Haven’t you been listening?
Well, Chris Mooney, as usual, has the goods. This time it’s the NOAA holding down scientists who have the opinion that global warming is fueling more intense hurricanes. Not, you must note, that this is established science: they are suppressing scientists who simply say the evidence is there and we should at least look into this more.
This is, purely and simply, evil. I might wish it weren’t so prevalent, but we’ve seen how this Administration behaves toward science. Now, at this point, after so many years, what makes me most sad is how many people still try to deny it. The evidence is in. And in and in and in. Time to stop denying, and start doing something about it. These Congressional hearings (remember oversight, and checks and balances? I sure do, and it’s nice to see them again) are a fine start. But they’re only a start. I want to see a lot more of this — a lot more — in the coming months.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Of course, this sort of behavior is hardly unique to the White House. For the sad story of Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), see here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xmylm
and here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2yyqu8
Vote the bums out, that’s my take…
Sam
March 28th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
On the other hand, for being “suppressed”, these folks sure haven’t had problems communicating their findings, or complain about those occurrences where NOAA management turned down interview requests.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Frank:
Yes, we don’t have a totalitarian police state (yet) that suppresses all contrary information and threatens violence upon the families of science.
But: Any attempt at suppression of science by a government, no matter how ineffective is a bad thing. At what point do we say ‘enough is enough’?
This government led us into a war based on bad information and suppression of evidence. This has led to the deaths of 1000’s of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Enough is enough.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Not to dismiss the pattern of obstruction from administration appointees, but the facts in this particular instance seem to be misrepresented.
The sites keep portraying Knutson as a strong advocate that the strong storm season of ‘05 was due to Global Warming. However, from the email string, Kent Laborde describes Knutson as “consistent” with the other two named scientists with regard to decadal cycles vs. global warming. In fact, he states that Knutson’s result is that there will be a slight increase in storm intensity that won’t be realized “until almost 100 years from now”. Laborde then clarifies that Knutson “is a bit of a different animal” because he is a numerical modeler rather than a meteorologist.
The excerpts being posted keep portraying the “different animal” quote as if it applies to Knutson’s stance on global warming and storm intensification rather than his area of technical expertise. Furthermore, the articles consistently quote out of context to support the contention that Knutson supports the conclusion that the strong storms of ‘05 were due to global warming, but that is not consistent with the remark that the storm intensification won’t be evident for another 100 years.
Furthermore, the reason why the request was denied in favor of one of the other guys is not clear. Is it because it relates to storm intensification, or because NOAA would prefer the meteorologists making the climate pronouncements rather than a numerical modeler?
The representations given appear to me to be distortions and unfair assumptions about the motivations of Fuqua. Jumping on distorted representations like this does not help strengthen the position that Bush Administration officials and appointees are distorting science. Rather, it looks like the complainers are grasping at straws, and weakens the case for anyone who actually reads the emails to see what really happened.
Now if there are more details that support the contention that Knutson is being unfairly silenced, or that his position really is stronger in favor of the global warming model, that evidence is not presented in the limited information being bandied around. The turmoil seems to be based purely on this email chain, which does not support the conclusion being drawn.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Is it November of this year that Americans get to go to the pitchforks and torches, er, polls or is that next year?
March 28th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Front page in my local paper today (a very Right leaning publication) is yet another article about how the Administration has been suppressing science to appease Right Wing extremists. And still the loyalists deny and obfuscate. At this point, I, for one, am prepared to declare the Republican party a religion; facts mean nothing to these people…only Party loyalty matters.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I agree with Irishman. I think the evidence in this instance is on the weak side. I read the emails and saw a page from NOAA’s media request log. Nothing is so clear to me that suppression was definitely occurring. Everything I read left reasonable room for some less dastardly explanation.
The media request log showed other parties inquiring into hurricanes and global warming which were not denied (though they weren’t specifically assigned to a scientist either).
On the other hand, I don’t fully understand why a press office would deny a request to have a question answered by at least somebody. I also don’t understand why they didn’t just ask Knutson if he could and/or wanted to answer the question.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Evolving Squid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_US_Election
March 28th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I’m not convinced on this global warming thing. we have very little evidence of how the earth works in long and short term time frames because we’ve only had good equptment for like.. well lets say 200 years to be liberal.
that means if the tempature suddenly goes up in a 10 year time span, we’ve only got a sample of 20 ‘10year’ time spance to reference. thats not a very good science experement if you ask me.
i hear from you that this is an un-contested fact that global warming is caused by evil people in cars, but i also hear from other sources, the BBC included that made a VERY good arguement (far better than Al Gore) that we dont’ really know what’s going on, and that what IS going on isn’t nessesarily human caused.
I gotta say BA, i really love your site but when politics come out, you kinda scare me sometimes.
March 28th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
kingnor, your opinion is at odds with pretty much the entire scientific community. First of all, it does not require any equipment to measure weather, we can get good indicators going back thousands of years by looking at things like tree rings, ice cores, and a combination of other measures. If these were flawed then each should give a different measure. This is not the case, they are very consistent with each other. Second, this is not just based on temperature changes. There are a lot of other measures that go into the analysis. For instance CO2 levels are rising. That rise is caused largely by humans. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing the levels of greenhouse gasses changes the temperature. Unless someone can develop a reasonable model of the atmosphere that is immune to changes in greenhouse gas levels then the evidence indicates that the temperature will increase.
Further, things don’t just happen for no reason. Everything has to have a cause. If the temperature is changing something must be causing it to change. There is no reason that we are aware of that can account for the changes seen besides CO2 emissions (plus some other factors contributing smaller amounts). Other factors could cause such a change in some hypothetical scenario, but those factors as they are now are insufficient to cause the change we are seeing. There might be some reason we are not aware of, but unless someone can actually say what that reason is and show that it can cause what we are seeing the only viable candidate is CO2 (with some other factors contributing in smaller amounts).
March 28th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Kingnor,
I’m not a climate scientist and I’d guess there are people lurking here that can respond to your post more authoritatively than I. That said, I would like to address a couple of points you made. First, you say we don’t have much evidence of how the earth works in long and short term time frames because we’ve only had the equipment for a coupe hundred years. This isn’t entirely true. We have equipment now that measures conditions from a very long time ago (e.g. spectrographs that measure ancient ice and mud cores). These data give us clues to what the atmospheric temperature was well before we had the equipment. Indeed, we can gather evidence from well before humans even existed.
Also, you won’t get an argument from climatologists regarding the validity of using a 10-year time span to make conclusions. If anyone is talking about 10-year spans, it is not likely to be coming from a climate scientitst. Climate scientists look at data spanning millenia to determine significant trends.
I have spoken to a scientist who has worked in the field and he confirmed to me that the consensus among climate scientist is that global warming IS occurring. At the time I spoke with him, he said that the question of humans causing global warming was not a matter of consensus. However, that was about a year ago and I have read reports since that say that the body of evidence has now tipped the scientific consensus toward acceptance that humans are contributing to global warming. The degree to which humans are contributing to warming, I can’t say, though someone else might.
Anyway the real point here is that the Bad Astronomer is being vigilant about a presidential administration that appears to be managing scientific conclusions rather than allowing science and scientific discussion to be left unfettered and left to the scientists and the public in the free marketplace of ideas. If the BA scares you, try BB (Big Brother).
March 28th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Kingor -
Yes, we have a direct observation record for at most a couple of hundred years, this is true… however we have VERY good climatlogical records for MUCH longer than that.
Antartic ice cores provide yearly snapshots of our planets climate going back as far as 420,000 years (the Vostok core). Take a quick peek a wikipedia for a primer on the subject (ice cores) with some excellent source works referenced.
The overall records show an un-matched short term increase in global temperatures that corresponds eerily with the birth of the industrial era. Now, we all know corellation is not equal to causation… but is sure does give us something to look at. In looking at it it is now pretty firmly understood that we are seeing warming caused directly by the activities of man. This is very firmly understood. Of course so is the fact of evolution (it’s not an opinion : the evdence for it is literally mountainous while the eivdence against is largely non-existant) but that won’t stop some folks from trying to convince the world otherwise. That is to say, some folks will try to spin it so it looks flimsy or wrong but the evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports the human caused model.
The only real question here is what can be done (realistically) and whether it’s too late to actually revers the changes. the longe term effects of global warming are also not completely understood - it’s possible that much of the planet will become uninhabitable… it’s also possible that this is just an irritant in the system and it will self balance. I think the evidence currently leans more to the first possibility but the jury is still out on this one.
Note that while we know it is happening we are still trying to figure out what the effects will be. Some say storms will get worse, some say they won’t. The evidence is yet to be convincing for either argument.
March 28th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
kingnor,
If by “the BBC” you mean its recent “Great Global Warming Swindle” show, you really need to do some homework — the show’s been pretty thoroughly debunked. Some treatments of it that might be of interest:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/29qbqe
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xu4yj
http://preview.tinyurl.com/24f7eq
Lorne
March 28th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I hear from you that this is an un-contested fact that global warming is caused by evil people in cars…
That might be what you’re hearing, but that’s not what we’re saying. You seem to be buying into a caricature being deliberately spread about by the skeptics. It’s easy to oppose someone when you are led to believe that they are accusing you of being “evil” for driving cars, and when you do, you stop caring about what they are saying, even if it turns out to be true.
March 28th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
tacitus:
Please do not place the particular people you refer to as “skeptics” into that laudable category. It is undeserving. I suggest calling them “deniers” instead.
March 28th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
oops! I meant to suggest calling them “denialists”, as in a state of denial.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
And just to be clear by what I mean. One should always be skeptical when the evidence is lacking or sparse. One can even hold a healthy skepticism in the face of the preponderance of the evidence. But to know that you’re ‘right’ in the face of the preponderance of the evidence is to be in a state of denial. This isn’t my term, and its other attributes can be found here: http://www.giveupblog.com/2006/09/denialists.html
March 28th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
hey guys, i’m not going to say too much, but i followed some link trails here and found some pretty selective quoting by the anti bush guys. This is a copy of the NOAA email: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/climate-change/ And this is how that email was quoted here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/19/11913/5340 (Which was used as evidence at the huffington post article.)
Read the actual email, did they really suppress a guy who says that there will be very little impact in the next 100 years?
I did a double take when i read this because the quotations implied that he was a “different animal” from the pro-bush-no-impact camp. But in the email they state pretty clearly hes a different animal because hes a number cruncher and not a meteorologist. I dunno, think there is suppression going on, but certainly not in THAT email chain…
March 28th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
You make a good point, sir!
March 28th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
President Richard Nixon’s signature is located on six different sites on the Lunar Surface. I still remember his phone calls to the astronauts during those historic times. Of course, these are much different times than the Apollo era.
How interested are The People about todays science?
Could it be that our elected leaders of today may just be reflecting the attitudes of their constituents?
March 28th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
(stereotypically apathetic American mode on) Elections, science, attitudes… whatever. Oooo, hey, I have to go cast my vote for American Idol! See, I vote, and it counts! (stereotypically apathetic American mode off)
I think it’s more a point of elected officials reflecting the desires of lobbyists, but some days, I’m not so sure.
Sigh. I think the past several years, and people’s attitudes, are finally starting to wear me down.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I’m with Irishman and PsyberDave on this one. If you drill down to the actual emails, it seems pretty clear that the quotes being lifted from it are misleading at best. This does more harm that good. The very least we should expect is for the good guys to present good evidence. BA, did you read the source email before posting this?
March 28th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Lorne,
That program wasn’t on the BBC, so either you guessed incorrectly what kingnor was referring to, or you’re discussing climate change with someone who can’t tell the difference between the BBC and Channel 4, or possibly he’s just citing a program he heard about but never actually saw.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:52 am
The Great Global Warming Swindle was shown on UK Channel 4, not the BBC.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:00 am
WOW !!
This is an awesome conspiracy page !! Man forget Conspiracy Planet. I can get all my Conspiracy news here !
BA Blog naaaa change it to BC . Bad Conspiracy Blog .
Rock on Dood !
March 29th, 2007 at 4:22 am
My problem is with the source sited in BA’s blog. If I posted a responce with links to Drudge, Little Green Footballs, or Rush Limbaugh as sources, I would be rightly chastised for imputing a bias. Such is the same for the Huffington Post. The real story lies not in science, but the integrity of individuals who sign on to a job with the government but then do not want to adhere to the regulations placed to control the flow of information to the public. After Woodward-Bernstein, governments works felt encouraged to go around authority to talk to reporters about things they may have an incomplete or partial knowledge of. Standards were put in place to ensure that agencies would speak to the public with a coherent voice. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing, but a government thing. My fear is that BA’s blog, using the above sources, deviates so much to the left from straight science and true skepticism that even the center begins to look right wing. This might be acceptible from a political stance, but we should be above politcs and strive for honest debate, as free from bias as possible (note: we are NEVER free from bias, but must identify and control our own).
March 29th, 2007 at 4:30 am
I drive a hybrid car. I’m converting some of my lightbulbs to fluorescents as they burn out. I’ve seen satellite data (with no commentary by the presenter at the time) that show there’s less ice on the poles now than there was. I believe there are plenty of reasons that we should wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, one of them being the carbon dioxide emissions.
I also believe that the Anthropogenic Global Warming ‘debate’ as run in the media and the on the internet is apporaching a religious ferver that could lead to some really dumb legislation. Given the lack of faith (bad term, I know) the writer and readers of this blog have expressed in the current administration, I would think there would be a fear of them actually taking action, since it seems most of the things done by the administration were wrong anyway in the commentors/writers opinion.
That all being said, I’d be curious to know what people here think of the statements made by Michael Chrichton in this interview:
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2007/03/seven_answers_f.html
(please don’t comment on it unless you’ve read the interview…that would be unscientific)
March 29th, 2007 at 5:58 am
The mark of a TRUE scientist (in Michael Crichton): He has a secret (and complex) formula which has predicted that the globe will warm .8 degrees C in 100 years. And maybe just maybe he will someday show people what that formula is.
Man he is soooo great.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:19 am
(Quote:) Washington — House Republican Leader John Boehner would have appointed Rep. Wayne Gilchrest to the bipartisan Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming — but only if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change, Gilchrest said.
“I said, ‘John, I can’t do that,’” Gilchrest said in an interview. (Endquote)
Well…….why not?
Note that the request is: ‘…humans are not CAUSING climate change…’
Where’s the proof that man is CAUSING climate change? (And is it ALL climate change, or just a SOME climate change?) And does this imply that if man were to simply lie down and do nothing that climate change would cease? Climate change has been occurring forever. Certainly long before man arrived. Didn’t science tell us that the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling? Didn’t science tell us we’re coming out of a ‘little ice-age’?
Are humans CONTRIBUTING to climate change? I would have to respond with a strong ‘Probably’, leaning towards a stronger ‘YES’.
OK. Now…..how MUCH are we contributing, and HOW are we contributing it?
(Quote:)”Roy Blunt said he didn’t think there was enough evidence to suggest that humans are causing global warming,” Gilchrest said. “Right there, holy cow, there’s like 9,000 scientists to three on that one.”(Endquote)
Again, there’s that word: CAUSING
And it’s 2 different things in each statement:
“….causing climate change….”
“….causing global warming….”
(I point this out because other forums have scolded me for implying that they are the same, while other forums have insisted that they ARE the same.)
I don’t want to off-handedly dismiss global warming….or climate change. It’s the scare tactics, the 200-FOOT TIDAL WAVES THAT WILL SWALLOW MANHATTAN!!!!!….the cataclysmic events that will DOOM US ALL IN 10 YEARS!!!! that I find disturbing. What happened to the doomsday ‘ice age’ we were told about in the 70’s and 80’s…? God knows we got hammered with that nonsense ad nauseam.
Didn’t Mt. Pinatubo spew more CO2 than all of mankind produced in the past 100 years? This is a science-based website, and science has shown us that Earth has gone through higher warming periods, yet here we are. Science has shown us that Earth has experienced warming trends prior to man’s arrival, yet we are told that man is causing climate change (or global warming). And to merely dismiss the science shown in ‘Global Warming Swindle’ is to exhibit the same White House behavior that is scorned on this very site.
Thanks!
March 29th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Robert-
His secret formula is that he guessed. That information is in his author’s notes from “Climate of Fear.” I wish that he was a little less glib in this article. Any other comments, especially substantial ones about his assertions?
March 29th, 2007 at 6:46 am
msmith 40 said:
“Where’s the proof that man is CAUSING climate change?”
Where is the proof you exist? It is impossible to prove anything. But the weight of the evidence, according to pretty much the entire scientific community, is firmly pointing towards humans playing the largest part in the current warming.
“And does this imply that if man were to simply lie down and do nothing that climate change would cease?”
That is unknown. It may reduce considerably, it may go away completely, or we may have progressed too far and is now out of our control. That is what people are trying to figure out.
“Climate change has been occurring forever. Certainly long before man arrived. ”
Yeah, and animals and plants have been going extinct forever. Obviously humans couldn’t be responsible for any extinctions now, since nature caused extinctions in the past. Surely humans couldn’t be responsible for the mass disappearance of forests, since forests have disappeared in the past. Things have happened in the past without humans. But those things had causes. Things are happening now. It must have a cause as well. It is absurd to claim that just because something was not caused by humans in the past, that it cannot be caused by humans now. What we actually have to do is analyze the system and determine what the real cause is now. And the evidence, according to the vast majority of those who know what they are talking about, is firmly pointing towards humans being the main culprit.
“the 200-FOOT TIDAL WAVES THAT WILL SWALLOW MANHATTAN!!!!!….the cataclysmic events that will DOOM US ALL IN 10 YEARS!!!!”
Absurd strawman. I have never seen anyone seriously claim that. Certainly no one here has. How would you like it if I characterized all global warming deniers by quoting them saying “Global warming can’t happen because God promised after the Flood that he would never flood the world again.” At least people have actually made that claim. Seriously, using stupid statements like that just makes it look like you have no clue at all about global warming.
As for climate change vs. global warming, global warming is obviously a type of climate change. The problem is that not all parts of the world will actually warm, some will probably cool (although the overall global temperature will increase). The other problem is that the deniers are using the word “climate change” to downplay the effects. Pseudoscience practioners love to redefine terms to suit their needs, and changing terminology to play up things they like and play down things they don’t. This has sort of poisoned the term to a degree. It is sort of like “junk science”, which has pretty much come to mean “good science I don’t like” due to politicians using the word.
“What happened to the doomsday ‘ice age’ we were told about in the 70’s and 80’s…? God knows we got hammered with that nonsense ad nauseam.”
Come on, there was a tiny minority of climatologists that thought that might be a possibility. Today we have pretty much the entire climatology community absolutely convinced about global warming. There is no comparison between the two.
“Didn’t Mt. Pinatubo spew more CO2 than all of mankind produced in the past 100 years?”
No, it didn’t. Go find a CO2 level tracking chart. See a lot of spikes there? No? Me either. Those spikes you don’t see are where volcanoes erupted (yours should be in there somewhere). If global warming deniers are right and volcanoes are contributing that much CO2, the CO2 levels should change when a volcano erupts. They don’t. Volcanic eruptions have no noticeable impact on CO2 levels at least at the precision we can measure. They contribute, but no where near as much as deniers claim.
“science has shown us that Earth has gone through higher warming periods, yet here we are.”
It is not the height that worries scientists, it is the speed. The speed is unprecedented over the period we can measure (hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of years, I don’t remember off hand).
March 29th, 2007 at 6:48 am
[…] Bad Astronomy Blog » Do you still think the White House isn’t suppressing science? […]
March 29th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Tom, I can’t judge the technical merit of his information. I do think he has some reasonable things to say about the difference between causing some and causing all of climate change, and about prioritizing our issues to address. However, I also have to scratch my head over that line about his complex formula he will reveal over the coming years.
As far as AGW goes, I don’t really know what to think. I know I’m not informed enough to make my own evaluation of what is happening, but I also know I’m being inundated by spin - spin wrapped in technical arguments making it hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. Yet I can’t muster up the time and energy to dig in and sort it all out for myself. What’s a guy to do?
What it comes down to to me is that we should consider reasonable steps to eliminate polution and control the changes to the environment we are causing. Now we just have to argue over the definition of “reasonable”.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:36 am
It’s sad that this site has been hijacked by global warming nazis. The belief that man is responsible for global warming is not, by any means, established science. In his overriding need to blast President Bush, Phil loses his head. Get some real evidence other than “Al Gore says so” and maybe we can come to the right answer.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Okay, I understand why we’ve started a debate about global warming and its possible causes - but, I think we’re losing the point, here.
The point is not that global warming is or is not caused by humans, the point is that experts on side of the issue are allowed to voice their opinions rather easily, and experts on the other side have to jump through hoops to get their side out there.
I do agree that this string of emails leaves a lot unanswered, but that’s the point of looking at them and talking to the people who wrote them and figuring out what was going on. By itself, this email looks like it could go either way - but mixed in with all the other evidence, perhaps it would be clearer.
If there’s anything I’ve learned as a teacher, it’s that ignorance is never bliss and you HAVE to know all sides of the story before coming to a conclusion.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:28 am
RE: Michael Chrichton… bear in mind he’s an author, who does enough research to make his books seem plausible to the mass public (which might mean that he doesn’t have to do all that much research anymore
), and who’s chief desire is probably to sell books. I’d heard a radio discussion about his latest book, which contains a disclaimer something along the lines of “This is a work of fiction… except for the parts that are true.”
OOO, scary, Michael. You must know something we don’t, and you’re actually a whistleblower who’s trying to keep the global warmiong conspiracy in its place.
Whatever. Have fun laughing all the way to the bank.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Ah, this comment makes my blood boil. “Al Gore says so?” Where and how do you think Al Gore is getting his information? I think Irishman and TheBlackCat have done a very good job of not sounding like “global warming Nazis.” Amanda makes the key point that this post was about suppression and politics, not whether global warming or climate change is caused by humans (Again, Irishman addressed this with reason.) It’s NOT all caused by humans - we know that. But the human factor is something we can control, and regardless of the long, long term effects of global warming, we’re doing plenty of damage, especially as the “developing countries” continue to develop, to hurt shorter term quality of life and environmental. Evil SUV-drivers? Not really, but SUVs are a big disappointment in our technological advancement (imho) since the early ’70s - especially because most of Houston, for example, has no good reason to be driving them (they’re a blight in many ways). The whole politics of this issue ticks me off. ~grrr~
March 29th, 2007 at 10:47 am
>>> Time to stop denying, and start doing something about it.
You said it, Phil!
You go stop India from modernizing, and I’ll go stop China!
Together we can make a difference!
Chloe, I need a satellite retasked to Bejing quick!
March 29th, 2007 at 11:03 am
A good book on this topic is Meltdown by Pat Michaels.
Now before the ideologically intolerant start braying “Oh noes! He is an evil Cato righty-fascist”, his POV is that there *is* global warming, and the most recent warming *is* human caused. what he speaks out against is the hysteria and end of the world proclimations. And Cato is a libertarian think tank.
He explores keenly the politics surrounding the GW debate, and how insane it is, as can be seen here on this blog.
He has a blog, too: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
Supposedly both sides of the debate think kindly of it. Their stance is “the climate is changing, but we need to relax”.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Tim said:
“Get some real evidence other than “Al Gore says so†and maybe we can come to the right answer.”
I have no clue what Al Gore said, nor do I particularly care. I researched the matter myself and came to a conclusion.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Another link: a debate on how serious GW actually is.
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12
Haven’t listened to it yet, so YMMV.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
re: “Where is the proof you exist? It is impossible to prove anything. ”
????????????
2 + 2 = 4.
I play guitar.
We’ve been to the moon.
Humans breathe.
Fish swim.
Mumia shot & killed Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.
Jennifer Love Hewitt has great cans.
What else ya need…?
(Really, just based on your ‘impossible to prove anything’ statement, you have no business debating anyone about anything.)
re: Humans being RESPONSIBLE for global warming.
Before man arrived, man was not RESPONSIBLE for global warming. (Actually, man wasn’t responsible for anything.)
Now that man is here doesn’t automatically make him RESPONSIBLE for whatever occurs.
However, if we’re talking about CONTRIBUTING to an event…..that’s different.
We then get into: How? How much? What’s the impact?
re: Plants and animals becoming extinct.
True.
But not always because of man.
And new species of plants and animals continue to be discovered.
re: “Things have happened in the past without humans. But those things had causes. Things are happening now. It must have a cause as well.”
Agreed.
And those could be the same ‘pre-man’ causes.
re: global warming is obviously a type of climate change.
Agreed.
However, climate change is not always global warming.
re: ‘Straw man arguments’
200 foot tidal waves.
This was the scare tactic in ‘The Day After Tomorrow’, a/k/a “The movie the Bush Administration doesn’t want you to see!’”
re: ‘Doomed in 10 years’
That’s exactly what is presented in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
re: “Seriously, using stupid statements like that just makes it look like you have no clue at all about global warming.”
Welllll…………Al Gore’s making that statement…sooooo……..
re: Mt. Pinatubo.
The impact of volcanoes on the Earth System was dramatically demonstrated in 1991 by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. The June 1991 eruptions of Pinatubo have had near-global effects on weather and climate via the introduction of sulfur dioxide and aerosols into the atmosphere. This eruption represents the second largest volcanic eruption this century, second only to Mt. Katmai (Alaska) in 1912. The materials injected into the stratosphere by Mt. Pinatubo circled the globe in 3 weeks, and covered about 42% of the Earth’s surface in only two months. Satellite observations made two years after the eruption show that this aerosol layer still exists, and that many parts of the world experienced a drop in average temperature of approximately 0.5 degrees C in 1992 compared to the 30-year average. The cold, snowy weather in New Zealand in late 1992, the severe storm damage caused by hurricanes such as Andrew and Iniki in the fall of 1992, and the heavy rains in the Midwest of the USA in the summer of 1993 have all been linked to the atmospheric effects of the eruption of Pinatubo.
..and if it’s CO2 we’re talking about:
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1996/A/199600382.html
re: “And the evidence, according to the vast majority of those who know what they are talking about, is firmly pointing towards humans being the main culprit.”
But let’s not forget this one:
“It is impossible to prove anything.”
All the best,
msmith40
March 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
“Really, just based on your ‘impossible to prove anything’ statement, you have no business debating anyone about anything.”
You are missing my point. Proof is impossible. What we deal with is varying degrees of likelihood. If you require absolute proof before you take action you might as well stay in bed all day. You do not have absolute proof your car will start tomorrow, so why bother turning it on at all? You don’t have absolute proof that the your workplace hasn’t burned down, so why bother going to work? And please don’t nitpick my examples. My point is that life requires dealing with varying degrees of probability. You can’t prove anything, you must rely on the most likely answer and make a decision based on that. Requiring proof before you take any action will prevent you from taking any action.
“Now that man is here doesn’t automatically make him RESPONSIBLE for whatever occurs.”
No one is claiming it is. They have analyzed the various inputs to the climate and the one that best explains what we are seeing is us.
“However, if we’re talking about CONTRIBUTING to an event…..that’s different.
We then get into: How? How much? What’s the impact?”
What do you think climatologists have been doing? Do you really think people have just been ignoring those questions? Come on, these people aren’t stupid. Any argument based on the assumption that an entire branch of science is fully of nothing but imbeciles is guaranteed to be wrong. These aren’t idiots, and they aren’t pulling information out of a hat. They analyze the data and draw conclusions based on that data.
“But not always because of man.”
No one is claiming that they are. No one is claiming that global warming has to be caused by man. No one is claiming that the mere fact that we are here proves we are the cause of global warming. They have checked the various possible causes and found the one that best explains the data. That cause is us (and some other factors contributing to a much smaller degree).
“And those could be the same ‘pre-man’ causes.”
That is why climatologists have checked those causes and found that they aren’t the cause this time.
“However, climate change is not always global warming.”
No one is claiming that it is. However, it is this time.
“This was the scare tactic in ‘The Day After Tomorrow’, a/k/a ‘The movie the Bush Administration doesn’t want you to see!’’ ”
Yeah, a movie. A work of fiction made for the purpose of entertainment. The people who made the movie even said that they exaggerated and time-compressed the even the most remote worst-case scenario for the sake of entertainment. No on is seriously claiming that is how it is going to play out. I seriously hope you do not think that movie actually represents what climatologists think is going to happen. Even the scientists in the movie were saying that the worst-case scenario has these things happening over many decades or even centuries, and were taken by surprise by the events as much as anyone else.
“That’s exactly what is presented in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’”
Quote please.
“re: Mt. Pinatubo”
Nonthing in that passage says anything about CO2. Take a look here. You can see the charts tracking CO2 levels. If you are correct and Mt. Pinatubo dumped as much CO2 as the last 100 years of human activity, there should be a massive spike during the eruption. There is no such spike in any of the plots. There is no change in the trend whatsoever at that point or any point after or before. Note that one is even in Hawaii, right next to a volcanic eruption that starting in 1983. There is no change in CO2 levels from that station at that time.
“But let’s not forget this one:
‘It is impossible to prove anything.’”
That is why we must act on the best information available to determine the most likely scenario and act on that.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Quiet_Desperation,
I’d strongly suggest you take anything coming from Pat Michaels’ mouth (or blog) with a HUGE grain of salt. Some years back he attempted to support his “Hansen is an alarmist” claim with doctored data (i.e., deleted everything but the worst case scenario from a plot, then presented it as Hansen’s nominal scenario). As far as I’m concerned, such blatant fraud completely destroys any credibility he might otherwise have.
Also, a few minutes on Google uncovered this:
+ World Climate Report is produced by “New Hope Environmental Services”
+ New Hope is an offshoot of the Heartland Institute
+ Heartland is a free-market promotion group, largely funded by ExxonMobil
As the saying goes, “follow the money.” Add to this the fact that Pat Michaels has for years been a paid P.R. guy for energy companies, and you should get the picture. You say “both sides of the debate think kindly of” the World Climate Report, but this is a fantasy maintained only by the WCR site itself.
If you want science-based discussion, I’d suggest you stick with http://realclimate.org.
Lorne
P.S. My podcast is in the middle of a series of episodes on climate change and the various parties / arguments involved. You might want to check it out (click on my name at the top of this post)…
March 29th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Well you know what I was going to give you all a good kicking for the stream of garbage being spouted by both sides here but beer has persuaded me to ease up on you all.
However, just for the record, it is possible to accept that; the world is warming, that humans may well be responsible for some but not all of it and still realise that the enviromentalist lobby is exactly that a lobby(i.e. political), that want power and will do what ever it take to get it, just like every other mealy mouthed good for nothing politician that we vote for every bloody election thinking that this time it will be different.
The whole f’ing climate change debate is political, has been for a very long time, get over it people.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
There is nothing political about the science itself regarding climate change. The political debate is between people who accept the science, and people who don’t like the science because of its implications for human civilization.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I think Steve nailed it.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
As Brant D said, there is nothing political about the science. The fact that *the work* of 1000s of climate scientists from around the world has resulted in an emergent body of understanding with accompanying conclusions is what’s important. The latest IPCC report (still coming out), representing the findings of 1000s of climate scientists, and its conclusions is what’s important.
At the risk of doing a disservice to such a massive and important body of scientific work, a nutshell-summary is that global climate change is real, it’s underway, and there is a 90% likelihood that we (mankind) are a major contributor/instigator of that change underway - with plenty of admission of uncertainty. But that uncertainty, and there is always room for uncertainty in science, doesn’t equate with complete ignorance or a “guess”.
The amplitude, scale and breadth of future climate change might be more favorable than the mean projection, but keep in mind that given the very same uncertainties, they could also be worse than the worst scenario projections in the IPCC report. These reported projections all arc on a trajectory that depend on what we decide to do (or not do), and of course they include error bars.
But all the finger pointing at (or personal opinions of) former political figures who have had interests in the environment or at environmentalists who say this or that or at goofball Hollywood movies (such as “The Day After Tomorrow”) or the opinions of a few scientists (a small fraction of which who actually do research in the field) is totally irrelevant.
The questions to ask yourself are these:
1) Given the emergent body of knowledge to come out of the scientific community, does it make sense to go on as “business as usual”?
2) Is 90% certainty enough? Or do you want to wait another 10 years to see that number be, say, 95%, with the corresponding consequences in failing to do anything? The primary physical mechanism has been known for over a century. The alarm bells began sounding with James Hansen’s report to Congress in 1988, but he didn’t have anywhere near the body of evidence present today.
3) Does it make sense to continue pumping massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in the face of the measured rapid increase in this trace greenhouse gas? As you think about this, ask yourself - does it really matter what precise fraction of this observed increase mankind is responsible for? And do keep in mind that this fraction is not a guess.
4) Are you really comforted by the fact that the uncertainties and gaps in present understanding of Earth’s dynamic climate (I am referring to actual gaps, not those imagined by second rate science fiction writers) mean that the grandest uncontrolled experiment ever conducted is perhaps therefore even less understood?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
The keyword for this thread is: mea culpa (Latin, through my fault
: a formal acknowledgment of personal fault or error)
Of course “my fault” could be expanded to our fault. Is there an agreed scientific proof paper, accepted as fact by a majority of peers, that global warming is mostly caused by human activity? We need scientific answers now. Political argument, before the scientific facts are conclusive, can lead to a battle of hot heads that cannot cool down anything.
One careless individual can start a forest fire. It takes a team to put it out. The converse of this example, is: can one individual use conservation and environmentally safe products to lower the damage to the Earth environment while the masses do not?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Ray Gray said:
“Is there an agreed scientific proof paper, accepted as fact by a majority of peers, that global warming is mostly caused by human activity? We need scientific answers now.”
As I said, it’s called the IPCC report, several of which have appeared over the years (most recently 2007), each one with a reported higher level of confidence. And then there’s the preponderance of the research appearing in the peer reviewed literature. (You must have posted just after me.)
March 29th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Something to keep in mind is that just because this latest IPCC report came out does not mean that “scientific debate” concerning global climate change has stopped, contrary to some statements of over-simplification or hyperbolae within sound bites. Science is dynamic and advances as new knowledge is uncovered. The purpose of the report is to inform the citizenry of world of the present emergent understanding of the scientific community. It’s then up to us as to what we want to do with that information.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
msmith40 said:
“What happened to the doomsday ‘ice age’ we were told about in the 70’s and 80’s…? God knows we got hammered with that nonsense ad nauseam.â€
TheBlackCat answered that, but only in part. The scientific findings of that research spoke of time scales of several millennia in the future - as opposed to several decades to a century. See the difference? They resulted from some of our first understandings of the physics behind Earth’s longterm climate. It was the mass media who sold the public the Brooklyn Bridge (by misrepresenting the science) during a couple of cold winters in the second half of the ’70s. As I understand it, there was (and is) nothing wrong with the general findings.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Thanks for the direction Spaceman Spiff when you typed “The purpose of the report is to inform the citizenry of world of the present emergent understanding of the scientific community. It’s then up to us as to what we want to do with that information.”
After reading what you wrote I found a cogent news article on discussed subject. Partial paste follows:
“Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a research group that has challenged the extent to which humans have contributed to global warming, cautioned the public not to adopt the IPCC’s findings too hastily. Deeming the underlying science “incomplete,” he told the politicians, “Reasonable people can reach different conclusions about human impact (on global warming).”end paste
After important information is disseminated to the informed recipient there should some time for assembling and reasoning the new facts. Nonetheless, corrective action is required as the evolving problems call for a practical solution.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
So I go to the George C. Marshall Institute webpage, and I find this on Mr. Jeff Kueter:
“Mr. Jeff Kueter works with scientists to help improve the understanding and awareness of complex scientific topics to the public, the media, and policy makers. Focused on national security and the environment, Mr. Kueter manages the day-to-day operations of the George C. Marshall Institute, authoring its policy papers and analyses and engaging the public and the policy making community. He received his B.A. in Political Science and Economics at the University of Iowa, where he graduated with honors, and an M.A. in Political Science and another M.A. in Security Policy Studies and Science & Technology Studies, both from George Washington University. He has served as Research Director at the National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing (NACFAM) and at Washington Nichibei Consultants.”
And then there are 5 other members of the staff, whose credentials are not listed (…). The board of directors consists of the following “experts” (their name, not mine):
* William Happer
Chairman of the Board of Directors (GMI); Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics, Princeton University
* Robert Jastrow
Chairman Emeritus (GMI); former Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Mount Wilson Institute
* Frederick Seitz
Chairman Emeritus (GMI); President Emeritus of Rockefeller University
* William O’Keefe
CEO (GMI); President, Solutions Consulting, Inc.
* Gregory Canavan
Scientific Advisor, Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory
* Thomas L. Clancy, Jr.
Author
* John H. Moore
President Emeritus, Grove City College
* Rodney W. Nichols
Consultant on Science and Technology Policy
* Robert Sproull
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Rochester
* Chauncey Starr
President Emeritus, Electric Power Research Institute
Even after looking at each of these guys’ descriptive backgrounds (it looks like this started as a “weapons policy” think tank), I am not impressed with their credentials in climate science. I am therefore not terribly impressed with their ability “to help improve the understanding and awareness of complex scientific topics to the public, the media, and policy makers” in this matter.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
I should also point out they appear to receive significant funding from ExxonMobile and other groups linked to Petroleum (from sourcewatch). Almost all the ExxonMobile money seems to be specifically targeted towards global warming denial.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Ray,
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
Exxon Secrets lists the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) as a recipient of funds from Exxon Education Foundation. Of note, “GMI used to restrict its funding sources to private foundations and individual donars to avoid conflict of interest, but in the late nineties, then GMI President Jeffrey Salmon wrote, “when the Institute turned its attention to the science of global warming, it decided it would appeal successfully to industry for financial support.” This fall, the Institute received its first-ever grant from a corporate foundation– the Exxon Education Foundation. (http://web.archive.org/web/20020913050409/http://www.marshall.org/funding.htm) ”
I think it is quite reasonable to wonder about conflicts of interest here.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
>>> I’d strongly suggest you take anything coming from Pat Michaels’
>>> mouth (or blog) with a HUGE grain of salt.
Oh, don’t worry. I don’t trust *anyone*.
I am the uber-skeptic.
But, geez, the guy’s POV seems pretty centered and rational. He agrees that the current GW is human caused, but not the end of the world. Is that such a horrible, controversial position?
Grains of salt are good, but not if they come from an ideological salt shaker.
Personally, I don’t think anyone knows what’s really going on WRT climate.
I generally avoid the debate because it’s so laden with fallacies on both sides.
For example, the accusation that some research is funded by oil companies. So? Debate the findings, not the source of funding. If you ran a company that was being demonized every day in the media, wouldn’t you try to counter some of that? It’s like criticizing a defense attorney for presenting evidence of his client’s innocence. What the frak else should he do? And the same people never seem to worry about who’s funding the “other side”. It’s typical hypocracy.
A pox on both house I say. And now, I return to exploring the Shimmering Isles on my Xbox 360.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:42 am
Doesn’t bother anyone that you cannot be a skeptic of AGW? No, you’re a denier, a shill for big oil, or someother pejorative term. But James Hansen can get $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation (no agenda there…) and he’s pure as the driven snow.
I have a real problem when Gore declares that AGW is not a scientific issue (the science is done? When is science EVER done?), but a ‘moral issue’. Sounds a lot like a religion to me.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:33 am
ditto
March 30th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Thanks for some enlightening posts guys, I think i failed to mention how utterly confused i am on this topic (and came off sounding like i was totally anti-gw).
There’s some good material in this thread i intend to follow and get the facts straight.
It’s very difficult sometimes when most of your “Science” comes from places like the BA blog and a few podcasts, so getting that first foothold on a topic can be very confusing.
I had the source of the “Great Global Warming Swindle” confused, I went back and watched the show again (on youtube) and the one i saw didn’t have any mention of Channel 4 or BBC in it, I thought it was BBC because thats’ what my friend told me when he linked me to it.
I still have reservations, but the overflowing opinion on this board has made me seriously consider what i think about this topic and the evidence i’m using to reach that opinion.
The links and topics above should be a good starting place, thanks much!
March 30th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Michael said:
“Doesn’t bother anyone that you cannot be a skeptic of AGW? No, you’re a denier, a shill for big oil, or some other pejorative term….
I have a real problem when Gore declares that AGW is not a scientific issue (the science is done? When is science EVER done?), but a ‘moral issue’. Sounds a lot like a religion to me.”
1) Certainly, being skeptical is to be encouraged. I was arguing, above, that this word is “borrowed” (putting it politely) by those who do not understand the difference between healthy skepticism and *already knowing the answer* in spite of the best that science has to offer. As a crystal clear example, I do not grant the term “skeptics” to describe the “Moon landing hoaxers”.
If you believe that the world-wide climate science community is behind the “Great Global Warming Swindle†or that “Global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the America people” - I suggest that this is not a healthy skepticism.
Contrast that with:
You as a citizen make a real effort to actually try to understand where the climate science community is coming from - by doing whatever you can to educate yourself on the basics of how Earth’s climate works so that you can make an attempt of evaluating the findings of the IPCC report as well as *what it represents*. And then acknowledge your ignorance humbly, because in this matter it will be far greater than that of the climate scientists. (Perhaps a bit problematic, since even basic math and science literacy and understanding of the scientific process are so low in this country. But it isn’t like we haven’t been warned about their importance…)
2) Why do you think it is more important what Al Gore says than the emergent body of knowledge of the climate science community? (Al Gore of course is not a scientist, nor does he speak the language of a scientist. He tries and yet sometimes falls short in representing the actual findings of science: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299 is a critique of his movie by climate scientists.)
James Hansen - he is just a single climate modeling scientist. His work by itself would be useless to science; its predictions must be replicated by others and compared against the real world data. It is the collective findings of the work of 100s or 1000s of scientists in a particular field of science, that result in most of the advances in our understanding of nature. No single study, despite the noise made in the media, does this.
So it’s also important to be able to distinguish “signal” from “noise” when trying to arrive at an informed position.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:28 am
spiff:
You’re very right.
My entire problem is that i don’t hold gores presentation up to any higher reguard than anything else i see on tv or the movies. It’s entertainment dressed up as science just like any other science tv documentary.
When two shows come on basically saying very opposite things, i sort of loose my faith in either of them. SOMEONE is lieing through their teeth (or on accedent).
Why is a Channel 4 tv show any less credible than a BBC production, and why would either be more or less credible than a Hollywood film made by an American Politician?
This site is a testament to the poor accuracy of movies, not trusting what you see, and being wary in general.
If you know practially nothing about the science behind both “Inconvenient Truth” and “Great Global Warming Swindle” (which lets face it, is most people), then in my opinion GGWS does a much better job sounding legit than IT.
It’s all about researching the science driving both of these movies seeing who is telling the truth.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:47 am
kingnor, so if you don’t trust TeeVee and silver screen “documentaries”, then just ignore them. I don’t think anyone can blame you for doubting Gore or other talking heads, given their ties with non-scientific organizations. The good news is that the talking heads don’t decide what the science is, so in your search for truth, you can simply bypass them altogether. Their jobs are mostly to address people too preoccupied and/or lazy to do the research themselves.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I don’t have a clue as to why it says “Your comment is awaiting moderation. ” in my above post…
March 30th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Is the movie The Day After Tommorow close to being right on, on the subject.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
kingnor and others -
Have a look at these critiques of “Inconvenient Truth†and “Great Global Warming Swindleâ€.
Carl Wunsch was a guest climate scientist on the “Great Global Warming Swindleâ€.
He says he was swindled; see here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
After seeing the production, he wrote a letter to the producer here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#comment-27434
A more humorous take on the controversy can be found here (with lots of spicy language): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece
The climate scientists at Real Climate reviewed this TV show, here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
The same guys also reviewed Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299
And nobody should mistake “The Day After Tomorrow” as having anything to do with reality. It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Adam - in a word “no”. No one should mistake “The Day After Tomorrow” as anything having to do with reality. And it wasn’t meant that way, either.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Have a look at this critique of “An Inconvenient Truth†, written by the climate scientists at Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299 .
March 30th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Now have a look at a statement by Carl Wunsch, a guest climate scientist on the “Great Global Warming Swindle”; he says he was swindled:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
March 30th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
The same Carl Wunsch wrote a letter of protest to the shows producer, here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#comment-27434
March 30th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
The climate scientists at Real Climate have reviewed the “Great Climate Change Swindle”, here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
rebutting several of the old arguments (or rather half truths) put forward therein.
Read them and then consider.
Sorry these postings came in piecemeal, but it did not let me place more than one of these links within any single posting.
April 1st, 2007 at 6:56 am
Kingnor:
A few facts should be mentioned here.
1) Comparison of geological data over the last few centuries indicates earth is warmer than it has been in the last 700,000 years.
2) Both earth and mars are getting warmer.
3) CO2 levels are rising on earth.
4) CO2 is one of the principal additives to earths environment from our techno. civilazation.
5) CO2 IS a green house gas.
Though warming cycles are apparently a part of the solar cycle, we have control over what WE contribute. We don’t know ALL the contributors to this warming effect but for that which we DO know we should take responsibility. That’s what this discussion is really about. Do we stand around with our thumbs in our collective,,,mouths,,, or do we take action to diminish OUR contribution to the problem?
GAry 7
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:40 am
Even if you’re skeptic enough to research so much material that you could be immediately hired as a climate scientist yourself, surely during the time spent doing this you could limit your potential contribution to global warming and other climate change in case they’re right. After all, if they are right, you’ve already gotten a head start in trying to combat the problem, and even if they’re wrong, you cannot possibly claim that reducing your polluting in the mean time will have a harmful effect?
Better safe than sorry.
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:18 am
free verizon ringtones…
news…
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
[…] Bad Astronomy Blog » Do you still think the White House isn’t suppressing science? […]