Climate Deniers Gather In Times Square

This week, more than 600 people have gathered in New York for the International Conference on Climate Change. But it may not be what you think -- it's a conference organized by the conservative Heartland Institute, which doesn't believe in climate change.

It comes on the heels of a gathering of some 12,000 young climate activists -- who favor action to stop climate change -- in Washington, DC.

This year's conference has its high points and its low points for organizers. Among the high points is one of its special guests -- the president of the Czech Republic.

Conference organisers were celebrating something of a coup in securing as a keynote speaker the Czech president, Václav Klaus, at a time when his country holds the rotating presidency of the EU. Klaus, a Eurosceptic, believes that efforts to protect the world from the impact of climate change are an assault on freedom.

In his remarks last night, Klaus accused European governments of being "alarmist" on the subject of climate change and in thrall to radical environmentalists.

"They probably do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back," he said.

But Klaus and the others at the conference are being abandoned and questioned by others who only last year would have stood beside them. The New York Times' Andrew Revkin points out a wide variety of reasons that the conference is a bit weaker than usual, including the fact that not even Exxon wants to sponsor it now:

But two years after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with near certainty that most of the recent warming was a result of human influences, global warming's skeptics are showing signs of internal rifts and weakening support.

The meeting participants hold a wide range of views of climate science. Some concede that humans probably contribute to global warming but they argue that the shift in temperatures poses no urgent risk. Others attribute the warming, along with cooler temperatures in recent years, to solar changes or ocean cycles.

But large corporations like Exxon Mobil, which in the past financed the Heartland Institute and other groups that challenged the climate consensus, have reduced support. Many such companies no longer dispute that the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels pose risks.

Comments

[slowtospeak]

If there was ever an Ice Age on Earth, how do we now have a moderately temperate climate with no major glaciers carving up the continents with SUVs only being around for the last three decades? I can't seem to figure out how the earth came out of its last ice age without man-made greenhouse gases? Would someone enlighten me?

[DeeOne1]

It was more than likely cause by the cycles that the sun goes through from time to time. Either that or massive volcanic eruptions that blocked out the Sun or some other natural process or a combination of the Sun's cycles and other things.

http://www.TheCommentDepot.com

[slowtospeak]

So volcanoes have stopped errupting and the sun cycles have been suspended since the industrial revolution?

[Exusian]

No, it was not cycles that the sun goes through, nor volcanoes, nor CO2 from SUVs.

As I and many others have written in Hufpo threads hundreds of times before, it was cycles in the shape of Earth's orbit and tilt of its axis (lookup Milankovic Cycles), combined with a subsequent feedback change in reflectance of Earth's surface as the ice sheet shrank in area (lookup albedo), and an increase in entirely natural emissions of CO2 and methane from thawing permafrost, melting methane hydrates, and a warming ocean, and finally, more water vapour in a warming atmosphere (look up relative and absolute humidity).

Not that you really wanted an answer or will bother to read this one.

[SFTor]

Hello Exusian:

So you are saying that CO2 is not the main driver of climate?

Or are you saying that since we have both cooling and warming, with associated releases and subsequent trapping of greenhouse gases, that there are significant negative feedback mechanisms in the climate system? It seems to me that if the main feedback mechanisms were positive with respect to greenhouse gases, we would not expect to see cooling after a warming.

Or is there something that escapes me here?

[Exusian]

SFT, what I said was:

At the end of the last ice age...
1) An increase in solar insolation (during the Northern Hemisphere summer, I should add) caused by changes in Earth's orbit and tilt of axis, provided the initial forcing, or warming.
2) That warming then caused several feedbacks, including reduced albedo, and increases in atmospheric water vapour, CO2, and methane (all greenhouse gases), which amplified that initial forcing by adding still more warming.

If you calculate the increase in energy from the added insolation alone it simply wasn't enough to melt the glacial ice volume. If we add the additional energy from the decrease in albedo (more absorbed sunlight), it's still not enough. Only when we also add the energy added by the additional greenhouse gasses do we get enough to melt the volume of ice that we know melted.

In other words, no, CO2 was not the main driver under those circumstances, but it did add part of the warming.

But what happens under different circumstances?
Let's say Earth's orbital and axial geometry are not configured to provide any more insolation and thus be a warm forcing. What if a massive pulse of CO2 is added to the atmosphere then?

[Exusian]

...continu­ed

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so we know that pulse of CO2 will make it warmer, just as it did at the end of the last ice age. We know that as the atmosphere warms it will be able to hold more evaporated water vapour, just as it did at the end of the last ice age. As permafrost melts it will emit CO2 and methane, just as it did at the end of the last ice age. We know that as the ocean warms it will hold less dissolved CO2 and become a net emitter of CO2, and we know that any ice sheets and glaciers will start to melt and shrink, lowering Earth's albedo, just as they did at the end of the last ice age.

Under those circumstances, the initial pulse of CO2 will not be a feedback to some other initial warming forcing, but rather a DIRECT FORCING that leads to the same kind of amplifying feedbacks. Under those circumstances CO2 will be driving climate.

And that exactly describes what is happening today. Human activity has injected enough CO2 to increase it's level in the atmosphere by over a third (nearly 37%) and we are on-track to double its level by mid-century or earlier.

To sum up, CO2 can act as either an amplifying feedback to some other initial warming forcing/driver, OR as a direct forcing/driver, depending on the circumstances.

[The Ghost]

“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

Robert Heinlein (American science-fiction writer,1907-1988)

[jalowe1957]

Can you believe this? They are denying climate change the same way Nazis denied the Holocaust and Simon Peter denied Jesus.

Pathetic, isn't it?

[OKSunny]

Just what I was thinking

Look up Tom Friedman--he has some good books

[SFTor]

Please tell me you are joking.

[sansego2000]

There is scientific evidence that the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling. These conservatives either argue that man is not causing it ( which no one has said, what was said is that man is speeding up the process) or complete denial ( these are the people that believe man saddled up dinosaurs and rode them around).

[Richard2]

One way to improve the discussion of climate issues would be for headline writers to stop using loaded words like "climate deniers" to describe one point of view. The same goes for the other side. Not all persons concerned about man made global warming are "global warming alarmists.­"

Obviously everyone thinks that there is climate, and everyone thinks that climate changes over time.
There is significant evidence from many fields of science that indicate the earth's climate has warmed and cooled significantly during the earth's existence. This includes wide swings in climate during the period of written human history, including the last 1,000 years.

Also, there are large areas of agreement among people who study climate, which is simply ignored in the media. The main difference of opinion relate to the relative significance of man's influence on climate, such as increased CO2 emissions, versus the significance of the natural forces that have influenced the earth's climate over millions of years. Another difference involves the magnitude of the changes that may occur, due to the influences of man's activities, and the natural forces of nature.

It would be much better for the world if both groups could meet and engage in dispassionate debate about the evidence and the conclusions taken from scientific evidence, so that mankind can gain an improved understanding of what has happened in the past, and what alternative paths the earth's climate will take in the future.

[RushHour]

Well, Indy100, to answer your mind-boggling question

Everyone I know loves breathable air. The real question is - Why is it that you think opposing viewpoints are automatically against clean air, etc.?

Earth's volcanos put out more crap than humans could ever create. Krakatoa alone was enough to cool earth for a few years. We also have plenty of national parks. The state of Nevada is more than 75% owned by the government. Water? You had better be glad that water is chemically treated or we would really be sick. And mercury is found naturally in the environment. Around the Reno area, the lakes do test high for mercury, but that only happens when the water level goes way down (as it often does in the desert).

We should be more careful about hazardous runoffs into our lakes and rivers; and we should all leave places as pristine as we can. However, Gore's and Obama's nonsense about carbon credits and "cap and trade" BS is nothing more than their Socialist views on corporations, thus taxing us all because the extra cost to do business is going to be passed down to us.

I just wish people would actually think a little further than our political leaders would want us to and realize that there is almost always an agenda that has nothing to do with the welfare of the people.

[madisonhack]

This rant is tired and old. It's about time to fund truly "green" technologies which would give thousands of people jobs and reduce our dependence on carbon fuels at a time when the jobs are crucial and the technology is actually viable. Change scare you much?

[RushHour]

I have absolutely no problem with reducing our foreign oil dependence. Less expensive energy is the goal. I don't think anyone with a brain could be against that. However, almost all of the manufacturing of green energy parts are done overseas.

That's not change I can beleive in

[Clavis]

So if a corporation "passes down" the cost to us, how is that Obama's fault? Corporations aren't your friend, they're a profit-making tool. You have a problem with carbon credits, attack the corporations for polluting! If they didn't pollute, there'd be no problem.

Are you saying you LIKE pollution? Great, tell me where you live, I'll start mailing you all my garbage... LOL!

[SFTor]

I'm afraid we can't just demonize corporations either. In American employment history they are the ones who have provided good-paying jobs, decent health care, retirement benefits and so on. Perhaps not because they wanted to, but they could, and they did.

There's a whole generation of GM workers in the MidWest who will attest to that. It has all gone by the boards now of course.

But the idea that the American corporation "is not your friend" has only been easier to justify in recent years, with our nice Friedman/Chicago Boys style economics.

[indy100]

Nice attempt at a rebuttal, but you sort of skipped the real questions, and gave the same weak argument about cost that I mentioned. I'll repeat my second question to you directly: what are your kids and grandkids worth? MY KIDS AND GRANDKIDS ARE WORTH WHATEVER IT COSTS; AND I'D RATHER PAY IT NOW THAN HAVE THEM PAY FOR IT LATER, MANY TIMES OVER. POSSIBLY EVEN THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

[popart]

the "flatlanders" are back......­i hope they all own property in Florida...­.that should be one of the first states to be under water.

[SFTor]

Yes, in the year 2525, or so.

[ROinReno]

Klaus said "They probably do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back," ?
This guy is nuts, Since when is it OK for the captains of industry to poison the water and air that is killing their customers, in exchange for some shiny new appliance.
We have reached the point there is not a drop of water on the planet that is not contaminated in some way. You can no longer take a breath of air that is not contaminated any where on the planet.
Even if Global Warming is not a threat and I think it is; the fact you can no longer eat fish without the danger of brain damage due to Mercury poisoning or breath the air that has been proven to shorten the lives of those who live in industrialized areas.
It may well be people at large have already suffered extensive brain damage as a result of pollution, given the lack of intelligent thought by some of these people, it seems a certainty.

[Subtle]

"Conference organisers were celebrating something of a coup in securing as a keynote speaker the Czech president, Václav Klaus, at a time when his country holds the rotating presidency of the EU"

Great! They've got the Czech President. That area of the world is almost entirely dependent on coal for power and stills burns most of it's garbage in the suburban/rural areas, like the U.S. did in the 60's. What a coup! That's like celebratiing getting a cow to support vegitarianism.

[SFTor]

I have another question:

As both sides accuse the other side's scientists of duplicity and corruption, do we actually have a problem in the scientific community? Has the gun-for-hire phenomenon really damaged its credibility?

[indy100]

Global warming or not - here are the FACTS. The earth is not, and never was flat. The sun does not revolve around the earth, it's the other way around. The climate has changed in the past and is changing now; at an accelerated rate. Even if the climate wasn't changing (although if you watch ANY news, have done ANY research, or even step outside you can't believe that), here is the real question. What does anybody have against breathable air, clean mercury/le­ad/chemica­l free water, untainted food, and a few unspoiled recreational areas/national parks whatever for our grandchildren to visit???

The deniers never can get around that question. Stops them every time. Maybe because most if not all are parents or grandparents and of course they want those things for their family! They usually then offer some weak argument about the supposed expense (unknown and unproven) of clean power, alternative fuels etc, at which point I ask what their kids, grandkids, are worth. Because my kids and grandkids are worth whatever it costs; and I'd rather pay it now than have them pay it many times over later. That's generally the final nail in the coffin.

[SFTor]

Why are you answering for the people you consider your opponents?

Your kind of discourse is commonly heard by marriage counselors, not so often during reasoned discussions.

[madisonhack]

What are you talking about?

[JustAThought56]

Thanks, indy100, I really liked that comment and I think it puts things into the right perspective.

[socialmistfit]

12,600 scientists are asked if they would support dubious science if it garanteed more public dollars for research grants.

Just like Wall Street, greed influences all but 600.

[drizzt396]

Umm, these people aren't scientists. At least, the last time I checked, the 12,000 young people aren't old enough to have doctorates and be doing peer reviewed work, and the 600 at this conference include the president of the Czech Republic/EU, who isn't a scientist.

MY PARENTS, however, both hold doctorates in evolutionary ecology and mammology, respectively. They have known that humans have been causing climate change for decades. They don't do any work dealing specifically with climate change, so they aren't influenced by 'greed' in terms of getting grants. No, they just read the peer reviewed journals where actual science is published (you probably don't own a Nexus subscription, do you?), where not a single scientist has published an article detailing how climate change isn't caused by humans.

And, last time I checked it was Exxon Mobile offering a lump sum of 10 grand to anyone who could 'prove' climate change wasn't occurring, not the US government offering that sort of money to someone who could prove the opposite.

Just like most Americans, you have no idea what the word 'science' means.

[socialmistfit]

Most science - especially climate science - is still largely based on theoretical models.

No science serve society well at all if debate is politicized and debaters are demonized.

There is a great deal of "greed" within the ranks of scientists. Greed to be published. greed to be recognized.

Even your description of your parents indicates some level of greed for recognition that they have impeccible credentials. Bravo for them. I still read plenty of real evidents that disputes the theory that climate change is not a systematic phenomemom and mostly caused by human activity.

[Grit]

Climate change aside. Don't we still need to clean up after ourselves?

[mrsolik]

That is a good question.

I love the free market. I truly do but the free market seems to neglect cleaning up after itself. This isn't a new debate. Cleaning up after ourselves has been discussed for more than 50 years. The free market refuses to make changes until the government forces them(which isn't so free). I want to defend Capitalism here and say that the Capitalist will come up with the best solutions, they often do. But how long should we wait for them to start cleaning up?

p.s. I know I'm using the term "free market" broadly and perhaps too liberally but hopefully it expresses the idea sufficiently.

[SFTor]

A ways down this thread Pharos, a poster here, asked a genuine question about what might have made Greenland inhabitable for Vikings in the year 1000. I think it is the only real question I have seen anyone pose here, myself included.

Wouldn't this be a far more fruitful endeavor if this thread wasn't one authoritative statement after the other---one disparagement of the opposition after another---and more people, myself included, were willing to admit the gaps in their knowledge, and follow Pharos into actual inquisitiveness? Could it be that we are not all so damn sure we are right?

Geez, we might actually learn something.

[MrReasonable]

I agree, there should be active debate on this subject. Unfortunately, one side of the debate refuses to even acknowledge that there is a debate.

The period you are talking about is part of the medieval warm period, a time when the planet, or at least the northern hemisphere, was warmer than it is today. That period was marked by the inhabitation of Greenland, wine growing in Great Britain, and one of the greatest times of advancement of civilization in history. In fact, scientists have noticed a correlation between warm periods and human advancement. The reverse is true also - the dark ages were marked by a time of colder than normal temperatures.

There are many questions the alarmists refuse to even address. For instance, what is the "perfect" temperature? If warmer periods were marked with greater human advancement, then why would this time be different?

[SFTor]

Well, see, that is a good question.

What is the perfect temperature? In other words, what temperature range are we looking to keep the world inside of with our policy remedies?

It does bring up a corollary question: "Why is the 1950--1980 average temperature considered particularly important?" It is a question, not a criticism.

And if it is wrong to ask the question, what is the fallacy?

[MrReasonable]

I am all for greater efficiency, and cleaner energy, but where I disagree with the alarmists is the method they propose to get us there. The actions they espouse would raise taxes on everyone, and would increase energy costs dramatically, which of course, hurts the middle class the most, not only because they will have to pay higher energy costs themselves, but they will also have to help subsidize the poor who will no longer be able to afford the high energy costs.

The fact that we are even talking about imposing higher costs on everyone now, while we are in a deep recession, makes no sense to me.

If we went about these things in a positive way, instead of a punitive way, as Obama has suggested, then we could get everyone on board. But the plans he has proposed would be devastating to our economy, and to the principles of limited government this country was founded upon. So I will work hard to block his energy proposals.

[JustAThought56]

I think that if you listen to the news media backed by industry, which is deeply invested in the status quo, you will get their perspective. But what they are not pointing out is that making changes does not have to cost more than burning coal and oil, and we are already paying high costs that are only getting higher.

We are dependent on foreign oil and this has cost us big time in wars and conflicts in the Middle East, and chaos in our economy as the price fluctuates. Climate change is introducing new diseases into our part of the world and this will be expensive to deal with. Since 1993, we have had the ten hottest years on record. That costs money. Increases in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes cost money.

There is no question that the worst case scenarios are being realized in terms of the worsening of the factors contributing to climate change, mainly because the rapid melting of the Arctic permafrost is releasing methane into the atmosphere, and China has doubled its CO2 output. We have increased ours by 20%.

Making the changes we need to make means new industry, new jobs, and technology that can be exported to other markets. We need that!

Most importantly, how can we look at our children and say "sorry, your children's future is nonexisten­t."

[lesterbud]

Nice Folks.
One has to wonder what their actual motivations are. After all, even if you want to believe that humans are not a significant cause of climate change, how could you justify being against:

Reducing carbon emissions from power plants
Increasing available power from renewable and (relatively) non-polluting sources
Reducing our dependence of foreign fossil fuels
Reducing the incidence of acid rain
Making cars that pollute less and get much higher fuel efficiencies
Developing new energy technologies that can take the place of fossil fuels, especially as those supplies run out

Can anyone out there explain how reasonably intelligent people can think these things are not good?
Is this a religious thing? A Big Business/Capitalism thing?

I doubt god could be against us reducing harm to the planet and all these new technologies will certainly expand and become profitable based on capitalistic principles.

So what are they standing on?

[tjfdownsouth]

I would not say that anyone is outright against those things. The problem I have is what the political establishment will do to our lives trying to mandate them. I completely agree that we need alternatives to fossil fuels but the disaster with ethanol leaves me concerned about how the federal government will implement these changes.

[SFTor]

I would say that most of those things are essential to accomplish.

The fact is that we live in a political world, and the Republican side will take you down if your arguments are weak or wrong.

For that matter, the U.S. auto industry just crashed because it can't deliver the products consumers want: smaller cars with better economy that pollute less, and reduce our dependence on oil.

So I think many of your capitalists are getting the message. They just needed a serious jolt, no pun intended.