If you're reading PopSci, you probably already know all about the latest efforts to offset carbon dioxide emissions, engineer clean building materials and combat pollution from traditional energy sources like coal and oil.
But you may be less aware of the more insidious climate villains--the quieter ones, which aren't necessarily belching toxic gases or currently destroying the Gulf of Mexico. Their damage is more indirect, but that doesn't make it less harmful.
A problem as immense as climate change stretches beyond the obvious. Did you know, for instance, that your TV weather man (or woman) likely doesn't believe in climate change? Were you aware that the sirloin steak at your favorite chop house is a bigger contributor to global warming than your car?
Sure, we've made great strides in environmental protection since the days of burning rivers and the Crying Indian commercial. But it's a heck of a lot warmer now. 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.
Here are five of the worst:
The G20 and China
Plenty of people were responsible for the bungled opportunity that was the United Nations Climate Change Conference last winter. But the majority of the blame lies with the leaders of the world's largest economic powers.
Developed nations should have formulated a meaningful agreement that would have actually led to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, their leaders politicked the conference to death and came away with a document that does little more than acknowledge climate change is a problem—something even George W. Bush was able to do almost 10 years ago. It was a flop, and it secured climate politics a spot on the back burner in many countries.
The world's biggest economies must participate in international climate change agreements or they will be meaningless. The G20 group is responsible for more than three-fourths of the world's pollution, so a 30 percent emission reduction in Lichtenstein isn't going to help much if the big economic powers don't clean things up. For instance, China, which emits more sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide than any other nation, balked at provisions that would have required dramatic greenhouse-gas reductions.
Ultimately, the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa drafted the non-binding accord, excluding most UN members. Here's hoping the next conference in Cancun later this year provides more inspiration than Copenhagen.
How to vanquish: At the voting booth
James "Mountain Jim" Inhofe might be proud to make this list -- he's one of the most vocal skeptics of global warming in the country. He's compared the environmentalist movement to
the Third Reich and has called the threat of catastrophic climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
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.
On June 11, Democrats blocked a bill that would have prevented the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions, which means the Obama administration might come up with emission regulations without any Senate action. But Democrats are still hoping for bipartisan climate legislation this year. Inhofe could employ various parliamentary tactics to grind things to a halt, if not derail them completely -- such as placing a "hold," which would require 60 votes to break, or offering countless amendments that would weaken the legislation.
Across the pond, Christopher Monckton, AKA Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, could fill Inhofe's shoes. He's been getting plenty of press lately for misrepresenting climate science in humorous, well-attended speeches in the United Kingdom (bad news when only 30 percent of Britons say climate change is "definitely" a real issue).
How to vanquish: Learn the facts so these politicians can't fool you
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.
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.
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?
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:
This unbecoming, unscientific, vilification is making the oil company shills look rather respectable by comparison.
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
[“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.