Great LTE, Ted! Haha...

What I find fascinating is that some Americans believe climate change is simply based on one’s ‘beliefs’ and not science.

We all know about earth’s history including the ‘fact’ that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that does trap solar radiation that keeps this planet warm. Without this, we'd be living on a ice ball in space . . .

The problem is that we’re increasing the CO2 very very quickly.

But first, the simple chemistry:

C + O2 = CO2

When we burn fossil fuels, we are taking carbon from the carbon chains in the fuel, combusting it with oxygen in the air, using the heat and exhausting the combustion products that include CO2.

How much of the CO2 is being emitted to the atmosphere?

Consider the following just for the USA:

- we burn about 1.1 BILLION tons of coal each year (about 3 tons per American)

- we burn about 7 BILLION barrels of oil each year (about 23 barrels per American)

- we burn about 23 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas (75,000 cubic feet per American)

All of this carbon is being ‘dug out of the ground’ and reintroduced to the atmosphere. This is causing the concentration of CO2 to raise from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm (parts per million) to now going into the 350 ppm range.

This has caused the mean thermal temperature of the earth to raise about 1.5 degree Fahrenheit (read global warming).

So the science is well understood and we can see that ‘humans’ are burning more and more carbon raising the concentration.

The question is what will all of this mean?

Well, more energy on the planet will create changing weather patterns (aka ‘climate change’) as the heat absorbed raises both the air and water temperature.

Higher air temperature causes the air to hold more water and thus rain output will increase the magnitude of rainfall in some areas.

Higher ocean temperatures will cause storms of greater magnitude.

What these will be and their aftereffects we’re just starting to understand. But these changes are happening . . . and their consequences could be significant.

So there’s little doubt that the burning of fossil fuels is having an ‘effect’ and we’re going to have to try to understand what that means long term.

For links to the rising temperature due to climate change introduction of more CO2:
But we can see the rising global mean temperatures: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

And we can also see the rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as we burn more and more fossil fuels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

LTE Title: CNN news anchor Deb Feyerick recently asked "The Science Guy" Bill Nye if global warming caused the latest asteroid.

Indy: This is a good heads up to be careful when listening to a ‘news reader’ made a impromptu comment about something and then using that to support nonsense.

We saw this over the last couple days with the ‘Friends of Hamas’ phantasy regarding Hagel which was just ‘made up’ and yet was ‘promoted’ on Fox news . . . insinuating that the White House wasn’t ‘vigorously’ defending the accusation.

Well, when do we have to defend nonsense?

Sadly, the ‘for profit’ media has been hiring people that ‘look good on camera’ but often have little or no content expertise on the topics they are covering.

It’s wise as the LTE writer noted, to look for ‘creditable’ sources on important topics.

If I’m running CNN, this reporter/news reader is looking for a new job . . .

You know it could just a ruse; to further cast doubt on global warming. I don't know what Nye said in response but it seems like a trick by the media to get Nye to say 'No' in a case that's irrelevant to global warming and then link that global warming isn't an issue because Nye said 'No.'

Climate change happens naturally.

Therefore, it is completely un-natural to try to stop it.

Claiming we can keep the climate from changing is for nature denying blowhards who cut and paste scientism and agenda.

Indy, I swear I will believe you once you show me the internet link where somewhere in the world the climate has been made into what someone wants, and it stays that way without changing.

In the mean time, I will continue to point out your agenda causes poor people to suffer disproportionately from high utility and gasoline bills - FOR NOTHING!

BINGO Indy three great posts !!

"Climate change happens naturally."

In the past, yes.

Now, not so much.

"Therefore, it is completely un-natural to try to stop it.

Claiming we can keep the climate from changing is for nature denying blowhards who cut and paste scientism and agenda."

Well, in nature, animals kill others of their own species all the time...so that must mean it's okay for us to do it, too, right?

Shees.

And it's not "scientism". It's called "science". You might do yourself a favor and study up on it.

Ladimas, which thread are you talking about?

All three, I repeat all three of Indy's above post ??????

How will it be proven 'scientifically' that climate change has been averted?

stevehw:

chico: "Climate change happens naturally."

stevehw: “In the past, yes. Now, not so much”.

Care to back that one up, or at least explain the “now, not so much” part? (this should be good)

chico: "Therefore, it is completely un-natural to try to stop it. Claiming we can keep the climate from changing is for nature denying blowhards who cut and paste scientism and agenda."

stevehw: “Well, in nature, animals kill others of their own species all the time...so that must mean it's okay for us to do it, too, right? Shees.”

No, but it is still alright for the animals to do it, in fact you can’t stop it.

stevehw: “And it's not "scientism". It's called "science". You might do yourself a favor and study up on it.”

Actually, “scientism” is a word, and chico used absolutely accurately, why don’t you do us all a favor and do some research before you post your mindless blather?

The climate changes.

It has in the past and it will do so in the future.

We should continue to push for renewable sources of energy.

1968 was not the optimal earch temperature and even if it was, who gets to decide this?

The US can do very little about C02 based upon what India and China are doing.

The enviroment is much better today than in the recent past in the US. Anyone remember what LA looked like in July in 1975?

Conservatives favor clean water and air. I realize it's a stupid statement, but stupid statements are required against equally stupid charges of stupidity from the left.

When and if the climate changes further, as it will do with or without us, it will be good for some and bad for others.

The production of energy in the developing world has lifted millions, if not billions, from poverty, disease, and death.

We have the ability to produce energy that is a million times safer and cleaner than anyone on the planet.

Allowing this nation to produce more oil and gas will go a great ways toward solving many of our economic issues.

Why can't science predict the weather which is an infinately more simple dynamic than earths warming or cooling trends?

When will we see something more intellectual than "bingo"?

I'll answer Chico.

When the idiot greens get their way and destroy our economy.

Yeah, I know what the derogatory term "scientism" means, but climatology isn't "scientism", it's *science*.

Thing is, I don't need to "back up" the position of nearly every climatologist and virtually all the science academies and research organizations that the current climate change is *not* caused by the same things that caused the previous ones...by now, that debate is over, and it's incumbent on the climate change "skeptics" (to use the term "skeptics" loosely) to disprove it.

Much as it's not the job of biologists to "back up" evolution anymore, or physicists to "back up" general relativity, etc.

You think the current science is wrong, go publish your *scientifically-based* refutation in a reputable journal.

Dumbounded wrote;:The US can do very little about C02 based upon what India and China are doing.

Indy: Interesting China is one of the few big nations to address overpopulation which will in the long run be a huge benefit to this issue.

India, on the other hand, continues to add population irrespective of the energy constraints we all face.

We don't need to back it up Steve because unlike you with "nearly and virtually every climatologist" we can counter that EVERY human being ever to have lived agrees that the climate changes and will continue to do so in the future. Where we disagree is what year you and your experts think was the optimal year for climate and the impossibility of replicating said optimal year.

Dumbounded wrote: I'll answer Chico. When the idiot greens get their way and destroy our economy.

Indy: I’m not surprised at your remarks since the republican party is dominated by market fundamentalist who ignore economic scarcity . . . the fundamental basis of economics.

Nobody saw this issue coming . . . only when we became smart enough to track the concentration of CO2 and correlate that with the rising global ‘mean’ temperature did we understand what was going on.

In any event, we need to move to a ‘sustainable growth’ model that accepts resource constraints, puts ‘quality over quantity’, and addresses population stabilization.

If over population and resources weren’t an issue, then we’d need not worry about human migration from areas of ‘less resources’ (developing world) and areas of more resources (USA).

But even our resources are limited and those who address the migration issue know that.

In any event, without sustainable policies toward growth, we’ll see more of what we see today with more and more people earning less and less wages . . . through ‘free trade’ globalization that is redistributing limited resources through wage rates.

Knowledge is key here . . . not mindless quick quips about those of us protecting the environment, the very one that sustains our lives . . .

"EVERY human being ever to have lived agrees that the climate changes and will continue to do so in the future."

This is true. However, simply because *previous* changes were due to non-human factors *does not mean* that *this* change is NOT caused by humans.

Why do we have to keep repeating this basic piece of logic?

"Where we disagree is what year you and your experts think was the optimal year for climate and the impossibility of replicating said optimal year. "

We don't disagree...you just don't understand. NOBODY says there was any such thing as an "optimal year", and nobody is saying we should "replicate" it (whatever that means).

I swear, a 5th-grader could understand this stuff better than you guys...

Stevehw wrote: DF: "EVERY human being ever to have lived agrees that the climate changes and will continue to do so in the future."

This is true. However, simply because *previous* changes were due to non-human factors *does not mean* that *this* change is NOT caused by humans. Why do we have to keep repeating this basic piece of logic?

Indy: You’re up against several things.

First, you’re anonymous. The people putting forth the denial of climate change are recognizable in the conservative community. Thus, their ‘clout’ especially since it matches their ideology, is tough to overcome regardless of the evidence or science.

The next issue is that many conservatives have been told that liberals are lying to them. Thus, many may not even consider your evidence or science.

Another issue is that the consequences are not pleasant since changes to renewable energy will slow the economy and will prevent any type of ‘unlimited growth’ currently being offered up. Even Obama was saying as much yet offering up to the public that we’ll get action on climate change even when his follow through on this issue is questionable for the same economic issues that are important to conservatives.

And keep in mind that while I’m an engineer, I not an expert per se in climate change and will never be. And while it’s easier for me to understand the science in play, most folks liberal or conservative aren’t trained in science and thus making a leap to the conclusions will be difficult at the very least.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that who would have ever guessed that we’d be faced with such an issue. Throughout all of recorded history, mankind was never in a position to change the face of this planet but now we are.

And when you speak to concentrations of CO2 like I do, many would think that what’s the big deal since we only talking ‘parts per million’. Why would something that diluted be of any consequence? That’s a fair question. I would offer that if you have `1 part per billion’ of plutonium in your body, you’re dead! So concentrations do matter . . .

Finally, since CO2 in natural appearing concentrations keep earth from being a ‘frozen ball’, it’s also reasonable to assume that raising the concentration should help us and even make climate better since if it was already there naturally, why the big deal?

The really tough reality is that the changes to climate are gradual. Yes, we can see the increased power of storms (hurricanes), extended droughts, plus the gradual rise in mean thermal temperature of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit. And oceans rising, that too is a slow gradual process. Same with melting glaciers but thanks to photos, the changes are now becoming more pronounced.

The reality is that this ‘slowness’ doesn’t look like a crisis even if the long term changes will be. And like it or not, humans react to ‘crisis’ they can see versus something they can’t.

In the final analysis, I don’t know if the human race can learn enough fast enough to address such an issue given what I’ve noted. All great civilizations of humans have failed in the past for one reason or another. Sadly, we may end up with the same fate . . . I hope not . . . we’ll see.

"Indy: You’re up against several things."

I know...like a complete lack of understanding of *basic logic*, for starters.

The fact that someone on a *news* channel would ask the unbelievably stupid question about a *meteor*:

"Is this the effect of, perhaps, global warming?"

indicates how pathetically ignorant even supposedly educated people (like journalists) are about *science* of any kind.

Seriously? Did she really think a meteor from space was caused by global climate change???? What the...?

In other words, stevehw cannot back up his moronic assertion that climate change is no longer a natural occurrence. It’s always fun to watch the lemmings try to avoid the debate by saying the “debate is over”, laugh out loud funny. Next he will try to convince us that the rotation of the Earth is no longer a natural occurrence. What an ignorant position to take.

"A total of 34 national science academies have made formal declarations since 2001 confirming anthropogenic global warming and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. This includes 33 who have signed joint science academies' statements and the individual declaration made by the Polish Academy of Sciences made in 2007."

Yeah, all those morons who belong to those snobby academies, them with all their high-falutin' Ph.D. degrees and all that. What do THEY know? They should just listen to CaptGene, HE knows all about climatology, and HE knows that it's all "just a natural occurrence", nothing to do with the 7,000,000,000 people on earth. They're just all taking "ignorant positions" based on nothing more than data, facts, science and mathematics, after all. Idiots.

You are welcome to drink the KoolAid all you want, but if you think that the change in climate is no longer a natural occurrence, well, you might as well join manq and his truther buddies at their next meeting. There truly is a sucker born every minute.

The fact that this Columbia University educated newscaster would even ask the question shows just how gullible society has become. First they buy into the whole AGW boogeyman nonsense then they believe that every bad thing that happens must somehow be linked to it.

Nye could have told her that yes, AGW was a contributing factor as regards this asteroid and there is a certain segment of society (read stevehw) that would believe it, it was on CNN afterall, and a scientist said it so it must be true. Sad, pathetic people.

Notice how CaptGene hasn't actually shown anything at all to disprove ACC...he just says "I don't believe it!" and that's supposed to end the debate right there. He doesn't believe it, so it can't be true.

I don't believe the earth orbits the sun...so therefore, the earth doesn't orbit the sun. Doesn't matter what the facts and science say, if I don't believe it, it can't be true.

THAT is the totality of the climate change denialist "argument", as evidenced here.

As far as "drinking the Kool-Aid" (actually, a horrible expression that arose out of the deaths of hundreds of people, but whatever...)

Yeah, I'll throw my lot in with the thousands of *experts* worldwide who have spent their entire lives studying climatology and earth systems, instead of pretending that I know more than they do because I read it on the internet on some neo-con blog.

Now, I'm sure we'll see the usual "there are just as many scientists who don't believe in it as those who do" tripe show up again...cue the usual nonsense about the on-line "global warming petition" supposedly signed by "thousands of scientists", etc.

Again, arguing against anthropogenic climate change as CG does is analogous to arguing against general relativity or quantum physics or evolution or...

People with ZERO training or understanding, and usually barely a high-school training in math or science, suddenly believe the whole of the scientific community is lying to them or stupid or fraudulent or something.

The U.S. is filled with people like this who are scientifically illiterate. They believe in ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot, creationism, etc., AND that ACC is a fraud.

What's really a fraud is an educational system that perpetuates this kind of ignorance.

That's funny coming from the guy that tried to end the debate by simply saying the "debate is over". What a simpleton.

It is indeed impossible to prove man has stopped climate change .....and that is the beauty of the Green Religion.

Mystical arm waving, reams of 'science', internet links, and a crystal ball.....

Yeah, it's a religion. Correlation does not prove causation unless it supports the bunk that is AGW, such is the position of the true believer.

I concur with Dumbounded's comments, especially this:

When the idiot greens get their way and destroy our economy.

This seems to be a common talking point...that environmentalists, aka "greens" are out to "destroy the economy".

Why? What would be their motivation for destroying the economy?

I've heard the same thing in various guises for years...one instance in particular was that the "enviros" were using wolf reintroduction in the northern Rockies to "eliminate" public-lands ranching in the West. Somehow, though, it never sunk in to any of the anti-wolf faction that if that were the case, the "enviros" failed miserably, as not a single rancher has gone out of business nor have any public-land leases been threatened in the slightest by the presence of wolves.

I hear similar stuff from the right wing about virtually every environmental issue...regardless of what the issue is, there's some "grand conspiracy" of "envirowhackos" whose sole goal is to "destroy the United States" or "destroy the economy" (as if they don't live within that economy, too).

Nobody ever says *why* they'd want to do that.

stevehw wrote: This seems to be a common talking point...that environmentalists, aka "greens" are out to "destroy the economy". Why? What would be their motivation for destroying the economy?

Indy: Excellent point steve.

The problem is that business interest play to the ‘low information voters’ that Rush addresses in that they like to hear slogans like ‘greens’ yet don’t realize the environmental damage done to the environment which we all live in by the way . . .

This also plays into the regulation talking point and where we bombarded with ‘anti-regulation’ rhetoric yet when asked what one specific regulation is bad, we get nothing . . . just back to the ‘greens’.

This is sadly the state of our political discourse is that directed at the least informed among us then we get ‘actions’ by politicians using ignorance as their foundation.

We simply can’t afford to keep electing leaders that wish to lead by ideology and not science.

Famine and sea level rise will make your world unrecognizable any minute. If Climate Change was following just "natural forces" we'd be getting cooler. Loading the biosphere with chemicals is quantifiable, as is the plants' and oceans' ability to sequester it.

There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than at any time in the life of humans. We will be very lucky if we don't render ourselves extinct in the next 50 years.

If you believe in God this is a test. Give up materialism. Give up consumerism. Work to mitigate and reverse the pollution. Stop with the ostrich thing.

WIndy: "What I find fascinating is that some Americans believe climate change is simply based on one’s ‘beliefs’ and not science."

What I find fascinating is that some Americans actually believe mankind can affect climate change.

OR: How do you explain the 75% increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide since the invention of steam power and adoption of large scale industry beginning around 1800? Where is the Greenhouse Gas coming from if not from "manchild" destroying forests, while burning coal then oil like there's no tomorrow?

People have proven over and over they will decimate their environment past the point of sustainability unless they are FORCED to stop the plunder. Why are there no forests in Haiti? What happened on Easter Island?