Advertisement

Archive for Friday, December 14, 2012

Poll: More say global warming is occurring

December 14, 2012

Advertisement

WASHINGTON — A growing majority of Americans think global warming is occurring, that it will become a serious problem and that the U.S. government should do something about it, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds.

Even most people who say they don’t trust scientists on the environment say temperatures are rising.

The poll found 4 out of every 5 Americans said climate change will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it. That’s up from 73 percent when the same question was asked in 2009.

And 57 percent of Americans say the U.S. government should do a great deal or quite a bit about the problem. That’s up from 52 percent in 2009. Only 22 percent of those surveyed think little or nothing should be done, a figure that dropped from 25 percent.

Overall, 78 percent of those surveyed said they believe temperatures are rising, up from 75 percent three years earlier. In general, U.S. belief in global warming, according to AP-GfK and other polls, has fluctuated over the years but has stayed between about 70 and 85 percent.

Comments

bearded_gnome 2 years ago

and oce it was the commonly held belief that the human body functioned with four "humors," too. when I read articles like this hypin "the greatest hoaxe" I get bilious.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

Your getting bilious warms the cockles of the planet's heart!

riverdrifter 2 years ago

I found a tooth from an ice-age horse and an ankle bone from a ground sloth on the Kansas river while duck hunting on the Kansas river the past few weeks. Thank God that things don't change...

Kirk Larson 2 years ago

Of course things change. What's different is the rate things are changing. Paleoclimatologists find that the rate of warming today is much faster than in past warming periods. And that it correlates to millions of tons of sequestered carbon (that took millions of years to be deposited) being released into the atmosphere in a geologic eyeblink by human activity.

waitjustaminute 2 years ago

blah, blah, blah. global warming. blah, blah, blah, . . . now it's climate change. blah, blah, blah. save the whales, save the snails, save the plastic bag. George Carllin said it best. And now, I have some AlGore carbon credits to offer you at a discount price. blah, blah, blah. and that's all i have to say about that.

Liberty275 2 years ago

"I have some AlGore carbon credits to offer you at a discount price. blah, blah, blah. and that's all i have to say about that."

That's nice, but we'll stick with Charmin.

Trumbull 2 years ago

Roe, this article covers worlwide methane emissions. Methane is released by both industry and plant matter decay, cattle...etc. Because it is a simultaneous increase worlwide, industry (ie man) may not be responsible.

However, man may be indirectly reponsible in this way. Much methane release is coming from permafrost melt. This is thousands and thousands of years of gasses formerly trapped in a frozen state being released very quickly. Global warming has exponential factors and many variables. Permafrost melt just might be a case of man unleashing mother nature on us.

deec 2 years ago

The article says " Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this MAY (emphasis mine) be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions."

More info:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029.html

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-263

Mike Ford 2 years ago

I love how people champion being ignorant of science as Kansas is having Louisiana winters. I guess the dummies are good entertainment.

Curtis Lange 2 years ago

Yes, two warm winters after two of the snowiest winters in Kansas recorded history are signs of impending global doom. That paper cut I got the other day is a sign my finger is going to fall off as well.

deec 2 years ago

"Here’s a look at the 10 snowiest winters, based on totals recorded by the National Weather Service.

  1. 1911-12 (67)
  2. 1959-60 (58.5)
  3. 1961-62 (54.7)
  4. 2009-10 (44.2)
  5. 1925-26 (42.4)
  6. 1898-99 (38.6)
  7. 1914-15 (37.3)
  8. 1923-24 (37.1)
  9. 1897-98 (36.3)
  10. 1992-93 (34.3)

Read more: http://www.kshb.com/dpp/weather/winter/its-been-a-snowy-winter,-but-is-top-10-worthy#ixzz2F98migxg

Curtis Lange 2 years ago

Don't know what you were trying to prove with your post, but my statement was factually correct. From the Pleasant Hill weather office: 2009/10 is #4 with 44.2" while 2010/11 is #9 with 36.9". Combined, those two winters are the snowiest winters ever recorded back to back...

The next closest period similar to what we've experienced over the last three winters would be the stretch of 1959-1962. #2 1959/60 (58.5"), #3 1961/62 (54.7") and in between those two winters was #100 1960/61 (12.7")

deec 2 years ago

Can you post a link to your stats, because I'm not finding it.

geekin_topekan 2 years ago

Man made or not, the weather has become unpredictable. I have never, in all my days, seen the weather man flat out miss on a regular basis.

Armordillers are coming! So are the fire ants and weird amoeba that will eat your brain.

Water wars will be real in the next ten years (I predicted the water crisis ten years ago). The gubment hasn't called it a crisis yet but it will, by the end of next summer we will see how far down we truly are going.

chootspa 2 years ago

The armadillos are already here. Saw one off of K-10 this year.

Trumbull 2 years ago

Warmer air can hold more precipitation. So we should be seeing more rain....and more snow the further north you go.

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

Yes, but not really. Warmer air can hold more water, but it would be more accurate to say that where and when it precipitates, there will be more, and where/when in doesn't, it will be drier.

Trumbull 2 years ago

That is what I understand from my reading of the topic. I am no scientist for sure, but I don't think snowfall measurements are in indicator to disprove warming trends. For instance you can get snow at 10 degrees and 32 degrees.

Trumbull 2 years ago

In fact it seems like the big snowfalls we get come when it is warmer.....closer to the 30 degree mark. The artic blasts we get seem to bring sunny skies but frigid air.

Matthew Herbert 2 years ago

I am a believer in global warming and I believe its long term effects will be game changers, but at the very moment I'm in love with 50 degree Christmas! Now if only I had cut all this firewood!

Liberty275 2 years ago

I don't know what part if Lawrence you are in, but it's 28F here.

Richard Heckler 2 years ago

We cannot listen to corprate polluters and their politicians/puppets. Politicans from both sides of the aisle accept too much money from polluters. Both are detrimental to the world’s well being. These politicians no matter which side of the aisle need to go bye bye. Union of Concerned Scientists is a crediable source.

--- http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html

--- http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/cuccinelli-mann.html

All of contribute to Global/Warming/Climate Change somehow therefore all of us must reduce our impacts. Reduction is the key.

There is much we can do to protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations from the consequences of the heat-trapping emissions caused when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses.

Our country is at a crossroads: the United States can act responsibly and seize the opportunity to lead by developing new, innovative solutions, as well as immediately putting to use the many practical solutions we have at our disposal today; or we can choose to do nothing and deal with severe consequences later. At UCS we believe the choice is clear. It is time to push forward toward a brighter, cleaner future.

--- http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

John Hamm 2 years ago

And we cannot listen to the Global Warming/Climate Change prophets either because they have a tremendous amount of profit from us catering to their whims and the "needs" of a clean environment. You say the polluters are greedy, I say the anti-pollution Greens are just, if not more so, greedy.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

Thanks for the laugh. This ridiculous joke never gets old. Keep standing up for all of those non-profit polluters, OoBo!-]

jafs 2 years ago

Why?

We've developed an amazing ability to affect the world, with our advances in technology.

And, even if we can't "stop" it, it would be worth trying to slow it down if possible, given the adverse effects it will have/is having on the environment.

jafs 2 years ago

This was a reply to a post that's been disappeared.

I wonder if another poster has vanished?

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

I've noticed this happening in past comment threads: a poster can apparently take their line of comments out of the thread after the fact, leaving responses to their comments appearing to be non-sequiturs. What the JW should do in this case is to insert a space marker that says "commenter removed their comment here." Not expecting this to happen, one way to get around this is to quote the commenter in your response since they can't remove that.

Liberty275 2 years ago

I think they should leave the marker and stop deleting posts that aren't spam, don't contain obscenities and don't threaten. I know it is their playground and their rules, so I won't complain lest The Mighty Oz of the forum disappears this post or your's truly.

verity 2 years ago

Don't worry---they'll show up again.

rtwngr 2 years ago

Yes, jafs, I noticed my innocuous post has disappeared. All I said was I believe the Earth is warming but man has no control over it. Now, it's gone.

jafs 2 years ago

Strange.

Do you have any answer to my question?

Richard Heckler 2 years ago

Military officials claim the largest threat to National Security is Climate Change/Global Warming according to radio news.

Until congress stops playing politics their hands are tied. The top militarypeople are NOT taking this threat lightly.

Liberty275 2 years ago

LOL. Merril has a new hero... the military.

question4u 2 years ago

It's obviously a giant conspiracy, and it's amazing that 75% of Americans would be duped by scientists who only have an immense body of empirical data to back up their assertions. Scientists are clearly blinded by facts, otherwise how could the scientists of the Koch-funded Berkeley Earth Study conclude that their skepticism wasn't warranted after all? Their minds were twisted by rigorous testing of the facts. They've lost their ability to comprehend rhetoric.

It's now down to only 25% who still know the truth. Everyone else is lost. Their seduction by science has made them incapable of hearing the plain truth as calmly stated by the fossil fuel industry, which has nothing at stake but a simple desire that the truth be known. But what can the fossil-fuel industry do? Not even its trillions of dollars can stop the evil and corrupting influence of science. Only the strongest intellects are still capable of holding out against this insidious hoax.

It's a dark day for humanity when three quarters of the American public is willing to listen to the conclusions of the Nobel laureates on the International Panel on Climate Change instead of arguments like "blah, blah, blah."

SnakeFist 2 years ago

Yeah, but the computer simulations are based on facts, and are updated as more facts become available. Its not as though the computer simulations are equivalent to random guesses.

Kirk Larson 2 years ago

An educated guess that is continually updated by new evidence is much better than a knee-jerk denial or an attempt to quash the truth to protect billions in profits.

Liberty275 2 years ago

" knee-jerk denial "

I'd call it "default denial", at least on my part. I've looked at the stuff posted, listened to the opinions here and enjoyed a discussion or two here, but I remain convinced climate change is a political hoax built on a minuscule scientific anomaly. Kansas has been under Oceans and under glaciers. That climate varies is obvious. If it didn't then one of you really really smart science guys will be able to tell me to the 5th decimal just exactly what the temperature of the earth should be.

We are barely exiting a cold period that contained a small ice age, and you are telling us that it's getting warmer. Well duh.

"attempt to quash the truth to protect billions in profits."

I'd say "is very skeptical when science and politics lines up and thinks it is too fishy to use as an excuse to make heating my house cost more,

"An educated guess"

A guess purchased with grant money. Is that any different than one purchased with Koch money?

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

Seriously? You've gone to the climate.gov website, looked at all the lines of evidence and data coming in from all these different sources about increasing sea level, acidification, ocean heat, land-sea global temps, ice mass, etc., looked at the forcing data that clearly shows that natural forcings cannot adequately account for the incoming data, plus looking at the physical characteristics of the greenhouse gases, which DOES account for the observations, and conclude that "climate change is a political hoax built on a miniscule scientific anomaly???"

I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. What, if anything would convince you or even make you consider the possibility that the huge release of geologically sequestered carbon into the atmosphere by human activities is triggering a change in the global climate?

John Hamm 2 years ago

Ummmmmmmmm. "Facts?" or suppositions and correlations? More the later imho.

Liberty275 2 years ago

"Yeah, but the computer simulations are based on facts"

Science doesn't deal with fact. Religion deals with fact.

Your scientist is your pastor.

Liberty275 2 years ago

The computer simulations say what the left wants them to say. They pay for them.

Liberty275 2 years ago

Yeah. They can say anything and people will believe them and ignore what they see with their own eyes.

deec 2 years ago

So the Koch-funded scientist is a closet leftist who decided to reverse his position as a climate change skeptic.

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

Let me get this straight; you think a computer simulation is causing the world to get warmer? A computer simulation is causing the decline in Arctic ice, shifting climate zones, and a host of other real world observations?

So, Arrhenius used a computer simulation to predict that anthropogenic CO2 emissions would warm the planet, over 100 years ago?

What kind of computer did he have?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

The world HAS gotten RAPIDLY warmer.

That's a FACT and that's a PROBLEM!

The argument is over"Why?"

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

Well, I don't know what "facts" YOU are looking at, but concerning the global land-sea combined global temperature, I suggest you visit the following dataset: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

Then tell me that the temps are not rising and we're not responsible with a straight face.

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

That's called cherry picking: taking data going back to the 1880s and calling a "wiggle" in the overall trend and saying that there is a new trend, which it isn't. The proverbial tail wagging the dog, if you will--it's one of the favorite techniques of denialists. here's a nice illustration of what I'm talking about: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Thanks for making MY point.

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

I see: looking at 130 years of data is cherry picking while we should really be looking at just 10 years of data. Thanks for clarifying your usage of the term "cherry picking." A very unique usage of the term, indeed.

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

Out of curiosity, I went back and looked at the last 15 years of data as you suggested, and the last 15 years shows an increased anomaly from 0.3 celsius in 1996, increasing to .52 celsius in 2011. The 5 year averaged data increases from .25 celsius in 1995 to .57 celsius in 2009. So sorry to say even your unique definition of cherry picking won't save you here. You're going to have to shrink your data points even more to try to make your point.

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

So, what kind of computer did Arrhenius have?

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

I'm curious; what data show no warming coincident with the increase in CO2 over the last century?

There are none that I have seen.

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

I've looked at the data, they all indicate a warming trend.

Again, what kind of computer did Arrhenius have? Or, are you giving up on your premise that computer models are the basis of a believe that humans are changing the climate?

rtwngr 2 years ago

FYI, Many of the scientists that were listed on the IPOC, who were said to have validated studies and findings, had done no such thing. Many of those same scientists believe research to be flawed and outright manufactured.

Richard Heckler 2 years ago

The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs.

Some impacts—such as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughts—are already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions.

Mother Nature has never in her history had to deal with billions upon billions of humans and our need for trillions upon trillions of gallons of gasoline.

Mother Nature has never in her history had to deal with billions upon billions of humans and our need for for astronomical demands of electricity from thousands upon thousands of of contaminating sources.

Mother Nature has never in her history had to deal with billions upon billions of humans and our need for for astronomical demands of toxic chemicals to keep our lawns unnaturally free of weeds and to keep grass growing at the speed of light.

Mother Nature has never in her history had to deal with billions upon billions of humans and our need for for astronomical quantities of polluting toxic chemicals to be dumped in our waterways.

Paul Wilson 2 years ago

So...as you make your next trip to the recycling center...think about how many tons of carbon emissions you are dumping into the atmosphere. Carting it there, smashing it, transporting, grinding, etc. All powered by fossil fuels. Trees are our most plentiful and sustainable natural resource. For every tree fell for paper...three are planted. Yet paper is shredded and recycled more than anything else. Completely irresponsible if you are concerned with the health of our atmosphere.

kernal 2 years ago

Not all of us make a special trip just to do our recycling. Here's a novel idea: wait until you have other errands to do in that area of town and do it all in one trip. It's called time management and organization.

Paul Wilson 2 years ago

So that takes care of the initial leg of the journey for the stuff. Now account for the rest of the wattage and fuel burned in it's journey. You can't. You and the rest of the irresponsible are pumping thousands of unnecessary tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. It's called common sense.

notaubermime 2 years ago

Do you have any idea how much greenhouse gases are given off every time you throw something away? Think about how much goes into transport, processing, then the amount of methane (a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) given off by landfills.

If you want to make a judgement, you should look at the costs of all of the options.

Paul Wilson 2 years ago

I have....recycling paper is irresponsible if you're a nutball that believes global warming is man made.

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

What does the relative efficiency of recycling have to do with the physics of climate change, and whether or not people believe that scientists know anything about physics?

Paul Wilson 2 years ago

It doesn't. My point is that the same doom and gloom enviro whackos that want to regulate carbon emissions to "save the planet" are the same folks that are pumping needless tons of emissions into the atmosphere recycling things that don't need to be recycled. It shows the general hypocrisy of the crowd and proves their ignorance. If you recycle paper goods that are biodegradable in less than a couple years...you are a fool and are contributing to the "science" that says man is the cause of global warming.

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

The average person in the US burns way more energy to accomplish the same task as folks do in the rest of the world. That goes for pretty much everyone regardless of their political convictions. That's why energy efficiency measures are so cost effective when applied here in the good 'ol USA. It should be a partriotic duty to install more insulation in your attic, drive an energy efficient auto and build bike lanes in our community and join the rest of the world in meeting our needs with much less energy.

jafs 2 years ago

In order to do a good analysis of the relative costs, you'd have to include all of the factors, including the costs of making new stuff vs. using recycled materials.

It's hard to do well and accurately.

But, it's clear that making new stuff involves the same sorts of costs as the ones you mention, emissions, transportation, etc.

And, stuff that's jammed into landfills doesn't biodegrade easily, to my knowledge.

Paul Wilson 2 years ago

Aug trip to Issaquah every year. Trees are not endangered. Logging companies plant so that they stay in business forever. You don't know what your talking about. They are our most plentiful and sustainable resource. Also...who said trees were going to save us from anything?

Paul Wilson 2 years ago

Because you can't make a point with evidence.

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

So, first, you are saying your comment has nothing to do with the article.

Second, you are painting with too broad a brush. Just as it would be wrong to paint every denier as an evil, short-term profit seeker, it is wrong to color everyone concerned about climate change as an enviro whacko.

Paul Wilson 2 years ago

you are an enviro whacko if you think warming is man made and you think the U.S. is responsible. You're pissing in the wind as it pertains to the rest of the world.

verity 2 years ago

Polls as to what people think are meaningless as far as ascertaining facts.

You don't know that the earth will continue to go on for millions of years and certainly not that it will heal itself. There is nothing inherent in the process that promises that.

Study of the physical sciences shows us that only a little variation has sent the earth into an ice age and it can happen quickly---faster than life can adequately adapt. We're screwing with things that we only have a limited understanding of. Current warming trends could lead to severe droughts and turn the midwest into a desert and they might lead eventually to another ice age. Or a volcanic eruption and subsequent particles in the air could lead to extreme cooling.

Meanwhile we're fouling our own home. Isn't it better to clean the place up and be conservative?

I find it ironic that the so-called conservatives are often the ones who call for less conservation.

verity 2 years ago

Everybody's skin is in the game. I would prefer for mine to be intact for some time.

John Hamm 2 years ago

It also shows us that it has happened in the past without man and therefor quite likely to happen again in the future with or without man. The word "Cycle" seems to be lost on the Liberal mind.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

Thank you for stating the obvious facts presented in your fist sentence. I do believe; however, that your Oonly Bonly mind (I don't like to generalize as much as you do.) may be assuming that "cycles" are less dynamic than is indicated by the observable universe. Stuff changes and various "things", and other cycles contribute to those changes. It's conceivable that even animals on the planet contribute to changes in cycles, especially if those animals cause drastic changes in the environment.. Humans have caused rapid and drastic changes.

A "Cycle" is not something borne of virgins, munchkins, unicorns or capricious gods. A "Cycle", according to how I perceive your of the term, is CAUSED by phenomena. Cycles do not exist in a vacuum. They are affected by change.

Do the math or allow that calculations beyond your preconceived notions of how the world works may have some validity.

Your belief in the existence of a "Liberal mind" speaks volumes as to the validity of your postulations.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago

It's one graph in a yet-to-be-fully-reviewed-and-vetted (as good science is always done) draft report.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/ipcc-draft-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-309094

"IPCC draft (redux) Filed under: Climate Science IPCC — gavin @ 14 December 2012 Amid the manufactured spin and excitement of the unofficial release of the IPCC WG1 Second Order Draft, it is worth remembering that this happened last time too:

IPCC draft: No comment

May 4, 2006

As everyone has now realised, the second-order draft of the new IPCC report has become very widely available and many of the contributors to this site, commenters and readers will have seen copies. Part of the strength of the IPCC process are the multiple stages of review – the report is already significantly improved (in clarity and scientific basis) from the first round of reviews, and one can anticipate further improvements from the ongoing round as well. Thus no statements from this draft report can be considered ‘official’. While most of the contents of the report will come as no surprise to frequent visitors here, we have decided that we are not going to discuss the report until it is finalised and released (sometime in February 2007). At that time, we’ll go chapter by chapter hopefully pulling out the interesting bits, but until then, we feel it’s more appropriate to respect the ‘Do not cite or quote’ injunctions that can be found on every page. We trust that our commenters will likewise respect the process. Patience, people, patience!

The only change is that AR5 will be released in September 2013."

Liberty275 2 years ago

"At that time, we’ll go chapter by chapter hopefully pulling out the interesting bits, but until then, we feel it’s more appropriate to respect the ‘Do not cite or quote’ injunctions"

IOW, "shut up until we can find the right thing for you to say".

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

Mr. Watts comments are exactly why these are preliminary data: cherry pickers like him will take a tiny blip of misinterpretation and make it the centerpiece of their review of the entire document. If you bothered to look at the draft in its entirety, you'd have seen that the overwhelming preponderance of information presented points to a cascade of climate change-induced data that is virtually impossible to come up with Mr. Watts conclusion without deliberate distortion. Will Mr. Watts do this surgical extraction of information from the entire report when it is released next year in order to further his extreme views? Why wouldn't he continue to do what he's been doing all along?

Kirk Larson 2 years ago

Of course science shouldn't be done by polling. This is important because voters may finally start holding their representatives responsible for their views on climate change and we may move toward better energy and environmental policy.

verity 2 years ago

Point taken, Cappy. I just get irritated when people seem to think that their opinion makes a difference as to whether something is fact or not.

notaubermime 2 years ago

That is ridiculous, sir! It is obviously banana bread.

John Hamm 2 years ago

I certainly hope you're being facetious here.

Liberty275 2 years ago

P0420 + guilt trip = $1000 catalytic converter job. Excellent strategy.

Paul Wilson 2 years ago

Look at a map. If you believe in the junk science that is man made global warming...then you will see that you will never be able to control the rest of the world. You're pissing in the wind.

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

Could you please first decide if there is no problem, or, if the problem is too large to do anything about, and then get back to us when you have settled on one.

Pal 2 years ago

Has anyone received their Long Count calendar in the mail yet? I have not. This is what has me worried more than global warming hypothesis. At least, I get some comfort from Gaia hypothesis.

I hope I get my calendar in the next couple of days!

Ken Lassman 2 years ago

They are incredible. Their wolf's law youtube is one of the most beautiful music videos out there.

avarom 2 years ago

There are so many satellites in the atmosphere for controlling rain, lightning, storms, etc....that global warming is just a way for the satellite operators to charge us more money for fruits and vegetables.They hit the Global Warming switch. Like Gas...goes up in the summer...when people are going on vacation....vicious circle......... used to play with the minds of mankind!

Pal 2 years ago

Global warming hypothesis by carbon based lifeforms fail to note, or panic, over the massive amounts of methane given off from the oceans. Methane is a far more devastating cause to the global warming hypothesis than the latest fad of causation by liberal carbon based lifeforms.

Although, do not fear carbon based life forms. Gaia hypothesis will save you.

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

The frequency of the kinds of heat waves that we experienced last summer and the summer before in Texas and Oklahoma has increased. Prior to 1980, they were a 1 in more-than 100 year event; in recent decades, they have risen to more than 1 in 10. Barring sudden changes in the rate of change, in another 20-30 years, they will be occurring about every 1 year in 5. In not too many decades after that, they will be the new normal. Sometime between now and then, most people will be on board with the idea that mitigating climate change is worth the cost.

It will take decades to stabilize the climate after CO2 production is reduced, and it will take decades to replace our power infrastructure. So, the question is, how bad do you want it to get before making the change?

bliddel 2 years ago

The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. A falsehood is false even if everyone believes it. Real scientists don't rely on polls of self-proclaimed scientists, to come to conclusions about the forces of nature and the physics of life. The world has been warmer than it is now. If the internal combustion engine is really the one and only devil, how could the earth have ever cooled to where we are now, which evidently occurred prior to the internal combustion engine?

Do we really have inexhaustible resources to throw at possible global warming, while the world is busy killing itself off in wars, and bailing bankers out ad infinitum, and paying ever more in taxes to our greedy politicians? No. Financial discipline must be learned, and learned very quickly, or the real impending calamity will be the implosion of what little freedom we have left, and a very bloody revolution.

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

OK, but this article is not about real science. The science that says mankind's conversion of fossil fuels into CO2 will warm the planet was settled 3 or more decades ago.

The article is about whether people who don't know their Stefan-Boltzmann from a hole in the ground believe what the laws of physics dictate.

Side note: The idea that switching to alternatives will wreck the economy is generally a point being made by those selling fossil fuels. Most often it is best to be skeptical of sales pitches.

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

There were fires before man; therefore, man can not make fire.

Get a clue.

Paul Wilson 2 years ago

What kind of reply is that? Liberal made a valid point...you just made a fool of yourself.

Chris Golledge 2 years ago

What part do you not understand?

Liberal implies that the current warming is just a natural cycle. Natural cycles are not magic; there is always cause and effect. Liberal is implying that because there can be causes other than man; man can not be the current cause. In the same pattern, there is more than one way to start a fire; if you applied the same logic, man would not be able to start fires.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.