1. Luboš Motl | 09.04.09

Did Ban Ki-Moon grow up in the Arctic? I thought it was in Korea. So how could he possibly see the “meltdown” for himself? Isn’t it self-evident that this statement is untrue? The Arctic has always been partially melting in the summer, at least during the last 6,000 years or so.

It’s not a good idea to use Ban to defend alarmism because indeed, Bans are the main goals of the alarmist hype: the ultimate goal of the pseudoscientific fairy-tales about a dangerous warming is the elimination of human freedom. Concerning bans, pun intended.

I am getting dozens of e-mail of experts concerning the new “Arctic study” and the work is mostly gibberish of the kind that serious media simply shouldn’t be mentioning it at all. See e.g.

http://climatedepot.com/a/2769/Not-Again-Media-Promoting-Arctic-Hockey-Stick–Claim-Temps-Warmest-in-2000-Years–But-Scientists-Already-Rebuking-Study

for some flavor of the problems with the study. I understand that this is a “Christian” monitor, and signs from God - from the Arctic, in this case - that coincidentally arrive at the same time are surely the cup of tea of many writers here.

But wouldn’t it be more reasonable to expect that the readers actually possess brains?

2. wtobias | 09.04.09

the climate has been changing for millions of years, guess what its going to change with us or without us

3. bruce ritchie | 09.04.09

Lubos Motl, you’re so certain that Ban Ki-Moon and all the other scientists are wrong, that you’re willing to bet all our lives on it. Does that about sum it up? Personally, I think that cutting back to a steady state economy and living more simply would do us all a world of good. That is, even IF the world is not headed for the abyss. I saw this day coming when Jimmy Carter pointed it out around forty years ago.

4. Jack | 09.04.09

Who cares? Everything is supposed to end in 2012 anyways…right?

5. Tunderbar | 09.04.09

Last time I looked, the arctic ice mass was still there. Pretty much right on the yearly average. And the Antarctics ice mass has grown larger and larger. Polar bear populations has risen from 5000 or so in the 1970’s to more than 30,000 now.

How many more silly shlockey “melting/heating/dying faster than ever” headlines are we going to see before these idiot columnists and “journalists” decide to fact check these ridiculous end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it cataclysmic absurd pronouncements from UN politicians, funding-seeking, conflict-of-interested so-called “scientists” and assorted eco-activists.

Good god, man, do your reporters due diligence. It isn’t difficult. At least present a balanced view by getting input from real scientists without conflicts-of-interest. This is getting ridiculous.

6. edd | 09.04.09

I like people that don’t understand how climate change will change the world.

7. Anonymous | 09.04.09

This comment has been removed by the administrator.

8. polarbear killer | 09.04.09

Sun cause global warming (duh) but no government-worshipper can make a mad power grab if they blame the sun.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141349.htm

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090827-sun-climate.html

9. Arno Arrak | 09.04.09

I looked at this paper you refer to. They show a two thousand year temperature trend that is linear and slopes down indicating cooling. And then, near the end, it turns up abruptly,like Mann’s hockey stick, a right angle turn at year 1900. There is obviously something radically wrong with such a temperature spurt. It is contrary to a two thousand year trend and a trend like that cannot lightly be changed unless there is a good physical reason for it. But there is absolutely nothing that happened in the year 1900 to cause it, not even clouds of carbon dioxide in the air. Unless an actual physical reason for this abrupt reversal of a two thousand year trend can be produced this warming is uncaused and contrary to laws of nature. Global warming is out and don’t try to talk about carbon dioxide. It screams “man made,” and unless a real cause for this radical change of behavior can be found man made it is, to fit the warming paradigm. Of course I could be wrong if the team of authors are skilled in voodoo science and pulled it off that way. It does look impressive, though, and true believers in global warming religion will love it.

10. bs | 09.04.09

Explain to me how humans are responsible for this when the earth has undergone 4 major ice ages resulting in dramatic cooling and heating trends. We may certainly be seeing a warming trend but to suggest that we are responsible for dooming the planet is asinine. What we are seeing is nothing more than normal planetary trends that have occurred in the past.

11. Chris | 09.04.09

Hmmm. I believe the arctic has melted many times befor the modern age. Why do we assume that humans should take the credit? It seems a convienent argumant to tax, controll, and enslave the human race a bit further.

12. ALAN COHEN | 09.04.09

Global warming is so bad that it is melting the ice caps on Mars
(NatGeo 2007) ….or could it be Solar Effect?

13. Brian | 09.04.09

I am astounded at the number of experts that take the time to comment on a 1,500-word web article. Why did none of you plug your own websites and personal research efforts that prove conclusively your otherwise specious claims?

14. Brian | 09.04.09

Someone had this to say in another forum on this topic. The author says it better than I can.

“As a scientist, I feel compelled to say that I find a lot of this debate somewhat absurd. It is true that, collectively, our understanding of the earth’s long term climate cycles is incomplete. However, what we do know is that many of the influences of man on the earth as an ecosystem act to reduce its ability to sustain life. All other things aside, that is a risky approach: i.e. one that is only sustainable for so long, and where that time is a) unknown, b) not determined by man, but by nature. Currently we can choose to follow whatever path we do according to our own collective will, but we must recognize that that is by no means a situation that is guaranteed to persist. In my opinion, the only sensible choice, really, is to make changes as rapidly as possible so that the influences of man on the earth become much more benign. We should not do so because of one model or another, or because of someone yapping about “man-made global warming” — the real point is that we in fact live in a glass house, and we don’t know how much damage we can inflict by the stones that we are throwing. Best to leave the house to itself as much as we can and let history unfold the truth for us, rather than to persist in pushing our luck while debating points that are not germane to this central issue. Final comment: What we are doing, worldwide, is far short of the “as much as we can” mentioned in the previous sentence. We are still operating, at the end of the day, as if money truly is everything; we can only hope that nature affords us the time to change our ways, or our descendants will have one **** of a time of it, some day.”

15. LT Brush | 09.04.09

Another 3rd world, UN blood sucking, US hating ingnoramous speaks and makes news This about extorting money from us in the name of Man Made ( read US caused) Global Warming. Polar ice is increasing in Antartica. How inconvienent for the misinformed. Arctic ice was far less in the 1920’s through the 1930’s. The Earth was warmer then now during Medival Period and for hundreds of years during the Rein of the Roman Empire. The cold periods that follwed, and will occur again, caused famine, plagues and loss of the human population to the tune 20 to 30%. This is all well documented fact. But what the hey… The Moon over the UN has spoken. Now what qualifications does he have other then being a politician?

16. Tunderbar Revisited | 09.04.09

“Balanced view?” What CSM has presented are the facts. You don’t include lies from nutjobs. But you know, they’re revising the Bible. Let’s present a balanced view there, too! God’s hogging ahh dee gud stoff.

17. The Observer | 09.04.09

So, was i the only one hear to look at the actual data. I have to say that the research is nearly pointless. the margin of error is .3 degrees on an increase .5 degrees. The data is useless there is around a 30% chance that there has been no change at all, but whatever its not like the data and the margin of error on it are important.

18. Dustin | 09.04.09

Wow! I can’t believe people still deny this! Well OK then let’s do this let’s all trash this planet while arguing logically that sleeping in your own trash is healthy for you.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Pedersen_Glacier_jpg

o ya and that big soup of plastic that’s breaking down in the ocean is not really there ether.

http://www.google.com/search?q=plastic+in+ocean&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Good luck with all that!

19. Ciceroji | 09.04.09

Jack “Who cares? Everything is supposed to end in 2012 anyways…right?”

No 2012 is just one of many cycles. A significant one but still a cycle.

My opinion whether global warming is man made or not we should limit if not stop man contribution to the problem. People are willing to spend thousands in hopes of winning the lottery (1:1 million). Yet they don’t want to take action on global warming (1:2).

Hmmm….

20. M. Thyer | 09.04.09

I’d sure love to see an avowed climate science skeptic debunk the methodology used to measure change? The comment section of news articles of this nature invariably read like a collective work of speculative fiction. The “debate” is usually limited to an exchange of ideas which resembles two kids saying “It’s true!” followed endlessly by “No it isn’t!” Sometimes they mix it up and the skeptics go before the fans, but the framework of this debate seems to be intractable. And pointless.

Anyone with a functional mouse can click their way on over to the American Meteorological Society http://www.ametsoc.org/ or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration http://www.noaa.gov/ (or their favorite national climate service) and get an unbiased, peer-reviewed, impartial, chunk of science on this issue. The science is easily and freely available and despite the various and numerous opinions out there regarding cause or effect there’s still only one way to read a thermometer. Similarly spectral analysis of extracted or dissolved gases in long lasting ice formations, satellite imagery analysis, and the whole compendium of tools used to investigate climate are pretty straight forward and undemanding to understand.

21. Tom | 09.04.09

The hockey stick was proven wrong. Look it up.

22. Galen | 09.04.09

Those who reject the evidence of human-caused climate change do so because they are pre-Copernicans. They perceive the earth aa the center of the universe and can’t imagine how something as little as a human being can have an impact on something as big (to their minds) as this planet.

By their primitive awe they demonstrate the same ignorance of dimension and disdain for empiricism that characterized the medieval Europeans.

23. James Lovelock: The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years | 09.04.09

Imagine a young policewoman delighted in the fulfilment of her vocation; then imagine her having to tell a family whose child had strayed that he had been found dead, murdered in a nearby wood. Or think of a young physician newly appointed who has to tell you that the biopsy revealed invasion by an aggressive metastasising tumour. Doctors and the police know that many accept the simple awful truth with dignity but others try in vain to deny it.

Whatever the response, the bringers of such bad news rarely become hardened to their task and some dread it. We have relieved judges of the awesome responsibility of passing the death sentence, but at least they had some comfort from its frequent moral justification. Physicians and the police have no escape from their duty.

Related articles
Environment in crisis: ‘We are past the point of no return’
Why Gaia is wreaking revenge on our abuse of the environment
This article is the most difficult I have written and for the same reasons. My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and clearly anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease. Gaia has made me a planetary physician and I take my profession seriously, and now I, too, have to bring bad news.

The climate centres around the world, which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth’s physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth’s family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger.

Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.

Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth’s surface we have depleted to feed ourselves.

Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This “global dimming” is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool’s climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.

By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, we have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in charge. By doing this, we condemn ourselves to the worst form of slavery. If we chose to be the stewards of the Earth, then we are responsible for keeping the atmosphere, the ocean and the land surface right for life. A task we would soon find impossible - and something before we treated Gaia so badly, she had freely done for us.

To understand how impossible it is, think about how you would regulate your own temperature or the composition of your blood. Those with failing kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys.

My new book The Revenge of Gaia expands these thoughts, but you still may ask why science took so long to recognise the true nature of the Earth. I think it is because Darwin’s vision was so good and clear that it has taken until now to digest it. In his time, little was known about the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans, and there would have been little reason for him to wonder if organisms changed their environment as well as adapting to it.

Had it been known then that life and the environment are closely coupled, Darwin would have seen that evolution involved not just the organisms, but the whole planetary surface. We might then have looked upon the Earth as if it were alive, and known that we cannot pollute the air or use the Earth’s skin - its forest and ocean ecosystems - as a mere source of products to feed ourselves and furnish our homes. We would have felt instinctively that those ecosystems must be left untouched because they were part of the living Earth.

So what should we do? First, we have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act; and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can. Civilisation is energy-intensive and we cannot turn it off without crashing, so we need the security of a powered descent. On these British Isles, we are used to thinking of all humanity and not just ourselves; environmental change is global, but we have to deal with the consequences here in the UK.

Unfortunately our nation is now so urbanised as to be like a large city and we have only a small acreage of agriculture and forestry. We are dependent on the trading world for sustenance; climate change will deny us regular supplies of food and fuel from overseas.

We could grow enough to feed ourselves on the diet of the Second World War, but the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous. We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate.

Perhaps the saddest thing is that Gaia will lose as much or more than we do. Not only will wildlife and whole ecosystems go extinct, but in human civilisation the planet has a precious resource. We are not merely a disease; we are, through our intelligence and communication, the nervous system of the planet. Through us, Gaia has seen herself from space, and begins to know her place in the universe.

We should be the heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady. So let us be brave and cease thinking of human needs and rights alone, and see that we have harmed the living Earth and need to make our peace with Gaia. We must do it while we are still strong enough to negotiate, and not a broken rabble led by brutal war lords. Most of all, we should remember that we are a part of it, and it is indeed our home.

24. Meme Mine | 09.04.09

And scaring my kids to death by threatening them with a future of a hell on a toxic wasteland of an Earth is somehow Christian?
This silly witch burning theory is now 23 years old. Call it a quarter of a century of yelling “FIRE” in the movie theatre, crying “WOLF”, “THE SKY IS FALLING” and the good old christian standard: “THE END IS NEAR!!!!!!”.
How dare you!!!!!
If you really still believe in this media fad at least have the faith to march with the sign that says: THE END IS NEAR or stop leading the people of the world to war against an invisible and non existent enemy of climate change.
I will never have faith in faith again after the church gets on this traint of fear.
This WMD scam leading us to war against the air will be cursed in history.

25. edbrackin | 09.04.09

Why is it always the right wing Christian nut jobs that are against the notion that humans and technological modernization are responsible for global warming? Have these people never been in a green house? How about your car on a bright sunny day? People, if the gases trap the heat just like the glass in your car then why don’t you think it works the same way in the atmosphere?
People must not remember world history either. Around the turn of the last century in London England so much coal was burnt during the winters that it would blacken the sky. Do you not think this has long term effects? What about the CA fires that have smoke drifting all the way to Denver?
What is with mostly Christians anyway? Why are they against measurable facts? Did some non-denominational evangelist tell them it was of the devil or something? FYI, I consider myself a devout Christian Lutheran. (Formerly Baptist) As a college educated person I do believe what other educated scientist have to say.

26. Ron | 09.04.09

We ALL must ask ourselves one question….

Do we ( ALL Humans) believe that 6,782,067,445 ( Billion people ) presently living on the planet, have NO effects on the atmosphere, climate, water usage, earth resources ( Coal, oil, Food, ( Meat, plants, grain, etc). The projected world population is expect to be 8 Billion people in 12 years.

If you DO NOT Believe the world population has ANY effect on global resources and the environment, Global Warming Included) then there is no way to stress the realistic point to the NON Believers about global warming.

Keep in mind, in earths history ( 4.6 Billion years old) earth has never experienced the record amount of humans on the planet using/ draining down earths resources ( Water, Food ( Meat, grain, etc) , Energy ( Oil, Coal, Minerals).

Simple Rule of life, for which is FACT…every action….has a reaction….
Science by nature is the based upon facts…..

Base you beliefs on this topic by science alone….( read the facts, view the images, research yourself, shoild you not believe the scientists.

To just say No, Global warming is not happing,….is foolish, if you do not take the time to look at the facts yourself….and add things up.

Again…Ask yourself….Does 6.7 Billion people presentluy on the planet…have any effects to your livellyhood…or the human population as a whole.

How will this affect you?
Food, water availability…..resource availability

Keep your mind open to ALL news…Outside of Global Warming news….and then Ask yourself…..does this affect the environment…

When they build a new factory or home on your block….ask youself….does this affect, or can this affect the environment in ANY way….if so….Multiply that X Factor by how many you think may exist in the world…

ASk questions and LOOK, Read….answer the questions yourself

27. … | 09.04.09

Alot ignorance and idiots here. No matter what proof, no matter how many forest fires and floods. There are people here still have their eyes closed.

28. MARK | 09.04.09

Do you know that there is a HUGE UNDERWATER VOLCANO that is active under the ice plate

Mark

29. republicanHegemon | 09.04.09

Dustin, I hope to god you’re trolling…

Ciceroji, “People are willing to spend thousands in hopes of winning the lottery (1:1 million). Yet they don’t want to take action on global warming (1:2).” Sounds exactly like the claims in the media to confuse the public by presenting skewed data; alarmists. Only difference is that you failed miserably.

I have a few problems with this article.

1) It is an editorial; offering a single view point; 90% opinion and no citations to back of claims, gg…

2) The data in the graphs are VERY unreliable. They come from multiple mediums in different location that build upon each other throughout the years. Therein lies the majority of the problem with the hockey stick; percent error, like The Observer had mentioned.

3) Like many posters before, this article DOES contribute to alarmism. It’s a biased viewpoint without scientific proof based on organizations that are biased; not a good base to start with, fyi..

4) If regulations can be efficient and cleaner while proving to be profitable in industry, I am all for it. The current plans though suggest a rush to regulate in a crippled economy. Anyone hear another cry for “Health Care Reform” in a crowded theater? More regulations on trade and industry are exactly the opposite force we need to drive stability back into our economy. Billions more would be required to even start anything remotely successful and the turn around in profit would take at least a century or two.

Lastly, as a side comment; the Pedersen Glacier has been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age. This is typical after a cooling trend and should not be used as a form of measurement for this so called “Global Warming.”

Also, Climate Change =/= Global Warming…..

30. Amazed | 09.04.09

I am amazed that anyone would believe a thing that comes from the U.N. or quote anyone from the U.N. as a reliable source. They are corrupt, like a politician on the take.

If you write an article it needs to be based on a trusted source if you want people to buy into the idea. Citing the U.N. is like citing the New York or Los Angeles times. They don’t fact check, they print headlines to grab readers and to make money. My first question is, is the U.N. going to benefit financially from monitoring the melting of ice. I would bet they are and as such a statement from the U.N. is simply a pr campaign to boost their profit margin.

Try again with a trusted source, maybe someone will believe it.

31. Stephen A | 09.04.09

Isn’t it amazing how many people have such strong opinions and strident voices and yet have such a shallow and narrow “knowledge” of the subject of global warming. They are clearly in denial over the depth and breadth of supporting scientific facts which are accumulating today as rapidly as the Artic and Antartic ice caps and glaciers around the world are disappearing.

It is not surprising that so many individuals in denial of global warming are also willing to blame the concept of global warming on “the government” or on politically motivated “junk scientists” or some other monolithic gang of world wide conspirators. As for them, they will accept anything but the truth. As was once observed and is often appropriately quoted, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

32. Don Hawkins | 09.04.09

We are in deep do do. Still time a little to give this a try.

33. Ron Howard | 09.04.09

Last time I checked, the average temperature has been rising steadily over the past 100 years countering the trends leading up to the last century… Anecdotal evidence is biased to the subject perceiver. Check yourself before you try and make conclusions on behalf of the BILLIONS of people on this planet.

34. valuegal | 09.04.09

I was in middle school in the 70s. I was scared to death by the “scientists” would said that we were going into a new ice age and North America was going to be covered in glaciers and we needed to move south. I am older and wiser and I have been through the eat low fat, low carb, eat margarine, no eat butter “science”.

Let us be clear, I do not change my behavior on these things any more. Fool me once… Science in the short term is as faddish as fashion.

I live in a place that was formed by glaciers, long before I was born. I believe the climate is changing. But I do not see good evidence of causation. I lived in LA during Pinatubo, that eruption change our weather for years and it was on the other side of the Pacific. Smart and wise are not the same thing, I think we have a lot of smart scientists who are not very wise.

35. Edward R. Eck | 09.04.09

Alan Cohen claims that “Global warming is so bad it is melting the ice caps on Mars,” a statement of questionable veracity. Leaving aside the question of how Martian climate could be coupled to terrestrial climate, the alleged “warming” of Mars is because the sands of Mars have drifted and exposed dark areas which, of course, absorb more sunlight and raise the temperature of the planet. See, for example, the Bad Science pages of Discover magazine, available on line, or google Lori Fenton’s articles in Nature, with abstracts available on line.
Likewise the supposed “solar warming” of Jupiter, Pluto, Triton and Neptune are all explained without recourse to the “solar warming” claim. Note that the people who claim the output of the sun has increased and warmed earth ignore data from other planets. This is known as “cherry picking the data.”

36. skiidogs | 09.04.09

IT DOESNT MATTER IF EVERYONE BELIEVES ITS HAPPENING NOW,FOR THEY SOON WILL’

WE WHO HAVE STAYED ON TOP OF THIS FROM MANY YEARS AGO–WE KNOW ALSOTHAT IF THEY ARE LIEING TO US –[GOVERNMENTS]-THEN WE KNOW THAT IT IS UNSOLVABLE–OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO LIE TO US—-SO THERE IS NO SOLUTION-

THEY CHEMTRAIL THE SKIES WITH THEIR DIMMING PROGRAM UP HERE IN WISCONSIN DAILY—BUT MOST DONT BELIEVE THAT EITHER—BUT THEY WILL

37. OzoneSky | 09.04.09

Firstly, the Artic melts faster than the Antartic because The Artic floats on an ocean of water while the Antartic sits on solid rock.

Human CO2 output only accounts for 3% of all carbon released by the earth every year. So if we managed a dramatic 10% cut in emissions, what bemefit would that have on the environment? None.

Even if we stopped releasing carbon gases tomorrow, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere would still continue to rise for the next 100 years at least and the earth’s temperature with it. Alas, we are not alone in this. This is also a cyclical matter that would take place with us or without us.

Do our emissions feed this cycle? Of course they do. Can we do anything about it? Hardly. But it is worth trying.

We should worry about something we can control and that is the extent to which we continue to damage the ozone. CFC’s continue to be released, yet the public is not aware of this.

These days the public thinks CFC stands for Cash for Clunkers. Our Ozone is turning into a clunker. Will Obama bail it out? Hardly.

38. Rice A. | 09.04.09

There have been many ice ages in Earth’s past, yet the world warmed then without the help of mankind. So how did the world warm then? There were no man made emissions, no industrial revolution to create smog or airborne pollutants, no cars, no carbon monoxide, yet the world warmed and the ice ages retreated.

Where are the ice ages now?
The religion of environmentalism seeks to control what we do and the energy we consume and impose a Penalty . Money will solve the problem. They will take our money and fix the worl! Ha! More socialist agendas. Man is so vain, he thinks he can control global warming, but cannot even predict the weather. What pompous fools these environmentalists are. As I sit here freezing in the North Eastern US, I wonder where this “global warming is? Florida maybe.
This is the Lord’s earth and he set the seasons in motion.

39. Eve | 09.05.09

General Ban Ki-moon, what happened to the methane released during the Medieval Warm Period. There must have been methane released as it was much warmer then than now and the Arctic was almost ice free. Strange that the planet could be that warm for 300 years and then go into the little Ice Age? Or maybe the hypothesis of C02 induced global warming is wrong? And maybe also the fear about methane that you are trying to induce. Maybe you don’t know anything. Maybe you are just trying to scare people to make money. That’s it.

40. brinjal | 09.05.09

I`m a great scientist with lots of equipments. I have plenty of artic readings with me for the past 100 years. Now I wish to sell them for the hghest bidder. I will repeat, I`m a great scientist.Please undestand. I knw a method of making ice.

41. Global Warming | 09.05.09

SOME species of Australian birds are shrinking and the trend will likely continue because of global warming, a scientist said.

Janet Gardner, an Australian National University biologist, led a team of scientists who measured museum specimens to plot the decline in size of eight species of Australian birds over the past century.

The research, published last week in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, found the birds in Australia’s southeast had become between 2 per cent to 4 per cent smaller.

42. Luboš Motl | 09.05.09

Dear Bruce Ritchie,

first of all, Ban Ki-Moon is not a scientist, at least not one that could reach my scientific ankles, so to say. Check e.g. his and my articles

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ban-ki-moon

and their citations. The IPCC scientists (and they’re just a portion of the IPCC) are generally low-quality ones, too. Second, yes, I am willing to bet our lives and all life on Earth on the proposition that life on Earth won’t disappear in the following 500 years because of “climate change”. After all, Nature has been successully winning the very same bet for almost 5 billion years and I know that and why the catastrophic prophecies are scientifically preposterous.

Your desire to eliminate economic growth in the world - which is “good for you, anyway” - reveals the true motivation behind the global warming pseudoscience. It is all political - and based on a very perverse ideology, indeed.

If you ask me about politics, which should be an independent question from the science, I want to keep our growth. I don’t want to be a part of the first generation in thousands of years that would be going down the hill because of a rotten anti-civilization movement hiding in our very countries.

Best wishes
Lubos

43. Mike | 09.05.09

When will these global warmers get it through their thick skulls that the fact that your house is warm, doesn’t mean someone has turned on the heating.

Global temperatures vary quite naturally, and …

… and when will editors get the message that the public are fed up of lazy journalists who drag up a cheap story on global warming instead of doing real journalism?

44. MHnTX | 09.05.09

It has been shown that the IPCC report, which Al Gore made famous and all of the original man made global warming supporters hailed as there ultimate undeniable proof, was tainted beyond believability from the start. Many of the actual scientists who did the studies and the writing have testified to politically motivated arm twisting by the bureaucrats within the UN.

While the globe may be warming slightly there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that it is nothing more than a natural cycle and there are currently some 19000 plus valid scientist who are skeptics of the supposed non-debatable conclusions of the MMGW theory.

What seems odd to me is, while most of the claims of the original IPCC report have been debunked, it is the politically motivated MMGW theorist who are still refusing to remove their heads from the soil… and who seem to be desperately grasping for air… and of course larger federal grants.

45. Dan | 09.05.09

These arguments at there foundation have to do more with the nature of things as the bible reveals them. Just hear me out before you shut your mind off. This earth is Gods earth. If you need scripture reference I can give it. The basis of all things is relational not intellectual. History is leading to a climax. The earth in its present form is temporary. This is very disturbing to those who suppose it was meant to go on forever in its present state. Believing right always precedes doing right and Jesus Christ says He is the personification of truth. If you are not for Him you are against Him no matter how noble you think the cause. Earth worship has always been exchanged for whats true. Little man there are things to big for you.

46. Dree | 09.05.09

Why would they want people to know it is caused by the sun? There isn’t any way to monetize the behavior of the sun. Nor is there a way to put the antifreeze back into the earth. Consider why crude oil was there in the first place. Perhaps it was acting as a coolant to keep the heat from the molten core in the depths of the globe. Heat rises and it is very possible that not just the temperature of the oceans are rising but also the soil and rock on the crust.

47. Jay | 09.05.09

My, lots of astroturf underfoot today. Hope they’re paying you well boys - it better be worth it, given that you’re dooming your kids to a life of misery. Any of you got a link to peer reviewed journal to back up your denialism? Oh, thought not. I’ll just ignore your irrelevant ranting as usual then.

48. Zimminger | 09.05.09

It was once predicted that all animal life on earth would die as a result of oxygen depletion caused by burning coal as a fuel. That was before they started pumping oil out of the ground.

49. Rev. Kent Holmes | 09.05.09

Just a word of thanks to Dr. Lovelock for weighing-in on the discussion. I am deeply touched by his words. There are few among us today who can speak with such authority and grace about the health and welfare of humanity and our beloved earth. If I may be so bold, ours is a sacred task. We, you and I, are stewards of and sojourners on this planet we call our home, and the sooner we understand that fact the healthier we, and the earth, will be.

If we do not take this task seriously and move beyond the narrow parochialism of our current debates, we will certainly all perish. And that, friends, is a tragedy! The choices before us are indeed stark: we can either ignore the evidence and take our chances, or, we can act in intentional ways to mitigate a total disaster. Our window of opportunity is closing rapidly, and, if it closes completely, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

50. CO2 | 09.05.09

The earth is something like 4.1 billion years old. It has been on a steady cooling trend since its creation, right? During warmer times there has always been more life than cooler times. Maybe CO2 can effect the temperature of the atmosphere a bit, but if you look at the trend over geological time; we as humans are not going to have much affect over the overall climate, after we are gone all that CO2 will come back out of the atmosphere and things will go on as they have gone for billions of years.

I think we as humans should be much more alarmed over an asteroid hitting the earth than this little blurp in temperature. I believe that this whole climate change business has more to do with a power grab and a re-distrubution of wealth than anything else.

51. kenny | 09.05.09

Stupid global warming steptics,now is the danger time of earth people’s life, if you wanna see what would be happened in the future if we continue to make the warming seriouser, you can gonna watch this movie——<>!

52. Patrick | 09.05.09

“The Arctic summer now is about 2.5 degrees warmer than it should be.”

Looked at through geologic time actually were still much colder “than it should be”. Take a graph of world temperatures from 2004-2009 and it shows a cooling trend. Its all about how far back you wanna go and many times the time frame is arbitrary and is used strategically to make unfounded assumptions about the future.

53. Rob Johnson | 09.05.09

As someone who has the unique combination of university education in both economics and geology, I’m afraid that nearly everyone in the world, I’d hazard a guess more than 99.99% of the world’s population has never meaningfully thought about how global warming will interact with the ongoing global economic depression and looming debt crisis that will envelope most of the Western World. For those with no background international exchange and macroeconomics, let me briefly explain the monumental changes to the global economy that have occurred in the past 100 years. The Western World has changed from being the major creditor to the Eastern World and Africa, to the largest debtor block in the history of human civilization. The new creditors are nations like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. It is literally through the financing of these and other primarily Eastern nations that the Western World is able to constantly run continual budget deficits, building increasingly staggering and unsustainable levels of debt. The only reason cherished state-funded institutions like the NHS in the UK can exist are because China, Saudi Arabia, and the like fund them. The only reason that the US thinks it can afford similar socialized medicine or a Cap and Trade policy (emphasis added) are because, like the rest of the Western World, economists with policy-making clout exclusively (emphasis added) use models that assume the continual willingness and insatiable appetite of Vladimir Putin, the Saudi King, and the Chinese Politburo to buy Western debt and fund the social programs and expensive armed forces of the West.

All signs indicate this situation is about to end. The UK’s government’s debt rating has been downgraded to AA from AAA. The significance of this cannot be understated; a few years ago it was unthinkable that a developed Western nation, let alone the UK, could have anything but the highest AAA rating for its government debt. It will only worsen, with the US likely to follow. China, Russia, India, and Brazil have all publicly indicated they’re worried about the safety of their investments in Western governments and that the Western debt buying spree is over. Together they’ve formed what is being termed the the “BRICs,” the beginning of an alternative to the Western-dominated global system of exchange that uses the US Dollar as the world exchange unit. This current system benefits the Western World (especially the US) greatly; it effectively enables the West to maintain artificially cheap credit, which has become the single most important policy tool in “fixing” recessions during the past 30 years. If the current US Dollar based system ends, there will be a significant and inevitable decline in the standard of living and what must be termed “perceived wealth” of the West. As mentioned the current Western creditors, i.e. the East, have already begun to disconnect themselves from the Western-dominated global exchange system. China and Russia have both stopped accumulating US debt. China has taken historic steps to make its own currency globally convertible, which are the beginning of China directly assuming a more prominent role in global exchange. China has encouraged its citizens to stop buying US bonds and begin buying hard assets like gold and silver at the same time its Sovereign Wealth Fund has stepped up investment in the same asset classes. Just a few days ago China made the world’s first significant purchase (50 Billion USD) of Special Drawing Rights from the International Monetary Fund. SDR’s are essentially bonds backed by a basket of currencies and issued by the IMF; they are effectively an alternative to US treasury bonds. The other major creditors of the West have also begun similar steps. These are signs of things to come. The cumulative net effect of these decisions will be to dramatically and irrevocably decrease the value of the US Dollar and the Western-dominated system of global exchange with it.

Enter global warming. The few dissenting scientific reports miss the forest for the trees. Even if one cedes every point to the dissenting scientists; there is overwhelming evidence that massive global climate change is coming, if it hasn’t arrived already. We’re reaching the point where it’s moot who or what caused global warming, so even if you don’t believe it’s man-made, it would be highly irrational to not prepare for its inevitable effects. I remember when I was studying geology in college (with an near exclusive focus on the sub-field of climatology) thinking that even the most “aggressive” predictions of climate change failed to account for positive feedback effects. These are things like the capacity of the worlds oceans to absorb heat is approaching maximum capacity and the effect that the loss of sea ice in the North Arctic has on the nearby Greenland Ice Sheet. They weren’t included for the simple reason that while the direction these effects would move the world climate are understandable and predictable, they’re almost impossible to model mathematically. The early models did not account for these effects, hence, they woefully underestimated the extent and severity of global warming. Since I’ve graduated, these and many other positive feedback effects have become more apparent and forceful. Even though recent efforts have been made to incorporate positive feedbacks into newer models of global warming, in my opinion they still woefully underestimate their effects. Additionally, when a greenhouse gas is emitted into the atmosphere, it does not immediately or directly contribute to global temperature. As mentioned earlier, the world oceans and other factors act as a buffer, an effect that delays the full effect of a emitted single molecule of greenhouse gas 30-100 years. In other words, if every single human committed suicide tomorrow, even that wouldn’t be enough to stop global temperatures from rising for decades. In my opinion (and more and professional scientists are beginning to agree with me), it’s already too late to prevent the North from disappearing in the summer for the first time in millions of years. When that happens, it will literally open the floodgates of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Assuming that a significant human population exists on Earth for a few more decades, there is virtually a 0 percent chance that the Florida Keys will exist at the end of the century.

While the US wastes it’s time debating the existence of global warming or attempting completely unfeasible solutions like Cap and Trade, the rest of the world, especially the East, is making practical preparations. Russia has laid claim to vast swaths of the Arctic Seabed that contain huge deposits of natural gas and oil that will be available for extraction when the North Pole melts. It has begun regular patrols with its nuclear bombers and nuclear submarines over the area to which it laid claim. At the beginning of the Greater Depression Russia took the highly unusual an superficially confusing step of bailing out the Icelandic government who had over invested in US real estate based derivatives. As part of the deal Iceland ceded most of its territorial claims to its own portion of Arctic oil and natural gas deposits that will soon be available to Russia. Russia now has claim over massive reserves in the arctic and is preparing to extract them. India has militarized its border with Bangladesh and build a massive wall across the entire border. The majority of Bangladesh’s farmland is at sea level and it will be one of the first casualties of global warming. India intends to forcibly stop the soon to be starving Bengalis from seeking refuge across the border.

When one combines a more reasonable model of the long term economic outlook of the West with a realistic model of global warming, the effects are horrific and the implications profound. With current technology, there is no economically feasible (emphasis added) way the West can stop Global Warming, especially considering the East will not deliberately sacrifice its own economic development to slow global warming. If things like Cap and Trade become law in the West, multinational corporations will simply relocate to the East to avoid paying higher energy costs. The East will be happy to accept greater investment. Moreover, the West is on the verge of the falling off the precipice of the 2nd stage of the Greater Depression, the coming debt crisis. Neither the US nor the rest of the overindebted Western World can afford to arbitrarily diminish their economic capacities now.

To answer the question, “what can be done to prevent global warming?” Nothing. It’s futile to even try now. The time to avert this situation (and the Greater Depression) was at least 20 years ago. If this isn’t readily apparent to in daily life, I guarantee it will be in less than 20 years. I’d bet all my money on it, because it is such an obvious and simple conclusion if you have all the information. The problem is there are VERY few individuals in the world who have a solid grasp of both climatology and global macroeconomics.

The West should accept what is now the inevitable, like the rest of the world, and at the same time it acknowledge its precarious financial position. It should work to mitigate the losses the the combined Greater Depression and Global Warming will have. We should focus on developing practical technologies that will allow vulnerable areas to partially resist the effects global warming and begin considering mass relocation plans for those areas too difficult/expensive to save. We should take a hard look at NATO, and question what should be the role of foreign military operations in this rapidly changing world. I fear though that few people, especially Western politicians, will understand both the magnitude of environmental change and the severe restrictions placed on taking any action against it by the deteriorating economic status of the West. Even in the unlikely event of a realistic Western consensus, I fear it’s inevitable that millions of people will die globally due to the direct and indirect consequences of combined economic decline and Global Warming. In fact, we’re beginning to see the first signs severe hardship in places like the Sudan, where a rapidly changing local climate is pushing an already unstable area into violence. Similarly “marginal” areas will soon follow, and it’s quite likely that we’ll even see all-out wars over the changing locations of natural resources. As much as the West may still perceive itself as the “global steward and police” (though it’s questionable if it ever had this role), it must realize that it simply does not have the money to save the rest of the world. Indeed, the only chance we have to prevent the severe decline in our own standards of living is to focus on saving ourselves. In the unlikely scenario that the West does an about-face and starts pursuing more realistic policies, a certain amount of decline may already be inevitable. While the massive liquidity injections, bailouts, and reckless stimulus may have eased the temporary economic pain, all these actions unambiguously make the long term situation of the West worse.

Whoever you are, wherever you live, it’s highly likely your children will have a lower standard of life than you have had. You should give this serious consideration before you decide to bring any more lives into the world. We’re leaving a period a global stability that begin with the conclusion of WWII and entering a new period of uncertainty. These are times that will try men’s souls. We should all prepare ourselves for the possibility that the opportunities we may have spend our whole lives may never materialize. For those who are religious, it’s time to start thinking more about religion and remember the promise of eternal salvation in the afterlife to find strength in the times ahead. For those who are secular humanists, remember that civilization has survived previous calamities and that wise action may prevent many of the damages to come.

54. Joe | 09.05.09

I find it hard to believe that so many people can’t see the many problems in front of us. The huge budget mess, health care costs out of control, no energy policy to speak of, the list goes on and on. The same people yelling the same things louder and louder and drowning out debate and offering no solutions. Why can’t they hear the warnings? Why can’t they see the problems? What will make them know the truth?

55. deathvalleydenizen | 09.05.09

we are at the tail end of the pleistocene epoch, more warm weather and temperate climate has given us the luxury of time and weather permitting to invent such industrial aged idiocy as coal plants and nuke reactors and cars for our obese and activity starved selves to scurry around in, ,the warming is not as much of a problem as the toxic waste our scientists create and we as consumers ignorantly embrace and use mindlessly and dump into the enviroment, petrochemicals, and concoctions of cleansing convienence that in nature would never meet or make contact, we seem to force fit and manipulate for our cause and effect culture of chemicals, the science of reactions. i live near death valley california, most of you would die here from exposure on a normal day without your air conditioned cars and buildings..it got warm here long ago, we had less than 1″ of rain last year, and 1/2 inch or less so far this year..our normal rainfall is 2″.. 2012 is almost here,,lets pray our technology fails and everyone can get healthy again by walking and eating real food and less of it..,but we have civilians to kill overseas for the greater good, and wars to win at home to save healthcare 1st, the world can wait for ameridiots.

56. A Guy | 09.05.09

Luboš Motl wrote

“Did Ban Ki-Moon grow up in the Arctic? I thought it was in Korea. So how could he possibly see the “meltdown” for himself? Isn’t it self-evident that this statement is untrue?

The minute I read this first part of your post, I knew the rest of your post wouldn’t be worth reading as it already proves your reasoning power is very limited. Just because he is Korean doesn’t mean he never left Korea. Duhhhh!!!! Ever heard of “air travel”? So funny I had to comment…

57. DrHuang | 09.05.09

RE: #25

“Why is it always the right wing Christian nut jobs that are against the notion that humans and technological modernization are responsible for global warming?” - edbrackin

Give me a break Nero! What you fail to understand is that 95% of the major branches of science were founded by Christians. As a research scientist, I work with quite a few brilliant scientists who are Christian. I’ve co-authored several peer reviewed and leading journal published abstracts who’s principal authors are Christian. While I may not always come to the same metaphysical conclusions as they, I find my Christian contemporaries to be excellent scientists and highly respected in my field (perinatology).

Skepticism is not an ill trait of Christians. It is the necessary trait of a good scientist. Illogical ad homonyms and stereotyping of Christians or any other people group does little to convince anyone that you have a rational point to make. It merely demonstrates you found this article an excellent soapbox to foment bigotry.

58. anon | 09.05.09

Waving the hockey stick forgery in our faces won’t change the fact that a) it is a forgery, b) the media knows its a forgery and c) the media doesn’t care because liberals are subject to the laws of truth, only conservatives are.

59. Ribert E. Phelan | 09.05.09

I find it truly amazing that true believers like “31. Stephen A | 09.04.09″ can make a statement like “They are clearly in denial over the depth and breadth of supporting scientific facts which are accumulating today as rapidly as the Artic and Antartic ice caps and glaciers around the world are disappearing” with a straight face. Go check out the following:

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_ice_area.png

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

And that ultimate head-in-the-sand, unscientific, funded by big-oil web site

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Take the time and do the research. Oddly enough, It’s not rocket science. from my perspective, Stephen A’s knowledge is an inch wide and a micron deep. But hey, I’m just a low-grade moron denier. What do I know?

Robert E. Phelan
Instructor of Sociology

60. Tegiri Nenashi | 09.05.09

Late Summer 2007. The smallest ice coverage in the Arctic caught media attention. Predictions of the next year even bigger melt are made. Some even go so far to predict ice-free arctic by the year 20XX. No mentioning of the antarctic, though, which refuses to cooperate. Is it on another planet?

Late Summer 2008. Last year record arctic ice coverage is not broken. Alarmists shift reporting to second-year ice. Again no mention of inconvenient Antarctic.

Late Summer 2009. The ice coverage es even bigger this year (check facts for yourself). Predictions of the sky falling proved to be wrong, as usual. With slow ice coverage news day the media picks some iceberg breakage to keep this warming hysteria afloat.

61. Sandy W | 09.05.09

Please, the tone, words and abbreviations in comment #7 in this running commentary should be flagged as inappropriate.
Thanks.

62. bruce | 09.05.09

Spanky Moon will save us. Malthus was wrong. Erlich was wrong. Algore said 12 years ago that in 10 years it would be too late. It’s never too late to send all your money and power to your capital city. It’s just always been a bad idea. Read a history book without a minder from the academy. Read a history book without an escort from the New World Order. Same lesson in every book since the first civilization (Uruk) could write down what happened to them. Whoops, we sent all our money and power to our capital city and it went to their heads and they ruined us. Over and over and over again, same story. I’ll take my chances with global warming, thank you.

63. Tara | 09.05.09

It’s sad to see how many of the posters have become dis-connected from their humanity. Are their brains adled with pollution? Is that meal they just had made from irradiated produce? Have they been brainwashed into believing that double-wide SUVs (that aren’t actually used on a working ranch) make them look taller and better endowed? Did they miss the pictures of the destitute kids in Africa picking over trash from the US that is regularly shipped over on barges. Or the mountains of old computers we export, complete with toxic parts. Yes sirs and madams, we continue to deal our planet cruel, reckless blows. Oddly, when Nature demonstrates her power in dramatic ways, as in the California fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches, erupting volcanos and other acts of nature we call “cataclysms” we realize that we’re aunts in the face of her grandeur.

64. Sammy | 09.06.09

RE: “Isn’t it amazing how many people have such strong opinions and strident voices and yet have such a shallow and narrow “knowledge” of the subject of global warming”.

Not just of global warming, but of most ideas that require logical thinking and learning/retension or require research. Look at how many people get their opinions from tv hosts.

Thinking for some = brain pain.

65. Scott | 09.06.09

Anyone who still espouses the religion of AGW is politically motivated.

For all intents and purposes, AGW was debunked back in 2007.

66. DaveP | 09.06.09

The UN IPCC threw out the Mann/Bradley/Hughes “Hockey Stick” as bad science long before the most recent AR-4 report was issued. Closer examination of the graph’s undelying data revealed that CO2 concentration increases lagged temperature increases by an average of 800 years. This is the opposite of the effect that AGW adherents claim (especially Al Gore). Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead on arrival.

67. waldo5 | 09.06.09

I think I would rather listen to an alarmist on this question. It is serious, but it will take years to try to stem the Arctic warming tide. It’s like the ocean-liner Queen Elizabeth II turning completely around in the sea—it can’t be done quickly. Since little has been done, and since nations don’t want to cooperate–namely, the biggest polluter (USA), perhaps the world should spend what little time is left—in preparing for an Ice Age. Where is the housing when Europe must move to the Sahara? Or Australia to the Pacific Islands? Or North America to nowhere? (i.e. igloo construction)

68. hsr0601 | 09.06.09

The sky in Beijing & man-made climate change.

69. tintin | 09.06.09

The only solution is vegetarian society since livestock stock production is the main cause, look it up.

70. Robert E. Phelan | 09.06.09

56. A Guy | 09.05.09
If you were to google Luboš Motl you might, perhaps, have a different view of his credibility. You might actually learn something.

57. DrHuang | 09.05.09
I’d never heard of perinatology before this. Thank you. It was once written “Where three men are gathered together, I can always find one to be my teacher.” Duo-xie. With your permission I will now go and put your words into practice.

64. Sammy | 09.06.09
“Look at how many people get their opinions from tv hosts”
I trust you were decrying the tendency of the so-called “MSM” to echo alarmist proclamations of imminent global cataclysm without any due diligence. Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” is a fraud, he himself is a profiteer, and actual science is being ignored. Check up on it yourself. Climate Science is not rocket science. Don’t take anyone’s word for it. Not mine, not Lubos, not Obama’s. Check for yourself.

71. Robert E. Phelan | 09.06.09

63. Tara | 09.05.09

Hmmm… I’m an aunt of nature… interesting idea. Even the Chinese never had a word for THAT relationship. I’ll accept the excuse you were tired and mistyped… however, the idea that drought, wild-fire and tsunami are nature’s response to American greed is simply ludicrous. The current fires in California and last season’s fires in Victoria, Australia are the result of Green mismanagement and criminal negligence. The USA supports a population of more than 300 million with about a half percent of us engaged in farming. We are able to do that because of mechanization, chemical fertilizers and pesticides and genetic engineered crops. China has 40% of its population engaged in agriculture, India almost 60%, and African countries like Chad, Mali and Ghana near 80-90%… and they need to import the corn and grain America’s half percent produce. “Give me spots on my apples but leave me the birds and the bees, please…” (Big yellow-taxi, Joni Mitchell) that attitude condemns millions of Africans and Asians, most under the age of five, to death. But hey, the world is over-populated anyway, right? We need far fewer people to have a sustainable world.

Thank you, Tara, for your insightful and sensitive contribution.

72. Michael G. | 09.06.09

Its insulting to be told to take our heads out of the sand ( so we can agree with your point of view) and then told to stick them firmly in the sand if we find anything that contradicts the Global Warming (Climate Change) orthodoxy.

I suggest that you and all of you readers take a look at:

Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre
(McIntyre was the individual who disproved Mann’s “Hockey Stick” .

Kaufman and Upside-Down Mann
by Steve McIntyre on September 3rd, 2009

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932

73. Paul from FH | 09.06.09

Bruce,
Malthus was not wrong, and neither was Ehrlich, the realization of their predictions have only been delayed, thanks to gigantic increases in the use of fossil fuels, which have so far enabled us to “cheat destiny.” As oil becomes harder to get and more expensive, regardless global warming, their predictions will come true. The Earth exceeded its sustainable population in the mid-1930s, and will likely return to the levels of that period sometime over the next several centuries. Only fossil fuel has enabled our agriculture to keep up with population growth (in most places; many parts of the world are starving to death). Without cheap and plentiful energy modern agriculture will not survive.
Reading these posts, with bloggers spewing the lies of talk radio and FoxNews talking heads who deny any relationship between our releasing 200 million years of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere over 200 years, and increasing temperatures world-wide, one wonders if it is just denial and fear, fear of any changes necessary in one’s personal and business life that might lead to a more sustainable future. When one’s paycheck depends upon denying climate change, one will deny with vigor. A previous article in CSMonitor equated climate change deniers with young-earth creationists, who defend their positions despite absolute mountains of evidence contrary to their positions. A very good analogy, I think.

74. ohmhead | 09.06.09

Well heres what i think the earth is spining around the sun sometimes we are spining closer or further from the sun its my thinking that this is solar natural of time and placement of earth in orbit around the sun .

Thousands of years pass as our orbit is altered and our plant will go with the change were just here for the ride and to help it go faster as we heat up the earth with our lives and inventions you can not stop what will be.

I think were off by a few thousands of years !
We will not stop any earth change ever we will not control mother earth !

I feel that the sun today is stronger meaning its rays are hitting us at a more effective rate thats one problem .

I think were closer to the sun then before its common sense earth is pulled closer over thousands of thousands of years .

Its not just us its the earth going thur time and space.

If your around 20 billion years from now we are going to crash into the sun so be happy for the little change now in temp over the years .

75. DMW | 09.06.09

Statistics and facts are great and they should be held in high regard. But they are not needed solely to see what we are doing - despoiling our own habitat. Denying the damage and hence continuing it, is what is un-Christian if that’s what the case rests on. Yes global catastrophe has been predicted for a few decades and though your climate may be only little changed today, it seems like much that was predicted has been happening and is doing so in greater speed; droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels, shore erosion, wild fires, species extinction, desertification…

Do your children agree with your prognosis? After all they are the ones “who shall inherit the earth”.

76. Bruce | 09.06.09

You know it’s common sense : This is greed in motion , We have the know how to burn less make 80% less pollution in every industry. But people will do nothing until it’s at there front door. then there will be nowhere to go. It’s because there led by the nose by false data and the greed of oil company’s and manufacture’s . We are killing our selves by pollutants in our food,drink,and air we breathe. for the all mighty dollar.

77. % | 09.06.09

Global Warming has been debunked. I can’t believe people still think this rubbish could possibly be true.

78. David | 09.06.09

I am amazed that few if any are supply this link.

http://www.nipccreport.org/

Where the issues of Global warming are discussed by people who do not stand to gain tax monies from the alarm.

79. Niftynev | 09.06.09

I have not read all the comments, so maybe somebody has already pointed this out, but “about a century ago” was well before the IPCC’s identified point at which CO2 emissions became a significant factor (post 1950). Therefore we can come to two conclusions - 1 that the IPCC is conservative, and that even the extremely moderate (by current standards) CO2 emissions in 1900 caused significant climate change (and wouldn’t the doomsayers like that conclusion), or 2 that the warming of the arctic has little or nothing to do with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

80. Robert E. Phelan | 09.06.09

73. Paul from FH | 09.06.09

Hmmm… the predictions of Malthus and Ehrlich will both come true some day. We have somehow “cheated destiny”…. interesting perspective. A little bit like “the warming is in the pipeline”. Let’s let in a little daylight, shall we?

In 1800, roughly in the middle of the career of the “Dismal Parson”, Europe had a population of approximately 200 million. When Paul Ehrlich and his “Club of Rome” cronies were predicting imminent apocalypse, the population was close to 600 million. By 2000 it was more than 725 million. In Malthus’ day almost 90% of the population were farmers. Today, farmers represent less than 3% of the European population and in the US they represent one half of one percent. Our use of technology has allowed the West to achieve an everage life expectancy greater than 78 years. In places like Mali or Chad in West Africa, where 90% of the population are still farmers, the average life expectancy is under 50. They also import much of their food stuff from the West. Technology sustains our populations. It always has.

During the reign of Augustus Caesar, when Europe had a total population of about 70 million, Rome had a population of over a million people and their food was not grown locally: it was imported from North Africa. They had the technology to move and store grain. After Constantine moved his capital from Rome to Byzantium in 327 the Western Empire went into decline and by 600 the population of Europe had declined to 18 million. They had lost the technology that kept them fed and alive.

Just what is a “sustainable” population level? The 600 million of Ehrlich’s heyday? The 200 million of Malthus? The 70 million at the height of the Roman Empire or the 18 million at the bottom of the Dark Ages? What technology will you be willing to give up? Who will you nominate to die?

The predictions of Malthus and Ehrlich will come true only if we succumb to the insanity of these neo-Luddites who have no conception of science, technology or history. Embracing cap-and-trade to save the world for our children… we’re all going to do just fine without all this evil technology. Think of Europe in the Dark Ages.

81. freejung | 09.07.09

Wow, shocking amounts of ignorance in this thread, including the predictable references to debunked theories of global warming (e.g. its caused by the sun).

Here is a good article by the Pew Center debunking some of these common myths:

http://www.pewclimate.org/science-impacts/realities-vs-misconceptions

Please pay attention to the experts. Stop making things up and believing easily debunked theories. Global warming is real and caused by human activity. That is the opinion of 97% of climate scientists, who know more about the subject than anyone else http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html . At the very least, read the Wikipedia article about the scientific opinion on climate change, it has a lot of good references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change .

Continuing to deny it puts our civilization in great peril, and is thus highly irresponsible.

82. JC | 09.07.09

Nobody would argue that if all of the known volcanoes erupted on the same day, this would have an effect on the climate? Correct? Anybody not believe that one?

Ok so for some reason there are still people who believe that if the gases come out of coal plants, that gas somehow is different than if it came out of a volcano?

Human beings release more than 200 times the co2 of all currently active volcanoes without the ash and sulfur that normally causes cooling, so uh? The logic is what?

The stupidity of the human race is amazing, truly amazing.

83. Harbinger | 09.07.09

From January 2007 to July 2008, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of IPCC, travelled 430,000 miles by air, generating 100 tonnes of CO2. It included flying 3500 miles from Helsinki to Delhi for a dinner. There are currently 8000 delegates at the WMO conference, at our expense. It’s estimated they will generate 12000 tons of CO2. Of course that’s OK, because they will buy carbon credits with our money.

If you look at how many UN organisations there are and how many UN conferences of various kinds that there are, the UN carbon footprint must be quite phenomenal. If they all buy carbon credits it’s no wonder Al Gore is becoming a billionaire and JP Morgan jumped in and bought Climate Care.

Just imagine these people got their way and everyone signed up to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, would the conferences end and the flights stop? Somehow I don’t think so. This is the mother and father of all gravy trains and the only question I have is, who gets the Air Miles?

84. Marc W. Abel | 09.07.09

“The Arctic summer now is about 2.5 degrees warmer than it should be.”

Fahrenheit or centigrade?

85. RICHARD RALPH ROEHL | 09.07.09

WHERE THERE IS NO INSIGHT, THE PEOPLE PERISH! This is especially pertinent to the ruling class… and simple-minded sheeple people doing their bidding.

86. mike | 09.07.09

The BOTTOM LINE IS THIS IF YOU CAN BREATH OKAY CO2 IS NOT THE PROBLEM
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

THE MOTIVATION FOR THIS SCARE TACTIC IS MONEY ITS FRAUD PLAIN SIMPLE FRAUD!!!!

87. mike | 09.07.09

THINK OF A BETTER CON GAME THEN GLOBAL WARMING YOU LOSERS

88. Scott | 09.07.09

CO2 is higher than ever yet, the Earth has been cooling since 98, so, how do you explain man made GW? This is the BIGGEST Hoax in history. Like others have mentioned, there have been at least 4 ice ages, where us bad humans were no where in sight (in terms of industrialization).
All of you people who think that humans are contributing to GW are really arrogant and big headed to think you have that much control of mother nature

89. Mike | 09.07.09

If the “science” behind human-caused global warming is so settled and self-evident, and climate change is such as important issue for mankind, why is it that the so-called “97%” of scientists who believe this rarely agree to participate in public debate with the scientists that disagree with their proposition. Even Al Gore, the famous climate scientist (???), has NEVER accepted an invitation to debate these issues in a public forum. I can only think of one reason — they can not support their alarmist views with any scientific evidence.

Here’s a link to one debate in which they were judged by the audience to have lost:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzTPPl05Wok

90. mechanical engineer | 09.07.09

Its amazing to see, in these technologically advanced times, people arguing with such stupidity and ignorance against global warming. Its like they want the world to end. Insane. Totally insane.

91. bill | 09.07.09

Oh come on jack the world was supposed to end in the year 2000. Remember Y2K

92. BobB | 09.07.09

The question is, how long will it take Steve McIntyre and the contributors at ClimateAudit.org to show the errors and short-comings of the statistical model used that joins several proxies together and claim a high degree of accuracy?

93. B Newman | 09.08.09

It doesn’t take a scientist to see that global warming is happening. Maybe you might just be too young. I remember growing up in Atlanta. We would have 2-3 snowfalls per year and probably a good ice storm. Now, we get a snowfall about every 5 years.

94. Steve | 09.08.09

Did general Banky-Moo witness the coldest July on record over much of the U.S. also?

I always love to hear politicians try to explain their scientific understanding of the climate, very funny!

95. Roger Brady | 09.08.09

Climate change is natural and global warming is happening now. No argument. I am not a sceptic, but the only connection I see between temperature and CO2 is that natural warming has always led to an increase of CO2 some 800 years after the warming. The rising CO2 levels of the 20th century are unsurprising. Depending on which books one reads we are experiencing an interglacial period that is relatively benign: average earth temperatures and CO2 concentrations have been historically much higher than they are today. One needs only to look at ice core data to confirm this. Models are just computer programs: they are only as good as the programmer. Neither the stasis 2001-2006 nor the cold years 2008/2009 were predicted by the models. Clearly there are many other factors that drive climate, the sun being the most significant. I believe it is politically misguided to change the way man behaves in order to correct a problem that does not exist. A warmer, more CO2 rich environment may well be a blessing for mankind. And yes, the ice will melt - and then freeze again - as it always has. Man was never the cause and will never be.

96. UtopianDan | 09.08.09

Why do people say STILL say they don’t believe in climate change?

It is clear that climate change is happening now. The observed climate changes reported are not opinions to be debated. They are facts to be dealt with.

We’re not talking about Santa or Ghosts or whatever other “woo woo” crap you believe in.

97. Steve Dotson | 09.08.09

Since when did the “humanists”, the do-gooders, the useless and dangerous UN elites make their sole goal in life the destruction of the free market, authoritarian control and shoving a collectivist agenda down our throats? From morning to night, everything they do is completely anti-human, from the global warming hysteria to the dim light bulbs they mandate we use. I suggest we eschew them at every turn, throw our politicians that support them out of office, demand that our money stops flowing in their direction.

Oh yeah, and they forgot the Bat part of Moon’s name. Moon Bat.
Thank you,
Steve

98. Mr.Burns | 09.08.09

Global Warming aside for a moment. What about toxic fire retardants? Shocking that the Hollywood Limousine Liberals see ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM in having highly toxic fire retardants sprayed on the Southern California hill sides to protect the mansions they live in, the homes that they have demanded be carved out of a fragile and endangered ecosystem. The same toxic fire retardants wash off the hillsides and run into the ocean, wreaking ecological havoc around the world, reaching to the most pristine corners or the arctic. Polar Bears and Orcas have been observed with resutant birth defects. Where is the alarm for this? I say let their mansions burn! Burn baby burn!

99. DUNOTS | 09.08.09

My word. I’m just, once again, overwhelmed by the nature, frequency, and especially volume of the comments.

Well. As per ice ages… There seems to be a recurring point of contention that as there have been various ice ages, isn’t it reasonable to believe that we’re just in a period of warming after one?

Well, that would make sense if we were just coming out of an ice age. But we’re not. A cursory glance at the Milankovitch cycles shows that we’re really quite late for our next ice age. Now, exactly how much of that is man made or not remains a point of some contention. Is my take that the theories that human intervention goes back to the beginnings of mass agriculture, which is admittedly not the consensus theory, but has some strength nonetheless.

In any case, “coming out of an ice age” is not a particularly solid claim.

The case that 8000 years of increasingly huge human populations doing increasingly large-scale terraforming actions is changing the climate is, I think, a bit more solid.

100. Richard Smith | 09.08.09

Hey naysayers - if you are not a scientist, your voice is not worth listening to. If you are, then I am sure that you will agree than climate change is happening now, and we need to do something about it.

101. Dave | 09.08.09

Fire retardants causing polar bear birth defects…
I think I’ll make that my cause, just because it’s really funny!

102. Bri | 09.08.09

Global warming would mean to me global warming, in Ohio its the coldest summer in the last 125 years and last winter was cold. At least in Ohio we have global cooling. I don’t buy into global warming .I work outside every day for the last 15 years and I just do not see it here ,sorry to disappoint you .

103. Max | 09.08.09

@#23, James Lovelock writes: ‘I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions.’

Dear James, that’s not true as it pertains to India, as

– India’s per-capita emissions are 23.5% China’s, and a mere 5.7% of US’.
– India’s total emissions are only 20% of China’s and 22% of US’.

Please find the 2008 emissions data here: http://india-planet.blogspot.com/2009/09/2008-emissions-data.html

You know, misplacing blame is not a fair thing to do.

104. Hank Hancock | 09.08.09

RE: 100

Richard, I’m a scientist. While I work in the field of medical research, my background is in systems and information theory. Thus my work is statistical and explores how variables relate to one another in complex ways. While I am not a climatologist, I am able to understand what the statistics in published abstracts on global warming are saying. Having a personal interest in whether global warming is real, I compare one against the other.

Allow me to assure you the numbers are all over the place such that I have little to no confidence in studies that support the extreme alarmist view. When people say “the science is settled” and appeal to some notion of consensus, I am forced to take a skeptical view of the message because such comments fly in the face of the scientific methods. Consensus is a misnomer in the context of science and is a word that needs to be confined to the realm of politics. Science is not conducted by consensus (a vote if you will) as it takes only one experiment or observation to prove commonly held beliefs wrong. When such proclamations are used to reinforce a position, it is because the position is weak and the science is most certainly unsettled. I suspect most people, whether trained in the sciences or not, have sufficient intuition to recognize when such appeals are raised, what follows is unlikely to mirror reality.

I agree climate change is happening now. I disagree that the “change” is mostly due to human causes. I agree that CO2 has some small effect on global temperatures but, based on several years of reading relevant studies, I have come to the conclusion that any effect is mostly lost in the noise of natural climate variability and long term cycles. More so lately than in the past, I see a growing body of studies that confirm my personal conclusion. I’m not loosing sleep over CO2. I wish we could get back to more pressing environmental concerns that have been overshadowed by all the hyper-focus on global warming.

105. naman | 09.09.09

#69. “The only solution is vegetarian society since livestock stock production is the main cause, look it up.”

Yup. Those cows are a problem! The global warming crowd does understand that methane (’released’ from said cows) is actually a MORE effective greenhouse gas than CO2?

So if you consider yourself a true “Global Warming Warrior” then put up or shut up! Give up the meat, boys!!

(In the meantime, I’m getting a hamburger before you do-gooders decide to ban meat…for the good of the planet of course.)

106. Jitu | 09.11.09

Global warming is no doubt a tumorous for the survival of human kind considering the fact of their detrimental effect in the form of global climatic change, but the one climatic research illustrating, the anhilating effect of natural climatic change engendered the talk about the positive aspects of sucidal deeds. The efficacy of this annihilating effect is still enigma as the above report engross with on-spot view of Arctic ice melting by climatic change UN scretary general vehemently rejecting it.
Therefore, destructive effect of global climatic change must not be neglected and measures against its control must not be in keep aside for leasure.

107. MadMax | 09.14.09

The environmental movement is based on two assumptions. 1) The planet has limited resources. 2) The planet has limited capacity for absorbing waste. Basic economics will tell you that’s ridiculous.

108. logjam | 09.15.09

If you’re still skeptical about global warming, watch James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjeIpjhAqsM

109. Leo | 09.15.09

Galen, I love your comment. I don’t know if you made up the term “pre-Copernicans,” but I’m totally going to start using it.

110. Phil Bickel | 09.15.09

Before the religion of manmade global warming was founded, the Arctic ice melt was blamed on soot pollution, which still makes more sense.

The problem is, if soot pollution is deemed the problem, then America, who consumes 24% of the world’s resources, with just 4% of the world’s population, can’t be blamed and or held responsible for destroying the world.

If that is the case, then the impetus to radically change our economy away from gray capitalism, to Obama Marxism.

Of course the truth doesn’t matter, when the end justifies the means.

111. Phil Bickel | 09.15.09

If you check, you will see that the
Arctic is gaining is the last two years despite the predictions that first year thin ice would not survive the summer melt season.

Apparently it did!

112. Joni | 09.15.09

Just a thought…We’ve had global warming since the ice age! If not, we’d still be in it.
The glaciers in Alaska have retreated miles in the last 8,000-10,000 years…not in just the last few years!

113. Jason | 09.15.09

The current emissions policy does not really take into account the uncontrolled release of methane (and other hydrocarbon gases) into the atmosphere. The underlying motivation of those pushing for regulations is highly suspect, especially, the U.N. I work in the natural gas industry, where companies blow unburned methane into the air every day. Why are they allowed to do this? Why are they allowed to use pneumatic motors that are driven by natural gas and vented to atmosphere? Why is there zero attempt at capturing, or at least burning the methane before it is released into the atmosphere? One last semi-related comment: The usage of Barack Obama’s stimulus money going towards ‘green’ initiatives is very ‘nonoptimal’. If you really want to reduce, for example, automobile emissions, provide some incentives to employers to have people work from home. Put in some high speed fiber optic cable for more people.

114. Rich Rosenthal | 09.16.09

The biosphere and the thin skin of this planet that contains the oceans and top mile or so of rock/soil are mostly a closed system with input from the sun and occasional sub-surface eruptions as well as radiated heat. As a closed system man’s activity do indeed contribute, however small as it may be, but it still makes some difference.
I do not know if there is reason for alarm but I do know that human activity contributes and we will eventually stop carbon pollution because we are depleting fossil fuels. Relax and accept that clean, efficient change is both economic opportunity and “green”. The greatest alarmism I see is the fear mongering that environmentalists are destroying industry and wealth. Actually it it quite the opposit. Sustainability allows continual benefit of renewable resources.
We could pluck every fish out of the ocean next year and nevewr have any fish for eternity or we can moderate ourselves and expect moderate catches for eternity.

115. Bruce Lankenau | 09.16.09

Global warming is happening, however there is no irrefutable evidence that mankind is causing it. Yes, we need to cut down on pollution. Yes, we need to consume less oil. The powers that want to become more powerful are coming up with tons of misinformation to back up their silly theories. Carbon credits, subsidized fuels etc. are just ways to make money. Plant life converts CO2 into oxygen, every Elementary student is taught this in Science class. I guess we just need a method of taxing trees to make big government more happy.

116. Benjamin | 09.16.09

I object to the title of this piece: “Hey, global warming skeptics, take your heads out of the sand.” The title is a taunt which will only serve to irritate deniers, rather than change their opinions.

Some deniers may deserve to be ridiculed (such as the wacky ones that think that the majority of climate scientists of the world are part of a vast conspiracy, or the paid astroturfers spreading misinformation), but others seem to be attempting to think for themselves about a complex topic, and don’t want to be bullied into accepting a certain position. These people need to be treated with politeness and respect.

To the deniers out there: I realize that many of you are skeptical about what many of the environmentalists out there have to say. Indeed, many of them are overzealous, sloppy with the facts, or not any better informed about the science than the average person. However, that is not a good reason to reject mainstream science. Most relevant scholarly science organizations have released some sort of position affirming that global warming is for real. For example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), which has 50,000 members, issued its statement:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/agu-arp012508.php

There is enough “consensus” within the scientific community that the AGU, and other organizations, can issue such a statement. The presence of a “consensus” doesn’t necessarily mean that the majority of scientists are right, but it does indicate that the view is the mainstream view.

One can disagree with the environmentalists and still not go out on a limb and reject mainstream science. It is certainly possible to make rational arguments for doing nothing about global warming, or rejecting cap and trade, etc., without going against the grain of the scientific community. Check out this interview with prominent scientists James Lovelock, as big of a pessimist about global warming as anybody, but who thinks some of the policies suggested by environmentalists are futile:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2009/apr/22/james-lovelock-gaia-space-biochar

We should, as Lovelock suggests, be debating about what to do (or not do) about global warming. We should not be having the silly debate about whether or not mainstream science is legitimate.

117. Cherokee | 09.16.09

The temperature has risen on Mars and other planets as well. Must be all of those Martians driving around in their fossil fuel spacemobiles.

118. fraken | 09.17.09

It’s too bad this post will be buried in the torrent of replies.

There is one critical bit of data that never seems to come up in these discussions. Take a look at the vostok ice core data from lake vostok that the russians compiled way back. Global warming? without a doubt… Global warming due to man? highly doubtful.

More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming, including 9,000 with PhDs. What possible reason could they have for doing so? Again, look at the lake vostok core data so you have some REAL unbiased data to base your decision on, not a third party telling you “thier” version of the truth.

The unfourtunate problem when it comes to finding the truth is that the general population tries to find truth by watching the news.

EVERY government uses propaganda on its own people. Its universal. If you were a government and were trying to influence public opinion, what type of media would YOU use to try and do so?

119. thegoodguy | 09.17.09

i agree, global warming is happenong, and we need 2 stay alert. thank u.

120. ishmael daro | 09.20.09

All these global warming skeptics must have had a Google alert set up. This is an unusual number of comments otherwise.

1. Global Warming Update…… - VolNation | 09.04.09

2. GreenerWorking.com » Blog Archive » Good news: Global warming’s holding off the next ice age! | 09.09.09

3. Hey, global warming skeptics, take your heads out of the sand - Philadelphia Speaks Forum - Neighborhoods, Sports, Restaurants and more | 09.18.09

4. Hey, global warming skeptics, take your heads out of the sand - Philadelphia Speaks Forum - Neighborhoods, Sports, Restaurants and more | 09.18.09