Bracing for an onslaught from emboldened congressional conservatives — and ramped-up media coverage of their offensive — climate scientists are joining truth squads to spread information about climate change.
One program is a relaunch of a previous climate question-and-answer service; another involves a rapid-response team of scientists prepared to appear before unfriendly audiences, such as conservative talk shows. The latter represents a departure for many scientists, who have traditionally avoided the political realm even as they have faced increasing pressure — including investigations into their personal correspondence.
In a story about the programs, the LA Times quotes Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York, saying science and politics cannot be divorced.
"Scientists need to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science," he said. "We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
On Monday, the American Geophysical Union confirmed plans to restart its Climate Q&A Service, a program designed to help journalists cover climate change. The program started in 2009 to provide scientific information for journalists covering the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Since then, AGU has been working to restart the program in time for the upcoming UN conference in Cancun. The LA Times story noted that more than 700 scientists have signed up to answer journalists' questions.
The AGU, the largest professional society of earth and space scientists, bristled at the Times' characterization of the program, insisting it is merely an information service and not a political initiative: "There is no campaign by AGU against climate skeptics or congressional conservatives," said Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union, in a statement. "AGU will continue to provide accurate scientific information on Earth and space topics to inform the general public and to support sound public policy development."
But Mandia, the community college prof, had a good point — when it comes to climate change, the phrase "accurate scientific information" is inherently political.
The Times quotes Jeffrey Taylor, research fellow at NCAR and manager of the AGU's project, saying scientists are signing up because they're eager to address what they perceive as climate misinformation.
The Times also reports on a separate effort led by John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota to pull together a rapid-response team. In the week since Abraham started the project, 39 scientists have signed up, including Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
They may have their work cut out for them, if the GOP-controlled House of Representatives does hold hearings into climate change "fraud." The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, analyzed the campaign statements of the new freshman class and found of the more than 100 new GOP members, 50 percent are climate change skeptics.
Given this news, scientists' willingness to participate in public information campaigns signals that the war over global warming could be about to heat up.
+5 to 10°c would be nice, most of the heat would end up in the polar region the equatorial area would only increase one or two degrees. This would replicate the garden of eden like state inwhich modern mammals like primate started showing up called the eocene epoch. Sadly these conditions ended in one of the worst climate desasters in the history of ever called the azolla event, it was a super plant who needed little nutrients to thrive and could double its mass in two days with favorable weather infesting 4,000,000 km² each year for ~800,000 years, reducing the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from 3500 ppm to 650 ppm. Sense then average arctic temperatures have dropped from a comfortable 13 °C to −9 °C and co2 levels have fallen to a current level of 388 ppm. Nature is not always good to itself and needs managing, there are countless ways the earth has to bury carbon but has almost no way to bring it back up. It is our sacred duty to fill the station as the only creation earth that can undo the damage caused by continual carbon sequestration. It will take hundreds of years and hard fought ideological battles with those who want who refuse to see a bright future but we can prevail we can restore earth to its paradisaical glory.
I haven't commented in a while but I just have to!
That has been my argument for years!!! Screw it! Who want's ice caps anyways? They are far from the norm for the earth and we would have way more real-estate and coastlines without them! All of northern Canada and Russia would become friggin sweet... Think about it.
I have a single question I ask anyone who believes in manmade global warming that always stops them in their tracks:
"What is the correct temperature for Earth?"
You see, they cannot answer this because they cannot know. Perhaps life on Earth would be far better if it were 3 degrees warmer, or maybe 3 degrees cooler? Global Warmers seem to think that for some reason, the temperature of Earth around 1900 was the IDEAL. And derivation from that is seen a negative and very dangerous.
How do we know that 1900 wasn't too cold?
The most amusing part is when they announce - "The warmest summer on record!". So, exactly how long has Earth been here? 4.5 billion years? And how long have we been keeping accurate global temperature records? 100 years? 200? Does it even matter? "The warmest summer on record!" simply means it is the warmest summer we have seen in the minute amount of time we have been observing such things.
It is just silliness.
CO2 is a trace gas. That means there is almost none of it. For a fractional increase in the amount of something of which there is very little in the first place to cause catastrophic global warming is the equivalent of heating a bathtub of water with a single match.
It is the classic post hoc argument. We are here. It is getting warmer. Therefore, it is getting warmer because we are here. Completely ignored is the fact that it has been much warmer and much cooler than now in the past when we weren't here. The sun came up this morning. I had a bowl of cereal this morning. Although the sun has come up the same way for billions of years, it NOW comes up because I eat cereal. Get it?
The fact that those who espouse this myth have so much to gain financially from it should give anyone pause. Al Gore was hardly a wealthy man when he left office. Now he is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Do the math. Follow the money.
You said "Do the math. Follow the money." Really? You think Al Gore is behind all of it like some mastermind?
You say follow the money, but you blindly ignore all the money that is involved with established industry, like coal, petroleum industry (the OIL industry), the car industry, and the like.
Who has more money to gain? Al Gore or the industries listed above?
No, I'm sure they have nothing to gain by being on the side of climate change denial.
Humans do contribute to the warming of the planet; that's a fact. Whether it be 1% or .0000001 percent, we still contribute. Many things contribute to "Global Warming" and humankind is one of them.
If I was rich I would make a spaceship and colonize other planets, but I'm not rich. I could do so much with 1 trillion dollars. One can dream...LoL.
DO we really trust them after Climate Gate? If you don't know what it is, LOOK IT UP! Please!
At this stage, if the media and governments had been honest, everyone would already know that AGW was/is a scam for pushing "one world government" disguised by the euphemistic term "global governance".
Did we hear anything else at Copenhagen? Repetition of lies, lies and more lies. You can't trust politicians and now you can't trust scientists either. Fortune and glory is first and foremost in all their minds.
If the mass media had done its job of reporting facts instead of twisted political propaganda, we would all be aware of the UNs "Agenda 21" -which is underlying the whole nasty scheme-
Using fraudulent climate science (climate gate) has come to to help push the one world gov. i.e. world dominance by an unelected body of wannabe tyrants sucking the blood of the world for their own benefit.
Do you really believe CO2 is "pollution"?
"Save the planet! Kill yourself"
-you are an emitter!
As always PopSci is politically correct, but in this case scientifically wrong. PopSci is also fanatically "liberal" and as such on the verge of brain dead.
It is not about the climate changing its about how fast it is changing - and about the crazy weather we will be getting as it increases.
Hotter planet = Bigger Hurricanes; it will also lead to more precipitation in the north ie. Canada and Russia well less farther south ie America.
"Nature is not always good to itself and needs managing, there are countless ways the earth has to bury carbon but has almost no way to bring it back up."
Carbon is not the only greenhouse gas, and your statement is incorrect. Volcanoes give off carbon:130 million tons.
This is absurd. Have you ever seen any other subject that has a "rapid response team" to go out. Even the most trusting and naive person has to be suspicious at the lengths of policiticalization of this.
Do you notice the only solution they talk about is no solution. A global tax. You can pollute if you want but only if you pay, we'll plant some trees or keep a closed down factory in the ukraine closed. That will fix it, no no it won't, whether it's a problem or not, that won't solve it. But it's the only thing they push.
No great push for new tech. No billions of stimulus for cold fusion research, etc. If these scientists on the rapid response team et al put their energy in a solution it would be a moot point. no actual solutions, even the believers don't seem to care any further than politics.
It is used for politics, for dogma, for idealogy. Not for the environment, not for green not for anything but pushing an old tired globalist agenda, that's it.
Picture if those conservatives came up with the idea. You can pollute, as long as you pay through a stock market for co2, and we'll take a cut. That will solve everything, you would be screaming at them their idiots that won't solve anything, what monsters they don't care about the earth. But since your team came up with it, you say nothing but those conservatives are idiots for not wanting it. Look in the mirror and figure out what you believe, not what your team believes. What makes sense, your team lies, their team lies, you figure it out for you. And if your ideas come out closer to the other teams then that's ok worry only about the truth, not politics, in politics there is no truth there to be had.
If you truly believed the earths/ humanity's destruction was a few years away wouldn't you be looking for something to solve it, instead of continuously going back to a global tax as the only solution. One that wouldn't solve or even slow much of anything.
Ok, let's consider this. Say we completely ignore some of the southern states losing land to ocean, example Louisiana.Let's say there has been no irregularities in weather patterns, example more violent storms than average. Let's just consider the health consequences, and since we know health care is going to be axed just as soon as the new congress figures out a way to do it, we should ponder health consequences.By continuing emissions without some restrictions, solid particles alone without the CO2 aspect will cause greater respiratory problems. Many people are immunosuppressed whether through drug therapy, transplant patients, or AIDS/HIV patients. Those people are very vulnerable to an atmosphere that is marginal for breathing. Basic biology states we are the ones that breath air instead of CO2, if your a plant maybe increased CO2 levels are good for you, but being human I prefer good quality oxygen instead of too much CO2.
You might want to do some follow-up there, buddy.
"Climategate" was debunked a year ago.
Hmm - same old liberal arguement proffered forth by the same old AGW alarmist.
Take a look here (might have to type http:// first);
This type of information is readily available for those who want to think for themselves, rather than have information force fed to them by typical liberal minded liberal idealogues. There is plenty of data that completely contradicts the typical AGW theories, but most of the liberally dominated news media either ignores it, or doesn't want you to know about the contradictions.
Ok, so most of you keep saying that it was far warmer in the past. This is true, except humans were not here for that. When most people think of climate change, they say "save the planet". But like Dr. Keller from Stargate Atlantis said "It's not about saving the planet, Earth will be here when we're gone. It's about saving human lives" and you can also argue that saving our money is as important as lives (to some people).
I saw on a doccumentary that if the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melt, it will increase global ocean levels by 7-10 meters. This will move the coastline inland by a large amount (depending on the gradient on the land angle). Where do most people in the world live? On the coast. All of our pretty cities will be flooded. I for one don't want to take a gondola to work every day.
The Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy has nothing to do with anything. One group did some spin to get more funding. Please stop referring to that. It's very silly.
And although it sounds good to pretend that there's a "natural" temperature, the point is that the biosphere will lose a great deal of diversity and we will lose a great deal of economic productivity if we don't keep the temperature where it is, as tertertert said. It doesn't even matter at this point whether or not it's anthropogenic (although it's fairly simple math to show that it is - we know how much carbon we've put in the atmosphere and can calculate the climatic effects, even if we didn't have real-world observations to corroborate.)
Addendum: skdpco, how does reading two pages of information that fails to cite its sources qualify as thinking for oneself?
Cap and Trade is a joke! Another excuse to tax the heck out of all of us and put forth the liberal agenda. More government = less individual freedom!
If you really belive in AGW, there are solutions readily available to start fixing the "problem." Only thing is, other liberal organizations tend to oppose those solutions. Biggest one is MORE NUCLEAR POWER! Ohhhh yea, that's been opposed by greenie liberal organizations for years in the USA. Even though there have been remarkable advances in safety and security in new generation reactor design. For the record, I'm for anything we can do to get us off our dependence of foreign oil, expecially when it comes from the likes of knuckleheads in the mid-east and Hugo Chavez wanna-be Socialist dictators (but the libs like Socialism - don't they). However, taxing the heck out of everything doesn't do that, now does it...
As I said in the post, information like that is readily available - all's you need to do is look for it. But you can keep thinking what you want, as I know there's virtually nothing I could post that would convince you otherwise. So, go ahead and bait as you might, I'm not biting.
One, you just did. Two, does it not bother you that there are never any reputable sources for this information that is "readily available" to disprove known scientific fact? Three, *yes*, our global nuclear phobia *is* 90% of the problem, and if we could get folks to accept nuclear, we wouldn't have to *worry* about climate change. That's kind of the *point*. Political preferences don't change scientific fact, whether it's AGW or the statistical safety and ecological advantages of nuclear power.
As a continuation of my post pomoting nuclear power, do a quick search for Thorium Nuclear Power.
Obviously, the greenie liberal socialist marxist communist agenda is at work here. Tax us no more! We the people demand FREEDOM!
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.
Yawn. I honestly tire of hearing the same repetition from conservatives and tea partiers. I do enjoy the anarchist state of mind, though. Don't trust our scientific community! Oh no, they are controlled by the evil liberal agenda! GASP!
And still and all at the end of the day, distrusting our scientific community and the general consensus does more harm for our nation and our world then anything else.
But you know, it's cool, it's okay. It's not enough that the car was driven into a ditch for our country, lets just screw the whole world and keep polluting. After all, the free market will sure solve that problem dontcha know?
You go popsci. You are better than the Nazi's at spreading propaganda. Heck, I'm sure the Germans thought they were doing the Jews a favor because of Nazi propaganda. :rolleyes:
Is this really the argument you want to be having 50 years from now? Seriously? So much for Science at Popular Science magazine.
I live in Canada, global warming is opening up the north to be explored and exploited for its many ressources, I think global warming is great.
For those who cries about living thing ''dieing'', well thats just evolution, grow up and adapt, if you think the ocean will rise, well move in-land, if you think super hurrican will destroy ur home, well move to a place where there is no hurrican, if u think the quality of the air degrades, get a air-purifier.
I think the best thing to do is adapt, let scientist do there job of trying to ''predict'' the future and then instead of crying about it, if you beleive in it, well just find a solution to adapt for yourself and your family, its not like you didnt have time or didnt see it coming after all...
Idiots don't understand climate change. Here is the deal, climate change will not greatly affect developed nations because the effects are not going to be extreme and we are rich enough to use technology to offset the worst of it (unless we continue doing this whole exponential growth of emissions thing that seems to be going on now as the less developed world industrializes).
People would do well to get some real education on this subject, not just reading some opinionated book or some website (though Google Scholar might effective in this information adventure), or thinking you know something about climate change because Glenn Beck said it, but taking an actual class in sustainability or environmental science or environmental politics. It will enlighten you, and while you might still think ACC is fictional, you will at least have a better understanding of just how much we can screw this planet up and how much we RELY on the ecological services that this planet provides. If you want to live a more comfortable life, its not likely to be more comfortable if the world is warmer (it might slowly get more comfortable if that warming stops, or we may adapt if its slow enough to avert a large increase in the extinction rate).
You know that goal we all have to have so much money we can just live on interest, well our planet is like an investment portfolio, and it generates interest, we are living off money in the portfolio and the dwindling interest it makes combined, what we need to strive for is to live off that environmental interest alone, and use increasing technology to allow economic growth with just that interest in resources.
Boomshack, your match analogy is horrible by the way. How is a source of heat like a gas that traps infrared radiation? Your match is the sun, and the CO2 would be an additive in the bathwater that would ensure that less energy from that match escaped back out into the air and more stayed in the bathtub. But the sun doesnt stop shining and so your match wont stop buring for 5 billion more years. Now see how that affects the average temperature of the bathtub as you exponentially increase the CO2 concentration so more heat is retained with every second that passes.
It is astonishing how you warming deniers (conspiracy theororist) trust science until it disagrees with your politics. Where do you think that device you are using to spread your mis-information came from? How about that smart phone you love? There is no debate on the science behind climate change. Just political posturing that keeps the money coming in to the super rich who actually run this country (and they are smiling all the way in the bank, laughing about all the work you are saving them).
1. money is a factor, politics is a consequence.
a. "new accounting method conspiracy theory:" China is amongst most polluting, greatest holder of U.S. debt. U.S.A. is presently greatest political influence. The whole U.N. would be required to fight China should other global wars spill over or they just decide to make a move. Tax, penalties could be assessed by U.N. now, to fund defensive tomorrow, 'share' their mining/industrial profits.
b. "humanitarian conspiracy theory:" Smog affects quality of life to such an extent that irregardless of ability to grow food, harvest food, and for humans to survive on food, sanctions limitting pollution by whatever means is one of human history's few examples of "peasants'(the vast majority) over kings' interests." As much as we like to believe that industry owners/operators are caring loving people (which they are) who will self-regulate, once a guy is making a buck and putting forth less effort, he has a way of looking at the bright side, often with neglect to the dark side. See: chicken farms, dairies, coal plants, wood stoves, slash and burn, Chinese fishing, big tobacco, neighborhood meth lab.
d. "benevolence sales theory:" the canned air salesforce is rolling large, training scientists, and adding to the general fund, all without the need for cans or air.
e. substitute with your own conspiracy theory: It's fun and easy!
2. On "trace" arg.: you can't heat a tub with a match, but "tinting" a thin layer has effect, doesn't it? A dye like food coloring is trace, isn't it?
a. ozone is trace, concentrations have had measurable effects when concentrated in patches v. dispersed.
b. atmoshperic water vapor at overall concentration of ~.4%, unevenly distributed, globally is clouds, results in all rain.
c. In life sciences, trace are significant: a. as an expression of body mass, liver enzymes are in ppt, but without them, the body dies. b. chloraphyll is trace in plants.
Don't panic, don't overtrivialize. It's a human environment issue more than a globe or "gaia" issue. From the wikilink. Dr. Plimer suggests on CO2 and global warming, the common "coincidence is not causality." It is natural to downplay our effects, like taking the baby with a rash to daycare. It is most common for fear to drive preference in politics. It is historical for establishments to profit from guilt. It is common for mega-producers to substitute the value of their product as moral with regard to their methods. "If I didn't do it this way, there wouldn't be any."