Jerry Holbert by Jerry Holbert

Jerry Holbert

Comments (27) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 2 years ago

    CRAZY that sometimes it gets colder and sometimes it gets hotter………..
    Let’s spend abTrillion dollars to figure out why and ban all cars immediately just in case.

  2. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, over 2 years ago

    Freeman Dyson. Look him up. Just sayin’.

  3. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Yes, conflicting reports: Competent scientists say one thing, but industry shills say just the opposite. Who to believe?

  4. bbadenov

    bbadenov said, over 2 years ago

    @TJDestry

    All of your “competent scientists” spout the same thing because if they don’t then they won’t get any government funding to do research. Hmmm… wonder why so many competent scientists believe in this?

  5. DGF999

    DGF999 said, over 2 years ago

    GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! AAAAAAAAAA!!!!

  6. ODon

    ODon said, over 2 years ago

    @bbadenov

    ~Your right, scientists across the world are conspiring against us in order to gain more funding. What a simple idea. I read somewhere that they are all in the same union. Figures. ~

  7. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    I’m reading a couple of interesting books on climate at the moment, both by David Archer, who is professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago. One of them, “The Global Carbon Cycle” published in 2010 by Princeton University Press, is a bit technical for me (lots of chemistry) but I’m getting the overall picture. The other, “The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 years of the Earth’s Climate”, published in 2009 also by Princeton, is more popular; it seems to be making the same points but without all the technical chemistry.
    +
    Here are a couple of passages from p. 25 of “The Long Thaw”: “No one is attempting to forecast the particular weather to expect on a particular day a century from now. Individual fluctuations of weather are chaotic, but the time-averaged weather, called climate is not.” “Perhaps this is as good a definition of the word ‘climate’ as any; those aspects of the weather that can be predicted far in the future, in spite of the fact that the weather is chaotic.”
    +
    That’s just a small point, but some of the people who don’t understand about global climate change don’t understand some of these concepts. From time to time I come across people who say that because the weather is chaotic you can’t predict climate. Those people don’t understand chaos theory.

  8. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 2 years ago

    What a great post…..thanks.

  9. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 2 years ago

    @lonecat

    You know I believe in the concept of “climate change”. Shoot, it’s been happening for billions of years. Why ever since the earth HAD a climate, it has been changing.

    So tell me, what IS the ideal climate? Has the earth been colder? Warmer? Were the polar regions always covered in ice and snow? Did glaciers occupy land into the NY area at one time? Will they do so again?

    Look around you. EVERYTHING operates to a CYCLE. Fast? Slow? It’s all in how you look at it isn’t it.

    Adapt or die…….

  10. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 2 years ago

    @lonecat

    So, to the deniers of Global Climate Change pollution from the burning of fossil fuel is a good thing. To those that suffer from the lung diseases caused by that pollution (and the resulting high cost of medical care for those diseases) perhaps such pollution is not really so good!! And that is regardless of just what other problems such burning causes. Why is it so very difficult for our usual ultra conservatives on this site to even come to grips with this reality at all?? Are you all that ignorant, just paid shills for the fossil fuel industry, or just plain stubbornly stupid???

  11. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    Bruce, I know your intentions are good, but you really should slow down and think a little before you write. There is no such thing as “the ideal climate” in the abstract. But there is such a thing as a climate comfortable for human beings (and all the other living things we depend on). The earth doesn’t care if human civilization collapses, but I do. What kind of world do you want your grandchildren to live in? What’s the ideal climate for them? If the world’s average temperature rises 6 degrees, life for human beings will be very difficult. Do you care? I do.

  12. martens

    martens said, over 2 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    There is climate change at a rate extending over millions of years and then there is cataclysmic climate change extending over tens of thousands of years. The cataclysmic changes correlate with mass extinction events. Recent work on the Permian extinction (aka the Great Dying…95% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species gone) suggests that the initial climate change event may have been in the range of a few thousand years. Adaptation mechanisms don’t work that fast. Also, if your primary producers are wiped out, the species further up the food chain are gonna go too. I don’t know if you get the importance of rate of change or not, but THAT is the point we in science are trying to get across. Very simply, we are seeing a cataclysmic rate of change in physical parameters of the environment and likewise an accelerated rate of species extinction. There is a lot of general reading material out there for those interested. lonecat gave a couple in his post here. You could also check out Elizabeth Kolbert’s new book “The Sixth Extinction”. And if you want to see how such things work on a limited geographical region, you could look into the North American megafaunal extinction (18-12 thousand years ago) or the Australian megafaunal extinction (25000 years ago). Do a little reading toanswer your questiions!

  13. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    I first started to get interested in climate change maybe six years ago — before then I had been too busy with my own work to spend much time on other topics. I didn’t take a position, but I made an effort, within the time I had, to learn as much of the science as I could understand. When I first started to post on the topic here, I urged those who doubt that there is human caused climate change to post their evidence, because I was open to both sides of the argument (as I still am). So far, the evidence that I’ve seen strongly supports the idea that there is human caused climate change. And no one who posts here has been able to come up with any serious argument on the other side, so far as I can see. Most of the arguments they present are very weak, hardly worth paying attention to, whereas the evidence that there is human caused climate change seems pretty convincing to me, so far. But I’m still open to read serious work on both sides. If you’ve got it, let us see it. These books by David Archer are a good example of serious work — the one on the Carbon Cycle is moderately technical, and it is fully documented with references to the scientific literature. His other book, The Long Thaw, is more popular, without all the scientific apparatus, but you can tell the science is there because of his book on the Carbon Cycle. So what I’m interested in is either peer-reviewed science or good popularizations which are clearly based on peer-reviewed science. If you’ve got it, show it to us.

  14. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    I’m not much impressed by the charge that scientists are making up climate change in order to get grants. I work at a university, and I know a fair number of scientists. One person I know quite well works on insect-borne diseases in Africa — not on climate change directly, so none of her grant money depends on what she thinks about climate change. But she tells me that all her insect populations in Africa are being affected by climate change — their distributions are shifting pretty dramatically. She says she can’t do her work without taking climate change into account. I have another friend who works on bees in South America, mostly Peru, and he says the same thing. I can’t think of a reason in the world that they would be fudging their data.

  15. martens

    martens said, over 2 years ago

    @lonecat

    The only explanation I can come up with for this bizarre belief about research scientists is the those who hold this idea do not understand the force of curiosity that drives most of us. With reference to another area, David Brooks today wrote a column on the moral power of curiosity.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/opinion/brooks-the-moral-power-of-curiosity.html?hp&rref=opinion

  16. Load the rest of the comments (12).