FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Al Gore called global warming "An Inconvenient Truth"... but suddenly a lot of people are asking what the truth really is. It's been dubbed ClimateGate.
A climate scientist at the center of a growing controversy over hacked e-mails is stepping down from a British University's climate research unit under a cloud of suspicion.
Critics point to a thousand pages of leaked e-mails and documents between this scientist and others which they say prove that global warming is not a threat. They say researchers are ignoring data that questions whether global warming is real, and have conspired to discredit those who question the phenomenon.
Here in the U.S., some members of Congress are demanding a hearing into research done by the climate change panel of the U.N. to find out if it "cooked the books" on global warming.
This is all coming to light right ahead of the global climate summit in Copenhagen. What's the old expression? "Timing is everything."
The scientists who believe in global warming say their case is based on "all kinds of evidence," like what's happening to the ice in the Arctic. The White House insists that "climate change is happening," adding they don't think the science is "in dispute anymore" among most people.
But not everyone is convinced.... A recent poll shows the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped from 80 to 72 percent in the past year.
Here’s my question to you: Do you think the scientific community has been honest when it comes to global warming?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Keith from Virginia writes:
Jack, No real scientist will say, right now, that climate change we see is due to anything humans are doing or ever did. What they should say is that we still, with all our supercomputers, cannot predict the weather nor our influence on it. What these scientists did is reprehensible and unethical; what Al Gore did is manipulate the facts for his own political gain.
Well, migratory animals and insects have changed course and satellites show that the ice in the Arctic is melting. The oceans are heating up as well. Polar bears are drowning... So, I would say: yes, the scientists are being honest. What do independent scientists have to lose? Do they have more to lose than politicians who are in the pockets of Big Oil and Coal?
Guna from Jamesville, New York writes:
Global warming has been taking place ever since the last ice age. Unless the climate remains exactly the same forever (and this is not a possibility) it is bound to warm or cool. We are now in a period of warming and unless you would like another ice age we should just accept it. That is not to say we shouldn't clean up our air, water and trash before we poison ourselves. If we don't do that soon, we will not have to worry about the climate at all.
D. from Massachusetts writes:
Something smells funny. I always thought scientists wanted to find the truth. Naive me. The apparent effort to suppress inconvenient information is disturbing. Hope they look into it, and recheck the reported observations that were the basis for the green revolution.
Absolutely. The only question is: “how much" is the climate changing? Should we wait until billions are starving, here in the U.S. and around the world, before deciding we should have done something years ago?
Man-induced global warming? Don't hold your breath! Americans are supposed to turn themselves into hunter-gatherers and return to the rice paddies while the rest of the planet tries to achieve Al Gore's lifestyle. How inconvenient!
The climate has always fluctuated (with or without man), but these so called scientists appear to have political motivations. We better hold off on cap and trade.
Rather than poll all Americans whether or not they believe global warming is true, perhaps you should poll scientists who understand the data. As a scientist myself, I imagine you would get a much different result. I don't personally know another scientist who doubts it.
Honest? Absolutely not. How can they even conduct their experiments when their noses are Pinocchio-long? Al Gore should be arrested. This is about politics, which means it's about money, power, and control.
Keeping my sweater handy.
One can believe its occurring, but debate the scale by which its occurring – and hence, the amount of sacrifice we all will have to accept to reduce CO2 emissions. This will involve trillions of dollars, wealth transfers to poorer countries, and years upon years of changes in lifestyle.
If scientists are arguing the crisis is enormous, and enormous sacrifice is required, so be it.. but when one suspects they are gaming their conclusions, working to make political or dogmatic points rather than ones based on hard evidence, its harder to agree with the changes they are stating are absolutely necessary..
I believe that the climate is changing. I also believe that these scientists were too aggressive in their campaign to silence critics and should have been more open with all of their research. Just because the scientists misbehaved doesn't make the science bad.
I think the debate is over on that one Jack. They have not been honest. by the way, thanks for being one of the few in the mainstream media to bring up climategate - it's odd that no else will touch it.
Finally, someone is turning attention to "ClimateGate," a dirty little (actually big) scandal where tenured college professor experts are being investigated for doctoring the data, publishing bogus results and threatening to ban other researchers who dispute their claims from scholarly publishing outlets. Al Gore's Powerpoint presentation is probably directly linked to these data and their interpretations.
This has implications that are much bigger than health care reform, White House party crashers and Tiger Woods's moving violation.
Thanks for noticing this!
Do you think the scientific community has been honest when it comes to global warming?
In a word – No
Had they let the other side of the argument be known, perhaps attitudes would differ.
When one side completely shuts down the other side, then my suspicions are aroused.
I personally believe that global warming is a real thing. Yes, the Earth does go through it's natural cycles every 10 thousand or so years, but the rate of change in the climate has been more rapid than usual during this period of 1000 years than history has shown other, earlier periods of the same time duration to be. Besides, whether you believe in the concept of Global Warming or not, it is our duty as a human race to take care of the environment on which we live in. Can we at least commit to cutting CO2 emmisions from the atmosphere? I am a college student wanting to see a better future for future generations. Please people, I am going to commit to that, but I want you to as well.
NO, not in the sense that man has a signifigant impacty.
Anyone who reads the emails can say they cherry picked the data to suit their pre-conceived notions. They disposed of data and test results that show that there is no "global warming". The scientists that support global warming have done everything they can to silence any research that does not support their claims. The sceintists that are on the UN's panel have gone to great lengths to only use studies that support their claims, they have also gone top great lengths to make sure no one could see all of the data upon which they base their claims. No repeatable tests or data then the conclusion that you reach is invalid.
Of course they have. It's not just the melting of the Arctic. There are also flowing streams in Antarctica, the Greenland and Iceland ice caps are melting, as are most of the world's glaciers. All of the above were frozen only decades ago. How much of it is caused by humans and how much is natural is debatable but burning fossil fuels and releasing ozone-depleting chemicals into the atmosphere is undoubtedly contributing. Cap in trade is a bad answer but I can't understand why so many are opposed to clean energy and energy independence.
I definitely think that the scientific community has been dishonest when it comes to global warming.
Stifling dissent and refuses to produce data to Freedom of Information acts is not only unscientific, it is criminal in nature.
In no way do I think that global warming is real. They're finding ship wrecks near the North Pole. That suggests that ice cap of the North wasn't as prevelant as it is today. Second, tempuratures change all the time. There is documents and literature from the 16th century refering to unseasonably warm weather for a long period of time followed by colder than normal weather. Also, go back through recent history here in the U.S. and we'll see that most of the high tempurature records happened 40 years ago and the record cold tempuratures happend 30 years ago. Don't get me wrong, be better to the environment but global warming is a farse.
I think most of us have suspected they were at worst presenting a biased misleading conclusion to the facts. I don't think anybody could have predicted just how far they went to manipulate data, discredit and silence those who disagree, and destroy data that didn't fit their pre-formed hypothesis. Most these researchers aren't even scientists... they're life-long academics with an agenda. They completely ignored the truth and made a concerted effort to hide the truth from us all. They are risking ruining our planet through financial devestation far worse than the FALSE man-made climate change argument they make ever could have done to the environment.
Good question. Honestly, I could care less about climate change. What I do care about is sensible energy conservation and development of 21st century technologies that will help us end our reliance upon Arab oil, which in my opinion, is the REAL problem here, not earth's warming–which has happened many times before, I might add.
My point is that most of these political dummies now screaming about global warming didn't give a hoot about it when it wasn't the political "fad" it is now. Think back to the 1990s when they all lusted over the bigger-is-better SUV craze. I have always stressed conservation and have lived my life as efficiently as possible. I do so mainly because I don't want to pay more than I have to for energy and gas.
Enough already. They are using it as a tool to elect politicians of their own ilk. That's all. Just get us off Arab oil and let us be once again the leaders in innovative technological breakthroughs. In doing so, then you have also solved this climate problem, so everyone wins!
Who cares Jack? If the global warmer crowd is right, we are doomed. If the other side is right, all is well. Let's all watch more football and relax.
I believe in climate change as a matter of the obvious. There is only 1 specie that has done extraordinary damage to the planet and that is US. The poisons we produce and the degradation of the environment are obvious so how could it NOT be creating climate change when the planet is SO ABUSED by humanity? It is a no brainer that even a simple factory worker like me can see. There is a ARROGANCE AND DENIAL by so many in DEFENSE of being human and humanity. Oh we cannot have done THAT as specie! We are too GOOD to have! Like a man saying men cannot do violence because they are too good to do it too above it.... Denial of it is an Arrogance of our Specie.
It's pretty obvious that these scientists have been misleading with their data. In the emails, they admit using methods intended to change how their data looks so that it supports their preconceived conclusions. Furthermore, they admit that there is currently no warming occurring and that they need to "account: for that somehow. On the whole, these statements call into question their methods and purpose, and consequently all their research as well.
No, I don't think global warming is happening. I think the scientific community is bending facts all for money and attention. There is just as much data showing that global warming is not happening.
To elaborate, the folks who seem most resistant to the idea are also folks who seem to be not well versed in scientific inquiry. I think I'll trust the scientists actually working in the field.
And as far as the emails that 'created' "ClimateGate," mockery of deniers does not constitute evidence that global warming is not real.
As a biochemist in the renewable energy sector, I have to say...I have no idea. There are really not that many scientists that study this specific problem (weather and climate change), and it's difficult for people like me to get into the hardcore data when we are devoted to other projects. By the way,this is the first I have seen of this story on a major news site. Way to go Jack!! Since it seems we can't trust climate scientists to investigate their own, we will have to rely on some sort of scientist/journalist hybrid to bring reliable information to the public. Good luck finding someone who isn't biased.
Is the scientific community or any community honest today. It's all about money and fame.
I believe some scientists have distorted their findings, nevertheless I believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest there is warming going on. I am suspicious of people who get emotional about their arguments and I sense more of this from the sceptics than the proponents. Setting that aside: what do the developed nations do? If india and china don't do their bit I believe it's better to spend money on surviving the impacts of possible climate change than capping emissions. Altenative energies and conserving water etc make good sense whether there is climate change or not.
Global warming is a fact. However, the dishonesty is in the reason why. The answer is no one really knows. We do know that the surface of Mars is heating the same as the surface of the earth (see the NASA website). The NASA website says that Mars is heating up for a different reason than earth and is in danger of losing its southern ice cap. My carbon footprint does not extend that far. The change may be a normal anomaly.
The question is what do scientists have to gain by promoting the global warming theory. I can't think of what they gain, maybe proceeds from books, but very little else. The industries that are against the global warming theory are the oil and fossil fuel industries because they will be out of business if we take the initiative to move over to alternative fuel sources as it is thought that fossil fuels are putting pollutants into the atmosphere that are causing global warming. So you can somewhat understand their view albeit a short term view. If we wait to find out, we could be under water and it will cost billions to bail us out. And let's face it, burning fossil fuels is just plain unhealthy.
To answer the question: I'm not sure what to think anymore. This article basically states that the UN panel may have cooked the books, but presents no empirical conclusion on whether it did or not. Further investigation is going to be needed before anyone can make up their minds about the truthfulness of the UN panel and the scientific community.
I don't think we can really know since it appears that the pro climate change scientists have been actively trying to kill any publication of competing ideas. When all of the information is not made available it discredits all conclusions.
Mostly. As in all science, there are unknowns. But even without science, it is only common sense that there *HAS TO BE* an effect from billions of people pouring out CO2 while simultaneously destroying the rain forests that clean our air.
Jack, the fact is that a lot of rich, powerful entities have a lot to lose if we take the necessary steps to curb global warming, and they are doing everything in their power to discredit the science that points to glogal warming. This is more of the same.
I support global warming. I live in northern Wisconsin and would like to grow orange trees and harvest pecans. Although hydrocarbon emissions may not be a contributor according to some, please burn more fossil fuels to help my cause just in case.Thanks.
I think Al Gore and his Global Warming cronies are in this to take money from our wallets.
Science is about the truth, and if you distort the truth to spin it your way, you tarnish not only your reputation but everything science stands for. So to answer your question Jack, I will sum it up in two words: hell no!
The rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is easily measured and indisputable. The question is how much this will increase temperature and in what time frame. Ignoring the problem will be disastrous.
Of course they are NOT honest. It would be counter-productive to their careers if funding and donations ceased and so they continue the lies. Don't get me wrong, I am all for cleaner water, air, and land, and if cleaning up the world to simply improve our planet is what they are aiming for then I'm on board. but don't shove inaccurate data down our throats, concoct lies because the likes of Al Gore are forcing you to, or otherwise be dishonest in your research because you simply want the money to continue rolling in.
Absolutely not. They have been dishonest from the start. But half the blame falls on journalists. It's journalisms fault for believing whatever they were told and not checking before opinionating, for giving Al Gore a voice that had no dissent or questions asked. You all are to easy to believe someone so long as they hold the same political beliefs you do.
As a meteorologist who sits in the 'dissent' category, I do not believe the scientific community has been well behaved. The planet's climate will ALWAYS change - we live on a dynamic globe that receives radiation from a star, whose output is NOT always constant. Let's not forget that the earth's inclination and orbital eccentricity is NOT always constant either. The Global Warming alarmists point to the melting of arctic ice, but somehow seem to neglect mentioning that it happened a thousand years ago too (before the Industrial Revolution) - a.k.a. the Greenland Warm Period.
I think the scientific community has NOT been honest. If they were to tell the truth, they'd lose their jobs, their funding and their place in the scientific community. The whole cap and trade scheme is nothing but a power and money grab. While we should reduce pollution and live with as little damage to the environment as possible, critics claim (with much credibility) that the earth is constantly changing but not because of human activity. It's not plausible to think that we cause all the fluctuations nor that we can fix them. Remember in the 70s when our esteemed scientists declared we were heading for the next ice age? And these same brilliant folks declared only recently that, oops! Pluto's not a planet! Science is completely imperfect and is being used for political purposes.
Jack, of course it's real. Ask any airline pilot who's been flying for at least 30 years. he'll tell you that once the sky was clear to the horizon, but now you can see the the grayish-brown haze almost everywhere from cruising altitude.
That one scientist turned out to be a scammer is not enough reason to doubt the validity of all science or scientists. Thousands upon thousands of scientists have millions of dat point demonstrating that global warming is real and that humanity is contributing to it. Tracking traces of tagged hydrocarbons which settle out of the atmosphere onto melting arctic ice is not a myth. But then, maybe we should revert to the days of the flat earth believers....
I doubt their numbers or timelines could ever be "perfect or exact". Scienctific knowledge does have limits especially on planetary scale, but all you have to do to know global warming is happening is look at how quickly the ice in the northern and southern poles is disappearing, and how many animal species are being threatened by climate change. Let alone how bad some of the storms have been getting over the years.
Are we talking about "global warming" or "climate change"? If the WH says climate change is happening, that's a no brainer - climates change all the time. Global warming - that's another issue.
If we are talking about global warming, science is one of those fields of study where study methodology is key to determining whether the data collected supports a theory - in this case, global warming.
I don't think the entire scientific community has been honest; there needs to be a study of the global warming studies done to determine the methodologies and data used.
Remember, in the 1970s, there was talk of the forthcoming next Ice Age.
Yes, I feel as though the scientific community has been honest when it comes to global warming. Scientist are sharing their data, and like everything else, the results can vary, however, among the scientific community it seems to be that global warming is a threat to our world. The only people that still cant except the fact that this is an issue are those conservatives who are going to resist change no matter how much scientific evidence supports it.
Man induced global warming? Don't hold your breath!
Americans are supposed to turn themselves into hunter gatherers and return to the rice paddies while the rest of the planet tries to achieve Al Gore's lifestyle. How inconvenient!
I don't understand the anti-global warming point of view. Even if global warming isn't real, and it's becoming hard to ingore the data that says otherwise, how is doing things to improve the health of our planet bad? Isn't taking action on global warming a win-win?
Red Oak, Iowa
Many in the global warming community seem to have forgotten how the "scientific method" works. Develop a hypothesis, collect real data and test against the hypothesis. If you beleive you have evidence, publish the work for peer review, and not just by a small group of like minded individuals who all seeking government grant money. Any real scientist SHOULD be looking for evidence that disproves global warming with the same fervor that they look for supporting evidence. Al Gore nailed that coffin when he pronounced that the "science was settled".
Fort Worth, Tx
Jack, no real scientist will say, right now, that climate change we see is due to anything humans are doing or ever did. What they should say is that we still, with all our supercomputers, cannot predict the weather nor our influence on it. What these scientists did is reprehensible and unethical; what Al Gore did is manipulate the facts for his own political gain.
NO!!!!!!, even the data at the National Climatic Data Center for NOAA has been "adjusted" and they admit it. The coincidence is that the adjusted value is 0.4 deg F, which is the value trumpeted as proof of global warming. Research performed by John Christie at the Univ of Alabama in Huntsville showed that the surface temps measured by NASA, had not changed. His numbers were then "adjusted" on the back end to show an increase.
It is a fact that the ice cap on the North Pole has receded, it also a fact the South Pole has not. It is a fact that volcanic activity under the North Pole is at record levels. Do you think that might be the reason the ice is melting?
Anyone who bothers to read the actual scientific literature behind climate change cannot help but come away convinced that we are causing it. Climate change is controversial only in a political, not a scientific sense. One can always trot out skeptics and naysayers under the guise of "expertise" who will claim censorship and suppression of their supposedly valid "alternative viewpoints" (and this is equally true for HIV causing AIDS, the Holocaust, evolution, and probably the round earth as well). I suspect the emailed exchanges among UEA researchers to repeated pestering by skeptics are probably very similar to what curators of the Holocaust museum would feel if always pressed by Holocaust deniers under the guise of FIOA. The science behind human-induced climate change is voluminous and in the peer-reviewed journals for all to see, if only the skeptical policy makers would bother to look at it.
we all want to have a clearn air and wonderful earth to live on this earth. but someone(s) out there have make so much money out of this cause. Al Gore is the one, therefore i do not believe anyone now.
The dust bowl was that a regular cycle of the earth or was it man made. Is California always on fire? these are just questions i wonder when scientist say man does not have an effect on the earths environment. especially when paid for their opinion.
In 1968 I was in the 8th grade. We studdied the scientific evidence of the comming of the next ICE AGE, global cooling, in fact, because both poles of the Earth are covered in ice, we are technically STILL in an ice age. The global warming extremists will lead you to believe carbon dioxide is bad for the environment. Obviously they were asleep during class when photosynthesis was studdied.
While it looks like some climate scientists have not been as honest as I would want, many opponents of climate change have been very dishonest; making up evidence, ignoring "inconvenient" evidence, being selective about the evidence they use to support their fixed belief. I find the behavior of climate change opponents to be much more unethical than that of the scientists revealed in the climate email 'gate.
The media is going to play this like everything else they do. So one set a people cooked some books or a few numbers, so what. There is more than enough evidence from many many difference sources on global warming with proving evidence. Does this mean we all can go home and take the catalic converters off our cars now?
Jack, I honestly don't! I find it very odd that their hasn't been a real debate on this subject. All you see is Al Gore flying around in his private jet telling people how to live.
We need a real debate with real facts and let us not forget we are still in an ice age.
I think climate change is occuring, not limited to global warming.
100 years ago, these scientists would have made dire predictions about how horse manure from the growing number of horse carrieages is flooding our cities. Climate change (a horrible term, what does climate do BUT change) may be happening, but predictions decades out are absurd and ignore the collossal impact future technology will make
Unfortunately, too many people assume that scientists are all equally capable. That is certainly not true. "Pompous incompetence" infects many disciplines. It is a sad commentary on our society.
The leaked emails prove nothing about whether or not global warming is actually real. All we know for sure is that climate "change" is real. We might actually be heading into another ice age.
Clearly politicians like Al Gore lack credibility, but just as clearly the ice sheet losses in Greenland and the open water in the arctic ocean plus loss of sheet ice in the Antarctic are hard to explain away without some extremely large scale mechanism at work. I am not sure why standard process cannot work here, data is published, held up for peer review and defense and the cycle starts again with more data, review, defense and on and on. Seems to me the cart is in front of the horse.. forget the politicians for now.. make the science work like it has since it was invented and once the body of evidence is presentable then turn the politicians loose on it. Does not really matter what 72% of the people think.. it is what it is.
The problem is that global warming has been shoved down everyone's throat by the media. The evidence against it has been available but no one has listened in the past. It just goes to show how much those with power can get away with, leading to policies that will cost Americans money they do not have.
No, the scientific community has not been honest about projected climate change and mankind's role (or non-role) in it. I have been a professional geologist in the private sector for nearly forty years, and therefore not dependent on government funds for research grants. ALL of my industry colleagues have been laughing at this farce ever since it started. Not the professors, however; they are afraid to state the obvious for fear of losing funding. How's that for not-so-subtle government control? Big Brother has been in charge of "global warming" from the start, and it's been working. RE: Al Gore's Nobel Prize for knowing nothing and spouting convenient untruths.
Climate models are based on normalized equations and unknown assumptions about what paleo-climates MIGHT have been like. Carbon data assumes an un-proven constant as the baseline and that extrapolation is all theoretical. We have no way of knowing the rate of carbon sequestration or production prior to modern techniques, and so there is really no way of knowing whether we are increasing carbon or not. The resulting problem is that current 'scientists' grab the underlying theory that they like the best and use it to develop their models. The whole idea that an individual can change an ecosystem the size of a planet is off-kilter. We are basing everything off of assumptions that cannot be proven.
Clearly the scientific community has not been honest about global warming and has worked diligently to silence critics. If the scientific facts about man-made warming are completely solid and irrefutable why work not only to silence critics and not provide all data too the standard peer review? The worst part of this is if the data is legitimate, these scientists have acted in a way to make their findings, including the "lost temperature data", appear to be a concerted effort to hide, mislead and coerce public opinion based on what they believe and not what they can prove. If you can't prove your hypothesis, doesn't that in and of itself mean it is not a fact and simply conjecture?
I think the evidence for warming is pretty conclusive. The evidence that it is man made, or possible to prevent is not. If america switched to 100% nuclear/wind/hydro power this instant and every car in the u.s. was switched over to electric by next year, would the worlds climate stop changing? I don't think its possible to show that scientifically.
It's simple math. The majority of the scientific community have nothing to gain without a crisis. "Global warming" also plays into the hands of politicians and nations with redistribution-based agendas. The Earth has been warming and cooling for eons; to blame it on Mankind is a way to control Mankind.
The bottom line to me with the whole Global warming debate is, regardless of what side you are on, don't we all want a cleaner and healthier environment to live in?
This issue is so important, both to The World as a whole and to the standing of science in the community at large, that we cannot afford to have any uncertainties. The fact that people are still doubtful after so many years of study surely means something ?
Politics and Science should not mix at this level !!
Houston Texas .
I'm in the Seattle area.
I've never been convinced that the case was as airtight as we've been led to believe.
I think that most likely the data is inconclusive but that environmentalists are using the issue as a fear-mongering tool to get people and countries to be more environmentally conscious.
Although their end goal might be admirable, their tactics are no different than George Bush using false WMD data to justify invading Iraq.
And sadly, it appears that a lot of scientists compromised their professional integrity in order to hop on the bandwagon.
There is a long history of science being bent to further political ends. The climate change agenda is a power grab.
I like Michele Bachman's approach. "It's just the natural order of things"
I believe that we are messing up the planet but sometimes the climate-mania and populist data analysis is a bit hard to swallow.
A big part of what I question is the term "in all of history".
This is usually used around data received from technology that is only 50 years old. We don't know what the ice fields were like 100 years ago. The only data back then were observations made by ships, not satellite pictures. Not exactly the whole picture.
Then the tree ring data. There are a number of scientists who are using the thickness of tree rings to prove what temps were to within 1 degree in areas 2- 3 hundred years ago. Not possible.
Like I said, I'm not a denier, but, if all the data is not being taken into account then we could end up messing things up worse.
Obviously they havent, why else would they dump so much of the raw data they used to make their conclusions?
My next question is to the MSM as to why they aren't covering climategate at all?
Considering that trillions of dollars and burdensome regulations are on the line, you'd think they'd give a little more air time. But perhaps they're all in on it oo.
Making people afraid of something intangible is a good way to enact control. If people fear something they can't prove or disprove, they will assume it is true just to be safe, whether its the global warming hoax, Y2K, swine flu, or God. Personally, I believe global warming is a sham to get people to invest in "green" companies, redistribute global wealth, and pass new taxes under the guise of cap-and-trade, etc.
-Steve, NY, NY
Absolutely not. What can you believe when the original climate temperature data is supposedly lost and then replaced with data by scientists who try to hide the true results.
This is just another example of muddying the water.
The scientific community has largely been honest about climate change. The general consensus is that there is something going on. But that answer is politically unpopular. So there is pressure to leave politicians room to hedge.
There may be an indication here and there where something significant may not get published, and that must be addressed. But this has become so political that people are using any excuse at all to do nothing.
While there is no problem with questioning the idea of global warming, the fact that belief in global warming is 72% as opposed to 80% is meaningless. The opinions of people who have not researched this topic are entirely meaningless. Natural phenomena do not occur because people believe that they occur. This is one of the dumbest juxtapositions of cause and effect I have ever heard of. It is possible that new research will overturn prior beliefs about the effects of global warming, but that will imply that some scientists were wrong, not deceptive. If you believe that science at large is attempting to fool you, you should stop trusting anyone who has anything to do with science. See how far that opinion gets you.
What gets me is the lack of historical info provided. Even if we have temperature records that go back hundreds of years that is a drop in the bucket when looking at climate change through the life-cycle of the earth. How many times has the earth warmed up enough to virtually eliminate all ice? We've seen info on Ice Ages but what about Warm Ages? Is this global warming period of the past 100 years a sustained period of warming or a blip? If (big IF) we are in a period of sustained global warming is it part of the natural cycle of things?
I dont understand why global warming is so politicized. I can understand abortion, gun rights, big/small gov., but I dont get global warming. Is it because a popular Dem. came out w/a movie about it, and won a peace prize? Is that why the Rep. are so against it? Its our earth, there are scientist who study these things. Some probably get $ and maybe 'cook the books' but why is there such a devide in politics? I watch CNN mostly and see reports of ice melting, bears dying, jellyfish swarming, and passages in the artic we can now sail through, but then on FOX they say its all a hoax. If it is happening why would you be against suporting study? I dont think we should ignore the signs, we should keep studing. Maybe its just the natural cycle of earth, maybe its the millions of cars on the road catching up to us.
Obviously they haven't been. If the proof and theories that they say support their position can not withstand honest criticism or alternative theories then the whole premise is shaky and they must be aware of that. If they believed in their position they would not have had to try to stifle dissenting views.
as a scientist whom just happens to be working on climate issues, I can tell you that my research is sound. I no longer waste time trying to convince the naysayers...I have far too important things to do.
Climate change is inevitable considering that the universe is constantly evolving, as is our planet. Given that the Earth has been around for billions of years and we are here but a blink, how can there be any conclusive data that the Earth is warming? Who's to say that there are not both warming and cooling trends that balance out over billions of years? And are we so arrogant enough to think that humans have that much impact on the planet? Get over it guys.
Its a crock! people want to push thier agenda so they twist facts. I read on line that the earth goes through cycles. What about the ice age? How did that snow melt must have been some global warming for all that to melt! I think we all like to think we are important or significant. I agree with conserving energy and recycling all sensible things. The end of the world hell no!
I believe most scientists are sincere in their belief that global warming (now a.k.a. "climate change") is occurring, but have become so invested in the concept itself that they've somewhat left the realm of science and entered the realm of religion. They wish to be "right" so much now that they must make the data fit their preconceived ideas.
My problem with the whole man made global warming threat that is being pushed down our throats is the fact that the people doing the pushing constantly state that the issue is a fact.
Nothing in science is considered fact without question. Thats what makes it science, the continual effort to determine the validity of a stated assertion through repeated experiments. These hacks, and I call them hacks because they presume to dictate science to the people instead of propose it as possibilities as it should be, have perverted the legitimate work that has been done on climate science by falsifying data, and attempting to cover up the facts.
Without objecivity there can be no true scientific work, and with the explosively politicized nature of the global warming argument, it is difficult to find that level of objectivity in anyone. That is what is truly unfortunate because this should be a scientific effort brining out the best in science due to the global effect it could have.
The funding for most of this research comes from people and organizations with strong economic ties to environmental issues. Scientists are people too and it is tough to tell your benefactors things that they don't want to hear. If the numbers don't come through, funding might dry up. I don't know why we think scientists are above this, it seems baffling to me.
Climate change is real, its extant has most likely been exaggerated.
Scientists can be bought by industry critics – happens all the time.
Any poll of the public is just going to illuminate the consensus stupidity – see belief in ghosts, ufo, god, etc.
What you need is a meta-survey of independent scientists, moderated by independent scientists.
Will that appease the compromised critics, those who fear science, or the largely ignorant public – not on your life!
But it would give you some good liner notes when you're explaining to your grandkids why we sold the planet down the river.
I believe that global warming is occurring BUT I don't believe there is evidence to support that it is caused by man. We know so little about the earth's natural weather patterns (one hundred years of data for a planet billions of years old). Events that are statistically accurate may have no real causal relationship. For example from 1936 through 2000, the success or failure of the NFL Redskins football team on the Sunday before Tuesday’s presidential election seemed to predict the next president of the United States. If the Redskins won, the incumbent’s party retained the White House. If the Redskins lost, the incumbent’s party lost. Every time. This is the kind of science I have seen used to demonstrate that WE have caused the warming they are seeing. There is also a huge motivation for scientists to create a chicken-little scenario because then they can justify funding for all sorts of weather-related projects. I'm an engineer and have not been convinced that man-made global warming is real from what I have read.
The nature of science is to question everything. If these so called scientists covered up\silenced any evidence questioning glocal warming then they are not true scientists.
If any of the leading scientists responsible for driving the hysteria behind the global warming movement are found to have dumped or manipulated any data, (as by all accounts they appear to have done) the entire conclusion about increasing global temperatures deserves to be questioned and their data re-evaluated in the open.
For Al Gore, this would be an inconvenient exercise.
It's a scam. Always was a scam. There are many theories out there that would explain climate change that are just as believable, if not more, than the "settled science" being set forth as the unquestionable gospel of Anthropological Global Warming.
I think this situation should prompt the scientific community to give up "believing" in global warming and return to science. While the content of the emails is troubling, the destruction of the raw data by those involved is inexcusable. The destruction of so much data should be grounds not only for dismissal, but for the review of conclusions based on that data as it is no longer available for independent review.
Al Gore is a fraud, his carbon footprint is thousands times as that of the average American, and is reaping in, millions of dollars as a result of this scare tactic.
Jack, What happened to the glacier that created the geography of the plains states? Was that global warming?
The "Scientists" have fallen into the trap of delivering popular results – instead of looking at the data and analyzing it with an open mind.
Al Gore is the "Perfect" poster child & symbol for this, after all "his" Internet broke loose this info. Al would lie would he?
Obama should pay close attention to this, lest he repeat these mistakes.
I was surprised at how seamlessly the theory of global warming became the fact of global warming; skeptics were silenced and excluded from the debate; and mainstream journalists simply nodded thier head like lemmings bouncing toward a cliff. If it turns out that global warming was a "convenient hoax", the losers will once again be that journalistic class and their perceived integrity. I can only hope real journalists will have learned to remain skeptical of everyone, even those with whom they agree politically.
Climate change is happening, but the climate of the Earth has been changing ever since there was a climate. The key question is not whether the climate is changing, but whether the climate is changing naturally or due to human interference. We are coming out of a period in the Earths history that is cooler than the average and there is evidence that the ocean levels have been much higher in the past. The melting of the Arctic ice could very well be one of the natural cycles of the Earth. The scientists studying this need to look outside the timeline that humans have been around and extend their analysis to the climates of the previous eras of the Earth.
People need to realize that their own intelligence is just as valueable as scientists and researchers. Just because someone is an 'expert' in a field does not mean that they have knowlege not understandable to others. Learn and ask questions for yourself.
The part of the scientific community that believes in man-made global warming has absolutely been dishonest with us.
Whether or not man-man global warming is a fact, the community has chosen to disregard or distort any information that does not support, 100%, their view of the matter. They have distorted data, thrown away data, and squelched any signs of dissent that has arisen.
This is not the work of honest scientists. It's time for a real study, with results taken from true data (for or against) on this issue.
Climate change is real. The earth has shifted plus or minus dozens of degrees countless times during its history prior to mankind's rise to dominance. Whether humanity has a significant impact on this is irrelevant; if we as a global society don't understand how to adapt to the changes when they come, in either direction, we'll face larger disasters than if we spend the resources to study the issue now.
Oh, let's see. An entire branch of so-call science that derives 100% of its funding conducting studies to determine if the phenomenon that is its basis exists?
No chance of biasing that outcome, eh?
No. Warmer and cooler years is what makes an AVERAGE temperature. Listen to the data of record highs and lows which were often set almost 100 years ago. Weather is simply cyclical.
No. I think there is a lot of data massaging going on. The question about global warming isn't just about temperature, it is about what is causing the temperature to fluctuate. If the scientists aren't transparent and allow their work to be adequately peer reviewed, then their work cannot be trusted.
If the facts show the scientists in question manipulated the data to serve there agenda then it is no longer science, I believe that is called politics. By the way, hasn't the Gulf of Mexico's temperature been cooling off the last five years?
Jack, I live in va. i grew up here, I remember snow and lots of it, in fact the school districts added 10 days to cover the days we missed. since the 1980s snow is all but disappeared. the winters are milder, so yes I believe them.
I think there is something rotten in Denmark. Maybe we should know all the facts before we spend trillions and cost jobs, raised taxes for threat that isnt really there. I would like to know. Go congress, investigate. Cnn find out and forget about the politics do America a favor and make this an important story.
It really doesn't matter if these people were honest or not.
The problem that I see is that there is no incentive to be honest with their work. If they say that there is no global change, or that the world is even getting cooler, they lose all of the funding.
That stops all unbiased study.
The one main source of information on past temperatures is ice core samples. Now as a scientist we all know that nearly every method in a laboratory has a +/- certain percent of accuracy.
My question is what is this number when estimating average temperatures from earths history? Are these numbers accurate enough to estimate the earth has warmed from 0.3 – 0.7 degrees?
I've spent countless hours researching this matter and have come up with no scientific proof of the way they get these numbers?
Both sides have an economic incentive to stretch the truth and outright lie so both sides do. Thus is Capitalism-which is likely the true problem here.
They're more honest than the warming deniers. Most of these people seem to think human actions are beyond the laws of physics. But for every action, there is a reaction. This is irrufutable. So when we spew billions of tons of poisons into the air every year, there is without a doubt a reaction. Only a gas-guzzling denier could possibly think this reaction is positive. For those people who think humans have no impact on the planet, I suggenst a little test. Put the car in a garage and close the door. Keep the engine running as you sit in the car with the windows down. The reaction you will experience from this action will be death, In a very short amount of time. Humans have been putting poison into the 'garage' of this planet for well over a hundred years. There will be, and there is, a reaction.
The evidence for global warming comes from many sources, but now has reached the point where it is overwhelming. We ignore it or deny it at our own peril.
Without question. Most of the focus by those that doubt is on regressions of average temperature, and they single out individual data points. This allows the high variation to mask changes.
The fundamental, first principles (chemical and physical laws) are clear. The greenhouse effects of CO2, Methane, etc are known from experimentation.
I am an unabashed elitist. The popularism present in todays culture where people with no scientific background read an opinion piece, or a wikipedia article and then decide they are experts on a subject disgusts me.
The released emails are work product, intended for colleagues. That removes any context, and the public is not equipped to understand them.
If nothing else convinced me, the fact that the errors and lies in the rebuttals offered to global warming are so blatant and obvious would.
Matt Blackstone, Charleston, SC
It is part of social engineering. Ways for governments to make more money from the people and to limit us. The scientific community can make up the results to best fit an objective. The environment is changing but it has since the life of earth. Who knows what the earth is doing? Why don't they fix problem with waste, thats worth the money and the lives of all.
Climate Change is always happening, always has been and always will. It is quite possible that human effect on this is being and has been overplayed...in then end, there is a lot of money at stake, and where there is money there is almost always corruption.
It doesn't appear that NASA is being entirely honest about the information that taxpayer provided environmental satellites are providing to them.
Larger windows of Ozone depletion and ever widening areas of extreme drought are not being routinely reported nor being disseminated to public internet servers in a timely manner for the public to actively discern any protective measures.
American taxpayers paid for NASA's programs and services and have the inherit right to have timely access to that critical information.
We should not look at simply the current evidences for global warming because that alone cannot determine if global warming as most people define it is real. Current examples may just be the cyclical ebbs and flows of our planet. Or it may be "real" global warming...either way, being conscious of recycling, and striving for cleaner, renewable energy as well as leaving a small carbon footprint should remain pursuits in all cultures. The argument over global warming has indeed become political, and the scientific community should now be thought of as having pure hearts...they have motives too, usually follow the money trail to various funding of scientific research.
They cooked the books! The earth has warming and cooling trends throughout the ages. The current trend is not as warm as the middle ages & the earth didn't have a disaster then.
Are they honest - yes as long as they believe that their point of view is right.. There are always those who want to go to great length to discredit the opposition just to "be right".. and often disregard the facts.. however, there really are tons of evidence pointing to the global warming and the alarming rate at which we're loosing glaciers and ice melts.. Are the scientist give us all their information - of course NOT! The sad reality is that most people would not understand even a fraction of the information, so the scientists are doing them a favor by keeping the details and only outlining their conclusions.. giving the public the "full" picture would likely lead to mass hysteria, but even more sadly it would be like throwing gems in front of pigs - useless and a waste..
Time should be taken to go over the thousands of pages to check the accuracy of the data and the authenticity of the correspondence. Those emails could well have been planted by the climate scientist himself to discredit the theory of global warming. The timing of the revelation, right before the summit in Copenhagen, is very convenient for someone with that motive.
Now that this "Inconvenient Lie" has been exposed, it is time for the President and the Congress to support the exploration and development of all our own natural energy resources, including oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power. Do they have the guts to admit that they were wrong, and do what is right for the American people?
Improving the air and the overall environment is important and conserving energy is too. But I think that there is more consensus opinion and weak (or even fraudulant) science at best to support global warming or the human impact on the environment in general. We need to devise schemes that improve the environment with minimal economic impact. The "cap and trade" tax bill is not the right answer.
Climate change is natural. In the 1970's these same scientists were predicting another ice age. Man made change is phoney. Some scientists push it so they will recieve millions in research grants, politicians love it because it creates a new tax they can spend and hollywood loves it because they can look like champions of the environment and blame the United States of America while having their picture taken with Hugo Chavez.
The earth's climate undergoes continual change and cycles of warming and cooling. It is not possible to prevent or reverse climate change. What if we were in a cooling cycle? Would we be outlawing CFL bulbs to try and warm the earth and prevent an ice age? We should be investing in the science and methods to adapt to the changes rather than crooked political and financial ploys which attempt to profit from our fears and guilt.
I'm not a scientist, but I raised two boys. I know a tall tale when I hear one and I have always suspected we did not receive all of the global warming information, that the "science" was one sided and questionable. I was sceptical. Then, when I learned Al Gore was getting rich from fishy carbon exchange scams and Democrats hoped to raise taxes while making Al Gore richer, I knew my instincts were still sharp.
No, not honest at all!
I think the Earth's climate routinely changes and has for thousands of years. The scientific community is just profiting by telling the public what it wants to hear to justify funding for their research.
Al Gore is profiting from investments he has made in Green industries. His public speaches and testomony before congress referenced a movie that has shown to have errors in it. That's pretty bad if you ask me!
It's sad to think that even the evidence-based pursuit of truth that is science can still succumb to outside influences that have hidden agendas. Unfortunately, imperfect people are in charge, and because science funding comes from private and political sources, there will always be a conflict of interest. The worst part is, by implementing nefarious tactics to maintain global warming's pristine appearance, doubt grows in all climate research, inhibiting our ability to respond correctly to the problem. We've seen such tactics used before, to make certain individuals a profit (switching from DDT to DEET insecticides, or switching from R12 to R134a refrigerants). While these examples were used under the guise of being environmentally friendly, the polluting impact of either choice is similar due to the non-optimal (and therefore, higher required amounts) capabilities of the "green" substances. This results in no change in polluting, but increased costs mean more money for some company somewhere. The same thing is happening with global warming. However, if we are wrong about this global phenomenon, it could have a much greater impact than just economics.
Well, some scientists may have been dishonest. So what? there are liars and crooks in every profession. None of this disproved global warming. What I wonder is if the lobbyists politicians and scientists who claim global warming is a hoax will now be held to the same ethical standard by the sensationalist media and a public who hide from their problems in simplistic worldviews.
The scientific community is honest and accurate when it comes to global warming. Glaciers are melting everywhere and there will be consequences the melting is complete.
Just because scientists argue about data and methods doesn't mean global warming isn't happening.
Jack, if there is a way to make money off of this, which there is, then there are distortions to the truth. We won't know until it is too late, when the 'experts' are seen packing up the kids and speeding out of town.
Okay, so tell me: why would anyone "cook the books" on climate change? The money is represented by the people who DON'T want Global Warming to be an issue, not by those who are trying to raise awareness about it.
Who the hell profits from trying to convince people that fossil fuels are killing the atmosphere?
The level of stupidity in this viewpoint, that global warming is some kind of scam, is so staggering that no amount of reason can defeat it.
I do believe that we are living in a highly polluted world. Is global warming real? Maybe, maybe not. But who really wants to live in a gasoline, coal burning, pesticide filled, herbicide filled, plastic trash world? I guess nobody does – so why don't we just clean up our act anyway?
I have seen and read much information hat indicates global warming IS happening – now I would really like to read some scientific evidence that it is not? Where is that?
So, is there a global scientific conspiracy to scare people about climate change? Not likely. This one set of emails proves nothing.
I think the reason many people choose not to believe in the obvious facts about how the human race is damaging the planet is so they don't have to take responsibility for their part, and can go about with their wasteful ways. Then later tell their progeny "I didn't know any better."
I do believe global warming is happening but the truth about how much is happening naturally, as a result of the earth's axis in precession, distance of the earth to the sun in its natural orbit and the sun's output, versus how much temperature rise is caused by the human output of CO2 is still in question. Regardless of how it is happening climate is changing and the result of either cause, or both, will have profound influences on how we as a species will live and survive.
Rohnert Park, CA
I've traveled around the world alot in the last 40 years and yes there is something happening. I've noticed many changes in the weather patterns, so they may have cooked the books some but something is happening,just don't quite know what. But It doesn't look good.
No. I don't think they've been completely honest. The fact that their such call "Peer Review", was only done by their closest colleagues, and the scientist who were against it and questioned their data, were shunned and dismissed as ignorants.
With new revelations I am 100% sure this is a 'men made' phenomenon with made-up data.
“The scientists who believe in global warming say their case is based on "all kinds of evidence," like what's happening to the ice in the Arctic”. Earth had a mini ice age from 1500s to 1850s. Could it be that all that ice was nothing but lingering remains of that?
But truth does not matter any more. High priests of science (politics) have spoken and we will soon have cap and trade bill, exchange and whole new economy which will help no one but select few like Al Gore.
Oceans are getting acidic and coral reefs are dying,
some island are already getting evacuated,
the east side of the Antarctic is melting too, which was not believed before and used as argument against global warming...
and still people get distracted this some partial emails.
How those 8 percent of people are getting informed ?
it's prolly fake, I mean it's pretty cold outside right now.
What a surprise.... scientists hiding and ignoring evidence so they can keep getting money, being published, and getting the good jobs. What ever happened to the truth? Oops! Sorry – I forgot, It's okay to suppress the truth when its "inconvenient."
The "establishment" scientific community has most certainly not been honest, as the leaked emails of the recent scandal attest. They have systematically suppressed dissent, manipulated data to fit their favored conclusions, and have ultimately been corrupted by all the money that became available if, and only if, one advocates man-caused global warming.
Most damning, however, is the revelation that the CRU has “lost”, innocently or not, the raw data which underpins the entirety of their claims. The very foundation of their theory has basically been lost or destroyed. Thus, there can be no independent corroboration or reproduction of their claims. When you get down to brass tacks, no data = no science. And global warming alarmists admit that they don’t have the data (anymore). Hmmm….
The role of CO2 in climate change is not understood, no matter how often or how loudly some declare otherwise. The science is most definitely not settled. Those who claim otherwise or either ignorant, or dishonest.
The East Anglia CRU would seem to fall in the latter camp.
It was 50 degrees and Sunny today where I live, and I live in Canada and its December. I haven't even seen a flack of all season. I don't need the scientific community to know this is happening. If anything global warming has been under estimated.
Bryan in a balmy Canada
It seems intuitively clear that adding carbon dioxide and methane will promote temperature rises because of the greenhouse effect. What is not clear is the degree to which this is true. This is in part because the earth's climate is a terrifically complex system that is difficult to measure experimentally and for which the historical temperature data is incomplete and equivocal. Every action upon the system can be enhanced or suppressed by feedback loops that are not all completely understood.
The models used by the global warming, er, climate change advocates have consistently predicted greater temperature changes than have been observed, and this has caused some scientists to raise doubts about the completeness and validity of the models. It certainly could be viewed that there are some scientists who are choosing data and modeling techniques to advance their theories from a belief that human-caused global warming simply must be happening. A robust public scientific debate must continue.
How can it be true? It is just a marketing tool for those in power to grab more power. It just shows that these universities are clouded by money. They market their idea by manipulating their own data so that they can continue to be fat pigs of the government. Anytime that government funds science there is danger of manipulation so that the government can grab more power. ***The government is not always looking out for you.....
The science community has not been honest when it comes to global warming. If this were a court of law, and you manipulated data, deleted files, avoided England's Freedom of Information Act intentionally, rigged the peer review process, and tried to discredit and avoid publication of any skeptics work, what would the judge think? And then what if the judge asked you for evidence, and you said it had been deleted? You'd be guilty, no question.
The environmental movement started off hating corporate greed and corruption, but now their own movement has been hijacked by those same forces. They are using scare tactics to put more taxes on people who can least afford them, based on science that is not a strong consensus, just a consensus of a couple elite scientists and a bunch of United Nations advocates. This is one of the biggest scams in modern history capitalizing on people's fears.
The climate is always changing. Where I sit right now was under miles of ice not long ago in climate terms. I think the better question is whether humans can do anything to appreciably alter whatever the current climate trend might be and, if so, at what price?
Let's be honest. Gore and his "the world is gonna end" global warming followers care a lot more about politics than science.
Science is not a democracy. The majority does not rule. Otherwise, we would still believe the earth is flat, and the center of the universe. That was "settled science" too, until proven otherwise.
Clearly there are lots of questions about the so-called science that "proves" man-made global warming. The theory is based on questionable data and unreliable computer models that are in no way capable of predicting anything as complex as global weather.
Let's have a real scientific debate and tell the zealots pushing global warming hysteria and cap and trade to take a hike.
I believe that there is an overabundance of information proving that global warming is indeed happening. I for one believe in science, and am highly offended when groups of people with alternative agendas try to push their non-scientific opinions at an appropriate time. Let us not forget the persecution of scientists in history. Such as Galileo, who was tried under the Roman inquisition due to his support of the heliocentric view. And, now, we all know that the Earth is not the center of the universe.
There's an old saying in science and economics classes..."First draw your curve, THEN plot your points." They probably do cook the books to a certain degree to make the point clearer, harder to dispute, and easier for the layman to understand, and it seems they got caught doing it. However, I doubt they tweak the number to the point where they are creating an outright lie. Are the exagerrating global warming? Probably. Are they flat out lying about it? Probably not.
Of course they aren't being honest, and that goes for both sides of the argument. So called climate scientist routinely start with an assumption and then try and prove it. Along the way they diminish data they don't like, hype data they do. Perhaps the biggest problem with this research is that scientist are always trying to compensate for flaws in their data (often caused by the way it is collected) by applying a modifier to the data which they make up on their own. Such as when they try to compensate for the abnormally high temperatures caused by cities which do not relate to global temperatures or even regional temps.
I suspect that global warming is real, but that the scientists have likely fallen prey to seeing what they want to see in the data. That's deadly. What is clearly being demonstrated is the usage of peer review for censorship. That also happens fairly often, but it's also deadly.
Science and politics don't mix very well. One is supposed to be based on the truth while the other is largely based on perception. This is a sad day for science.
They should really call it something other than global warming. Because all that has to happen to cause people to become skeptical is for it to have record breaking cold temperatures. Even the term climate change seems mild and more of a natural occurrence.
I think they need to call it "climate destabilization" to account for the fact that we are affecting the balance with our actions.
As for the scientist I'm sure some are dishonest on both sides but I don't think this is a massive conspiracy. I mean I can't picture groups of scientist running around with flamethrowers melting glaciers. I know that image is a bit extreme but I think some people on the other side of the climate debate have claimed stranger things. Also from people who demand so much proof that it's happening it only takes a few emails to prove to them it's not happening. Now if that isn't suspicious I don't know what is.
There has been such a back and forth on whether or not global warming is real I choose not to stress about it. I suppose if humans across the earth die of heat stroke in 2012, then I guess both the scientific community and the Mayans were right!
Of course they aren't. They screwed with the peer review process, they hid data and deleted data to dodge FOIA requests, and more. "Global climate change" is a simple scam.
NO!!!! The evidence has long indicated that "GW" is not real. The famous "hockey stick" portrayed in an Inconvenient Truth was long ago found to be a fabrication of the numbers. When one group says something is real with the tenacity and zeal of the "Enviro Groups" have done over the last few years. we should always ask – who is benefiting. Follow the money and you will find the answer.
Of course they haven't been honest. This "going green" stunt has been the best quick rich schemes in history!
You sure couldn't prove global warming in Lubbock, TX, not in the last two days or the past 15 years. Our summers have become cooler than the early 90's. I believe the earth had plenty of climate changes before it was populated. Climate changes whether hotter or colder are up to mother nature and events way beyond man's puny efforts.
If I paid a researcher $150,000 per year to study ghosts I am sure he would not turn me down. Moreover, he would likely ask for continued financial assistance because his research is “not yet conclusive”. Get real this is about money!
The question we should all ask what would happen if we ended the use of fossil fuels over the next year, would our air quality get better, yes! Can we get our energy for Earth Based Solar Farms, Wind Turbine Farm, Geo-Thermo Farms, Wave Technology Farms, Geostationary Solar Satellites and Mirrors Arrays in Orbit to direct sunlight on our Earth Based Solar Arrays 24/7 and many other sources that do not pollute our country and world, or are we so addicted to damaging our planet that we just do not care if all mankind suffers and dies because we are too lazy to make these simple changes to save ourselves!
Grow up people make the changes while you still have time left, and oh yeah forget that carbon tax mess!
No. I think the scientists who are into money and the environment have said what they need to say and manipulated the figures to get what they wanted to get – primarily, money and the power to move their environmental agenda along. In the case of Al Gore – he's 100 Million dollars richer.
Mr. Cafferty, if there was no global warming there would be no big fat government grants to scientists to study global warming. Makes you think doesn't it.
Yes, Jack I think they have been honest about global warming. It is my own belief that global warming has been going on for 1000's of years, but has recently started warming much faster.
72 percent my cold foot, you better check that again,
Its not even called global warming anymore so obviously that was a lie. Climate change = winter spring summer and fall.
Is climate change happening? YES
Has it been an ongoing cycle of warming and cooling since before recorded history? OH HELL YES!!!
Are people to blame for this cycle of warming and cooling? NO!!!
Get a clue people. Climate change is inevitable, and will continue to occur long after we as a species are gone from this planet.
There are some basic facts regarding the output of CO, CO2, and other assorted gases as by-products of industry and so forth that truly do need to be addressed. Wanna hear 'em?
THEY ARE UNHEALTHY TO BREATHE!!! PERIOD!!!!
I refuse to believe that these emissions are the be-all, end-all of climate change, but I do firmly believe these need to be reduced in volume simply for our collective health.
We are working on our tenth straight year of declining temperatures. That's a decade, not a statistical aberration. It's unconsicionable that these frauds were actively working to cover up the fact of that decline.
This would get a 1st year student kicked out of college. For it to be done by elite scientists working on the most contentious scientific matter of our time is scandalous! They should be fired, if not convicted.
This is the biggest scientific fraud of the modern era, bar none. Shame on these liars. How can anyone believe them now?
I believe that global warming is happening, and has been happening for thousands of years, I also believe that the rate at which it is warming has been inflated by many, mostly to apply their own agenda. I think the truth is that the earth continually cycles warming and cooling periods that span many thousands of years each. It is likely more a natural planetary function than it is a looming man made disaster. Although, I am sure we are not helping at all, with our many destructive processes, I doubt it would make a gigantic difference, like many in the current time suggest.
Yes, I do believe scientists have been honest in regard to global warming. The difficult is that neither the scientists nor us have ever faced this situation before. As a result there may be some inaccuracies in judgements that may be found but they are not intentinal. In this case time will assist us in determining the truth of this concern. Unfortunately, in this case time may not be a partner since we do not know for certain the impact of the warming in terms of what it may prompt in terms of earth and biological impacts.. It may be to late when we figure that out to correct anything.
Most New Yorkers can smell a scam a mile away and the "Climate Change" scam is one of the biggest ever to be perpetrated on the Western world.
There is no crisis, no last chance, it's all a lie. Thank God people are catching on in time to stop this fraud.
NO, they have not. the results of most study's are probably flawed to some extent because of the need to secure grants. now, some questions of my own.
is global warming occuring? probably.
does man "contribute" to it?? absolutely.
do we need to use our resources wisely? undoubtedly.
can we stop what has occurred naturally at least several times before the industrial revolution? you're kidding right........
I would venture the scientific community has indeed been fairly honest, but failures when it comes to PR. Take five data sets, each give a consistent measurement, however the last gives something radically different. You could say "we disregarded the outlier as it skews the data and is most likely erroneous", or you could say "toss it out, it ruins the trend". In your paper published in a journal, it's going to be the former, to a colleague it's going to be the latter. Anyone hacking into correspondence and reading the latter will think "forgery!" Emails like this embarrass the scientific community, which is already fairly bad at public relations and explaining how science functions to the layman (I can't count the number of people who don't know the difference between a colloquial and scientific theory), but they don't negate the evidence.
So, now climate scientists are forced to repair their public image, which could take a while. And, if they're right, we really don't have that while to wait.
Absolutely not. I believe global warming could be happening to some extent, but I think it's been largely exaggerated. The real truth of global warming is that it keeps the scientific community well stocked with grants....
Of course not.. How many ongoing scentific issues are 100% setteled? The politicians and scentists found a golden goose that dove tailed nicely with their belief that they know best and can make better decision then us mere citizens and they ran with it and called everyone who disagrees a fool or a crackpot. I am still waiting for the scientific method to prove that it is greenhouse gases created by man doing this.
if I am a scientist working on global warming research and my grants depend on the hype surrounding the onslaught of the heating of the planet, guess where my bias is. We all should consider and give weight to the bias of the source of the information when the source benefits from the message.
I applaud you for your question today, but I must say that I am very disappointed that it took CNN so long to sink their collective teeth into this matter, as the emails were released nearly 2 weeks ago.
With respect to your question...anyone who has read the emails and who has the reading comprehension level of a 3rd grader will conclude that the scientists involved are guilty of data manipulation, subversion of the pier review process, avoidance of the Freedom of Information Act in both the UK and the US, intimidation of editorial boards of science journals, and potential tax evasion. Because the CRU data in question comprises much of the foundation of the reports issued by the UN every 4 years, and those reports are what this world-wide discussion is based on, the claims of any scientists or policy makers associated with the UN IPCC can no longer be trusted, as the data has effectively been invalidated.
North Kingstown, RI
No, this is a manufactured problem. Of all the chemicals out there, CO2 is the least of our worries. While the plans considered will cost the consumer a bundle, I have not yet figured out how the Global Warmers will benefit. The best way to tackle a problem is figure out who gets the money.
I have serious doubts as to the severity and long term continuance of a global warming trend. I also have doubts as to mankind's overall impact on the trend and view it more as a cyclical phenomenon. The truth is we are really just between ice ages. This is earths history. I live in Florida and travel between there and Canada. I agree summers tend to have more warm days but not many more judging by what i've seen in my 61 years.The winters however seem to be cooling down in the areas where i travel and live. I don't know why the scientific community might be manipulating numbers or why the International Community is so solidly behind these numbers but am more and more convinced that it is all suspect.
It seems to me that the bigger issues include whether any measurable climate change is unique to the present, and, if so, whether it is caused or worsened by manmade sources. Disappearing glaciers are obvious evidence of some form of change, but is it global? Is it nature, acting on its own?
Unfortunately, the issue has become so political and polarizing, noone in the chain of information and reporting seems to be neutral.
Is anybody honest about anything anymore? We already can't belive the government, politicians, the news, athletes, and religious leaders. Now we can't even believe science. Great. Just great.
to answer your question: Yes. But each question about climate change is slightly different, and each study (because they're not repeats of the exact same study) will come out with different information.
All the information also has to be taken in context of where the earth is supposed to be in it natural cycle of heating and cooling. Scientists also have to, when compiling statistical data, throw away data outside the expected ranges because it is erroneous.
The data must also be take into account how the earth tries to "fix" itself. There was a recent article about how melting ice at the poles had exposed more sea algae which very readily absorbs CO2 so as the ice diminishes, the amount of CO2 absorbed increases. There is way too much information for a simple answer. It's like evolution, you actually have to study and understand to see how it works, and what it affects. There is no simple answer.
I think the scientific community is honest about it. I think politicians and spin doctors can twist it into all sorts of things to advance whatever their cause is. The question really is not, "is there climate change?" its how is it changing, how will it affect us, and what can we realistically do about it.
72 percent of Americans may be convinced it's really happening, but The White House isn't completely sold, apparently. Saying "climate change is happening" is like saying "time is passing." Of course the climate is changing. How could it not?
Global warming is good business for the academic crowd. I'd rank it above but in the same league as ghost-busting. And the motto is basically the same: "We're ready to believe you."
I wasn't aware that we ever actually had a debate on man-made global warming. It has simply become accepted dogma of the left.
I don't see how global warming can be disputed – it's evident everywhere.
The earth has warmed and cooled itself for years. What would scientists say if another ice age was on the way? That we caused it??
Why is everyone so afraid to see both sides of the an issue...this is similar to the democrats passing a 2000 page bill and then afterwards everyone gets a chance to read it (after signing it into law) and say WTF?
The scientific community is bound by ethical codes including honesty and rigor. However, history has shown that scientists are human, with political agendas and inherent bias. Everyone would be smart not to trust any individual at their word, BUT a community can and should transcend this manipulation.
I argue that members of our Capitalist society possess more of a malicious impetus in trying to dethrone global warming than scientists and activists have in trying to protect it.
All that has happened here is that a couple of scientists have *talked about* suppressing dissenting views ... there is not even any evidence that they actually did anything.
The data on climate change are beyond dispute at this point. Those who think it's a hoax are simply ignorant of the facts. Unfortunately, 2 of those people happen to be Senator James Idiot-hofe of Oklahoma and Rush "My brain is clouded from all the years of prescription drug abuse" Limbaugh...
There's too much evidence for the case that "something" is going on. Average temperatures have been alarmingly increasing for the past one hundred years, polar ice is melting, animal migration patterns are changing, hurricanes are getting worst, etc... It could all be a natural Earth cycle, it could all be man-made, or a combination of both. But to say everything is just fine and nothing is happening seems impossible.
Climate change is larger than one scientist and the research is larger than "a British University". Same on you for ignoring the vast preponderance of research. Theories are proven by facts and not all facts support the investigated theory and thus all theories change as the facts raise new questions. I guess that in the 1960's you might have sided with tobacco companies who denied that smoking caused caner.
Remember, science asks questions for truth not for political gain.
Bad headline and bad honesty. Yellow journalism? yes. You do not report what aspect of climate change was in those emails. Climate changes are weather, oceans, glaciers, temperatures, winds, plants, animals and much more. It is complex and the article is simple and distortional- bad but sensational and irresponsible press.
I don't think that there is any doubt that the climate is changing. The fact that there is hardly any ice yet in the Arctic Circle, and it is December, is fairly telling. And the fact that weather patterns all over the world are messed up in a good indicator, too.
The real debate is whether this shift is man-made or a natural occurrance, Jack. I happen to fall in the group that thinks that man has accelerated the natural process, though, so you might want to scoff at my remarks, too. You seem to want to be in a scoffing mood, so scoff away.
It amazing how the global warming issue has become almost a religious issue. The believers basically are outraged whenever someone doubts their global warming faith. Yet increased sun activity and other ideas of whats going on is not even considered.
If a person has a conclusion and they do everything possible to create experiments to show what they believe is true, and ignore every factor that could prove their conclusion wrong. Then that person is not a scientist but rather an agenda driven creator of propaganda.
The scientists are telling the truth. Nobody claims to have a crystal ball. Humans are changing the atmosphere and the environment . We also know that the Earth's climate goes in cycles and we should try to figure out what all of this means.
We know that Glaciers are receding and that Vikings used to live in a much warmer Greenland.
We might not know all the answers, but it is stupid not to question the possible consequenses of our actions. To expect the scientists to know all the answers and to be unanimous is unrealistic.
Our leaders need to spend more time on the issues and less on the quick headlines and distractions.
Global warming is indeed a fact. However, it's based upon the pollutants by all countries, where the USA started the industrial revolution and other Europeon countries followed suit. I'm more concerned about the sesmic episodes around the globe to include the warming of the all oceans with global tremors.
I believe global warming has become of such political and financial value, that no one is willing to admit it has not been proven. The damage to our economy and way of life would be substantial if this is allowed to continue without valid scientific proof, not faulty models and projections.
Jack, thanks for at least mentioning this story.. The networks and most mass media have completely ignored it.. Leif Erickson and those Viking boys didn't name it Greenland because it is what we see today. We are not in control of cycles and tectonic shifts and have minimal effect on any of this with any of our actions..That said,There is nothing wrong with trying to be more responsible with our actions but decieving the planet so cap and trade can get jammed down our throats is just wrong.....
There is so much money tied to global warming
it freezes my imagination.
Do you have any idea how much money Al Gore
has made on the global warming hoax ? MILLIONS !
Government grants alone paid out for this hokus
pokus research is in the BILLIONS.
Foundations, think tanks, research facilities, all
set up to profit from a Jules Verne type hype.
What's most ridiculous is how many educated
people world wide fell for this crap !!!!!
The margin for error between sustainability and massive suffering is shrinking as the global population continues to rapidly grow. So the big problem is not about global warming. The really big problem is what we do if we are confronted with a significant climate trend. What contingencies are governments making to prevent massive suffering?
In 1816 Mount Tambora erupted and caused "a year without a summer". Imagine the suffering if that took place today. Do we have a plan in place?
If the climate continues to warm, whether it is man made or not, what do we do when the changing climate moves the various bread baskets of the world?
These are the important question that truly need to be asked. This partisan bickering about whether man is the cause or not, is dangerously wasting our time.
Some in the scientific community have not been honest. But even more disturbing is how those scientists who disagree with global warming are shouted down. I once heard a statement on PBS roughly to the effect of "Every reputable scientists believes in global warming." This is almost a self-fulfilling statement; anyone who disagrees has their reputation challenged. There is a lot of evidence out there that the current temperature is just part of the normal variations. Science has yet to prove there is an increase in temperature. It has even farther to go to show that any increase is caused by mankind. The problem is that there is a lot of money to be had in global warming. Scientists get politically expedient research grants. Investors, like Al Gore, get to sell carbon offsets.
Of course it's fake. No one really denies that climate change is taking place. But rather the cause of that climate change. That part has always been a matter of faith. Capitalists deny it's manmade and socialists say it is. It's all what your end goal is.
Why would ANYONE be honest about climate change? Scientists risk flagging support for change by under-emphasizing it. Policy wags face damaging popular standings and losing votes if they over-emphasize it.
Are we "sufficiently worried" about the environment? Let's see... we use the liquified remains of our ancestors to power our civilization – and have been doing so for over a century with reckless bravado. You think anyone's gonna care about a little extra heat unless it's dramatized and polarized?
The jury is permanently out on such issues, if only because our "gut-feeling" animal instincts overtake our reasoning when it comes to survival / happiness / future concerns. The parties concerned merely lay into the appropriate buzzwords to elicit the response they're seeking.
As a scientist by myself (I have about 300 publications), I can tell that absolute truth does not exist in science. Usually, experimental data can be interpreted several ways depending on theoretical models and personal believes. However, when a point of view becomes dominant (receives public acceptance, government financing, Nobel nod) and is related to billions and trillions of dollars and political issues, any fair scientific discussion dies. What we have now in climatology – it is just a war between different groups of scientists and quasi-scientists having different (sometimes opposite) views on experimental (incomplete) data supported by (imperfect) theoretical models. The winner receives financing, titles, opportunities for publication and powers. The truth actually does not matter here.
The record decrease of ice in artic isn't happening on it's own. When the polar bear no longer exists, will some still insist that global warming isn't real?
Jack, are you for real on questioning global warming or just stirring? Its hard to believe you can read and digest all the available information and doubt the inevetability of global warming irrespective of a few scientific scammers. Lee Webb West Chester Pennsylvania
If suddenly someone told you seat belts were a conspiracy and wearing them wouldn't make a difference in surviving a wreck would you stop wearing them??? I believe it is better to err on the cautious side than deny it to the end ....and find out (to late) its real.
Absolutely not, I have read reports on CNN, National Geographic and other sources with information that seems to refute current climate change arguments. As one who remains a undecided, this new information was not helpful. Truth wins out when all information is considered and evaluated. Ignoring contrary information and attempting to discredit journals, editors and authors who present dissenting views is intellectually dishonest and harms debate. By these actions and by purposely dumping the raw data leaving only the massaged data leaves them subject to data bias.
For the past several years I have been a believer in the global warming theory.
Then all of a sudden, Climate-Gate happens. A hacker gets into one of the leading climate research facilities in Denmark and finds a bunch of emails between these scientists going back over 10 years talking about hiding temperature data that is not supportive of the thesis that increasing CO2 levels is causing climate change.
What bothers me about this is that I always believed most scientists were working for the good of mankind. They are highly educated, have peer review boards were above the usual scams that are pervasive in many other sectors.
Obviously, I no longer hold that belief and after doing some further research, I found out some even more interesting facts:
– While the Arctic icepack has been decreasing, the Antarctic icepack has been increasing.
– Sunspot activity is at an all-time low and some scientists believe that will lead to global cooling.
– Water vapor (clouds) is the most significant greenhouse gas, but yet it is not used in global warming calculations.
So what is the truth about global warming? It appears right now, no one really knows. Many of the published studies were based on temperature data that is now suspect.
I am still going to continue to continue to reduce my consumption of fossil fuels and support efforts to migrate to renewable energy resources. As for believing that CO2 is public enemy #1, I am no longer on board.
Follow the money! This made up global warming scare has become another "too big to fail" cottage industry. If I remember correctly, we were taught in school in the 70's about the impending Ice Age...of course they predicted that would come to fruition within 50 to 75 years. About the time all of those so called scientists would be dead.
The pressure to "spin" research results is very pervasive, not just in climate research. Researchers need money to conduct research and those sponsoring research want to see results that validate their own special interests. It's human nature to exaggerate positions to one's favor.
This includes those opposed to the climate warming hypothesis as well as those in favor. Robust peer review and scandals like these are necessary and healthy to keep the spin to a minimum.
There is some hypocrisy going on here. I thought “science” was now to be brought to the fore by the new administration. Why is this not being condemned by the administration with equal vigor to their condemnation of industry-backed climate skeptic reports over the last 8 years?
Does anyone else remember the panic in the 1970's that a new ice age was coming? The prevailing wisdom in those days was that there would be a sheet of ice from the North Pole to Olso by 2010. Where are all of those 'scientists'?
The fluctuations in temperature that were reported in most of the 'evidence' for global warming took only the convenient recordings for CITIES in the northern hemisphere almost exclusively. True scientists understand why those temperatures have trended up over the last 100 years or so – THE POPULATION HAS INCREASED AND BECOME DENSER IN THOSE SPOTS.
When they need money, scientists can provide evidence to prove almost anything to whomever is willing to pay them...
I think there is no question that global warming is happening. The question is whether that occurrence is a natural part of cycles that have happened for millions of years, or whether it is indeed caused by human-produced, heat-trapping gas.
If the data these scientists were trying to hide shows that the current warming trend is simply part of a cyclical pattern that has occurred for millions of years, then it is irresponsible to spend trillions of dollars and to jeapardize economic growth to try to stop something we may not have even caused and that, in all honesty, we cannot prevent.
I have no problem accepting man-made global warming if the science truly supports that conclusion, but if scientists are suppressing data simply because their funding (which inevitably comes from politicians) depends on their finding that global warming is man-made, we have a serious problem with broad economic and social consequences.
So we are to believe what... that the Democrats snuck off to the Arctic to melt thousands of miles of ice which has been there forever? Use your common sense. something IS happening.
Jack, no I do not think the scientist have been honest. Like most things in the world we have to look at it from one perspective; Follow the money – There are far more people that will benefit financially if the masses can be persuaded to jump on the 'Global Warming' bandwagon.
No. A red flag should have went up to everybody a year ago when it was reported ALL the scientific evidence was in and no further research was needed (that global warming was happening). Scientific research should never stop for anything. Theories should always be tested.
Global Warming brought to you by the same folks who said we were all going to freeze in the coming ice age a mere 30 years ago.
Yesterday, I successfully defended my thesis and earned my PhD. I can't help but feel that it is less meaningful today than it was just a month ago. The scientific community has to be honest at all times, especially when some findings challenge our theories. Ultimately, this dishonesty will convince more people that global warming is not occurring.
The questiom should not be whether global warming is occurring but whether iy is a normal cyclical phenomenon perhaps aggravated by global emissions.
Anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge knows that the Vikings were farming in Greenland during the Middle Ages – which means that the icecap there had retreated much further without the burning of fossil fuels then than it has today.
There is little doubt that we have been in a warming trend. The REAL question is whether the warming trend is man-made, or the result of natural forces that have nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
In that regard, it appears likely that the East Anglia scientists have cooked the books and cooked the temperature databases that form the basis of all the "science" that has come out on the subject. Very disturbing, indeed – yet another example of left-wing political correctness,
Climate Change / Global Warming / Ecological Erosion – whatever you like to call it hasn't lost its foundation in science, it just has been lobbied and paraded as false by those who stand to gain the most by denying it. But, alas I am no expert; what I do know is that it makes sense for us as a people to want to have more efficient energy sources and more efficient modes of transportation. In an economic system where spending money in greater amounts is the only way to keep the system operational as population grows, reducing the expense on energy and transportation is one of the very few places where reducing the expense is good for everyone. There isn't a paradox of thrift when it comes to necessities. Ah, but the economics of the modern society is a different subject. I would like to promote cleaner air, water, and earth around the world and develop non fossil fuel forms of energy if only it helps with the US balance of trade deficits.
Yessss Jack global warming is for real...
You can fool some of the scientist all of the time and all of the scientist some of the time but you can't fool all the scientist all of the time....
Read the emails and one can see that there is a scam on the run here. It's getting disgusting watching these people be it congress or others trying to find ways to tax the American people.
I think this just proves that when it comes to climate change and its alleged man-made influences, the verdict is far from in. While this far from disproves that climate change is occurring, it calls into question the scientific basis as to WHY it's occurring. At the very least, policymakers need to step back and ask themselves whether they really want to further cripple the economy with cap-and-trade over something that is far from proven.
I think the answer is no. This is not new. On other scientific issues scientist have frequently proven to be biased. So it seems that we really do not know what is really happening. One thing is sure. Al Gore has made tons of money by championing this issue and as he does this he travels all over generating lots of Co2. But then with all the money he has made he can by carbon credits. Isn't that nice.
My goodness Jack . Al Gores is a politician now why in the world would any body think that he's lying .
Of course it's a hoax. It's designed to give the government and scientists an excuse to have more money and power – period. PERIOD. The same people who said in the 1970s that an Ice Age was coming now say the world is melting. Come on.
I don't believe much of anything that politicians jump behind so vigorously. While I do believe in protecting our environment, I think that it's highly arrogant of us as humans to think that we truly understand the natural climatic cycle of the earth given our relatively short time as an organized society with the capability of conducting real scientific analysis.
how about the fact they destroyed all there raw data so now it can't be looked at or test by other scientists. that goes against the very principles of science . and the way their are going about things won't fix anything, cap and trade. carbon credits. I already see the results of those. Chinas wind mill scam, the oil giant who is buying a big chunk of rain forest to offset his carbon out put that the refinery produces, plus a nice little profit from the left over carbon credits for the rain forest.
This is exactly the type of conspiracy theory that people who want to discredit Global Warming start. Does anyone honestly believe that of *all* the scientists who believe in global warming are being dishonest? Whether you believe it is real or not, does anyone actually think the entire community is conspiring one way or the other? I admit that there are always "bad eggs", but the evidence is pretty clear – watch the discovery channel if you want the specifics...
looking at both possibilities – If they are not right, then we were all pushed even forced to come up with alternatives to fossil fuel before they actually ran out – which is in the grand scheme of things being proactive is a discipline we all need to practice more. But if they are right then .... well seems like a pretty simple decision.
I think it is true that global warming is a phenomenon which is happening right in front of our eyes. We need to pay extreme attention and do something about it.
All the recent commotion is just to distract people from upcoming climate change summit.
I think that the earth undergoes periodic warming and cooling periods. The problem the scientists have is pinning the apparent current warming on a single cause and using that cause to predict the future. Unfortunately for them ACTUAL science takes ALL evidence into account, not just the stuff that supports your hypothesis. Global warming and it's attendant apocalyptic hysteria has become as much a religion as a hypothesis, in that it is driven more by belief than evidence. All in all, I think we've been fed a load of manure by "groupthink" scientists in love with their own theories and unwilling to explore alternatives to their views.
The only reason a debate remains: firms that have a stake in fossil fuels are trying DESPERATELY to mitigate the inevitable losses ahead.
I believe the bulk of the scientific community has pandered to the pro global warming governments, which through their agencies, fund the Universities and and nearly all the research grants which employ the scientists. I work in the oil industry which employs thousands of scientists and I know from talking with many of them that there is no general agreement that there is even a clear case for current global warming much less that man and CO2 would be largely responsible.
Is it a potential major problem? Possibly. Should we commit significant resources to trying to figure it out. Yes. Should we completely reorder mans priorities and progress on this planet based on the current evidence. Definitely not.
It is high time that this is questioned because the science is fuzzy. Undoubtedly man has contributed ( in the range of 2 to 3%).
I think the scientific community has been extremely dishonest regarding climate change. Whether it be global cooling, overpopulation, the garbage crisis, or peak oil, the environmental movement has exaggerated almost every "crisis" since the 1970s and have a huge creditability problem.
The only thing I can't figure out is how they get generation after generation to trust them again.
I will be 68 later this month and when I was younger all the scientists i"in the know" warned of a new ice age. Now using some of the same measurements that were used then they say the climate is warming. The cllimate warms and cools for physical reasons that we don't understand and can't fully measure. If we look into the geologic history of the earth we have had both warmer times and colder times and we we sill have in the future. Natural events such as volcanos and such do far more to effect the climate than all the puny efforst of man.
No, they have not been truthful. Scientists lie to promote their bias on both sides of the argument.
I think that the scientific community has been generally honest, even if specific individuals may not have been.
It would be very difficult for a vast conspiracy to not have leaks; and while the East Anglia data certainly has issues, those same issues have not been shown in the data from other climate centers.
The simplest way to view that something is happening is to look at glaciers and polar caps.
The North Pole ice cap has shrunk dramatically.
Himalayan glaciers have shrunk dramatically.
Antarctic ice shelfs have collapsed.
Ice doesn't melt because it's gotten colder, and ice isn't going to melt this drastically if temperatures have stayed the same.
This leaves things as "getting warmer".
Argument can (and will) occur over the "why" things are getting warmer and if we can do anything about it, but the simple answer is that the climate is changing, and it is getting warmer.
Note to those who say it's been one of the colder years on record: No, this is the fifth warmest year in the last 150 years.
And it can still be "colder" in one area and still generally warmer, worldwide. There is a difference between climate and weather.
Of course they are. The wingnut's shining gem was the use of the words 'trick to hide the decline'. The decline they were speaking of was a decline in tree ring growth in certain saturations of CO2 since the 1960's. It's a well established change, and points at a law of diminishing returns for the tree: CO2 helps it grow, but only up to a point, then it just can't grow any faster. The 'trick' was fitting together tree data from before and after the 'decline'. When ignorant denialists don't understand the terminology used they just make crap up instead of doing research to see what was said. It's a wonderful juxtaposition of knee-jerk and, well, science.
No. Read quite a few of the e-mails and was a bit disturbed at how they viewed their skeptics. Also at how they were very reluctant to work with "the deniers" even in a cool/cold professional manner.
I always thought the aim of science was the truth. Indisputable facts. As such a scientist would welcome any and all challengers to his/her data and findings. Without the challenges of scrutiny, you cannot reach any truths...and unfortunately that is not even the whole of the scandal.
I fully believe in climate warming, and that it is from man made carbon, methane and resultant triggering events. I have read some of the emails in question, and find that one was questioning a cold day in Denver – faceitiously wondering where warming was?. Well, there are cold days every winter day in the Rockies – and it has nothing to to do with Global warming. Another email did seem to imply cooking the books, but was it for convienence of presentation or some small scope personal/group gain? Can't be sure.
BUT....that was one agency. There are many many more that are looking at bleached coral, retreating ice all over the world, changing weather patterns and resultant impacts to nature. One only has to see a picture of the earth at night, and see all the lights, or the day and see all the cars, and to realize the dense atmosphere is only 2 miles thick to project that unbelieveable amounts of carbon are being moved from the ground to the atmosphere.
I have yet to find a warming denier that was not backed by Exxon Mobile and the American Petroleum institute, or libertarian shills for old companies, or religious zealots. Real scientists should be suspect of all information, and review things like these emails. But the results are going to be the same. We are in temperature, pollution, species survivability, and economic trouble due to our idiotic addiction to fossil fuels.
I for one don't believe in global warming. Everything comes full circle in this world, as evident by the ice age we once had. Have we caused some harm since we've we've been on earth. Sure, but let's not make it seem we are the sole cause to this.
Its all about money!! Gore did nothing about climate change until he was out of office. And many scientists and professors lecture and write books and profit off of Global Warming. Always question those in power even if they tell you they are doing things in you best interest.
San Francisco, Ca
Jack, it doesn't matter. If there is a better, more efficient way to use our resources then we should seek those avenues. Just because some professionals think their data would be more affective by "padding the numbers" doesn't mean the problem isn't real.
I suspected Global warming when they tried to say that the earth was warming 0.6degree. How can you say that when the temperature on earth varies about 100 degrees across the total surface of the earth on any given day. Statistically it is not possible to say 0.6 degree is significant.
There is data to support both a raising temperature and a falling temperature on earth. There is nothing that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that man has changed the weather patterns.
If you look at the long term temperature patterns from archeology and other long term sciences, the temperature is cyclic and in the real long term cycles the temperature in a peak and will plunge significantly in the next 1000 years.
I think the human race as a whole is pretty good at sticking our collective heads in the sand. We would be better served by telling people that we, too, can go the way of the dinosaurs, with something else rising up to take our place.
The problem with Gore's climate change data is it completely ignores other credible science that places us on a cycle of change not tied at all to global warming caused by Man. Don't forget Gore's movie was challenged in court in the U.K. and afterward the movie was banned from their schools because the numbers were just plain wrong. In the next few years this model of "global warming" will be completely discounted.
Amen! It is high time for this CO2 cover-up to finally come to a screeching end! But the question remains, "Why are these few so-call scientists so hell-bent on feeding us and the public lies about the real reason for climate change?
I've questioned whether or not global warming was for real for some time. Protecting the environment is big business. Also, I believe there was a report a couple of years ago refuting global warming.
Also, the earth naturally goes through climate changes. It is arrogant to think that wouldn't occur just because we wouldn't want it to.
The only reason there is any debate remaining on this issue:
Firms that have a stake in fossil fuels are trying DESPERATELY to mitigate the inevitable losses ahead.
Another blow to the credibility of today's Scientist. One thing is for certain – every spokesperson has an agenda. Whether it's Climate Change or Healthcare Reform, whomever pays the bills calls the tune that is played before the public.
So called "grassroots" organizations are now run not by volunteers, but by paid activists – paid by a special interest that wants their view to become law (e.g. companies that want to copyright human gene sequences for profit), get more federal dollars (e.g. high-speed rail), or convince the public it is necessary for your very survival (H1N1 vaccines).
Newspapers used to be the place to go for the straight info, but now the ever-present 24-hour news channel outlets have joined the partisan fray, leaving the public without any hope of learning the real truth.
I am not wasting my time with showing FACTS here but simply pointing out that its amateur writing like yours Jack that keep this still a debate in the non-scientific community. Climate Change is happening. Period. If you are going to write about Climate Change don't leave it open ended for people to still walk around and believe its not happening. Go look at the science and write about that.
I do not believe the scientific community has been completely honest and forthcoming with all of the data they have colllected through the years concerning global warming. Once people started paying attention to this new phenomenon somebody firgured out $ could be made and blew this whole thing up into something that its not. I believe the planet goes through cycles, cold and hot.
The scientific community as a whole is honest, the climate scientists working to perpetuate the AGW theory have been nothing but dishonest in their quest to manipulate data, keep dissenting opionion muted and cloak the process by which they have reached their conclusions in a shroud of bizarre secrecy. Who dumps raw data? Why fear replication of your results? These people are supposed to be scientists and they have acted nothing like what they have portended to be. The scientific community has been begging to do what they do best--scrutinize and debate AGW....These elitist climategate scientists should be kicked out of the scientific community for their skull daggery.
It doesn't take a scientist to know that car exhaust is bad for people and the environment; that coal and fossil fuels are harmful to ourselves and our planet when used as an energy source and that we have not been good custodians of our world. Let's just use a little common sense for a change. Senator Coburn is my US Senator. I hang my head in shame.
The issue to me is not global warming but protecting our planet, the only place we've got. Conservation of plants, animals, and our natural landscapes are the things that are important to me. If we take care of our environment and try to leave it as we found it, global warming and other problems, if they exist, will take care of themselves.
Water needs to be included on the list of anthropogenic greenhouse gases!
Also, in order to get the "greenhouse effect" you need a green house. So, where is the roof?
The science is sound. Anyone who understands the peer review process knows as much, and there is nothing in the hacked emails that undermines the peer reviewed research. Unfortunately a few bad actors, who felt themselves under siege from the Denialist zealots, said some things in private emails that make them look bad. Then, rather than being forthright after the hack, they went into "circle the wagons" mode and made themselves look even worse. Yeah, timing is everything, and they certainly botched their response.
The Denialist camp has been funded and actively supported by the oil industry. They'd better hope no one hacks their emails, or they're going to look even worse.
As for congressional reviews, I say bring it on, as long as the investigation includes oil company support for the Deniers. The science will stand up to scrutiny because it already has. The oil industry, on the other hand, would end up looking just like the tobacco companies in the 80's, publishing false data trying to prove that tobacco does not cause cancer. Yeah, bring it on.
Anytime you have people coming out declaring that the "science is settled," you know there are still questions that they don't want asked. Proper science is NEVER settled. Proper science is always questioning.
Those who say that it is "settled" are clearly not scientists and do not have the furtherance of science as their primary objective.
Jack, it is very extremely competetive and difficult to get scientific papers published in journals. It is incomprehensible that such a large amount of the scientific community would risks their careers to conspire and develop a hoax in hopes of bringing the world toward socialism. The right-wing think tanks that come up with this stuff need to stop and learn the difference between good and bad science, seriously.
Jack, we must stick with the science and ignore the polls which only reflect those fools who change their "beliefs" about global warming with the change of the season to winter. Science proves their has been an abrupt increase of atmospheric CO2 caused by us and as the polar ice caps abruptly melt, polar life is dying. .Just like when the canary in a coal mine stops singing, when all the polar bears are gone, we are next.
If they are right, global warming is for real and we don't do anything about it then we are fools. If they are wrong and global warming is wrong and we try to do something about it then they are fools. I would rather be wrong and still be alive tomorrow then right and die from my foolish mistake's.......
This is just a manufactured media story meant to muddle the truth for no purpose other than political gain which is used by conservatives to maintain the profits of the fossil fuel industry. It doesn't matter if it turns out to be a hoax later, it is like the same mis-information used by swift boaters in the 2004 election.
The ice is melting, the oceans are rising and the climate is changing. I don't need any scientific data, or hacked e-mails or political opinions Jack, I have eyes and a brain. I can see for myself.
Many proponents of global warming appear to be in the grip of a kind of religious fervor over the matter. There is a definite sense that many of these people – scientists or not – are ruled more by emotion than by science on this issue.
I believe that global warming may be happening but I am not convinced that humanity can stop it. There has been no, I repeat, NO rational explanations about the present global warming that make a case for a human-caused event rather than a natural occurence. My 5th grade textbook described how most of North America was once covered by glaciers and how and when they retreated. Now that was a real global warming event that was definitely NOT caused by human activity. Maybe the current cycle isn't any different.
I would prefer that the government would spend more time re-zoning for banana plantations in Alaska and less time plotting how to tax us for carbon emissions.
Yes I do, this would simply be too large of a coverup to conceal if they were lieing. There is simply no motive for scientists to lie about climate change as there is almost no economic benefit at this time for capping carbon emissions. This is simply people trying to cower away from the truth about the effects of global warming and they are too afraid to accept it
I do not need scientists to see global warming....I'm still waiting for my snow and this summer I was still waiting to see bees that are getting fewer and fewer. Now, I'm sure from seeing the news that people across the Globe are feeling more than I do the changes of global warming. Global warming to me means a change in your environment that shows new and or more extreme conditions.
one only has to look at the melting glaciers all over the world to see that we have a global warming problem
The ones who acknowledge it are. The "scientists" bought off by Big Oil and Corporate Coal are lying above the hum of AC. Birds and bugs that used to be indigenous to southern climes are up here in Maine. Our snow is up in Labrador. You don't have to be Alert Einstein to work this out.
Separate the issue from Al Gore. It's far too important. The real problem is cherry picking. By picking the right data you can spin it anyway you want. Climate models say one area warms while another cools or one gets more rain while another gets less. Anyone remember the Northwest Passage? It was the "mythical" passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Well guess what, there is one now. Where as when this country was founded it was fiction now it's fact during the summer. Data can be deceptive so open your eyes and see the changes. Also saying that CO2 we release can't affect weather but CO2 from volcanoes can is irrational, it's all the same and the CO2 we release, billions of tons, doesn't vanish. Also look at things like explosions of jellyfish and tropical fish showing up in the UK. It's all signs of a massive shift in climate. It's easy to say I don't trust scientist and politicians but do you trust your own eyes? Open them and you might be in for a shock!
I have always had a hunch that there have been motives at work and it wouldnt surprise me if a few radical scientists have skewed the data to more strongly support thier personal passions and views. I am not saying the Earth is not warming. Just that people may have agendas. We are all human and have flaws as Tiger Woods has recently suggested.
Love your show! Your a good guy.
global warming has been an on an off topic for decades now. if we look at the geologic time scale, our human existence has been a dimple in time, yet scientists (and al gore) give us numbers and data unlike anything ever heard of (hockey stick graph). remember the ice age scare of the late 40s and early 50s (infamous newsweek article)? ice ages take millenia to take full affect and the same goes with warming ages, so why are we being told that the worldwide temperature will rise by 6 degrees in 100 years? your guess is as good as mine because as far as i'm concerned, rapid climate change is getting blown out of proportion whether it's a cooling or warming trend.
Honestly, it's not something that I believe the average American can even remotely understand. It's a very complicated issue that politicians try to broaden in one direction or the other.
I think that there is no argument when it comes to the fact that pumping pollutants into the environment, on any level, is a bad thing. With that said, the average American has never had a problem being wasteful, driving gas guzzling automobiles, over-consuming energy, etc. I still believe that this has to stop in this country, as well as fast developing nations like China, etc.
No matter what side of the debate you are on, there are truths on both sides of the argument. However, I believe everyone will agree that one undeniable fact is that we cannot continue living and consuming at the level, nor with the same means and processes as we do now, if we're going to sustain any quality of life for the future.
This issue has gotten so political that I can only imagine the pressure many in the scientific community have been under. No one lives in a vacuum; I can't see how anyone's views on this subject can be devoid of their own personal leanings. Sad part is we are expected to cough up billions of dollars to fund projects based on distorted truths. Come to think of it, why should we expect anything else...
Jack: I don't think you've given us enough information to give an educated opinion about whether or not the scientific community has been honest with regard to global warming. What was the essence of the ignored data, and did the leaked emails suggest that this data was ignored maliciously, or simply that the parties involved did not believe it was relevant?
We should focus on scientific evidence, no matter where it leads us. It may not tell us what we want to hear, but if we look only for what we want to find, real or not, we will find it. At the moment, evidence seems to favor human-caused global warming. I'm not trading in my hybrid for a Hummer, but science has to be an open forum. For the time being, considering the potential at hand, I would still advocate reducing carbon emissions. Yes, Earth has been warmer before, but Earth has also been through several mass extinctions. If there is even a chance that we are contributing to another one, we have to take that very seriously, given that we already have contributed to known ecological issues including a number of extinctions and near-extinctions of species, threatening biodiversity, as well as other issues such as the island of trash out in the Pacific, strangulating wildlife.
Your question just invites more know-nothing rhetoric. How can anyone answer honestly without being willing to see and understand the actual data themselves? Both sides of the debate are far too willing to latch on to the nearest scientist who supports their pre-determined views.
Atmospheric CO2 levels steadily rising for the past century? Massive melt-off of polar ice? Hmmm, those do seem like pretty indisputable facts, make of them what you will.
Jim, Carson City, Nevada
No, I don't believe the scientific community has been honest. Furthermore, I believe that some of the most ardent supporters of the human caused climate change theory have misled sympathetic politicians and activists in order to further their position and secure additional grant funding. They have personalized the issue, they believe that they are right, they can't find the data to fully back their theory, so they have manipulated the data, the politicians and the public for the "greater good" . It is time to take a step back and have a very open review of what data remains available (remember that these guys destroyed the source data) and see what conclusions can be made from which comprehensive actions can be developed. Keep in mind that one viable option is to do nothing right now.
The premise of scientific consensus (as if that actually ever exists) supporting man-made & changeable global warming has been built upon three basic pillars: Computer modeling based on supposed real data, polar ice cap melting; and Al Gore. We now learn that the data is either woefully absent or "tricked" making the computer models suspect at best. We can all physically see polar ice caps are receeding in large parts. As they have before; ever hear of the Great Northwest Passage? That leaves Al Gore. I think I'll wait for something more credible to come along before I'll support trashing our economy and continuing this fools errand of trying to alter the geophysical and atmospheric ebb and flow of planet earth.
I am wondering who is funding the research for climatologists whose data determines that climate change is not a threat?
I've read that over the course of Earth's long history, that our planet has undergone numerous cycles of freezing and glacial recessions. Given this why do scientists believe that this is a man-made event? In my mind the worst that can be attributed to humans is that we may have hastened the new cycle by a few decades, but did not cause it. And, if scientists insist on laying blame solely on humans being able to negatively affect the planet, then why too can we not repair/reverse it?
We need to look for real cause and effect relationships. While the climate may be warming it is less clear that greenhouse gases from humans are the cause of that warming.
Today there are more cows than 100 years ago and there is global warming. Does global warming cause cows?
Science is a community of many different personalities all looking for the same answers. As with any community there are those who may have other asperations than true science i.e getting grants, politics or religion. Since the planets various behaviors moves in short to very long cycles the earth is experiencing a warming cycle. However, the real question is.... Is man and his race to exahust the planets resources for high profit causing the climate to change much more rapidly than it's "natural" cycling. With the intense environmental degradation from CO2 to pesticides killing millions of birds annually to overfishing to marine hot spots changing the ocean temperatures it is no wonder the planets climate is rapidly changing. If people can't see what is in front of them then they must be following the Ostrich syndrom. Put you head in the sand so you can ignore what is going on in the world.
No, but who is honest anymore?
As is the norm for many of our (so called) news articles, the entire scientific community is attacked as a group. This is not in your best interest or in the best interest of this country. While there are those who interpret the data to their own best interest in order to promote an agenda, generally the raw data is not dishonest. It is the person writing about the raw data that has the agenda. In our current sound bite news media, the data is almost always ignored and individuals are attacked and then held up as representing the entire scientific community. This is dishonest news reporting as much as people on either side of the global warming debate are dishonest in promoting bad interpretations of the data. If you were honest in your reporting and did good quality documentaries, we could avoid some of the divisive name calling and get the public educated on this very complex issue. .
Scientists that promote the idea that the earth is still warming, and that the warming is caused by human activities, have been falsifying data for years. I have been watching this farce unfold for years in frustration. There has always been a multitude of REAL scientific evidence showing that not only are we no longer warming, but the cause is not CO2. I suggest that everyone look for the evidence out there and also watch the new documentary "Not Evil, Just Wrong" by Phelim McAleer. How many trillions of dollars in debt do they want us to shoulder for some ridiculous hoax?! How much more in taxes?! What you need to ask is what they are really after....
The Global Warming case has not been settled.
The NCEE report on the effect of greenhouse gases produced by the US Environmental Protection Agency produced in March 2009 clearly shows that the effect of mans carbon footprints and other pollutants, has a minimal if any effect upon the global temperature. Similarly, in the April 18, 2009 publication of The Australian, they wrote that the Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. East Antarctica is four times the size of West Antarctica.
There have been several other publications indicating that over the last 10 years the Earth has been cooling, not warming.
To me, the evidence on both sides of the global warming issue is not conclusive.
The fact that emails skeptical of global warming were destroyed, or that original data was destroyed, is more than enough proof that many in the scientific community have been dishonest when it comes to alleged global warming. No scientist, reputable or otherwise, has been able to take the current computer models upon which all of their predictions are made, and been able to plug in historical data and come up with predictions of what actually happened! And ask any of those members of the Church of Global Warming what caused the end of the Ice Age, when in some areas the ice was at least 1-mile thick! They will be unable to do so, and in fact will never actually answer the question. But it is obvious what the source is, it is the same source that causes winter when that portion of the Earth is tilted away from it, and summer when the same portion of the Earth is tilted toward it. And that source is...the SUN!!
This question represents people who know nothing about how science works. Science is a peer reviewed process. Scientist constantly question each others research to make sure the interpretations of results are true. This method finds dishonest scientists quickly and the facts are made public. Consequently, any scientist would be an idiot to fabricate results and conclusions because they will be quickly found out and discredited. This is why dishonest scientists are so rare. The general consensus from thousands of scientists is that global warming is real and needs to be addressed. Only the uneducated question its validity. Unfortunately, most of the people making these very serious decisions are uneducated.
I'm sure much of it is exaggerated to make the point, and the hope that *something* will be done to help the situation. Ignoring it or declaring it fake will not make the problem go away.
And I don't understand the comment that capitalists say it's fake. There's a lot of money to be made in cleaning up the way we do things and changing our energy infrastructure.
No I don't. Climate Change and Global Warming are religions. Those of faith can easily believe in the teachings of Al Gore. Those who have brains and can think for themselves, know that the debate is NOT over. There is greed, dishonesty and impurity in every demographic of society. Why are scientists any different? We treat them like they are holy...incapable of purposely misleading or manipulating data to serve a selfish purpose. It amazing how many suckers there are out there...so willing to buy into the global warming craze. Global warming is yet another excuse for governments to strip their citizens of liberty and money. There is nothing wrong with correcting obvious abuses to the earths environment, but do we need to become fanatics to do so. Those who lose sleep at night over climate change reject God as their creator and believe that mankind is the most powerful source in the universe.
As a scientist, I attend meetings and talk with scientists involved in assessing global climate change (GCC) and its ecological consequences. In those discussions, GCC is always taken as a given. The only discussion really centers on questions like: How much? Where? How soon? and What are the consequences? Scientists take great pride in wanting to be honest and correct in our assessments. We all know that any shred of dishonesty will eventually come to light with seriously adverse effects. So I, for one, believe that the scientific community at large has been extremely honest about GCC.
Ken Klemow, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA
I fully support saving the planet, living sustainably, clean energy, and putting an end to pollution. If you look at cties dotted all over the globe, it is like a cancer that is slowly spreading and will continue to unless we stop it. With that being said, global warming is a complete joke. For example, the scientists behind this myth continue to use the melting arctic as proof but the ice has only been reduced by 4% since 1900 where the ice in antarctica has increased by 72%. Why is that never on the news? Average global temperatures have decreased this entire decade, why dont we ever hear that? Do some research for yourself and don't believe everything that is spoonfed to you by big media and big government.
Absolutely, Jack. That's why it's called the "scientific community."
Three words HOAX, LIES, TAXES
Who the heck knows Jack! Guess we will just have to wait until after 2012, see if we are still here, and then we can start arguing again!
It's so strange to listen to the media debate on scientific "concensus". None of the grand scientific discoveries of human civilization have depended on concensus. Scicentific discovery is about one person who CHALLENGES concensus with an idea that can be developed into a coherent theory which can be tested, proven and duplicated by others.
Einstein, Kepler, Bohr, Curie, Volta – they all challenged consensus with ideas which they could prove were true. Someone has to be able to develop a testable hypothesis related to climate.
Proof demonstrates truth, Consensus is what you end up with when there is no proof.
I have always been suspicious of the man made global warming advocates. Since when have politicians around the world ever agreed on or pushed any issue to the the extent they have done on global warming. That's because it will give them the excuse to tax those like us who do very little to pollute compared to the industrial polluters who will have all the loopholes they need to continue doing business as usual while we pay for their crimes.
I'm an atheist, not employed by any oil/gas company, not a libertarian shill for an old company (I work in higher education!), and I find the "science" of climate change, as currently presented, to be bunk.
There have been far too many scandals over the years – data altered to fit conclusions, "lost" data, data tainted by improper collection methods, and as these emails prove a concerted effort by a sizable group of zealots to subvert the peer review process and prevent anything that exposes their flawed/tainted "science" (I hate even using the word to describe what they do) from reaching publication.
I am not a "denier." I simply insist on rigorous, proper scientific methodology. I won't say climate change is not happening (it clearly does, and with several competing cycles all influencing the climate), but I will say (A) that you CANNOT have a proper debate over whether or not humans are contributing to a particular result when your starting point (fear of "oh what happens if" for climate "believers" such as yourself) is a logical fallacy, and (B) you cannot convince me that anything is a "fact" on the basis of tainted or deliberately incomplete data and fraudulently derived results.
As a researcher who works in the field taking core samples from ice, you are NOT allowed to say that man made global warming is not happening or is not as bad as the media and movies makes it out. If you try and get a grant from the US government and even hint you are not trying to prove it, you do not get funding. This has been this way for 25 years. Are humans making the temp warmer, probably, but no where near what Al Gore says. This planet has been hit by meteors, and has recovered. Humans are not making as much a impact as they think. Everyone likes to think we can do some good or bad, but a lot of the warming we are seeing happened before, when no human were around, and most of the warming is the SUN, going thought cycles. From what I have personally seen in the data, is that maybe we(humans) added half a degree or less. Not the 2-4 degrees some are saying. But if you say this in a federal grant application, you will NEVER GET IT. If you get money from oils companies and get any data that says global warming is not happening or as bad as the media says it is, no one will believe you. All they, the media report is BAD NEWS, becasue good news does not sell.
Remember, at one time, everyone though the Earth was flat and we were at the center of it.
No one is honest anymore. It's ALL politics from religion to science, to sports and entertainment. We have all forgotten what honesty is a long time ago.
although it is possible a few scientists stretched the truth, it was not for personal gain or anything like that. Global warming is a real threat.
Global cooling. Y2K. Santa Clause. The Easter Bunny. Global Warming.
Need I say more?
The natural temperature cycles of the Earth in the distant past (from core samples) are extreme when compared to the small climate variations over the last few hundred years. Since no one can explain the extremes of the natural cycle in the past, how can anyone *believe* that man's puny input with regard to greenhouse gases can account for global warming or cooling? Today's climate models depend upon the assumptions going into the models as well as all of the physics which is coupled, complex, and not completely understood. These climate modelers purport to be able to predict what is going to happen years in advance when, in fact, they cannot predict the weather reliably for the next few days! The modelers have a gold mine for grant money to keep man-made global warming alive and the abetting politicians have a lever to advance their one-world government agenda as well. It is unfortunate that the media doesn't have the scientific background to delve into this subject matter, and, hence, they also abet the man-made global warming issue. Further, it is often said that there is a *consensus* among scientists that global warming is caused by man. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Jan M. Hollis
As a scientist, it is really disheartening when the general public takes blurbs from the scientific community, and then distorts and magnifies them. People are too quick to politicize science when the evidence does not match their stubbornly-held beliefs. They capitalize on the scientific nature to approach evidence with skepticism, and then distort that sentiment into a claim that scientific evidence is just made up. Yet these same people are all too happy when science finds new medicines, results in new technologies, or, as in this case, can save us from an uncertain future.
The same people that question the veracity of climate change science also question whether "intelligent Design" should take over for evolution. Similarly the same people propound that the costs of environmentalism are too great for businesses while completely ignoring the consequences of pollution or in this case of global warming. While skepticism of science is correct, ignorance and ignoring factual evidence is ludicrous.
Jack Global warming is a fact of life.........
Here in Ontario we just came through the first November EVER without snow.........
I was in Yellowknife two years ago, and a local trapper told me he's seeing bare ground in places where he built Huge snow forts for his kids just a few years ago........
I don't think the question should be is global warming a fact.......
I think it should be "Is there still enough time to reverse the effects???
It snowed today in Dallas. Usually we only get one or two snows or ice storms a year and almost never this early. This past summer was relatively cool. In the mid-west where I grew up it was one of the coolest summers that people can remember going back decades.
The earth heats up and cools down. During the time of the "dark ages" we were going through a mini ice age. We are going through a time of flux. Six billion people do have an effect on the world but unless we all want to quit breathing, eating and moving, we will continue to affect the planet.
Al Gore and his merry bunch of global warming loonies saw a chance to grab some power and they took it. For years a small but vocal group of scientists have been saying that the whole global warming threat was nonsense. It would appear that they just may be correct. It comes down to dollars and cents. There is a ton of money to be made coming up with theories to support global warming and some folks will make up the science if real science doesn't prove their theory.
Anyone who can read CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa and ohter other historic data sets can see that levels are rising exponentially. Atmospheric scientists do understand the relationship between temperature and CO2 concencentrations. What's to fudge? We may be entering a temporary solar minimum now, but a decade from now, we will begin to see a very different world if we do not address global warming and the resultant climate change.
You can't just attribute honesty or deceit based on a few scientists. Some I'm sure overexaggerate their points to make a name for themselves and money. You can't just take information only from Al Gore's movie. There are plenty of articles out there. Find many and see what conclusion you arrive at.
But the fact of the matter is that most of the scientific community believes in anthropogenic climate change. Almost all believe in global warming. Yes, there are natural variations, that's why now, the global temperature has remained stable over the last few years (cyclic shifts in the ocean).
But you can't deny the amount of ice being lost in the polar regions. Or that Greenland could be gone by as soon as 2025. Or that polar bears and other life that depend on the ice are dying at increasingly rapid rates. Or the fact that even as we are in a plateau, the top 11 warmest years on record have all been in last 13 years.
Climate is different than weather. Weather is temperature, precipitation, etc. at an instantaneous moment. Climate is the trends and patterns over decades or more. And it is clear that the earth is warming at rates that are much higher than what we have seen before.
These rates are consistent with the fact that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases create a blanket effect, warming the planets as more of the sun's rays are absorbed. We need this effect to have life on earth, but too much causes disaster just as too little would. Something is driving this, and I would like for anyone who thinks we aren't the main catalyst to tell me what is.
They don't have to be honest about it. I can feel it happening outside my window.
Everyone in California has noticed over the last couple of years that the climate is getting colder and colder. You'd think that is the opposite of Global Warming, until a scientist tells you its because the Polar Icecap is becoming Polar icewater and flowing down along the Western Coast. Colder Pacific waters means colder airflow means colder weather. I've been digging out my old sweaters as of late. Somethings happening, and I don't need an email to see it.
No, check out "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. He makes the case that the "science" used to predict global warming is not science but modeling. You can't study the globe scientifically, it's too big and time is too long.
What was said in some e-mails between scientists does not discredit the fact that the Earth is warmer now than it has been since thermometers (a fact, look it up) were invented and that human CO2 emissions are the only reasonable explanation.
Yes I think they reported as they see it, for the past 20 or so years everything is in an epidemic, it just the way we are living these days, I don't dispute the ice is melting, they have been melting ever since the ice age ended, I believe most people would concede that fact, the issue is whether we are causing it, they have not convinced me we are the cause of Global Warming, that's where they are fudging the facts a bit. they work very hard trying to justify what people want to believe then trying to prove whether we are the cause of Global warming or not.
of course climate change is real and a very serious issue that must be confronted and solved. The tempest in a teapot over the hacked emails is nothing. These scientists who clearly have proven climate change to be real have to deal with crackpots shooting them down with the most outlandish and vehement attacks.
Of course they let out some steam in PRIVATE emails to each other. You should read what I say about the people I'm stuck working with in my PRIVATE emails. People reading those emails might try to discredit me because of the manner of my opinions but it doesn't change the fact that i work with a truckload of idiots.
Just reading some of the 'facts' stated here and elsewhere you can tell that 80% of the US population doesn't have the faintest grasp of what climate change is about and how it effects nature (some places will get hotter while others will get colder, seasons will shift slightly making giant changes in agriculture, there will be floods, there will be droughts, there will be plant species dying off because they can't adapt and evolve quickly enough for the changes, other species will grow beyond manageable numbers (bark beetles, for instance), crops will be destroyed by the new giant numbers of the wrong kind of insects. In short, what has taken millions and millions of years to balance will be knocked sideways by changes that nature can't fix in the short term.
and, yes – it is man-made. Any fool can figure that out by looking at population growth, industry and pollution numbers.
Dear Jack Cafferty:
There is no question but that the ice shelf is receding Northward. In Essex County, where I reside, 'glacial remnants' abound. They are large boulders, Visible from heavily traveled roadways and more rural areas. They remain from the ice mass which once covered New England. That weight of the ice mass compressed much of the coastal area out to the about 250 miles offshore, where the sudden deep dropoff is know as the continental shelf.
30 +/- years ago the taxpayer-funded armchair scholars were fretting about the effects of the sea bottom gradually rising after the great weight of the ice was removed.
"beware the cause of this effect, for this effect defective comes by cause" Hamlet, Act 1, scene 2, line 101( I think, i am a lowly engineer).
It's not possible to know who is being honest about global warming. It has become political and is no longer a science issue. I look at who's on which side and I line up with the lefties. Besides, global warming or not, what harm can come from reducing greenhouse gases and giving more protection to the environment? The alternative is to sell out to big energy and we all know their agendas have little to do with what is good or right.
I think a lot of people are getting rich as long as this global warming claim is stuffed down everybody's throats. Why isn't it being reported widely that Antarctica actually cooled these past ten years?
We have not heard the "flip side" to global warming at the same intensity as the fear Mongols have pushed this phenomena . Mother earth has gone through many changes and she will survive this as well. However, we know many manmade gases and products are adding to the atmospheric temperature and a shift to wind and advanced solar power must be pursued. Michael, Denver
one more thing on CO2. building top soil requires a lot of carbon being taken from the atmosphere. there are slopes on the rockies with little or no top soil and that can be built by the right processes. Also animals grazing on grass are much healthier than those raised on corn. So check out the carbon farmers of america site before you buy the extravagant global plans for world domination.
"Top soil good; bare ground bad." Simple. its as simple as asking the Indians on Pine Ridge what they think of govt healthcare. IHS pays about 2 thousand a year per patient. Medicaid is almost twice that and Medicare 4 times as much. Political clout counts in DC, and our politicians act, er.., political.
You don't have to look in Lubbock or DC to look for and see the effects of Global Warming. You have to look in the arctic and Antarctica. It is there that matters and it is there where it is happening. Once the poles begin to melt, we won't be able to fill enough sand bags. The sad thing is that the science and the evidence are clear. In the peer-reviewed literature, like SCIENCE and NATURE, there is common agreement from many distinct lines of evidence. It is sad the media wants a controversy to keep viewer-ship high. This is not a story with two sides. We really should all be on one side and that is the side to survive as a species.
Jack Cafferty sounds off hourly on the Situation Room on the stories crossing his radar. Now, you can check in with Jack online to see what he's thinking and weigh in with your own comments online and on TV.
About Jack Cafferty
Subscribe | Send Feedback