New Trend: Climate Optimists Say Climate Change Won’t Be So Bad

Don’t worry, big guy; climate optimists say you’ll be fine on a warming planet .
Don’t worry, big guy; climate optimists say you’ll be fine on a warming planet.

We all have that crazy uncle who shows up at family reunions, trying to convince us that climate change isn’t real and Barack Obama was born in Kenya. But maybe you also have a relative who tells you he welcomes climate change because he’s looking forward to the warmer weather in his chilly hometown.

Accepting that climate change is happening but putting a positive spin on the consequences is a growing view in the climate skeptic camp, Slate reports. And this new “climate optimism” was on full display at the last week’s ninth International Conference on Climate Change, billed as an “International Gathering of Scientists Skeptical of Man-Caused Global Warming.” Held ironically enough in drought-stricken Las Vegas, the event was organized by the Heartland Institute, which proudly proclaims that the Economist has called it “the world’s most prominent think tank supporting skepticism of man-made climate change.”

“I don’t think anybody in this room denies climate change,” James M. Taylor, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, said in a speech at the conference, Slate reported. “We recognize it, but we’re looking more at the causes, and more importantly, the consequences.”

That’s right – the climate change debate is moving beyond denial and even a “discussion” of its sources to focus on its effects – and frankly, these climate skeptics say, it won’t be so bad.

Earlier this year, the Heartland Institute published a report, “Climate Change Reconsidered II,” which came to the conclusion that the benefits of changing climatic conditions “greatly exceed any plausible estimate of its costs.” The study was compiled by a group of scientists satirically calling themselves the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC); the NIPCC says it is able to offer a “second opinion” to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which, by the way, recently announced that climate change’s impacts are going to be worse than previously predicted.

Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will actually be advantageous to plants, the report says, in what sounds like a fourth grader’s scientific train of thought: Plants will grow faster, bear more fruit, and develop a greater resistance to drought and pests. Wildlife — even the polar bears – will thrive as warmer temperatures broaden their habitat, according to the report, although the polar bears struggling to grasp to thawing ice in the “Planet Earth” documentary series might tell a different story. And coral bleaching caused by warmer oceans? No problem, the NIPCC says; coral has survived previous warming periods just fine.

The real threat to the planet, the report’s authors contend, is cutting back on our use of fossil fuels because we are concerned about climate change’s negative impacts.

“Dramatically reducing the use of fossil fuels would have devastating effects on workers and consumers of both the developed and developing worlds, leading to severe hardship and even deaths,” the Heartland Institute writes in a press release.

You heard them right: Don’t worry about the increased floods, drought, disease and famine caused by climate change – or the 150,000 extra deaths each year the World Health Organization predicts due to rising temperatures. Instead, we should fear the consequences of stronger regulations that lead to a healthy environment and a transition from a fossil-fuel-based, monopolistic economy to a growing green economy that relies on clean-burning renewables.

The NIPCC’s recommendations – rolling back environmental legislation, “responsible” development of fossil fuels and overall “free-market environmentalism” – truly reveal their and other climate skeptics’ beef with climate action advocacy. This isn’t a debate about the causes of climate change or how severe its effects will be; it’s an argument for maintaining business as usual, instead of dramatically changing how we live and work to keep our planet and ourselves healthy.

But an even more troubling question remains: With over 50 percent of Americans admitting they worry about climate change very little or not at all, will this new “climate optimism” put up another barrier to addressing climate change?

Image credit: Flickr/Sharon M Leon

Passionate about both writing and sustainability, Alexis Petru is freelance journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area whose work has appeared on Earth911, Huffington Post and Prior to working as a writer, she coordinated environmental programs for Bay Area cities and counties. Connect with Alexis on Twitter at @alexispetru

Alexis Petru

Passionate about both writing and sustainability, Alexis Petru is freelance journalist and communications consultant based in the San Francisco Bay Area whose work has appeared on Earth911, Huffington Post and Prior to working as a writer, she coordinated environmental programs for various Bay Area cities and counties for seven years. She has a degree in cultural anthropology from UC Berkeley.

168 responses

  1. More extreme weather events have occurred in periods of global cooling than in periods of global warming.
    Of course climate changes. So does weather. It is the reason for change that alludes us.

    1. Wrong! The reasons for the current global warming are well known and completely understood. There is not the least confusion about this issue, and those who ignore the factual, scientific, mathematical reality are either ignorant or corrupt, and in most cases corrupt.

      1. There’s a reason the left has changed vernacular; Global Warming is now Climate Change and Sea Level Rise is now Storm Surge.

        Scientists have not been able to demonstrate a correlation with their radical CO2 warming theories, so they now repackage their movement with even vaguer wording.

        1. “There’s a reason the left has changed vernacular”

          Aha! It all becomes clear now. You are one of those deluded right wing nuts with such faith in your ideology that you think it outranks science if science disagrees with your unrealistic wishful thinking. And before your warped mental filters tune that out because you think I am a lefty, you couldn’t be more wrong. It is a source of deep regret to me that sensible conservative ideas have been twisted by the American extreme right into a form of irrational mental pathology.

    2. That CREDO is not quite clean.

      If things are changing the one or the other way and in a rather turbulent and chaotic, unpredictable way on local and small scale level, then there will allways be extreemes and “quite unprecedented” events “in recent time”, either positive or negative.

      Severe droughts are really more dangerous and cathastrophic than Fimbul- winters and even floods.

  2. Ice core data [ not computer models] have shown that ice ages come and they go. At the maximum of the ice age, sea levels are 400 feet lower. Then comes a warming phase for 20,000 years with significant sea level rise, followed by a sharp transition to 80,000 years of cooling. In the last 800,000 years this has happened 8 times. Does any computer model show this happening in our future? After all we are about 20,000 years since the end of the last age. From all the scaremongering it appears that 97% of climate scientists believe we have had our last ice age. I think not.

    1. Rob- This is not about cycles of ice age and warming periods. It is about the excess CO2 in our atmosphere that is trapping our heat and warming our planet. Of course there will be other ice ages, just not anywhere near the next 100 years, when we will be dealing with global warming. We are already seeing the effects of climate change. It is highly unlikely that it will slam on it’s brakes and then go into an ice age!

      1. where did you get you misinformation from

        “excess CO2 in our atmosphere that is trapping our heat and warming our planet” is not supported by real science and is not real

        1. i would have to considered physics to be real.
          “excess CO2 in our atmosphere that is trapping our heat and warming our planet” is not supported in real science but is a pseudo-scientific classic.
          The most dangerous citizen is not armed but uninformed.

        2. “excess CO2 in our atmosphere that is trapping our heat and warming our planet”

          if you say so, educate me then with real validated science with validated experimentation as proof

    2. 97% of climate scientists believe we have had our last ice age? Do you consider that equally as factual as ANYTHING the Heartland Institute puts out? Or are they both, as I suspect, simply rhetoric which has zero basis in fact, and IN FACT, makes your statement the same garbage…

      1. I keep hearing of this 97% Do have the exact statement they agreed to ?
        Also do you have a list of the names of this 97% or where I can find it?
        The 97% number seems to be a convenient way of implying there should be no debate.

        1. Debate is fine. But the science has already agreed to the fact of AGW. The only people unconvinced are those who do not understand what the data is and the conclusions it provides. You are right about the ice core data being important, but wrong about your conclusions regarding it. The data shows numerous advances and retreats in ice sheets which follow a set of very predictable causes and are cyclical and relatively predictable because of this. Out of the 15-20 known glacial and interglacial periods over 100,000+ years, there is only one time period where the cyclical trend runs opposite to the way it has always run before. That time period coincides with the industrial revolution. The data shows that while everything should be getting cooler, it is doing the opposite. That is what scientists agree to with 97% consensus, that and that the only variable of change with the current trend that is nonconsistent with every other period in the geologic record is anthropogenic.

        2. No issue that we have global warming. It has been warming for the best part of 20,000 years.
          No issue with mankind being responsible for C02 levels being higher than they ever been before. Since the last ice age we have billions more people emitting C02 every time they exhale. We have billions more critters [ that humans like eating] but do emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. A large number of people have a comfortable lifestyle based on the development of fossil fuel power stations. We love our motor cars. With all this it is not surprising that atmospheric C02 levels have passed 400ppm.
          As you say there are numerous advances and retreats in temperature. Currently we are still below the “high” temperatures of previous cycles so I do not agree with the conclusion you draw.
          I am still interested in the list of names making up the 97%

        3. Only been 10,000 years since last ice age. Should be entering another as they are approx 10,000 year cycles. Instead heating up, contrary to the norm. For list of scientists in consensus, contact the geology department of any accredited university, ask to speak to ANY geologist. Ask them their opinion on AGW. I know you will get 97 to 100% consensus.

        4. The great lake Missoula first emptied after the ice dam breached between 13,000 and 15,000 years ago. To accumulate the 500 cubic miles of water that emptied in 50 hours must have taken a few thousand years so I think your 10,000 years since the last ice age is absolutely wrong.
          The fundamental question of the climate debate is ” Do you believe the computer models to be accurate or not?”
          I’ll grant you the accuracy of 5 day, local weather forecasts have improved significantly over the past 30 years even if we still occasionally get sandbagged. However, forecasting climate decades ahead is totally different.
          I believe if I asked all those involved if they believed there was uncertainty in their models, then yes – at least 97% would agree. If I asked them if they were 97% accurate I suspect the number would be less than 3%

        5. Geologists call the end of the most recent ice age The Wisconsin glacial period and the end of it is considered to be 10,000 years before present. Of course, as with any geology, there is a +/- worked in as a fudge factor, which leads to your next statement, which of course, I agree that nobody claims the models to be 97% accurate, that is absurd, but I would estimate them at greater than 75%. Accurate enough to know what will happen, not accurate enough to place a date, time, and month of the year on them. But that is of little relevance in geology anyways. The fundamental question of climate change has NEVER been whether or not the models are accurate. Those are visual aides that continue development as more volumes of data are accumulated. That isn’t the most important aspect by a longshot, it just creates images that laymen can grab onto to get an idea of the seriousness of the issue.

        6. Surely the end of the Wisconsin glacial period was when Lake Agassiz breached its ice dam. The lake was formed by the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet and happened much later than the breaching of the lake Missoula ice dams – that lake being formed by the Cordilleran sheet.
          Government policy is being driven all over the world, without exception by the output of computer models. Recently some scientific bodies such as the Geological Society of Australia have announced that they will not make any statements on climate change because of the massive divisions in their society making it impossible to reach any form of consensus. I will not be surprised to hear similar sentiments from the American Physical Society.
          Science has always had a ” Trust but Verify” mantra. With Climate Change Scientists, although they receive public funding, they vehemently refuse to allow third party audits of either their model or of the data used. Recently Prof. Mann won a case in court so he could keep his secret. It was somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory as he was awarded $250 in damages which cannot have covered too much of the legal expense.

        7. Jeffronimo – you are right, science has already agreed to the fact of AGW. But here is the thing – they have NOT agreed to “C”AGW – “C” as in Catastrophic.
          I do not dispute that nearly all scientists believe that the earth is warming and that humans contribute, perhaps substantially, to that warming. That is the AGW position, and most people being called skeptics and deniers are actually in agreement with this, and have been for some time.
          But the CAGW position goes much further than this, and does NOT nearly represent the majority of climate scientists (please provide a link if you can document otherwise).
          CAGW believers foresee the highest annual increases in temperature being amplified by the highest possible feedbacks, causing the most severe consequences, and that all of this is being almost completely caused by human activity. For the CAGW believers, there is now middle ground, and anyone who even has the slightest doubt over their conclusions is a denier.
          There should be a robust debate between those who accept the AGW claims, but have doubts about the CAGW claims. However, it is the CAGW side which does not want that to happen. And frankly, that resistance just makes me doubt the CAGW claims all the more.

        8. CAGW is not a term that the overwhelming majority – the consensus – of the science uses. It is not the IPCC position, it is a strawman term invented by the denialosphere as part of their deceitful rhetoric. What the mainstream science actually says is that depending on how much and how fast emissions increase we will face a range of possible outcomes depending on how much and how fast action is taken to alter those changes to emissions.These possible outcomes range from acceptable to tolerable to uncomfortable to dangerous through to catastrophic. The earlier and faster we mitigate emissions the less risk we expose ourselves and our families and our descendants to.

          What those who plug the “it won’t be bad” line ignore is 1) virtually none of the credentialled scientists working in the field agree with them 2) Even if the “sceptic” view has a trace of credibility, and it largely comes down to the opinions of Lindzen and Spencer, we cannot tell in advance who is correct because the only way we can find out for 100% sure who is right is to run the atmospheric experiment, trouble is we’re all in the test tube and, if majority science proves right, our goose is cooked. If the microscopic minority of Lindzen etc are right there will be a lot of egg on scientific faces but how lucky do you feel?

          Is there a dangerous climate change bullet left in Dirty Harry’s magnum or just a bit of welcome warmth? The denialosphere and the psuedo-sceptics are arrogantly asserting that they know there is no dangerous bullet left. We all know what happened to the arrogant punk in the film. Considering that the true chance they are inviting us to take, based upon their cock sure assertions of safety involves everyone on earth and all the other life too… do you feel lucky, punks?

        9. To quote you: “What the mainstream science actually says is … possible outcomes [of climate change] range from acceptable to tolerable to uncomfortable to dangerous through to catastrophic.”
          Right, I agree 100%. So then you would also agree that those mainstream climate scientists who lean more toward a likely outcome ranging from acceptable to tolerable are not “deniers”, right? And you would agree that it would be a good thing to have more research, discussion, and (gasp) even debate as we try to more clearly define and narrow what the range of likely outcomes may be, right?
          And you would agree that, with regard to which of these outcomes on this range of outcomes is more likely to occur, on THAT point, the science is not “settled” and the debate is not “certain”, right?

          Please let me know if we agree on the above, since that is what really matters much more than the origin or even the accuracy of the CAGW label.

        10. “So then you would also agree that those mainstream climate scientists
          who lean more toward a likely outcome ranging from acceptable to
          tolerable are not “deniers”, right?”

          Ermm – you are aware that the denial in denialism refers to the psychological denial of the threat that it poses. No-one can empirically be 100% certain that they are right about how the climate cookie will end up crumbling but when the vast majority who publish in the field say there is a significant threat (even the oil companies agree too) and a tiny minority say there isn’t, which position is safest to ignore when you are trying to establish policy?

          “And you would agree that, with regard to which of these outcomes on this
          range of outcomes is more likely to occur, on THAT point, the science
          is not “settled” and the debate is not “certain””

          Ermm, you’re not another who doesnt get contingency forecasts, are you? It’s not that one group of scientists is saying we face one type of outcome and other groups say we face different outcomes. The science gives a range of outcomes for a range of changes to atmospheric CO2 levels from emissions. The physics of the atmosphere is well enough known to be able to predict accurately the equilibrium increases in heat input to the planetary ocean/land/atmospheric systems per any increased level of CO2. It’s absolutely not various factions claiming different outcomes. The science is pretty certain that IF we double or triple CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels we are definitely screwed. Ironically, even if the “climate sensitivity is low” types like Lindzen are right, doubling or tripling or quadrupling emissions (which would be far more likely if people were lulled into a false sense of security by the naysayers and took no action to mitigate emssions) would still be enough to screw humanity – it would just be put off until about 2100

        11. Ermmm – I’m pretty sure that you will not be able to back up your claim that “the vast majority who publish in the field say there is a significant threat”.
          Naturally, you can provide references to show that the vast majority believe that to which I have already agreed – that the earth is warming, that to some degree (on a wide range) it is being caused by humans and that to some degree (on a wide range) it will have consequences. Beyond that wide-ranging consensus, there is no reference you can provide that will show that almost all climate scientists believe that the likely consequences are not on a wide range, but rather on a narrow range which is catastrophic on the either the low or the high side.

          And actually, if you did want to assert that almost all scientists take that view, then wouldn’t you be affirming the appropriateness of the “CAGW” label, which you previously claimed was some kind of misrepresentation of that view?

          Anyway, I invite you to try to prove me wrong with regard to how you are characterizing the consensus as being one which says that the consequences of global warming are almost certainly going to be catastrophic.

        12. “Ermmm – I’m pretty sure that you will not be able to back up your claim
          that “the vast majority who publish in the field say there is a
          significant threat”.


          “Anyway, I invite you to try to prove me wrong with regard to how you are
          characterizing the consensus as being one which says that the
          consequences of global warming are almost certainly going to be

          Don’t any of you lot actually read what is written? Read again the bit I wrote about CONTINGENCY FORECASTS.
          IF we double or triple CO2 levels THEN we are screwed. The overwhelming majority of publishing climate scientists would verify that. This is so blatantly and obviously in the enormous volumes of published literature that I regard your demands to be shown it as just typical pseudo-sceptical rhetoric. It is not possible to be genuinely aware of the science and not know this – of course, if you uncritically accept what the denialosphere misrepresent the science as to their minions…

          You keep seeming to mistakenly translate a possible outcome of catastrophe if certain actions are not taken, and current emission levels continue into meaning that I am saying that the vast majority say we will have a catastrophe. I fail to see how you find it so hard to grasp. What science says is IF we do nothing and continue to rapidly increase CO2 levels at top levels THEN we WILL have a catastrophe but if we do something different so that levels stabilise or reduce then we won’t. If you don’t get that simple point, then there is no point arguing with you – just go back to believing the featherbrained garbage that the denialosphere pump out to fool the gullble.

        13. A link – noticeably missing – is worth a thousand words. Show me one link that shows a credible consensus for catastrophe.
          If you can’t, I disbelieve your rant.
          If you can, I’ll have to think again.

        14. Beware! Very long and complex answer follows.

          I normally don’t supply the demands of sceptics/deniers for soundbite proof because of very long experience as to what usually happens if one does, but you seem as if your mind isn’t rigidly snapped shut and just might listen. Putting this together took a good couple of hours plus. Please don’t just turn a blind eye.

          If we continue along RCP 8.5 (see definition later) the consensus of credentialled evidence is that we will suffer at least an increase in average planetary temperature of 4°C+ by 2100 which still doesn’t sound drastic until you realise that the globally averaged surface temperature of Earth is about 15°C which shows up the huge relative changes we face if we don’t rein back emissions. Historically, the difference from now to an ice age with miles of ice over America and Europe was only about -5°C… Elsewhere, I point out that global warming will continue upwards after 2100.

          Here are the best simple extracts I can find that will hopefully satisfy your demand for links that show that there are no opposed factions of scientists who say “it will warm so much”, others who say “it will warm a different amount”, other groups who say it will be benign and others who say it will be catastrophic. This is simply not how the reality is.

          What you will see in the graphs linked to is the full range of possible outcomes depending on how we react to reduce or increase emissions according to the RCPs (see definitions of RCPs later) that I mentioned. These conclusions are formulated from the consensus of evidence accumulated to date. The denialist industry completely misrepresents the current scientific position by trying to use “divide and conquer” strategies. They cherry pick isolated “sound bites” and assert fallaciously that these snippets support their position that there is considerable disaagreement and remaining debate left in the science. They rely on the opinions of a tiny minority of dissenting scientists’ work that seems to conflict with the vast majority. All science has a handful of mavericks who dispute assorted theories. Just because they exist doesn’t mean that it is sensible to listen only to them – particularly if the consequences of listening their maverick views is that appropriate action on emissions is taken too late, not enough or not at all. It is a sad fact that too often the vast majority of armchair sceptics/deniers rarely if ever check the source material out.

          First download the IPCC “Summary for policy makers” – it’s a simplified version of the main document but that is 1552 pages long…

          scroll to page 27 then see

          E.8 Climate Stabilization, Climate Change Commitment and Irreversibility

          Next you need to be familiar with what the various RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways) in the box in the graph on page 28 mean. They are defined in Box SPM.1 on page 29 as follows:

          “For the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC, the scientific community has defined a set of four new scenarios, denoted
          Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs, see Glossary). They are identified by their approximate total
          radiative forcing in year 2100 relative to 1750: 2.6 W m-2 for RCP2.6, 4.5 W m-2 for RCP4.5, 6.0 W m-2 for RCP6.0,
          and 8.5 W m-2 for RCP8.5. For the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) results, these values
          should be understood as indicative only, as the climate forcing resulting from all drivers varies between models
          due to specific model characteristics and treatment of short-lived climate forcers. These four RCPs include one
          mitigation scenario leading to a very low forcing level (RCP2.6), two stabilization scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP6),
          and one scenario with very high greenhouse gas emissions (RCP8.5). The RCPs can thus represent a range of 21st
          century climate policies, as compared with the no-climate policy of the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
          (SRES) used in the Third Assessment Report and the Fourth Assessment Report. For RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, radiative
          forcing does not peak by year 2100; for RCP2.6 it peaks and declines; and for RCP4.5 it stabilizes by 2100. Each
          RCP provides spatially resolved data sets of land use change and sector-based emissions of air pollutants, and it
          specifies annual greenhouse gas concentrations and anthropogenic emissions up to 2100. RCPs are based on a
          combination of integrated assessment models, simple climate models, atmospheric chemistry and global carbon
          cycle models. While the RCPs span a wide range of total forcing values, they do not cover the full range of emissions
          in the literature, particularly for aerosols.
          Most of the CMIP5 and Earth System Model simulations were performed with prescribed CO2 concentrations
          reaching 421 ppm (RCP2.6), 538 ppm (RCP4.5), 670 ppm (RCP6.0), and 936 ppm (RCP 8.5) by the year 2100.
          Including also the prescribed concentrations of CH4 and N2O, the combined CO2-equivalent concentrations are 475
          ppm (RCP2.6), 630 ppm (RCP4.5), 800 ppm (RCP6.0), and 1313 ppm (RCP8.5). For RCP8.5, additional CMIP5 Earth
          System Model simulations are performed with prescribed CO2 emissions as provided by the integrated assessment
          models. For all RCPs, additional calculations were made with updated atmospheric chemistry data and models
          (including the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate component of CMIP5) using the RCP prescribed emissions
          of the chemically reactive gases (CH4, N2O, HFCs, NOx, CO, NMVOC). These simulations enable investigation of
          uncertainties related to carbon cycle feedbacks and atmospheric chemistry”

          Figure SPM.10 on page 28 shows where we will end up with various RCPs up until 2100. Of course global warming would not stop on December 31st 2100 but would continue on, particularly in the high emissions scenarios as the longer term feedbacks kick in. The caption to SPM.10 is;

          “Figure SPM.10 | SPM Summary for Policymakers

          Global mean surface temperature increase as a function of cumulative total global CO2 emissions from various lines of evidence. Multi-model results from a hierarchy of climate-carbon cycle models for each RCP until 2100 are shown with coloured lines and decadal means (dots). Some decadal means are labeled for clarity (e.g., 2050 indicating the decade 2040−2049). Model results over the historical period (1860 to 2010) are indicated in black. The coloured plume illustrates the multi-model spread over the four RCP scenarios and fades with the decreasing number of available models in RCP8.5. The multi-model mean and range simulated by CMIP5 models, forced by a CO2 increase of 1% per year (1% yr exponent–1 CO2 simulations), is given by the thin black line and grey area. For a specific amount of cumulative CO2 emissions, the 1% per year CO2 simulations exhibit lower warming than those driven by RCPs, which include additional non-CO2 forcings. Temperature values are given relative to the 1861−1880 base period, emissions relative to 1870. Decadal averages are connected by straight lines. For further technical details see the Technical Summary Supplementary Material. {Figure 12.45;
          TS TFE.8, Figure 1”

          Hopefully you can fill in the gaps and see that any apparent widespread variations in the predictions are an artifact of 1) deliberate or unconscious misrepresentation and 2) media articles being dumbed down and sensationalised

        15. I’ll look into this in more detail later, but my first comment relates to:
          “f we continue along RCP 8.5 (see definition later) the consensus of credentialled evidence is that we will suffer at least an increase in average planetary temperature of 4°C+ by 2100”


          The graph on page p 19 shows the outcome of RCP 8.5 to be on a range between 2.6 to 4.8 degrees by 2100.

          So if a scientist concludes it is highly likely to be 2.6, is he a denier? And along the same line, if another claims it will almost certainly be 4.8, is he an alarmist?

          Yes, the “mean” is 3.7, which you seem to have rounded uo to 4 … which I wouldn’t nitpick over, except for the fact that you say ” at least an increase in average planetary temperature of 4°C+” … so shouldn’t that be ” at least an increase in average planetary temperature of 2.6°C”?

        16. Nice thoughtful reply. I have no graph on p19. What is the “figure number” of this graph? Do you mean SPM.7A? That range looks like about 2.8°C – 5.4°C to me with a mean of 4.1°C in the error bars.

          You wrote: “So if a scientist concludes it is highly likely to be 2.6, is he a denier?”
          Kind of. Because, taking your figure of 2.6°C, it is at the extreme negative limit of the confidence estimates. In any event no legit scientist worth his salt, would say such a single figure – the predictions are all a range of values with confidence estimates. Highest confidence is for the the figure of 4°C+ IF we continue to increase emissions at the top end of the rates we have been doing

          “And along the same line, if another claims it will almost certainly be 4.8, is he an alarmist?”

          Yes. He too is not speaking as a scientist here. If he is in a public forum and says that IF we continue to increase emissions and take no other action, then we are risking a high chance of catastrophe by 2100, no.

          If you feel insulted by some of my words I apologise but consider this. Our positions are not equivalent. You doubt the science and think it might all be overblown or overly alarmist. Thus my side is seen as probably foolish and crying wolf. My side sees further unwarrented claims for delay until more research has been done as being directly antagonistic not only to my furture comfort but my children’s and grandchildren’s very survival in a decent world. Naturally we respond more energetically to those spreading, whether they know it or not, crafted doubt and uncertainty.

          Ironically, it is the “milder end” of the denier/sceptic/contarian scientist spectrum who I regard as the most dangerous precisely because their disingenous requests for more research or more certainty seem quite reasonable to anyone who hasn’t seen the evolution of the denialist movement’s tactics since the 80s like I have. They certainly seem sensible to many members of the voting general public who, after all, are the ones who need to be convinced of the need for action and who are the actual target of the “doubt and uncertainty” propaganda.

          BTW, I’m not just some randon internet poster. I have significant credentials in the field of public perception of denialism and the science. I’m not being alarmis whenIttel you that many climate scientists are actually extremely scared for their future. At a fairly recent AGU conference, in private conversation, at least four earth scientists admitted to making survival retreat plans for their families because of the slow/stationary rast of progress in reducing emissions – they feel as if the political window of opportunity is either closing or has shut to avoid a fair amount of the bad projections. Ominously, they hinted that they knew of “many more” who would not even speak off the record who were also considering their future safety.

          There seems to be a thread in denialism which portrays the consensus position as presented in the IPCC publications as being the most alarming slant that can be put on the science. In fact the reverse is true. The IPCC position is not only the minimum that all contributing scientists can agree on but also the even tamer minimum that the political representatives of word wide governments will all agree to. The end result is that the published IPCC science you see is pretty watered down stuff.

          I’m scared not just from the public science but more so from my behind the scenes knowledge, but I’m still slightly hopeful because in the last few months there seems to have been a ray of light shining though recent pronouncements from political types, in particular, the USA’s – although Australia is still a bit worrying. Also, as I keep pointing out, the fossil fuel companies have now dropped their delaying and clandestine sponsoring of denialist propaganda and now have full statements on their corporate websites accpting not only the science but also their pivotal role and responsibility to reduce the net emissions from their products quite fast and far.

        17. I think that both acknowledging the consensus range of outcomes AND being consistent (as you were) toward any unwarranted certainty with regard to either claiming that the upper or lower result is what WILL occur is sensible. That being said, the question then becomes whether this or other ranges are narrow enough to motivate world leaders to act, or whether more research is so these prediction can fall within narrower range. That is naturally a question for policy makers, not for scientists, and if they indeed do (as they seem to, at least for the biggies like us) require a more defined range, then in THAT sense, the science is not settled, because more is required.

        18. My background is more in the data of CO2 cycle in regards to AGW than in the modeling (which I believe is more of an engineering take on it). The modeling does lean towards the worst case scenarios, because you prepare for the worst. Even in a best case scenario, millions of people are displaced, droughts are rampant and crops suffer, and insect bourne diseases go wild. The models come with a good approach in my opinion though, because people won’t be willing to change anything if they think it won’t affect them or their children. And I live in the Mojave desert and work about half my week outside where summer temps reach 115 for about 50 days of the year and over a hundred for another 50. So a single degree F is a real friggin catastrophe that has a real consequence in my personal opinion.

        19. Finally, what appears to be an attempt to engage in an adult, respectful, insult-free, and detail oriented conversation – THANK YOU!. My main point all along is that this is the only way both the ordinary people AND the decision makers of the world are going to tune into this issue and take it seriously; if the legitimate doubts that some have with regard to the possible range of outcomes – along with how that would affect the best course of action – are thoughtfully considered and discussed.
          Now, your point about putting an emphasis on the worst case scenario because it is important to prepare for the worst is a very good point. However, I would also point out that it would be much more effective and persuasive if it was simply acknowledged that this was the main reason for that emphasis, and NOT that there was some irrefutable science which showed that a catastrophic outcome was both imminent and certain.
          Clearly, it has been that kind of over-reach in the past which has resulted in failed, premature prediction and has only fueled more doubt – fairly or unfairly – over the current reliability of this science. The fact is that the mainstream science still agrees that there is a wide range of possible outcomes. And while the concept of preparing for the worst is a VERY good argument, it is NOT either a good or a persuasive strategy for either climate scientists or their supporters to appear to be unable to consider any other opinions or predictions which do not correspond to the more severe end of that range.
          Observational data has been building which would appear – and I’ll emphasize, appear – to contradict those predictions. So this means that – fairly or unfairly – those who are predicting an almost certain catastrophe will be increasingly doubted if they seem like they are unwilling to consider either the observational data or the opinions of those who have doubts, either based on this date, or their own scientific research or both.

        20. Anything you may have to say is irrelevant as you are quite clearly an agenda drive special interest agent of the misinformation agenda.

        21. Well of course a rational explanation of how I am right would be irrelevant to an ignorant person. As a scientist, I have no agenda, but I do enjoy explaining to people like you how you are wrong, just to see how deeply some are willing to bury their heads in the sand. As I said, the key word here is ignorant. And the picture is yours, and your ankle deep, upside down, in the sand.

        22. What do you consider a ‘fact’? Does Rush Limbaugh have to say it or your bartender?

        23. are you not familiar with the 99 to the UN letter.

          Climate Change models do not make forecasts but merely projections which depend on the plausibility of the model parameters and of the futures scenario details.
          These projections have never been validated by comparison
          with a full range of future observations

          Claims of the IPCC are heavily dependent on their opinion that they can successfully show changes in mean global temperature.. Temperature is an intensive property, like mass or velocity. It can only exist where it is uniform throughout any material. The globe does not have a temperature.

          Also there is currently no method available to measure an average temperature of its surface.

          Hansen at . claims that even the measurement of a single value is “:elusive”

        24. I looked up your sources, because unlike you I am a learner. The temperature article (if you read the whole thing) is just an explanation of why one type of temperature is used (anomolous temps) as opposed to mean temps (which fluctuate constantly as they are taken and from different vantage points so are of no value to the study). It is an explanation, you take it to mean temperatures are not real. That is quite a ridiculous jump, but then, it’s you. The “99 to the UN letter” took a minute but I found it. And now I see that your reason for claiming all scientists are involved in a conspiracy to fake AGW is because an independent group of environmental activists called One World Trust wrote a letter to the UN stating their opinions and goals for an environmentally friendly planet. So a group that has ZERO to do with science, writes a letter to a world assemblage of ambassadors that also don’t have anything to do with science, and your conclusion is that because of that correspondence, science is faked? That is like throwing out the baby with the trash because your neighbor sneezed. It follows no logical train of thought. Again though, it’s what you do.

        25. Interested in how you arrived at the conclusion that these are not scientist
          how did you arrive at this conclusion “your conclusion is that because of that correspondence, science is faked,”
          i find it hard to imagine the justification for ignoring this large group of scientist who could more than likely contribute in some way.

          So a group that has ZERO to do with science, writes a letter to a world
          assemblage of ambassadors that also don’t have anything to do with
          science, and your conclusion is that because of that correspondence,
          science is faked?

          The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments
          from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to
          conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.

          Yours faithfully,

          The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon,Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

          Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
          William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
          Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
          Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
          Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
          Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
          Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
          Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
          Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
          Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
          R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
          Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
          Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
          Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
          David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
          Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
          Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
          Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
          Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
          Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
          Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
          David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia
          William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
          Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
          R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics andPlanetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa
          Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
          Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
          Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
          Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
          Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The GreenhouseDelusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
          William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
          Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
          Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
          Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
          Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
          Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
          Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
          Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, NSW, Australia
          Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
          Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
          Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
          David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
          Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
          William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s
          Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
          Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
          Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
          Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
          The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
          Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
          David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
          Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment,CNRS
          Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
          William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
          Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
          A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
          Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
          Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
          Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
          John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
          Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
          Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
          John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
          Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
          Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
          Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University
          Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
          Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia
          Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
          Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
          John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
          David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
          James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
          Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
          Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
          R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
          Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
          Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
          Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
          Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
          Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M.Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
          R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
          Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
          Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
          Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
          Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
          S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
          L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
          Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
          Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology),
          Stockholm, Sweden
          Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
          Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
          Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
          Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
          Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
          Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
          Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics
          Berlin, Germany
          Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
          David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
          Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
          A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

          Do you recall hearing anything of it? It was not published by any American major media nor has anything about it ever been published. Instead UN people continue to say “97%
          of all scientists believe in man-caused global warming” and that is not true.

  3. Good article. I don’t have a problem with people questioning the actual effects of climate change (there is indeed a lot we can’t predict). The problem is that all too often these people are the same ones invested in fossil fuel and other old-school industries that would rather not change.

    Climate change might indeed be less of a problem in some areas. But I would still advise against buying real estate in Miami Beach.

    1. With or without climate change – investing in shoreline property has always been risky. In fact, the ease with which so many are able to accept the risks that come with building or buying a house on the shore can, to some degree, explain why some many are willing to make a similar trade-off when it comes to getting a present-day benefit from fossil fuels compared to a maybe-some-day risk of consequences from climate change.
      How about those mansions that are not only build on the shore, but right near a cliff that overlooks a shoreline? Unfathomable – with or without climate change.
      And yet there are many rich and powerful people wiling to take those risks in order to maintain the lifestyle that they currently want to enjoy.

    1. So do I. There are a few who claim it will be worse than the majority of the science suggests. There are a tiny minority of scientists who claim it will be less bad. As we don’t have two identical planets to conduct empirical experiments with, basic risk analysis shows that we cannot take the chance that things will be benign

  4. Here are some facts that those supporting the “catastrophic” view of climate change have been denying for a long time:
    1) For over a dozen years now, most skeptics have not denied that the earth is warming and that human activity is part of the reason. They are accused of that, but that is because the alarmists do not want the skeptics legitimate questions about warming intensity or consequence severity to be considered. While the skeptics may have finally succeeded at getting the word out on this at their conference, it is not something new.
    2) Most IPCC scientists, while sharing concerns that the consequences of global warming could be dire, will acknowledge that continued research is needed, and of course that is why their projections keep changing (especially after an 18 year pause in warming).
    3) Most of all, the alarmists somehow believe that they can move the world powers to multi-lateral action on the climate through their hysteria, and by trying to censor and distort opposing viewpoints. That is their biggest denial of all – it is geo-political denial. You will never get all the world industrial and developing powers to make sustained and significant changes that MAY be needed to address a climate crisis this way. It will take continued research that more fully addresses some of the open questions raised by skeptics, along with a thorough analysis of the costs and risks of all alternatives, including the possibility that doing nothing now, and trying to adapt to the changes which occur, may be the best way to proceed. Nuclear also needs to be considered, since if action is needed soon, since we may need a short and mid term alternative to fossil fuels until other sources are more fully developed and ready to supply the massive amount of energy our world requires.

      1. Thank you both for providing the perfect examples of how those who hold to the catastrophic viewpoint of global warming seem determined to be as unpersuasive as possible – as if insults and non-responsive replies will motivate anyone to take them seriously. Naturally, whether or not I am convinced means nothing. But the sad truth is that the important decision makers around the globe are hearing the same kind of nonsense, which is why nothing it getting done.

        It’s almost as if those predicting doom actually WANT it to happen, just so they can say “see, I told you so”, rather than communicating in any kind of responsible and adult manner, in order to put any doubt to rest, so that those who would need to make (according to them) substantial and potentially risky changes to energy production would take them seriously.

        As for the “warmest year on record”, if the Dow goes up 15% per year, for 20 years, but then for the next 20 years goes up only 1% per year, you would still say that there is a pause, and yet, every year, it would still set a record high. So that proves nothing.

    1. That 18 year pause in warmin is another absurd hoax as long as sea level is rising and ice is melting as it does.

      it is a false statement. A doggggg- ma from the scriptures to the worshipful climate churchers., the flat- earth- believers, the earth however round being flat as a moneypewnny with 2 sides, for and against!.

        1. Hey zencycler, I suppose carbomontanus is technically on the same side as I am, but his/her comment sure isn’t very convincing.

          What I think C is trying to draw attention to is that the claimed slowdown in warming, if it isn’t illusory, is only applicable to the atmospheric temperature record. If the total planetary system is looked at – oceans, land, atmosphere, ice volume etc is evaluated, the rise in planetary heat content continues steadily ever upwards in agreement with the expectations of the science.

        2. But were those distinctions made when the warming trend was being predicted? And just how long can their be an atmospheric pause while other sectors heat up – certainly that could not continue indefinitely, and if it did, the at some point the atmospheric pause would have to give on, er, pause (pardon the pun).

          So how long of a pause would it take to give you pause?

  5. Surprising to see so much denialism in the comments here. It would take
    far too much space to show why what they state or insinuate is all wrong
    but that is because they have been fooled by the crafted rhetoric and
    misdirection spread by such as the Heartland organisation that sponsors
    this conference.

    The simple way to judge who it is wisest to “believe” in is:

    All National Academies and major scientific organisations worldwide
    have endorsed the climate science that says it is caused by us and that
    it is becoming/will continue to be a serious problem. Clear mission
    statements to this effect can be found on all their websites. Denialists
    usually insinuate that this is because they are all on the “gravy
    train” of resarch grants and funds so they are all hoaxing us but they
    will have an extremely hard job to explain why:

    2) Every major
    fossil fuel company has environmental statements prominently displayed
    on their corporate websites saying the same things – accepting the
    science and the threats. Singnificantly there is not a trace of the
    highly irresponsible and deceptive arguments used by the
    sceptic/denialists. Why would this be, if they had even a trace of
    credibility? The fossil fuel companies have the most financially to lose
    if climate science is valid, and are the most highly motivated people
    in the world to want to cling on to any scrap of hope that climate
    science might be mistaken or too “alarmist”, yet they don’t. They also
    have the most money to pay the best analysts in the world to see if
    denialists arguments are valid yet they haven’t accepted them for
    approaching a decade now.

    If you don’t believe me, pseudosceptics, check out, for example, the corporate websites of

    Exxon Mobil
    Shell Oil
    Total Oil
    CNPC (China National Petroleum Company)
    American Coal Council

    conclusion is clear. What Heartland is doing by spreading their
    pernicious doubt and uncertainty which no credible source seems to
    support any longer, apart from their tame staffer “scientists”, is just
    bad, verging on criminal.

    To finish, just to show that I’ve actually read the denialists comments here…

    Sparrow. Your seemingly plausible point shows that you don’t know
    enough about the science to understand where you go wrong. The radiative
    forcing from orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles) that sends us in and
    out of ice ages is quantitively much smaller than the forcing we are
    currently applying with our continued and accumulating fossil fuel
    emissions, land use changes etc. One of the consequences of our
    emissions is that indeed we have forestalled the next ice age which
    might be one of the few real benefits which could be argued will offset
    the much larger disbenefits to come. But this benefit will be much later
    on – thousands of years.

        1. so nothing real so now it is the bs

          Show one validate example that proves climate change or AGW.

        2. Are you deaf or blind or simply lacking in English comprehension? I have repeatedly pointed out to you and others that those who have got financially most to lose, both income wise and market share wise – the fossil fuel companies – now have clear statements on their corporate websites accepting the science. They have more money than God to employ the best analysts and advisers in the world to look at the science and see what’s true and what’s not true but – I know this will be very hard for someone like you to do, because you are severely blinded by your ideological blinkers – you have to make the connection that if even those executives and board members who would dearly love climate science not to be true now accept it, it inevitably follows that they have paid the smartest and the best to look at all the science and guess what? – they found not just one but thousands – myriads – of “validate example” of science that shows that we are altering the climate and the consequences of that, both in the short to medium term, term but particularly in the long term range between troubling through dangerous to catastrophic.

          Now which of these outcomes comes to pass depends entirely on how much civilisation listens to the overwhelming majority of validated peer reviewed science and continues to accelerate moves to reduce emissions ASAP. Or should we continue to listen to the opionated collection of crackpot eccentrics who don’t properly understand the science, get all their (pseudo)science from a handful of deluded blogs, Fox news and dodgy newspapers but loudly proclaim to any who would listen that they are sceptical of the science and thereby spread doubt and uncertainty when there is none left any more. These wannabe Galileos have incredibly little credibility yet they seem to have sucked you in!

        3. you way or no way is not science, is not intelligent debate, it is not an attempt at intellectual honesty.
          so nothing real so now it is the bs
          Show one validate example that proves climate change or AGW.

          good night

        4. The trouble is, siquijorisland, your way is absolutely NOT intelligent and, I have usually found, people like you seem incapable of realising that. What your belief system is is sheer bloody minded arrogant faith in your own opinions which have been twisted by disinformation from blogs, Fox news, opinion pieces in certain newspapers, extremist political lobby groups and insititutes. These people are contradicted by the overwhelming mass of peer reviewed science and evidence accumulated over 150 years of climate science. It is not possible to have “intelligent debate” with someone whose mind is so firmly closed shut that they can no longer comprehend simple ideas, like the fossil fuel companies’ current positions, that blow their position to pieces.

          About the science itself there IS NO DEBATE to be had any longer – there are tens of thousands of papers and millions of pages of proof
          out there yet they refuse to look at it. The only debate left is about
          what degree of climate change is sustainable without very serious
          effects and how far and fast we reduce emissions to achieve that.

          People who keep demanding they be shown proof are away with the fairies and just regurgitating a standard propaganda technique to spread doubt and uncertainty because those behind the deceit know that anybody new coming to these discussions will see the apparently reasonable comment and be fooled that there is still a debate to be had about the science.

          I am not acusing you, siquijorisland, of being devious or deceitful. but I am saying you have been sucked in by those wgho are.

        5. the problem with you is that you are foolish we are curently dealing with and emergency good night

        6. I am foolish to trust the work of tens of thousands of scientists working over many decades, some of whom I know personally? I should give credence to some randon internet commenter’s deluded self-opinionated views. That is very funny! What are you on?

        7. As i trust the scientist i have worked with more that i would trust you, and find my ten years working on various scientific projects more enlightening that any thing you have provided i am confident in my knowledge.
          however feel free to ignore anything i have to say
          i am on intellectual honesty and search for truth.

        8. I have seen you arguing over at Bloomberg. You just said

          “Bloom Box The Alternative Energy that Terrifies Obama
          Thorium reactors the safe alternative with the potential for the cancer cure and the HIV cure
          Meltdown proof BPR reactors hydrogen from waste heat waste heat desalinization
          geothermal high output 24 7 energy
          hydroelectric multiple use water generation and storage
          why has such an well informed person such as you self not mentions these better 24 7 energy alternatives
          these are all emision free”

          You may be surprised to know that I mostly agree with you on these alternative energy supplies! Where I would differ is that Obama is not terrified by the Bloom box (or Ceramic Fuel Cell of Australia) and that Thorium reactors, although promising reasonably safe abundant atomic energy are still not commercially available and we need to redce emissions now – not in 20 years.

        9. really have no ideas if he is terrified or not

          Thorium and PBR are under development in china, japan, and Korea. most likely china will develop thorium related medical treatments

          There are several PBR reactors currently under construction.
          I am quite sure waste heat hydrogen fuel generation with make Hydrogen fuel cell more available with lower cost fuels

        10. to update you two fatalities and one critical care admission.
          Do not delude yourself you know nothing about me.
          science is an ongoing investigation never settled.

      1. “so many words to say nothing”

        You didn’t read or understand my post then. Are you totally incapable of understanding the simple meaning of other people’s words? As you clearly aren’t, what would be the point of showing you a “validate example”? All you need to know is that oil company executives – people probably much smarter than you – who would dearly love the science to be invalid – no longer dispute it. That means that the people who continue to dispute it must be scientifically illiterate nutters and tinfoil hat conspiracy theory website followers.

        1. why not try something unique called intellectual honesty.
          You can not show one example because ?

        1. can you not show just one

          Show one validate example that proves climate change or AGW.

          The most dangerous citizen is not armed but uninformed.

        2. Glacier Science and Environmental Change by Peter Knight. OK that’s one. But I just told you. There are hundreds. Thousands. And they are in books and in university libraries. And you obviously have no interest in science you don’t understand. If you did, you could walk into the nearest university in the Special collections area where peer reviewed scientific papers are held. There are literally thousands of papers describing the studies. They are extremely in depth and usually make for very dry reading. I am as positive that you WON’T do that, as I am positive that you wouldn’t understand it or believe it unless Obama said it was a lie and Rush Limbaugh told you it was the truth.

        3. the key word here is validated scientific

          can you not show just one

          Show one validate example that proves climate change or AGW.

        4. Yes. I just did. It was peer reviewed and the data and conclusions therein were found to have been performed within the very strict standards of the scientific method. The people who agreed that it was performed to these rigorous standards and approved of the way the data was collected and the conclusions arrived at, was a group of people who are the authors professional competitors. This is validation in the very description of the word. It confirms the data is accurate, it confirms the conclusions are backed by official sanction of his professional peers in the industry. This is what validation means. I suppose your next reply will say the same. “Can I not show you just ONE validated scientific study?” because you dont understand. And there are thousands – that you don’t (or I am beginning to understand, WON’T) understand or even attempt to. I could give you a hundred more VALIDATED, SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, but I’d accomplish as much by reading a Chinese phone book to you and mispronouncing everything. The real key word here is IGNORANCE, a commodity you have in great abundance. So you know, the definition is: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness. There is a picture of you next to it.

        5. Show one validate example that proves climate change or AGW.
          you have not given me one.
          just post the link here

        6. Wow. I was wrong and I was mistaken. Either you aren’t reading my replies or your drunk. But I am sorry I referred to you as ignorant. I was mistaken in that assumption. I will use a word that I very rarely use, when I say that I have seen the error of my ways, because I realize you jumped right over ignorant and are just flat out stupid.

        7. Show one validate example that proves climate change or AGW.
          you have not given me one.
          just post the link here
          nothing else is needed not one word unless you answer this request otherwise good night

        8. Drunk AND Stupid. Wow. I remember high school. It USUALLY wears off. You are just raging against your science class you failed. Don’t worry. It’s hard for some people, impossible for others.

        9. I think siquijorisland sufers from a syndrome, that I have found quite a few deniers do, inasmuch as they seem literally incapable of understanding any replies that demolish their position. There is one similar individual who posts prolifically on Youtube videos who repeatedly posts absolute crap. When people pull him up about it he claims to have a top notch engineering degree which sometimes mutes criticism from those who aren’t fully conversant with the science, suchas me.

          I went to the trouble of researching him, because he was so annoying, and yes he does have a good degree but what he doesn’t mention is that he had a severe car accident afterwards and now suffers from quite serious brain damage which is not often apparent in his postings until you know what to look for. It renders him incapable of understanding when he has been proved wrong. It’s sad but he is still misleading many.

        10. how funny
          Have you devolved into mindlessness that those who share you opinions proclaim they have “evolved” past.?

        11. Wow! First time for everything! You were finally right about something on this comment page, I am funny! The rest of your comment didn’t make any sense. Maybe you should have put one of your drinks down.

    1. Meanwhile, AGW doubters are termed “deniers,” evoking holocaust insults.
      This little statement makes you irrelevant and everything you say suspect as a justification of an disinformation agenda.
      truth is not apparently in you agenda.

        1. no facts just BS

          how irrelevant you are to any intelligent debate.
          you agenda is misinformation as you have very clearly show

        2. All facts are real. Your inability to understand them doesn’t make them any less so. Did you eat the whole bottle of crazy pills again? You didn’t take them with alcohol did you?

      1. So, you don’t even understand the term denialism. You make the standard deceptive denialist claim that it refers to Holocaust deniers. You people are just parrots, mindlessly repeating what the forces who want to spread doubt and uncertainty tell you to.

        Denier or denialist refers to the fact that such incompetent individuals are in a state of PSYCHOLOGICAL DENIAL which is where the individual concerend ignores a mountain of evidence that contradict their cherished beliefs only to cling onto fragmentary and/or ambiguous evidence that can be twisted to support what they want to believe in. Alcoholics and drug addicts are often in this state of denial

        From Wikipedia:

        Denial, in ordinary English usage, is asserting that a statement or allegation is not true.[1] The same word, and also abnegation, is used for a psychological defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud,
        in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to
        accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite
        what may be overwhelming evidence.

        1. how funny the troll lecture on some thing from fantasy land
          The most dangerous citizen is not armed but uninformed.

  6. Everyone needs to be aware that the Heartland Institute is funded by….wait…..BIG OIL! They are the evil, no gooders who are putting out and out lies on anti-global warming websites, putting as much propaganda that they can squeeze into an article , and hope some of it sticks! Anyone who does NOT know this about the Heartland Institute, needs to do a little research about who their backers are.

    1. Too many people are profiting from global warming alarmism, as governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year attempting to overcome nature. Compliant scientists gain access to vast amounts of research funding if they characterize Western nations as the cause of every bad weather event. Instead of admitting that they made one of the biggest mistakes in history, governments continue to prop up the IPCC andpretend it’s findings are meaningful

    2. I hate to argue against you Truthteller, because you obviously are on the sensible side of the science, but the largest fossil fuel companies no longer sponsor climate science denialism. They do, as far as I know, still sponsor some fundamentalist free-market type think tanks like Heartland but this is because, like any corporation, they want the minimum government interference with their activities. Sponsoring Heartland’s ability to lobby against tighter regulation whilst no longer believing the climate denialism bullshit that Heartland spouts is not incompatible, although it can be confusing!

    3. The ones who spend the most denying AGW are the oil barons (the Kock brothers, )who stand to lose the most, I always laugh at the claim by deniers to “follow the money” to see where the conspiracy lies. Indeed. I don’t see a lot of scientists with billions of extra money to spend buying politicians. They usually have a hard time buying new cars.

      1. Yeah, it’s primarily the Koch (note spelling) brothers and ultra rich American family trusts who sponsor the deceitful rhetoric that pours out of, amongst others, Heartland, CEI etc. It’s no longer the biggest fossil fuel companies – in fact if you look at their corporate websites and their environmental statements, there is not a trace of the endlessly parroted fallacious and stupid denialist’s arguments. Not even a sniff… and yet these mentally challenged types, suffering as they do from “folies a plusieurs” (look it up on Wiki) carry on endlessly repeating their tired debunked pieces of deception and stupidity as if they were some sort of razor sharp super sceptics seeing the truth while everybody else doesn’t. Pathetic really, but these types are unfortunately quite numerous and so unwarrented doubt and uncertainty is spread in the minds of the public thereby muddying the political waters and delaying desperately needed action.

        If these clowns get listened to too much, and sufficient action is delayed too long, they will be responsible for the consequent deaths, the disease, the starvation and the disruption. Irresponsible or what?

        1. No -one said all their activities were evil, just their sponsorship of denialist madness. Fossil fuels have done a helluva lot of good for mankind over the last 300 years or so. Nowadays we realise that continued mass use of them has serious consequences

        2. My misspelling was intentional as an innuendo. And yes, it is a shame that when you throw enough billions of $$ at something, people will follow you, agree with your lies, and live in propitiation to the almighty dollar and prostituted politicians, and idiots like Rush Limbaugh will spend their careers ready to take in all their lies at one end and spew it out the other, as the weak minded listeners hang on his every pre-paid for lie. All in the name of a few more sheckles, and at the cost of real unfathomable damage to the planet and millions of people who don’t matter to them because they don’t have money the Kock brothers can swindle.

        3. When implying that someone is motivated by greed, you should avoid using the phrase “a few more sheckles”, which when you think about it, really is a kind of ethnic slur.

        4. Point taken. i threw p.c. out the door years ago and shoot from the hip. But I don’t even think the Kock brothers are Jewish.

        5. Thanks. With regard to your point about PC speech, the thing I don’t like (and something I would not do) is to react to some casual reference like that by labeling it right away as some kind of hate speech. There is far too much or that, and I would agree that this would be taking PC sensitivity over language WAY too far.
          I’m not sure whether the Koch brothers are Jewish or not, and to some degree, when it comes to phrases like that which should be avoided, it might not matter. But like you, I’ll sometimes slip and casually use some phrase that I really shouldn’t. And like you, when someone respectfully points that out in a non-accusatory way, I also appreciate it.

  7. NOAA announced its predictions for the 2006 hurricane season, saying it expects an “above normal” year with 13-16 named storms. Of these storms, the agency says it expects four to be hurricanes of category 3 or above, double the yearly average of prior seasons in recorded history. With experts calling the coming hurricane season potentially worse than last year’s, oil prices have jumped 70 cents per barrel in New York and made similar leaps elsewhere. Economists anticipate that demand for oil will rise sharply over the summer, when as many as four major hurricanes could hit the United States. — Seed Magazine 5/19/06

    Very Active 2007 Hurricane Season Predicted – The U.S. Atlantic basin will likely experience a very active hurricane season, the Colorado State University forecast team announced today, increasing its earlier prediction for the 2007 hurricane season. The team’s forecast now anticipates 17 named storms forming in the Atlantic basin between June 1 and Nov. 30. Nine of the 17 storms are predicted to become hurricanes, and of those nine, five are expected to develop into intense or major hurricanes (Saffir/Simpson category 3-4-5) with sustained winds of 111 mph or greater. – Science Daily April 3, 2007

    That’s nice imp! That’s really nice! Now fast forward to 2014 and please try to catch up with today!
    More I’m still waiting for all the other predictions to happen first!

    A number of climatologists, whose job it is to keep an eye on long-term weather changes, have lately been predicting deterioration of the benign climate to which we have grown accustomed….Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” will result. New York Times – December 29, 1974

    Scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. – The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975

    “(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots… “(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers… “The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands”. – Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund – “Dead Heat” 1990

    Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert – Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected “greenhouse effect,” scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990

  8. Earth Day, 1970:

    “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
    • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

    “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
    • Life Magazine

    “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
    • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

    “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
    • Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

    “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
    • New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

    “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

    “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

    “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
    • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

    “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
    • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

    1. I see you uncomprehendingly cherry pick the standard denialist deceptive sound bites. Even Big Oil no longer gives people who argue like that any credibility because the evidence has continued to pile up and is now accepted even by those who would dearly love not to believe it.

  9. Optimism. What a concept. But, I am still waiting for the Debbie Downers of Climate Change to answers my questions. What is the perfect Climate for diversity and growth? Has Earth ever sustained a perfect climate? If so, how long did it last? Was this pefect climate isolated or spread throughout the entire planet?

    If we give up fossil fuels, meat, and reduce our population, will Earth achieve Climate Utopia everywhere? Will we end droughts, tornados, hurricanes, wild fires, and floods?

    Man has gone from a Adapt, Adjust and Overcome mentality to a Panic, Repent, and Pay Carbon Tax mentality. Guess which one doesn’t work?

    1. “But, I am still waiting for the Debbie Downers of Climate Change to answer a few of my questions”

      they are NOT your questions. They are standard “difficult” pieces of
      rhetoric from the denialosphere, crafted to misdirect and you, Penocea,
      are just parroting them.

      1. “Has Earth ever sustained a perfect climate?” It is a simple question that could be answered with a yes or no. If yes, then what was it. And, if no, then how can we compare what the climate should be when we don’t know what it is. It would be like you asking me to act like Ophelia Pane. Never having met Ophelia Pane, you never having met her, and never having met anyone who knew Opelia Pane would require a bit of treacher in order for me to act like her. I would have to make up a lie about who I think she is and then pretend to be her. That is climate change. That is man-made global warming.

        1. Your argument, and request, is dumb. We know roughly what sort of climate is good to develop and maintain a developed civilisation in because we are here now because of the last tens of thousands of years. We know from the science how much of a kick outside those parameters we are giving the climate now and simple extrapolation, based on extensive knowledge of how Earth’s climate has responded even to much smaller kicks in the past, shows that we are driving our current benign situation way outside the comfort zone.

        2. “So, you can’t answer my question either”

          Yes I did. Clearly. You simply didn’t understand my response.

        3. Your response was about comfort zones, which would be
          around 55 to 75 degrees F with 35 to 55 percent humidity. On average, how often do people live outside their comfort zone on a daily basis? Ask Floridians in the summer and Minnesotans in the winter how that comfort zone is working out for them? Atmospheric Comfort Zone means not breaking a sweat or shivering to cool and warm the body’s core temperature. Comfort Zone is your answer? Try again.

        4. It’s obvious all parts of the planet are not equally comfortable all the time – so what? Enough of it is to have enabled us to develop our civilisation to this point. Consciously pushing the comfortable bits outside the current comfort zone and pushing the currently uncomfortable bits to be even more uncomfortable or towards unihabitability is just pathologically stupid

        5. Humans have been enduring being pushed outside the comfort zone since man began to evolve. 11,500 years ago Greenland’s surface temperature increased 18 degrees F in a decade. Before that, it was the Younger Dryas that gave us a glacial event. The treachery is in blaming these events on homo sapien-made campfires and wholly mammoth farts. Thank god there were no Communists back then to keep man from re-inventing himself and blaming the sudden events on homo sapien-made global warming.

        6. Are you for real? Past natural climate changes were enough to drive many species to extinction, killed a lot of people and made areas unliveable for a very long time. And you seem happy to voluntarily recreate that and worse by ignoring the best scientific knowledge we have? I don’t suppose you turn off the electricity if you’re working on your house wiring because lightning strikes are natural? Presumably you don’t check to see if lit candles are safe near the curtains because forest fires happen naturally… Are you completely out of your mind!?

        7. Do you actually believe humans have the capability to recreate the Younger Dryas? If Earth had never experienced glacial and interglacial climate changes every in its history and then all of a sudden, the Earth began to warm and cool after modern man invented the light bulb, man-made climate change may have a chance of proving itself correct. But, that is not the case, is it? The earth has gone through extremes even before man and the use of fossil fuels so it is almost impossible to say how much humans contribute to the changing climate when Scientist keep getting it wrong. I am not saying humans do no contribute, I am saying we are not so powerful and important to alter Earth’s climate in ways that the communists proclaim. They don’t study the changing climate any more with bias and objectivity. They are too busy trying to explain why they keep getting it wrong. AND, DO NOT CONDESEND ME, M F.

          If Democrats and Communists really cared about this planet, they would not use irresponsibility as a platform for votes. The [V]agina vote, the welfare vote, the black and brown vote, all rely on politicians to tell them they are not responsible for their current circumstances in order to wring concessions out of the American people. How does irresponsibility keep our planet clean and beautiful? IT DOES NOT. It is all about politics and controlling people’s behavior.

  10. I think I’ll pass on the climate change deniers. No harm can come from believing the worst while exceptional harm will come from believing the deniers. My guess is in thirty or forty years these deniers will be viewed as insane or corrupt or both. So far in this life of 76 years I’ve found if it can go wrong it will. Perpetual optimistic humans are at best fools, and at their worst downright dangerous.

    1. “No harm can come from believing the worst?” Try telling that to the Kool-Aid drinkers of Jonestown.

      Do you have any idea what would happen if all of the word’s powers actually made the substantial cuts that the C-AGW advocates (“C” as in “Catastrophic”) claim are needed? Do you really think that, without quickly developing nuclear alternatives (which most of them also resist), that any other alternatives can quickly meet the energy needed to sustain human life on this planet?

      It also astounds me that anyone who accepts the AGW position, but simply has doubts about putting the “C” in front of it, must be censored and labeled a denier by the “CAGW” crowd. It reminds me of the Trek episode where the half-white, half-black alien was trying to kill his mirror-image counterpart because he was black on the wrong side.

      History is filled with drastic consequences that occurred because masses of people too quickly believed those who were predicting doom. So it is not surprising that some want more proof before jumping like lemmings off a cliff.

  11. I see a whole flock of drive-by denialists have suddenly turned up, spouting their usual deceptive rhetoric and completely ignoring/avoiding the central point of my post, which was that NOBODY credible scientifically disputes the threat any more – not even those corporations (the fossil fuel companies) who would be financially most disadvantaged by action to mitigate global warming. That one single point blows the whole of the denialist deceit and bullshit out of the water. It would be insane to carry on believing such deceit any longer.

    As we have been in this situation of universal acceptance of the science by people with their heads screwed on for some time now one can only speculate on the lack of abilty to comprehend English or science that the seemingly incorrigible denialist movement continues to exhibit.

    Get this denialists. If you still believe your collection of mendacious/stupid/irrational/ irrelevant garbage, usually sourced from such as Watt’s blog Wattsupwithat, after seeing that even the oil companies no longer dispute climate science, then you’re probably barking mad and incapable of understanding or perceiving reality!

  12. The really stupid thing about all of this “debate” is that if we simply spend the money and time to get off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible, EVERYONE ultimately benefits, including the trillions of organisms that have no voice, but play an integral part in what enables humans to survive.

    1. Obviously you don’t comprehend scientific data. Global warming is continuing to build up heat in the planetary systems. Even the largest fossil fuel companies no longer dispute that, which rather blows your nonsense out of the water.

      1. Scientists once believed the Earth was flat. Scientists once believed that saturated fat was bad for you. Science that comes from a false premise is not science.

        1. Scientists NEVER believed the earth was flat. Some people did. Science asks questions then tries to collect data to find answers.Nobody who was taught scientific method thought the world was flat. Saturated fat IS bad for you in any quantity above a few grams, Scientologists aren’t scientists either. Nor Rush Limbaugh,

        2. “Scientists once believed the Earth was flat”

          Ignorant bullshit. The church used to say something like this. The church was not speaking from a scientific viewpoint. If you can’t even get a simple historical fact like that right you have no chance of having a coherent opinion about this topic.

          How come people like you are so unbelievably arrogant and incredibly stupid that you can’t change your mind when you read something that blows your deluded nonsense out the water i.e. that all the biggest fossil fuel companies, with the most money that lets them afford the best analysts and advisers in the world no longer dispute, indeed positively endorse, mainsteam climate science?

    2. Plan B? Which is? Let me guess, “Poison the planet as fast as we can, and screw the environment because it is inconvenient. Let’s do nothing which is easy to do and make sure we leave the earth uninhabitable when we die – because screw the kids?”

      1. Plan B as in since your dire predictions haven’t come true, now say that global warming won’t be so bad. And what exactly have you done to change your lifestyle to help fight global warming? I’m guessing nothing.

        1. What have I done, let’s see….I got science degrees in geology and environmental science, conducted studies and protests on the dangers of storing nuclear waste at Yucca mountain, worked for politicians (Reid and Obama) because they agreed to kill Yucca Mountain and support green energy development, worked on three of the largest Solar energy plants in America, and spend free time explaining to deniers how the facts show they are wrong and often just ignorant. AND installed solar panels at residences, I could go on, but my point is made

  13. People are funny, I’ve been told
    When it’s hot, they want it cold
    When it’s cold, they want it hot
    Always wanting what it’s not
    I used to think that was just a cute poem from about 30 years ago – but now I realize it was just the beginning of a massive literary conspiracy written by one of the first climate change deniers!

    1. That poem’s funny! Ironically many of the “arguments” and assertions currently thrown around by the denialosphere are actually based on legitimate scientific scepticism to the developing science that was addressed way back in the 1950s and 1960s. That is why some of the ideas seem so plausible but, seriously, these wrong sceptic ideas were nailed nearly 60 years ago. These zombie arguments were just resurrected by the propagandists because they had proven ability to fool the naive, the gullible and the ignorant in the general public.

  14. So here’s my question – if someone accepts “C”AGW (“C” as in Catastrophic), then you would think that those same folks would be more likely to want to consider lower-carbon or no-carbon energy alternatives that can quickly be developed, so that we can stop putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere as quickly as possible, right?

    Ironically, however, this very same CAGW crowd – which is so quick to shout “denier”, even to someone who accepts AGW, but simply has doubts about the “C” prefix – are ironically also the ones who deny what even many IPCC climate scientists have stated – that the only viable short to mid term solutions for both reducing atmospheric CO2 and for meeting the world’s energy demand (without causing other catastrophes by caused by depriving humans of too much reliable energy) would be to quickly develop resources like nuclear or natural gas power, which could then replace the very high carbon output of sources like oil and coal.
    Wind, solar, and other renewable alternatives are simply not yet ready to become a reliable source for the massive amounts of energy our world needs. And we are likely decades, if not centuries, away from a time when such sources can supply most of our energy. On the day that the CAGW crowd stops denying this, and starts calling for the rapid development of nuclear and naturally gas alternatives, then maybe I’ll start believing their predictions of gloom and doom.
    But until I see that happen, then there is no “fracking” way to take them seriously, since they obviously are not doing that themselves.

    1. Sorry zencycler. As soon as you use the denialist term CAGW no-one should listen to what you say anymore – they’re not even your own ideas, you are clearly just parroting rhetoric and disturbingly innacurate and just plain wrong assertions from the denialosphere. People who use such terms in their arguments usually source them from one of a handful of blogs masquerading as scientific information sources, such as Wattsupwiththat.

      Trying looking at the least likely organisations to blindly accept climate science without a fight – the fossil fuel companies. They have more money than God to buy the best advice and analysis – yet they don’t give one word of credence to the bullshit and propaganda from the denialosphere.

      Look at the following extract from Shell Oil’s sustainability report

      From page 7:

      The world faces the critical challenge of how to meet rising demand for the energy that powers economies, while urgently cutting the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) that energy use generates.
      Shell is taking action in four areas: producing more natural gas, the cleanest-burning fossil fuel; helping to develop technologies to capture and store CO2; producing low-carbon biofuel and working to improve the energy efficiency of our operation”

      1. My use of the term “CAGW” was simply to distinguish between the global warming theory for which there is general acceptance and consensus (AGW), and for which there is not general consensus. As you pointed out in another reply, most mainstream scientists acknowledge a range of possible outcomes, so then why are some trying to censor debate over those who lean toward the less consequential range of those predictions?
        By contrast, your use of the term “CAGW” was simply to avoid trying to answer any of the legitimate points I made in my post by simply saying – AHA, you used the dreaded term “CAGW”, so convict that denier through guilt-by-association with every other Neanderthal who has used that term in the past!
        Okay, whatever, if that’s the game you want to play, then you don’t really want to debate this anyway. You just want to use whatever semantic ploy you can use to misrepresent what I am saying, so you can “deny” any legitimacy to the points I have raised, and avoid the possibility that you and others may be misusing terms like “denier” as a means of avoiding considering those in the “mainstream” who simply have an different view – albeit still within the consensus range – of the likely outcomes of global warming.

        1. “As you pointed out in another reply, most mainstream scientists
          acknowledge a range of possible outcomes, so then why are some trying to
          censor debate over those who lean toward the less consequential range
          of those predictions?”

          They are not censoring anything. They are are pouring scorn on the microscopically small number of “sceptic” scientists who are incorrigible (and almost certainly wrong) – who can be counted on one’s fingers – Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Singer, Carter, Plimer etc who are either not actively publishing in climate science any more or whose recent papers have been poor and full of errors as they attempt to shore up their ideé fixes. They also usually only refer to their own work, but promote it in public debate as if it is a widely accepted part of the science. It is not. They are not mainstream scientists and it is purely down to them and their ilk that the lower end outcomes are evn still mentioned in public. Mainstream scientist do not give their work any credence.

          These maverick few have been used and promoted by the propagandists out of all proportion to the importance or validity of their views because basically they are all that the denialist movement. Their “low climate sensitivity” position is completely invalidated by studies of paleo-climatology – how Earth’s climate reacted to forcings in the past. Lindzen et al are flat out wrong because if climate sensitivity was as low as their isolationist and error strewn work suggests, then Earth would never have been able to get out of an ice age once it had entered into one. As Earth has escaped from many ice ages in the past then that shows beyond all reasonable doubt that Lindzen and co are wrong.

          It’s not censoring to ridicule such incorrigible outsiders. Even the oil companies don’t listen to them any more. We’re not talking about some abstract scientific aspect of string theory, we are talking about a pattern of behaviour that poses an enormous risk to our civilisation. It would be pathologically irresponsible beyond belief to delay or stall action in the belief that the maverick minority might be right despite the aforementioned poor quality of their arguments and work.

        2. In my view, the main thing that is “stalling action” on climate change, is that world leaders remain unconvinced, precisely because those who hold your views want to avoid answering questions some have about the range of outcomes, or avoid doing an thoughtful analysis that weighs the costs and risks of all choices.
          In my view, for those who hold your viewpoint, it is pathologically irresponsible to deny the reality that no sustained multilateral action to reduce carbon emissions will occur unless these factors are more thoroughly considered.
          So if you and others like you are right, then when the end days are upon us, you will likely blame all the deniers for this happening, because they dared to have doubts about your conclusions. But whether there is s judgment day, or whether it is simply a question of personal morality and intellectual honesty, then when and if that day comes, you should also look in the mirror to consider if you (and others like you) did all that was required to responsibly address those questions, in order to help to convince the leaders of the world’s industrial and developing powers to avert that disaster.

        3. “In my view, the main thing that is “stalling action” on climate change, is that world leaders remain unconvinced”

          Where do you get these wacky ideas? Wattsupwiththat? If there is is any doubt and uncertainty amongst some world leaders it is purely down to the pernicious efforts from the denialosphere to spread false doubt about the science to people who are not scientists, which unfortunately includes some politicians. Are you not aware that most governments have signed up to emissions reduction protocols – ever tougher over the years? It’s only the downright black propaganda from the denialsts that has successfully spread sufficient doubt and uncertainty in the gullible and insufficiently knowldegeable that has muddied the political waters so much that it remains difficult to convince a sizeable minority of the voting public, who are not aware of the deceit crafted to fool them that emanates from the denialosphere that lies about the supreme urgency of what lies ahead. EVEN THE LARGEST FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES ACCEPT THE SCIENCE SAYS THEIR PRODUCT IS A BIG THREAT TO US ALL. Is that loud enough for you?

        4. Oh, really, “most governments” have signed on to emission reduction protocols – which must then mean that our carbon emissions will be going down enough to avert this disaster?
          If that is the case, then there must already be some climate scientists who have modeled and predicted just how much the CO2 in the atmosphere will now be reduced. I must have missed that breaking news – so I guess it must be time to break out the champagne and celebrate.
          Okay, then we can now all go home, since not only is the science and the debate settled, but so is the solution, right?
          So I was wrong then – no additional action is needed, and all the world leaders are now convinced of what must be done, and enough of them are on board so that the carbon emissions will be sufficiently reduced.
          Well, thank you for letting me know that it is a foregone conclusion that the planet has already been saved.

        5. You should at least give me credit for being able to so quickly “parrot” all of the talking points from the “denialosphere”. I must have some kind of photographic memory or something – or maybe I’m not even a human being – maybe I am some kind of a Koch-Brothers funded A.I. bot, which accesses a database of all these denialist talking points and then automatically posts them as replies to all the liberal blogs!

      2. Actually, the excerpt which you cite here could just as easily been taken from the writings of a climate skeptic, as it takes a balanced view of both the need for energy production and climate action, it does not claim to foretell any imminent catastrophe, and it promotes and out-of-favor alternative (fracking) that is more often mentioned by skeptics than by others.

  15. Climate “optimists” are actually climate “centrists”!
    On the one hand, we have some who predict the end of the world because of global warming. On the other hand, there are those who think that global warming will be good for the planet (more plants and more farming) or could also be saving the planet from the next Ice Age.
    Therefore, it really would be a centrist position to say that the effects of global warming will likely not be as bad as the CAGW doomsayers claim, but also likely not be as good as the TGGW (Thank God for Global Warming), real climate optimists claim!

  16. I’m having this discussion on global warming, and the other guy calls me a denier.
    To which I respond – “I deny that I am a denier.”
    To which he replies – “See – you just proved that you ARE a denier”.
    So I guess in the face of that typical reasoning I get whenever I try to discuss this topic, I should simply stop trying to be involved, and just do what most other people are doing – and just ignore it completely.

  17. Polar bears like warming You try living on ice at 50 below zero and see how well you thrive. The true deniers are the believers. They think that the planet earth is a greenhouse or terrarium. No glass around the planet earth. What come in goes out. Input is a function of temperature to the fourth power and output is a function of temperature to the fourth power. If the temp goes up less comes in and more goes out.

    1. Your wacky ideas about how energy enters and leaves Earth leave out the bit that would show your argument up as the pathetic piece of scientific illiteracy it is. Even Richard Lindzen, go-to guy and darling of the deniers has described people like you as “nutty”.

      1. You GW guys are the nutty ones. If you believe there is glass all the way around the planet then you believers truly are nuts. Plants release less water into the atmosphere at higher CO2 levels. Less water might mean colder. I see more and more evidence that it will get colder as the CO2 levels rise. You should read a book. Thermal radiation is pretty simple. Understanding it is obviously very complex otherwise they wouldn’t need 18 different mathematical models that don’t agree to try to model it. The key word is try. Best idea would be to take some of the CO2 out with the scrubbers they put on power plants and such to take out SO2.

        1. “If you believe there is glass all the way around the planet then you believers truly are nuts”

          NO-ONE ever said there was glass around the planet. Why do people like you keep on making up mad stuff?

        2. No we are independent thinkers. Sure have seen evidence it might cool the planet. NASA said if they had to guess clouds are cooler. Colder clouds means colder planet.

        3. “NASA said if they had to guess, clouds are getting cooler. Colder clouds means colder planet”

          The depth of ignorance and/or miscomprehension you demonstrate here is just staggering.

          Clearly, judging by the ridiculous words and fallacious assertions you make, you have come here from the execrable Wattupswiththat – the biggest disinformation site on the planet populated with some of the stubbornest most incorrigibly stupid people around.

          Answer me this Stanley – because self-described “independent thinkers” like you spouting, consciously or unconsciously, deceitful propaganda are dangerous to us all – if the tidal waves of bullshit put out by Anthony Watts and his collection of eccentric Galileo wannabes had any validity whatsoever, why aren’t any of their “ideas” accepted (or even mentioned!) – in the environmental, responsibility and sustainability pages of the corporate websites of the largest fossil fuel companies? Check ’em out, from Exxon-Mobil down.

          You will see that they accept the mainstream science and accept that their product is responsible for recent global warming and that, unless there is serious reduction measures, it will be an increasing threat not only to humans but also to major ecosystems worldwide. Now consider this Stanley. Watts and his tide of scientifically illiterate minions insinuate thata every National Academy and major scientific organisation worldwide support and endorse the science not because the science is correct but because they are all protecting each other’s funding, research grants and income streams. Which although dumb, libellous and utterly wrong, at least looks plausible to the general public who don’t know how science and science funding works. How come the oil companies also support and endorse the science, eh Stanley? They more than any other organisations on earth have the most to lose financially and market share wise if climate science’s predictions are true … yet they still support the science they would dearly like to be wrong, that says we have to seriously reduce emissions from their productsr and do not give the anti-science fuzzbrained garbage from Watts and Tisdale et al the slightest credence whatsoever. Look for yourself Stanley – it’s easy to Google these sites.

          Of course as you are clearly a dyed in the wool denier just parroting denialist memes that have been shot down a thousand times before – “independent thinker”? LOL! you will just pull down your reality filters and turn a blind eye to the fact that nowadays EVEN BIG OIL no longer promotes the denialist horse shit. You will no doubt soon forget that idea, which just about blows all your stupid denialism out of the water, and soon will be regurgitating the same tired old collection of half truths, fallacious assertions, cherry picked graphs, quote mined sentences and all the rest of the arsenal of deceit used by the denialists.

          Denialism is still around but the dwindling band of loonies who continue to spread it are still irresponsible at best and pathogically dangerous to humanity at worst.

        4. Me I just think your nuts. Like I said Al Gore’s scary Sci Fi movie really affected you. I have the answer to your question.

          Give me a few 100 million of the money given away below and I bow down to the global warming god too. Have fun with your ignorance while it last.

          Available Government Grant Money

          Following are actual numbers for 2013 for total grant funds awarded by the top ten
          (in terms of award dollars) individual awarding agencies. This information comes
          from, an official web site of the U.S. government.

          Department of Health and Human Services – $336.20 billion
          Department of Transportation – $55.3 billion
          Department of Agriculture – $31.3 billion
          Department of Education – $19.6 billion
          Department of Housing and Urban Development – $9.9 billion
          Department of Labor – $9.1 billion
          Agency for International Development – 7.9 billion
          Department of Homeland Security – $6.9 billion
          National Science Foundation – $6.20 billion
          Environmental Protection Agency – $3.90 billion

        5. You are madder than a box of frogs, Stanley! Just 6 of the largest fossil fuel companies have revenues exceeding $2 trillion a year. The 20 largest top $4.5 trillion a year. Europe alone imports $4-500 billion oil and gas a year. Just one company, Sinopec of China, has revenues of $400 billion a year, yet you are asserting that these INTERNATIONAL fossil fuel companies, and there are many more, such as Royal Dutch Shell, Gazprom of Russia, BP (was British Petroleum), Total of France etc etc have all been paid off by revenue from your idiot list – which totals $450 billion, most of which is spent on American heath care – to lie about the science and pretend that they accept it when doing so would risk their revenues for the next 50 years+ upwards of $200 trillion? WTF? When they could instead, if the deranged ramblings at Wattsupwiththat had any scientific validity whatsoever, just promote that heavily and have a get-out-of-jail-free card so they could carry on protecting and increasing their revenues?

          With trillions of dollars revenue every year, do you not think they have enough money to pay the very best analysts and on earth to investigate whether the lunatics in the denialist camp have got even a trace of scientific reality on their side which they could use so Big Oil don’t have to face losing a vast amount of market share? And you reckon they would all throw that opportunity away to be bribed by fiddling small change from your idiotic list? In reality, denialism is anti-science crap, that has clearly sucked you in Stanley, spread by fuzz-brained pseudo-sceptics and you probably need help to deal with your astonishingly inventive paranoid thinking tin-foil hat fantasies.

          I have virtually no respect for denialists because their acceptance and promulgation of lies, ego-driven stupidity and propaganda – if anyone listens to it and gets fooled by it – puts the whole planet both us humans, and all the ecosystems that support us, at great risk. But you have lowered the bar on that disrespect, Stanley. You are being a major embarrassment even to those fruitcakes.

  18. Let me summarize most of the debates on this thread:
    Mr. A): .Here are the facts on which I base my opinions.
    Mr. B): You are an idiot. Here are my facts. My facts are right, your facts are wrong, and therefore I do not need to consider anything you say or give you any thoughtful response, since you, Mr. A, are an idiot.
    Mr. A): I agree that reaching the wrong opinion because of having the wrong facts makes you an idiot, so based on that, Mr. B, I also agree that you are an idiot.
    Mr. B) Your facts are not even original, you got them from other idiots like you.
    Mr. A) Well, I am not going to likewise accuse you of copying someone else’s idiotic remarks, since I think your idiotic remarks came from your own innate stupidity, and not that of others.
    And then we wonder why most people have completely tuned out of this issue?

    1. Your big mistake – huge – is that you assume that both “sides” are of equal credibility. Were this true, your list would make sense. One side is pointing out that their position is supported by 150 years accumulated peer reviewed science and the other is repeating comprehensively debunked ideas and concepts spread by a few sources of befuddled anti-science misinformation and extremist political lobby groups.

      You are only embarassing yourself now. Explain again how all major fossil fuel companies now accept and endorse the science and accept that their product’s emissions are a significant threat to the population of Earth and its ecosystems – as any one can easily verify by checking out their corporate websites.

      1. You’re right, both “sides” are not equal.
        And in weighing that inequality, there are two main points to consider (which were the two subjects of my little demonstrative discussion) 1) Facts, 2) Insult-laden and ineffective communication.
        So putting aside, for the moment, your claim that your “side” has better facts then my “side”, I would assert that, at least over the last few years, your side has engaged in more or the kind of insulting and immature rhetorical devices that are more befitting a teenage smack-down contest than the kind of serious discussions which ought to be occurring.
        Now, that being said, it would also be fair to say that, from time to time, my “side” does the same. However, nowadays, do not think both sides are equally guilty of this – and I think this very thread provides anecdotal evidence of exactly that point.

    2. Facts cannot be manipulated. They are an expression of truth. The facts here are this and only this: AGW is accepted as reality by those who know the data. Everything else is a denial of facts.

      1. Define AGW. Does AGW mean that warming is happening, that it is more likely than not to be caused by humans, and that the possible consequences of this warming are on a range from tolerable to severe? If that is how you define it, then we agree.
        But we do not agree if you define it was meaning that there will almost certainly be catastrophic results, that nearly all of the warming is caused by humans, that steep reductions in CO2 emissions are immediately needed to avert this disaster, and that our use of fossil fuels should mostly be replaced by renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar (rather than ramping up what might be some more viable short and mid term solutions such as nuclear or natural gas).
        In my view, the “fact” that has been the subject of the most manipulation and distortion, by some, has been the attempt to misrepresent MOST skeptics (yes, there are exceptions) as denying the first definition of AGW, above, rather than expressing doubts with regards to any or all of the second definition, which is clearly a more reasonable position.

        1. Anthropogenic (human induced) climate change/global warming. We do know that CO2 emissions far outpace the ability of natural carbon sinks to absorb it, as it has always done in the past. This is due to a combination of burning fossil fuels and deforresting etc. the carbon sinks, which is a double whammy so to speak. As in a BEST case scenario, we would still be feeling the effects of this airbourne CO2 long after the initial problems start, the longer we continue increasing the burning of fossil fuels AND deforesting native carbon sinks, etc. etc., the problem compounds exponentially. Nobody expects the world to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow, but every increase instead of decrease in our CO2 emissions prolongs the unnatural cycle. There will always be advances in science of CO2 recycling and outlier factors that nudge the predictions a little one way or the other, but the unnatural situation has outpaced the ability of the planet to continue in it’s natural cycle. The worst case scenarios may be understatements if we continue unchecked as we have since industrial revolution began. Regardless of which models you have a problem with, the problem is that by ignoring the dire predictions and the seriousness of the situation, it is very possible, even probable that by the time there is a worldwide consensus that this is a problem that requires a ‘fix’, it may well be too late to do anything but hope some survive it. Every green energy developed now, makes it that much easier to not face a showdown at noon scenario. Nobody can rationally deny that fossil fuels are a limited resource that will eventually run out or become too cost prohibitive to get to the last little deposits and use them. Likewise, nobody can rationally deny the benefit of energy provided in perpetuity by wind, solar, and geothermal energy (I exclude nuclear – clean – but with very poisonous by products). The more we wean off the usage and CO2 emissions of fossil fuels now, the less the crisis becomes for our children and grandchildren who will suffer the worst of it in their old age. The catastrophe scenarios may seem very trite in our lifetimes. Sea level rises of a few inches. Global Average temps maybe 1 or 2 degrees F. But cumulatively, over hundreds of years (a geologic blink of time) these predictions, left unchecked, will come to fruition, and possibly destroy what we call civilization. It doesnt mean it WILL happen, but the MIGHT happen is too scary to continue to ignore.

  19. I found a funny piece of rhetoric (quoted below) which encapsulates exactly the sort of
    fuzz-brained thinking that denialists and pseudo-sceptics use to prop up their ideology. The tragic irony is that most people can see that these health and fitness “tips” are screwy but denialists can’t see that their own beliefs are just as twisted.

    “1. If walking/cycling is good for your health, the postman would be immortal.

    2. A whale swims all day, only eats fish, drinks water and is fat.

    3. A rabbit runs and hops and only lives 15 years.

    4. A tortoise does not run, does nothing, yet lives for 450 years.

    Now, tell me again why I should exercise?”

  20. All of the Climate Models have been proven by actual data to be grossly wrong. The entire CO2 Theory has been debunked by the scientific method – data proves it false. There is only one thing left to do. Stop the media and the politicians from spreading proven lies under the threat of racketeering laws.

    1. Pathetic denialist claptrap. The trouble is hobo you are just parroting a bunch of simple minded crafted lies and stupidity fed to you by a bunch of scientifically illiterates who don’t know what they are talking about

Leave a Reply