Open response to the fellow that wrote this tripe:"Every day some nut falls from a tree and declares more ridiculous facts and figures about the so-called Climate Change."It's true, though we disagree about who the nut is. You are content to level that charge at the global climate research community, and by extension, every major scientific body that has endorsed their conclusions (essentially all of them), whereas I would say that it's the people that run pressure group misinformation blogs and those blogs that parrot their lies (such as yours)."Oh, its not global warming anymore"It's perfectly correct to call the overall warming trend in climate over the last 100+ years global warming; so, go ahead."and it wasn’t global cooling 20 years ago ( the nuts were wrong about that too)"First, you're off by a decade, the media cooling scare was in the media. Second, only if by, 'nuts' you mean the mainstream media. However, looking through the peer reviewed scientific papers even from that time period (or the 80s for that matter), the consensus is warming (from '65 to '79, 7 papers predicted cooling, 20 were neutral and 44 predicted warming) . "its now just Climate Change."That term has been used since 1979. It wasn't as popular until the Republican strategist Luntz determined that people were less likely to be stirred to action by the term "climate change" than the term "global warming". Hence, the more recent usage by the Bush administration, etc."And of course humans are always the cause of this “Change”."We are the cause of the recent warming trend (and several other trends, including the increasing acidity of the ocean).<a class="user" href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm">http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm</a>&quot;Now the former leader of the UN Kofi Anan (a waste of good oxygen there) is declaring that up to 500,000 people will die due to climate change by 2030."The updated figure is considerably higher than this."In that same time over 900,000 people will die in auto accidents in the US" While we should continue working on automobile safety, a cost-benefit analysis has to be done. In the case of climate change, the risks are widespread and more costly by orders of magnitude than those associated with automobile accidents in the US."Lets ban all cars!"Let me know how that one goes for you."That will cure the climate issue and save all these life’s."It wouldn't "cure the climate issue," there are a variety of other sources of anthropogenic carbon emissions. Also, the plural of 'life' is 'lives'."What a load of … What Climate Change? too hot? too cold?"Try, "too hot, too quickly and sustained, with ocean acidification"—just for starters."What is the correct temperature for the earth?"This, again, misses the fact that the climate is changing far too quickly and the effects of the temperature changes are compounded by other issues, such as ocean acidification."I don’t think i have ever seen that."It's because the question is too simple-minded as posed."CO2 what a croc. CO2 levels were much higher thousands of years ago, where were we then?"If, by "thousands of years ago" you mean "millions of years ago," then yes. We weren't around then."The earth wide average temperature has been going down since the year 2000, the nuts will not tell you that."If, again, by "the nuts" you mean "the community of global climate researchers" then no, they have discussed this. They will also point out that we understand the reasons for this (which include, among other things, the effect of ENSO events and solar irradiation cycles)—as well as the fact that 'climate' is defined (at least for the purposes of discussing global temperature) over timescales at least on the order of 30 years (to deal with ENSO events and the PDO), not 9 years."The sun has been very quiet the last few years, hmm maybe the sun has more effect on the earth then people do?"While the sun does have "more of an effect on Earth than people do" in some sense, it doesn't explain the recent warming trend in climate."What a thought. Volcanoes?"As far as greenhouse gases go, they emit annually roughly two orders of magnitude less than mankind does."Every time one erupts it spews megatons of all kinds of gases into the atmosphere changing weather patterns that can last for years."Right, and volcanic emissions are accounted for."Hmm, they never talk about that either."No, they do. You simply haven't been listening."Bottom line is, yes we should be careful how we treat the earth and create energy as clean as possible."Agreed."But the real agenda is all about money."{sarcasm}Oh those wealthy, money-grubbing oceanographers and climate modelers.{/sarcasm}"Its all about anti-capitalism, all about the haves and the have nots, all about power."It's actually all about the underlying science, of which you should educate yourself."And as long as the stupid people hear and believe this garbage without question, we are all doomed."It's odd that you continually refer to the global climate research community as stupid, yet you aren't even aware of the definition of the term 'climate,' nor are you aware of what they do and do not discuss. Interesting. Moreover, being completely ignorant of the fact that they have already accounted for the effects of volcanic emissions and atmospheric aerosols, the sun's irradiation cycles, etc. you stumble on oblivious and blind and state that these things undermine our current understanding of climate science? The irony is breathtaking."And unfortunately being dumb does not prevent you from voting."No, but recognizing your situation and ignorance, you could either get informed or abstain.
Yeah, it's both shocking and sad. I almost can't believe that people are willing to hold such strong opinions on such flimsy foundations—or, rather, on no foundation whatsoever.
shelliusMay 30, 2009
Incredibly ignorant article. Completely, 100% BS.Not digging it but wow, what ignorance.
greenfyreMay 30, 2009
This moron can't get the simplest things right, and we're supposed to think they have anything worth hearing?Hey numbnuts! It's been climate change since 1979 ... <a class="user" href="http://globalclimatechange.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&amp;NewsID=32">http://globalclimatechange.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index ...</a>And for pity's sake, does anyone still try and pass that stupid global cooling myth? That stupidity is so discredited even children know it's horses**t:<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms&amp;feature=PlayList&amp;p=A4F0994AFB057BB8&amp;index=2">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms&amp;fea ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg&amp;feature=channel_page">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg&amp;fea ...</a>Hello!!! Climate change science is about science<a class="user" href="http://cce.890m.com/">http://cce.890m.com/</a>When you have the facts right, at least to grade school level, let us know <a class="user" href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/">http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/</a>
themonikerMay 30, 2009
Open response to the fellow that wrote this tripe:"Every day some nut falls from a tree and declares more ridiculous facts and figures about the so-called Climate Change."It's true, though we disagree about who the nut is. You are content to level that charge at the global climate research community, and by extension, every major scientific body that has endorsed their conclusions (essentially all of them), whereas I would say that it's the people that run pressure group misinformation blogs and those blogs that parrot their lies (such as yours)."Oh, its not global warming anymore"It's perfectly correct to call the overall warming trend in climate over the last 100+ years global warming; so, go ahead."and it wasn’t global cooling 20 years ago ( the nuts were wrong about that too)"First, you're off by a decade, the media cooling scare was in the media. Second, only if by, 'nuts' you mean the mainstream media. However, looking through the peer reviewed scientific papers even from that time period (or the 80s for that matter), the consensus is warming (from '65 to '79, 7 papers predicted cooling, 20 were neutral and 44 predicted warming) . "its now just Climate Change."That term has been used since 1979. It wasn't as popular until the Republican strategist Luntz determined that people were less likely to be stirred to action by the term "climate change" than the term "global warming". Hence, the more recent usage by the Bush administration, etc."And of course humans are always the cause of this “Change”."We are the cause of the recent warming trend (and several other trends, including the increasing acidity of the ocean).<a class="user" href="http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm">http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm</a>&quot;Now the former leader of the UN Kofi Anan (a waste of good oxygen there) is declaring that up to 500,000 people will die due to climate change by 2030."The updated figure is considerably higher than this."In that same time over 900,000 people will die in auto accidents in the US" While we should continue working on automobile safety, a cost-benefit analysis has to be done. In the case of climate change, the risks are widespread and more costly by orders of magnitude than those associated with automobile accidents in the US."Lets ban all cars!"Let me know how that one goes for you."That will cure the climate issue and save all these life’s."It wouldn't "cure the climate issue," there are a variety of other sources of anthropogenic carbon emissions. Also, the plural of 'life' is 'lives'."What a load of … What Climate Change? too hot? too cold?"Try, "too hot, too quickly and sustained, with ocean acidification"—just for starters."What is the correct temperature for the earth?"This, again, misses the fact that the climate is changing far too quickly and the effects of the temperature changes are compounded by other issues, such as ocean acidification."I don’t think i have ever seen that."It's because the question is too simple-minded as posed."CO2 what a croc. CO2 levels were much higher thousands of years ago, where were we then?"If, by "thousands of years ago" you mean "millions of years ago," then yes. We weren't around then."The earth wide average temperature has been going down since the year 2000, the nuts will not tell you that."If, again, by "the nuts" you mean "the community of global climate researchers" then no, they have discussed this. They will also point out that we understand the reasons for this (which include, among other things, the effect of ENSO events and solar irradiation cycles)—as well as the fact that 'climate' is defined (at least for the purposes of discussing global temperature) over timescales at least on the order of 30 years (to deal with ENSO events and the PDO), not 9 years."The sun has been very quiet the last few years, hmm maybe the sun has more effect on the earth then people do?"While the sun does have "more of an effect on Earth than people do" in some sense, it doesn't explain the recent warming trend in climate."What a thought. Volcanoes?"As far as greenhouse gases go, they emit annually roughly two orders of magnitude less than mankind does."Every time one erupts it spews megatons of all kinds of gases into the atmosphere changing weather patterns that can last for years."Right, and volcanic emissions are accounted for."Hmm, they never talk about that either."No, they do. You simply haven't been listening."Bottom line is, yes we should be careful how we treat the earth and create energy as clean as possible."Agreed."But the real agenda is all about money."{sarcasm}Oh those wealthy, money-grubbing oceanographers and climate modelers.{/sarcasm}"Its all about anti-capitalism, all about the haves and the have nots, all about power."It's actually all about the underlying science, of which you should educate yourself."And as long as the stupid people hear and believe this garbage without question, we are all doomed."It's odd that you continually refer to the global climate research community as stupid, yet you aren't even aware of the definition of the term 'climate,' nor are you aware of what they do and do not discuss. Interesting. Moreover, being completely ignorant of the fact that they have already accounted for the effects of volcanic emissions and atmospheric aerosols, the sun's irradiation cycles, etc. you stumble on oblivious and blind and state that these things undermine our current understanding of climate science? The irony is breathtaking."And unfortunately being dumb does not prevent you from voting."No, but recognizing your situation and ignorance, you could either get informed or abstain.
themonikerMay 30, 2009
Yeah, it's both shocking and sad. I almost can't believe that people are willing to hold such strong opinions on such flimsy foundations—or, rather, on no foundation whatsoever.
themonikerMay 30, 2009
Er, "you're off by a decade, the media cooling scare was in the media in the 1970s," rather.