Here’s another article to consider: http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2015/12/climate-change-and-the-lessons-of-a-winter-storm.html
I few days ago a banned person left a comment about climate change to this story: http://blnnews.com/2015/12/26/vogel-you-make-my-writing-sooooo-easy/
This person has the honor of being the only person I have banned from commenting. The IP address isn’t local, so I don’t take her seriously. I banned her because having an intelligent discussion is impossible. She does provide good material for a post however, so below is what she said and a common sense response. I asked Jeff Strange to respond since I know he has extensively researched the facts. Real facts matter since government is spending YOUR money.
Note: Anybody who starts an argument with “the science is settled” is only spouting talking points told to them. Science is never settled! It constantly changes or we would still believe the earth is flat.
Just for fun, compare her talking points to the latest put out by the Democrat party: globalwarmingguide
Evidently “climate change” has once again been replaced by “global warming”.
You can decide who makes more sense.
1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause. The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.
Response:
1. Climate Change Science is a relatively new field that is still trying to find its way. The science is not settled. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and has been much hotter and colder than now. The earth had been slightly warming from 1850 to 1987. However, according to NASA’s remote sensory satellites the warming has “PAUSED” for the last 19 years. Are humans the driving force behind global warming or just a small contributor with Mother Nature being the root cause and with increased CO2 emissions why the 19 year pause in warming? Also as Americans are we to spend trillions of dollars to totally transform our culture, economic system, and every aspect of our lives to maybe keep the temperature from raising 1 degree based on highly inaccurate computer models, central planners and socialist politicians who use the fear of climate change to push their political agenda? By volume CO2 only makes up only .004% of the earth’s atmosphere. Planet Earth naturally releases 210 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. Man currently causes 8 gigatons of carbon annually about 4% of the natural influx. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an ingredient for life on earth.
2. The greenhouse effect is well understood. It is as real as gravity. The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it. We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.
Response:
2. There is a Greenhouse Effect. It is not catastrophic. Many scientists say that without the “Greenhouse Effect” the Planet would be 59 degrees cooler and engulfed an a Ultra-Ice Age. There is also a Fertilizer Effect. Fossil fuels are formed over hundreds of thousands of years from decayed plants and animals. Fossil Fuels create CO2 which is a needed necessary nutrient that is essential for photosynthesis and plant life. Without Co2 the green world would disappear and so would human life. According to Professor Robert M. Carter, PH.D of Environmental Sciences, James Cook University “For the past few million years, the earth has existed in a state of relative “Carbon Dioxide Starvation” compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that if levels double or triple those of today will be harmful climatically or otherwise.” It is very possible that higher Co2 levels and mildly higher temperatures would create a thriving planet of plant and animal life.
3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case. Unless mankind takes strong steps to halt and reverse the rapid global increase of fossil fuel use and the other activities that cause climate change, and does so in a very few years, severe climate change is inevitable. Urgent action is needed if global warming is to be limited to moderate levels.
Response:
3. Hundreds of Climate Predictions have not come true. According to former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong when analyzed against surface temperature and satellite temperature data. AL Gore has predicted rising sea levels of 20ft by 2100, while the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted a far less 17 inch rise by 2100. However, Swedish geologist and physicist Dr. Nils-Axel Morner the former chairman of the International Commission on Sea Level Change has called all the talk of rising sea levels a “colossal scare story.” Dr. Morner has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels for the last 35 years. Dr. Morner says the sea has not risen in 50 years. Fossil fuels do not cause rising sea levels, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or snow storms. Fossil fuels help humans adapt to harsh climate with air conditioning, furnaces, housing and food. One fossil fuel powered tractor combine can harvest enough grain in one day to feed thousands of people.
4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over. The refutations are on many web sites and in many books. For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.
Response:
4. Beware of advocates who claim that humans are the main cause of global warming. The most popular argument is the myth of the 97% Consensus that all the scientists agree there is global warming and that human beings are the main cause. Even if this statement were true it has been manipulated from local officials all the way to the White House. They often add the allegation that man made global warming would be a harmful to the environment. The 97% claim says absolutely nothing about magnitude or catastrophe. So beware of anyone who uses this claim and says we must act now and the debate is over. The main 97% claim comes from John Cook who runs the website skepticscience.com. Cook found that over 97% of the papers he hand picked endorsed the opinion that the earth was warming and man was the main cause.(main meaning more than 50%) The problem even John Cook himself can only demonstrate a handful of papers he picked that actually endorse that view. Economist David Friedman publicly challenged the results and upon peer review calculated only 1.6% of the papers stated that man made greenhouse gases caused at least 50% of Global warming. Furthermore, scientists whose papers Cook used have come forward to state Cook misrepresented their findings. The deliberate misuse of this so called “Climate Science” only ensures that our elected leaders will make bad unscientific policy decisions.
5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet. It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals. Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned. Science is self-correcting. People who are not experts, who are not trained and experienced in this field, who do not do research and publish it following standard scientific practice, are not doing science. When they claim that they are the real experts, they are just plain wrong.
6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results. It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody. The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.
Response to 5 and 6:
5 and 6. Over 30,000 scientists and over 800 from the state of Illinois have signed a petition that man is not the main cause of global warming. The 97% Consensus is a proven myth and does not stand up to the scientific method. Science is real hard data that can be tested and measured and not man made manipulated computer models that have been wrong over 95% of the time. Real Science welcomes debate and doesn’t try to silence it.
The responses are good, but the only thing I would even agree with is James Cook is a fraud and CO2 is not a pollutant. The other points Jeff made are shaky:
Professor Carter was dumped by James Cook University and has various links to Conservative think tanks. He doesn’t disclose who pays for his research or at least isn’t very forthcoming.
Roy Spencer has links to Exxon backed climate changed groups. Peers have criticized his research methods and conclusions.
The 30,000 scientists signing a petition refuting human influenced global warning is misleading in its conclusions .1% of the signers have a background in climate. Who support the petition? You guessed it, Exxon.
It would be nice to see independent research into climate change. Did you not include some of the comments this person made or are you discouraging debate? Remember, real science welcomes debate and does not try to silence it. When the facts are being established by paid-for scientists, there is plenty of room for debate.
I listened to a podcast yesterday with the co-Founder of Greenpeace. He left because idiots were taking over. CO2 is not a pollutant, it’s what plants use to survive. He stated the same thing about CO2 getting dangerously low which means life fails to exist. Many prominent scientists are speaking out and leaving their jobs over the misuse of science. One clue: don’t believe anybody getting paid to say what they say. Independent reports are out there.
Everything I am finding online says Professor Carter retired on good terms from James Cook University. Most of Dr Spencer’s climate research has been done on behalf of the US Government for NASA and Dept of Energy.
Big industry errors such as the Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the current methane leak in the L.A. area, Fukushima nuclear disaster, etc. have wreaked more havoc on the environment than the common population of man yet the people responsible for these messes largely go unpunished.
Exploding volcanoes go unpunished too.
Add the products of forest fires caused by lightening to the list of pollutants. Cattle produce a significant amount of methane.
Beef: Worth it!
I have no problem with renewable energy as long as it is price competetive with what we have now, without government subsidy. Unfortunately, if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow any effect on the climate might not be recognized for 25 years.
I have found ‘Heartland.Org’ to be a great site for info on debunking the climate change myth.
It is!
Isn’t that the think tank that worked with Phillip Morris to deny the health risks of smoking? And still does to this day? Exxon is a big supporter of the think tank too. Climate change is real but it unknown how much we play a role in it.
Whether you agree or disagree with the dangers of climate change or global warming, this woman has holes in her argument and she contradicts herself. It is obvious she has no science background and therefore can’t understand what the scientists are saying. For example, most non-scientists think Einstein’s theory of relativity has been proven–it hasn’t–it’s still a theory. So it is with the study of climate change–any potential causes are theoretical.
@ “banned commenter:” Here’s a thought. If you are worried about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, do your civic duty and plant a tree to use the carbon dioxide up while producing the oxygen you breathe.
I forgot to add, the air we exhale is carbon dioxide–should we all be banned?
That comes after all the animals we eat are banned. Population control is high on the list. Why do you think abortion is a priority?
Here is a hypothesis. Maybe the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the past few centuries has to do with significant increases in population. Just a theory!
Well Diane, well done! Use my post and ban me because “intelligent discussion is impossible”. Why is that? Is it because I challenge your rather limited world view? I can’t refute anything since you banned me. I have a rebuttal but I’m banned. Nice work. I dare you to post this. I dare you to post my rebuttal. I bet anything you won’t
You get ONE chance – that’s it! Here’s the great banned one folks. Be prepared to be amazed.
Diane, why would I comment only to have you delete it?
You are correct, I will delete it. When you can explain what melted the glacier that used to cover half of Illinois, you can comment. Otherwise your “settled science” nonsense belongs elsewhere. Start your own blog.
Again Skunk, I’m BANNED because Diane can’t have anyone disagreeing with her views..
Looks like you blew it I’ve been waiting all day for you to show up and this is your one comment?
Regina, looks like I hit a nerve. Open debate is allowed here but you have to cite sources, even if they are from the internet. Guess what? Scientific journals are posted on the internet for all to view. If you noticed, I did not support or refute the evidence of climate change–only the validity of the posted arguments. If you have credentials in a science background, please share and post links to the articles your are referencing.
It will take her awhile to find all the Dem talking points. You will have heard it all before.
I could care less about political talking points. She needs to cite scientific journals showing the results of testing and their references to previous studies.
Skunk you want scientific journals? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/abs/nature01333.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/abs/408184a0.html
w.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6266/abs/344529a0.htm
That’s it for you. Changing names won’t work
@Oneonone(Regina). Thank you for citing two different issues of “Nature, The International Journal of Science.” The articles, which are from 2000 and 2002 (13-15 years old), reference possibilities (could) not probabilities (shall). I do not argue that the temperature of the globe is currently slightly warmer than in decades past but the entire, exact cause is not proven. These articles indicate that carbon dioxide “could” have some influence. Other factors which might cause warming are not included in the article.
Perhaps a more current article from another source would support the findings of this particular author.
I just passed gas. Count me in as a contributor and also include my dog.
In the 1970’s it was pollution. Today what is in fashion is global warming is my take on this. I would say scientist are about as close to finding a cause as they are on how nuclear fusion can be initiated and sustained.
Back before Adam and Eve and to be politically correct Adam and Steve too the volcanic activity was far worse.
I’m more concerned about population growth and fresh water supply. In a few hundred years or less it’s going to get pretty crowded on earth.
Much of the studies focus on CO2 and don’t consider other possible factors contributing to what has been a slight warming in the recent past. One trick that activist often use is comparing recent warming from 1970 to present. !970 was the end of a brief cooling period. Thus by using 1970 as their starting or reference point they show a much bigger increase in warming than they would if they started at 1900. If they used 1300AD as their starting point their data would show no significant increase in warming. If you are an activist with an agenda you wont scare anyone with that data so it must be ignored.
Let a BIG OLE ASTEROID about 10 miles across give the earth a DIRECT HIT, and whoever’s LEFT can discuss climate yada yada! There are MANY factors-some unknown which contribute to the earths changing environment. NONE of YOU have even mentioned the CHANGING TILT of the earth which happens every 27,000 years and makes VEGA the NORTH STAR instead of POLARIS! So from that, yes, glaciers would change their positions, and ERUPTING (not exploding) volcanoes do WAY MORE release of sulphur dioxide then all the fortune cookie eaters in China! COW FARTS a major source of methane?? PLEASE!! How about “burping” ponds and lakes that are NATURALLY decaying organic matter, which will turn to peat or coal or MAYBE DIAMONDS? What about undersea smokers, acid lakes in Africa, Gamma and X rays and Infra red from close and distant stellar objects, ALL the above is not at ALL totally understood, and I didn’t even delve into the cheating cars made by Volkswagon! OR soccer mommies who attempt to drive hubbies BIG OLE RANCH KING 2000!