you unsubscribing, canceling, etc: don't let the door hit you on the way out ;)

Good luck on your new website, theflatearthsociety.org

ROFL!

A few notes:

One, this article is atrocious. For instance, Bjorn Lomborg makes an ECONOMIC argument against spending trillions of dollars now for a dubious problem that, even if it actually exists, won't create net costs in proportion to the costs anti-AGW policies for about 100 years (a ridiculous notion to anyone familiar with concept of discount rates). Saying he's "not qualified" to to disagree with AGW policies only indicates to the literate reader that such a description better applies to the author's ability to write a coherent article.

Second, Tuvalu is subsiding. Sea level rise is not only not accelerating to dangerous levels, it is actually decelerating of late. The slow sea rise of this interglacial continues unaffected. This is likely why Al Gore was confident enough to buy a multimillion dollar condo very near the ocean.

http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg

Second, it is a base canard that fossil fuel companies care much about AGW legislation; for the most part they are more than happy to migrate to AGW rent-seeking. BP changed its name to Beyond Petroleum and began developing "green" products that the government could force everyone to buy (apparently losing in the process their competence at actual oil production). The amount of taxpayer money given by gov't to AGWers dwarfs anything skeptics have seen from private hands.

Last, there is actually a field of science which deals with forecasts of various kinds, and scientists in that field have said emphatically that forecasts of climate have, direct quote, "no scientific basis." GCMs are not fundamental, they are parameterized models calibrated against measurements, and like the expert predictions they are based on, such models have very poor track records as forecasting tools.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/

This last graf merits some thought on the part of anyone with a properly skeptical scientific mind. Forget the whole AGW debate for a moment and imagine a group of scientists announced they knew, with 90% certainty, within a couple degrees, what the climate would be like over the next 100 years. Would you find this immediately credible? Or would you require extraordinary proof for such an extraordinary claim?

Sigh, should be "costs of anti-AGW policies" and "Third, it is a base canard." My kingdom for an edit function.

I smell a skunk or is it an elephant? I am a subscriber and have been one for years. I have read many post by real subscribers and they are much more intelligent than most "subscribers" that are posting to this article. All I see is a bunch of wing-nuts using fake threats of cancellation to push their political agenda. I have not read any real scientific arguments, that I read at other articles. I have read about someone who says it was cold last winter?? That is weather, not Climate!!!!! Let's keep politics out of this and stick to science. All of you wingnut trolls please go read Rush Limbaugh's latest post and stay away from this site. You can't handle the Truth!!

"Popular Science" - This one seems to be more on the "Popular" side.

-A quantum physicist can predict with significant accuracy, the mass of isotopes present and decayed for a give mass of "real-world-observable" radioactive material decaying over a span of seconds, days or years.

-An electronics engineer can predict with significant accuracy, the magnitude of charge on a capacitor in a "real-world-observable" electronics circuit over a span of seconds, days or years.

This agreement between predicted and observed "real-world-measurements" give credibility to the quantum physicist or the electrical engineer.

-A climatologist can predict with marginal accuracy, the climate conditions for a given "real-world-observable" region of the planet over a span of seconds. The accuracy is near-random over a span of days. The correlation between predicted and observed is less than 0.5 for spans of years.

This lack of agreement between predicted and observed "real-world-measurements" do not give credibility to the climatologist, especially for long term predictions. When the climatologist can predict with accuracy over long terms and can predict past observations using present measurements as inputs, the climatologist will have credibility. Until then, the climatologist's predictions are conjecture and not science.

You warmers go on and on about the "FACTS"

Here is a fact.... READ IT SLOWLY....C02 is 380 parts per million of atmospheric gasses.

380 PARTS PER MILLION. CO2 is A NEEDLE IN A HAYSTACK

That 4 parts per 10,000

Don't you greenies get it? It's THE ONLY GAS THE GOVERNMENT CAN TAX.

Man these climate change enthusiasts are really grasping at straws now, what, after the double climate gate scandal they don't have a leg to stand on. Hellooooo, the planet has cooled a couple of degrees since 1998, not the other way around. Wake the hell up people. Oh and for the record the sun as exponentially more to do with our climate than anything we do, and yes, we are entering a solar maximum stage of the sun's cycle so the planet may heat up a couple of degrees in the next decade or so, but that's what has been going on since before there were people on this planet and it will happen after we're long gone. Ask any geologist, there is a ton of evidence that shows at many times in Earth's past there was many many times more CO2 in the atmosphere than anything we've experienced recently....

Aritech wrote:

"I would have expected more from people who read Popular Science! What's all this stupid talk of revoking subscriptions and such?! When I saw all these bad comments, the first thing I though was: "The world is screwed!"

How can you people be so blind as to not only shrug off Eco-friendliness, but spit in it's face!

You people should really look at yourselfs in the mirror! Because all a see is a bunch of Jumbo-Hummer driving, drill-baby-drill MONSTERS!

Just look at the BP oil disaster! Do you people ENCOURAGE that kind of behavior! And the reason oil is being dug up in the first place is to fill our HUNGER TO DRIVE BIG HUMMERS! And not care for the world we live in!

Use your common sense people! Does SMOG look good to anybody! Do you people laugh at a forest being felled!

These things are very real, very dangerous problems, and you people are not only going to ignore them, but ATTACK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO STOP IT!

By speaking out, I believe Popular Science is doing a tremendously beautiful thing to help out the environment. And I will read their articles happily knowing that they will not succumb to you people's evil malice.

Jerks."

Well said !!!!
They only live to see Fog, Smell toxic polluted air, drill oil, drive their stoopid hummies. In fact their perception
have all been polluted by their own filthy ignorance. Just as they encourage to pollute our living earth which i have utmost respect for.

Caring for nature is never their intention.

Crystal clearly evident for EVERYONE to see in the way they debate.

"MartinDuck:
I smell a skunk or is it an elephant? I am a subscriber and have been one for years. I have read many post by real subscribers and they are much more intelligent than most "subscribers" that are posting to this article. All I see is a bunch of wing-nuts using fake threats of cancellation to push their political agenda. I have not read any real scientific arguments, that I read at other articles. I have read about someone who says it was cold last winter?? That is weather, not Climate!!!!! Let's keep politics out of this and stick to science. All of you wingnut trolls please go read Rush Limbaugh's latest post and stay away from this site. You can't handle the Truth!!

And handle it they CAN'T becuase they need to leave the earth polluted. Sick but True.

Again also Good comments and valid points made by by darthshadrac as well.

Rebecca, we can go and have that cup of tea now. Well done dear!

I'm sorry Rebecca for all the negative comments here, but just believe that angry people with a lot of time on their hands respond to articles online way more often than educated people who agree with what you're saying.

It's just sad that the simple, untrue things float to the top and why a more complex truth doesn't. I'm sure a PR-inept scientific community made mistaken assumptions that the scientifically-supported truth would come out (especially after the CRM email 'leak') and chose not to fight this battle, hoping complex facts would defend them.

Ms. Boyle's mistake here is probably not providing online links to overwhelming scientific proof or other meda articles showing humans caused climate change.

It's sad that the misinformed decided to discontinue their subscriptions, and would rather remain misinformed. The issue has become so politically divided, when it really shouldn't be.

So just wanted to repost something Trent1492 wrote on SciAm article 'Scientists Quantify Global Warming's Threat to Public Health' but just found out now your system doesn't allow new links. I really beg those who don't believe in climate change to take the initiative and please educate yourselves. The issue should not be political.

Maybe I seemed too harsh with my statement.

@ sd089b8e: That is one of my main problems with this article- she did not give us the facts, she took for granted the knowledge of the reader. Some people probably came on for the first time to see this article and find no-one supported their argument.

@ all: The environment should always be something we take care of, but somethings are problems blow out of proportions. If we had no ozone the earth would heat up, A LOT! Same with our global magnetic field. We cave created holes in the ozone and we are expected to have major solar flares in '13. science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction
We should take care of the environment because we are stewards of land. True proactive is better, but the climate is a lot more complex than scientists let on.

@ subscription enders: Your loss. And if you really have a problem with a point of view, tough, its life.

@ Rebecca Boyle: I have read other articles of yours and I'm disappointed in this one. Reporting should be telling the whole story not just one side, well if it's a scientific article. And if you wanted to make it this way, don't make it as if you, a representative of Popsci, hate the other opinion. You could have worded it,and I would be COMPLETELY objection-less, as is there is this opinion and these are who they think are villains. Not the I hate these people.

@ Aritech & Electrix : Seems you two think that all that think Climate Change isn't a problem are evil. You know, Yellowstone national park is sitting on a super volcano. When it blows most of the North American continent will be destroyed and due to the massive amounts of dust that will be released, we will go into an minor ice age. And you're content to sit the and let it happen. And so am I because to it's just about impossible to stop it.(Sarcasm mode on) You are an evil person because you are willing to let it happen. (Sarcasm mode off)

Oh, and btw, I'm really a representative of BP and I'm only commenting for my political advancement and for the good of the company's PR services. And you will also know that its really a cover up by my alien kin to continue harvesting humans. And I think if you believed all but the last sentence, you've gone off the deep end.

Absolutely climate change does occur, but there is no correlation between co2 and the earth's temperature, and there is a very strong correlation between solar activity and the earth's temperature.

Judge for yourself: The Cloud Mystery - www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA

We humans are only small cogs in God's universal machine. We do not have the power to cause global warming or cooling.

"@ Aritech & Electrix : Seems you two think that all that think Climate Change isn't a problem are evil. You know, Yellowstone national park is sitting on a super volcano. When it blows most of the North American continent will be destroyed and due to the massive amounts of dust that will be released, we will go into an minor ice age. And you're content to sit the and let it happen. And so am I because to it's just about impossible to stop it.(Sarcasm mode on) You are an evil person because you are willing to let it happen. (Sarcasm mode off)"

All that wouldn't do all they can possibly do to minimize or prevent polluting and damaging the earth i have a problem with, You bet YES. This goes beyond global warming, i need not mention what current non-green industrialization and oil has done to our environment.

For even a mentally challenged monkey can figure that one out.

As for the volcano blowing, like you mentioned it CANNOT be prevented, increasing man made emissions however CAN be prevented.

This article is B.S. What is that second word in the title of this publication? I thought it was s-c-i-e-n-c-e. Guess I read it wrong. This is a shining example of why "scientists" have about as much credibility as those claiming that the economy is "on the right track". Enough with the proselityzing (sp?).You ignorant libs ever heard of climate cycles? Are you so arrogant as to believe we humans can actually destroy the planet? Man didn't create it and man won't destroy it.We have made signifcant strides in reducing pollution of air and water over the years, and will continue to do so. That is a good thing. Noone wants dirty air or water and we are getting better at keeping both cleaner. Additionally it seems that increases in carbon in the atmosphere follow increases in temperature.The resources put here by GOD the creator of both man and earth were put here by Him for our use. (wonder if that makes it past the censor?)You can take your vacations on foot if you like and live in a mud hut, but i'll drive my gas guzzling pickup truck and enjoy my a/c. I for one don't want to hear about all this "green" crap. You can and should keep that to yourselves before all the sane people quit buying your rag. By the way is it "carbon neutral"?

@jme1921........read your own comment again. Yes, the second word of the publication is science. So why do you dibble on about your GOD the creator and Him? Really? That's science? More like religious creationism and fantacism.

Right wing conservative BS artist should be your name. Read the science...that's SCIENCE! Not some fairy tale in a book invented by man himself.

Hehe!Libs can always tolerate anything but facts!

Wow!

I doubt anybody is still reading this blog. But here's the facts, and my two cents.

1. Our polar ice caps are melting.

2. So are the polar ice caps on Mars.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Being a simple sort, it would seem to me that fluctuations in solar heat strong enough to melt Mars' ice caps would melt ours, too. Pop Sci readers are interested in politics, but also interest in facts. If you can't win your argument with the truth, then you have a bad argument.

ACCORDING TO NOAA:

READ IT AND WEEP, CRAZY CLIMATE DENIERS: LAST MONTH WAS THE HOTTEST MONTH EVER.....

JAN TO JUNE WERE ALSO THE HOTTEST EVER, USING BOTH LAND AND WATER MEASUREMENTS. THERE HAS BEEN STEADY WARMING OF THE LAST 340 MONTHS, BACK TO 1982

BTW, SUN SPOT ACTIVITY HAS BEEN LOW AND MAKES UP ONLY A FRACTION OF THE GLOBAL WARMING CHANGE.

BUT GO AHEAD AND ATTACK THE DATA BECAUSE AL GORE IS STILL FAT SO IT'S ALL GOOD FOR THE CLIMATE CRIMINALS.

* NOAA HOME

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce

*

* June 2010 Global State of the Climate – Supplemental Figures & Information

NOAA: June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are Warmest on Record

July 15, 2010

Last month’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature made it the warmest June on record and the warmest on record averaged for any April-June and January-June periods, according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature was the warmest on record for June and the April-June period, and the second warmest on record for the year-to-date (January-June) period, behind 2007.

The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880, is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.

Global Temperature Highlights – June

*

Temperature anomalies June 2010.

High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 61.1°F (16.2°C), which is 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average of 59.9°F (15.5°C).
* The global June land surface temperature was 1.93°F (1.07°C) above the 20th century average of 55.9 °F (13.3°C) — the warmest on record.

o Warmer-than-average conditions dominated the globe, with the most prominent warmth in Peru, the central and eastern contiguous U.S., and eastern and western Asia. Cooler-than-average regions included Scandinavia, southern China and the northwestern contiguous United States.
o According to Beijing Climate Center, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang and Jilin had their warmest June since national records began in 1951. Meanwhile, Guizhou experienced its coolest June on record.
o According to Spain’s meteorological office, the nationwide average temperature was 0.7°F (0.4°C) above normal, Spain's coolest June since 1997.

* The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.97°F (0.54°C) above the 20th century average of 61.5°F (16.4°C), which was the fourth warmest June on record. The warmth was most pronounced in the Atlantic Ocean.
* Sea surface temperature continued to decrease across the equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2010, consistent with the end of El Niño. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, La Niña conditions are likely to develop during the northern hemisphere summer 2010.

Temperature Anomalies January - June 2010.

High resolution (Credit: NOAA)

April – June 2010 and Year-to-Date

* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for April-June 2010 was 1.26°F (0.70°C) above the 20th century average—the warmest April-June period on record.
* For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 57.5°F (14.2°C) was the warmest January-June period. This value is 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average.

Polar Sea Ice and Precipitation Highlights

* Arctic sea ice covered an average of 4.2 million square miles (10.9 million square kilometers) during June. This is 10.6 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent and the lowest June extent since records began in 1979. This was also the 19th consecutive June with below-average Arctic sea ice extent.
* Antarctic sea ice extent in June was above average, 8.3 percent above the 1979-2000 average—resulting in the largest June extent on record.
* China had near-average precipitation. Regionally, Guizhou, Fujian and Qinghai had above-average precipitation during June 2010, resulting in the second wettest June since national records began in 1951—according to Beijing Climate Center. Meanwhile, the province of Jiangsu had its driest June on record, while Shanxi had its second driest on record.
* According to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, the continent had its fourth-driest June on record.
* The first six months of 2010 were the driest since 1929 for the United Kingdom, according to the UK Met Office. The average rainfall during January-June 2010 was 14.3 inches (362.5 mm), just 3.4 inches (86.8 mm) above January-June 1929. The January-June long-term average is 20.1 inches (511.7 mm).

Scientists, researchers and leaders in government and industry use NOAA’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world's climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.

Scientists, researchers and leaders in government and industry use NOAA’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world's climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.

The problem I have with Cattle being a problem -- ie they fart and burp too much...
Question... Weren't there vast herds of buffalo as far as the eye can see in America ... vast amounts of big game ie elephants, wildebeast, etc.
I guess the vast herds of wild animals both in the sea and on land that existed in the past (that are now decimated) were too polite to burp or fart.

Second issue.
The polar ice caps on mars have been retreating.
Question: Could this be due to the sun being in a warming cycle .. I know we're not responsible for the warming on other planets.

Also I know in the recent past when the vikings discovered america and landed in NewFoundland... the trees were bigger (they repaired their ships masts) and they found vines (grapes) it is now too cold for them to grow.

The earth does move in cycles...

Rebecca, there are seven you forgot one - cool aid....

I dont understand the final point of this article but let me asure you that it is the best I could find in a US media up to now.
The controversal reaction just shows to the rest of the world that the US population remains in its little box and dont give a damn thing about the remaining 90% of our globe and our globes reality.

Am i The only one who notices that Brick Tamland looks EXACTLY like Steve Carell?

Wow. If the dumb-drums from the right took their high school science books and dropped their subscriptions that would be just wonderful. Science and what they WANT to believe is like oil and water. Bye! Bye!

Not to over-simplify the argument here, but most people "believe" science because it produces predictable results. Those results are then repeatable. Some results are even applicable to solving other problem or creating new devices (engineering).

Isn't it possible that (besides all of the details and minutia of the arguments here) people don't "believe" the "climate change science" because it hasn't produced any predictions that have come true?

Even the few that do come true are almost Nostradamus-like: "there will be bigger hurricanes or more hurricanes south of a great city." "Water levels with either rise or fall or stay the same in some places."

Look, I'm no science skeptic, but "climate science" doesn't really measure up as far as real science goes. It's a sort of wishy-washy get-a-few-more-research-grants industry that self-perpetuates.

1 - Facts are available to show that the climate is changing, and that the rapid increase in the burning of fossil fuels is the cause. if you wish to learn, try www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm as a starting point.

2 - "Global warming" refers to the overall energy in the climate system, more energy results in higher "global" average temperature, but the models have long predicted that the result will be greater extremes, cold and hot. Take this summer for example, east coast U.S. and midwest - record breaking hot July. California - record breaking cool July. Extremes, not hot everywhere at once.

3 - Follow the money. Big Oil, Coal, and Natural G as, stand to lose the most if we switch quickly to non-fossil fuels. The fossil fuel producers have a lot to gain by denying that there is a problem, by claiming the science is too uncertain to warrant any change, and by funding rational and irrational people willing to promote those claims.

On the other hand the Sierra Club, NRDC, and other environmental groups don't sell anything of value. Although membership may increase, those organizations simply don't have the financial incentives to "promote" global warming or global climate change. Far easier to work on local environmental issues rather than try to counter the fossil fuel industries infinite money supply.

So why do they bother? Because the evidence supports the conclusion that we are on a dangerous path, that it will get worse if action is not taken soon, and because environmentalists care about what happens to the land, sea, air, and life on the planet.

4 - Several comprehensive investigations have found that there is no evidence that the researchers whose emails were stolen had altered data or that anything that they had done changed the predictions of the various climate models.

5 - It would be great if there were no problem. It would be great if the activities of mankind had no significant negative impact on the planet. But that is not what the evidence points to.

Science - observations and collection of facts, theories to explain the observations and make predictions, experiments to test the theories, revisions to the theories when the experimental data indicates that the existing theory is missing something. A whole lot harder than shouting "No, no, no, it isn't so" like a toddler in the midst of a tantrum.

------
"I am tired of the D students getting attention by being obnoxiously loud about everything, when they were too lazy to learn anything."

Here is a video for those that like to watch.... regarding global warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glnaW1Nbm

Okay that link didn't work. This is the same youtube video about global warming.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=glnaW1NbmXs

This article is bad. Really bad. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly bad it is. This is extremely biased, it's accusing Steve Carell of ruining the planet, and calling those who disagree with you villains.

Son, I am disappoint.

What I see in the comment section is mostly old tired worn out skeptic arguments that have become urban legends. No matter how many times scientists debunk them, no matter how many times so called skeptics are shown that their arguments don't hold water, they are continually repeated and believed in. It is the denial that is a religion. Ironically, deniers accuse the science of being a religion. Most of these arguments were disproven 10 years ago or more. WUWT is constantly debunked by actual climate scientists. Watts is a deceiver. Steve Goddards nutty graphs trying to prove the Arctic ice isn't melting or that global temps aren't rising are absurdly amateurish cooking of graphs using unbelievably cherry picked data. Even Watts got tired of his transparently fictitious nonsense. Not because its wrong of course. Watts just doesn't like how transparantly wrong Goddard is, and it was making WUWT look as bad as it actually is.

Science decides science, not talk show hosts, scientifically illiterate congressmen, retired TV weathermen, political scientists like Monckton, Lomborg, economists like McKitrick, fossil fuel lobbyists and PR men like Steve Milloy. And certainly not oil industry funded scientists for hire like all the well known skeptic scientists. Fred Singer has been an "expert" for industry on everything from Tobacco dangers, asbestos dangers, acid rain, global warming, CFCs damaging the ozone layer. He is funded by oil companies and the Reverand Sun Yung Moon. Remember the Moonies? Look it up if you to young to remember.

The following conservative "think tanks" that are really just anti environmental anti regulation industry front groups, are how the oil and coal industries funnel their message of psuedoscience and hide the money trail for what is one of the biggest and best funded disinformation PR campaigns in history. Thats where all you supposed skeptics got your ideas from.

I'll post the list next comment.

These 32 organizations have all been involved in the tobacco industry's campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.
They are all now involved in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.

1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation

#5 and #9 are Koch brother babies.

#24 is Steve Milloy's group which really is junk science.
Has Sean Hannity ever told you Milloy's a paid lobbyist for fossil fuels?

At this next link you will learn how oil and coal industry money is funneled through different foundations to bury the money trail, and "wipe the oil" off of it.
They set up organizations like Policy Communications, The Western Business Roundtable, Partnership for America, and Americans for American Energy, to make it seem like there is this groundswell of grassroots organizations opposing the scientific theory of man made climate change and opposing the move to sustainable energy. These are actually all the same people from the fossil fuel industry and mining industry. They are all staffed by the same executives.

"It's called "astroturfing" - the setting up of fake grassroots organizations and it's one of the oldest tricks in the books."

"Policy Communications
An energy industry-backed astro-turf network concocted by a single PR/Lobbying firm that is working to undermine the efforts of environmental groups and organizations like the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). that are pushing for solutions to climate change."

www.desmogblog.com/policy-communications-inc-astroturf-shell-game

Another example of "wiping the oil' off the money is how the inaptly named Friends of Science(FOS), had money funneled to what they called the Science Education Fund. The money came from the Alberta oil and gas industry through the Calgary Foundation, who funneled it through the University of Calgary and ultimately ending up at FOS.
FOS has funded Fred Singer, Sherwood Idso, Robert Balling and Pat Michaels.

Perhaps you would like the opinion of a real skeptic from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. This is Mark Boslough, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories

"Denialists have attempted to call the science into question by writing articles that include fabricated data. They’ve improperly graphed data using tricks to hide evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They chronically misrepresent the careful published work of scientists, distorting all logic and meaning in an organized misinformation campaign. To an uncritical media and gullible non-scientists, this ongoing conflict has had the intended effect: it gives the appearance of a scientific controversy and seems to contradict climate researchers who have stated that the scientific debate over the reality of human-caused climate change is over (statements that have been distorted by denialists to imply the ridiculous claim that in all respects the science is settled)."

Lets see what kind of scientific backing there is for global warming denial.

We have two lists here.

LIST # 1
Professional scientific societies that agree with the IPCC on global warming.

**

National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)

NASA

Woods Hole Resesarch Center

US Geological Survey (USGS)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

American Association of State Climatologists

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 (the study authorized and then censored by Bush)

American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)

Geological Society of America

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

American Association of State Climatologists

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

American Astronomical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - (The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization)

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Royal Society, United Kingdom

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of Canada

Science Council of Japan

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Brazilian Academy of Sciences

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

French Academy of Sciences

German Academy of Natural Scientists

Indian National Science Academy

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Union of Concerned Scientists

The Institution of Engineers Australia

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

National Research Council

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences

World Meteorological Organization

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

International Council on Science

American Physical Society (APS)

Australian Institute of Physics (AIP

European Physical Society

European Science Foundation

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS

Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN)

Network of African Science Academies

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

InterAcademy Council (IAC)

International Arctic Science Committee

Arctic Council

European Federation of Geologists (EFG)

European Geosciences Union (EGU)

Geological Society of Australia

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

American Quaternary Association (AMQUA

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV

American Society for Microbiology

Institute of Biology (UK)

Society of American Foresters (SAF

*
Deniers would have you believe that somehow all these organizations and the thousands of scientists from 120 countries, who have been doing the research for 20 years, and over 30 years for some, are all scamming you in some dark conspiracy. Wow, and they call the scientists alarmists!

Okay. Are you ready for List # 2? Drum roll please.
*
LIST # 2
Professional scientific societies that Do Not agree with the IPCC on global warming.
*
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

Canadian Association of Petroleum Geologists (CAPG)
*
That is the whole list.
*

The AGW theory, as reported on by the IPCC in the fourth assessment of over 20 years of research, has been called the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific paper in the history of science.
*
"Climate Scientists Defend IPCC Peer Review as Most Rigorous in History"
by Stacy Feldman - Feb 26th, 2010 at Solve Climate dot com
*
"Nicholls, a professor at Monash University in Victoria, Australia, said the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment report was subjected to several rigorous tiers of review. The study cites over 10,000 papers from the scientific literature, "most of which have already been through the peer-review process to get into the scientific literature."
*
"The report went through four separate reviews and received 90,000 comments from 2,500 reviewers, all of which are publicly available, along with the responses of the authors, Nicholls said."
*
But for Glen Beck, Limbaugh, Republicans, et al, its just a liberal concocted hoax, dreamed up by Al Gore and his buddies.

Scientists are constantly questioning data and conclusions and looking for weaknesses in the science that need correcting. The peer review process is more of this process. In fact, it is the scientists themselves who are the true skeptics. Its part of the process of how science always works.

This is not what happens in climate change denial land. There, no evidence, among the mountains of evidence for AGW is accepted as valid, while believing anything said by a non scientist, petroleum lobbyist, Republican congressman, or fossil fuel industry paid scientist. Hey Glenn Beck knows his climate science, heh?

If Al Gore and his socialist conspirators dreamed up the climate change hoax, as Limbaugh and others will assure you, they must have been time travellers. Otherwise, how could they have included those who have been studying the greenhouse effect since 1824?

Fourier calculates colder earth without an atmosphere (1824)
*
Tyndall discovers relationship between CO2 and long-wave radiation (1859)
*
Arrhenius calculates global warming from anthropogenic CO2 (1896)
*
Chamberlin models global carbon exchange including feedbacks (1897)
*
Callendar predicts global warming increase catalysed by CO2 emissions (1938)
*
Revelle predicts inability of oceans to sequester anthropogenic CO2 (1958) "
*
(From Spencer Weart's history of ACC - *

the greenhouse gas effect was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, proven to exist by John Tyndall in 1858, and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
*

Anyone truly interested in learning something about climate change would be wise to visit SkepticalScience website. They are scientists with the patience of Job who will explain the science. They have articles explaining every skeptic argument, and why its wrong. 127 of them at last count. Excellent comments with the articles. Ask questions, but don't go there trolling or being obstinate. Science only. No politics or policy debates.

Lets clear up a few distortions of reality that are commonly believed.

CRU climate scientist Phil Jones never said there was no warming from 1995-2006. That is a lie. He said it was too short a time period with too much statistical noise to give the upward trend line over 95% certainty. It was actually 92% certainty. This actually means there is only 8% chance it is wrong. The news outlet in England misrepresented his statement intentionally and spread it around the conservative media and blogosphere.

Climate gate is a joke. Two lines taken out of context and twisted to mean something not even related to what the scientist were talking about. This is out of thousands of emails spanning 13 years. It was manufactured by oil interests represented by Rep. Joe (apologise to BP) Barton (R Texas), economist McKitrick and oil lobbyist and mathemetician McKytyre who have been on a witch hund for climate scientists for over a decade. Five investigations have totally cleared all scientists, CRU and the IPCC of any falsifying of data or anything else. McKitrick was also head of the Fraser Intitute, another anti environmental industry front group.
They are the ones with an agenda. A criminal one if you ask me.

In case you think I'm delusional about an agenda to fool people about climate change, here's your reading assignment.

"Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming"
by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore
*
"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway
*
"Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change" by Clive Hamilton
He outlines the decade-long, coal-industry funded campaign in Australia to deny climate science
*
"Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate" by Stephan H. Schneider and Tim Flannery
*
"Censoring Science: the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming" by Mark Bowen
*
"The Boiling Point" and "The Heat Is On" by Ross Gelbspan
*
"The Republican War On Science" by Chris Mooney
*
"Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health" by David Michaels
*
The anti science Republicans have supported this miscarriage of justice and science.

The comments demonstrate exactly why science and politics should not be mixed. When they are, you have too many people who know nothing about the field trying to sway everyone's opinion without regard to the data and the context of the data. People who aren't scientists (politicians and the general public) should stay out of science. Science offers data, correlations, and can offer suggestions, but it's not meant to be 100% True of False. Probabilities, people, that's all we can offer.

Regardless of global warming or not, humans are having and will continue to have an impact on the environment, which usually is and most likely will continue to be detrimental. What has happened in the Midwest? Remove all of the apex predators (wolves, coyotes, bears) and viola, deer explosion. People who say humans aren't "big" enough to have a global impact should take a lesson from Ecology 101. Upset the balance, and you clean up the mess.

There is no such thing as "cheap" and "clean" energy, everything has a drawback, and people are no longer willing to work for their bread in this day and age. It has become "me, me, me" and what "I" can buy, have, store, get a deal on. If you "want" something, you have to take it from somewhere, and in the physical world, that something will always be finite. "Renewable" resources are only so if people are willing to control their own demand.

I can guarantee that most people who argue about the issues don't know half of what they're arguing. All they see here is "global warming, GOP, Al Gore" and they are prepped for an offensive. If you don't believe in global warming, then don't. If you do, then do. It's a personal decision, because national emissions are based on industry, which is based on demand, which is based on consumers. If you care about whether or not your lifestyle has an impact on the environment, you will decide whether or not you become informed about what you buy, and how you use what you have. The market is driven by each and every person's choice to participate in it.

As far as emissions standards and climate debate goes, there is no scientific reason that any person should argue against higher efficiency, especially if said increase in efficiency can be made economical. Do you want to get 100mpg out of your car, even if you run a drag race or two? You betcha. Do you believe climate change is real? Doesn't matter. 100mpg is a sweet deal. If we stop arguing and fighting for climate change or no climate change legislation, and start fighting for higher efficiency standards in industry and consumer goods, the benefits will come pouring down. If we are going to tell politicians what to do, we should at least tell them what we want, not what we want them to believe.

What annoys me most about both sides of the climate change debate is that while we argue over a few degrees here and there aren't we missing the important issues?
Whether the earth is heating up or not, we are are destroying this planet through pollution whether it be carbon monoxide, dioxide or any other gas. We're using up resources that we can't readily recover and not putting them to good use. Take oil which can be used to create some amazing recyclable materials, when our kids ask us what we did with this fantastic material and we respond that we burnt it - how dumb are we going to look!
Whether you agree or disagree with climate change, shouldn't we be trying to improve our environment and make this a planet we can all enjoy? The view that we should ride roughshod over nature is as foolish and antiquated as believing the earth is flat. Stop being so selfish!

Scary to see how many of your readers are completely misinformed and/or brainwashed. Let them go ahead and "cancel their subscriptions", I bet most of them never had one in the fist place.

97.5% of actual climatologists who actively publish research on climate change believe that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

26 scientific organizations and the Academy of Sciences from 19 different countries all support the consensus.

"Learn to Live & Live to Learn"
Alexander von Humboldt

@electrix you think that opposers of climate change are evil right? And your stereotype of them are rich folk who live in mansions. Why is this? And how come the only angry comments about killing people I see anywhere, are from pro climate change people?

nonsquid wrote:

07/06/10 at 7:53 pm
"@zupatun - so this "good data" shows an 8 TEN-thousandth of ONE percent change over 50 years and you are calling that a significant increase in CO2 levels? Which may or may not be caused by mankind, and may or may not be causal in global warming (or cooling) computer model."

nonsquid,

The measurements are in ppm...but the percentage change is around 25% MORE carbon dioxide over the last XX years...the rise is significant. People have theories as to the cause, some think manmade is the most logical, others think perhaps some other cause....I'm not speaking to that.

The other thing significant is that if you compare the CO2 trapped in glacial ice (if you think this is valid) then the rise is CO2 is hyperbolic and we will pass dangerous levels of CO2 in several years.

If this is just "normal" then you may suspect that an ice age will come and bring us back to the levels during the last ice age around 280ppm...it may take 50 to 1000 years or so (big variation in "or so")...to get back to the next ice age. If not, then you have to wonder where all this "extra" CO2 is coming from...I'm certain no one knows all the answers...

Having seen Keeling's data and his apparatus I have no doubt the CO2 levels have risen 25% or so in the last 50 years...as to the cause I can only guess.

Personally, I think it's probably "man made". Big question is what are the issues/problems with this...will it fix itself/auto-correct, or does something have to be done? What are the consequences??? We will only "Know" when we have to deal with them...

What if there was 25% more plant growth on the earth in 50 years...what if there was 25% more H2O on the earth in 25 years...or 25% drop in CO2 or H2O in the same amount of time...the amount of CO2 25% of 310ppm is a HUGE amount of CO2...if you weighed it it would weigh a lot...25% of anything existing on the face of hte earth is a bunch of stuff...

Matt

"Professor Fate, I don't think we should mention the fact that the ice is melting. It might alarm Miss Dubois and the others."
"Don't mention it, don't mention it he says. Well I'm going to wait till the water reaches my upper lip and then I'm gonna to mention it to somebody!"

Exchange between "The Great Leslie (Tony Curtis)" and "Professor Fate (Jack Lemmon)" in Blake Edwards film, "The Great Race" as the ice berg they're floating on slowly melts.

Poor folks... it is interesting to see how many view the issue with such polarized glasses on.

How many people here claiming to want more data in the article or some "real scientists" to comment actually have tried to go out and check "the data"?

Never mind that as others have posted it's not clear cut and you might need special training just to comprehend it. The world's a big and complicated place and as you can imagine, a model of the atmosphere probably has a lot of inputs, a lot of things it depends on.

Are we so in love (or desperately dependent on) with cheap things that we can't just "do the right thing" and not pollute the environment when we make stuff just to be on the safe side of things? To not utterly turn our planet into a dumping ground for our industry? Just you know, to be nice to the animals and all?

I'm a student at UC Berkeley, and I know I picked the right major: Earth and Planetary Science, Atmospheric Focus - specifically: Climate Change.

In EVERY SINGE Earth science class I have taken at Berkeley, the professor gives at least one lecture devoted to convincing every single student there that GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND CAUSED BY HUMANS. I know that not only the experts, but I'd say most of the students on campus understand the simple facts.

Science (a.k.a. truth) behind climate change:

1. We get all of our energy from the sun. That energy comes in the form of waves of light.
2. Earth absorbs some of that light, which gives the Earth some heat.
3. In turn, Earth gives off some of its own heat in the form of infared waves.
4. The greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere: Water, Carbon Dioxide, Ozone, and Methane, most significantly, all work as mirrors to reflect those infared waves and shoot them back to Earth.
5. More waves = energy = light hits us, and that adds more heat. Before humans came along, the Earth had the perfect balance of heat from the sun and heat reflected back at us.

Right now, all around the world, we are ADDING MORE greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. To put it simply, we are adding more mirrors to reflect our own heat back at us and ITS CAUSING OUR PLANET TO WARM MEASURABLY.

Just look at the facts.
We're killing ourselves.
And I'm wondering why so few people are taking responsibility.

@Astrogirl

(my comments in perentheses)

I'm a student at UC Berkeley, and I know I picked the right major: Earth and Planetary Science, Atmospheric Focus - specifically: Climate Change.
(Lets not forget Berkeley has a history of radically left-oriented opinions and yes it appears you have picked the right focus if you have already decided to become an activist. Please try to be objective around these guys. They do have an agenda.)

In EVERY SINGE Earth science class I have taken at Berkeley, the professor gives at least one lecture devoted to convincing every single student there that GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND CAUSED BY HUMANS. I know that not only the experts, but I'd say most of the students on campus understand the simple facts.
(So professors not only teach at Berkeley but they "convince"? Sounds more like indoctrination to a religion than teaching)

Science (a.k.a. truth) behind climate change:

1. We get all of our energy from the sun. That energy comes in the form of waves of light.
(The sun rules our climate. There is a vast amount energy beneath the Earth's crust but the crust insulates the surface from most of that energy)
2. Earth absorbs some of that light, which gives the Earth some heat.
3. In turn, Earth gives off some of its own heat in the form of infared waves.
4. The greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere: Water, Carbon Dioxide, Ozone, and Methane, most significantly, all work as mirrors to reflect those infared waves and shoot them back to Earth.
(Water vapor 0.4% overall, CO2 0.039%, Ozone 0.0000035%, Methane 0.000179%. Yes CO2 has a higher radiative forcing constant, but water vapor still rules the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas)
5. More waves = energy = light hits us, and that adds more heat. Before humans came along, the Earth had the perfect balance of heat from the sun and heat reflected back at us.
(Completely false statement! The geological history of the Earth is loaded with wild swings in climate that occured many times before humans appeared. The Ice Ages are but a small example of this)
Right now, all around the world, we are ADDING MORE greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. To put it simply, we are adding more mirrors to reflect our own heat back at us and ITS CAUSING OUR PLANET TO WARM MEASURABLY.
(The average global T has risen 0.9 C since 1880. To blame this on CO2 is purely anecdotal. I have yet so see in any scientific journal conclusive evidence that an increase of only 0.00011% in atmospheric CO2 is capable of such drastic climate change. If there is such a paper on this, please provide a link)
Just look at the facts.
(please do more research on the Earth's geological history)
We're killing ourselves.
(Thats your nutty professor talking. We have come a long way with clean air and clean water projects since the 1970s. I remember the filthy harbors of Boston and New York that are now remarkably cleaner now. Ask any one over 40 years old)
And I'm wondering why so few people are taking responsibility.
(Like Al Gore who continues to drive in SUVs and fly in his private jet so he can continue to brainwash people? If the Earth is warming and the oceans are rising, why did he buy a beach mansion in Montecito? I'm not trying to insult you. I just want you to keep an open mind...especially at Berkely)

If you want to know why corporate media and the purchased members of congress don't recognize scientific fact, just follow the money. They profit from the ignorance and create it with their misinformation.

Corporate media gives equal time and weight to representatives from corporations profiting off of global warming even though they have no scientific credentials or standing.

The corporate media fuels a "debate" about the scientific fact that we are going to warm this planet to the point where it will be uninhabitable for the majority of people in the places they now live within 150 years.

The corporate media looks at scientific collaboration and calls it "climategate" to lead the ignorant to believe that it's all made up.

Go to a site with independent reporting such as "Grist" and you will find scientific articles on the subject.

Bravo to Popular Science for taking a stand, and risking the wrath of the ignorant by actually telling people what science really says.

I find it regrettable that they felt the need to demonize the corrupt members of congress who are in the pocket of the corporations rather than serving the best interest of America, but to be honest, do they really deserve any better treatment?

These traitors to the trust of the American people are harming America and doing so because of contributions from non-American interests (multinational corporations), and as such their actions meet the definition of treason.

I've occasionally read Pop Sci over the years and only recently started reading it regularly. I appreciate the unique perspective and interesting articles here, and what I thought was a different, more open minded community. So when I happened across this article today. I honestly was excited to read the comments when I finished the article. But low and behold, I had to double check to make sure I wasn't on Yahoo! For this comment section is horrific.

Absolutely appalling.

I mean almost immediately after the article was published I see the angry insulting comments. The ALL CAPS rants. The lengthy absurd diatribes. The (out of nowhere) cries against Al Gore. And perfectly fitting—blatantly filled with misinformation, no, Gore does not own a private jet. You even have the condescending pr*ck hoping to save our college students from their evil oppressive socialist professors. We get the verbal attacks and characterization of global warming advocates as leftist liberals, you claim this article is political "propaganda." You get numerous threats that people are canceling their subscription. By god, how dare you suggest the failure to reach an agreement on emissions is a bad thing. I'm CANCELING! LOL — It's like calling someone a racist because they're against quotas. You just can't have a dialogue or real conversation after that. It just devolves into a shouting match and fight.

You even get a guy ranting against this article and then spouting out that factory farming is better!? I mean com one guy. Let's not get further side tracked, but you obviously are totally unaware of both sides of the story there. But this type of ignorance seems typical of 90% of the comments here. What a shame.

I really expected and hoped there would be an open minded community here that discussed reality. Some pros, some cons, some grounded discussions, maybe just a few heated posts. But this is on par with any of the worst comment threads on Yahoo!

I can't express how unbelievably sad I am about the quality of comments here.

And people, listen. Every earth/climate scientist is painfully aware that the earth goes through warming and cooling "cycles." Please grow up. The question now is at what stage of what cycle are we currently in? Are the recent exponential changes a sign of human interference. And should we sit on our hands or actually require factories, auto manufacturers etc. to take steps to reduce greenhouse gases or pretend that we can't do anything anyway? I mean is that such an irrational question to ask? I mean jesus h ..... But we can't even get to that stage of the discussion because you're so wrapped up in railing against, maoists, leftists, environmentalists and protecting your darling capitalists from evil scary socialist taxists. You people are stunningly irrational and stupid.

So, PopSci is now the source for the "two minute hate".

If someone had told me this in the 1960's I would have said never.

Apparently I was wrong.