Tom Toles for February 18, 2014

With apologies to Dali, of course

Just look at the evidence from the polar ice core samples. Earth goes through climate change cycles every 50,000 years. Man did not cause the other cycles. Man did not cause this cycle. Of course the New Earth people do not recognise that Earth can be more than 50,000 years old. Just stop listening to these anti- science people.

I’m getting really tired of you slandering scientists — who, contrary to your misunderstanding, do not get personal income from grants, unlike the shills for oil companies. They spend it on research and have to prove it to the granting institutions.So now that that is out of the way, mind explaining why nearly every peer-reviewed climate scientist in the world are convinced by the data, and somehow you are entitled to simply disbelieve them for no reasons whatsoever?I’ve posted this before, but you don’t seem to actually look at it: out of 9,136 peer-reviewed, recently published climate scientists, ONE (1) rejects AGW.http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warmingSo, bottom line:Scientists have proven this with VAST amounts of data.And then there is your other slander, that scientists somehow have a “vested interest” in perpetuating a presumably false theory. Do you actually KNOW any scientists? I don’t really have to ask, because you obviously don’t. Well, I am one. Scientists love more than anything else the ability to shoot down a generally accepted theory with new facts. We now have a theory (which in science means a thorough and comprehensive explanation of a series of facts that predicts new facts, unlike common usage) which has been overwhelmingly accepted.If a scientist could disprove that categorically, it would be an instant Nobel Prize. (Not to mention vast amounts of support from the oil industry, which we KNOW has been supporting the high-profile deniers. Why you can ignore that and claim that struggling academics are the ones taking cash escapes me.)And I find it staggering that you actually think climate scientists would not ALREADY KNOW about past patterns of climate. For God’s sake, the reason why everyone is looking at this is because it does not fit normal patterns. So until you actually look at the reality around you, I am afraid to say that Kerry nailed you, but good.

It is scientifically accurate that humans are responsible for increasing CO2 levels and that is causing the earth to warm up. What is not clear is the long term effect. Our climate models are our best guess. The problem is we cannot be sure how bad the effects will be and it will take a huge amount of money and international cooperation to really have an effect on the problem.

97% of scientists across the world have consistently shown that the current warming of the planet is anthropogenic, meaning man-made. Since the age of industrialization we have been burning carbon based fuels, coal for example, that are trapping greenhouse gasses. Thus we see a warming. The facts as we know it right now is that the planet has warmed and that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of this event. I cannot understand how this is so difficult for the climate change deniers to comprehend. Only in America do we have such silly debates over facts!

Actually, there’s a weird tribalism involved too, as represented brilliantly by wolfhound’s incoherent post. You simply can no longer call yourself a conservative if you so much as glance at the facts on climate change, basic macroeconomics, job policies, environmental regulation, the causes of the economic collapse, health care, and a host of other issues.

ODon: They have the memory of a goldfish. The ten hottest years since records started have all occurred since 1998. The death of all those fruit bats in Queensland from heat got the one-day treatment by the corporate media. That way they can claim they covered it, but not enough to get into the petro-washed brain of the public.

We would rather live self-centered lives than to make the necessary sacrifices to benefit future generations. That is why conservatives have it much easier than liberals with their message. If you are a liberal, your message is that we have to change what we are doing for the benefit of others. Conservatives preach either just keep on doing what we’ve always done, or we have made too many changes already and we need to go back to the “good old days” (which were never really that good).

For the CO2, check out this animation:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

In the old days, little kids learned the “kick the can down the road” game from their older brothers. Now they learn it from Congress……..

We know where the money is, and its in big oil and coal, the same folks with a vested interest in keeping you confused.

By process of elimination (Occam’s Razor) we should be led to the conclusion that human activity on the planet is miniscule to natural planetary action and change itself. From earthquakes to volcanos to methane production from natural sources we find that nature dwarfs all efforts of man to overcome it.

What people do not seem to understand that many if not most people will not take this seriously until the leaders do something by example. Few of these rich politicians and celebrities make any sacrifices while preaching to the poor and middle class that they will have to lower their standard of living. They pick on SUV’s when a large home produces much more CO2. A private plane is the equivalent of a fleet of SUV’s but it’s too convenient to give up. Al Gore got caught with an energy hogging home. Obama said during the 2008 campaign that we might not be able to heat our homes as much as we want, but turned up the thermostat when he entered the White House. People hate hypocracy and our leaders of all political stripes are just that. If they don’t lead by example, no one will follow.

It also doesn’t help when hysterical claims are made. Predict the end of the world in ten years and it doesn’t happen, then you don’t have a lot of credibility.

In tiggers meager defense, it may get it, it does not want to acknowledge it.

The assertion that there are “31,487 American scientists” here is simply a lie. Many of them are not scientists (unless you count “dentist” as a scientist, for example), and virtually none of them have any qualifications in climate science.Simply nonsense. You can get 25,000 people to sign a petition to demand the US build a Death Star, obviously you can get 31,000 ignoramuses to sign a petition against the proven scientific fact of global warming.

Ignore CO2 for a moment. Just the impact of SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE, with their cars, buses, factories, roads, agricultural clearing of native cover, timber production with poor planning, domestic livestock overgrazing, shopping malls and parking lots, has caused PHYSICAL IMPACTS never actually matched in nature, even with volcanoes, natural fire cycles, and earthquakes etc..

The problem is real, and the problem IS, we the people.

The “Petition” signatories include very few degreed in “Climatology”…a PhD does nOT confer expertise in specialties NOT certificated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition …one should research what one cites…even here.

Just been reading up on the “Oregon Petition” you site. Several points. Many if not most of those 32,000 signatories signed this statement more than ten years ago (it first appeared in 1998). Even if the evidence was inconclusive ten or 15 years ago, it is not today. No telling how many of the signers still hold this opinion. About 10,000 of the 32,000 have doctoral degrees in “scientific” subjects, such as engineering or botany, about 7,000 have masters’ degrees, and 13,000 have bachelor degrees. ( About 40 of the 32,000 were climate specialists, but most those have since changed their minds. ) There are more than 10,000,000 people in the United States with science degrees of some sort (like my MS, in library science) who are claimed by the petition to be “scientists.” So virtually no actual specialists in climate science have subscribed, and of all Americans with some kind of science degree fewer than 3/10 of 1% have signed this petition. This is actually surprising, since 3% of climate scientists do not subscribe to the AGW theory, and among non-climate specialists who are ignorant of the evidence, there are a larger percentage of “scientists” who do not. Really, for a petition that has been around for 16 years, it is astonishing that only 0.3% of scientists as so broadly defined could be found to sign it, and only a handful of climate scientists. However, in this case, only the facts matter, not our beliefs about them. Personally, I hope the doomsayers are wrong: the planet has enough problems. I feel pretty certain that reality falls somewhere between the best and worst case scenarios, as it usually does. But old Mother Nature is going to have the last word, and I don’t think we are going to like what she has to say.

Oops. In the first line, that should read “cite.”