I Did Not Write This...But Could Have

[CCTAU]

Are we trying to find cures for those things? 

Why yes. Yes we are.

Point proven.

RLY.

You beat me to it. (No pun)

Immority is the precursor to a fallen nation.

[AUChizad]

In the Carter years your brilliant scientists were sure we were headed for an ice age.  I guess all those great scientist CAN be wrong, huh

I know this is just from "some blog", but the facts and figures are all accurate. I just felt that this summed it up pretty nicely.

http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/06/six-americas-an.html

Six Americas and climate change

June 22, 2013 10:58 PM | 3 Comments
If you are a regular reader of this blog you know how consistent I am at making several statements that are consistent with the near-unanimous scientific consensus that:

1) The planet on which we live is undergoing a massive transformation that is unprecedented in the history of our species.

2) Our species is responsible for this massive change.

3) Our scientific community speaks with one voice in proclaiming these facts.

4) We still have time but not much.

Consider this:



I wish every American would stare at the chart above until they memorize it and fully understand that 97 percent of all peer-reviewed scientific papers published in the last 22 years agree that humans are responsible for our current warming and likewise comprehend that only 41 percent of the American public understands that we are causing our planet to steadily grow hotter and it is due to human activity. And within that 41 percent, only 15 percent understand there is a scientific consensus on this issue.

How is it that within "the greatest nation" on Earth, where modern democracy was re-born 237 years ago, where a once free press flourished, the truth of a scientific consensus on global warming is still unknown by 85 percent of the American people? How can we be free when we don't even know our own truth? And what are our collective media systems doing if they are not at the very least informing us of such fundamental scientific facts?



That consensus gap between what the scientific data states and what the American public thinks it states is your problem. And it is mine. And most of all it is a problem that will crush our children.

According to the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication there are six different Americas. One consists of 18 percent of Americans like me. We are the Alarmed. Another 33 percent of us are Concerned. And then there are the 19 percent who are Cautious. Next we have the 12 percent who are Disengaged and the 11 percent who are Doubtful. In the final group we find the deniers who would like me to stop blogging. They are only 7 percent of the population, they have 0 percent science backing them and they act like they own 100 percent of the truth. They are the Dismissive.

In 2010, the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication conducted "a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming.

"The study found that 63 percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening, but many do not understand why."

If we were to assign grades based on climate literacy, "only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40 percent would receive a C or D, and 52 percent would get an F. The study also found important gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system. These misconceptions lead some people to doubt that global warming is happening or that human activities are a major contributor, to misunderstand the causes and therefore the solutions, and to be unaware of the risks. Thus many Americans lack some of the knowledge needed for informed decision-making in a democratic society."

And I find it interesting that those who would earn an F would silence those who earn an A or B. Why is it that the ignorant are always so threatened by the well-informed?

The study found:

•   57% know that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat;
•   50% of Americans understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities;
•   45% understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth's surface;
•   25% have ever heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification.
•   Meanwhile, large majorities incorrectly think that the hole in the ozone layer and aerosol spray cans contribute to global warming, leading many to incorrectly conclude that banning aerosol spray cans or stopping rockets from punching holes in the ozone layer are viable solutions.
•   However, many Americans do understand that emissions from cars and trucks and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to global warming, and that a transition to renewable energy sources is an important solution.
•   In addition, despite the recent controversies over "climategate" and the 2007 IPCC report, this study finds that Americans trust scientists and scientific organizations far more than any other source of information about global warming.
•   Americans also recognize their own limited understanding of the issue. Only 1 in 10 say that they are "very well informed" about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more.
•   Likewise, 75 percent say that schools should teach our children about climate change and 68 percent would welcome a national program to teach Americans about the issue.

Of course, some among us would not have the truth communicated to the public. This nation was founded by brave, intelligent men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams who did not fear the truth. Learned men who valued the pursuit of knowledge and scientific discovery. And free speech.

If anyone disagrees with the scientific facts, why not dispute them with evidence? Isn't that how science works after all? Instead of silencing me, why not produce proof I am wrong? The deniers have had four years to bring us their scientific data from trustworthy sources. And still they refuse. Or perhaps they cannot reveal what they do not possess.

The charts are pretty stunning, but I wanted to focus on the "Six Americas" concept. This is a standard terminology for Americans and their opinions on climate change.

The author categorizes himself as "Alarmed". I am not in that category. The next category is "Cautious", which I certainly think is a valid opinion. I would place myself in the "Cautious" category, which is to say, I'm convinced that it is an issue, and we are at a point where we should discuss what rational methods, if any, could help alleviate this problem. I can certainly understand the "Disengaged" category, which is basically saying "Yeah, it's real, but we've got more important things to worry about". Then there are the last two categories, where I suspect most everyone in this thread lie. "Doubtful", which seems misinformed, to say the least, given the data that we currently have, and then the much more dangerous "Dismissive". "Dismissive", to me, is someone who can be told the sky is blue a billion times, and their only response is "Fuck you, I choose to belive it's green, and I don't care how much evidence proves otherwise." That is problematic. That is some flat-earth society ignorant shit.

[Kaos]

Blah blah blah.

Idiot.

Lets ignore the entire history of the planet and throw around psycho fear words.

Idiot.

[AUChizad]

Blah blah blah.

Idiot.

Lets ignore the entire history of the planet and throw around psycho fear words.

Idiot.

Let's ignore 97% of scientists in a matter of science.

Idiot.

[Kaos]

Let's ignore 97% of scientists in a matter of science.

Idiot.

Worthless statistics.  97% do not agree with the fear mongering.

Even if they did?

99.9% of the worlds best scientific minds once agreed the world was flat.

95% endorsed leeching.

100% of the 97% (eleven eighths for the challenged) are clearly idiots with no historical perspective. Their assumptions are flawed and the height of human arrogance.

It isn't happening. Period.

[AUChizad]

Worthless statistics.  97% do not agree with the fear mongering.

Even if they did?

99.9% of the worlds best scientific minds once agreed the world was flat.

95% endorsed leeching.

100% of the 97% (eleven eighths for the challenged) are clearly idiots with no historical perspective. Their assumptions are flawed and the height of human arrogance.

It isn't happening. Period.

Based on what? Your scientific research, that is clearly superior?

If 95% endorsed leeching, at the time, it was the best science available. Science changes by its very nature. Doesn't mean it's complete hogwash. To think so is to have a limited understanding of the scientific process. Science is the best knowledge that we have, until a breakthrough comes along. If you want to disprove the scientific community's consensus, then come up with a different theory. If it has merit, the scientific community will embrace it. However, you're not a scientist, and therefore have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Find me one climate scientist that thinks there is no such thing as climate change whatsoever. 97% think we're responsible.

Everyone believed the world was flat, until the point that science determined that it was not. Having the belief that science is gobbledy gook is exactly like those that believed the earth was flat, even after the scientific community proved otherwise. You are the flat earth society.

I seriously don't understand this stubborn refusal of reality. Is it a religious thing? Purely political? You can't admit that you were the wrong side of an argument you were probably having for 35+ years? What are you losing by acknowledging solid, scientific fact is not hocus-pocus?

[Townhallsavoy]

Just for clarification, leeching wasn't voodoo medicine.  It worked. 

[DnATL]

I did not write this, but could have
leeching

thought for a second that Chizad was talking about his music collection and missed the "watcha listening to" thread

[Kaos]

Based on what? Your scientific research, that is clearly superior?

If 95% endorsed leeching, at the time, it was the best science available. Science changes by its very nature. Doesn't mean it's complete hogwash. To think so is to have a limited understanding of the scientific process. Science is the best knowledge that we have, until a breakthrough comes along. If you want to disprove the scientific community's consensus, then come up with a different theory. If it has merit, the scientific community will embrace it. However, you're not a scientist, and therefore have no fudgeing clue what you're talking about. Find me one climate scientist that thinks there is no such thing as climate change whatsoever. 97% think we're responsible.

Everyone believed the world was flat, until the point that science determined that it was not. Having the belief that science is gobbledy gook is exactly like those that believed the earth was flat, even after the scientific community proved otherwise. You are the flat earth society.

I seriously don't understand this stubborn refusal of reality. Is it a religious thing? Purely political? You can't admit that you were the wrong side of an argument you were probably having for 35+ years? What are you losing by acknowledging solid, scientific fact is not hocus-pocus?

It isn't happening.  Period. 

When I was younger we were all terrified by the babbling scientific community of a freaking impending ice age because humans were destroying the environment and the pollution cloud would be so dense that the sun couldn't penetrate and the ice would creep all the way to the Mason Dixon line.  Penguins and polar bears would range the Gulf Coast. 

They are hocus pocusing.  Period.  They don't know and are making crap up to support their lack of knowledge.  How long will it be until "new science" comes along and all the "global warming" idiots are exposed for the yapping dogs they are?  Not long I suspect.  And they'll find something else to bemoan. 

Humans are destroying the environment with their awful UnderArmour shirts!!! They don't degrade like cotton and in 100 years the entire planet will be covered in a vague spandex-like material!!! Oh the HORROR!!!


What is happening now has happened before and will happen again because it is NATURE.  Not us.  We'll get warmer.  We'll get colder.  Auburn will have bad seasons and Auburn will have good ones.  These things are CYCLICAL.  And that's all there is to it, 97 chicken littles be damned. 

As for your weather expert? 

This is all I need.



He says it's hogwash. 

[Kaos]

James Spann on "global warming."  And this is all you really need to know.

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

[Kaos]

Since I don't expect you to believe James Spann, how about your entire "98% believe" BS? 

From Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

On June 19, apparently timed to warm up spirits at the Rio+20 meetings at the U.N. Conference on Sustainability that began the following day, Senator John Kerry gave a sizzling 55-minute indictment on the Senate floor of those who challenge global warming crisis claims. He referred to a “calculated campaign of disinformation”, which he said “…has steadily beaten back the consensus momentum [italics added] for action on climate change and replaced it with timidity proponents in the face of millions of dollars of phony, contrived ‘talking points’, illogical and wholly unscientific propositions, and a general scorn for the truth wrapped in false threats about job loss and tax increase.” In his speech, Kerry called for the public to be “pounding on the doors of Congress” to act, and cataloged global perils such as drought, floods, wildfires, threatened coastlines, disease risks and more, noting “the danger we face could not be more real.”

Consensus momentum regarding action on climate change?  Phony, contrived talking points, unscientific propositions, and a scorn for truth wrapped in false threats? Yes, he’s entirely correct on both accounts… but in the exact opposite direction that he, supported by representations in the “mainstream media”, has indicated.

Last August, Washington Post op-ed writer Richard Cohen scorned then-presidential candidate Rick Perry for publicly stating that he stood with an increasing number of scientists who have challenged the existence of man-made global warming threats. According to Cohen, “There were some, of course, just as there are some scientists who are global warming skeptics, but these few- about 2% of climate researchers- could hold their annual meeting in a phone booth, if there are any left. (Perhaps 2% of scientists think they are).”

This would require a pretty big phone booth, and actually, there really are many of those “global warming skeptics” still remaining. In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” And yes, I truly do hold both Joe Bast and Heartland in high esteem.

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

SHORT ANSWER -  The bogus "98%" is actually just 75 of nearly 11,000 respondents.  That's not 98% of anything.  

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can.As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

Senator Inhofe also points out, “While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal that this is an illusion. Climate skeptics…receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.” Accordingly, those who do receive support typically get more time free of teaching responsibilities, providing more time available for publishing activities.

Consider the National Academy of Sciences for example. In 2007, Congress appropriated $5,856,000 for NAS to complete a climate change study.  The organization subsequently sold its conclusions in three separate report sections at $44 per download. The first volume, upon which the other two sections were based titled Advancing the Science of Climate Change, presents a case that human activities are warming the planet, and that this “poses significant risks”. The second urges that a cap-and-trade taxing system be implemented to reduce so-called greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The third explores strategies for adapting to the “reality” of climate change, meaning purported “extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves.”

What scientific understanding breakthrough did that big taxpayer-financed budget buy? Namely that the Earth’s temperature has risen over the past 100 years, and that human activities have resulted in a steady atmospheric CO2 increase. This is hardly new information, and few scientists are likely to challenge either of these assertions, which essentially prove no link between the two observations. All professional scientists recognize that correlation does not establish causation.

The report then states: “Both the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and more detailed calculations dictate that increases in atmospheric GHGs [greenhouse gases] should lead to warming of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.” In other words, the theory of Mankind’s increased CO2 output is responsible for warming because the theory’s model calculations say so…models which have never demonstrated the capability to correctly predict anything. And, on that basis alone, generous taxpayers should pump ever more generosity into higher prices for gasoline, electricity, food, industrial products, and of course, more funding for NAS and their dole-sharing brethren.

The National Research Council (NRC), a branch of the NAS, produced a recent report titled America’s Climate Choices, claiming that humans are responsible for causing recent climate change, posing significant risk to human welfare and the environment. Of the 23 people who served on the panel that wrote it, only five have a Ph.D. in a field closely related to climate science, and another five are staffers of environmental activist organizations. It was chaired by a nuclear engineer with no formal climate science training, and the vice chairman served for years as a top staffer for the Environmental Defense Fund.  Two other members are, or were, politicians, and one had been appointed by the Clinton-Gore administration as general counsel for EPA.  Prior to publishing the report, 19 of the 23 had made public statements claiming that global warming is a human-induced problem and/or that action is required to reduce CO2 emissions.

As Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, observed, NAS President Ralph Cicerone is really saying that “…regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.”

Some scientific society administrations are getting serious heat from their constituents for taking positions attributing climate change threats to human influences. In 2009, eighty prominent scientists, researchers and environmental business leaders, including many physicists, asked the century-old American Physical Society (APS), the nation’s leading physics organization, to change its policy statement which contains such language as “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate”, and “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”

Instead, the group of scientists and academic leaders urged APS to revise its statement to read: “While substantial concern has been expressed that [greenhouse gas] emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th[and] 21st century changes are neither exceptional or persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both animals and plants.”

Then, in the aftermath of the ClimateGate e-mail scandal, 265 APS members circulated an open letter saying: “By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate which was and is an international science fraud, and the worst any of us have seen…We have asked APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.” Of the 265 letter signatories, many or most are fellows of major scientific societies, more than 20 are members of national academies, two are Nobel laureates, and a large number are authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research.

A June 22, 2009 editorial published in the American Chemical Society journal, Chemical and Engineering News, stated that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change”. That article prompted dozens of letters from angry members who rebuked it as “disgusting”, a “disgrace”, “filled with misinformation”, and “unworthy of a scientific periodical”. Many called for the replacement of its Editor-in-Chief Rudy Baum, who admitted to being “startled” and “surprised” by the negative reaction. As Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut wrote: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul.”

While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”

The report concludes: “The PAN Committee of Geological Sciences believes it necessary to start an interdisciplinary research based on comprehensive monitoring and modeling of the impact of other factors – not just the level of CO2 – on the climate. Only this kind of approach will bring us closer to identifying the causes of climate change.”

Finally, although any 98% climate consensus is 100% baloney, this is something all reasonable scientists should really agree about.

I know.  tl;dr

Let me make it simple.

The 97% report is 100% garbage. 

Anything that's happening now has happened before and we have NOTHING to do with causing it. 

[AUJarhead]

Since I don't expect you to believe James Spann, how about your entire "98% believe" BS? 

From Forbes:
 

I know.  tl;dr

Let me make it simple.

The 97% report is 100% garbage. 

Anything that's happening now has happened before and we have NOTHING to do with causing it.

My dad, BS in Marine Biology Auburn '67, MS in Aquatic Zoology Auburn '73, and PhD in Marine Biology LSU '77, and for the past 30 years has worked as an Environmental Engineer in Louisiana says man made global warming is bullshit.

That's good enough for me.

[AUChizad]

From Wikipedia:

James Spann is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".

The declaration states:

    "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

So basically, he is saying if the earth's climate is becoming progressively volatile, that's the way God wanted it.

I suspect the evangelicals sort of want the world to end, right? Then it's fulfilling a prophecy of the rapture and the chosen can ascend to heaven while the rest of the world burns. Very scientific stuff.

As for Forbes, I'm not surprised that Forbes, which represents business interests who fear recognition of Climate Change will hurt their bottom line, is playing the contrarian here.

Even Fox News' business analyst is coming around on this.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/30/hard-authoritative-evidence-of-climate-change-b/191610
(Video in link)

"Hard" "Authoritative" Evidence Of Climate Change Begins To Overwhelm Even Fox

A new study showing that polar ice is melting faster than before has convinced even Fox's Stuart Varney, who previously said climate change was a "scientific conspiracy." The Fox Business host acknowledged that the study, which adds to the extensive body of science showing the threat of manmade climate change, is "hard evidence" from an "authoritative source."

The study, published in the journal Science, shows that polar ice sheets are now melting three times faster than they did in the 1990s, contributing to sea level rise. On his Fox Business show, Varney expressed concern that this "hard evidence" of global warming might bolster efforts to address the problem:

Varney's apparent acceptance of this latest scientific evidence of climate change marks a reversal from just two days ago, when he incorrectly claimed that a "study from Britain's Meteorological Office" found that there has been "no increase in the global temperature" over the last 16 years -- a rumor from a discredited tabloid report. He has repeatedly cast doubt on climate science, insisting that "the debate is not over" and calling climate change a "scientific conspiracy."

But this latest study, which combined past measurements to arrive at what the Associated Press called a new "scientific consensus" that Greenland is melting at a quicker pace and that "as a whole the Antarctic ice sheet is melting," seems to have changed Varney's mind. The following chart from AP shows how melting polar ice sheets are increasingly contributing to rising sea levels, threatening coastal communities:

NASA and their hokum:

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

[WiregrassTiger]

My Uncle Rayford grows watermelons and sells them out of his truck. He doesn't believe in man made climate change and he thinks that most of today's rasslin is fake. The old rasslin, of course, was real.

He said even if man made climate change were true, it's going to be hot in the watermelon patch in July regardless, so he don't give a shit and wanted me to pass this along to all of you.

Personally, I think that if the polar ice melts, the polar bears are going to head south. My biggest concern is being able to lay out on the beach without being attacked by polar bears. But, it would be neat to hunt polar bears. They should be easy to spot in the wild, unless they adapt and start wearing camo.

[Kaos]

Dude.

It happens.  It's happened before when there were no "greenhouse gases"  Sheets will melt.  Sheets will freeze.  Things will get warmer. Things will cool down.  c.y.c.l.i.c.a.l.  Forever.

"Global warming" is complete BS.  And so is the "97% agree" fallacy you espouse.  Reality is that the number of people (of credence) who believe in the whole "we destroying the world with our wicked environmental ways" crap is small but vocal. 

They're the "15 nashanal champeensheeps!" shouters.  They say it often and loudly.  Sheeple don't pay attention to the details and take up the banner. 

[Snaggletiger]

Not getting in on the debate other than to say I don't believe in the whole global warming thing.  One thing that was eye-opening to me, and has little if anything to do with this issue, was a flight I was on a couple of years ago.  The pilot let us know we were coming up on the southern tip of Florida.  I had a window seat so I was checking it out. We were low enough to make out buildings etc. and the stunning thing was to see that the entire southeastern portion of Florida was concrete.  Not being funny, don't know any other way to describe it.  The Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area completely engulfs everything as far as you could see.  I kept looking for anything green (Besides money) but it was completely covered by structures.  I was thinking if something like Hurricane Andrew had taken a little different path years ago....    

[dallaswareagle]

High in Dallas today 88 (IN JULY)  Teeing off at 3:45

Global warming=bullshit.

[Kaos]

Not getting in on the debate other than to say I don't believe in the whole global warming thing.

^
That's a side. 

[Tiger Wench]

High in Dallas today 88 (IN JULY)  Teeing off at 3:45

Global warming=bullshit.

It was 75 degrees at 8:30am in Houston today - ON JULY 1.  The high today is only supposed to be 91.

I actually had to turn down the mega-ice-cold setting on my car's air con - which I usually turn on at the beginning of June and leave on until the end of September.

Felt more like April 1 - the weather matches and must be a colossal joke. 

[dallaswareagle]

It was 75 degrees at 8:30am in Houston today - ON JULY 1.  The high today is only supposed to be 91.

I actually had to turn down the mega-ice-cold setting on my car's air con - which I usually turn on at the beginning of June and leave on until the end of September.

Felt more like April 1 - the weather matches and must be a colossal joke.

I am also not being very green today, Got office door open and the A/C on.