If your electrician tells you that there is a 30 percent risk that your house will set on fire if you do not change your cables, would you call another electrician? If the next electrician confirms the 30 percent risk, would you hire a third, fourth or fifth electrician in the hope of finding one who would reject the risk? Imagine that you talked to 100 electricians -- 97 recommend that you should change the cables, three reject the risk of fire -- who would you listen to? My guess is that you would change the cables immediately.
When it comes to climate change the picture is completely upside down. Regardless of the fact that 97 percent of the world's leading climate scientists agree that human-caused global warming is real, several journalists, experts and politicians still continue to question the reality and the seriousness of global warming. They continue to question the 97 percent of the climate scientists' findings, motives, and recommendations -- as if they are teamed up in the greatest scientific plot in history.
It is absurd to accuse 97 percent of the leading climate scientists of wanting to scheme against the entire world. It is absurd to accuse 97 percent of the leading scientists to believe in climate change to promote their personal careers or for profit. It is even more absurd that these accusations are put forward by leading media and politicians.
For years, radio and TV host Glenn Beck has advocated that global warming is "the greatest scam in history." Fox News has led a long campaign against climate change, peaking the last couple of months, with what almost resembles a personal vendetta against Al Gore and his supporters. In March, the Republicans on the US House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee voted unanimously against an amendment acknowledging the scientific view that Earth's temperature is rising.
The latest argument stated by the climate change skeptics are that the cold winter, which we experienced in North America and Europe in 2010, is a smoking gun proving the falsity of global warming. But with 2010 tied with 2005 in being the warmest year ever, the gun is not so smoking after all. The climate skeptics' case is crumbling. This is further underlined by the fact that experts willing to support the case are dwindling. Last month, Fox News had to post what resembles a personal ad seeking global warming skeptics.
But even though the proofs, arguments and support of the climate change skeptics are diminishing by the minute, they still get a lot of attention. Unfortunately people do listen to them. No wonder -- it is much easier to grasp simplifications and accusations than technical scientific facts. A poll released in February by the Office for National Statistics in the U.K. indicated that the number of climate skeptics in the U.K. had nearly doubled during the last four years. A poll from Rasmussen Reports in January shows that 38 percent of the Americans are not concerned about global warming and that 44 percent believes that global warming is primarily caused by planetary trends.
The fact is that climate change is happening and accelerating. For long, researchers at NASA, UN, and NOAA have presented a large amount of evidence, data, and facts supporting man-made climate change. They have warned, with increasing urgency, that if we carry on with business as usual, the effect will be devastating -- we are looking at a possible world catastrophe. Consequently we are faced with a great paradox: as the climate change is increasing, our worries are rapidly decreasing.
It is now up to us to decide, whether we can afford to ignore the recommendations from 97 percent of the climate change experts. There is a small chance that they could possibly be wrong. But we owe it to ourselves, the next generations, and the planet to give the scientists the benefit of doubt. The human race should not put its fate in the hands of just three percent -- with a great risk of betraying the next generation. Should you?
Michael T. Klare: Why We Underestimate the Earth and Overestimate Ourselves
It's interesting that conservatives often see natural disasters as "God's wrath" for some imagined sin, but they ignore the possibility that God really IS angry at man for f*#king up the environment, and if we put some effort into mitigating our negative impact on the environment we might not have as much wild and destructive weather as we have witnessed in recent years.
Demonstrating once again that global warming alarmists and their media allies are little different from “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” the just-released Nature follow-up study shows the global phytoplankton population is growing, not declining.
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/04/27/another-global-warming-crisis-canceled-for-lack-of-evidence/
We’ll patiently wait for a retraction and an apology from the alarmists about spreading unwarranted alarm about yet another false global warming scare.
QUESTION: How many times to the global warming alarmist fanatics have to be wrong before you will stop believing them and admit that it's just a scam?
.... alarmists... media allies..... alarmists... unwarranted alarm... false global warming scare...alarmist fanatics..... scam...
It certainly looks to me like the ones who are trying to spread alarm are .... those who would deny global warming. It certainly looks to me like the ones who are trying to argue through invictive are... the global warming deniers.
And oh, by the way... the rebuttal in Nature was mainly critical of the error in matching up data from disparate sources. It didn't say anything about a scam or a hoax. It looks to me like the only one trying to spred scam or hoax around here ..... is you!
Seemingly they seem to think that if they blame this group- which everyone right of center despises, the problems of global warming will magically 'go away' since the hobbyists will 'take care' of the problem.
This inane attitude is just a prelude- of how one culture- one made of plutocrats and corporations will more then likely (97% chance) Send a civilization that took 12,000 years to build over a cliff into an abyss.
What a way to go! And throw away 12,000 years of human progress.
www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
It's morally reprehensible, but I won't be surprised if the American Conservative will be the deaths of us all.
Right now Florida law says that billboard companies can cut down trees growing on the state's roadsides for up to 500 feet from a billboard — so long as they get a permit from the state, pay money to a fund for planting more trees elsewhere, and tear down a certain number of billboards that don't meet state standards.
State Sen. Greg Evers wants to change all that. Evers, R-Baker, is sponsoring a bill that would let billboard companies decide for themselves whether they want to make up for chopping down trees that belong to taxpayers.
The billboard companies would still need a permit, which would cost no more than $25. But that's all.
The decision about paying the state any money for the trees would be up to the company, according to SB 1570, which is slated for a vote in the Senate Budget Committee today. And there would be no requirement to give up any billboards.
Environmental groups say the bill could result in the destruction of thousands of trees on state land, trees worth millions of dollars to the taxpayers. "There is no justification for a private company going onto public land and cutting public trees," said Eric Draper of Audubon of Florida."
From St. Pete Times.
All of those things are happening.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/moist_convection_prt.htm
Hey! Look, more storms!
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/april-severe-scorecard_2011-04-18
Take fracking; geologist have been saying for years it is safe and useful took to get natural gas.
Along comes a movie with anecdotal evidence a Marine Biologist out of Cornell University writes a paper about fracking that does not get out of peer review and the environmental left says fracking is worse than coal mining!
Science should never be left to public opinion polls! And a Marine Biologist should not be writing Geology papers any more than Glen Beck should be writing Climate Change papers!
Yes, 75 of 77 is 97%.
Thought there were more scientists than that?
Well, first you EXCLUDE "the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth - out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers."
That left 10,257 deemed 'worthy' for this on-line survey.
But only 3146 bothered to answer it, and only 83% of that selected (for their bias) group agreed on AGW. So they narrowed that down to a cherry picked sample of 77, and voila, 97% of them agreed. Most astonishing that it wasn't 100%.
Here's a link to the original paper:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf
I would ask, if the evidence was so strong, why is such an invalid poll being exploited?
And when that poll only confirms that climate change is real, it says absolutely nothing about CO2 being the sole cause, let alone whether anything can be done about it.
As for accelerating change, that is clearly a false statement. The earth has been cooling for over a decade, according to Hadcrut, the global temp data series used by the IPCC.
When your house is at stake, some simple logic will tell you it's perfectly safe. Don't believe those attempting to scare you away.
That's why this author has tried to substantiate the position with a poll of actual scientists.
As it has been shown, it is a bogus and meaningless poll.
If there was any substance to AGW, it wouldn't need such flimsy evidence to support it.
What does not get said is that we may not just be looking at a warmer earth with considerably different climate patterns - We may be looking at an Earth that will become more like Venus.
The author of this article seems to be of the opinion that climate deniers in positions of power really believe what they preach. How naïve.
Here is my version of the electrical cable analogy: your electrician tells you there is a 30% chance your house will burn down if you do not change the cables. You believe him, but scout for an electrician that, for a larger sum of money, will deny it. Armed with this information, you realize your best course of action is to quickly sell your house as is, in order not to sustain any financial loss. So, you put it on the market, and if asked by a gullible buyer about the condition of the electrical system, you lie, deny any problem, and produce the phony opinion to support your denial. Get it?
Denialism is a potent tool to manipulate the gullible. Climate “denialists” in positions of power fully know radical climate change is real. They know the best way for them to personally survive it is to preach denial so they can amass enormous sums of money from inaction. It is actually quite a clever/devious plan because, when the effects of radical climate change finally hit, those with the most financial resources will be in the best position to survive.
The powerful can do as they please, and the rest will be left to contemplate the outcome.
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
A research organization
"Perhaps the deniers are only concerned about how much of this planet they can squeeze out before they shuffle off (this mortal coil...)."
Maybe casting it as a rental property would work even better.