A lot of science is never settled. A lot of theories are never proven. Those who say otherwise typically have agendas that have nothing to do with science. True scientists are always questioning realities. Those who jump to unproven conclusions are usually hired hacks. “Scientists” whose livelihoods depend on the “right” conclusions.
Who would have thought that the ocean naturally goes through warming and cooling periods? And, of course, the fact that 71% of the water on this earth is ocean water “can’t possibly” affect the change in climate.
unlike you, i don’t attack people just because they don’t agree with me. let me break down my view on this topic again for you.
putting aside WHY, do you agree that temperatures across the planet as a whole have been rising over the past 5+ decades?
do you agree if temp’s continue to rise, the environment will change dramatically, even far outside the range that has been experienced by humanity to date?
see, i don’t care if humans are contributing to the temp’s going up or not. we know if the temp’s keep rising the future habitability of the planet for humans will be quite difficult. as stewards of the planet for future generations, we need to do all we can to ensure the planet is habitable for our children’s children.
1. based on the data that has been presented, it would appear that the temperature has risen on the planet, IF, you believe the data is credible (I have my doubts based on the reasons cited in other posts).
2. Yes, that would be a problem…eventually. Based on the data presented, the fractional change (.5 of a degree over a decade), it would take a century to raise the average temperature by 5 degrees. I believe the earth’s climate would naturally cycle and have cooler periods over a century to counter this concern; just as it has done so in the past.
3. I care if the govt is lying to us humans and dictating to us how we run our lives based upon some false agenda. What will be the next “thing” that they will say we have to do?
2. eventually…too bad we don’t know if the warming/cooling cycle you speak of takes place over decades, centuries or over millenniums — they are not perfectly periodic.
the next cooling period could come in 2020, or it could happen in 4,000 AD when the planet is 10 degrees hotter than it is now and humans will have been wiped from this earth along with 95% of all species.
also, saying the earth will “counter” the warming by cooling is a little bit of a cop-out. it’s not like the earth is warming up or cooling down just because it feels like it. i does so because something forces it to.
3. so do i, and i’d argue the gov’t lies to us way more than it tells us the truth.
remember the last “thing” the government said we had to do – stop using aerosol cans with CFC’s because we were causing a hole in the ozone layer?
you agree that was a real thing and humans reversed the negative effects of that impact on the planet, right?
my point there is that not everything we’re told is a lie and we better listen when the klaxon horns are blaring because once we pass the point of no return, we can never go back.
June 8, 2016 at 11:57 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Agent –
The irony in this article is that the counterview alludes to the man made aerosols suppressing the hurricane activity in the 70’s and 80’s.
His theory is that government regulation to rid the atmosphere of the aerosols allowed the sun to warm the ocean, causing an increase in the hurricane activity.
So, technically, if the scientists and govt would not have put in so much regulation, in theory, we may not have had Hurricane Andrew, Katrina and the rest of the really bad hurricanes.
In theory, the definition of “man made” could be “scientist and govt made”.
Before the left gets their panties in a tizzy, I am not advocating bringing back aerosols (although, the reflective nature may assist in bringing the temperature down a half of a degree over a decade.)
Humankind must take care of the planet. But humankind, including scientists and gov’t, need to realize that nature does what it does. Typically, the left believes in evolution, but somehow thinks it doesn’t apply in the global warming aspect. The climate will change because that is what is does. Just like GEICO.
integrity, I think we might agree that government and the left have gone a bit overboard and are still trying to convince us they are right and we are wrong. Look at the EPA if you want to see the weirdo regulations. The ones who bought into Al Gore’s narrative are the worst. He said we wouldn’t even have ice caps by 2014 and coastal areas would be under water. Climate has always changed down through the eons, glaciers advanced and glaciers retreated and man had nothing to do with it. Global Cooling is on the way by 2030 and then they will have that to complain about. Bunch of dufuses!
agent – putting aside WHY, do you agree that temperatures across the planet as a whole have been rising over the past 5+ decades?
do you think we have a duty to ensure the planet is habitable for future generations of humans?
June 8, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Confused, you asked if we had a duty to ensure the planet is habitable. Everyone can do their part to recycle and be responsible, but the planet need not spend $56.3 Trillion to lower the temperature .0017 degrees in the next 100 years. That is financial suicide, but I know you aren’t concerned with spending the money for your agenda.
June 8, 2016 at 4:26 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
i am glad you agree we have a duty to ensure the habitability of the planet for generations to come.
putting aside WHY, do you agree that temperatures across the planet as a whole have been rising over the past 5+ decades?
ps – i have no agenda besides keeping the planet safe to live for my great grandchildren and beyond.
June 9, 2016 at 8:41 am
Yogi Polar Berra says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Confused; please send a letter to the Chinese, instructing them to IMMEDIATELY cease all carbon emissions. Post a copy of it here, for all to see that you are not hypocritical when it comes to informing EVERYONE that they are doing bad things to the environment. I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this important matter.
June 9, 2016 at 9:12 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
YPB – wat? (intentional misspelling). How would a letter to another country prove I’m not a hypocrite?
June 10, 2016 at 10:54 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
…still waiting…
June 10, 2016 at 2:10 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“InsideClimate News, a Web site that has won the Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on oil spills, published the first installment of a multi-part exposé that will be appearing over the next month. The documents they have compiled and the interviews they have conducted with retired employees and officials show that, as early as 1977, Exxon (now ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies) knew that its main product would heat up the planet disastrously. This did not prevent the company from then spending decades helping to organize the campaigns of disinformation and denial that have slowed—perhaps fatally—the planet’s response to global warming.
There’s a sense, of course, in which one already assumed that this was the case. Everyone who’s been paying attention has known about climate change for decades now. But it turns out Exxon didn’t just “know” about climate change: it conducted some of the original research. In the nineteen-seventies and eighties, the company employed top scientists who worked side by side with university researchers and the Department of Energy, even outfitting one of the company’s tankers with special sensors and sending it on a cruise to gather CO2 readings over the ocean. By 1977, an Exxon senior scientist named James Black was, according to his own notes, able to tell the company’s management committee that there was “general scientific agreement” that what was then called the greenhouse effect was most likely caused by man-made CO2; a year later, speaking to an even wider audience inside the company, he said that research indicated that if we doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere, we would increase temperatures two to three degrees Celsius. That’s just about where the scientific consensus lies to this day. “Present thinking,” Black wrote in summary, “holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
Those numbers were about right, too. It was precisely ten years later—after a decade in which Exxon scientists continued to do systematic climate research that showed, as one internal report put it, that stopping “global warming would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion”—that NASA scientist James Hansen took climate change to the broader public, telling a congressional hearing, in June of 1988, that the planet was already warming. And how did Exxon respond? By saying that its own independent research supported Hansen’s findings? By changing the company’s focus to renewable technology?
That didn’t happen. Exxon responded, instead, by helping to set up or fund extreme climate-denial campaigns. (In a blog post responding to the I.C.N. report, the company said that the documents were “cherry-picked” to “distort our history of pioneering climate science research” and efforts to reduce emissions.) The company worked with veterans of the tobacco industry to try and infuse the climate debate with doubt. Lee Raymond, who became the Exxon C.E.O. in 1993—and was a senior executive throughout the decade that Exxon had studied climate science—gave a key speech to a group of Chinese leaders and oil industry executives in 1997, on the eve of treaty negotiations in Kyoto. He told them that the globe was cooling, and that government action to limit carbon emissions “defies common sense.” In recent years, it’s gotten so hot (InsideClimate’s exposé coincided with the release of data showing that this past summer was the United States’ hottest in recorded history) that there’s no use denying it any more; Raymond’s successor, Rex Tillerson, has grudgingly accepted climate change as real, but has referred to it as an “engineering problem.” In May, at a shareholders’ meeting, he mocked renewable energy, and said that “mankind has this enormous capacity to deal with adversity,” which would stand it in good stead in the case of “inclement weather” that “may or may not be induced by climate change.” “
June 15, 2016 at 9:46 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
integrity, remember them blaming man for holes in the Ozone layer due to aerosols and Air Conditioning refrigerants? Weather people used to espouse Ozone action days. Apparently, the problem has been solved because I haven’t seen that in several years. Perhaps it is because the polar caps didn’t melt by 2014 as Gore predicted it would. Now, they are into “rising seas” and how Miami and NY will be under water in a few short years. Anything to promote the agenda, right?
Has it even crossed your mind that there are less products that are aerosol or that air conditioning units have become far more efficient? These changes are why we do not hear about issues with the ozone anymore.
When we actually head warnings and make changes, we see the positive results. This is why we should not put are heads in the sand and ignore scientists.
June 8, 2016 at 9:39 am
Michael says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
It is a meaningless debate how many we may have. One direct hit negates years of near misses, and nobody can predict a hit. This “theory” is rubbish.
Hey Michael, it is raining and storming in Pittsburg today delaying the US Open Golf Tournament. I have not heard one announcer say it was due to Climate Change or Global Warming. (Sarcasm)
Our lovely President says that Climate Change is the most serious national security threat. I am sure he believes that ISIS sympathizer shooter in Orlando did what he did due to Climate Change and he wants to take the guns out of the hands of the citizens to prevent future shootings. By the way, a gay nightclub is about the easiest target a determined shooter could find. No wonder it was so easy to shoot so many.
As much agreement on this as there is on global warming.
Gee Dave, I thought the science was settled and the world was doomed and here we have an article with scientists disagreeing.
A lot of science is never settled. A lot of theories are never proven. Those who say otherwise typically have agendas that have nothing to do with science. True scientists are always questioning realities. Those who jump to unproven conclusions are usually hired hacks. “Scientists” whose livelihoods depend on the “right” conclusions.
Well, isn’t this an interesting development?
Who would have thought that the ocean naturally goes through warming and cooling periods? And, of course, the fact that 71% of the water on this earth is ocean water “can’t possibly” affect the change in climate.
integrity, I can’t wait for UW or Confused to attack you and start calling you names because you don’t believe their Global Warming theories
unlike you, i don’t attack people just because they don’t agree with me. let me break down my view on this topic again for you.
putting aside WHY, do you agree that temperatures across the planet as a whole have been rising over the past 5+ decades?
do you agree if temp’s continue to rise, the environment will change dramatically, even far outside the range that has been experienced by humanity to date?
see, i don’t care if humans are contributing to the temp’s going up or not. we know if the temp’s keep rising the future habitability of the planet for humans will be quite difficult. as stewards of the planet for future generations, we need to do all we can to ensure the planet is habitable for our children’s children.
Confused – I’d like to respond
1. based on the data that has been presented, it would appear that the temperature has risen on the planet, IF, you believe the data is credible (I have my doubts based on the reasons cited in other posts).
2. Yes, that would be a problem…eventually. Based on the data presented, the fractional change (.5 of a degree over a decade), it would take a century to raise the average temperature by 5 degrees. I believe the earth’s climate would naturally cycle and have cooler periods over a century to counter this concern; just as it has done so in the past.
3. I care if the govt is lying to us humans and dictating to us how we run our lives based upon some false agenda. What will be the next “thing” that they will say we have to do?
1. roger that
2. eventually…too bad we don’t know if the warming/cooling cycle you speak of takes place over decades, centuries or over millenniums — they are not perfectly periodic.
the next cooling period could come in 2020, or it could happen in 4,000 AD when the planet is 10 degrees hotter than it is now and humans will have been wiped from this earth along with 95% of all species.
also, saying the earth will “counter” the warming by cooling is a little bit of a cop-out. it’s not like the earth is warming up or cooling down just because it feels like it. i does so because something forces it to.
3. so do i, and i’d argue the gov’t lies to us way more than it tells us the truth.
remember the last “thing” the government said we had to do – stop using aerosol cans with CFC’s because we were causing a hole in the ozone layer?
you agree that was a real thing and humans reversed the negative effects of that impact on the planet, right?
my point there is that not everything we’re told is a lie and we better listen when the klaxon horns are blaring because once we pass the point of no return, we can never go back.
Agent –
The irony in this article is that the counterview alludes to the man made aerosols suppressing the hurricane activity in the 70’s and 80’s.
His theory is that government regulation to rid the atmosphere of the aerosols allowed the sun to warm the ocean, causing an increase in the hurricane activity.
So, technically, if the scientists and govt would not have put in so much regulation, in theory, we may not have had Hurricane Andrew, Katrina and the rest of the really bad hurricanes.
In theory, the definition of “man made” could be “scientist and govt made”.
Before the left gets their panties in a tizzy, I am not advocating bringing back aerosols (although, the reflective nature may assist in bringing the temperature down a half of a degree over a decade.)
Humankind must take care of the planet. But humankind, including scientists and gov’t, need to realize that nature does what it does. Typically, the left believes in evolution, but somehow thinks it doesn’t apply in the global warming aspect. The climate will change because that is what is does. Just like GEICO.
integrity, I think we might agree that government and the left have gone a bit overboard and are still trying to convince us they are right and we are wrong. Look at the EPA if you want to see the weirdo regulations. The ones who bought into Al Gore’s narrative are the worst. He said we wouldn’t even have ice caps by 2014 and coastal areas would be under water. Climate has always changed down through the eons, glaciers advanced and glaciers retreated and man had nothing to do with it. Global Cooling is on the way by 2030 and then they will have that to complain about. Bunch of dufuses!
agent – putting aside WHY, do you agree that temperatures across the planet as a whole have been rising over the past 5+ decades?
do you think we have a duty to ensure the planet is habitable for future generations of humans?
Confused, you asked if we had a duty to ensure the planet is habitable. Everyone can do their part to recycle and be responsible, but the planet need not spend $56.3 Trillion to lower the temperature .0017 degrees in the next 100 years. That is financial suicide, but I know you aren’t concerned with spending the money for your agenda.
i am glad you agree we have a duty to ensure the habitability of the planet for generations to come.
putting aside WHY, do you agree that temperatures across the planet as a whole have been rising over the past 5+ decades?
ps – i have no agenda besides keeping the planet safe to live for my great grandchildren and beyond.
@Confused; please send a letter to the Chinese, instructing them to IMMEDIATELY cease all carbon emissions. Post a copy of it here, for all to see that you are not hypocritical when it comes to informing EVERYONE that they are doing bad things to the environment. I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this important matter.
YPB – wat? (intentional misspelling). How would a letter to another country prove I’m not a hypocrite?
…still waiting…
“InsideClimate News, a Web site that has won the Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on oil spills, published the first installment of a multi-part exposé that will be appearing over the next month. The documents they have compiled and the interviews they have conducted with retired employees and officials show that, as early as 1977, Exxon (now ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies) knew that its main product would heat up the planet disastrously. This did not prevent the company from then spending decades helping to organize the campaigns of disinformation and denial that have slowed—perhaps fatally—the planet’s response to global warming.
There’s a sense, of course, in which one already assumed that this was the case. Everyone who’s been paying attention has known about climate change for decades now. But it turns out Exxon didn’t just “know” about climate change: it conducted some of the original research. In the nineteen-seventies and eighties, the company employed top scientists who worked side by side with university researchers and the Department of Energy, even outfitting one of the company’s tankers with special sensors and sending it on a cruise to gather CO2 readings over the ocean. By 1977, an Exxon senior scientist named James Black was, according to his own notes, able to tell the company’s management committee that there was “general scientific agreement” that what was then called the greenhouse effect was most likely caused by man-made CO2; a year later, speaking to an even wider audience inside the company, he said that research indicated that if we doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere, we would increase temperatures two to three degrees Celsius. That’s just about where the scientific consensus lies to this day. “Present thinking,” Black wrote in summary, “holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
Those numbers were about right, too. It was precisely ten years later—after a decade in which Exxon scientists continued to do systematic climate research that showed, as one internal report put it, that stopping “global warming would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion”—that NASA scientist James Hansen took climate change to the broader public, telling a congressional hearing, in June of 1988, that the planet was already warming. And how did Exxon respond? By saying that its own independent research supported Hansen’s findings? By changing the company’s focus to renewable technology?
That didn’t happen. Exxon responded, instead, by helping to set up or fund extreme climate-denial campaigns. (In a blog post responding to the I.C.N. report, the company said that the documents were “cherry-picked” to “distort our history of pioneering climate science research” and efforts to reduce emissions.) The company worked with veterans of the tobacco industry to try and infuse the climate debate with doubt. Lee Raymond, who became the Exxon C.E.O. in 1993—and was a senior executive throughout the decade that Exxon had studied climate science—gave a key speech to a group of Chinese leaders and oil industry executives in 1997, on the eve of treaty negotiations in Kyoto. He told them that the globe was cooling, and that government action to limit carbon emissions “defies common sense.” In recent years, it’s gotten so hot (InsideClimate’s exposé coincided with the release of data showing that this past summer was the United States’ hottest in recorded history) that there’s no use denying it any more; Raymond’s successor, Rex Tillerson, has grudgingly accepted climate change as real, but has referred to it as an “engineering problem.” In May, at a shareholders’ meeting, he mocked renewable energy, and said that “mankind has this enormous capacity to deal with adversity,” which would stand it in good stead in the case of “inclement weather” that “may or may not be induced by climate change.” “
integrity, remember them blaming man for holes in the Ozone layer due to aerosols and Air Conditioning refrigerants? Weather people used to espouse Ozone action days. Apparently, the problem has been solved because I haven’t seen that in several years. Perhaps it is because the polar caps didn’t melt by 2014 as Gore predicted it would. Now, they are into “rising seas” and how Miami and NY will be under water in a few short years. Anything to promote the agenda, right?
Agent,
Has it even crossed your mind that there are less products that are aerosol or that air conditioning units have become far more efficient? These changes are why we do not hear about issues with the ozone anymore.
When we actually head warnings and make changes, we see the positive results. This is why we should not put are heads in the sand and ignore scientists.
It is a meaningless debate how many we may have. One direct hit negates years of near misses, and nobody can predict a hit. This “theory” is rubbish.
Hey Michael, it is raining and storming in Pittsburg today delaying the US Open Golf Tournament. I have not heard one announcer say it was due to Climate Change or Global Warming. (Sarcasm)
Our lovely President says that Climate Change is the most serious national security threat. I am sure he believes that ISIS sympathizer shooter in Orlando did what he did due to Climate Change and he wants to take the guns out of the hands of the citizens to prevent future shootings. By the way, a gay nightclub is about the easiest target a determined shooter could find. No wonder it was so easy to shoot so many.