"There's really only about 25 of us doing this," Steve Milloy says, shortly after sitting down at Morton's, a Washington, D.C., steakhouse favored by lawyers and lobbyists. "A core group of skeptics. It's a ragtag bunch, very Continental Army." Milloy, a Fox News commentator and former tobacco-industry advocate, runs a website called JunkScience.com that is an outlet for attacks on those he calls "global-warming alarmists." Many of those who question mainstream climate science resent being called deniers; they say it unfairly equates them with Holocaust deniers. They prefer doubters, skeptics or realists. "Me, I just stick with denier," Milloy says. "I'm happy to be a denier."
Milloy is dressed in a striped pink button-down shirt and khaki pants, classic Potomac prep. He moved into climate denial in the 1990s as funding from the tobacco lobby began to dry up. At the time, conservative and libertarian think tanks were just starting to take aim at climate science. Milloy, who has received funding from entities controlled by oil billionaires Charles and David Koch, helps them get their message to the masses.
Milloy and other aggressive deniers practice a form of asymmetric warfare that is decentralized and largely immune to reasoned response. They launch what Aaron Huertas, a press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists, calls "information missiles," anti-climate-change memes that get passed around on listservs, amplified in the blogosphere, and picked up by radio talk-show hosts or politicians. "Even if they don't have much money, they are operating in a structure that allows them to punch above their weight," Huertas says.
Scientists who speak up quickly become targets. Both Milloy and his counterpart Marc Morano, who runs the site ClimateDepot.com and once declared that climate scientists "deserve to be publicly flogged," occasionally publish the e-mail addresses of climate researchers, a stunt that can result in scientists receiving a flood of vitriolic messages. A few weeks before our meeting, Milloy had offered a $500 bounty for a video of anyone who would heckle Mann with "an alarmism-debunking" question during the California leg of his book tour. The hecklers never materialized but, as with the white powder in Mann's letter (which the FBI determined to be cornstarch), the threat made an impact.
Mann calls Milloy "a valueless, all-purpose denier for notorious industries who need a hired gun." But Milloy, like others in the movement, says that he's fighting an existential war with forces that would, without his intervention, steal the American way of life. "This whole green thing, the whole environmental scare industry, is really just an ingenious plan to exert government control over everything we do," 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."
The evidence to support the theory of anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change has been mounting since the mid-1950s, when atmospheric models predicted that growing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere would add to the natural "greenhouse effect" and lead to warming. The data was crude at first, and opinions vacillated (skeptics like to recall a 1974 Time cover story that predicted an impending ice age). But by the mid-1990s, thousands of lines of independent inquiry supported the conclusion summarized in the 1995 IPCC report: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."
Since then, the case for anthropogenic climate change has only strengthened; 98 percent of actively publishing climate scientists now say that it is undeniable. But several finer points remain unsettled. For instance, researchers still don't completely understand the role of aerosols in the atmosphere, the variable effects of clouds at different heights, and the influence of feedback mechanisms such as the changing reflectivity of the Earth's surface and the release of gases from permafrost or deep seabeds. Climate-change skeptics have been keen to capitalize on those gaps in knowledge. "They play up smaller debates," says Francesca Grifo at the Union of Concerned Scientists, "and divert the dialogue by attacking particular aspects. They represent climate science as a house of cards, where you pull out one and it all falls apart."
In 1998, following the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the American Petroleum Institute convened a task force to spend more than $5.9 million to discredit climate science and quash growing public support of curbing emissions. The group borrowed many of the methods and people, including Milloy, that had been used to mislead Congress and the public about the connection between smoking and cancer and heart disease. In a leaked memo titled the "Global Climate Science Communications Plan," the task force laid out a strategy to "build a case against precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific uncertainty." The memo details a plan to recruit, train and pay willing scientists to sow doubt about climate science among the media and the public. "Victory will be achieved," the memo states, when "recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom' " and when "those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of the extant science appear to be out of touch with reality."
In March 2001, George W. Bush's administration declared that climate science was "too uncertain" to justify action (such as ratifying the Kyoto treaty) that might put the brakes on economic growth. That refrain would be echoed again and again, weakening or derailing successive international agreements and domestic policy. How had a small band of non-scientists managed to so quickly and thoroughly pursuade the nation's leaders to reject an ever more coherent and definitive body of scientific evidence?
I thought Michael Crichton demonstrated back in 2003 that Mann was a best a poor scientist and at worst a complete fraud:
Consensus is not fact ask Galileo.
Didn’t Al Gore recently buy a beach house in Santa Barbara? Guess it’s a short term investment.
"Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT. Crichton's 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, acknowledged the world was growing warmer, but challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. He predicted future warming at 0.8 degrees C. (His conclusions have been widely misstated.)" From his website.
>Being "under the thumb of millions" is a pretty solid definition of democracy. Obviously millions >doesn't necessarily mean the majority, but as other posters have commented, the majority of >people do accept the idea of AGW.
Someone is actually silly enough to think this is compelling argument? This is exactly why the U.S. does not have and should not seek to be governed by a "Democracy". Pure Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Its also called "Tyranny of the Majority".
I realize that the same educational system that distorts science also distorts history and civics so that most people are now too ignorant to realize this. Sad that "Popular Science" is part of this system.
You may want to read a little history on your own to correct the distortions in your thinking.
ron hansing md
AGW is just a symptom of a newly recognized medical disorder, MMMHHS (mad manic millennial hysterical hyperbolic syndrome.)
The basic problem is that this is considered to “Scientific Authority” ie, case closed. No further discussion warranted. Scientific Authority often in the past history of science has slowed progress, and sometimes perhaps many times caused a great amount of harm.
There is no scientific authority… only scientific expertise, which continually refines, adjust, change and sometimes rejects dogma.
There are many reasons to questions AGW.
1. How and where and at what height to you measure temperatures. How does on take in consideration temperature changes which can be as much of 15 degrees on one side of a cold front. How fast is the cold front moving. Or is it stalled. I could go on and come up with a thousand of ways this can affect the data.
2. AGW is baaaaad… period. But melting of the permafrost in the Yukon and Siberia could provide approximately four USA’s in fertile farming.
3. It is easier to adapt to warm over cold. Think about it, in the middle east when temps can reach 120 degrees… people live quite well. And are thriving.
4. Vostok temp cores show that we are headed to a freezing phase of the graph. Currently we are at the peak of the warming phase.
5. The entire history of man has been adapting not changing the weather. Adaptation should be the watch word. Don’t worry man will adapt…
6. CUI BONO… look up this term… and you will get the answer for this hysteria about global warming.
7. Ethically, there is this since that we should kill 75% of the people in the world. Huh??? Is this the eugenic II movement?
8. Hockey stick temp measurements of tree rings is ??? accurate.
9. What is the evidence that there were major climate changes when the glaciers melted. And if so, what happened, man adapted, and thrived.
10. The last issue is cost verses benefit… Is it more beneficial to raise heating costs to 500 dollars a month to sequester 1% of the CO2?
11, What about other factors that cause global warming? Deforestation, non-AGW CO2, How do we measure this. Rather than just say, it is all AGW…
12 What is the reliable of computer modals… Which were supposed to prevent the economical collapse, and the 1988 model that said that in ten years, every hospital bed in the country would be filled with an AIDS patient?
I could go on and cite at least a hundred more problems.
Ron hansing md 6.22.12
Didn’t Al Gore recently buy a beach house in Santa Barbara? Guess it’s a short term investment.
Here in California, we have mountains -- Gore's place is a couple of hundred feet above sea level... The East Antarctic ice sheet would have to melt off completely to get his place. That's probably a few thousand years off....
Scientifically, there exist now and for a long time a long history of the Earths temperate cycles being in sync with the fluctuations of the suns rays. This is not new.
Also is scientifically know and being currently monitored the sudden leap in Earths global temperatures, being in parallel with human man made hydrocarbons. On a side note of human induce global warming comes the additional global warming effects of the methane gas, as the worlds perma frost melts and this extremely potent gas is put into the atmosphere.
Ok, I findally got my 2 cents in... See ya.;)
Every day is a new day!
the reason why "global" warming exists is because of the cosmic alignment. its more of a "cosmic warming". it effects OUR WHOLE universe. and most likely the rest of the multiverse and dimensions(11 in existence). every time our solar system and our galaxy align then we start to see major earth changes(pole shifts, ice ages, super earthquakes etc.) its a reality that most scientists refuse to accept. the Mayans were correct on there being a "rebirth" of human civilization. 2012 will see many great changes that most Humans have never experienced and can't explain one bit. politics just needed a fancy word/propaganda tool to scare the masses(climate change) and it has worked for the most part. its funny how popsci never mentions man made weather control(HAARP). a staged alien invasion is the next step in the NWO agenda. "project blue beam" will confuse the masses and think that the return of christ is near. the men behind the curtain have everything down to a t and are really precise when planning attacks and blaming others.
"You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." -Morpheus
The way I see it, people who deny climate change are cowards at heart, like a man who accidentally starts a fire and wishing it wasn't true, spins all sorts of stories to himself to avoid responsibility, doing nothing, knowing there are children sleeping upstairs.
The worst thing about deniers is what they're afraid of-- merely changing how we do things and figuring out a different way, bullying and accusing their more creative, forthright counterparts of all sorts of bad things because they are afraid of change. It's past time for deniers face up to the situation as it is, to stop lying to themselves and each other or to shirk responsibility, and instead put their shoulders to the wheel to help turn a very big, burning ship around.
quoted by ToomeyND: "SteveW The quote that you included about gore is the definition of truth. Gore DID include the graph in his movie. The movie DID galvanize the two sides (you being upset that gore was even mentioned proves this). And Mann Did become part of the culture war.
What is wrong about that statement?
You are ignoring truths cause people you don't like are involved."
Al Gore lied to achieve an agenda, more control over our lives. His Graphs was studied by a Judge who found that he was way bias and proven to be inaccurate. I do not take the word of any politician as truth. Anyone who does is just another useful idiot. Anybody can make a graph, I do it all the time for work. Most people are sheep and follow whatever the popular trend is. The movie from the start I could tell was mostly hype and propaganda.
Your right I do not like politicians because they lie for a living and have no soul. As far as ignoring them because I do not like them, that is wrong. I see it this way Politicians are servants of the people, they are representatives and hold an office they swore an oath to uphold. A political office is not a popularity contest it is a job position and should be treated as such. I could care less if I like a politician, my question is can he do the job he was elected into. If he has done his job he would not need to lie. See it's not about like or dislike, I'm not going to hang with this guy or deal with him socially. So what do I care if I like him or not, where does he stand on an issue and what does he plan on doing to come up with an honorable solution that will uphold or founding documents and principles. From what I see of this green movement it is all about communism and statism and leaves very little room for freedom. What we need to focus on is integrity and merit. When you have an honorable society the rest will fix itself including doing right to keep our planet safe, charging people money for carbon credits is just another fascist ideal.
As a little boy I grew up in Ft. Churchill Manitoba Rocket Research center. Polar Bears were a menace then, and today they have doubled in population, putting pressure upon the resident population of the town of Churchill.
Later as one of the first to do circumpolar research my observations were that cycles are just that. When Pennsylvania is having an unusually warm winter, Alaska was having an unusually cold and snowy one. Anchorage at one point had over 100 inches of snow in-between freezes. This brings to mind the sinusoidal waves of analog temperature fluctuations which picture terra firma climate. Quite normal. In other words, the entire climate does not show anything out of the ordinary with the historic and non-historic core sample world.
I get ancy whenever anyone puts science and consensus into the same sentence. There is no such animal! This sounds like the church inquisitions of yesterday or flat earth societies today. Whatever, the answer, the Shakespearian line about, “me think thow doeth protest too much,' begins to carry the aroma of dead fish.
In any case, the NSA should have a recording of every email transmitted, and that alone should prove this case. No review or redundant articles are ever going to change the science. We will leave 'Science Change' to consensus thinkers!
The powerful fossil fuel interests along with their extreme right wing ideological friends leave me asking 'Is this the America I grew up In'? Where science under JFK too a preeminent center to our lives as a means of progress to a better future. Now we have these so called extremists saying that 'science is out to threaten the American way of life'.
Dr. Mann and other climate scientists are presenting data, facts and observations that tell us we are near the point of creating a future climate that will be dangerous to us and future generations. Yet we have a group of selfish greedy people with narrow interests who attack scientists like some kind of witch hunt from a past age.
The longer we wait to do something about climate change- the more cultural and economic change will have to happen- and we have perhaps crossed the line when those changes will be huge.
Death threats and intimidation happen on both sides of the debate. It disgusts me that Popular Science chooses sides. The fact is these "climate scientists" will always confirm catastrophic climate change theories because their jobs and government funding depend upon it. Just like water fluoridation, you can twist the facts, whether intentional or just delusional, to scare most people.
If deniers were subjected to the same sorts of death threats/intimidation that scientists have been subjected to, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. etc. would have told us, and told us, and told us, and told us... **all about them*. And then they would have told us again.
Now for a preemptive note: refusing to publish skeptic papers full of schoolboy errors that scientists would flunk their undergrad students for is *not* intimidation or repression. It's *professionalism*. So don't try to bring up out-of-context "climategate" email excerpts of scientists complaining about lousy papers getting published. The papers mentioned in those email excerpts *were* lousy and should never have been published.
from Lafayette, CO
06/21/12 at 12:07 pm
'...If your "science" is settled then please explain the sudden change from global warming to climate change. ….'
You seem confused.
The science isn't settled and it never will be. Please try and understand that science is a never-ending search for the scientific truth and science builds upon what went before. The science of climate change dates back over 150 years. If you were to actually read some of the science with an open mind, you might actually understand what it means.
You appear to be claiming that the switch from global warming to climate change was a deliberate ply to deceive. Well, it was, FYI it was a deliberate ploy introduced by Frank Luntz to help the Republican pull the wool over the eyes of the US electorate.
Luntz advises that, “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge”
By and large, scientists are a herd of cats incapable of anything other than arguing over the best facts and best thinking, and arrive at some general agreement over what that is. They are truth machines-- finding truth is what they do, even if has unpleasant implications (such as re-engineering things we depend on and like to do).
Accusations that climate scientists "will always confirm catastrophic climate change theories because their jobs and government funding depend upon it" is paranoid thinking that originates from think tanks. Just imagine thousands of scientists from around the world conspiring to falsify results. Never mind that companies who earn revenue from polluting our atmosphere invest in think tanks to develop PR strategy like this one.
Propaganda does work, particularly if the target population is isolated within an extreme ideological echo chamber that doesn't challenge the audience with dissonant ideas, confirms bias after bias, chipping out pieces that "fit" the picture, leading victims to believe illogical things "fit" the desired worldview that is advantageous to funders. Victims of a chamber like this have the thinking done for them.
I'm quite sure some contributing to this board are part of that chamber, perhaps others "paid to surf the internet" so to speak.
The weather is going to change in the far distant future. Want to stop this from happening? No problem. Just send me your money and obey my every command.
What's that? You are sceptical? But I can prove the weather will change. I am a politician. Would I lie to you? Obviously, you must send me your money and obey my commands. It's the only way.
Still don't believe me? You must be some sort of conspiracy nut. We will get you a tin foil hat. We will punish you until you confess. Now just sit down, shut up and send me your money.
You are getting sleepy... very very sleepy. You must obey. Resistance is futile. Repeat after me... I must obey... Resistance is futile.
rhansing, a response:
1. Global average temp is taken via thousands of surface stations, by satellite (troposphere, stratosphere, sea surface), ocean heat content (various means). Don't mistake weather for climate. Climate is the average of weather. The theory of AGW is not based on one daily measurement; AGW is based on basic physics of gases and radiative transfer.
2. Melting of the permafrost could indeed open up cropland in Siberia. There are several problems with this, though. One, thawed permafrost is unstable. Two, thawed permafrost means more methane release, which means more warming, which means more rapid change. Three, thawing permafrost doesn't mean more sunlight. The growing season isn't going to lengthen in Northern Siberia. Four, will it be wet or dry in Siberia? Right now, Siberia is burning (it's in the news).
3. People are not thriving in the middle east. It's desert. Populations were quite modest and clung closely to the rivers until oil was discovered. It is easier to adapt to warm, but simple additional warmth is not the problem and never was. The problem is the rapid increase in temp. In recent geologic history, only the sharp rise that follows a glacial max comes close to the current rate of warming, and it's not really that close. Further, the most recent such period was 15,000 years ago, when the vast majority of humans were much more able to adapt to changing conditions.
4. The interglacial optimum was probably about 10k years ago. Temp has been declining slightly since -- until now. The current spike is on top of the broad interglacial max. See Archer (2005) for the outlook for the next glacial.
5. Adaptation is one watchword. Yes, humans have been adapting for their history. Seven to ten billion humans wrapped up in a complex and fragile economic system have never had to adapt to rapidly changing climate. People living in cities are highly dependent on the stable delivery of food, water, and energy. Those three basics will be anything but stable over the next century--partially due to AGW, but also due to the decline of cheap energy and other stresses on the agricultural system.
6. Do you have children?
7. Not sure what you're talking about. Sounds like you're constructing a strawman, but the sentence isn't parsing well.
8. See Briffa (1998), Cook (2004), and D'Arrigo (2008). Short answer: very well until 1960, when NH, high-alt tree rings began to diverge.
9. See no. 5. Comparing humans now to humans 20k years ago is somewhat useless in this regard.
10. Do you have a source for "$500 a month"?
11. You haven't actually read what you're condemning, have you? Please, if you think of yourself as intelligent and fair-minded, read it: ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. Keep in mind it's 5 years old (AR5 is due soon). A whole lot of research has been done since. If you're passionate enough to post on here, surely you're willing to spend some time going through the evidence yourself.
12. Computer models provide projections, not predictions. They say, "given known physics and this set of conditions, what is likely to happen?" Read the IPCC chapter on modeling to see what goes into the IPCC projections. It's not simple. One element that no computer projection can accurately account for is the human response, and that is why there are so many scenarios modeled. Will we do nothing? Will we develop a miracle technology? Will we decrease emissions? Will we wait and then run mitigation programs (spraying aerosols throughout the stratosphere)? Will it be a combo?
Please do, but try not to assume that science hasn't already considered those problems.
Greystone, why don't you accept the theory of AGW?
tssstein, it sounds like you're looking at a graph of temp, seeing ups and down, and concluding that recent warming is just another up in the eternal cycle of nature. If you're a scientist, you should be asking why these cycles occur. Scientists have, of course, been asking these questions for over a century. We have a fairly good handle on what causes long-term, climate scale cycling: combinations of Milankovitch forcing, continental position, and solar output cycles (add movement through the galaxy as a fourth).
None of those cycles is responsible for recent warming. Insolation and temp have diverged significantly over the last 30 years. And an increase in insolation wouldn't cause the kind of stratospheric cooling observed over the last 30 years. Give me a mechanism that accounts for current climaate-scale trends in observed insolation, observed stratospheric temp, observed surface temp, observed ocean heat content, and observed global ice mass loss, and accounts for the well-established physics of atmospheric H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, various HFCs, and atmospheric radiative transfer, and doesn't involve changes to atmospheric concentration of GHGs (I'll give you H2O), and I will photograph the look of surprise on my face and send a copy to you (and post it on FB).
I do accept it... therefore you must send me your money and obey my every command.
Outstanding article. The comments are equally fascinating. I've gone back and forth on this debate for years, once convinced global warming is strictly cyclical, not convinced we're speeding the process. I just wish we could divorce politics from this debate, or it seems nothing will change.
--He not busy being born is busy dying.
I meant "now convinced," not "not convinced". Big difference.
-He not busy being born is busy dying.
I agree wholeheartedly. Force has no place in science... and politics is force.
In The Battle by Tom Clynes you ask: "Climate scientists routinely face death threats, hate mail, nuisance lawsuits and political attacks. How Much worse can it Get?"
That's a good question considering that NASA's James Hansen wants to put "skeptics" on trial for "high crimes against humanity", and since Robert F. Kennedy has stated that "skepticism" of the anthropogenic global warming theory is "...treason, and we need tro start treating them as traitors" before declaring that the CEO's of coal companies are engaged in a criminal enterprise and "should be in jail...for all of eternity". Some have even floated the possibility of "Nuremberg Trials" for climate "skeptics". Heidi Cullen from the Weather Channel suggested that weathermen/meteorologists be "decertified" if they were "skeptics" of anthropogenic global warming.
How much worse can it get indeed!
There's more than a little hysteria on both sides of the aisle on this subject, and - regrettably - Poplar Science is just as responsible for the hysteria by steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the fact that there is reasonable "skepticism" on the other side of this debate.
I would recommend that everyone reading this article also read the article in the recent Toronto Sun paper on James Lovelock, the man who postulated the theory of Gaia. In that article he points out that computer models did not accurately predict global temperatures since the turn of the millennium, and stated just weeks ago that “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”
Just google James Lovelock and "Green ‘drivel’ exposed" and you'll find the article. Per Mr. Lovelock, “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
I first read of the possibility of "global warming" in Future Life #12 (August 1979)in an article titled "Future Climate: Ice Age or Heat Death". Of course this was after years of scientists insisting that a new ice age was on it's way. To be fair to them, average global temperatures had been dropping since the 1940's so it seemed like a real possibility.
The "future" in magazines such as Omni and Future Life was exciting because differing points of view were presented. I truly wish that Popular Science would step out of it's comfort zone, and excite readers with legitimate viewpoints from across the spectrum. That'd be a refreshing direction for Popular Science to consider taking for future issues.
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
Live Long and Propsper.
Sometimes upon further study we find that the world isn't flat, after all. Too bad about all those folks we burned at the stake for saying otherwise.
Greystone, I see. No answer. Engage the science. Tell me where the theory fails.
By the way, science is force as well. Ask your religious friends. As long as different epistemologies are at work in the human world, scientific work will express force visibly across the social world.
And I haven't asked you for a dime or a dollar, nor will I. I'm asking upon what basis you form your opinion on this issue, an opinion that will drive your political engagement. All I'm getting in response are simplistic insinuations of totalitarian regimes that could easily be applied to talk radio and opinion-making organizations like Heartland.
Set aside the politics and talk about the science.
Wolf, you seem to be citing Lovelock as an argument from authority rather than presenting Lovelock's scientific work. I don't want to engage in sparring with authority figures, especially since most scientific organizations that have anything remotely to do with climate science have issued statements in support of both the theory of AGW and the potential dangers.
I challenge you to provide what you call "reasonable skepticism" from the "other side." I don't think you're going to find anything. I've seen no challenges to the fundamental theory. There are people who claim that GHG "warming" violates the 2nd Law, but these are semantic trolls who want the phrasing to be "slows the rate of cooling." There are people who claim it's cosmic rays influencing cloud formation. Even Svensmark admits that the GCR theory is nowhere near well-evidenced, and cloud forcing is still a somewhat unknown quantity, with studies showing clouds as a slightly positive or slightly negative "forcing."
As I said upthread, give me a mechanism that accounts for current climaate-scale trends in observed insolation, observed stratospheric temp, observed surface temp, observed ocean heat content, and observed global ice mass loss, and accounts for the well-established physics of atmospheric H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, various HFCs, and atmospheric radiative transfer, and doesn't involve changes to atmospheric concentration of GHGs (I'll give you H2O), and I will photograph the look of surprise on my face and send a copy to you (and post it on FB).
What you refer to as a "skeptic" is actually someone who hasn't read the literature but has latched onto an idea so tightly that they just can't let go -- like the idea that GW is due to microwaves from satellites and ground communications. If Popular Science published that theory, readers would destroy it pretty easily and then ask why in Sam Hill PS would publish such nonsense. Attempts to establish cycles by extrapolation without addressing the underlying physics are in the same category (this is a WUWT favorite).
As I see it, politics is the messy process of agreeing to the right thing to do. The science is the process of settling the truth so it may provide the basis for decisions. Decisions are also based on the values the citizenry hold dear, such as a sense of responsibility to future generations and stewardship for our only home.
Here's an interesting report just out. Gee... what is the right thing to do here?
West Coast sea levels: New report estimates greater rise by 2100
If greenhouse-gas emissions continue unabated, the expected additional warming could raise sea levels by up to four or five feet all along the US West Coast by 2100, according to an analysis released Friday by the National Research Council (NRC).
Beyond any real estate permanently inundated, such an increase would bring some $100 billion worth of facilities that currently are high and dry into a new 100-year flood plain, according to previous studies that assumed a comparable increase in sea levels. Those facilities include power plants, airports and seaports, and other big-ticket pieces of infrastructure.
The council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, produced the report at the request of the state of California.
I will be renewing my subscription to PopSci. This was an outstanding article for a popular magazine. It represents the type of journalism that is so sorely needed.
DSL, did I say the theory fails? No, I didn't. I'll fix it. Just give me your money and your obedience. That's the price.
meerkat, better get packing. You only have 88 years to get out of California.