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."
Nice arguments and read the rest of the arguments as well that leave out a huge bit of unformation.
Most scientist keep on pointing back to arguments that are true but do not address the debate.
The biggest BS of them all is the editing of data.
The ice core samples which are at the heart and soul of this debate are conveniently clipped by a 10,000 years.
Most SCIENTIST know that the larger the data sample the better view/understanding you will have.
The "hockey stick" argument which the author tries to use as the reason for retaliation because who else would retaliate unless they can't argue - is flawed.
And there lays, as well as doctored evidence by removing of data, the debate. As well as how the Earth actually dissapates excess energy - this is why they now call it "climate change" instead of global warming. It seems the earth has its ways of dissapating the excess energy in the form of clouds and storms. We have also had record snowfall in many areas.
why do people always have to blame the scientists seriousely!? they only research and discover this stuff and bring it into the public eye basically by attacking scientists your shooting the messager almost literally infact!
Does anyone recall "The population Bomb"?
Better data and better science.
It was all wrong due to the use of linear projection.
Climate science cannot predict this year let alone decades.
When they say "no doubt we are in global warming" then it is time buy warmer clothes.
Tom has written two of my favorite articles for PopSci, thank you Tom!
As for the climate change, it's a bit too late to reverse it now so enjoy your fast-food and cheap gasoline while it is there for the taking. Soon you'll learn to use your legs and bicycles, hanging plastic bags of algea for fuel and food on the sides of your homes. Good luck humanity, this new darwin event will breed only the rich and the ignorant.
I'm happy to see a robust discussion here. I never liked the way Popsci assumes AGW is a given. I believe the truth that drastic measures require more justification than a "what if" or "better safe than sorry" is winning.
The holocaust that Global Warming will cause will be far worse than the Nazi holocaust. It will be Billions rather than mere Millions of deaths. That is why we want strong action to stop GW and that is why the term "denialist" or "denier" is appropriate. Mother Nature is far better than the Nazis were at killing, so don't anger Mother Nature. 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct. Homo Sap is no exception.
Denialists are called denialists because what they are advocating is GENOCIDE. Make no mistake. Global Warming can make humans extinct. Under BAU [Business As Usual], agriculture and civilization will collapse some time between 2050 and 2055 due to drought caused by GW [Global Warming].
Is there "Climate Change"? Of course there is! (I like how the advocates shifted gears away from "Global Warming" when that one didn't sell....) There has been climate change SINCE THERE WAS A CLIMATE!, long before mankind sullied the earth. So, the real question is, is the "climate change" caused by man? I'd like to answer that one with another question: Why is it that all the "solutions", i.e., the destruction of the Free Enterprise system, EXACTLY what the world's Socialists and Communists have been advocating FOR DECADES?? As far as the "scientists" are concerned, let one of them apply for a grant to study something that would DIS-prove the "Gospel" and see how the money rolls in.....NOT!!
@Jabberwolf: I'm not quite sure what you're talking about when you say that ice core samples "are conveniently clipped by a 10,000 years." We have much older core samples that that. Some Antarctic ice cores date as far back as 750,000 years. And as for the famous "hockey stick" graph, it's been vindicated over and over again. Just about every reconstruction of temperature over the last few hundred or thousand years shows the same pattern. Even Muller shows it.
As for clouds and storms "dissapating the excess energy", sorry, but no. Energy is dissipated from the earth via infrared to space. Clouds can act as a negative feedback by blocking incoming visible light, or as a positive feedback by blocking outgoing IR, but they don't themselves dissipate energy. CO2 upsets the energy balance of the earth by slowing the radiation of IR. Given higher CO2 levels (and the accompanying higher water vapor levels), in order for the outgoing IR to match the incoming energy, the temperature of the earth must be higher (the higher the temperature of an object the more IR is radiated).
Thank you for your courage in printing this story, and risking subscription cancellations and your mailing privilages to do it.
So far I've seen one skeptic state that the deiners behavior is inappropriate, lots of flaming responses and false equivalance claims from deniers, and no questioning of the tactics of denying politicians. That should say something about the denier position right there.
There's so much more than just climate change going on here. There is a concerted drive to convert this nation into a worship of bullying ignorance.
While Europe and China go about policy reform and work towards sustainability, however slowly and piecemeal they do(and China will no doubt call it the 'Great Transition,')here the deniers and their like will force us into Fortress World, where their children will pay the price with short brutal lives as indentured workers providing labor for the nations that heeded the warnings. If the human race survives, and the chances are that it will, it will be with a lot fewer people and great extremes in quality of life among the survivors. Perhaps Welles was getting it right in 'The Time Machine' and we're becoming Morlocks and Eloi. It seems to me that I remember that he wanted his epitaph to be "Damn you all, I told you."
@Oskar, I went to your link, this is what I found.
The fact is Jupiter is a strong case for solar driven climate change. The Great Red Spot is a singular weather event without a peer or analog on any of the other known worlds. Some people insist on describing it as a hurricane. This is incorrect. A hurricane is a low pressure zone funneling surrounding warm air to the ground. The Great Red Spot is a high pressure zone, forcing hot air out of the middle of the planet. It rises 8 kilometers above the surrounding methane cloud deck, like a turkey timer that is popping out to tell us that the thanksgiving meal is ready.
And now we have another great red spot, which will probably be with us for a very very long time.
Neptune is changing in a spectacular and miraculous way which a cut and dried pdf file will not impart to you.
Have a look at it in color. Neptune's orbit is 164 years long, and Voyager only visited it once back in 1989, so we have no baseline to judge if this change is the natural effect of Neptune traveling through it's orbit, or if it is the result of an augmented solar effect.
But either way it is the sun driving Neptune's weather.
So if you don't believe climate change is real or if real we are not causing it, forget it. Realize, though, that our use of fossil fuel is:
*Allowing other countries to make us tenants in our own land as they buy up our infrastructure, businesses, main street and wall street.
*Trashes other countries as the obscene level of wealth allows mafias in these countries to subject their own people.
*Causes thousands of deaths from pollution.
*Causes massive death due to wars as we try to protect far flung fossil fuel resources.
*Brutilizes our own people involved in these wars who return home and behave as they did overseas.
*Supports and makes rich the industrio-millitary complex which is now enslaving our own people (patriot act for instance)
*Gives justification to terrorists, necessitating a huge wasteful effort to counter them.
And so forth.
This comment is leveled at ASTEROID MINER.
You sir, are equating people who refute the ideas of anthropogenic global climate change with genocidal maniacs and I take extreme offense. The way I see it, it is the climate change pushers that have spent millions to install the Georgia Guidestones and billions on electing government employees to do their bidding over the last half century while trying their damndest to destroy modern civilization, human rights, and the sanctity of human life. Do you even know what statistics the climate change supporters are proposing? How about that they say the earth can only support 500 million of our species? According to this tidbit that is widely accepted by people like yourself and as it is listed as the first bullet on the Guidestones, supporters of anthropogenic global climate change believe whole-heartedly that 95% of the human population must be eradicated from this earth.
Please keep in mind that this is not a new idea at all. Back in the early 1900's, a nation called the United States was nearly overrun by eugenicists whose goals were population control. Luckily, we influenced the warped mind of Hitler and he carried out plans that certain Americans had wanted to do for some time and the majority of the American population's eyes were opened to the horrors of genocide and eugenics.
You can even go back all the way to the times of the Roman empire and find philosophers who wanted population control because of over crowding even then. To people like myself you are the person hoping and wishing for genocide. Men and women have been supporting population control and the elimination of "undesirables" for millenia and now is no different. What is different is that they now have to hide their intent and disguise it to convince people to kill themselves and institute the population reduction schemes upon themselves because an overt act of eugenics or genocide would be met with far greater resistance in our culturally diverse society than at any time in the past.
If you address me do not use straw man arguments. We are talking about the legitimacy of the climate change agenda, not "geocentric". You cannot refute what I said about agenda 21 (you probably don't know about it). So you make up bogus arguments about evolution and relativity.
Go to this link and read about reputable scientists, accomplished professors who say its not real. Please educate yourself so you don't have resort to strawman arguments.
^^ Comment for Oskar
@SgtB that was beautiful
@William Huge-Games..everything you said is legitimate. But how is ed-industrializing us, taking our freedom, becoming a socialist society, and taxing us going to help? Look at the men perpetuating these lies...all they are after is power.
@Asteroid Miner, you are the a typical archetype of he global warming crowd. It is a religion for you, and everyone else is "unclean". You use the main argument of everyone that looks to stifle truth, you call names, and make outlandish claims. But none of your arguments are based on fact.
With all the arguing and huffing/puffing going on here, folks should note one important thing: Not a single skeptic here has actually done anything with any of the available *data*. Not one skeptic has presented any of his/her own analysis results showing that climate scientists are wrong.
Folks, there are *mountains* of freely-available climate data out there, just begging to be analyzed by skeptics. With Just minute or two with Google and a few followup mouse clicks, you can download reams of data (depending on how fast your internet connection is) to your laptop/PC.
Start with the easiest stuff -- the raw surface temperature data. Google up GHCN and follow a few links to find it.
If you read what I posted here earlier, you will learn how to compute your own global-average temperature results from that raw temperature data -- no need to depend on secret NASA/NOAA algorithms and data "adjustments". You'll will see how straightforward it is to get results very similar to what NASA/NOAA publish, and you will see how to do it with, like I just said, raw data and *no* adjustments/homogenization/whatever -- just plain old averaging.
To save you the trouble of scrolling up to find my earlier post, I'll just repeat it below:
Actually, it doesn't take a Berkeley physicist and a team of professional analysts to demonstrate that the published global-mean temperature results are correct. A simple (almost "back of the envelope" simple) averaging approach that uses programming techniques that first-year compsci students typically learn will do the job very nicely. And you can do this with *raw* (not "adjusted" or "homogenized") data.
In fact, the global-average results are so robust that you can reproduce them quite nicely even if you use just a few dozen (out of thousands) of temperature stations.
I was able to reproduce the NASA global-average results surprisingly closely even when I used *raw* temperature data from ~70 (or even fewer than 40) *rural* stations.
Disproving all of the major claims that so-called "skeptics" have made about the global temperature record is surprisingly straightforward. UHI? Easy to disprove. Warming requiring "adjustments"? Easy to disprove. Warming exaggerated by the "dropped stations" effect? Easy to disprove. You could teach on-the-ball college freshmen how to do all of this themselves with nothing more than publicly-available *raw* temperature data and free software development tools.
Look at www.facebook.com/caer.bannog.9, where I not only show some pretty interesting results, but I also tell you how to reproduce them. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page and work your way up, the material will be easier to sort out.
The earth’s response is not the issue, no, but it is something that needs to be considered when talking about “the impact”. You said the optimum word: control. Americans in particular are not fond of that word, and that is what this global debate is all about. It’s a big deal when a private company or citizen is denied a right because of a policy that was written based off what some scientist said (true or otherwise). As this article points out (in all its popular bias), some people blame the scientists and are less civilized in their grief than others.
AdrianVance (who commented on this article) says it far better than I could. While you’re at it read jeltez42’s comment as it is very intelligent.
And yes, I think knowing how the earth responds to our actions is a BIG part of figuring out how or if we should limit those actions. Thanks for answering the question BTW.
Thank You Toomey, I’m well aware of what an analogy is. I was simply taking Banner’s analogy and expanding upon it to make my point.
POPSCI should really consider a dedicated forum page. 77 comments is a lot to go through.
The greens have been using lawless acts, nuisance lawsuits, misinformation campaigns, etc to further their agenda of shutting down industrial society since the 1970's. Heck, they pioneered these tactics. Jimmy Buffet had a hit song lauding the "environmental terrorist". Almost funny that they would complain now.
Speaking of the 1970's, back when I was in college in those bygone days, I noticed that the undergrads going into environment related fields were glassy-eyed fanatics who basically despised American middle class society. I guess a few of them now have PhD.s and expect us to listen to them.
Silly fanatics. We just aren't going to obey you. Get used to the idea.
It's sad that Popular Science is now just part of the green propaganda machine.
American jihadist is a sad thing to have in this country but it seems its fine by the far right.
As the attacks on scientists and GYN doctors prove this is true
If anyone makes it down here, do yourselves a favor and read Steve McIntyre's website, Climate Audit. He is the person responsible for a lot of those freedom of information requests that Mann and others have refused to comply with. Be prepared to delve into the arcane world of statistical analysis; it gets extremely tedious.
Interestingly, environmental issues author Tom Clynes never thought to interview McIntyre, Mann's most visible, outspoken, and disciplined opponent.
The bottom line is Mann's "hockey stick" is bogus and no one has been able to reproduce it with the data set he claims to have used by normal methods of statistical analysis. Though many have defended his work and claim they reproduced it, Mann has refused to supply the data or his methods, so in fact they haven't reproduced anything. We simply don't know how he generated his miraculous graph. Look at any of the global historical temperature data sets published online and none of them show the same trend as Mann's hockey stick.
The only way McIntyre was able to approximate Mann's graph was to purposely exclude tree ring data that didn't fit the hockey stick trend that others apparently showed.
That's right, tree ring data. This whole to-do that Mann inspired is about tree rings. Climatologists use them as proxies for temperatures; fully ignoring the fact that all kinds of environmental factors influence tree ring growth besides temperature. You would laugh if you realized how small a data set of global temperature proxies those tree rings represent. Go to Climate Audit and read all about it.
Once you realize the so-called science behind the hockey stick is bogus, you will quickly figure out what a hatchet job of "deniers" this article is. Basically it boils down to 2 points:
1. Nutballs and fanatics are threatening climate scientists so ALL "deniers" must be nutballs and fanatics.
(Never mind that the most prominent climate scientists have been colluding for years to blacklist researchers and prevent--it's called censoring--publication of research that contradicts their "consensus", as the Climategate e-mails proved.)
2. Prominent "deniers" like Steve Milloy and Myron Ebell are funded by Big Oil, the Koch brothers, or Big Business so their motivation is evil and so are their arguments.
(Ignoring of course that Big Oil also funds research that favors the views of Mann and others, and the fact that most climate science research is sponsored by public funding--taxes--and that there is a strong liberal, Big Government bias among Mann and his cohorts. Also ignoring the fact that if the scientific argument against anthropogenic global warming is valid--and it is--who cares who supports it?)
The only thing useful Clynes says about the actual science is "the case for anthropogenic climate change has only strengthened; 98 percent of actively publishing climate scientists now say that it is undeniable."
Problem is, it's untrue. The case for anthropogenic climate change continues to weaken, both scientifically, as more and more research that contradicts the conclusions of Mann and others comes to light, and in the public consciousness, as polls show each year more people think it's a minor issue.
Fact is, people are wising up to the "sky is falling" story of the climate Chicken Littles and the science shows that it really is much ado about nothing.
The most intelligent point made in the entire article was by Myron Ebell: "What they’re saying (Mann and the climate Chicken Little's) is, we’ve got to throw huge, scarce resources into what is essentially a non-problem."
I am disappointed that PopSci would publish a politically charged "puff piece" such as this article. While it follows the politically correct script in current vogue,it lends nothing to an understanding of the "real scientific issues". Might as well have just said "Bush did it". There are REAL issues to be explored that have been left unexplored, e.g. a comparison of current circumstances with those of prior heating cycles. On another front the "unintended consequences" of all the knee-jerk feel-good measures being thrown at the politically popular target, the "carbon footprint", e.g. the MASSIVELY (reference EE Times circa July 2012) larger impact of the gaseous emissions associated with the production of solar cells and indeed even of simple water vapor (OK not "massive" in this case but MUCH larger than the CO2 impact. No sane person wants to wreck the planet, BUT neither do we want a politically driven pseudo-science club used to beat us into submission to the "progressives" dream of an Animal Farm elite driven state. One thing is certain, the Earth is either cooling or warming - take your pick. The real questions are: a) how quickly? b) why? c) how to mitigate the process IF necessary. All things considered, I think the "warming" prospect would be MUCH easier to deal with than the "cooling" prospect, as surely we could devise some means to control the amount of radiant heat reaching earth MUCH more easily than finding ways to increase it.
It short PLEASE let PopSci focus on the scientific aspects of an issue and let the hordes of the MSM rule the realm of demagoguery and political correctness.
Regarding the "unintended consequences" of various "global warming feel-good initiatives", consider:
a) as recently as about 10 years ago (OK, update needed) it took about 27 years for a solar cell to generate the amount of power needed to make the solar cell;
b) the gases emitted by solar cell production are 12000-30000 times more "effective" than CO2 in trapping radiant heat, and there's a lot of the stuff - a big "whoops";
c) a typical wind turbine will NEVER supply enough energy to replace that used to make them - whoops! Note that a wind turbine rated 1 MW puts out 1 MW with a 30mph wind - a 15mph wind results in only 1/8 MW - a dramatic drop off. Sans government subsidies (OK, they just print the money), wind power is both a financial and environmental bust.
d) would someone (hello PopSci!) please examine the REAL impact of hybrid cars production, use and disposal? Bet it's not a pretty picture - the batteries alone are environmental nightmares.
Water power does deliver a return, both environmentally and economically - hurray!
Clean nuclear power is a real alternative sacrificed to PC politics. Anybody recall the work on pelletized small scale reactors - "melt down proof" and clean?
Please no more political stories in PopSci - there's a whole bunch of important real science to discuss.
By the way, what Steve McIntyre did manage to do was use the data set of tree ring proxies that it appears Mann used--the same ones available to all climate scientists--and incorporated ALL the tree ring data. The result? A graph that, on the left side looks a lot like Mann's hockey stick but on the right? No hockey stick. It's just repetitions of the same up and down temperature variations you see through the 1800's and early 1900's.
If any of you looked at the video in yesterday's post "The Magnificent Power of Earth's Magnetosphere" you would be struck, as I was, by the difficulty of trying to establish global temperature trends when the earth's atmosphere is so complex and dynamic that temperatures in any region of a few square miles can vary by 20 or 30 degrees (or more!) at the same time of day, 24 hours apart, due to natural phenomenon: ocean circulation, weather systems, El Nino and La Nina.
All the evidence taken together and analyzed over thousands of years shows irrefutably that the earth is warmer than it was during the last ice age. We all know that. There are fewer glaciers, the sea level is higher. The relatively sparse temperature data and temperature proxy data (like tree rings) correlates with a multi-thousand year warming trend. Before the 20th century, the measured temperature data is pretty sparse. In the 20th century the measured data is much richer but now you have to factor out the "urban heat island" effect as more people populate areas around those measuring stations and more ground is paved, which artificially elevates local temperatures.
The only truly global temperature measurements are satellites that have been monitoring earth for the last 30 years. What do they show? Go look for yourself. Warming and cooling. In fact, for the last decade, there has been no appreciable "global" warming at all. That certainly doesn't jibe with Mann's silly hockey stick.
Mann has refused to supply the data or his methods, so in fact they haven't reproduced anything. We simply don't know how he generated his miraculous graph. Look at any of the global historical temperature data sets published online and none of them show the same trend as Mann's hockey stick.
Mann's data and code have been freely available on-line for *years*. Linkies here: www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/MANNETAL98/ and here: www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/
Regarding replication? Other scientists have replicated Mann's results -- link here: thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..%5Cdocs%5CWahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
And yes, Ammann and Wahl (the dudes who independently replicated Mann's hockey stick) have made all of their code and data available for independent scrutiny. Link here: www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/WA_supplement.html (includes a link to a tarball of all source-code and data).
In the 20th century the measured data is much richer but now you have to factor out the "urban heat island" effect as more people populate areas around those measuring stations and more ground is paved, which artificially elevates local temperatures.
The UHI effect hardly changes global-average temperature results at all. In my own processing of the GHCN raw data, I compared the results I got when I processed only *rural* stations with the official NASA results. Got virtually the same results that NASA get with *all* the stations stations. If UHI were a real factor, my results would have differed significantly from NASA's. But they don't.
Take a look at this link:
It shows official NASA results for all stations vs. my own results for just a small number of *rural* stations.
Also look at this image www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=136800876449968&set=a.136798463116876.27706.100003601706555&type=1&theater, which shows Google-Earth imagery of all station locations.
Compare it with this image www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=136801226449933&set=a.136798463116876.27706.100003601706555&type=1&theater, which shows the locations of the tiny number of rural stations that I used to replicate very closely the results that NASA gets when they use *all* of the temperature stations.
Nice comments on here. I was so upset over the article that I just cancelled my subscription. Bunch of BS to endorse a theory without giving the opposite views equal space in the article. Very liberal loony article, Go on and believe your ideas, to bad you won't live long enough to see how wrong you are. Earth cycles and variations take many years to materialize and NO ONE has it figured out yet. Go sit out in far eastern Oregon and think about it.
What's the deal with people here talking about socialism and government control? What does the development of decent battery technology and replacing coal plants with nukes have to do with socialism?
I know plenty of people that have gone green + added solar panels so that they could be off the grid and be controlled LESS by outside influences.
Believing a popular scientific idea doesn't make you a liberal. Doubting a popular scientific idea doesn't make you smarter than people who don't.
Why am I an idiot for listening to a group of scientist who have a few with questionable intentions, but the skeptics are super smart for listening to another group of scientists with a few with questionable intentions?
Is it that in-american of me be willing to give up some comforts for what I perceive to be a common good? Is it naive of me to think this is a no brainier when factoring in that the same actions will reduce pollution, improving air quality, and reducing illness?
Please, someone explain to me why these ideas make me such a socialist.
Un-American, not in
Toomey, your instincts are sensible. It's foolhardy to ignore such a large problem when the scientific academies of the world are sounding alarms about multiple risks. Keep in mind, energy companies have enormous funding to hire people to post messages to boards like this in response to bad press... I wouldn't be surprised if more than just a few of the contributors to this discussion are shills assigned to reply.
Anyway, there's much we can do to cut energy use and generate energy in new ways. We should solve the problem so we don't leave our own kids in the lurch-- it could really be bad for them if we ignore the problem.