Remember when Fox News and other conservative pundits were all over “Climategate”, claiming that scientists had fudged data? Well, a new study done by a scientist who was a climate change skeptic, and funded by none other than the Koch Brothers says that Climategate was a false tempest in a tea party pot and that Global warming is real.
Shouldn’t that be big news?
Abortion Bush Campaign Finance Cheney Climate Clinton Congress Conservatives Corporations Corruption Deficits Democrats Drugs Economy Education Election Elections Energy Environment Fox News Gays Guns Health Immigration Lies McCain Media Middle East Obama Palin Protests Racism Religion Republicans Romney Spying Supreme Court Taxes Tea Party Terrorism Terrorists Torture Trump Unemployment War
7 Comments
The conservatives still deny it, and now they are saying this study hasn’t been peer reviewed and the lead researcher was never a skeptic, that is liberal propaganda.
No surprise, if reality conflicts with their narrative, they attack reality.
A link with a bit more on the study and its findings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html
The book “Hot” by Mark Hertsgaard gives us about 40 more years before the east and west coasts are going under. Already at his home in Oregon (I think) he is seeing changes. Islands in the Chesapeake Bay are going under. Bangkok Thailand is having flooding from Exceptional high tides. That is how it will start. And then the wars are going to start about who gets the high ground.
I read the article with the info by Muller. I also read the comments. Seems that 30 years ago Muller was not a climate change skeptic. “2 out of 3” chances man is causing the change. Of course, this article just shows the climate change, not the cause. Just shows we are going to boiled or drowned.
What I really think….The battle isn’t about is climate change happening, of course it is, it’s always happened and always will. The question is how much are we adding or subtracting from mother earths own natural cycle of weather change. And I don’t think that is the really big question either. The biggest question IMO is how much can man-kind do to alter our piece of the change? Theres no doubt that one day we’ll all be gone, no matter what we do from either an interstellar event, or an earth related event like continental drift or volcanic activity. (if we don’t overcrowd ourselves first to the point that we can’t sustain the population). Now, in America we can adopt measures to reduce our carbon footprint, but can we convince the rest of the world and in particular places like China and India.
Here’s the question that should be getting attention. OK, so we’ve impacted our climate, now what? And if drastic measures were implemented globally and in a perfect world all the countries agreed to go 100% renewable, what would the result on the global climate be? Any? And in adopting these changes what would it do to our economies, way of life, etc. and how much time would it buy us before mother natures unstoppable changes take place and end the human race anyway? Anyone think we’ll make it another 5000 years on our present course?
I say, yes keep the environment as clean as we can so we can best enjoy the time remaining. Keep developing our science so maybe we can find a way to inhabit a neighboring planet. 100 million years from now, no one will know we were here. Why worry.
PatriotSgt, are you saying that we aren’t smart enough to solve the problem of global warming? Are you just going to throw up your hands and give up? I thought you were a soldier, how come you’re giving up so easily?
Look, we had a similar problem with CFCs, which were destroying our ozone layer, and we were able to eliminate them (including in places like China). Was it easy? No. Were there skeptics who resisted? Of course. Did we get the job done? Yes sir!
And to answer your question, if we did go 100% renewable, then yes we would have a huge impact on reducing man-made climate change. What would it do to our economy? Probably boost it by all the economic activity of finding new energy sources.
Energy is an easy problem to solve. We are awash in energy all the time. There is plenty of it everywhere. So why are we still burning fossil fuels, when we know they damage the environment, raise global temps, cause wars, destroy our beaches. Isn’t there a better way?
IK – I don’t give up and never give in (you know that from some of my hard headed posts). I’m saying we are arguing a null point. Of course their is climate change, but can we change it and by how much. Thats the science debate I’d like to hear. I also know that people always resist change becausae they think their way will last. If we show them it doesn’t matter, so lets do things for the best while we have the time.
I agree on the CFCs, we were able to make huge change, also switching to unleaded gas. I visited some 3rd world countries in the 80’s/90’s still burning leaded gas and man what a difference. These are all good things. Get the brains out of the routine of wasting their time on proving climate change, which is always happening and get them into provinding a means to overcome that change.
Basically, I’m tired of talking about it, now what are we going to do about it. I’m an action guy, evaluate my solutions and make a choice. Solars OK, but not good enough, wind is OK, but not good enough. We need something different. We need a 21st+ century solution. And probably one of those knuckleheads protesting has the idea but they’re too busy camping out in a park. 🙂
One Trackback/Pingback
[…] every bit of The Daily Show you can find is of course a good idea. But a recent notable snippet: Climate Change is Real (but the media isn’t nearly as interested in the debunking of “ClimateGate” as […]