garland

Sorry, Barrons, Nature is firmly in the global warming camp. You'll have to stick to your blogs for corroboration--it ain't there in the reality-based world.

LaxAttack09

Whatever happened to the ice-age hysteria that was all but certain in the 1970's?

zoosermom

"Whatever happened to the ice-age hysteria that was all but certain in the 1970's?"

Hysteria? what hyseria? The next ice age is COMING. Haven't you been reading the sun spots?

kluge

Laxattack - the "ice age hysteria of the 70's" is 90% current denier hype and 10% overreaction by, in particular, one (1) magazine article in he popular press which was published back then. Back in the 1970's nobody claimed to be real sure about what was going to happen weather-wise in the future, although global warming was viewed as a likely scenario to some even then based on observations and was probably the plurality, if not yet consensus view of the best hypothesis at that point. But a few (note: few) scientists considered the possibility of climate change tipping the other way. Newsweek magazine jumped on that hypothesis with a front page story in one (1) edition of the magazine. Subsequent research failed to support the cooling hypothesis, and did firm up the warming theory. Global warming theory became not merely the majority, but the consensus view.

So, sorry. There never was any "ice-age hysteria," at least among scientists. The claim that there was is just part of the snide "wit" deniers use as a substitute for science and reasoned discourse.

Reference: RealClimate

Son of Opie

Ecological Footprint Quiz by Redefining Progress

It's not just climate change, but overall sustainability that people should be worried about. Most Americans consume too much.

hayden

I don't know enough to make an informed decision re: global warming, so I've never adopted an opinion. But from what little I do understand, isn't one of the problems with the discussion that the overall global warming can result in colder temperatures in some places? For instance, as I understand it, one of the effects of global warming would be the slowing of the Gulf stream, which would result in England's climate becoming colder, and more like northern Canada. It seems that it might have made the discussion less subject to misunderstanding if people had used the term "climate change".

garland

Well, actually, they do use that term. BAsically, the overall climate is warming from anthropogenic causes, but that may, as you say, manifest differently in different places, such as because of the effects it has on the world's ocean current system.

overall, Hayden, that you can't make an "informed decision" is not because it isn't a scienetifically settled issue, but because the campaign to create a controversy in the popular press, when it doesn't exist scientifically, is a success.

pafather

The supposition that all educated climate scientists agree that humans contribute significantly to global warming is false. Furthermore, what percentage of relevantly educated engineers (as opposed to scientists) believe that (1) human's contributions to global warming is significant, (2) the current trend in global warming is necessarily detrimental, and (3) that we can effectively reverse such "effects" using some economically viable methods?

Either climate scientists realized when they were first formulating their "global warming" theories that it is only valid for extremely long time scales and it would likely have no effect within the next decade (in which case they were deceitfully hiding this information while popularizing the theory) or they are only now adjusting their models to account for this concept (in which case they were incompetent when pressing for imminent actions based on such lousy models, and are now forced to "tweak" their "models"). When I was a faculty member or a TA, I always took off many more points on a homework assignment when someone obtained the right answer using the wrong method (because a student could obtain the correct answer either from the book or from a friend) than if he used the right approach and made simple errors to end up with an incorrect result. In my opinion, these scientists decided to "kluge" their lousy theory rather than figure out what was really wrong with it. That is not what we call science. That is "plug and chug" with "fudge factors." Anyone who proposes spending trillions of dollars based on such hogwash disguised as "science" has no concept of how real science is supposed to work.

barrons

My thoughts exactly pafather. They constantly "adjust" their predictions to include ==oh yeah, we meant that might happen too. Cooler--sure. Stormier--of course. Less stormy, obviously. Warmer--that's exactly what we were saying the first time. Meanwhile the planet has been going through warming and cooling cycles all by itself since time began.

LongPrime

Its been mightily cool here in the PNW this year.

Even the largest company in this earth has changed its tune towards the affect of greenhouse gases and human's contribution on the climate. Likewise W's administration has effectively conceded the debate. Sources can be found by googling your favorite oil company's website and this Administration.

Anybody want to buy a slightly used contractor's pickup or a supersized SUV. Need to pay tuition. I am "only" selling because low milage that these vehicles get and the lack of work.

fundingfather

Hayden,

The cooling of Europe as a result of "global warming" is just yet another myth that the alarmists like to propogate:
The Gulf Stream Myth

fundingfather

no, I'm an international arms merchant and part-time PR agent for the pharmaceutical industry.

TerpDad

Does this mean when global cooling begins we'll be able to drill for oil again? So we can heat the planet back up!

kluge

I'd like to thank all the blog-echos for faithfully repeating the deniers mantra, carefully following the playbook laid down by the tobacco companies in their rear-guard defense:

1) It's not true.
2) Less than 100% of the scientists who study it agree completely, so it's still just as reasonable to deny it as deal with it.
3) We're not causing it.
4) It's not so bad, anyway!

But here's the problem: The science is sound. There is a clear consensus among the scientists who actually understand the science (a group which does not include any CC posters) that the model is basically correct, and the data supports it.

That's why the deniers have to resort to the kind of tactics Barrons reposts so faithfully: misrepresenting the actual content and conclusions of studies which actually support the climate change consensus, lying about which scientists actually question the theory, and crowing over localized, short-term phenomena which don't actually refute the overall change.

By the way - how many of you bothered to follow FF's link and see that the author of the article he cited affirms global warming theory? It's actually kind of sad. Outside the mutually-affirming group of crackpots, nobody who has actually been paying attention is questioning the fact of anthropogenic climate change anymore. Even the oil companies are dealing with reality these days. The deniers are really limited to an odd group of sad, strange, mostly older men seeking glory by making brave and defiant pronouncements for which they have no scientific support. It's really down to the flat-earthers now.

zoosermom

"But here's the problem: The science is sound"

But they will also say that climate science is very complicated and can be affected by things outside of the control of man. For example, were there to be a large volcanic eruption, the entire research model would change and that's not necessarily a predictable event.