Jim Morin for January 02, 2011

“Climate change” has been a constant reality for as long as there’s been a climate.

Man made climate change? Now that IS a hoax, a scam perpetrated for the purpose of seizing wealth and power. That’s it.

But hey, at least Mr. Morin got the memo that it’s not “global warming” any more. The scammers dropped that one when they realized it’s hard to convince people of “global warming” when they’re freezing to death.

So, “global climate disruption” is the new term. That way, ANY weather, ANY where, at ANY time can be portrayed as “proof” that human activity is changing our climate.

Google “global warming graph” and you will find that the CO2 has gone through cycles long before man ever a thought.

Hard to say which is weirder, conservative climate beliefs or political interpretations.

Yes those pesky scientists. How dare they use facts to counter your beliefs learned from faux news.

well, climate change is being accepted but the (non)solution to it, since humans are completely innocent as these comments say , is to continue on the way we always have, polluting and drilling. that makes a lot of bleeping sense

Good grief. You guys are sure putting up straw men today. Let’s take it slow, shall we?

NO ONE is questioning that climate and CO2 levels have changed in the past. The assumption that climate scientists have somehow overlooked this is simply insulting to a lot of smart people, especially since: There is a difference between expected, predictable changes based on past patterns and what is going on now, and that is CENTRAL to the conclusion that Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring now. Furthermore, It is by studying past patterns of CO2 and climate that enables climate scientists to say with assurance that we can predict a host of changes associated with a warmer overall climate. 98% of climate scientists are convinced by the data, and they know rather more about it than anyone posting here. The data are impressive and increasing every year, despite the increasingly desperate efforts of the ignorant or contrarian. You can always find someone to disagree, but the overwhelming scientific consensus is clear. See this link for a list of scientific societies who have agreed: http://tinyurl.com/y67qrl The reason why the name has shifted to “global climate change” is not because there is some mysterious scam going on, but because “global warming,” while accurate, confuses laypeople, because they assume the Earth is warming everywhere equally, when only the average is increasing. Even then, “warming” is really shorthand for “increased energy retained by the atmospheric system,” which means more storms, more diversity of weather, etc. And this finding is based on studying past patterns. And harley, “intelligent design” is not science, by definition. Linking to an ID site is not helping your case.

I worried about the sky falling till I noticed how clear it was just off the edge of the earth ! Nice Toon !

I am just amazed that the anthropogenic climate change deniers(accd) accuse the 98% of scientists of having their financial interests influence their conclusions. Just think about it. Is there anyone who may have a financial interest in our just going on as usual? And are these the same people(or corporate entities) who have great interest in their own short term profits? Are there any corporations out there who have surreptitously funded astroturf(phony grass-roots) organizations with environmental sounding names, the only purpose of which is to deny global climate change?(Exxon-Mobil, about 30 of them!)

The wealthiest 2% and largecorporations seek to divide us and the climate change issue is just one more example of their trying to divide the American people for their own selfish short term greed.

fennec, quite right. The fact that science is complex should not mean that we dismiss those who do not understand it now. Instead, we scientists should strive to find ways to communicate. I am reminded of how Richard Feynman demonstrated why the Challenger blew up. He took a hunk of plastic that matched that of the O-ring, dropped it into a pitcher of icewater, pulled it out, and snapped it easily. QED. I miss Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan, both of whom were gifted at explaining a wide range of science clearly for the layman. As a scientist working in business, I’ve had a lot of practice explaining some things, but it’s never simple. And eepatte, what amazes me is the accusations that the 98% are in the pay of someone whereas it is documented that many of the deniers are in the pay of the petrochemical industry!

There you liberals go again - interjecting with reason and balance. Dam that must be annoying to the conservative deniers!

The REAL weirdness of Congress was displayed by Issa this morning. HE pointed out that Obama INHERITED questionable practices from the BUSH administration’s people- APPOINTEES WHO ARE STILL IN GOVERNMENT, he then was asked, if he’s going to “investigate” Obama, is he ALSO going to go after the Bush people who STARTED the “shady” practices??? HIs answer was no, because they are Republicans. TARP was voted on by Republicans. TWO wars were started by Republicans, based on lies, the Democrats didn’t deny because it might lose elections. Reagan, Bush and Bush policies have nearly destroyed the public lands, Savings and Loans, Banking, the housing inflation bubble of “interest only” loans, unregulated hedge fund operators-who also go UNTAXED on their “profits”– and Issa wants to investigate the Obama administration????

Now that we have all those caskets, and blown up children, and folks out of work, and their homes, IN THE U.S. because of REPUBLICAN POLICIES OVER 25 years– they’re going to investigate OBAMA?????

Climate change is the LEAST notable fraud of this going to be weird Republican leadership- in the House, lest we forget there is still a Senate. Oh, right, with a “right” majority on SCOTUS- all bets are still off.

p.s. MM– it doesn’t take climate change to confuse “laypeople” or Republican’s in Congress, especially the “TEA Party” types– a STOP sign totally confuses them.

Reguardless of other arguments, can we just try to put less waste byproducts in the air & water because it’s nice to have clean air & water? Give a hoot.

^WOODSIE!!

Very good point, actually. Interestingly, Christy Todd Whitman made the comment on GPS that not every piece of legislation can be good for “everyone”- very true. Also, a governor (or President) can want something, but it’s up to the legislative branch to refine legislation and make it as good as they can.

The WORST members of BOTH parties are the ones too focused on elections, and not at all concerned with actual governance that does the BEST for the MOST PEOPLE, rather than giving the most to the worst people.

What a pleasant surprise for the new year. I had become so use to the normal juvinile name calling and trumpet blowing. Imagine my surprise to find a majority of fact based inteligent commentary. Obviously parents can sieze conrol of the family computer. Good work mom and dad!!

^Good point Teacher, spelling can be very important.

Take the embarrassing incident of our Canadian Prime Minister Harper on a recent trip to Nunavut, that large northern territory occupied mainly by Inuit people (Eskimos). The capital of Nunavut is Iqaluit. So prior to the visit, the Prime Minister’s office put out a press release praising the proud and hardy people of Iqualuit. But there is a linguistic problem when you mistakenly add the “u” to Iqaluit, making the word “Iqualuit”, the Inuktitut translation being “people with unwiped bums”. Strangely, the proud people of Iqaluit were not flattered to be praised as “people with unwiped bums.”

Canbag said, 1 day ago

“Hard to say which is weirder, conservative climate beliefs or political interpretations.”

@Canbag - Well, political interpretations of things such as nature usually result in quite weird and oft times foolish conclusions (tanking economies worldwide virtually immediately to save the planet 200+ years from now, while having less impact in “saving the planet” than what the error rate is on the effects of climate change/global warming - hundredths of 1%).

However, political interpretations of stuff that has no business in politics is far from weird nowadays. If anything, it’s the norm.

As far as “conservative climate beliefs,” I think a “conservative” who DOES believe in man made global warming based upon CO2 is far more weird. Conservatives in general operate from common sense balanced by logic and facts that are often debated and challenged, which tend to lead towards certainty and solidification of one’s belief/stance.

However, I think there is also an IRONY. Most actively religious (e.g., Christian) Americans tend to be conservative. Most atheists/skeptics tend to be liberal. Most liberals believe in man made global warming. Most conservatives are skeptics of global warming.

I guess we all have our faiths and our skepticisms.

I read something interesting and wondered why it had never been brought up here:

Global warming is caused by Daylight Savings Time! That extra hour of sunshine every day warms the Earth.*

< <

Hahahahaha I hope nobody believes that.

DjGuardian, your equating the vast amount of science and facts that led to AGW to religious belief systems is a false and insulting one. Science is based on challenging any established beliefs (including previous theories) with new facts and logic - something you falsely attribute to conservatism. Religion, on the other hand, is based on unprovable beliefs, and requires no logic or facts. Skepticism in science is about looking at the data. It is NOT contrarianism, nor is it blind rejection of facts in favor of predetermined beliefs, which are the main drivers of the vast majority of so-called “global warming skeptics.” Your assumption that facts and logic are limited to conservatives, besides being insulting, is demonstrably wrong as well. Conservatism is, more or less by definition, a defense of the status quo. Therefore your statement was perhaps unintentionally accurate when you implied that conservatives would use logic and facts which led to “certainty and solidification of one’s belief/stance.” In other words, you said conservatives used logic and facts to reinforce their previous beliefs. I can believe that, and a lot of the leading voices in modern conservatism (e.g., Palin, Beck) demonstrate it. They will reject facts that conflict with their established beliefs. Older voices might disagree, but they are rapidly being moved out of the national dialogue. Science, by contrast, in an ideal world is belief-free. Nothing is certain, and all is up for challenge, within constraints established by previous findings (e.g., you can’t claim Newton was wrong unless you can find a way to explain his proven findings within a larger framework - as Einstein did). Of course scientists are human and therefore no one can actually suspend all beliefs, but the methods and practices of scientists, from double-blind experimentation to peer review, are designed precisely to approach that ideal despite the weaknesses of its practitioners. AGW shouldn’t be about liberals or conservatives, it should be about science. And pretty much everywhere except in the politicians and media of the US, that is the case. The science is overwhelming, and compelling. Science, as they say, doesn’t require your belief to work anyway.

^Dj - “…..Conservatives in general operate from common sense balanced by logic and facts that are often debated and challenged…..”

Climate change has to be one of the most complex issues undertaken by scientists. Why do lay-persons think they can arrive at valid conclusions based on subjective, superficial “common sense and logic?”

Why is this even a political debate? Why should it be liberal vs. conservative? Why not scientific evidence, analysis, and conclusion? I have taken my fair share of science courses, but I would not enter a credible fact-based debate on this subject without first years of study.

More work will be done, but so far the majority of informed scientists believe anthropogenic climate change is occurring.

Hey English Teacher, how about Rihanna’s tattoo that is grammatically incorrect in French?

http://www.popeater.com/2010/08/12/rihanna-tattoo-typo-fleur-rebelle/

What I don’t understand is how the re-allocation of wealth away from the United States to the rest of the world cool the earth? The wikileaks exposed that this redistribution was the main focus of the recent conference on “climate change.” The thought does frost ME over.

Climate change isn’t political or economic “theory”, it is just a result at the moment, and in the near future, of human ignorance, and scientific facts. “Conservative” does NOT mean, automatically, “stupid”. Palin and the crew aren’t really just “conservatives”- they’re nuts. Maybe Dj is just still among the “knowledgable experts” watching the sun revolve around the Earth?

anyone who doesn’t believe that humans have an effect on climate has not been to LA (or New York City) in the summer.

idjits.

Nobody is saying that climate change doesn’t exist. The “hoax” is that people have anything to do with it (the “save the planet” Nimrods). There are people in America (leftists all) who believe that we ought to become hunter-gatherers once again, and that the deaths of billions of people is necessary in order to “save the planet.” This is absurd; however, our current administration and the party behind it is crippling our industrial base, resulting in our falling economy. The nut-jobs aren’t the ones calling the “save the planet” Nimrods “hoaxers.” It is the hoaxers themselves.