Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold

I listen to NASA -the folks who send spacecraft millions of miles and harvest and examine surface samples from planets and rapidly moving comets. They are the smart people on this subject. To examine changing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is as simple to them as collecting stream samples in order to look at water pollution levels. They collect the samples, and they see that CO2 levels are rising. They know what rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere causes -- that's the simple basis of climate change. It's rather elementary, really. They know that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Again, pretty basic. Of course, there's no single event that suddenly reveals this happening. But the trend -building levels of CO2 and cause and effect analysis- is pretty basic. Special interests and others muddy the discussion. I recall tobacco and ag chemical/ddt and various drug company efforts to muddy discussions about problems their products were causing. If you study public relations strategies you see the pattern. It's basic protectionism, complete with deception and distraction. A useful tool is to crucify the messenger or scientists. Remember how the NFL downplayed concussions when the first research emerged? Remember how the tobacco companies attacked scientists who said smoking caused lung cancer? Same is happening with corn sugar, atrazine, round-up and other questionable products that have wealthy lobbies behind them. Instead of being skeptical about public interest groups, we should be skeptical about corporations that have only one primary interest in perpetuating their products --- to generate more and more money. Nothing wrong with profits, but when they come at the expense of public health or a livable environment, that's a different matter. IMHO

Scientists are not dumb, they tell each administration what it wants to hear so the funding keeps on flowing.

"Scientists are not dumb..."
Hmmm. You are inferring that climate scientists are saying what they say because it is the best way to get funding or keep a job?
You have not dealt with nor have you worked with high-level scientists to say such a thing. Your comment is a perfect example of self-serving rationale. Scientists are, in fact, accustomed to being persecuted by corporate interests, and the last Republican president's administration drug scientists through the mud. President (Shrub) Bush dismantled a number of competent scientific projects and research findings because they did not support commercial ventures and wealthy, influential supporters. I know that as fact. Are scientists infallible? Hardly. But we must encourage good science and then consider it when making policy decisions, even if it conflicts with the wishes of the powerful and wealthy.

The "debate" regarding "global warming" is not about "science" or "scientists," it's about words and definitions used to support an agenda.

It reminds me of the use or non-use of the word "terrorism."

By a realistic definition what occurred today at the Florida airport was "terrorism," because of the terror it instilled in those who were present, but the media (who weren't there BTW) will wring their hands and fret about whether to call it "terrorism."

The "debate" about the changing of the Earth's temperature is about "cause" and not about whether the temperature may be changing. Those with an agenda to control society and behavior with a justifiable excuse suggest that homo sapiens are causing the temperature changes. That's where the issue leaves the realm of "science" .... and enters speculative sociology...which is hardly exact and for the most part exaggerated to meet the agenda of the proponent of Man-made Global Warming.

"Scientists are not dumb..."
Hmmm. You are inferring that climate scientists are saying what they say because it is the best way to get funding or keep a job?
You have not dealt with nor have you worked with high-level scientists to say such a thing. Your comment is a perfect example of self-serving rationale. Scientists are, in fact, accustomed to being persecuted by corporate interests, and the last Republican president's administration drug scientists through the mud. President (Shrub) Bush dismantled a number of competent scientific projects and research findings because they did not support commercial ventures and wealthy, influential supporters. I know that as fact. Are scientists infallible? Hardly. But we must encourage good science and then consider it when making policy decisions, even if it conflicts with the wishes of the powerful and wealthy. Originally Posted by Muy Largo

they may tell you stuff but deliberately leave out important facts just to maintain funding.

there are other important green house gases they dont mention. one of them is water.

Mandatory courses in "historical geology/paleontology" would probably help!

If cow farting influences climate changes, can you imagine what dinosaur farts would do? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Those " dinosaur farts " are what we now call " natural gas" and those of us lucky enough to have that plumbed into our houses use it to more efficiently heat our homes and water ( heaters ) . And they also are used to drive turbines ( in power plants that I've helped build here in Texas ) to generate more electricity for us " regular folks " and the tree huggin Tesla drivers. Reckon that ought to make " Internet " Al Gore happy !! And all of those gloryholers that still use light to find their " passion " !

The "debate" regarding "global warming" is not about "science" or "scientists," it's about words and definitions used to support an agenda.

It reminds me of the use or non-use of the word "terrorism."

By a realistic definition what occurred today at the Florida airport was "terrorism," because of the terror it instilled in those who were present, but the media (who weren't there BTW) will wring their hands and fret about whether to call it "terrorism."

The "debate" about the changing of the Earth's temperature is about "cause" and not about whether the temperature may be changing. Those with an agenda to control society and behavior with a justifiable excuse suggest that homo sapiens are causing the temperature changes. That's where the issue leaves the realm of "science" .... and enters speculative sociology...which is hardly exact and for the most part exaggerated to meet the agenda of the proponent of Man-made Global Warming. Originally Posted by LexusLover

And the lib media was quick to point out that he was an Army " veteran " , but quick to bury in the story -if the even mentioned it - that he was discharged before the end of his enlistment for " unsatisfactory performance as an E-3 ! Clinton News Network was QUICK to say he was an ARMY veteran, as were all of the rest of the liberal, military hating media ! The media started hating the military during Vietnam and haven't quit since !

I listen to NASA -the folks who send spacecraft millions of miles and harvest and examine surface samples from planets and rapidly moving comets. They are the smart people on this subject. To examine changing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is as simple to them as collecting stream samples in order to look at water pollution levels. They collect the samples, and they see that CO2 levels are rising. They know what rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere causes -- that's the simple basis of climate change. It's rather elementary, really. They know that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Again, pretty basic. Of course, there's no single event that suddenly reveals this happening. But the trend -building levels of CO2 and cause and effect analysis- is pretty basic. Special interests and others muddy the discussion. I recall tobacco and ag chemical/ddt and various drug company efforts to muddy discussions about problems their products were causing. If you study public relations strategies you see the pattern. It's basic protectionism, complete with deception and distraction. A useful tool is to crucify the messenger or scientists. Remember how the NFL downplayed concussions when the first research emerged? Remember how the tobacco companies attacked scientists who said smoking caused lung cancer? Same is happening with corn sugar, atrazine, round-up and other questionable products that have wealthy lobbies behind them. Instead of being skeptical about public interest groups, we should be skeptical about corporations that have only one primary interest in perpetuating their products --- to generate more and more money. Nothing wrong with profits, but when they come at the expense of public health or a livable environment, that's a different matter. IMHO Originally Posted by Muy Largo

So should my boyhood friend that ended up needing glasses at 40 years old by upset with ; himself, for not heeding his Mother's admonitions to NOT jerk off whilst looking at his Dad's Playboy's or Penthouse ( and proclaiming, like a lyin liberal, that he only " read the articles " ) or his Mom, for not intercepting the magazines before " Junior " went all " Marty Feldman ? Who is responsible for his middle aged " optical deficiency ? Mebbe Lasic surgery and a metal claw on his " predominate " hand can resolve this family drama ? IJS........

"Scientists are not dumb..."
Hmmm. You are inferring that climate scientists are saying what they say because it is the best way to get funding or keep a job?
You have not dealt with nor have you worked with high-level scientists to say such a thing. Your comment is a perfect example of self-serving rationale. Scientists are, in fact, accustomed to being persecuted by corporate interests, and the last Republican president's administration drug scientists through the mud. President (Shrub) Bush dismantled a number of competent scientific projects and research findings because they did not support commercial ventures and wealthy, influential supporters. I know that as fact. Are scientists infallible? Hardly. But we must encourage good science and then consider it when making policy decisions, even if it conflicts with the wishes of the powerful and wealthy. Originally Posted by Muy Largo

" Internet " Al Gore, is that you ?

And the lib media was quick to point out that he was an Army " veteran " , but quick to bury in the story -if the even mentioned it - that he was discharged before the end of his enlistment for " unsatisfactory performance as an E-3 ! Clinton News Network was QUICK to say he was an ARMY veteran, as were all of the rest of the liberal, military hating media ! The media started hating the military during Vietnam and haven't quit since ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Last I heard he was NG ... is that incorrect?

As for the "media" attitude toward the military ... IMO the attitude developed from opposition to the "War in Vietnam" based on an obsession with the killing of people as a part of "War" that was being reported in "real time" as opposed to anecdotal stories of battles from WWII and the "Korean War" since the "embedded" media in S.E. Asia were able to "send" news stories in what amounted to be uncensored "real time" ... with the likes of Walter Cronkite "selectively" portraying the progress of the "War"! Folks like John Kerry added fuel to the fire.

It was "easier" to take out the rage on servicemembers returning than on the politicians who were "conducting" the "War" .... when IMO "Wars" should be conducted by military personnel and portrayed with a balanced view in the reporting. Except for "atrocities" by U.S. servicemembers they were following orders down the chain of command.

A lot of shit from WWI, WWII, and the Korean War was not provided to the general public until AFTER THOSE CONFLICTS.

there are other important green house gases they dont mention. one of them is water. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

"water" is a "gas"?

I certainly hope the "green house gas" on my fruit trees doesn't freeze!

What no one thincks of is a volcano blowing tons of ash miles into the atmosphere and the gases that escape the earth. Mt St Helen is a good example. It affected climate change.

Show of hands, how many of you have heard of the "carbon cycle"? One, two, three.....four, ummm maybe five of you. Okay, here it is, the sun is the source of all heat (energy) on this planet not related to the molten core. A plant (millions of years ago) recieved nourishment from the soil and water, this combined with sunlight created ERG which is the energy source plants use to perform photosynthesis. This takes hydrogen, CARBON, and OXYGEN to create cellulose which is what plants are made up. Now that carbon is trapped (from the air) in solid form. The plant eventually dies and the carbon joins other carbon molecules on the floor of the forest. Time passes and that carbon is turned into more dense forms; coal, peat, oil, etc. We come along and pump (or dig) it out of the ground. We burn it or refine it and then burn it with oxygen. Out comes CO2. Where did that carbon come from in the first place, out of the atmosphere millions of years ago. So we put it back where it started. I would say that it is a closed system but the sun keeps pumping photons at this planet. There are other ways to use that carbon by eating the plants, or eating the animals that eat the plants but the result is the same. Carbon returns from whence it came. Stop the carbon cycle and all (ALL) life dies. I called my former Congressman once and asked about that, should we do something about stopping the carbon cycle. The congressman's rep was all for stopping the carbon cycle and that Congressmen Moore believed in that as well. Idiots!!!

So we need to talk, I mean really talk about what is what. No more of this, "if you don't believe then you're a climate denier." crap. If the science is really that conclusive then the warmist should be anxious to present all their evidence but they're not that anxious are they? Maybe it's not that conclusive, maybe it's not very conclusive at all, maybe their evidence can't stand up to real scientific scrutiny. There is a lot of money at stake. Billions, if not trillions of dollars are being proposed to change hands. Al Gore got his and now the poor countries of the world want theirs.

Talk about semantics, climate change is always happening and has been since the dawn of time. It is only the left leaning, politically motivated minions who have turned "climate change" into a special, acute event. Which kind of shows their lack of knowledge (or honesty) on the topic. Over the millions of years, oceans have risen and fallen, areas have become lush gardens and desolate deserts, species have come and gone and man was no where to blame for millions of those years. But the lefty says, mankind is accelerating the change. Really? Where is the proof? We only have temperature records going back about 400 years and only in occupied areas. We have found the bodies of wooly mammoths with green plants in their mouths, green plants that can't grow in the tundra. So climate change happened pretty fast 30,000 years ago. We've found evidence of mankind under glaciers that are receding, evidence that climate change came on pretty fast 5,000 years ago.

We don't know shit yet and those who say that the debate is over are either liars or idiots. There is no real third option.

Mt St Helen is a good example. It affected climate change. Originally Posted by pyramider

Have you "visited" ground "zero" there? That's not all it changed.

The degradation of the atmosphere -particularly the lower levels of the atmosphere- because of human caused pollution is no longer in dispute among nearly every objective scientist who studies related topics. The relationship between the developing "clean" energy sector and this degradation and the potential problems it (the degradation of the atmosphere) is causing and will cause to the livability of the planet is intimate. When Pennsylvania crude displaced whale blubber as a primary energy source that was a marketplace war between commercial interests. Today, there are more important reasons to continue the transition to clean, different energy sources. I view nuclear and solar as vastly superior energy choices than fossil fuels. I find it interesting that among the most aggressive institutions employing solar energy is the military. I consider our military to be a pragmatic institution, and that they are favorable toward solar energy reflects well on the future of solar energy.