7 Gift Ideas For The Climate Change Denier In Your Life

Gifts with a political message. The best kind.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a climate change denier)

Is this like giving recycle toilet paper to an ecology friendly, friend that is really recycled!

You may now say, EwwwwW!

This just in: Scientists have determined the most efficient method of burning money. They immediately incorporated this into their latest product, a $50 light bulb.

"Man, I wish I had a light bulb that costs more than the lamp it's plugged into!" - said nobody, ever.

So Rebecca Boyle, a Popular Science reporter, resorts to calling people names who disagree with her about a scientific hypothesis?

Did the editors actually read this before they posted it?

The case for anthropological global warming is far from proven. During the last ten years there has not been significant heating on a global scale, at least as measured by satellites, the most accurate of measures. (By the way using data smoothing and averaging is really not appropriate here, as some scientists seem to want to do.)

As to the theory, I am not a climatologist but I have considerable expertise in modeling systems, having taken many graduate level courses in non-linear and linear systems and modeling (I doubt Ms. Boyle has), and I am involved in systems design and controls professionally. I find the lack of accuracy of the current models quite telling, as well as the lack of verification of global warming for the past 15 years of scientific studies, including ice core studies that were done over ten years ago.

Ms. Boyle, there is a general warming trend that has been in place for the past 200 or so years (must have been started by all those SUV's that GM built in the 1800's), but that does not mean man made CO2, or Methane, is the cause.

Maybe Popsci should commit itself to actual science, rather than name calling.

qdmike - You must be new here. Popsci does not have editors.

qdmike,
Would you agree in the writing department of PoPSCi, they generate a lot of recycle paper or could some of the already used recycle paper, later become published PoPSCi articles, once again?

A better question would be; what to get a "reporter" from Popsci that suffers from LAGWS (Luddite's Anthropogenic Global Warming Syndrome) Hmm....I wonder.... Medication? a life? strait jacket? let her know that CO2 is not a magical gas and it CAN'T do all the "evil" things she thinks it does!! Well so many choices. Or, who knows, spit balling here, explain that scientists are like everybody else and they go where "the money" is?? Meanwhile in China "the big money" is going for science in the field of quantum computing (those backwards Chinese)not the cutting edge like "evil-white-people-wants-to destroy-the-world-because-that's-what-they-do science". you see, it even has a very long and exciting name.

Just curiosity!!! your deity, "THE 'BAMA" just said something contrary to "LAGWS". He actually managed to sound almost sane for once. How do you lot feel about that?

Excellent gifts that anyone would enjoy, even us so-called "climate deniers" (whatever that means). Alaska is beautiful, the Planet Earth Blu-rays are breathtaking, greenhouses are very practical, so are LED lightbulbs because they save electricity (and money, but we'll stick with our CFLs until the LEDs are cheap enough to be worth it). Here are a couple others:

-Composter: turn your food waste into really nutritious organic soil for your greenhouse.

-Rooftop photovoltaic array: pricey, but in the next 5 years they'll be cheap enough that you can offset your utility bills, reduce your dependence on the power grid, save energy, go green, feel smug and self-righteous--all at the same time.

Now for your high-strung global warming alarmist friends, some gifts:

-An hour of Shiatsu massage: help your friend relax.

-A day at a spa: more relaxing.

-An outing to a national park: breathtaking scenery for people who really need a break to relax and get some perspective (especially you city-dwellers).

Educational gifts to help your stressed-out alarmist friends see how silly their worries are:

-Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" (1776) on Kindle (free): learn how the free market system works; billions of humans seeking their own interests magically collaborate to make great things happen without any government programs (like CFLs, LED light bulbs, PV arrays).

-Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It" (2007) on Amazon or Kindle: an environmentalist explains how alarmists schemes to reduce greenhouse gases will cost trillions of dollars and accomplish virtually nothing.

How about links to websites that debunk the irrational claims of global warmists:

-wattsupwiththat.com: A former meteorologist maintains information and links to studies that refute the cherry-picked global-warming-biased studies. Lots of science here.

-climateaudit.org: A statistician does the hard work and digs through global-warming studies, graphs, data, and methodology to point out the errors and selection bias. You didn't know that the whole foundation of anthropogenic global warming rests on a few pine trees in Russia? On a flawed statistical method that produces a "hockey stick" even with random data? Warning: very intense statistical analysis here.

I know, I know, the websites may be a turn-off. Alarmists don't like facts and logic. They prefer fantasies about cuddly polar bears.

All great ideas but hopefully we can come up with something more meaningful soon. For example, a round-trip ticket to Mars on a SpaceX ship (don't tell 'em it's actually one-way).

It's a win for all! These pollution happy folk can't really mess up Mars, can they? With them gone, we won't have dead weight holding us back from fixing things before it's too late. Of course such a gift really would be for the Earth itself.

I suppose many of these deniers are faithfully waiting for the catastrophe promised to them. They may not want to go. It will take cold hard cash to make them see the light. Still, a good investment for the rest of us.

Something tells me that PopSci's going a bit too far with the "denier"-bashing it's been doing this season.

Mukuro Holmes,
I agree with you. Any published science need to check, doubted and checked again from various sources. It is just good science and everyone learns in the process.

In the Sumerian history of 6000 years or so ago, they knew that the planets were round, the sun in the center and the order of the planets; they new about Pluto, Uranus and Neptune. They know the colors of Uranus and Neptune too.

As time passed and Kingdoms came and gone, somewhere in the process the Earth became flat and in the center of the Universe. Other kingdoms too, had other theories of our solar system and humanities place in it.

It took a very long time, for science to get the facts right again and yes, it is healthy to go back and reject them now and then, repeatedly from a fresh tools and fresh perspectives.

I'm sure that Ms. Boyle likes to think that she is enlightened and has an open mind. But as the old joke goes, "The problem with an open mind is that anything placed into it simply tends to fall right back out".

And for the Climate Change faithful, like Ms. Boyle, a tin foil hat.

Actually the only thing constant about the climate is that it is changing, as it has so since day one. So the tin foil hat is for those who have joined the One Holy and Apostolic Church of Global Warming (or cooling, change, weirding, anthropogenic global warming or whatever it is being called this week.)

I'm pretty sure this article was written for the intended purpose of drawing the trolls out of their caves...

You hit the nail on the head kungfu! I think PopSci is doing a study on just how many of the painfully ignorant troll this site. Most of them are just the typical poorly-educated, but many are the truly evil blatant liars like Bagpipes or qdmike. I've got news for you, there is literally tons of evidence to support anthropological climate change. A new study comes out almost every day on how these are the hottest years in recorded history, or how greenhouse gases have doubled and tripled since the Industrial Revolution. There is no debate here. There is science, and there is politically motivated denial. And of course PopSci will poke fun at these morons! All of us in the scientific community laugh at those who claim climate change is just a "hypothesis". It's not. It's a proven scientific theory. Since I know you trolls aren't actually scientists, I'll let you in on a tidbit of knowledge: a scientific theory is not the same as a lay theory, or "guess". A scientific theory is backed up with hard facts. So yes, we get a big laugh from the lunacy of the trolls who frequent this site. It's no different than when scientists made fun of people who believed the Earth was flat. Back in the 80's, Reagan and the GOP consistently denied humanity was causing acid rain. Even after every scientist proved how it happened, they continued to deny it. Even after the flora and fauna of ponds and streams started rapidly dying off, the right said it was "liberal media science". Finally Canada had to threaten us to get the GOP to finally admit it and do something about it. For those of you who aren't the disgusting sub-human trolls who get thrills off of blatant lies, I simply suggest you do some research. All of this is out there for anyone to study, and your self-imposed ignorance only fools ignorant others.

Well, it is Christmas time, troll la la la la...a la la la.. lol.

Hmmmm - seems odd that you would buy a coat for someone if you thought the world was warming (unless you were intending to be ironic, which this was not).

Good things to get the climate change alarmist:

(1) $700 - 1 ton of rice (in 50lb sacks on two pallets) for the comming food crisis

(2) $350 - A canoe or sea kayak to attach to their floating home for island runs

(3) $45 - A good life vest

(4) $10/lb - Seal meat (eat it before it is gone)

(5) $500 - A good hand crank desalinator

(6) $2 in the bargin bin - The move Waterworld, so that they can see that global warming is good (for fish and human evolution, if not for holywood studios or actor's careers)

(7) $ ??? a WMD - After all, the only real solution to anthro-caused anything is population control

(8) $ 1,700 a vasectomy (see reason #7). Can be done cheaper and more sustainibly with a $0.02 rubber band.

syfyguy

"Troll", "Denier", "Moron", "Liar"

Just keep this quote in mind:

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” (Elbert Hubbard)

Lets just stick to the arguments and facts;

First, I asserted that there has been no significant global warming in the past ten years based upon satellite data.

I can only quote the link here www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures. Yes this comes from a PHD scientist that does not agree with the anthropological global warming hypothesis, but the data is valid and I am sure available from NASA as well.

Second, I asserted that the ice core studies did not support CO2 as a cause of global warming. The reason is that the rise in CO2 preceded the rise in temperatures, and the temperatures dropped while the CO2 was still rising. This is clearly a contra-indicator. However, as usual, the advocates of this theory continued to cling on.

Third, I asserted that the models have not worked. I will let you look up the data, but we are now on our fourth iteration of a climate model. I could comment more on the hazard of using a model very dependent upon curve fitting vs. a theory defined model, but I leave that to later.

As you your comments (exclusive of the insults and name calling)

1. Yes, there are studies every day on global warming, but most of this are either
a. the evidence the earth is getting warmer
b. Assuming the earth does warm, what is the effect on the ecosystems and social systems.
c. Assuming CO2 and other gases are the cause, what is the heat distribution and effect.

None of the above 3 types of published article really gets at the root cause of global warming.

As everyone knows, it is well established that the earth cooled and warmed long before man was present. Obviously those factors are still in place.

By the way, I am a graduate school educated engineer with a background and advanced training in complex systems and control theory. I have the mathematical skills to understand these theory's. I just don't agree with them.

And, I even like some science fiction - syfyguy. Probably something we have in common. So lets not call each other names.

My creditials.... I read PoPSCi, lol. ~ Robot

The ultimate gift for a denier is a new ice age. They are fervently praying for one as you read this. Of course they have no concept of time scale. The Earth is only 6k years old after all! They have banded together and vowed to leave their freezer doors open for as long as it takes.

Something alien and from above the Sumerians wrote in their history some 6000 to 10k years ago.

Now read this article to see its effects.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm

I'm a nuclear physicist, not a climatologist. I do believe you qdmike when you say that you have read such things, because there are a few anti-climate change scientists who post false results. In fact, with the increasing frequency of faked papers and results coming from anti-climate changers and "creation scientists", it can be difficult for many to understand what is fact and what is make-believe. The answer to this is: go with what 90% of scientists say. It is our job as scientists to experiment and produce results unbiased by opinion or desires. I've had several hypotheses proven wrong over the years, but they were proven wrong using SCIENCE, not opinion.

So yes, you wrote what you believe to be true, but the reality is that you simply latched on to an article that fit what your hypothesis was. Satellites do not measure temperature at all. They measure radiance, then take that data to INFER temperatures. They are certainly not the "most accurate" method of climate measurement. You're also quoting information found by a single NASA satellite, while all other satellites show a warming trend for the past 30 years. But the real question here is: how can you use satellites to measure climate change since the industrial revolution when they did not exist then? You can't.

And the Arctic ice cores further proved CO2 contributes to global warming, not disprove it as you say. At least, that's what the overwhelming majority of scientists have found. I'm guessing you're quoting the one single scientist in 1989, Idso, who said the data showed otherwise. There was another study on the cores in 2003 by Caillon, who said "CO2 is not the force that initially drives climate change during deglaciation". They still confirm that CO2 does warm the Earth, it is simply not the main factor in ending an ice age. Well, we are not in an ice age, so this evidence has little value to us today.

I love how you deniers like to name-call and bash PopSci, then get upset when people call you out for it. The worst I think though is when you guys give your opinion as if it were fact. Instead of saying "During the last ten years there has not been significant heating on a global scale, at least as measured by satellites", you should have said "according to one satellite...". And for the ice core, you should have said, "while MOST scientists say this, a COUPLE of scientists instead say this..."

I understand that politics drives belief, and the conservative right has a lot of money to lose from climate change, just as they did with acid rain, but that is no excuse for ignorance. In science, things may not always work out to what you want them to be, but instead of jumping on rare, obscure articles that support your view, be honest with yourself, and others.

syfyguy,
I love ya man, big hug, squish!

And as far as the models, you're just simply wrong about that. Climate change models going back to 1896 all the way to the present are consistently proven CORRECT. When they are usually wrong are in the amount of temperature increase. They all estimate the temperature WILL increase, but they are often off about the exact number. CO2 content has more than doubled, which was predicted by several models. Do you think proponents of climate change just came up with an idea one day to piss off corporations?

syfyguy, temperature predictions since 1896 did not all predict increasing temperatures; some predicted cooling. But even if they all did predict warming, they had a 50/50 chance of getting it right. Great prediction. Anyone who knows that the earth cycles through glacial/inter-glacial periods could predict a long-term warming trend for the next hundred years and probably be right.

And what "increasing frequency of faked papers and results coming from anti-climate changers" are you talking about? I don't know of any science journal that would publish something from a creationist or notable "anti-climate changer". You must be talking about the increasing frequency of not-necessarily-climate-science-related faked papers that reputable science journals have published. Those are from "real" scientists, not creationists, and I haven't heard of any that purported to refute the global warming paradigm.

And those ice-cores? They don't prove CO2 increases global warming. We know that theoretically more CO2 should increase atmospheric temperature logarithmically in a closed system. But we don't have data to show it's actually happening. The ice cores show that CO2 increase LAGS warming by hundreds of years, which implies that CO2 is a result of warming, not a significant causal factor.

@laurenra7

Article on CO2 lagging temperature based on an article from Nature:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

To any of my generous warmist friends reading this - the Alaska cruise, please! And just in case I somehow fail to be convinced, I'm quite prepared to go again the following year. Better start saving your pennies. ;)

Nice. Another way for Popsci to show it completely disregregards the fact that anthropogenic climate change still hasn't been "proven." Just because Al Gore says "the science is settled" in order to boost sales for his "green" investments doesn't make it so, although the hype from all his "activism" (brought to you viael-uzzling jets)has made him a very rich man...

Maybe you should read both copies of the IPCC report to the UN; the one claiming no substancial evidence exists for anthropogenic climate change and the last minute revision that says it does. All without changing a single fact in the report.

This science is only settled in the minds of those too shallow and narrow-minded to imagine that there still exists two valid scientific views on the subject.

I suppose it is a little too much to ask that Popsci stick to actual science and stop inserting its own political skew?

syfyguy

Facts are troublesome little things.

1. The temperature measurements are from 11 different satellites. I don't know where you are getting your information, possibly you can identify a link. I gave you the source of the information I quoted - did you even check the link.

And by the way, yes the satellites measure radiance and through radiance calculate average gas and surface temperatures. All devices that measure temperature which we use in modern life measure temperature indirectly. Do you know of a device that measures gas temperature directly - it is not a thermometer, It is not a thermocouple. Since you claim to be a nuclear physicist, just what is that device.

The satellite data is important because it is the most accurate data we have that can readily measure global temperatures. If the models do not accurately predict the data, then the model is not valid.

2. The rise in CO2 lags by several centuries the rise in temperature in the ice core studies. Cause-effect Right? Since you are a nuclear physicist I need not discuss partial pressures here.

3 The models have trended off the last several years. Just what model to you have that accurately reflects the lack of global warming for the past decade.

$. Perhaps you have a source for the statement "And the Arctic ice cores further proved CO2 contributes to global warming"

One fact you cannot contest is that the models just don't work. Inevitably, after four or five years, they fail to accurately track global heating.

Finally, I find that science is not advanced by surveys of how many scientists are in favor of this or that.

And one more thing, I don't know who you are talking about, but I don't call people names. I don't lump people together into groups. I don't make unfounded assumptions about the source of information people have. And I respect people who are factual and respectful in their opinions and respectful of people whom they disagree with.

I think the world is a little better that way.

Lol, I wonder sometimes if you guys even read the things you write. Thank you democedes for posting the link to the article about why CO2 lags. I suggest you all read it. It says over and over how CO2 INCREASES warming. It's not the cause of course, and no one has ever said humanity caused it. CO2 accelerates warming. This is a fact that is constantly corroborated by the scientific community.

I'd really like to see a source for 11 satellites. The only one I ever heard of was a NASA report put out that they have since gone back and said their findings were based on flawed information. Here is just one of the many links to articles that talk about it: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/#.ULgLu6ysXKc

And again, there are tons of articles about the ice cores that prove CO2 contribute to GW. Here is just one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080514131131.htm

If you'd like more, I know of at least 6 more I can get to without having to look.

I don't know where you got your engineering degree, but you should know that a thermocouple does indeed measure TEMPERATURE. Usually, you have two conductors of a precious metal, like platinum, and the temperature difference between creates a voltage variance. So yes, it is able to measure the temperature of a gas or fluid directly.

As for the name calling, I was just lumping you with the other trolls of your like mind who haunt this site. While you did not name call, you addressed the author of this piece directly, and made the claim PopSci does not print science. I was incorrect to group you with others such as Bagpipes or gizmowiz or Aldron. You in fact just created your account yesterday in order to troll this article and criticize the author. Well done!

Folks like yourself love to try and take the high road, but your comments always shoot you in the foot. You can't come on a SCIENCE site, deny science, state your opinions as fact, and criticize the journalists without someone coming back at you with reality.

That's sad that you and so many others think this is something up for debate. You say you don't judge science by surveys in favor of this or that. That's not what we're talking about. This isn't the debate on whether the Grand Canyon is millions or hundreds of millions of years old, where you have large numbers of scientists on both sides. There is NO survey. It is 95-98% of climatologists who say humanity is increasing GW. This isn't a "my opinion, your opinion thing". This is hard science.

But hey, what do scientists know? It's just there job to know.

I'm starting to understand why Sheldon Cooper referred to engineers as the oompa-loompas of science!

syfyguy,
Now be nice and do not cut ties to friends. Those oompa-loompas make awesome candy!!! ;)

There is one important thing that I feel needs to be cleared up. Climate change should not be political at all. Are all the countries across the world that know anthropogenic climate change is a reality Democrats? No, they come in all parties, shapes, and sizes. The only reason it is political is because one party consistently denies science when it might take away some of the huge sums of money they receive from the coal industry. It has never been a secret that the coal industry dumps vast sums of cash into the GOP fund every year. Simply put, they have something to gain. What do the proponents of climate change have to gain? I wonder how many of you were around in the 80's. The climate change deniers sound EXACTLY the same as the acid rain deniers. Reagan and his cronies tried relentlessly to paint it as a "debate", or that it was "liberal alarmism", and that if it did exist, humans had nothing to do with it. The GOP cried over and over that Democrats wanted a "war on coal". Sound familiar?

Science should never be political, but as long as the right denies and lies, it will be. It's just such a shame the ignorant are so willing to believe the party that said "we do not negotiate with terrorists", all while they were selling weapons to the terrorists. This is the party that said without a doubt there were WMDs in Iraq. This is the party that says Obama is Muslim, not born here, a Socialist, stealing from Medicare, and spending out of control. All are of course lies that have been refuted by a plethora of reputable sources, but people still love, and NEED to believe the lies.

syfyguy

This will be my last post on this point, so you can rant some more and have the last word. However, please note the following.

1. At least in thermodynamics, temperature is defined by the inverse rate of change of entropy with internal energy. The operation of a thermocouple is due to the Seebeck effect which is dependent upon the spin current. Still indirect. I did not say thermometers or thermocouples do not measure temperature, I said these devices, like radiance devices, do not do so directly. However, the key point here is we need to use the right tool to do the right job. Satellites that measure radiance do a very good job of determining global temperatures. Thermocouples do a very good job of determining the temperature at a specific point.

2. It is not settled that man made CO2 is a significant contributor to global warming. When climate scientists actually produce a predictive, stable, accurate model, then we can say we have a solution. Not now.

3. Ice core studies. Yes, I erred writing the CO2 rise preceded temperature. Actually I meant to say temperatures rises preceded the increase in CO2. Still Cause-Effect.

Of course CO2 can to some degree increase heating. The issue here though is does man produced CO2 make a real difference, or do other factors, possibly even other things such as man made particulates contribute more. Can limiting CO2 production meaningfully impact global heating. Keep in mind, these climate changes have been going on since earth had an atmosphere. It has probably been much warmer on the earth than now, and it has been much colder. If man made CO2 is not significant, then there are far better things to spend our resources on; maybe world hunger, depletion of species, a better life for all people.

Finally, you said "I understand that politics drives belief, and the conservative right has a lot of money to lose from climate change". You know neither my politics or beliefs on other subjects. It looks to me that a lot of people can make a lot of money on either side of this issue. That is not what we are talking about here.

And yes, I created my account yesterday, although I have for the past two years often read this website. I created the account because I am somewhat tired of the ad hominem attacks, the name calling, and lack of perspective on this issue. Guilty as charged.

Go ahead, insult, call people names, assume, imply, etc. Eventually the truth will prevail.

With the USA being economically defunk, 16 billion in debt and the fiscal cliff just looming weeks away, which will cause an depression and or if the government does makes budget will still cause a depression, they are desperate for an economic stimulus.

I want with all the articles that argue man made global warming is really just a means to ignore the problem temporarily and for the USA to hurry up and burn more coal and find more shell oil, which has been announced ALOT in the media!

So for the benefit of economic bliss, the government is tactfully promoting arguments to manmade global warming, so they can be free to have an economic upswing with coal and oil.

Of course, this will just make matters worse in the long run, but those politicians in office will preserve their careers and be happy.

The rich will get richer and the poor poorer.

The End.

@QDMike

Please read the following article describing a cumulative effort from 3 different research groups using atmospheric temperature data from satellites and their own individual models for projected temperatures.

I think it might help you understand how temperature changes in our atmosphere are unequivocally related to human activities...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121129143504.htm

The Earth warms, the Earth cools. It is far from predictable and it is egotistical of man to think that he can influence the climate.

Nature is completely unpredictable, even with the weather records of the past what, 200 years, if that. Accurate weather records, with the elimination of variables such as height of the thermometer off of the ground, etc., have only been available for probably 30 years, as well as the accuracy of thermometers. I don't doubt that the Earth may be warming. But is it a bad thing, or is it nature. I live in MN and can tell you I don't mind the mild winters, as I save on heating costs and burning those horrible fossil fuels. Forgive me for not partaking in drinking the KoolAid with you.

"I will survive" ~ Gloira Gaynor

None of the items remotely support the anthropogenic climate change cult or its doctrine. Not even the stuffed bear, which is, of course, a MUCH better gift than a real bear.

To them, we are FOOD, you see. I rather doubt they waste much thought on the plight of humans affected by "global warming", whatever it might be caused by.

Now that I think about it, the Greeniuses among us are generally long on sentiment(for polar bears) and raw hatred(for humans who disagree with them). Generally regarding the latter, they assert that their critics are unqualified to have an opinion on the matter. When this is manifestly not the case, say, that of Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., they imply that such people have "sold out" for an undisclosed amount of money to petroleum companies, etc. This ignores the fact that agribusiness and other monied interests also have a lot at stake supporting the Warmist line. Of course, Warmists are solely concerned with the well being of the planet and are above such corruption.

In a pig's eye.

Mark Ofthebeast,
I toss your words into microsoft word and spell checked it.
............................................

"...Now that I think about it, the Greeniuses among us are generally long on sentiment (for polar bears) and raw hatred (for humans who disagree with them). Generally, regarding the latter, they assert that their critics are unqualified to have an opinion on the matter. When this is manifestly not the case, say, that of Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., they imply that such people have "sold out" for an undisclosed amount of money to petroleum companies, etc. This ignores the fact that agribusiness and other monies interests also have a lot at stake supporting the Warmist line. Of course, Warmists are solely concerned with the well-being of the planet and are above such corruption.

In a pig's eye..." ~ Mark Ofthebeast

The Earth warms, the Earth cools. It is far from predictable and it is egotistical of man to think that he can influence the climate.

Nature is completely unpredictable, even with the weather records of the past what, 200 years, if that. Accurate weather records, with the elimination of variables such as height of the thermometer off of the ground, etc., have only been available for probably 30 years, as well as the accuracy of thermometers. I don't doubt that the Earth may be warming. But is it a bad thing, or is it nature. I live in MN and can tell you I don't mind the mild winters, as I save on heating costs and burning those horrible fossil fuels. Forgive me for not partaking in drinking the KoolAid with you.

@Logic Rules

I don't find it to be egotistical of man to think he can contribute to the earth's climate. The earth is our environment and we effect that environment in several ways, for better or worse. We use the earth's resources to survive and in doing so we cause a great deal of change in forests, oceans, and various types of land. Whether we effect the climate or not, it isn't illogical to consider the possibility, seeing as we effect most other natural ecosystems on our planet. The real question is "to what extent do we effect our climate."

I currently live in TN and I certainly love the 60 degree sunny days now in December, because I too save on heating costs. However, what you need to consider is the effects that a warming planet will have on our species (i'm talking crop reduction, sea level rises, increases in storm severity). Despite there being natural cycles in temperature increase over the earth's history, if we can lessen the degree to which we effect global warming, we can potentially counter the negative long term effects that a warming planet causes. And that's the point...

I think the "cool aid" drinking comes from people who are too quick to assume that the science is wrong. At a certain point, it is irresponsible to negate scientific findings and the general consensus of a scientific theory. I encourage you to go and research the matter for yourself. Read empirical research articles that both support and belittle findings that our species is contributing to global warming, and refine your decision based on the best technology and tools we have to actually address such a question.

Be sure to send a gift catalog to these guys.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2011/07/15/why-hasnt-the-earth-warmed-in-nearly-15-years/

You REALLY want me to cancel my subscription, right?

ATTENTION EDITORS: POLITICIZING YOUR MAGAZINE DOES NOT MAKE YOU BETTER.

Actually, I have thought more about the general state of the magazine.

Growing unreadability due to "modern" design/layouts.
Growing dumbing down of content.
Increased green agenda ideological content.

Once upon a time, I could not wait until Popular Science arrived in the mail. I find that lately, I could care less.

So I have cancelled my subscription renewal.

Thanks Ms. Boyle for helping me decide.
And think, it's one less precious tree killed, your editors will be so happy.

CLIMATE CHANGE - IT'S FOR DUMMYS

IF the Earth is warming, it isn't being caused by man, nor is there anything we can ever do to stop it.

There are 2 INDISPUTABLE reasons to believe this:

1) Question : How many cars, machines and factories were spewing CO2 when the Earth warmed itself out of the last ice age and glaciers melted and receded the distance of half of continents?

Answer: ZERO. This proves that the Earth has, can and does go through dramatic temperature shifts/changes through naturally occurring processes and cycles, regardless of man's existence or actions.

2) Since the entire premise of "Man made global warming" is based on the presumption that we are causing it by the release of greenhouse gases (CO2) into the atmosphere, before you should even consider that possibility, you have to ask this question: What is the current percentage by volume of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere?

Answer: 0.039% - That's right! CO2 makes up less than half of one percent of the Earth's atmosphere and that is after over 100 years of mankind spewing the stuff into the air freely.

CONCLUSION:
Any evidence showing that man's release of greenhouse gases/CO2 into the atmosphere somehow correlates to changes in the Earth's temperature is strictly circumstantial. How can any "so called" scientist (or author writing articles for this magazine/website) really believe that man has anything at all to do with "climate change", "global warming" or whatever they will be calling it next?

@SmartGuyFromTex

Your username alone makes me think you are trolling, but for the sake of debate, I would like to point out how little you understand about global warming from what you have posted above.

To address your questions. 1) Although the earth has natural cycles of warming, the extent of this warming is caused by extreme events such as the eruptions of super volcanoes, changes in the earths axis, and solar flares/dramatic increases in the sun's radiation. Such events have not been drastic enough to account for the current trend in global warming (which has reached record highs between 1998-2007, and is continuing to reach record highs up into 2012). You are saying that since man wasn't pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in the past, that man made global warming is invalid. This is poor reasoning, because you don't understand what contributes to natural warming cycles.

2)You try to point out the percentage of 0.039% as low, but you don't seem to understand the effects of greenhouse gases. A very low percentage can have a VERY large effect on the climate. This percentage is ever increasing exponentially in CO2 parts per million in our atmosphere. The magnitude of this small percentage of CO2's effect is LARGE as it relates to warming our planet.

3) To address your last question: Because the scientific evidence demonstrates that as our CO2 emissions rise so do our global temperatures (exponentially over the past several decades).