KAMISCHKE: Climate change: a scientific question

If you felt vindicated by the January cold snap, saw several days of frigid weather as clear evidence that global warming is a hoax, felt fraternity when Donald Trump and Sean Hannity mocked the climate change advocates, then I can say without hesitation that you don’t know the first thing about climate or climate change.
Feb 7, 2014

Climate is not weather.

A November Pew Research Poll reported 84 percent of Democrats find the evidence supports global warming. That’s compared to 46 percent of Republicans, which includes 25 percent for the tea party.

It is mystifying that there is a political side to this scientific question, as if the effects of climate change could be filibustered or voted down. Is there a conservative position for other science questions, like the properties of Higgs bosons, the existence of water on Mars, or the location of the gene causing baldness?

Yet climate deniers proudly espouse their pet theory: You can’t be a Christian and believe in man-made global warming, according to Rush Limbaugh.

Our U.S. representative, Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, said: “Global warming is no longer based on science, but is being driven by irrational fanaticism.” Still others think it’s a big hoax to increase funding and keep researchers employed. Words unsupported by data, mind you, just baseless conjectures thrown up like barricades as a defense against a mob of facts.

How many local deniers have drawn ice cores from Greenland or Antarctica; measured the rising ocean levels and water temperatures; measured the increased carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere; plotted the shrinking glaciers, ice sheets and Arctic Sea ice; counted extreme weather events; or sampled the increased ocean acidification? I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd guess zero.

So, if most of us (and this includes me) are unqualified to render a judgment on the data, we are left with secondary sources, opinions rendered by others, people we trust. We must decide who to believe: those who claim climate change is real or those who deny it. Fortunately, the decision is easy.

Those most qualified to have a scientific opinion on this topic agree that Earth is warming due to human influences, and their numbers are overwhelming and one-sided. An analysis of the 200 most-published climate scientists in the world found 97.5 percent supported global warming and humanities negative contribution.

Furthermore, there is a long list of scientific organizations — each with hundreds of members — that support climate change theory, organizations that are respected and have made significant contribution to science in the past. This includes the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, American Geological Institute, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, National Academy of Sciences of 34 countries and the United Nations committee on climate change — and these are just a sample of a long list of organizations.

The deniers on the national stage are mostly individual scientists and carbon-based energy organizations. Furthermore, there is a passel of conservative personalities, commentators and politicians — all with strong, loud opinions, but who are scientifically incompetent.

Deniers are not skeptics, because skeptics rightly demand reasonable proof. Deniers are more akin to tobacco spokespeople who insisted there was never enough information to prove a link between tobacco and cancer, swearing denials before Congress; yet their own research, locked in the vault, said otherwise.

Deniers would lead you to believe that climate change is a hotly debated topic and the jury is still out; but for the scientific community, the debate has been over for some time.

The truly conservative position on climate change is to conserve our planet and our way of life. So why embrace 2.5 percent of the scientists who claim that everyone else is wrong?

I can see why petroleum companies would lobby against climate change: they’re preserving their profits whatever the cost to everyone else. But true conservatives should choose humankind over industry lobbyists, science over mythology, doing what’s right over what’s easy.

There are consequences for being wrong on this issue. If we work to counteract climate change, only to find it was a false alarm, what price do we pay? Well, we will have more rain forests, more solar and wind power, better energy efficiency, a cleaner environment, and technologies less dependent on foreign energy.

If the deniers are wrong and they convince us to do nothing, we lose the coastlines of our nation, weather will be more severe and damaging, large populations will need to move, migrating species will threaten delicate ecosystems, and whole island cultures will disappear.

Really, isn’t it time to stop what amounts to a political debate about a scientific matter, and get behind efforts to save no less than the world? Costly? Yes, but far less costly than doing nothing.

— By Richard Kamischke, Tribune community columnist



Actaully..............I am doin nothin. It's too cold to do anything.


All I can say is that I would like a bit of global warming right now. And I am so very glad for global warming trends of the past. If it were not for the past spells of global warming, those of us living on the Great Lakes would still be living on a glacier. I very much would prefer to swim in our beautiful Lake Michigan than be living on that glacier that used to exist here before we had our spell of warming.

I say thanks to everyone that is helping the world to warm up again. I just wish you would work a little faster at it. It would really be nice for things to warm up a bit more . . . I am running out of sweaters and my gas bill has gone through the roof thanks to this darn "warming" spell.

Oh and thanks also to all of the scientists who take the trips to the polar regions to take ice samples. They are doing us a great service.

Thanks also to the crew of the Russian expedition trip where the participants (exploring the problems with global warming and arctic melting) had to be rescued be cause the ship was caught in too much ice.

It is all good ... let's warm things up a bit. Everyone turn on their lawn mower and leaving running for a few days. Maybe that will help us to warm up a bit more quickly.

Former Grandhavenite

Kamischke is right on the money. It's ridiculous to treat climate change as if it were somehow a matter of opinion, and the fact that belief in climate change is so strongly predicted by political affiliation doesn't speak well of our intelligence as a nation. If 97.5% of petroleum engineers say that a new refining process will massively increase oil company profits, strangely enough the company won't pour millions into a marketing campaign to publicize the views of the other 2.5%. They also won't decide that since there's no universal consensus the solution is to do several more decades worth of research and continue with the more costly refining process in the meantime.

I could see an interesting showdown brewing on carbon emissions policy with powerful moneyed interests on both sides. The most valuable real estate in the world tends to be clustered along the coastlines, so it seems like at some point there will be more pushback against the climate change denialists when fortunes are at stake on both sides. When it's not some egghead scientist pointing out that the laws of physics actually do exist, but instead it's a coalition of wealthy developers and landowners (who are typically some of the largest political donors) the issue will gain a lot more traction.

Or, maybe I'm overly optimistic and most of the real estate investors will decide that by the time the tides are lapping against downtown Miami it'll be someone else's problem. You always hear about how we're selling out future generations with the national debt, etc, but for some reason you don't hear much about what kind of environmental legacy we're leaving for our grandchildren.


You are right on the money @FormerGrandHavenite . . . your note about expensive coastline property is very true. This is exactly the reason we need to encourage more global warming ... we need more coastline to help drive the price down to the level where it is available to the common man.

Remember, we only achieved our beautiful lakefront property through global warming of the past ... so bring it on. Run those internal combustion engines and let us warm things up ... quickly too ... the snow piles are getting so big I can hardly see at the end of my drive way. We need to do more to melt these piles. Please ... do your best to increase global warming.


How clever, how Progressive - assume the truth of the facts you want to prove, attempt to silence any critics by asserting they are illegitimate or know nothing about climate or climate change, label them with a derogatory term, such as "deniers" [actually, how Stalinist], and then focus on profits by petroleum companies while ignoring the billions of government grants thrown at those who are willing to toe the line that we need to stop using fossil fuels, and ignore the falsification of data by those attempting to prove their theories (Climategate, hide the decline, just to name two).

Well sorry Dick, those of us who are objective won't play your games. I notice that you have accepted the fact that since Global Warming can't be proven, you have adopted the alternative, public relations, focus group tested shift by Climate Alarmists to "Climate Change" (who could argue that the climate doesn't change, including cycles that are warmer, wetter, dryer, and cooler)? The 97% statistic has been convincingly debunked by so many studies and analyses that it weakens your case simply to have to cite it. See, for example, "Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jame..., Examining the Scientific Consensus
on Climate Change http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/01.... You might also reference the fact that there has been no global warming for the past 17 years and 5 months. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/...

In reality, this scam of the Climate Alarmists is really an ill-disguised attempt to redistribute wealth on a global basis, and to further increase government control over the lives of the people they work for. Let's look at what some of the leading lights of Climate Alarmism have said in unguarded, off-script candid statements (You can Google each of them, and there are many more):

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

Quote by UN chief Ban Ki-moon: "Now it is the least developed world who are not responsible for this climate change phenomenon that bore the brunt of climate change consequences so it is morally and politically correct that the developed world who made this climate change be responsible by providing financial support and technological support to these people."

Really Dick, isn’t it time to stop what amounts to a political debate about a scientific matter, and get behind efforts to save no less than the ultimate Socialist vision of the world, while redistributing wealth and gaining control?


You called Nixon 'Richard', remember, hypocrite. Whatever serves you at the time...


How clever, how typically radical conservative - Confuse, Divide, and Delay. Keep the confusion going by arguing with old and outdated arguments and links, and quotes taken out of context. Although seriously emotional - I admit, it did pull at my heartstrings a bit - your comment actually rests Mr. Kamischke's case.

#1. There has been a substantial surge in the number of Americans who believe global warming is real in the last 2.5 years - 70% of Americans polled. The number of US residents denying the existence of climate change has declined dramatically by 1/2 to just 12% since January 2010.

"A new national survey reveals that a whopping 70 percent of Americans believe global warming is very real, a substantial surge over the past two and a half years, while those viewing it as a direct threat to themselves or their families are the highest levels ever, according to survey results released last week.

Meanwhile, the number of U.S. residents denying the existence of climate change declined almost by half to a relatively few 12 percent since January 2010." http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blog...

#2. Your "climate change = a socialist global takeover to redistribute our tax dollars", well, sounds like something out of the "John Birch Society Sockpuppetariat Handbook for Dummies". The Global Corporate Fraternity sees climate change, global warming, and energy renewables as the new 21st Industrial Revolution - a capitalist's dream, if you will.

Renewable energy (including hydro) is the fastest-growing power generation sector in the world, according to a recent International Energy Agency report. Renewable energy is on pace to comprise one-quarter of the electricity mix by 2018. It is also increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels.

Clearly, renewable energy can be profitable for business. Many companies, like Wal-Mart, Google and General Electric, have made major bets on renewables. Notably Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway firm has been increasing its clean energy investments, with a recent purchase of $5.6 billion for a renewable energy company in Nevada and a $2.4 billion investment in a wind farm in California.

As clean energy markets expand, these American companies and investors will be well-positioned to lead. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-d...

The old, crinoid, 20th century deregulation, massive polluter, fossil fuel industries (think Koch Industries) are quickly becoming back seat drivers. The smart money is on those corporations embracing Sustainable Capitalism.


How typical - switch from science to what a majority of American believe as proof of the proposition you are supporting.

Two can play THAT game - according to a late November 2013 CNN/ORC poll, a majority of Americans believe that Obama (1) is not honest or trustworthy, and (2) that he is incapable of managing the Government effectively. It also found that a majority of respondents said they did not admire Obama, disagreed with him on important issues, said he does not inspire confidence, and they do not see him as a strong and decisive leader. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20...

Game, set, match, according to your standards - Global Warming is real and Obama is untrustworthy, dishonest, incompetent, and a weak leader - I never thought it would be that easy to convince you.

My links on the science are up to date - those on the politics driving the Global Warming scam (wealth redistribution) go back in time to demonstrate how long standing and widespread the hoax has been.

Again cleverly, you switch to so-called renewable and clean energy talking points. I am not aware of anyone who thinks it is not a good idea to develop clean, renewable energy sources along with fossil fuel, myself included. If the private sector, with some small financial help from Government can move the research along - that's fine. What we object to is being subjected to chicken-little scenarios based on manipulated data in furtherance of socialism and more government control to scare us into living with massive disruptions in our lifestyle and economy, huge tax dollars given to crony capitalists, and the destruction of fossil fuel industries. This includes weakening the power grid and stopping the normal use of public lands for the exploration and extraction of oil and natural gas for political purposes.

When alternative energy sources are sufficiently developed and commercially available at a reasonable cost to power commercial aircraft, public transportation, freight carriers such as trains and semi's, and to heat and light our homes, and at the same time remove our dependence of Middle Easter oil, I will gladly support a move away from fossil fuels. As it stands now, that is a pie in the sky dream if you look at the amount of energy provided by alternative energy - in fact,

Electric vehicles are not better for the environment, according to a recent assessment by Ozzie Zehner, a scholar at the University of California at Berkeley who worked on GM’s EV1 electric car in the 90s. In an article published June 30 on IEEE Spectrum, a trade magazine on future technologies, Zehner analyzes existing research on everything from worldwide governmental subsidies to the disposal of batteries to assess the environmental cost of the full product life cycle of an electrical vehicle.

“In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles’ lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars,” according to Zehner, who referenced the National Academy of the Sciences, a 150-year-old nonprofit society of distinguished scholars, who reported in 2010 that the most environmentally friendly car—an oxymoron in Zehner’s world—is a small gas powered car with good gas mileage. http://cars.chicagotribune.com/f...

After this exchange, to help with fond memories from the twilight side of the hill:-D www.youtube.com/watch?v=68GhcnY4iJk


I do believe you may have reached your zenith on the youtube selection. In fact, you broke all records on the laugh-o-meter, and I was just about to say uncle when I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X... >^,,^<

I am also delighted to read your more reasoned argument regarding energy renewables, after months, if not years, of rejection, en masse. The fact is that we need both fossil fuels and energy renewables, and that need will be with us for decades. The US IS steadily moving away from dependence on Middle Eastern oil - as you may know, the top 2 US importers of oil are Canada and Argentina, and US production of crude are currently at record high levels. "Historic Oil & Gas Production Trends – the production of U.S. domestic oil & gas has been in decline since the recent historic peaks in1985 and 2001 respectively. The decline in oil & gas production bottomed out in 2008 and 2005 respectively, and has since increased quite significantly. During 2008-2012 domestic oil production increased 29% and 2005-2012 natural gas production increased 27%". http://theenergycollective.com/j...

Ethanol has never been energy efficient to produce, or sustainable, given that it is a major driver in rising food prices. The new lithium-ion batteries are < 90% efficient. Hybrids are most efficient when driven and maintained in areas with natural gas power plants, and/or grid-harvested wind farms. Essentially, this all involves the evolution and integration of mature fossil fuel and renewable production and harvesting, which surely will take many decades to attain maximum efficiency. Meanwhile, it's effect on climate change can only be positive.

As for your out-dated links, the Obama poll was taken at a low point during the healthcare.gov roll-out, and reflects the effectiveness of the GOP "Lie" campaign. Enjoy it while you can - it won't hold.


OMG! Haven't heard that one for a month of Sundays. Touche, No Mas, You win. Leave it up to you to dredge up a song that has me confessing error sung by the Nutmegs (but if you have been overindulging in that substance it could explain a lot - just sayin....

I do believe my position on renewables has been consistent, and in the interest of harmony, I will refrain from once again pointing out the difference in production of oil and gas on private versus public lands.


So affirmed in my choice! I had never heard of the Nutmeg's - aren't they great? A cappella!....they have my total respect. And the only thing I'm overindulging in these days is Lady Grey....:'(

Not to want to have the last word or anything, or certainly ruin the momentary but welcome harmonious vibe, ran across this and think it pertains to the ongoing discussion:

"Meanwhile, natural gas production on federal and Indian lands has steadily fallen, a trend that began around fall 2002. This is due to a consistent decrease in offshore gas drilling, though such gas production onshore, on federal lands, is actually higher now than it was at the end of the Bush administration.

On federal and Indian lands, as well as federally approved offshore drilling sites, oil production went up from 1.6 million barrels per day to 2 million barrels per day between fiscal years 2008 and 2010. But it dropped to 1.8 million barrels per day for the last fiscal year available, a decrease that the U.S. Energy Information Administration attributes to the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Despite the one-year drop in production, oil production on federal and Indian lands from 2009 through 2011 totaled 2.027 million barrels. That's an average of 675,000 barrels per year during Obama's term, compared to an average annual production of 609,000 barrels annually during Bush's last term". http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/po...

Personally, I am not in favor of increased exploration/production on federal land. And apparently, I'm not alone:

"Recent polling from the Center for American Progress shows that the public overwhelmingly favors conservation of their public lands over drilling them. In fact, while 65 percent of voters say that permanent protection of public lands should be a “very important priority” for the federal government, only 30 percent say the same about oil and gas drilling". http://thinkprogress.org/climate...


Not to want to have the last word or anything, or certainly ruin the momentary but welcome harmonious vibe, the minor gains in production on federal lands under Obama are due to the leases approved under Bush. According to data [PDF] from the Bureau of Land Management the answer is that there was been about a 42 percent decline in the number of leases and a 37 percent decline in new permits issued by the Obama administration when compared to the last three years of the Bush administration. http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/1...

You might also be interested in: While President Obama has been touting in recent days that his administration is promoting oil drilling in the United States, oil production on federally owned lands has in fact declined by 17,000 barrels per day since he took office in 2009.

This figure comes from a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on domestic energy production. http://cnsnews.com/sites/default...

To maintain the detente, I won't comment on the accuracy of polling data from Center for American Progress, but the sampling is almost ludicrous and I couldn't even find the poll questions from the link.


Straining to maintain our current detente, I respectfully submit that your reason.com blog essentially says the identical thing my CNN link does. Your CNS link - ditto: "Overall, oil production on federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007". Oh, la de da! It's so much more fun to throw facts, figures, and statistics at each other than the typical smears and insults! Now, while I still have a semblance of positive energy left, go put that snowball down while I give you a hug....(( ))

DP Roberts

Politically divided for sure. When the Republicans stumble upon a way to profit monetarily from Global Warming they will embrace it with open arms; and then say they have always believed.


It appears that the Democrats have found a way to profit monetarily from the Global Warming story line and that is why they are promoting it so heavily.

Former Grandhavenite

Hey, you guys shouldn't knock 'climate science' as a profession until you try it, since it can be quite lucrative. These days I actually make more just by scamming people into believing in global warming than I do at my day job. I always dreamed of being a hedge fund manager, but I had to do the right thing for my family financially, so I got involved in the climate change conspiracy.

As long as the Republicans don't figure out that the CEO of Greenpeace has 97.5% of the world's scientists on his payroll our revenue stream should be secure. This thread scares me though, as it seems people are catching on to the scam more and more nowadays and seeing through the climate change conspiracy.

I still see dollar signs though! Every one that I manage to 'convert' (heh heh) to belief in climate science should get me at least a quarter million in commission from the Soros Foundation. The real profit of course comes from the percentage the World Wildlife Fund gives me. You'd be surprised how much you can make just from bringing a single rube on board.


The money comes from diversion of governmental funds (our tax funds) to nonsense companies like Solyindra and controlled by big money political contributors. These types of wastes are a direct result of the fraud being moved ahead in the name of science while the frauds like ClimateGate are ignored to protect the rich and powerful.


Lots of good comments explaining the "deniers" position, I'll just add or emphasize a few more:

1) there's not a denier worth his salt that doesn't know the difference between weather and climate change. In fact, most of what I read about global warming when it's cold is from AGW fanatics trying to justify the cold weather.

2) this old, proven wrong, news about 97.5% of scientists believing in AGW is getting tiresome. They were, essentially, asked if they believed in climate change; it should have been 100%. I don't bother to pay any attention to someone who doesn't believe in climate change. ... Dah.

3) the consensus that does exist proves nothing in the end every consensus is proven wrong, from the Earth being the center of the universe to the Clovis people. One of the major objectives of science is to prove the consensus wrong; that's how science and learning advance.

4) the scientific process is well understood by real scientists and the process itself is very clear: 1) Create an hypothesis to explain observed behavior. 2) Create a model or scenario to test the hypothesis. The test must predict future behavior. 3) If future behavior is not predicted, the hypothesis is flawed. That's it there's no way around that.

If a "scientist" suggested that, "We must give it time, the proof will come ... believe me," they are no better than the false prophet who keeps making excuses for why the world didn't end when he said it would.

Finally, and obviously, the models did not predict the future. I won't bore you with the great number of global warming predictions that have not come true.

The hypothesis is flawed. Climate scientists need to go back to basic research and the public can quit worrying.


Sorry. Too late. You already bored me. Ignorance bores me.


Do I smell panic in the air, like the aroma of burning sulfur?

I get the distinct impression that Kamischke wrote this article in reaction to our epic cold weather. He opines about "science" and then spends bulk of article harpooning "deniers". This is typical of god-hating leftists..."evidence" to them equals ad hominem attacks on their opponents. Evidence to them is characterizing their opponents as monsters. Thus, for Bill Clinton defenders, the center of "debate" became attacks on Ken Starr.

Former Grandhavenite

Sometimes you just want to throw your hands up and say that science is simply a lost cause in this country and most of the innovation in the future is going to come out of other parts of the world. Instead we'll innovate by finding new ways to more efficiently drill talking points into people's heads.

It's really a symptom of how completely polarized we've gotten politically. When your core identity is that you're either a Democrat or a Republican and that trumps everything else including what you see with your own eyes, it's really hard to ever make any progress toward finding common ground, or even learning the truth about basic scientific concepts. If there are only two possible political viewpoints, and you support less regulation of industry, then the party also requires you to believe that climate science is all being faked. It's like it doesn't even occur to a lot of people that it would also be possible to believe that man-made global warming is real, but any regulations to improve the situation should be avoided as they would be too harmful to the economy. Nope, if you're against extra regulation you also have to believe in the tooth fairy and that the vast majority of the world's scientists are scamming us.

If the two major parties had differing positions on whether the Pope is Catholic or whether a bear sh#ts in the woods I'm sure we'd see a lot of people quickly shift their views to match the party line, and that's a really sad commentary on all of us.


All I know ... is it cold outside and I want to do everything possible to get it warmer. Also, I want to do everything possible to increase water levels. If the "scientists" say that our use of fossil fuels will help ... then I am all for giving it a try. Let's warm things up folks. If this does not change soon I have a feeling all of our state's most able citizens will be moving to Florida soon. Let's act to build up the warming ... before it is too late.


KAMISCHKE, BRAVO. Keep the facts flowing.

We will all start to understand the delicate balance our climate requires to support our and all life on this planet.


Kamischke--keep up the good work. David Hume, the British philosopher and brain scientists are aware that reason is generally oriented toward rationalization for pre-held intuitive hunter-gatherer views rather than the disciplined use of scientific method to better reach truths closer to reality. Ken Ham in the recent evolutions/creation debate with Bill Nye, the science guy demonstrated this when asked, "Is there anything that could change your mind?" responded with "Nothing"-(looking at the bible) while Nye responded, "Evidence". Sigh-h-h!


Want the Facts, the scientific facts about climate change and global warming? Here it is and I hope all you brain dead liberal Einsteins can handle the truth. Yes, there is climate change, yes, there is global warming, but it is not man made, nauta, kaput, no no no! You see folks, the number one no no that Al the Con Man Gore conveniently left out of his book, Inconvenient Truth, is that ice core samples that we have that go back well over a hundred years ago, and collected and save by several different expeditions and Polar Researchers, show that in the last 750,000 years we've had over 600 major coolings and warnings, and they lasted anywhere from 100 years to over 1000 years. You see brain dreads, a thing called technology over the last 40-years has tested these glacier core samples, and the amount of various gases, molecules, and other components visible and not visible form a blueprint of what the past held in terms of global temperatures. Much like testing of sedimentary layers of rocks, soil, what have you. It is as accurate as carbon dating. So, guess what people, we're living through a global warming right now or maybe a global cooling, but what we don't know is if it's going to last another 100 years or 1000 years. Global warming is cyclical my friends. This is why over 700 of the worlds top scientist signed a petition refuting Al's con job on the American people all for his own personal gain.


Throughout our history, the priests or leaders have used weather as proof of mankind's sins. The Mayans use to sacrifice virgins at the alter to appease their gods for a bad season. Various Christian and pagan religion did the same. Usually going after someone they didn't like, usually with the accusation of "heretic". The remedy, besides the killing and torturing, also involved some sort of increased sacrifice in the way of taxes or workload to help the state or the church. If that didn't work, you still didn't question, you only doubled down on the sacrifice. They couldn't lose. Arguing with a priest was heresy. This was settled science because the priest interpreted their gods law and their was no argument. Disagreement would get you killed or at least ostracized. Sound familiar?
Richard science isn't about belief. It is about facts. It is not a popularity contest. There are tens of thousands of scientists who are skeptical of man made global change. Science is very rarely settled. The scientist who are proponents don't argue they just call the other side "deniers" and say this is settled. Scientist in other fields can look at the work and check the math and the methodology. (if they are allowed too) They don't have to just shut up like you suggest. That work and methodology has been suspect.
Do I think man is capable of changing the weather? Sure, possibly a small amount. (unless we are talking about nuclear war)But do you know what is the "right" temperature? Was the temp increasing or cooling regardless of what man was doing. Is CO2 a bad thing? That is a big no. Global warming if it happens, may in fact be good. As far as saving the world, do you mean humans or some mythical gaia type creature. Fossil fuels make our lives more safe. If the rest of the world had our standard of living, millions would be saved yearly through better sanitation, more pure water, better housing and medicine. Or aren't those people worth saving?
In summary, I would be a whole lot less skeptical if "the fix" didn't involve me sending my hard earned cash to some esoteric cabal who knows what is best for me and wants to dictate how I should live.
It would be most helpful if the 50% of the people leading this charge would give up using anything derived from fossil fuels and lived a more spartan life. Perhaps we can monitor the climate for 40 or 50 years and then make a decision. I mean, is it fair to force your belief on others?

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.