Climate Change is important: America need a paradigm shift

41
1668

MONTGOMERY VILLAGE, Md., May 6, 2014 – The Obama administration took the offensive today on climate change. Meeting with Al Rocker of NBC, President Obama stated unequivocally that climate change is showing its ugly head on many fronts throughout the world.

Some of his supporters say, about time.

His opponents immediately accused him of being alarmist and trying to scare the American public.

It is time that the American public learn what is coming if we don’t stop the indiscriminate use of fossil fuels. Recent polls have shown that only 36% of Americans believe the climate change phenomenon is important. The fact that the great majority of scientist believe this phenomenon to be crucial in our continuing enjoyment, and some would say survival, of the planet has gone ignored by most. Explanations tend to be highly scientific and full of caveats. This is logical since the processes that control the climate are in themselves very complex and overlaying climate change makes it more so.


Maybe what we need is a simple message.


READ ALSO: Climate change: The U.S. Senate speaks – all talk, no action


Over the millions of years that there has been life on Earth, fantastically large amounts of carbon have been trapped below the surface. Starting in the second half of the XIX century, we have extracted fossil fuels to handle our energy needs. This extreme use of fossil fuels has liberated the carbon that had been sequestered underground to the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases.

This carbon that is released has to have an effect on how our atmosphere regulates our weather. Empirical evidence, from the rise of sea levels and the melting of permanent ice, leads us to believe that this is the effect of the release of carbon to the atmosphere. Episodes of extreme weather are also the result of these releases.

In other words, continuing to release larger and larger amounts of carbon to the atmosphere will lead to dire consequences. These consequences would be in the form of rising sea levels, even more extreme weather and the possible destruction of many species in the planet.

Unfortunately, most Americans either don’t believe these consequences are important or dire enough or doubt the science or believe it is irrelevant.

The former don’t believe we would be able to stop using fossil fuels. After all, what is quality of life if one has to buy a distance challenged electric car or a hybrid (and have to pay more for the “privilege”)? The solution, some think, is worse than the problem.


READ ALSO: America’s power grid at the limit: the road to electrical blackouts


Those who doubt the science or believe it is irrelevant grasp any apparent inconsistency, like a cold winter, to ridicule climate change. Others are convinced that it is God-will and that man should not interfere; therefore, the whole issue is irrelevant.

In a recent episode of “Years of Living Dangerously”, a person in Texas was asked the reason for losing her job in an agricultural business. The plant in which she worked had closed due to the draught that has affected that state. She responded that it had been the will of God. At no time did she associate climate or climate-cause to the drought.

The common thread here is the apathy that the public appears to have with regards to climate change. One could say that that their position is that “if it is real, there is very little we could do about it, so why worry.”

The fact is that there are things we can do about it. Renewable energy sources that are either carbon neutral or carbon-reducing do exist. Granted that many are in their infancy and don’t offer us immediate gratification. For example, research being done by the Navy to extract hydrogen from sea water at a cost below fossil fuels seems promising. Solar, wind and geothermal technologies are getting better.

Above all there is nuclear power. It is clean, carbon neutral or better, safe and affordable. Paranoia fueled by the news media and to be sure the fossil fuel industry has turned the American public against this perfect solution.

Yes, it will require sacrifices by all of us. We all have to make the commitment to pass on a better planet to our successors. So let us commit to reduce our carbon footprint and start looking at solutions, especially nuclear energy.

Mario Salazar, the 21st Century Pacifist, wants to be remembered as caring for those that follow us in this ship called Earth. You can find him in Facebook (Mario Salazar), Google+ and Twitter (chibcharus).

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Steve Davidson

    When writing about a topic, at least get the basic facts correct. If a reader knows basic facts are sketchy and/or wrong then little else said can be taken seriously.

    For example, you said:
    “In a recent episode of “Vice”, the HBO documentary series, a person in Texas was asked the reason for losing her job in an agricultural business. The plant in which she worked had closed due to the draught that has affected that state. She responded that it had been the will of God. At no time did she associate climate or climate-cause to the draught.”

    The show wasn’t “Vice”. It was Episode 1 of “Years of Living Dangerously”, James Cameron’s new mega-documentary on climate change. “a person” was Nelly Montez, a former lift truck driver. The “agricultural business” is the Cargill Meat Packing Plant in Plainview. You got the state, Texas, right and that she lost her job to drought.

    Heck, you didn’t even spell ‘drought’ right!

    You speak of science and what scientists believe yet don’t include a single, infinitesimal empirical fact in support of your viewpoint.

    If you don’t fully understand the subject then don’t write about it.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      Sorry, I relied on memory on the episodic example instead of rechecking. Thank you for pointing this out. I will also fix the typo.
      I started learning about the Greenhouse Effect (later known as Global Warming and Climate change) in college while taking air pollution classes as an undergraduate (circa 1970) and later as a graduate student in environmental engineering. I followed the progress of the research since then. I have also read hundreds of books about the subject. I was fascinated from the beginning as the first theorists only depended on the causes, not the effects. The premise was that the increase of combustion gases had to be doing something to our planet. They were later proved correct.
      We have gotten past the empirical facts. They all point to Climate change being a result of our use of fossil fuels. I would be happy to discuss them with you, unfortunately this forum is not appropriate for that discussion.
      At the risk of sounding arrogant, I probably have forgotten more about this subject than you will ever know.

      • Steve Davidson

        “We have gotten past the empirical facts”

        There, Mr. Salazar, is where you’ve gone off track. Please don’t insist it’s “settled science”. There is no such thing as settled science. Never was, never will be. You, with your background, surely must know that.

        Support for AGW theory has been eroding since the turn of the century. IPCC forecast models are so far off now that almost every one of them is 2 standard deviations or more above measured temperature data. The IPCC has almost disproved their own theory.

        Is there global warming? Of course there is. It has been measured. Is global warming caused by human emissions of CO2? The evidence for that is thin, and getting thinner by the year.

        I’ll prove it… I bet you cannot demonstrate, using real world data, the most fundamental premise in all of AGW theory, that observed CO2 increase is directly tied to the earth’s temperature profile.

        Do that and I’ll believe the rest, but I won’t accept sloppy science.

        • MoniqueDC

          98% of the world’s scientists who work in the area of climate are convinced that global warming/climate change is happening. AND, that human behavior is the root cause. There have been many studies and, while I am not a scientist, I do not see why people are so adamant that we cannot prove out this impact. Using logic, let’s assume that we cannot prove it. We still know that using fossil fuels are problematic. They cause problems for people’s environments (spill sites, leaking pipes, car and plane exhaust, etc) and they cause health problems.
          These factors alone should be sufficient to encourage us to move to more benign forms of energy. It would improve the environmental impacts and reduce health complications. Besides, we are all about innovation in the US. Why support an outmoded form of energy like coal and fossil fuels when we can create alternatives. Your paradigm is slipping, sir. Join the 21st century and contribute to the solution instead of being mired in justifying the problem.

          • Steve Davidson

            The opinions of scientists in a field matter. They can and should be taken very, very seriously.

            The majority of climate scientists and others in related fields do accept AGW theory. Most scientific organizations have official statements supporting AGW theory.

            The bottom line, though, is that opinion polls do not define scientific truth… data and calculations do. Stick with that and you’ll never go wrong.

            Regarding fossil fuels…
            The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that the “problematic” “outmoded form of energy” you speak of will still be supplying 80% of this nations total energy in the year 2040. That’s according to its “Annual Energy Outlook 2014”. Look to see for yourself.

            In the reference case the EIA says that renewables – wind, solar, biomass, hydro and others – will supply 12% of the energy by 2040. The rest comes from nuclear.

            Fossil fuels will be the main source of energy in the United States for many decades to come. It will be true globally as well, according to the International Energy Agency.

            No amount of screaming to the contrary is going to change that.

            The logical thing to do is leverage the cleanest fossil fuel there is and use it to replace the dirtiest forms until renewables finally come of age after 2040. In the meantime it’ll reduce harmful emissions, too.

            Fortunately, that process began back in 2007 and, as a result, US atmospheric emissions have already started going down. Ours is the only major industrial nation where that has happened.

            The “bridge” fuel to the future is natural gas. It has half the emissions of coal and is rapidly being used to replace coal-fired electric power plants. Coal-fired electric currently produces almost 40% of all emissions.

            Continue replacing coal with natural gas and expanding its use into transportation and industrial applications will further reduce emissions.

            Continue investing in wind, solar and other renewable technologies that must ultimately replace fossil fuels. It will happen, just not as soon as we’d like.

          • dragon5126

            98% really? well 99% of all statistics are made up just to fit the argument at hand… (that is the polite way of saying you are lying through your eye teeth)

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Couldn’t have said it better. When significant evidence points to a possible harm, let’s try to avoid it instead of waiting for irrefutable evidence (impossible in such complex systems). Furthermore, when the solutions available are more benign to the environment, why not try them?
            What happened to the precautionary principle?

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          As an engineer I believe in cause and effect. In my book to believe that the products of combustion of fossil fuels, that have increased exponentially since the advent of the industrial revolution, do not have an impact on our planet is short-sighted and maybe even criminal. To pass on this problem to our successors is also unethical.
          I don’t think you would believe any proof of these phenomena. It all depends on what part of the elephant you are perceiving.
          I believe that most deniers find it very uncomfortable to accept, no matter the evidence.
          Typical right wing strategy, let’s don’t upset the money cart and let others deal with it after we are gone.

          • Steve Davidson

            Here is math anyone can understand:
            “increased exponentially” X “not-much-to-start-with” = Still “not-very-much”

            Yes, it’s true that CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than its been in 800,000 years, and possibly many millions more years. It is roughly 400ppm compared to a Holocene average of about 280ppm.

            AGW theorists always overstate the meaning of that microscopic change in the composition of earth’s atmosphere. The concept of Gigatons of “carbon pollution” is a political term, not a scientific one. Is anyone told that more than 2/3rds of those gigatons are oxygen atoms? No!

            A 120ppm increase in CO2 is just a +0.00012% change in the composition of earth’s atmosphere. Yet, the White House tells us the tiny change has already caused catastrophes of near-biblical proportions and it’ll only get worse.

            Consider this… about 95% of IPCC climate models in the AR5 report forecast temperature increases over two standard deviations above observed results.

            What that means is either the models overestimate CO2 climate sensitivity or underestimate natural variability. Either way, they are wrong. The models need to be reworked and IPCC and White House conclusions based on them need to be revisited. QED

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Steve,
            Assuming that your interpretation is ball park, isn’t it possible that even a very small influence from anthropogenic sources can make things a lot worse for humans?
            The precautionary principle tells us that when there is a possibility for extensive harm, it is wise to act. This is even more important when the solution can help us in many other ways (e.g. the improvement in the air we breath by switching from fossil fuels).
            As a scientist you know that it is impossible to establish absolute causal relationship in mostly natural phenomena. I myself think it is crazy to continue using fossil fuels when there are good alternatives like nuclear power.

          • Steve Davidson

            You are quite right… it’s possible that a tiny influence can have a very big influence. It just isn’t there, though, for human CO2 effects.

            I provided a “smoking gun” graph plotting CO2 rise and HadCRUT4 temperatures together that shows the weakness of the connection. The IPCC climate models miserably fail to predict reality. Together they nearly seal AGW’s fate.

            Imho, AGW theory is so far off from reality that the precautionary principle does not apply.

            If you have better information, please feel free to share it. I can and have been wrong in the past. I could be wrong here a well. I’m accepting of being proved wrong, but I need convincing data.

      • dragon5126

        Yes you HAVE forgotten the facts. Like for one, Green house gasses are so named from the fact that they exist in green houses, which are artificial environments, where the decomposition of organic materials within the soil cause the heating effect that is noted BEYOND that of the sunlight that comes into the structure. Perhaps if you would study horticulture and hydroponics and their uses in the production of artificial atmospheres such as in the Biodome experiments you might actually learn some FACTS instead of being so damned arrogant that you are ignoring the fact that the Earth is a volcanic mass that is being bombarded daily by so much solar radiation that even if all man made forms of combustion were to cease, nothing would change. But so goes the ignorance of the liberal mindset. As for your Statement that combustion gasses had to be doing something to our planet, IF you had any background in atmospheric studies based in SCIENCE, you would know that the heavier gasses Block solar radiation from reaching Earth’s surface, and add to the cooling effect. This has been the cause and effect of virtually EVERY Ice age this world has undergone. Drop the arrogance. Drop the Pseudo Science, and go BACK to school and LEARN something this time. You are giving those of us with real degrees a bad name and we want to be able to come out of hiding!
        Oh, one more thing, all those books you read? Curious George doesnt count. Further, unless you repeat the works outlined in them on your own, they don’t even count for a bibliography, as you are not even citing them. All you ARE doing is saying “I’m parroting unproven popular tripe”… and THAT discredits every word you state, So keep whining like a liberal caught in a sex scandal with a donkey

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          With that type or reasoning and “science” it would serve us better if you stay in hiding.
          Articles in this forum are not academic papers. We are asked to present facts and support them, but to stay away from extensive bibliography.
          Your message is completely subjective. You didn’t even try to refute my arguments, you only tried to discredit me. This is typical of right wing denier reasoning.
          Keep re arranging the deck chairs and go down with the ship. I will do my best to save you and all other deniers with my meager resources. I may not succeed, so get yourself a wet suit.

    • dragon5126

      empirical facts mean nothing. It is emperical facts that say Summer heat is caused by climate change, due to the fact that it is warmer in the summer than the winter…

      • Steve Davidson

        When facts are ignored, conclusions are wrong. It’s a simple as that.

        Why is it that some folks seem to think climate change is something brand spanking new brought on by human activity? It isn’t. There has always been climate change and there always will be.

        It is warmer now primarily because we are in the middle of an interglacial warm period. It has been warming for over 15,000 years. When the interglacial period ends it’ll get really cold again and people will pray for global warming to return.

        • dragon5126

          The issue at hand is political correctness. Climate Change was the name chosen to replace the term Global warming when the alarmists were caught in a flat out lie. So they changed the name but not the rhetoric. Anyone who has studied the global climate cycles knows that Climate change is a singular constant. A cycle that is caused by CO2 causing cooling by an over abundance blocking solar radiation from reaching the earths surface, feeding green plants who’s respiration fed the cooling cycle and eventually burning up the CO2 at a peak rate resulting in the start of an ice age. As the Ice Age brought an end to the processing of the CO2 a very slow return to the buildup of this so called greenhouse gas once again started, as there was minimal plant growth to process it. Starting the cycle all over, Solar radiation starts to heat the atmosphere once again. As the snow melts, frozen biological mass starts to decay adding CO2 to the atmosphere creating favorable conditions for green plants, which produce oxygen from the CO2, burning off the carbon, and the oxygen then allows for more organic decay increasing the cycle as the atmosphere warms even more, so on and so forth until the carbon dioxide starts building to the point where it acts to insulate the earths surface from solar radiation once again. This cycle has been proven so many times and never been able to be disproven. it is a very simple cycle and will continue as long as there is plant life on this planet. CO2 is used as an insulator in this manner in welding processes as well due to the ability to prevent oxidation which generates excess heat, which damages the metals being welded. The simplicity is so absurd that the “progressives” refuse to accept it as factual, much in the same manner that they refuse to believe that a flame can be used to cool a process in welding, where the flame simply consumes all excess oxygen, removing the ability for heat to climb any higher. Its simple hand in front of the face blindness. Its like the chicken or the egg…

          • Steve Davidson

            To get at the truth it’s best to divorce politics from climate science.

            I’m unsure I follow all you say, but have a few simplifying comments to make related to your comment.

            CO2 is an invisible gas. It doesn’t block visible sunlight. Under cloudless skies most sunlight penetrates to the surface. Numerous things can happen to it when it gets there. One of the main ones is to be absorbed and re-radiated back into the air as infrared energy (IR).

            CO2 does, however, absorb and re-radiate IR. Since re-radiated IR coming from the ground has as much chance of being redirect back toward the ground as it does to continue its journey out into space, CO2 acts to trap the IR (heat). According to most scientists, that’s what makes it a greenhouse gas.

            As you’ve pointed out, the climate system is complex and many related factors can come into play.

            In your comment you imply that CO2, a minor trace gas, plays a major role driving climate change one way or another though various means.

            Paleoclimatology results over the last 800,000 years, however, suggests the opposite is true, that CO2 is more reactive to climate change than causal of it.

            The 800K record from Antarctic ice core samples clearly shows that temperature changes come BEFORE carbon dioxide changes, not the other way around. When temperatures rise, so does CO2. When temperatures drop, so does CO2.

            Increases/decreases in CO2 no doubt have other effects, but raising and lowering earth’s temperature hasn’t been one of them over the last 800k years.

            Humans, however, are mucking up the works by introducing more CO2 into the climate system. It surely will have some kind of an effect, especially if it continues rising unabated.

            As the data I’ve seen appears right now, CO2 hasn’t had much effect and current climate modeling is so crude that it can’t even account for natural variability, let alone forecast CO2 effects like, for example, temperature!

  • James R. Edwards

    Pure propaganda unsupported by any real science at all. Every prediction from the 2003 UN IPCC report has been proven to be a lie or an extreme exaggeration and there is no proof man made “global cooling, global warming, climate change, climate disruption” or whatever cute language you come up with next has any effect on the weather or the planet… But lets say it does – the only “solution” Obama and the world has come up with is a massive tax on the richer countries and richer individuals and redistribution of wealth to the less rich countries and less rich individuals. This is the left’s solution to every problem and it NEVER works for anything except getting Democrats re-elected. This article is trash

    • Steve Davidson

      Data supporting AGW theory is weakening and has been steadily weakening since the turn of the century. Before that, back in the 1990s, AGW concerns appeared to be very well supported.

      Everything has changed since the year 2000.

      It looks like AGW proponents have taken just about every alarmist prediction of the last 26 years and crammed them into the newest White House 3rd “National Climate Assessment”.

      It’s as if AGW theorists are beginning to see the tide of science turning against them and have circled the wagons, decided to put everything they’ve got into a final grand struggle and fight to last man.

      • 21st Century Pacifist

        What do you want for proof? Do you think that weather itself is simple enough so that it can be proven with a few episodes? If you overlay Climate Change, the complexity is increased geometrically.
        The fossil fuel industry has done a very good job in downplaying the real threats of human caused global warming. A lot of money has been given away.

        • Steve Davidson

          Lets make the proof easy. Here are starting conditions you’ll like…
          1-Climate change is real
          2-Global warming is real
          3-CO2 is a greenhouse gas
          4-Human activity is raising the level of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere

          Nobody questions any of that.

          All you have to do is demonstrate empirically that there is a unequivocal, direct link between the observed CO2 rise in earth’s atmosphere and Earth’s observed temperature profile since the year 1950.

          That should be a piece of cake for a smart guy like you.

          1950 is the starting year because its the starting year the IPCC uses in its latest AR5 assessment report.

          The IPCC uses CO2 measurements made on Mauna Loa for its assessments. It uses the HadCRUT4 global land-sea database for Earth’s temperature profile.

          For your convenience, I’ve already made a chart that compares those two databases. It’s here in the Community Digital News in an article I wrote titled, “Human-caused global warming theory weakening”

          • MoniqueDC

            You are overly confrontational. Please try to be more civil and less harsh. It is not helping you convince people….just the contrary.

          • Steve Davidson

            I will take your advice to be less confrontational. Thanks for the reminder.

            All that matters is science and how it either supports or does not support AGW theory. Lets stick to that.

            Here are two crucial facts that demonstrate that AGW theory is on shaky ground:
            1-Most IPCC temperature models are now >2 standard deviations off
            2-The link between CO2 rise and earth’s temperature profile is very weak

            Item 1:
            Two standard deviations is the statistically accepted standard defining a causal link between two measured events. If the standard deviation exceeds that then a causal link is rejected.

            In this case the two things we are trying to link are AGW’s temperature forecasts over time made by the IPCC and Earth’s actual measured global surface temperature over time.

            The IPCC has over 100 temperature models it ran. Almost all of them predict a temperature profile that today is more than two standard deviations above Earth’s actual measured temperature.

            Within 5 years or so every model will be outside the range of earth’s actual temperature and AGW theory will have to be rejected.

            Item 2:
            The most crucial piece of evidence of all is the link between CO2 rise and earth’s temperature profile. It, though, exposes yet another major weakness of the AGW theory. Without a strong connection, there is no theory.

            The IPCC endorses two data sets making that connection. One is the measurement of atmospheric CO2 on top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii since 1958. It is maintained by NOAA.

            The other dataset is earth’s land-sea surface temperature profile over time, called HadCRUT4, maintained by the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia College, both in England.

            The IPCC prominently features both fundamental datasets in its latest AR5 report.

            However, the IPCC failed to do something very important… plot both datasets together on the same graph for easy comparisons.

            I did that and analyzed the results in the CDN article titled, “Human-caused global warming theory weakening”.

            Nearly a quarter of all the CO2 rise in the modern era has occurred in the last 15 years without a smidgen of surface temperature rise. That’s known in the science biz as a “smoking gun”.

            Anyone here still think AGW theory is “settled science”?

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            I wonder how many standards of deviation predicted the Titanic catastrophe. Numbers will tell you everything and nothing.
            There is also NO definitive proof that Agent Orange used in Nam caused health effects (only that dioxin was present as a byproduct). Many would say that Evolution is not a fact, and about 40% of the American public deny it.
            Let’s use preventive efforts instead of going down with the ship.

          • Steve Davidson

            Are you suggesting that math, science and contradicting data be ignored because an authority tells us we should?

            It’s not my view, but I’m perfectly OK with it, if that is your viewpoint.

          • 21st Century Pacifist

            Steve,
            I love math; however, it is only a tool that we created to help quantify physical phenomena. There is nothing “absolute” about math, even for me that was one course short of a minor in math.
            I have always been suspicious of statistics and almost avoided it in graduate school. Understand what they are about and have used many algorithms based on them throughout my professional career, mostly in predictive situations.
            The mix of weather and CC is so complex that it will take a long time before all the answers can be gotten. In the meantime if it looks like a duck…..

          • Steve Davidson

            I agree, math is just a tool. Nothing magic about it. I further agree that no theory can ever be proven as you suggested earlier.

            The process of science is to eliminate possibilities. It does that very well using the null hypothesis. Theories only truly flourish when they make verifiable predictions that later come to pass, like Einstein’s General Theory did with the mind-altering concept that light is bent by gravity, that later got measured during the solar eclipse of 1919. It’s been going strong ever since.

            Agreed, too, that statistics should be taken with a grain of salt because they can be artificially manipulated. It’s up to us to be smart enough to detect hanky-panky.

            Unfortunately for both of us, the science of weather forecasting and climate change are entirely statistics-based. Determining what manner of climate change has happened over time and/or what will happened is dependent on the baselines picked and statistical analysis tools used. IPCC climate models are statistical programs that make statistical predictions.

            To reject statistics then is to reject the idea of climate change all together. To accept statistics means you can’t chose to reject or ignore results just because you don’t like them. That is what the IPCC does with it’s non-scientific “confidence level” assessment scale.

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      Amazing that 98% of all climate scientist believe that Climate Change is real. What do you know of real science? Deniers believe that a complex theory can be explained in an 800 word article. It can’t.
      There is nothing simple about this, deniers use that to try to prove that it doesn’t exist. Do you also believe that the Earth is flat? (It must be for some that have never gone anywhere physically and intellectually).

      • sturmvogel

        98% of climate scientists? I hear the climate alarmists cite that all of the time. Two problems with that assertion: 1) no one cites the study from which the claim is made, and 2) 100% of Redskins fans believe that this is the year that the Redskins will finally win the Super Bowl again. So, I guess a SB is in the bag for the ‘Skins, right?

        The science doesn’t say what you think and climate archaeology is proving more problematic to the veracity of the climate alarmist’s claims.

        • Steve Davidson

          The original paper making the claim is titled:
          “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by Cook/Nuccitelli, et. al, Environmental Research Letters, 5/15/2013

          You’ll have to do your own search for it because this comment utility doesn’t allow web links. 🙁

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          The fact is that very few scientist not associated with the fossil fuel industry deny Climate Change. Do you have any evidence that this is not so?
          Just Google this fact and you will find the references you want. No URLs are allowed in these comments to prevent spam. You will also find plenty of deniers. Take your pick and live with the consequences.

          • dragon5126

            You really love your lies, dont you? this past year alone these same People you claim as the 98% came forth and denied the accuracy of what you claim as facts. But you like all the liberal “intellectuals” have STOPPED your search once you have seen the possibility that you MIGHT be correct, where as those who are in search of the truth have continued on and are NOT afraid of taking that noble step back and saying “I was wrong”. That difference makes YOU a FANATIC, and not a man of science.

      • Steve Davidson

        When Einstein proposed the General Theory of Relativity he was the only person in the world who believed it. All other physicists believed in old, “flat”, 3-dimensional Newtonian physics.

        Few believed him until the solar eclipse of May 29th, 1919 when his theory correctly predicted the amount of bending of light around the sun due to gravity that was documented by the great British astronomer, Sir Arthur Eddington.

        Should Einstein have withdrawn the General Theory before 1919 because it didn’t conform to the “98% consensus”? The logic you propose suggests that he should have.

        In your opinion, just how does science progress when scientists stop questioning the status quo?

      • dragon5126

        YOU have just proven precisely what those of us with real educations already knew, Your writing is politically motivated liberal garbage. Climate change is a constant. just like the swing of a pendulum. And Propagandists such as yourself use it for personal gain… How much do you make writing about it? We all see that you have turned to insult from your very first reply, the actions of an Obamaesque Narcissist, a severe mental illness. What more can be said about you other than the fact that YOU are a phony.

        • 21st Century Pacifist

          Well, in one paragraph you have just used a large number of the anti progressive rhetoric used by the right. You use the same methods that you said I use. Others at least use episodic “facts” and interpretations to argue their points. You should stick to Range Mastering for the Alphabet boys, that is your speed.

  • 21st Century Pacifist

    Thank you for the excellent comments.

  • dragon5126

    The only thing important about Climate Change is that it is just another smoke screen being used by the administration and nothing more. As The Benghazi issue comes into the limelight the pseudo president brings back climate change to distract the masses

    • 21st Century Pacifist

      Up until the fossil fuel industry spent half a billion dollars to fight the CC issue, most reasonable people, including some conservatives believed in it. This is not Obama’s doing, this has been going on for over 40 years.
      Your bias is showing. What else do your think is relevant about Benghazi? This is the real smoke screen. If you want to talk about deceptions, where were you when we invaded Iraq? Do you want to continue spending millions trying to figure out why the Bush administration lied to us? We lost thousands of lives in Iraq and went into an economic depression partly as the result of that boondoggle.

  • Doc

    Does anyone deny that fossil fuels are a finite resource? Whatever your views on global warming, we will one day run out of oil, coal, and natural gas. I don’t know when that will be, but I do think its a good idea to develop alternative sources of energy.

    • Steve Davidson

      You are right. It’s paramount that we develop alternative energy sources to fossil fuels.

      Fossils are finite. We will one day run out of them. When that day comes we will have to have renewable replacement energy sources ready to replace them.

      That day is many decades in the future.

      There are enough newly discovered natural gas shale resources discovered globally right now, for example, that there is enough for it to be a major energy source for 100 years or so.

      • Doc

        how much are these shale and natural gas resources going to cost me / per mile to run my car?
        Right now, that is the problem with most alternative energy. The energy transfer is not very efficient. I suspect it could be, if we worked on it, but we won’t.
        Solar or electric batteries for cars (for instance) need to be far more efficient to be viable. I don’t consider humming down the road at 40 MPH for 300 miles, then stopping to recharge for eight hours (If we had recharging stations) to be viable.
        I’m not knocking the concept of alternative energy, but we need to make it more efficient – and that will require research, and cost money.