Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Climate-change deniers take a lesson from anti-evolution activists

The similarities between the anti-evolution movement and climate change-denial seem to get more numerous by the day. The latest is that South Dakota’s state legislature called for a “balanced” approach to teaching about climate change in schools. But it’s pretty obvious from the get-go that they are abusing notions of fairness to advance a rather unbalanced view of the enduring scientific consensus on climate change.

"Carbon dioxide," the resolution declares, "is not a pollutant." Someone should tell that to the Supreme Court -- that bastion of unhinged earthy-crunchy types -- which instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to find that carbon dioxide is just that.

South Dakota schools, the resolution continues, should instruct their students that, "global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact," and that a number of factors, including "astrological" (!!) ones can "effect [sic] world weather phenomena."

In any scientific inquiry, a healthy sense of doubt is important, particularly when it comes to predicting very precise climate outcomes resulting from very complicated earth systems. But it’s the big picture that really matters -- and the big picture is pretty concerning, with worryingly high probabilities of serious, if not finely predictable, consequences if we do nothing. Even many global warming deniers won’t dispute that the earth’s climate is changing, often arguing instead about what’s to blame. And on that second point, the arguments they make often revolve around small-bore distractions, such as the “Climategate” e-mail controversy or the recent questions over very particular predictions in the International Panel on Climate Change’s groundbreaking 2007 climate report. The South Dakota legislature’s resolution is full of these, such as its insistence that things other can greenhouse emissions can affect world weather phenomena, including, apparently, star signs. That’s no argument that rising levels of carbon in a finely-balanced atmosphere won’t affect the climate. It’s just a smokescreen meant to confuse South Dakota’s students into doubting the science more than the small chance it’s wrong warrants.

Maybe, though, the state’s children should study this. In English class, on how not to construct an honest argument.

By Stephen Stromberg  | March 9, 2010; 4:29 PM ET
Categories:  Stromberg  | Tags:  Stephen Stromberg  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rangel's diminishing hold on power
Next: Help schools by helping the poor


There is very little credible evidence for either climate change or for human beings causing it. The public knows b.s. when they see it and that's why the climate change scam has unraveled.

There is however a great deal of credible evidence for evolution. That's why the public accepts evolution.

The analogy, by this climate change dogmatist, is strained at best.

Posted by: djo4 | March 9, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Stephen Stromberg: One stands in wonder at the stupidity of this article. If anything it is the fuzzy headed environmentalists that are trying to turn this into a religion. This is all about taxes and wealth distribution. A climate change bill will crush the economy and jobs. That seems to be the intent of this administration.

The only question is how much more damage can this administration do to this Country before it is run out of office?

Someone should tell you that the Supreme Court decision was based on what has now shown to be cooked data. Wonder how the Court will rule when this gets before them again?

Taxpayers are waking up to this scam and if another big spending, big tax bill is passed the line of pitch forks, torches, tar and feathers heading to DC should be epic.

How much longer will the Washington Post stay in business with complete BS articles like this?

Posted by: Bubbette1 | March 9, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

This new effort by the climate hysterics to paint climate skeptics as anti-evolution and anti-science is slimy, perverse and the opposite of the truth. For example, take a climate hysteric who absolutely believes that cold weather proves global warming. Or who absolutely believes that a moderate Level 2 hurricane called Katrina proves global warming. Try to convince him that there's no logic to his argument. Try to persuade him to worship Reason, not Faith. You just can't do it. Just like you can't convince a true believer that the Mary the Mother of Christ could have got pregnant without having sex. The climate hysterics, not the climate skeptics, are the true fundamentalists here. They got their religion, and they are clinging to it until the Apocalypse.

Posted by: Michael-Chicago | March 9, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Whoops, I mean Mary "couldn't" have got pregnant, not she "could" have got pregnant.

Posted by: Michael-Chicago | March 9, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Hello,everybody,the good shoping place,the new year approaching, click in. Let's facelift bar!
===== HTTP:// ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33


Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35

Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25


Posted by: loveshoppingus | March 9, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

This is a completely disingenuous portrayal of those who question the dogma of the climatologists and their benefactors. There are, for example, real scientists who have conducted studies suggesting temperature rising in past three decades being more due to aerosol pollution than carbon dioxide pollution. It moreover is well known fact that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor. My degree and years of physical science study is a result of my love of science. Please don't portray me or the serious scientists who are NOT funded by those with political agenda, or anyone else who questions the models and data sets of "climatologists" as being anti-science or a denier of reason and reality.

Posted by: RalphWSiegler | March 9, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

I see. If anyone is so obtuse as to point out inconsistencies in the predictions made by certain climate scientists (those who claim the science is "settled" and there is no further room for debate), we're branded as creationists, flat earthers, folks who don't know astrology from planetary science, etc.

Perhaps we're simply unconvinced by the sparse data set? We only have 30 years or so of good space-based solar irradiance data. And dendrochronology is hardly compelling, even if you try to correlate it with sunspot observations...

Or maybe we're dismayed by the fact that there doesn't appear to be any way to DISCONFIRM any of the climate change theories? Einstein provided clear direction on what would make his theory invalid. I have yet to hear anyone tell me what test campaign or series of observations could disprove global warming. Everything is evidence for it--more snow, less snow, drought, rain, more ice pack, less ice pack. You name it, it all means "global warming." Now THAT sounds like astrology.

Nice try, Stephen.

Posted by: cynicalidealist | March 9, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

As an atheist since age 15 in 1978, I particularly resent this new tack to label me a religious fundamentalist who believes in Creationism.

Posted by: Michael-Chicago | March 9, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

99.9% off scientists agree that global warming exists. The overwhelming majority believes - based on empirical evidence - that it is in large part caused by the burning of fossil fuels, animal breeding for meat, cutting down rain forests, etc. Meanwhile, glaciers that have been in existence for 10,000 years are melting in a generation. And what's that say to some of the dunces commenting here? That it's a "scam" or "politically funded". Really?? Millions of scientists are colluding to scam the dimwitted masses? And why - because climate change has been such a big politcal winner for the Dems? These arguments are pathetic, and while climate change deniers peddle this nonsensical BS, the effects get worse..

Posted by: chop1 | March 9, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Global climate change is a fact and one that is changing how we are positioned economically, strategically and politically vis a' vis the rest of the world. We must look to science, not the Bible and not political expediency. The facts are clear and no amount of pretending otherwise is going to make a difference. Think wars over water and tracts of land that once grew crops overwhelmed by sand...

Posted by: buddecj | March 9, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I still believe nature will ultimately win any battle we wage on it so all the green hype is much to do about nothing.

We may be able to poison our self out of existence if we work at it but if we just continue to live and let live, the whole process will remain normal by earth’s natural equilibrium. The “climate change hoax” and Al Gore’s time in the spotlight is all about money, profits, power and corruption. CO2 is a by-product of life and fundamentally harmless as a green house gas. Anyone that disagrees with that is part of the corruption.

We still need to eliminate as much of the contaminating poisons generated by industry and society, but the United Nations black mail attempt should be punished as any fraudulent crime, and all willing participants are the true criminals to be tried and convicted.

Posted by: longbow65 | March 9, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

In Europe, independent auditors have already investigated Climategate -those nasty emails among global warming alarmists- and concluded that those fanatics violated basic norms of scholarly behavior: data fabrication, arbitrary elimination of data that didn't fit the AGW models, systematic refusal to provide access to data, collusion to prevent dissenting opinions from being published in peer-reviewed journals.

Even The Guardian and The Economist -reliable echo-chambers for the AGW cult- have acknowledged they got it completely wrong. Accordingly, they are asking for a complete overhaul of Climate Science: the way the IPCC is organized, the way funds for research are allocated, the way journals decide what should be published.

The WP is late.... and wrong... as usual.

Posted by: tropicalfolk | March 9, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

The deniers don't know enough math and physics to even read the literature.

Republicans are America's Taliban.

They should be kept as far from the levers of power as possible!

Posted by: TheTruthWillNotBeSilenced | March 9, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

For your consideration:

Read James Lovelock's "The Vanishing Face of Gaia."

Posted by: PatC1 | March 9, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Ummm... before you propose changes to the English class curriculum in South Dakota, maybe you should memorize the difference between "it's" and "its"?

Then the assumption "It's just a smokescreen meant to confuse...": whenever describing an opponent's motive, always look for the worst one, then assume it's true, right?

Posted by: dr_sequoia | March 9, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

The short and intermediate term risk is much larger than commonly reported.

I know. I write computer codes for numerical simulation.

Japan's "earth simulator", for example, uses a "smoother" as do most numerical codes for solving large systems of partial differential equations, especially ones that use "leapfrog" integration.

The smoothers do exacly that -- they smooth out short term effects.

It makes the codes run faster, because they can take bigger time-steps, but they mask what happens over short periods of time.

The situation is actually much worse than even reasonably educated lay folk know.

The deniers try to argue with the laws of physics. Laws they don't even know and in fact can't understand, because they haven't taken the math and physics knowledge.

Its like somone who doesn't speak a single word of english trying to argue against Shakespeare.

Its nuts.

Posted by: TheTruthWillNotBeSilenced | March 9, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

The new year approaching, click in. Let's facelift bar!

===== ====

Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33

Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35

Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16

Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $16

New era cap $15

Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25


====== ====

Posted by: naitkonlyyou | March 9, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: TheTruthWillNotBeSilenced
The deniers don't know enough math and physics to even read the literature.
Republicans are America's Taliban.
They should be kept as far from the levers of power as possible!

It seems the scientist you hold in such high regard do not know enough math or physics to make a valid argument with out cooking the books in their favor. They also can not afford to let their “raw data” into the hands of real scientist to validate their findings. They sound more like crooked accountants than scientist. There has to be a valid argument for something to be denied. You should change your handle to “The PC will not be silenced”. You obviously know nothing about truth.

One thing you do say is true. The Taliban is more respectable in their own murdering way that the dishonest scientist and lying socialist criminals of the self serving United Nations and the Marxist Obamanation.

Posted by: longbow65 | March 9, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Stromberg, you yourself apparently need to learn how to construct an honest argument.

The resolution you're writing about was amended away, every word of it replaced with this, final version that passed the SD Senate and House of Representatives:

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Calling for a balanced approach for instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change.
WHEREAS, evidence relating to global climatic change is complex and subject to varying scientific interpretations; and
WHEREAS, there are a variety of climatological and meteorological dynamics that can affect world weather phenomena, and the significance and interrelativity of these factors remain unresolved; and
WHEREAS, the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints, which has complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global climatic change phenomena:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature urges that all instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change be presented in a balanced and objective manner and be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances."

Not that this is a good thing. But you shouldn't complain about other people getting their facts right when you can't be bothered to do so. The original, outrageous version passed the House on a narrow vote then was deferred several times in the Senate--both are unusual situations for a mere resolution. Senators were apparently embarrassed by the publicity over the original language.

Michael Melius
Hermosa, SD

Posted by: michaelmelius | March 9, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

FYI: The prime sponsor of HCR 1009 in the SD Legislature, Rep. Don Kopp of Rapid City, is a creationist. He's stated so publicly many times.

Posted by: michaelmelius | March 9, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

99.9% off scientists agree that global warming exists.

The sun causes that daily! That would be a pretty good average if only 0.1% did not believe it.

Posted by: longbow65 | March 9, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

I love reading climate change posts. May I suggest the following link. I truly enjoyed this read (it is rather lengthy).

Posted by: PeterKos | March 9, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Equating climate change hysteria to the fable of the supposed falling sky, would Stromberg take the role of Goosey Loosey or Turkey Lurkey? (Clearly, the Goreacle is Foxy Loxy in Chicken Little's clothing.)

Posted by: daihbidh | March 9, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

"The public knows b.s. when they see it and that's why the climate change scam has unraveled.
There is however a great deal of credible evidence for evolution. That's why the public accepts evolution."

Not so, djo4. In fact most Americans DON'T accept evolution.

Poll: Majority Reject Evolution

Most Americans don't believe Darwin's theory of evolution ...

On Darwin's Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution

America is the only developed country where most people don't believe in evolution, and - what a coincidence! - it's also the only developed country where most people don't believe in manmade global warming.

What's more, the Americans who deny evolution are - you guessed it - the very same Americans who are most likely to deny global warming!

On the other hand, America is the only developed country where a majority of people believed in the mythical existence of Iraqi WMD.

And what do you know? The Americans who were most likely to indulge in silly fantasies about the threat of Iraqi WMD are the very same Americans who are most likely to deny the serious threat posed by global warming!

Posted by: bourassa1 | March 9, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

The similarities between the Anthropogenic Climate Change theory and the Peoples Temple get more numerous by the day. If only Al Gore and the IPCC members would hurry up and down the Flavor Aid.

Posted by: LRBinFrisco | March 10, 2010 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Forget English class. If you want to learn how not to construct an honest argument, read this column. Jesus. There's just no talking to people who believe in the religion of global warming.

Posted by: shecallsmemoe | March 10, 2010 4:22 AM | Report abuse

Actually, the comparison of evolution to global climate change is appropriate. About half of the American public has doubts about the validity of both subjects despite the almost unanimous belief of the scientific community in both. In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, all the Republican hopefuls declared their doubts about evolution in one of the televised debates. Such an ignorance of science is astounding. But in South Dakota, they don't even know the difference between Astronomy and Astrology.

Posted by: wilsonjmichael | March 10, 2010 7:03 AM | Report abuse

Stromberg's comparison between the climate change sceptics and the anti-evolutionists is proves exactly the irrationality of the climate hysterics.

Posted by: pegasus2 | March 10, 2010 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Dear Stephen Stromberg, thank you so much for stating the obvious so simply and directly. It is shocking that it must be said and repeated, but that is the culture we live in. The other comments to this piece tell the story.

New evidence since the 2007 IPCC report suggests that the effects of climate disruption will be more rapid and dramatic than predicted just a few years ago. The critics are correct that Science is imperfect, but their errors may go in the wrong direction.

Posted by: chase-truth | March 10, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

I improved the opening paragraph of this article:

[Attempts by warmists at finding straw man] similarities [and red herring connections] between the anti-evolution movement and climate change-denial seem to get more numerous by the day.

Oh, and did somebody fail to tell the warmists that "climate change", despite the attempted semantic goal post shift, is the skeptic's argument? Most skeptics know that the climate is changing, and always has changed, and always will change - with or without our meager input. Only the warmists (the biggest climate change deniers of all) want to hide declines, the MWP, the LIA, etc., and only warmists are going around spouting mantras about "combating/fighting/stopping" climate change. "cooler" is a kind of change, but not the change warmists want everyone to be concerned about (although we should be, since history proves that another ice age is an absolute inevitability). No, the only change warmists are concerned with is "warming" change -- and not just regional warming, but "global warming".

Posted by: sdlawrence | March 10, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Well, I guess when the water reaches someones lower lip in Manhattan then we may see a change in the attitudes of the deniers but then they probably would not accept that Manhattan exists so therefore there is no change in the climate.
The data is available (check it at RealClimate)if you wish to view, analyze or stare at it or you can hear the people who have already analyzed the data, who for the most part say there is a human component to climate change that will cause us potential trouble in the future.
Future generations are the ones who will be the recipients of the actions we take today. Check your greed quotient.

Posted by: hamkast | March 10, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Attacking the use of the term "astrological" is really a cheap shot. The sun is a star. In this case, the use of the term "astrological" to mean "influence of solar cycles on the climate of earth" makes complete sense. It is enormously more influential on the climate than the byproducts of human activy, with the possible exception of massive deforestation.

Posted by: andersonce | March 10, 2010 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Science illiterates.

Posted by: jckdoors | March 10, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

It is not what we don't know that gives us so much trouble. It is what we know that just ain't so.

Mark Twain

Posted by: pgould1 | March 10, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

If I'm not mistaken carbon dioxide produced by man's activities create between 3% and 4% of the total in the atmosphere. The ocean takes care of the infentesimal increases that man produces.
As to who determined that Carbon Dioxide was a pollutant, it was lawyers not scientistists, by a 5 - 4 verdict. Not terribly convincing. My last point, there is not scientific concensus that man is causing global warming, in fact it is not conclusive that there is global warming.

Posted by: colonyr | March 10, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Scientists' consensus does not equal truth, necessarily. It may well be the product of derisive public comments about sceptics and scepticism; and it may well be that scientific enquiry is prevented by "peer review" quashing of heretics journal articles; and senior professors' failure to vote tenure to a young Turk who is a sceptic. All such have taken place. When scientists defend the indefensible, one has to wonder about their consensus.

Posted by: sailhardy | March 10, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Forget about climate change.
I mean who believes that just because humans have been removing carbon from the earth for the last 700-800 years and burning it in the form of wood, coal, oil and gas there would be an impact on the earths environment, what nonsense after all they are returning an equal amount, right?
Worry about something that can be measured like rising sea levels.

Posted by: knjincvc | March 10, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Why near a majority of people needs to be so stupid ? Both sides!
Isn't it possible to face the fanatical phobic climate warning freaks by being a methodical prudent scientist rather than a "Climate Change Denier"?
Crazy Darwinist and Anti Darwinists are in a same falsity...: No "explanation of everything for ever" still reached; and no molecular biology and modern genetics nor any science of living beings without darwinism...
So what? Let us Wait until both Sides are unproductive in scientific creativity! and fire them from teaching and working places? Who needs a professor who finds nothing and who teaches students with no creativity and results?
After twelve years of NOTHING and scientifical and cultural Black Hole; Nazi Germany lost the Game; and further, Germany needed 45 years to see some new democratic scientists to get out of the Cultural Teutonic Desert....
Well, we need patience, but game is already won!
Climate will change (anyway as it did so many times dramatically these last 20.000 years!!) as It Likes It?
Who knows how, yet?

Posted by: jacquesbr69 | March 10, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

@hamkast: I think they'll be happy to see Manhattan, San Francisco, and other bastions of liberalism sink beneath the sea.

@tropicalfolk: "Even The Guardian and The Economist -reliable echo-chambers for the AGW cult- have acknowledged they got it completely wrong."
Well, this is what the Guardian has to say about "climategate," "The leaked exchanges are disturbing, but it would take a conspiracy of a very different order to justify sceptics' claims."

The relevant article in the Economist on Nov. 26, 2009 is only available to subscribers:( But I see that some warmist blogs are denouncing it.

Posted by: sjpatejak | March 10, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

A key piece of climate change orthodoxy, the theory that global temperatures varied little during the last 1000 years, then began to increase dramatically in the mid 20th century, was first proposed in a 1998 paper by Michael Mann. Mann's "hockey stick" was incorporated into the 2000 IPCC assessment, replacing an earlier model of climate history that included the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age (which appears in the 1995 assessment) without explanation. This new model was raised to the status of accepted orthodoxy by bureaucratic processes at the IPCC, rather than passing through the normal stages of a scientific revolution as outlined by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 "Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
It normally takes at least 18 months to get a peer reviewed paper published in a quality journal; before 18 months had passed, Mann's revolutionary new model had been enshrined in the IPCC's assessment, and by proxy given the imprimatur of the scientists who signed off on it. There is considerable difference between questioning the legitimacy of evolutionary theory and challenging a very recently established orthodoxy that ultimately rests on the interpretation of the less than two dozen "climate proxies" Mann has for the period before 1300.

Posted by: unwashed_brain | March 10, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

From the same moron "scientists" that told us about global cooling in the 70's, we are told that what we exhale and that which plants need is in fact a poison. Brilliant! Climate change is natural. Ice ages came and went without burning fossil fuels. The giant hoax is unraveling and the hand-wringing twits yell even louder.
The environmental movement has millions of useful idiots that support the socialist/marxist programs of global wealth re-distribution, under the guise of protecting the environment.
It comes as no surprise that the same gullible simpletons support things like cap & trade, and Obamacare. See any common themes? Power grabbing, wealth redistribution, and social engineering on a massive scale. No thanks.

Posted by: LibsRFailures | March 10, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

sjpatejak said

@hamkast: I think they'll be happy to see Manhattan, San Francisco, and other bastions of liberalism sink beneath the sea.

Well, sjpatejak, I should think you feel the same about the entire gulf coast too, right?
We all live on this planet for a short time, we owe some thought to what we leave to the future generations. If we can reduce our impact on the environment why should we not try to do so?

Posted by: hamkast | March 10, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"... that a number of factors, including 'astrological' (!!) ones can 'effect [sic] world weather phenomena.'"

The "astrological" in the resolution, clearly, was a typo (should have been astroNOMical". As for "effect", the word is accurate in this context. "Effect" can be used as a verb, meaning "to cause to come into being" or "to bring about". So the resolution is claiming that these other factors can CAUSE weather phenomena. The verb "affect" means "to produce an effect upon" or "to influence" or even "to effect a response". "Affect", meaning "to influence" would have been the appropriate word if the object was "weather" or "climate", but since the object is "weather phenomena", "effect", meaning "to CAUSE", is, in fact, the appropriate word in this context.

But I suppose that is completely lost on journalists. Especially on journalists that don't know the difference between "can" and "than" ("its insistence that things other can [sic] greenhouse emissions can affect world weather phenomena")

However, to be fair to Stromberg, even at the expense of contradicting fellow skeptic PatC1, Stromberg's use of "its" in this same quote is correct, and I can find no incorrect usage of "it's" or "its" in Stromberg's screed. (Perhaps after seeing PatC1's comment, Stromberg corrected his usage, without admitting his error?)

My point is, fair-minded, honest, intelligent people are just as concerned about calling "foul" on those who agree with them as they are on those who disagree with them. Check any of the skeptic blogs, and you will see plenty of instances of moderators and commentors correcting fellow skeptics. You will not see any of this on the warmist side. Stromberg will not even admit the blatant offenses committed by the ClimateGate perpetrators, let alone that these offenses have hopelessly corrupted the so-called "scientific consensus".


Posted by: btrevoryoung | March 10, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

For all those who are in Denial over Climate Change and Global Warming:

Science is backed by facts, not politics. And the facts prove that Climate Change is a reality. So the debate over weather or not it is happening is a mute point.

Now, weather we believe Global Warming is human induced or a result of "astronomical" variables is another issue. Thus far, scientists have found a direct correlation between levels of CO2, and methane with respect to the rise in temperature within our atmosphere. Given the severe consequences of Global Warming ( Sea Level rise, decreased ocean circulation, etc...) and it's correlation with our activities, why would we not attempt to at least slow down the rate of global warming even IF we determine "astronomical" variables are partly responsible for the warming of our atmosphere?

Our habits must change, not for the sake of the government, but, for the sake of the human race. Most of those commenting here are un-informed. Everyone's got an opinion, but in context with this issue, opinions aren't worth a dime. Objectivity is at the center of this subject. It would be a huge detriment to allow un-informed and misinformed people to guide us down a path of irreversible destruction.

Get informed...Global warming and Climate Change, at its essence, have nothing to do with the hate you may have for President Obama nor does it have anything to do with Politics. Now, South Dakota's legislation is a good example of pure politics and a dangerous attempt to cheat ourselves of realizing the inevitable. Educating our children and changing our habits now is far less inconvenient than the detrimental reality we face ahead.

Posted by: nancea1 | March 14, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

In desperation, the "man-made climate change" dupes pull out the stops to compare the "evolution" non-controversy with AGW fraud.

It's clear that the AGW crowd is rapidly losing traction, and for good reason: AGW is a complete and unmitigated fraud, the concoction of a few paranoid schizophrenics with too much time on their hands and too little legitimate means to make themselves somehow "relevant."

The curtain is coming down on this outrageous fraud known as AGW and none too soon.

All I or anyone else can do is lend their little bit of pull to bring it down that much faster.

In the Public interest.

Brian G Valentine
Arlington, Virginia.

Posted by: BrianValentine | March 15, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Quote from nancea1:

"Science is backed by facts, not politics. And the facts prove that Climate Change is a reality. So the debate over weather or not it is happening is a mute point.

Now, weather we believe Global Warming is human induced or a result of "astronomical" variables is another issue. Thus far, scientists have found a direct correlation between levels of CO2, and methane with respect to the rise in temperature within our atmosphere."

Facts do prove that temperatures have increased for some years, and may be decreasing now. Scientists know that correlation does not mean causation. CO2 has gone up while temperatures have gone down. Polar ice and glaciers have melted before and likely will melt again. Temperatures were warmer when CO2 was much less than now a thousand years ago, and it has gotten both colder and warmer many times since then.

Without the assertion that this is the warmest time ever, there isn't a crisis address. Without denying the Medieval Warming period, when folks lived and made wine where grapes won't grow today, there isn't a hockey stick or even a problem.

It may or may not get still warmer before it gets colder again. The AGW folks cannot predict anything with reliability and neither can anyone else. There won't be any reduction in the amount of CO2 going into the air, so all of this chatter is just so much dust in the wind anyway. No Government is going to hamstring their own economy for this nonsense.

There is a lot here about sea levels rising. How many of you know that satellite measurements show about 3 MM per year for the last 20 or so years. That is a little under four inches in twenty years. The IPCC predicts an increasing rate of increase, but the satellite that measures the level hasn't been reading their reports.

Polar ice is probably increasing again at the north pole, and has been increasing for decades at the south pole. There are reports that the south pole land ice, based on all of five years of measurements, is losing 7 millimeters a year; maybe you believe that a five year trend is enough to justify panic about rising sea levels? Even if true it would take 2 or 3 hundred thousand years to get to their dire forecasts of sea level rise.

Astrology does have a lot in common with the warmist religion. Astrologers look up at the stars and forecast the future. Warmists say all that CO2 coming out of a smoke stack must surely be doing something, so let's predict then end of the world as we know it because we can't find any other reason to explain normal climate variations.

Posted by: AGWsceptic99 | March 16, 2010 1:22 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company