Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
40 yrs ago we were taught in school an ice age was coming.
I was never taught anything in school about climate change, let alone anything about an upcoming ice age. This is a common straw man argument of science deniers used to belittle the ever-mounting scientific consensus among climate change experts.
It would be interesting the ages of those who claim to have been taught anything about climate change in school or even at their college or university.
Global warming wasn't even an issue until James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Space Institute, raised the warning flag about 25 years ago, I believe. Personally, I discounted the seriousness of the problem until about a decade ago, when the evidence became overwhelming and I learned about ocean acidification and the gigantic amounts of frozen methane in the world's tundra and oceans.
Hansen's initial model has largely been accurate, based on my readings.
Most science deniers ignore that scientists have been forecasting the most serious impacts of climate change to take place in coming decades, especially as the world's massive ice reserves are so diminished that they no longer can offset the impact of greenhouse gas-induced atmospheric warming.
Science deniers also focus on atmospheric warming. They ignore the massive and well documented warming of the oceans, even the deep oceans, which have absorbed immense amounts of heat from the atmosphere in recent decades.
So you're a science denier who deals in falsities and downplays the obvious when it comes to climate change? There can be little useful debate with those either who refuse to look at empirical evidence, who have little or no understanding of the scientific method, or who are just dishonest.
Actually, about a week ago, the Plain Dealer's resident science denier wrote a column echoing your views.
As is typical with O'Brien's columns, he was skewered in the comments.
If you read the comments, you'll see that O'Brien, like almost all climate change science deniers, ignored ocean acidification and the inevitable release of frozen methane into the atmosphere. The latter means that all scientific projections of global warming likely are understated as the most highly respected projections specifically don't comprehend methane release.
One of the last comments addresses your concern about scientific studies and their funding. Would you believe research funded by a Koch brother, a financial puppet master of the Republicans, and conducted by one of the nation's leading climate change skeptics?
<<
While Mr. O'Brien states that the <<argument for man-caused climate change couldn't get much weaker," it is informative to read what one of the nation's most respected scientists and a one-time climate change skeptic has to to say about this.
Richard Muller is a professor of physics at Berkeley and a prestigious MacArthur fellow. Several years ago he was one of the most prominent climate change skeptics. So much so, that a Koch brother's foundation helped fund a Muller-led, definitive review of the science of climate change. The Koch brothers are petrochemical billionaires who spend hundreds of millions of dollars supporting Republican politicians.
Here's what Muller wrote in 2012 at the conclusion of the Koch-funded climate change study. Note particularly that Muller now says of global warming that “HUMANS ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY THE CAUSE.”
<< CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases....
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions....
What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice....
What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.>>
Prominent climate change denier now admits he was wrong (+video) - CSMonitor.com
In his column, Mr. O'Brien writes << whatever's happening to the climate is none of mankind's doing." Again, Mr. Muller emphatically says "of global warming that “HUMANS ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY THE CAUSE."
If Mr. Muller had remained a climate change skeptic, he perhaps could have fed at the Koch money trough for many years.
Instead, Mr. Muller reported the empirical evidence as he saw it.
Mr. O'Brien in this column defined a "climate scientist" as a <<a totalitarian who seeks control over political and economic policy (and grant money) by scaring people who ought to have more sense.>>
Does Mr. O'Brien believe that Mr. Muller was seeking grant money when he reached conclusions contrary to those likely sought by the Koch brothers with their well-documented willingness to handsomely fund like-minded individuals? Perhaps Mr. O'Brien could explain to us specifically how Mr. Muller is a "totalitarian," as he certainly is a climate scientist.
"Totalitarian" is a term usually reserved for Nazis, Fascists and Communists. Totalitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Among the other disdainful aspects of this column, Mr. O'Brien's belittling of climate scientists by calling them "totalitarians" is perhaps the most disturbing.
Perhaps this type of propaganda-speak is the only way for Mr. O'Brien to maintain an argument that with every passing year can no longer be won by the application of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning.>>
O'Brien's column was inspired by anticipation of an historic statement by Pope Francis on climate change this summer. Climate change denying Republicans may see a tectonic shift in the political foundations of the climate change debate in the U.S. depending upon what Francis says in such a statement.
Please produce the numbers for your statements about volcano greenhouse gas emissions versus human-caused emissions. Keep in mind that volcanoes always have been part of the natural process. Human-caused emissions are marginal increases that tip the scales towards global warming, and making normal volcanic emissions largely irrelevant.
Do you understand that energy costs are lower in the U.S. than in China, Japan, Canada and the European Union? China uses much less energy per capita than the U.S., which actually is a competitive advantage, and is making a much more concerted effort than the U.S. to shift to non-fossil fuel energy sources.
However, your message is that we should forget that humans have brains and we should ignore the best and brightest among us and bequeath a miserable world to our children and grandchildren. Party on and damn the consequences. I agree that IS the message of the Republicans and, especially with his policies on fracking, also of Kasich.
I agree with the thrust of some of your other points about trade, budget deficits, illegal immigration, etc. The problem is that on most of these issues, the Republicans are as bad, if not worse, than the Democrats. E.g., George W. Bush was one of, if not the most, fiscally irresponsible presidents in American history. Where is any Republican bill on illegal immigration, even though the Republicans now control Congress? Do you remember when George W. Bush said he was going to crack down on illegal immigration and then did nothing?
Most importantly, you ignored the salient point that Kasich is turning Ohio into a dumping grounds for radioactive fracking waste without any public hearings and likely inadequate monitoring and regulation.
Lousy attempt to change the subject. Do you support the Kasich fracking policies? Do you believe that we should be injecting huge amounts of radioactive waste wonder under extremely high pressures into deep geological formations and just pray that they'll never poison vital drinking aquifers, a risk no other state government is willing to take? Would you have signed a bill to allow fracking in state parks and forests?
If you would answer "yes" to these questions, then it's obvious the difference between you and most Ohioans who are cognizant on this topic, and why you are such a rah-rah Kasich supporter.
I never said I was a big kasich supporter. Some things I like and some I don't.. I am against treating our planet like a dump. And, no I don't believe man is solely responsible for climate change, the earth has changed over time and will continue to change and exist for 5 billion more yrs.. Humans I'm not so sure. And I don't see the rest of the world caring or making any significant effort to control pollution. Most of the people on this planet are more concerned about starvation,disease,war,genocide, basic needs,etc.. Also I'm of the belief that ALL politians (dem or rep) don't give a rats ass about u and me.. This country is in BIG trouble! And I believe its from the breakdown of the "american 2 parent family". So yes, climate change is not something that is at the top of my list of concerns. If we don't get our country in order and get our deficit eliminated we will face more immediate and troubling concerns than climate change.
I was never taught anything in school about climate change, let alone anything about an upcoming ice age. This is a common straw man argument of science deniers used to belittle the ever-mounting scientific consensus among climate change experts.
It would be interesting the ages of those who claim to have been taught anything about climate change in school or even at their college or university.
Global warming wasn't even an issue until James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Space Institute, raised the warning flag about 25 years ago, I believe. Personally, I discounted the seriousness of the problem until about a decade ago, when the evidence became overwhelming and I learned about ocean acidification and the gigantic amounts of frozen methane in the world's tundra and oceans.
Hansen's initial model has largely been accurate, based on my readings.
Most science deniers ignore that scientists have been forecasting the most serious impacts of climate change to take place in coming decades, especially as the world's massive ice reserves are so diminished that they no longer can offset the impact of greenhouse gas-induced atmospheric warming.
Science deniers also focus on atmospheric warming. They ignore the massive and well documented warming of the oceans, even the deep oceans, which have absorbed immense amounts of heat from the atmosphere in recent decades.
Yes in the 70s kids were told another ice age was in our distant future. And no, global warming was not mentioned until the las 20yrs... That's a fact.. I guess the brilliant scientists of the seventies were wrong. Maybe these brilliant scientists of today are smarter and correct about climate change... BTW how come the weathermen can't predict an accurate 5 day forecast? Just saying.
I never said I was a big kasich supporter. Some things I like and some I don't.. I am against treating our planet like a dump. And, no I don't believe man is solely responsible for climate change, the earth has changed over time and will continue to change and exist for 5 billion more yrs.. Humans I'm not so sure. And I don't see the rest of the world caring or making any significant effort to control pollution. Most of the people on this planet are more concerned about starvation,disease,war,genocide, basic needs,etc.. Also I'm of the belief that ALL politians (dem or rep) don't give a rats ass about u and me.. This country is in BIG trouble! And I believe its from the breakdown of the "american 2 parent family". So yes, climate change is not something that is at the top of my list of concerns. If we don't get our country in order and get our deficit eliminated we will face more immediate and troubling concerns than climate change.
By greatly diminishing the world's wild ocean fisheries, flooding coastal areas, and arguably much worse, climate change is the biggest crisis facing humanity.
The changes in a century caused by fossil fuel burning and other human activities (burning the rain forests) dwarf any natural process. Those who equivocate about some natural cause have never provided an alternative explanation that has passed the test of peer review and empirical evidence. If you have empirical evidence for some alternative natural cause, please provide it.
What natural explanation exists for the rapidly increasing acidity of the oceans? The science of ocean acidity is so well established that it is ignored by science deniers of climate change. As ocean acidification eventually may threaten the photosynthesis processes that supply much of the world's oxygen, it is a crisis perhaps even beyond atmospheric warming.
Read Richard Muller's comments again, carefully this time. These large changes to the climate are occurring in a micro-second rather than the long periods associated with natural climate change.
I don't care what anyone believes regarding matters of science. I don't care if someone believes that the human race was created 6,000 years ago and co-existed with dinosaurs. Why should I care if someone believes that global warming is all or in part a natural process?
Climate change isn't a matter of faith. It's a matter of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning.
We could solve all of our problems as a nation and a species, and still be in the dumpster if all nations and individuals don't start dealing with climate change aggressively, and, for that matter, the size of the human population. This is impossible when many American leaders, both political and in the media, and a large percentage of our population are so dismissive of, and even condescending towards, the world's leading climate scientists. We are a joke in much of the developed world.
My hunch is that on many issues we would agree quite a bit. For me, however, climate change is a preeminent concern.
Yes in the 70s kids were told another ice age was in our distant future. And no, global warming was not mentioned until the las 20yrs... That's a fact..
That's your so-called fact. Prove it.
Perhaps one or two scientists and a Newsweek cover talked about a global cooling. Once, I actually read an article about the Newsweek cover story written by its author. It obliterated your idea of the presentation of a "fact."
Nothing detracts from today's avalanche of empirical evidence about the onslaught of climate change. Was the Greenland ice shield disintegrating in the 1970s?
The fact is that you confuse your IMO lazy beliefs with empirical facts. They are not the same.
Why should I believe you, O'Brien, Republican politician puppits of the fossil fuel industry (whose financial windfall from belittling climate change apparently is no concern to you), etc. over the likes of Richard Muller and an entire host of accomplished scientists and mathematicians who have dedicated their careers to researching climate change issues?
Perhaps one or two scientists and a Newsweek cover talked about a global cooling. Once, I actually read an article about the Newsweek cover story written by its author. It obliterated your idea of the presentation of a "fact."
Nothing detracts from today's avalanche of empirical evidence about the onslaught of climate change. Was the Greenland ice shield disintegrating in the 1970s?
The fact is that you confuse your IMO lazy beliefs with empirical facts. They are not the same.
Why should I believe you, O'Brien, Republican politician puppits of the fossil fuel industry (whose financial windfall from belittling climate change apparently is no concern to you), etc. over the likes of Richard Muller and an entire host of accomplished scientists and mathematicians who have dedicated their careers to researching climate change issues?
Look pal, I told you what I was taught. Nowni have to prove **** I was taught in the 70s?? And now you are starting name calling and keep repeating yourself. Obviously you are hell bent on your agenda. You lost all credibility with me on this post. Ps- I'm good at name calling also. Far left environmental wack job seems appropriate for you.
Look pal, I told you what I was taught. Nowni have to prove **** I was taught in the 70s?? And now you are starting name calling and keep repeating yourself. Obviously you are hell bent on your agenda. You lost all credibility with me on this post. Ps- I'm good at name calling also. Far left environmental wack job seems appropriate for you.
Obviously, the wack jobs are those individuals who believe that they know more than accomplished scientists.
BTW, those trying to preserve the planet by definition are conservatives.
Only deluded individuals hell-bent on accelerating the ongoing destruction of our environment would label themselves conservatives.
Yes in the 70s kids were told another ice age was in our distant future. And no, global warming was not mentioned until the las 20yrs... That's a fact.. I guess the brilliant scientists of the seventies were wrong. Maybe these brilliant scientists of today are smarter and correct about climate change... BTW how come the weathermen can't predict an accurate 5 day forecast? Just saying.
I graduated in 1995, but I remember learning about ice ages in the 6th and/or 7th grades. Yes, in about 80k years, (very distant future, indeed) we'll probably be in another ice age. As for when global warming started entering the national consciousness, I know it was more than 20 years ago. I know this because I remember hearing a joke on the radio about how President Bush wanted to put the global warming issue on the back burner. I remember where I was at that moment, (for some reason...) but I don't remember when. But, the exact date I heard the joke doesn't matter in this context, because we moved out of that apartment in the spring of 1992.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
