Scientists are starting to fight back. Schmidt co-founded RealClimate.org, a forum for climate scientists to quickly respond to developing stories and "provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary." Several other scientists launched the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund last year to help scientists and institutions respond to nuisance lawsuits. "We have a responsibility to the scientific community to not allow those looking to discredit us to be successful," Mann says. "What they're going to see is that they've awakened a sleeping bear. We will counterpunch."
But playing the activist can be a slippery slope. In February, climate analyst and MacArthur "genius" grant recipient Peter Gleick admitted using a false identity to obtain and distribute files that provided a detailed picture of the finances and plans of the Heartland Institute, an anti-regulatory think tank that calls climate research "junk science." The incident was a bizarre mirror of the 2009 "Climate Gate" scandal, in which hackers gained access to the e-mails of prominent climate scientists and distributed excerpts out of context. Although eight independent investigations later found that the scientists did nothing unethical, Climate Gate has become a rallying point for climate-change skeptics. Gleick was almost certainly aiming to incite a similar reaction among climate-science advocates. Instead many in the scientific community quickly condemned his tactics. Schmidt deemed them "completely irresponsible" and predicted that "public discussion on this issue will be much the poorer for this."
Seated at a conference table in Heartland's new downtown Chicago headquarters, Joe Bast, the organization's president, is a bit more forceful. "Peter Gleick was so desperate and delusional that he was willing to break the law repeatedly and lie and deceive people. Once again, the most alarmist voices in the debate have been found to be behaving very badly." Bast is compact and intense, with a well-trimmed beard and a raspy voice "from years of smoking," he tells me. He says the documents, one of which appears to have been forged, don't show a smoking gun. "Our enemies are calling it 'Denial Gate,' " he says, leaning forward over the table. "We're calling it 'Fake Gate.' Try to find anything in there that suggests we are anything other than sincere and above the table, and doing exactly what we say we're doing."
Probably the most surprising revelation is that Heartland's climate work is funded primarily by one individual, referred to in the institute's fundraising plan as the Anonymous Donor, who has contributed $12.7 million over the past five years. The organization's climate programs include the school curriculum questioning widely accepted climate science and its annual International Conference on Climate Change, an event many scientists lampoon as "Denialpalooza." Despite those programs, Bast says Heartland does not reject all of mainstream climate science. "Virtually everybody agrees," he tells me, that "there has been warming in the second half of the 20th century [and] that there is probably a human role in that warming, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that the increase in atmospheric concentrations can be attributed to human activity." The organization, he says, argues primarily for "cost-effective solutions" to climate change. As our meeting is wrapping up, Bast says genuinely, "Don't call us deniers. Skeptics is fine. Moderates, realists. But not deniers."
But a few weeks later, Heartland would launch a new advertising campaign. As drivers crawled along Chicago's busy Eisenhower Expressway, they were confronted with a large billboard that compared believers in global warming with Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. The text on the billboard read, "I still believe in global warming. Do you?" The advertisement was meant to be the first in a series. Others would liken climate-science advocates to mass murderers, including Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden. Bast did not respond for comment following the launch of the campaign, but Heartland issued a press release: "The people who believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."
I am really disappointed in Popular Science writing articles like this. Seriously, the debate over climate change is completely pointless. The entire argument has been ruined by bandwagon fools who believe anything they are told.
There are numerous non-human variables that alter the temperature of the Earth, many of them are natural cycles that have been in process for millions of years. For example, the Milankovitch Cycles which dictates the Earths movements and those movements relation to the climate. Independently the cycles have s significant affect on the climate but when the cycles coincide, they have an extremely significant affect on the climate. This diagram en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png shows that we are currently experiencing a time when cycles coincide. Now if you compare that to the average temperature at the time you can see that those also coincide with the cycles, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg. Though it may not fully account for changes in climate, it certainly has a significant affect.
Furthermore, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has little affect on the climate of the planet. Yes, it works with the other Green House gases to create the Global Warming Affect, which, if you have not bothered to do your research, is a necessity for the Earth to sustain a habitable temperature. To display that point here is another diagram, if you can read the graph you’ll see that the amount of radiation absorbed by CO2 is significantly smaller than that absorbed by the other Green House Gases, mainly Water Vapor.
This debate is pointless. As mentioned many times earlier the amount of CO2 produced by humans is minuscule in relation to the amount of CO2 produced by the Earth itself. How do you think the Earth came to be in Ice Ages before than warmed to a habitable temperature again? It is clearly a cycle, for more proof you can look at the Thermohaline Cycle en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation , which is altered when ice is melted from the glaciers in the Polar Regions. This changes the salinity and the temperature, which then affects global temperatures. As the Earth warms the ice melts until it has changed the climate, enough at which point it starts to reverse which brings us into an Ice Age. It has happened several times in Earth’s history.
In the end we need to stop meddling with the Earth, it will still be here regardless of what we do, so instead we should live with it and grow instead of trying to control it and change it. I still think we should reduce pollution but it has little to no affect on the current Climate Change issue.
To avoid the arguments over semantics, valid and invalid science, honest presentations and outright lies and deception.
Let's just assume the Earth is getting warmer at a rate that has some people alarmed. Maybe even for what they believe is good cause. I'm not one of the people who is alarmed. Put me in the camp of the Earth being a self correcting system. And let's also concede things are incredibly Cleaner now than they were 100, 50 and 20 years ago. Pittsbugh in early 1900's required street lights during the day from the output of the steel mills as a brief example.
Ok to the point. Let's embrace the change. If we going to spend money, let's spend it getting ready for the changes instead of uselessly taxing people etc etc and coming up with nonsensical ideas like burying CO2. Not everyone is on board with it anyway. "Everyone" being developing nations that are the biggest 'offenders' as you think of them. They want a better life and could care less about your dream that Jimmy Buffet and friends will never have to move away from Key West due to rising oceans. I do not believe in any significant ocean rise even if all the ice melts. Water changing from ice back to water contracts, taking up less space. So the only ice we're talking about having an impact is the ice currently above the water level above the amount that would overcome the contraction of the water from ice melting below the surface.
And Who the hell do people think they are that feel
perfectly justified in deciding what the natural climate of the Earth should be? That's insane. That's the kind of stuff you read Neanderthals doing and thinking about.
I don't believe for a nano-second that there is sufficient knowledge to predict the Earth's climate 20 or 50 years from now. I've also never heard a 10 year out prediction about Anything that even came close in my 60 years.
Finally, let's remember that 99.9%+ of all the "Science" presented to mankind since the beginning of time is in the trash can.
Embrace the change. Do something good for mankind if you're going to tax needlessly and spend in the wrong direction chasing your tails.
Wow, First no one should receive a death threat for convictions that they hold. Period. That being said I am what many would call a climate change denier. The irony of this is of course that I do not deny that climate changes nor that man changes the climate. I simply am skeptical of the conclusions that have been presented in order to force an emotional and visceral reaction.
To place this into context, how many GOOD things do you hear reported about increases in CO2? There are many benefits, yet no one ever seems to mention them. Instead it is all about impending doom. This is going to die, or that is going to die, or this will be destroyed, or this is connected to climate change, etc and so on.
Second, I dislike the discourse from people like Mann. To be honest he is about as open minded about challenges to his 'science' as someone who is a religious zealot. I prefer the phrase, 'When the facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir.'
Third, I have no doubt that CO2 changes the temperature of the planet. I have no doubt that land use does the same. What I do doubt is that the results are a BAD thing. What if they are not bad? What if instead they are one of the best things that we can possibly do for and to the planet in the long term? You see I am not skeptical of the science, though I do admit that far to many people are closed minded. I mean think about Mann, how hard has he denied the MWP ( Medieval Warm Period ). Not to way that the temperatures are due to natural variations alone but seriously, I have been called a denier ( of which I chuckle ) yet that is one thing that he denies or ignores. Whatever.
In the end I am most upset about the religious connotations that many 'believers' in AGW. Not in the science but in the hypothetical conclusions that are advanced by that science. Again I do not deny that the planet SHOULD warm with an increase of CO2, only that the conclusions reached about 2100 or any number of other fallacious reasoning we hear from a panicked press or sensational press should be payed more than a jot of attention toward.
I see no evidence which causes me to be worried of the future of man. I see little evidence that would cause me to stop using fossil fuels. I see little evidence to fear the future at all. I expect to live to see 2100 and at that time, if I am wrong I will be the first to spend all my time energy and effort to 'right' the wrong that I have perpetrated on my children. Until that time, I simply do not see the reason articles like this are written.
P.S. I have received death threats for being a 'denier' does that mean I am as noble as Mann?
PS, just to be clear, anyone threatening anyone or taking actions like even sending harmless white powder to anyone should be locked away.
@skycaptain: Solar activity and irradiance has been decreasing since the late '70s, while temperature has been rising: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
@rcdwltd: Volcanic emissions of CO2 are dwarfed by our own: http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
@jdkchem: "Science is never settled, period." Sorry, but that's just wrong. The earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. Evolution is real. CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation. Those are settled.
@adrianvance: Your estimate of the relative effects of water vapor and CO2 is off by an order of magnitude or so. Also water vapor concentration is high dependent upon temperature, making it an amplifying factor rather than an initial forcing mechanism: http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
@stan0301: The "greenness" of Greenland during the Medieval Period is somewhat exaggerated: http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm
All: The Skeptical Science website (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) is a great resource. It's got answers to a lot of questions about the climate with links to scientific papers to back up what they're saying. If you don't trust what they're saying, follow the links and read the original papers.
This article seems to me to be very biased.
First the use of the woes denier instead of the more appropriate scientific term skeptic. Denial ism is about religion skeptism is about science. Second clearly the article gives more time to the proponents of AGW and much less to the skeptics.
Third there is no mention of how skeptical scienctists have been harassesed and even lost there jobs over their beliefshttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/16/another-skeptical-university-professor-fired-related-to-carbs-pm2-5-air-pollution-regulation-scandal/#more-65743 .
Fourth the example of false reporting of scientist harasseent in Australia this last year was ignoreed.
Fifth the fact that many leading pro AGW environmentalists such as James Lovelock have recently announced they no longer beleive in the AGW theory.
I would have expected a more balanced article from a magazine like pop sci.
The term "climate change" was coined by GOP top strategist and consultant Frank Luntz who thought it sounded better than "global warming," since climate has always changed. He felt it took the teeth out of the phrase "global warming," which indicates exactly the type of climate change.
Somewhere along the line, the right-wing managed to blame this change on the environmentalists.
"And Who the hell do people think they are that feel
perfectly justified in deciding what the natural climate of the Earth should be? That's insane. That's the kind of stuff you read Neanderthals doing and thinking about."
Survival is something that Neanderthals thought about. You are correct. And survival is what we are talking about here too. No one thinks that the Earth is going to explode as a result of climate change. They think that plants, animals, and most importantly, humans will die as a result. The earth has no natural temperature. Life as we know it does.
Sure, some great possibilities could occur from climate change. Animals and plants could adapt and it could be very exciting times. Or we could all die (over time, obviously, i don't just mean bodies in the streets). That is a big risk.
What we KNOW is that if the climate remains similar to what it is now, things will continue to live. At the very least, if we can slow down the warming as much as possible (mostly just reducing our own contribution, should you believe that it exists) should prolong the time frame in which life as we know it continues.
@Aldrons Last Hope: The "other planets are warming" argument is bogus: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
"There are plenty of scientists who say climate change is not man made": I'd hardly say plenty, but there are some, just as there are a few scientists who dispute relativity or evolution. You could probably even find a few scientists who insist on geocentrism. But among the scientists who actually study the phenomenon, there's a strong amount of unanimity on the basic questions. See here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
@mike13323: The Milankovich cycle operates on a time scale of tens of thousands of years, far slower than what we're seeing. Also, current Milankovich forcings suggest that we should be very slowly cooling rather than warming. Thirdly, the effects of the Milankovich cycle are very small compared to the CO2 forcing we're currently responsible for. And finally, the Milankovich cycle has been able to produce the ice age cycle only with additional feedbacks, such as CO2. It's one of the reasons paleoclimatologists know as much as they do about the effects of CO2.
Gee whiz, I really want to be sympathetic, but at the point that you leave the realm of academic discourse, in which the work and data speak for themselves, with reasoned individuals making their judgements, and instead, bluster into the political -- and even entertainment arena with mass market "documentaries" -- then these people opened themselves up to criticism from the hoi polloi.
As they say, if you can't stand the heat...
The links you provided are on the old side and are very biased. Climate science is changing almost daily. SOHO data has just started influencing climate thought patterns in those scientists that have open and questioning minds. What the graphics in the links mentioned by Mr Banner don't explain is the uncertainty although they do show the wide swings.
Sun spots really do impact the Earth's atmosphere. We cannot discount UV rays that heat the upper layers. We cannot ignore that Mars has been warming since Viking landed in 1976. So how ever small, engergy changes from the Sun are, they are significant.
Here are climate model things that are not widely known. Due to computer limitations, the models are known to be incomplete wtih very large uncertainties. Parameters that are BELIEVED to be statistically insignificant ARE NOT included in the models. Many of these left out parameters are now found to be significant. Then there are the parameters which are difficult to measure accurately so they are simulated on what WE think they SHOULD be, not always what they really are. Gaps in data are filled with made up data, again, using informtion we think should be correct. To judge if these models are "good" we run them backwards, so to say. This means that we take data from yesterday and then go back in time while the model runs. If you are +/- 25% off from what really happened, then you have a good model. 25-50%, then the model is ok. Where else would this type of variation from truth be accepted?
There really are too many people running around claiming to be climate scientist/expert that never had a climate science class. The media is not staffed with qualified scientist writers, so what happens is garbage gets thrown out there for mass consumption. The public does not question these stories because journalists are supposed to report the truth.
There is so much politics wrapped up in global warming that one can't tell where one ends and the next begins. And as for all the hateful stuff being said? It is a two-way street. It comes from both sides.
The entire global warming subject was bungled from the very beginning by mixing it with politics. My gawd, can you even conceive of a politician more divisive than Al Gore, who is basically the godfather of the whole movement?
Science should have approached the public directly rather than channeling it through the politicians. Now your climate change runs hard down the lines of political polarity... and the nation, as well as the planet, is split asunder.
No good guys. No one who doesn't hurl insults at those who dare disagree. No honorable opponents, no chance to have civil discussion.
It's a lost cause...
It is no wonder that Mann has sought out Popsci for a forum. I do not believe any self respectiing peer journal, except one he acts as editor on, would touch his work these days. Unfortunately the article proved a couple of things. 1) Popsci is athe science equivelent of National Enquirer and 2) you are behind the times.
The hacked emails that have been around now for several years have proved that Mann and his cohorts are in no way deserving of the name "scientist". Rather they are the worst sort of self promoting agenda driven charlatans.
As a geoscientist of 30+ years experience, I know what makes good science and what Mann and his co-conspirators have been foisting on the public for years is nothing of the sort.
I didn't find anything compelling when so-called man-made global warming hit the news and the released emails and other revelations about Mann and his egregious violations of ethics and the scientific method have only confirmed it.
While teaching in college, I helped expel students for less heinous ethics violations that Mann and his cabal have committed. It goes to show that money and politics is the driving force behind so called anthropomorphic climate change. It is nothing more than a tool with which they can drive their agenda of social engineering and wealth redistribution. Thankfully, Americans are catching on to the lies, falsified data, and out right fabrications committed by Mann and his stooges. It grieves me to see how scientifically illiterate our legislators and general public are, and that the hoax has been perpetuated as long as it has. Thankfully Europe is ahead of us on this and more and more scientists there are speaking out and showing Mann for what he is, and the pseudo-science he is peddling.
Kudos to Popular Science for exposing and quoting 3 of the scoundrels most personally responsible for the degraded state of our public understanding of climate science and its implications. It is deeply chilling to hear the thoughts of these men who rise each day to auction their talents to any group seeking high gloss counterfeit economic & scientific support for their agenda.
Myron Ebbell, Steve Milloy,and Joe Bast are 3 men whose ability to safely operate within civil society absolutely confounds me, given the implications of the violence they do to our capacity to employ and respond to science. I struggle to analogize another group whose expert disinformation and propaganda will cause more suffering and destruction, though I can think of a few surrounding periods of war.
After debating top deniers like these and studying their sociology for a decade, I’ve come to learn that they truly have no inner moral struggle or qualms with the concept that their prescriptions on climate will very likely lead to mass suffering and death. These facts just don’t emotionally animate them at all. The reasons for their total loss of what we’d call humanity or moral decency are manifold, but we must accept the horror that these people feel nothing at all for other people.
These conscience-free men are examples of the of the banality of evil.
If you want to read a lucid and balanced account of the political corruption, money, greed and the perversion of science behind Mann's hoax, read "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. It rips the lid off and shows exactly who is making $$$ Millions, how the US is being singled out by the climate accords to cripple our economy and how the data show no global warming whatsoever, but just the opposite. It show how the agenda was pushed forward by Gore, how he made hundreds of millions for himself and his backers trading carbon credits and stands to make more under cap and trade.
According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun's heat.
And the Cambrian Mass Extinction was volcanism and clathrate escape. Methane is seeping ever more strongly from the melting polar ice. The tipping point nears.
Milloy says. “I have yet to see an environmental scare that is remotely true when it comes to human health. Secondhand smoke, air quality, ozone depletion, pesticides, superfund sites—you name it.”
Seriously? Does Milloy not understand there is are worsening epidemics of cancer, heart disease, emphysema, asthma due to environmental toxins? He is simply revealing his ideologically-driven agenda - profits for corporations without responsibility for polluting the commons. Unfettered capitalism for fat cats, and socialism for the rest of us who pay with our health and the stability of the climate for our children.
Not to minimize the trauma climate scientists have endured, but still I WISH somebody would sue me! Maybe then it would be harder for deniers to completely ignore the largest elephant in the room - the nitrogen cascade and inexorably rising tropospheric ozone - which is killing trees and diminishing annual agricultural crops as well. Ocean acidification is the other issue that deniers dread. In fact, most climate scientists avoid those topics too, because there's no techno-geoengineering fix for either of them.
The culprit is industrial civilization - our level of consumption, and over-population.
A book about ozone's role in causing a global decline in vegetation can be downloaded for free here: www.deadtrees-dyingforests.com/pillage-plunder-pollute-llc/
Now please somebody sue me!!
IPCC is infallible, The sun is the only source of warming heat. There is no such thing as radioactive decay heat. Planetary gravity can't cause warming because it does not radiate solar warming energy. A cznnonball will not get energy from gravity as it falls from the tower of Pisa so it won't cause damage. The Atomic bomb is impoossible. The Moon and planets do not cause tidal energy. More CO2 creates warming energy out of thin air. All coke cans are are going to explode from added CO2 warming energy.
Has anyone ever told you you all are NUTZ? That you do NOT believe in what science has taught us?
As for PolSci. You expect us to believe you when you write such fairy tales?
Maybe you will just go away if we ignore you.
@Jack Walden...well put, it is telling that the dispicable people behind defending cigarettes (which have sentenced millions to a slow and lingering death) and big oil (who obviously benefit from unrestricted release of CO2) are behind the denier campaign, anyone who can't see through this farce for what it is are not worthy of a response, cheers
@toomeyND. Thanks for your calm argument and your concern for life on the planet. No sarcasm, honestly thanks.
To be brief though, What I'm mainly saying here is that China and India, which make up a lionshare of the population on the Earth don't care. Other developing nations don't care. They want a better standard of Living. They're not going to help with this. TATA motors is/will be producing a $2500 retail price internal combustion car for the Indian population, there are over a billion people in India and a significant # will migrate to these vehicles.
China can't get enough oil. Or coal.
Many country's standard of living isn't great and few have any interest in paying more for energy to 'save the planet'. Businesses are not going to go 'green' unless it pays to do so. Aside from just 'profit' they answer to their shareholders.
This has to be in balance. Push the blue button down the red one comes up, push the red one, the yellow once comes up.
And as far as damage to people, the doubling of the price of corn, which caused many other food commodities to increase in price(why grow soybean at 3 /bushel when you can do corn at 6?) is causing people to starve. Today. Right now.
This effort is responsible for some amount of genocide already.
Is all I'm saying. After all this time and all the information presented, it is a waste of time to argue 'the science', so I don't bother, though I like to toss in a little steam for fun at times.
@tod/Mark - Excellent points all.
No doubt that India and China not joining the cause makes this a tough pill to swallow. What, politically, would we potentially be giving up as we purposefully weaken ourselves while they steam ahead? That is definitely a concern, let alone the amount of pollution they will contribute in the near future.
However, they will do what is cheapest. They also will not be the innovators to get there. It really is up to the Western World/Europe to come up with economic, environmentally viable solutions to growth. The problem is that, if it isn't economic right now, no company can viably do the research. It would require government incentives to get something like this going. This is a cost that is already difficult to justify to a weak economy. Tack on that there are so many parties pushing mis-information (and maybe those parties are the people I listen to, not you), and funding something like this becomes almost impossible.
I know that was going on a bit of a tangent, but when you bring the participation of other countries into the mix, this does become political.
Real systems typically do not respond in a linear manner to input. Many think of this as the "tipping point" concept. This concept can be illustrated by examples such as that of the sand dune slip face that remains stable as more and more sand is added. At some point the addition of one more sand grain causes the slip face to collapse in an avalanche.
That CO2 is a less effective greenhouse contributer than other gases or vapors is really not so important as how much additional CO2 input does it take to upset the equilibrium of the system. It would appear that the amount contributed by human activity is enough to upset the balance.
The concept of "punctuated equilibrium" describes the tendency of a system to come to a new equilibrium state after having a previous one disturbed. Adding increasing inputs to such a disturbed system may make it more difficult for a system to establish that new equilibrium.
It only takes the wings of a butterfly in China to affect the weather in the US.
In the early 60's people were talking about another ice age. Worried that the earth will freeze over.
While I am not sure about global warming's cause I am sure that global deforestation is part of the issue. Plants are not air conditioners, they absorb and convert energy. Buildings and streets do not. Fossil fuel is part of the issue. Maybe even solar winds. I hate to say it but nuclear plants may have been a solution. Who knows, above ground nuclear tests (hundreds of them) may be behind this too.
It is also true that everyone ought to be concerned about clean air and water and solar activity and such. Simple mistakes have been made in the past on laws that were worse. The 70's gave us emission laws when they should have been mileage laws. We wasted more fuel and made more pollution by demanding emission standards that were stupid. They were based on PPM and not on yearly pounds.
@jefro: In the '70s a handful of scientists suggested, based on aerosols, that cooling was a possibility. The popular press jumped on those suggestions and blew them out of proportion, thus the Time magazine cover suggesting we were heading for an ice age. But even then most scientists thought that the effects of CO2 would outweigh the aerosols and that warming was more likely: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Thank you all for taking the time to explain yourselves rationally. Now I have a clearer understanding of both sides of the argument.
And thanks to Tom for a great article.
Superb article, Tom. Well done.
Climate change, or global warming if you prefer, is definitely happening. It's obvious to me at 63. I've seen a lot of change. OK, it's happening. There are those who blame Mankind, there are those who realize that the climate on this planet has been changing since long before human intervention. Another natural, recurring phenomenon becomes a topic for heated discussion. It's a new religion for some. Thousands of years ago the High Priest would select newborns or virgins or young men, depending on the local superstition, to sacrifice to appease their local gods. Now we encourage people with degrees in various sciences to sacrifice the minds of our children by filling them with eco-babble.
The superstars of the Church of the Sky-Is-Falling, the esteemed Dr. David Suzuki and Al Gore as high priests, are making fortunes. Large fortunes. Hundreds of other wealthy socialists (they used to be socialITEs until tree hugging became the sport of kings) descend with them on a city in Brazil, burning tons of jet fuel to attend a conference. The theme of the conference is getting the riffraff (that's us, btw) to stop burning tons of jet fuel. Oh, I almost forgot: many of them will be arriving in their own jets - it's just impossible to fly commercial, after all, with all those common people. I mean, really!
Global warming, or climate change if you prefer, is a business. It's exactly the same as the businesses run by the TV preacher set. It's for-profit (their profit), and it holds as much truth as creationism, parting of seas, walking on water, or any of those myths. Believe what you want, just don't try to influence me or my children. We'll believe what we want.
One last thing: I have two daughters. One believes everything Suzuki and Gore preach, the other laughs at it - but not at her sister - and I didn't have the opportunity to influence either of them as I was not in their lives for a long time. I am now, I love them both (and they love me), but they have their own beliefs and I respect both of them. Maybe if Suzuki and Gore respected others we'd have a very civilized debate. Not gonna happen. Sadly.
Isn't it just like these Climate Change phoneys to whine about imaginary persecution. For years they have worked to destroy the careers of any legitimate scientist who dared to present the facts regarding the nonexistent "threat" of global warming.
Now that the tables have turned and the media (in most quarters outside the PopSci Earth Worship fortress) has started to report the facts on the climate non-issue, these guys are acting all hurt.
It wasn't enough that the Climate Cabal was caught with their pants down in England with the revelation of hundreds of damning emails SHOWING how they were deliberately ginning up this bogus issue. They STILL refuse to admit they have been caught at their game. They need to move on to the next big Grant Grab.
Maybe it won't be as big as their pipe dream of tapping into the global "Carbon Credits" scam but I'm sure these counterfeit-scientists can put their heads together at their next beer blast and come up with another siphon plan to tap the public trough.
Thank you PopSci for keeping me informed with the latest lunacies of the Modern Luddites of which you have become the standard bearer. There was a time when I couldn't wait for the next issue of Popular Science to arrive in my mailbox. But, about a decade+ ago you followed the same path as Time Magazine and just became nothing but a water carrier for the Left.
Great article. Thanks. Science doesn't strain a gnat and swallow a camel. Neither do people...most of the time.
I love this article.
Rather than dispute actual evidence that is being debunked daily- play the "im being attacked - believe me" card.
1- It was always called "global warming" (especially by some of these Berkeley nuts around the corner - <Im from San Francisco>).
2- Then they changed it to "climate change" and then bald faced LIED about doing so and claimed they called it both before. Research shows they were insistant it was "warming".
The Earth is warming - there is little debate on this.
The CO2 levels are raising - there is little debate about this.
Whether is the CO2 alone, whether its humans causing the level to rise, and even if that rise is responsible - IS DEBATABLE. And there has been little evidence to address this - only "im being attacked" or "how dare you dont believe me - your stupid" and then point back to the previous evidence that is not being debated - as if that were a logical argument.
This article is a pathetic attempt to, again, argue a point that is not at the debate. No one wants violence, you win.
You still have not answered:
"Whether is the Co2 alone, whether its humans causing the level to rise, and even if that rise is responsible - IS DEBATABLE. And there has been little evidence to address this"
You still lose !!!
Attached is a link reporting the salary of the head of the IPCC as studied by KPMG.
You are all so mad about Al Gore and David Sazuki making millions. Go ahead and dislike them. However, they didn't do this science, they are just megaphones for it.
I don't recall, except for Mann, many scientists earning millions of dollars for their research or gaining "house-hold name" status.
I suppose I just find it hard to believe that a large amount of researchers all got together and said, "hey, i think i know how to make a buck."