Republican cherry-picking of intelligence gave us the debacle in iraq. Republican "analysis" of climate data may help to kill all of mankind. Vote Republican in 2016 only if you'received feeling suicidal.
29
How deep can the republicans bury their heads in the sand about climate change? To the end of the earth, and then they will blame Obama. Sad.
20
Why is the New York Times demeaning itself by pushing anything written by Michael Mann? Mr. Mann's lack of credibility has been firmly established.
33
May I interest any climate change deniers some lovely oceanfront properties? The prices will only go up up up!
16
The fundamental cause of any kind of science rejectionism is that those who practice it do not recognize the existence of any method of pursuing the truth that is effective at minimizing the consequences of the investigator's bias. They do not understand the incentives that are built into the scientific method and peer review. I will never forget a colleague's statement:
"The problem with all this mainstream climate science is that the scientific method that these scientists are using just allows them to find what they want to find, and what all the other scientists say they should find. It doesn't let them find the real truth."
The man who said that is neither stupid nor a lunatic.
I had to delicately calculate how to dispute his assertion. I decided that the best tactic would be to point out that any scientist can *improve* their reputation by finding a flaw in another scientist's work that their colleagues have missed. Disproving bad or misleading results is valued highly, so it constrains the incentive to manipulate data to confirm a hypothesis. Indeed it is a career-ending shame that is heaped on any scientist that is exposed as having faked their way to a desired conclusion.
In order to graduate from middle school, every student should perform an experiment in which they are given a false hypothesis by the teacher, then led through the experience of disproving it. At least that would be a decent start.
"The problem with all this mainstream climate science is that the scientific method that these scientists are using just allows them to find what they want to find, and what all the other scientists say they should find. It doesn't let them find the real truth."
The man who said that is neither stupid nor a lunatic.
I had to delicately calculate how to dispute his assertion. I decided that the best tactic would be to point out that any scientist can *improve* their reputation by finding a flaw in another scientist's work that their colleagues have missed. Disproving bad or misleading results is valued highly, so it constrains the incentive to manipulate data to confirm a hypothesis. Indeed it is a career-ending shame that is heaped on any scientist that is exposed as having faked their way to a desired conclusion.
In order to graduate from middle school, every student should perform an experiment in which they are given a false hypothesis by the teacher, then led through the experience of disproving it. At least that would be a decent start.
22
Gee, maybe we climate skeptics sort of remember the East Anglia emails? Where the "scientists" worked together to "cook the books" and make sure only their version of (what was then called) global warming got attention? What do they want to hide and why?
29
Today there is too much partisan politics and double standard on climate issues. While the earth may be warming, many people cannot keep their cool when discussing climate change. This article, too, unnecessarily deploys emotionally loaded charges like "an attempt to stifle science," "harassment of climate," "intimidation" and "McCarthy-like assault on science" because Lamar Smith is seeking detailed information, as part of a congressional investigation, on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a government agency. This is unfortunate because it further deepens the already existing political divide on climate. If the NOAA has nothing to hide, what is preventing it to share all information related to the scientific study in question? I am wondering if the author would resort to a similarly fiery rhetoric on the Exxon Mobil climate issue. In early November, this private company received a subpoena from the New York Attorney General seeking internal company documents on climate research as far back as the 1970s to determine whether the oil giant lied to investors and consumers, and withheld information about the effects of climate change. Isn't this an "assault" too, possibly involving even confidential business information of a private firm? Where was the public outcry? Let's not use double standards - even on the climate.
21
"overwhelming scientific evidence that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are changing the climate"? Actually, no, the evidence actually is not there. What stated in late 1980s as an honest scientific hypothesis that carbon dioxide affects the climate got hijacked by left-wing politicians bent on destroying free-market (aka capitalist) economy and trumpeted as a scientific fact with which 99% (some say 95%, they cannot agree on exact number) of scientists believe. Well, in 1515 100% of scientists believed that the Earth was flat.
Global temperatures increases prognoses made 20-25 years ago for today are nowhere near the actually observed temperature increases. This simple fact invalidated the computer models on which man-made global warming (AGW) predictions were based. But you will not read it on NYT pages.
Why so many climate scientists continue to advance AGW? Because their livelihood is at stake. In the current political climate it is next to impossible to get funding for climate research if the results do not support AGW. Other possible causes of global warming, like solar activity, under crust thermal processes (magma) get swept aside.
Yes, Mr. Mann, global warming is real, as it was real for the last 600+ years. At the same time there is plenty of scientifically supported doubt that this global warming is mostly caused by "burning fossil fuels ".
Global temperatures increases prognoses made 20-25 years ago for today are nowhere near the actually observed temperature increases. This simple fact invalidated the computer models on which man-made global warming (AGW) predictions were based. But you will not read it on NYT pages.
Why so many climate scientists continue to advance AGW? Because their livelihood is at stake. In the current political climate it is next to impossible to get funding for climate research if the results do not support AGW. Other possible causes of global warming, like solar activity, under crust thermal processes (magma) get swept aside.
Yes, Mr. Mann, global warming is real, as it was real for the last 600+ years. At the same time there is plenty of scientifically supported doubt that this global warming is mostly caused by "burning fossil fuels ".
29
I don't like the idea of an agency of the federal government refusing to turn over their work to Congress. That's a constitutional function of congress - oversight - that's their job.
24
Conservatives have had a field day (and rightly so) lambasting colleges and students for their efforts to restrict free speech in the name of diversity, safety and inclusiveness.
Its a shame that they lack the courage of their convictions by attempting to squelch speech when it suits their interests. They bully climate scientists; they have literally made it illegal for government health professionals to question the relationship between gun deaths and national health; they champion laws that make it illegal to film conditions inside animal factory farms; they want to put words in doctors mouths regarding abortion rights.
Free speech means all speech.
Its a shame that they lack the courage of their convictions by attempting to squelch speech when it suits their interests. They bully climate scientists; they have literally made it illegal for government health professionals to question the relationship between gun deaths and national health; they champion laws that make it illegal to film conditions inside animal factory farms; they want to put words in doctors mouths regarding abortion rights.
Free speech means all speech.
18
All work product performed by government employees belongs to the government. They have no right or expectation of privacy or ownership. They must hand over all of their work generated while receiving a government paycheck. Their sniveling attitude and misplaced righteousness is simply stonewalling to avoid public awareness of the apparent twisting of facts to suit the global warming conspiracy and to protect all the money tied to this useless endeavor.
14
I agree that Congressman Lamar Smith should not be seeking these documents. But he's not the only one who does this kind of thing. Both conservatives and liberals abuse their positions to try to prove their points. It needs to stop.
3
"At the same time, as NOAA noted, the confidentiality of communications between scientists is “essential to frank discourse.” For that reason, the agency rejected his demand."
whether this guy is a boob or not, why are emails about a scientific study so secret? are people discussing their sex lives? stipulate that any personal matters should be edited - the way names are removed from government papers to protect reputations - and leave in anything and everything related to the science. too often, liberal (?) reaction to alleged reactionaries is more reactionary than they are.
whether this guy is a boob or not, why are emails about a scientific study so secret? are people discussing their sex lives? stipulate that any personal matters should be edited - the way names are removed from government papers to protect reputations - and leave in anything and everything related to the science. too often, liberal (?) reaction to alleged reactionaries is more reactionary than they are.
23
Unfortunately, in a political climate where purposeful ignorance is the norm of climate change deniers, any discussion by researchers that is open to any interpretation other than 100% certainty will be seized upon as "evidedence" of a conspiracy. Science, like most fields other than politics, thrives on honest and open dialogue and skeptical questioning. Lamar Smith wouldn't understand honest dialogue if it grabbed him around the neck. So no, let's not give him the right to bog down those who practice science with intentionally distracting and time consuming requests for information that he would purposefully misuse. And misunderstand - after all, he is admittedly "not a scientist".
11
It serves little purpose to attack the lunatic fringe of climate change deniers. Devising a comprehensive plan for reform is what really counts. The US spends about $2.5 billion per year on relevant research. That's about 1/2% of total annual research spending in the U.S. And it's about what we spend on studying aging which, of course, will be far less of an issue once the worst effects of global warming kick in.
6
Climategate.. The New York Times has embarrassed itself by publishing anything from this complete hack. Michael Mann has proven over and over again that he is incompetent and dishonest and at least part of the reason that the general public hold climate science in such low esteem..
25
What public is that? Global warming is widely accepted by a significant majority of Americans and a greater majority of people around the world.
19
Donald, Lamar, et al.: McCarthy acolytes...
5
Lamar Smith is just the latest egregious example of a phenomenon I call "stupid in Texas" The more time you spend in the Lone Star state, the dumber and more obnoxious you become! Maybe it is time to erect a fence between Texas and the rest of the US!
11
Hilarious. Michael "Hide the Decline" Mann is outraged that someone dare question the integrity of his sainted cabal of so-called climate "scientists". Climategate anyone? Anyone?
21
The vast majority of scientific investigation of global warming is published in professional scientific journals and depends on complex processes like computational biochemistry. It is highly unlikely any of the people who flog the "debunked hockey stick graph," "rigged temperature sensors" and the smoking gun of the federal grant gravy train are going to begin to understand the gist of OCEANIC VERTICAL MIXING - A REVIEW AND A MODEL WITH A NONLOCAL BOUNDARY-LAYER PARAMETERIZATION. Nor will the conspiracy theorists probably be aware that much of the funding for climate science comes from corporate sources.
So how can I as a laymen trust these guys?
Because young men and women do not spend a decade at MIT getting doctorates in climate science because they dream of becoming a member of the climate change fraudsters.
Because foreign scientists like those in Germany who do not depend on competitive grants for their funding would not sit silently by at an annual conference in their field and let American scientists get away with such a hoax. On the contrary, there would be great glory in exposing such a fraud.
Because thirty years ago, renegade astronomers proposed the universe was expanding and not contracting. This inflation theory threatened the life's work of many gray heads, not to mention their funding, and yet what was revolutionary is now the consensus.
No one grows rich in these fields, these are acts of dedication to truth.
So how can I as a laymen trust these guys?
Because young men and women do not spend a decade at MIT getting doctorates in climate science because they dream of becoming a member of the climate change fraudsters.
Because foreign scientists like those in Germany who do not depend on competitive grants for their funding would not sit silently by at an annual conference in their field and let American scientists get away with such a hoax. On the contrary, there would be great glory in exposing such a fraud.
Because thirty years ago, renegade astronomers proposed the universe was expanding and not contracting. This inflation theory threatened the life's work of many gray heads, not to mention their funding, and yet what was revolutionary is now the consensus.
No one grows rich in these fields, these are acts of dedication to truth.
30
The illustration here tells us why no intact thinkers buy into the global warming scare. Washington, D.C. was supposed to have been under water foe decades already, according to the global-scare crowd of the 1980's.
The fact that their guesses are ALWAYS wrong tells thinkers that this is a publicity campaign born of politics from anti-capitalists. You shouldn't be surprised that nobody with half a brain is saying, ''No thanks.''
Faked statistics from gov't agencies simply shuts off independent minds from ever believing anything the gov't agencies will ever have to say. You cut your nose off to spite your face making bureaucrats lie to support your political cause because NOAA & NASA will never be believed when they come up with future climate statements.
But thanks for being so predictable.
The fact that their guesses are ALWAYS wrong tells thinkers that this is a publicity campaign born of politics from anti-capitalists. You shouldn't be surprised that nobody with half a brain is saying, ''No thanks.''
Faked statistics from gov't agencies simply shuts off independent minds from ever believing anything the gov't agencies will ever have to say. You cut your nose off to spite your face making bureaucrats lie to support your political cause because NOAA & NASA will never be believed when they come up with future climate statements.
But thanks for being so predictable.
12
The bottom line is Mr. Mann; you reap what you sow. Climate science has morphed into a religious cult and also big dollars to its prophets. Deniers are to be treated as infidels and silenced. That is "Climate Science".
12
Closer to home in Miami, I have a blog, Pinecrest Floods, that pleads with my city not to allow building homes on sumpland re sea rise. They approved, and worse, did so without a drainage plan upfront, saying drainage would be approved upon occupancy.
The pictures are stunning and clear: since the land was tampered with in 2008, filled and elevated, we flood.
http://pinecrestfloods.blogspot.com/
Building began October 29, and now seven weeks into building, wouldn’t you know it, MOAT LAND arrived In Pinecrest.
Oh, and our county zoo is closed now, first time since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. A big tourist and local pull, flooding the reason, the moats there insecure.
The zoo had moats designed into the plan. In Pinecrest, flooding an afterthought; moats not even on the drawing board.
Climate science assault hardly covers it.
The pictures are stunning and clear: since the land was tampered with in 2008, filled and elevated, we flood.
http://pinecrestfloods.blogspot.com/
Building began October 29, and now seven weeks into building, wouldn’t you know it, MOAT LAND arrived In Pinecrest.
Oh, and our county zoo is closed now, first time since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. A big tourist and local pull, flooding the reason, the moats there insecure.
The zoo had moats designed into the plan. In Pinecrest, flooding an afterthought; moats not even on the drawing board.
Climate science assault hardly covers it.
4
If only all climate change deniers would move to Texas. And then, please secede. You'd be doing us all a favor, allowing the rest of us to get on with the proud American tradition of innovation and technology rather than trapped, dependent on your outdated, archaic, dirty energy. In the meantime, it is critically important for us all to tell friends and family, if you care about nature, your children, the future......don't vote for any climate change denier.
9
How many tons of CO2 were emitted jetting to the climate change conference?
9
for all you readers out there in "true believer world" --- how much has our climate increased in the last 125 years? 10 degrees? 5 degrees? 2 degrees? If you said 1.4 degrees fahrenheit, you are correct. That is all it has increased, a lousy 1.4 degrees. And for an increase of 1.4 degrees, we are going to change and limit our economic future. And what do you plan to do with the millions of Americans who will not have jobs? Not have money? Perhaps more importantly is "what are they going to do to you!
6
Every generation is taken in by montebancs.
The term "climate scientist" should be distinguished from science. Consensus, scare tactics, and manipulation have no place in real science.
The rest of you can follow the Pied Pipers, who will bilk you of your billions.
I'll stay right here, thanks.
Call me a denier, call me whatever. I'm still going to laugh at you.
The term "climate scientist" should be distinguished from science. Consensus, scare tactics, and manipulation have no place in real science.
The rest of you can follow the Pied Pipers, who will bilk you of your billions.
I'll stay right here, thanks.
Call me a denier, call me whatever. I'm still going to laugh at you.
11
What else could we expect from the pro-cancer party?
3
There should be a law that says everyone has to take a college course in atmospheric chemistry before they can claim that global climate disruption is a hoax.
Let's face it -- Republican politics has become like religion in this country, resulting in willful ignorance and a philosophy of anti-science. The beliefs that God promised not to flood the Earth ever again and that Jesus is coming back any day now are preventing at least 40% of the American population from facing reality.
Radical Muslim jihadists are willing to sacrifice their lives for their faith, but Christian moderates are willing to sacrifice the entire planet for theirs.
Let's face it -- Republican politics has become like religion in this country, resulting in willful ignorance and a philosophy of anti-science. The beliefs that God promised not to flood the Earth ever again and that Jesus is coming back any day now are preventing at least 40% of the American population from facing reality.
Radical Muslim jihadists are willing to sacrifice their lives for their faith, but Christian moderates are willing to sacrifice the entire planet for theirs.
7
Actually, it is "man-made global warming" that became a new religion of the left. You hear all the time that 99% of scientists believe in man-made global warming. When you see a confluence of "Scientists" and believe in the same sentence you know that you are being conned.
7
Both sides should lay all their cards on the table.
All of Smith's communications with potential denial-profiteers and all of the internal memos of the NOAA staff at once.
All of Smith's communications with potential denial-profiteers and all of the internal memos of the NOAA staff at once.
8
The Republican Party is the only major party in the wealthy democracies to deny climate change and the extreme dangers posed by global warming.
7
The major assault on Climate science, indeed science itself, is being perpetuated by charlatan "scientist" activists such as Mann.
11
Obviously our nation is not better than that. These individuals have been elected to the office they hold and "we" are responsible. And it's not just science they're after. It's our President, our former Secretary of State and Senator, or anyone else who stands in their way. They criticize our President in regards to foreign policy (whatever happened to politics stop at the water's edge?). They welcome and applaud the Israeli leader's speech to Congress that opposes our President. These people have no idea of boundaries.
7
gw has taken on th feeling of religion
people either 'believe' or dont believe
when emotion and politics enter th realm of science, science is no longer possible
and what subject has been more affected by emotion and politics than gw
but ive always gotten a laugh at watching ignorant people proclaim their nonexistent knowledge
carry on
people either 'believe' or dont believe
when emotion and politics enter th realm of science, science is no longer possible
and what subject has been more affected by emotion and politics than gw
but ive always gotten a laugh at watching ignorant people proclaim their nonexistent knowledge
carry on
5
Thx1138.......nothing of substance to your comment, just an ad hominem attack. You must consider my comments particularly effective or you wouldn't have singled me out for insult. Thank you.
2
Luckily, scientists generally choose to think rather than believe. That's how the scientific method works to correct mistakes. I wish that belief systems were blessed with self-correction mechanisms, but that would call into question the principle of infallibility that generally underlies them. It's easier to claim that observable facts are somehow wrong than to accept that a belief system, especially a religious one that affects so many parts of our lives, is in error.
1
I am a research chemist with 30+ years of experience.
>
I know that over 750 peer reviewed publications have shown the Medieval Warming period to have been warmer than current day temperatures. During this period the Vikings settled Greenland, vineyards grew in northern England and so forth. Those who push global warming and the "hockey stick" graph claim this warming never occurred. Why?
>
I know that there was a little ice age that occurred in the early 19th century. It led to ice fairs on the Thames River, Charles Dickens writing about a white Christmas in London and so forth. This event was also very well documented, but is not present to those who support global warming. Why?
>
As a chemist, I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that about 90% of the warming caused by CO2 occurs at concentrations below 40 ppm and that increasing CO2 concentrations levels above this leads to a increasingly diminished effect such that raising CO2 levels from 300 ppm to 400 ppm accomplishes nearly nothing. Why do those pushing global warming demand we believe the heating effect as a function of CO2 concentration is linear when it clearly is not?
>
CO2 contributes around 4% of the warming from greenhouse gases while water vapor contributes well over 90% and yet no one talks about water vapor (whose concentration in the atmosphere is declining)?
>
Why is the sun's activity never discussed even though it has a huge effect on the Earth's temperature?
>
Many questions, no answers.
>
I know that over 750 peer reviewed publications have shown the Medieval Warming period to have been warmer than current day temperatures. During this period the Vikings settled Greenland, vineyards grew in northern England and so forth. Those who push global warming and the "hockey stick" graph claim this warming never occurred. Why?
>
I know that there was a little ice age that occurred in the early 19th century. It led to ice fairs on the Thames River, Charles Dickens writing about a white Christmas in London and so forth. This event was also very well documented, but is not present to those who support global warming. Why?
>
As a chemist, I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that about 90% of the warming caused by CO2 occurs at concentrations below 40 ppm and that increasing CO2 concentrations levels above this leads to a increasingly diminished effect such that raising CO2 levels from 300 ppm to 400 ppm accomplishes nearly nothing. Why do those pushing global warming demand we believe the heating effect as a function of CO2 concentration is linear when it clearly is not?
>
CO2 contributes around 4% of the warming from greenhouse gases while water vapor contributes well over 90% and yet no one talks about water vapor (whose concentration in the atmosphere is declining)?
>
Why is the sun's activity never discussed even though it has a huge effect on the Earth's temperature?
>
Many questions, no answers.
16
Good points, especially because you invoke history. Most of the climate "science" reported is actually in the field of history, not science. And the rest fits neatly into the computer programming realm. As a research scientist you know the difference between literature research and scientific research, and the difference between scientific measurement and scientific method/experimentation. I, too, am a scientist and have read much source material regarding climate change. I have never seen anything qualifying as scientific experimentation that proves an hypothesis about our world. What I have seen is trend analysis and computer modeling, neither of which constitute science.
9
Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs. I get it. But I am also free to call into question how those religious beliefs color, distort or reinforce matters of politics and policy.
Lamar is an adherent of the Church of Christian Science. If he rejects germ theory, much less climate change, I would say he has no place on any committee discussing scientific matters at all.
It defies reason that he has any authority over any scientist anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances. I'm proud of NOAA for their stand against ignorance.
Lamar is an adherent of the Church of Christian Science. If he rejects germ theory, much less climate change, I would say he has no place on any committee discussing scientific matters at all.
It defies reason that he has any authority over any scientist anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances. I'm proud of NOAA for their stand against ignorance.
11
Well, yes, actually there is doubt as to whether or not there is "climate change"--the version with the presumption of man-caused "global warming." As but one example of why there should be reasonable 'doubt'; remember all those predictions of more frequent and violent storms after Katrina in 2005. It has now been more than a decade--10 years-plus--since a hurricane made landfall in the United States. Check out the daily temperatures at Summit Station, Greenland. Easily found about 9 out of 10 days on the Washington Post's weather page as the "Coldest Spot on Earth" each day. Yesterday, Summit Station registered a minus (-) 71 degrees, and is consistently at minus (-) 50 degrees give or take. Ice formation in Antarctica is at record levels. The seas are not rising and I dare a scientist to claim to measure "sea-level" rise in CMs and MMs due to "climate change," but reasonably account for the undulations of the ocean floor due to natural, recurring seismic, volcanic, and earthquake activity that can displace huge volumes of water as a natural phenomenon. Global warming just ain't happenin' ...
8
There is climate change; it is just mostly caused by effects other than CO2. What the left successfully achieved was substitution of "man-made global warming" with "global warming". Now each time people talk about "global warming" they mean "man-made global warming". Global Warming is real. Man-made global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is not.
3
Today there is too much partisan politics and double standard on climate issues. While the earth may be warming, many people cannot keep their cool when discussing climate change. This article, too, unnecessarily deploys emotionally loaded charges like "an attempt to stifle science," "harassment of climate," "intimidation" and "McCarthy-like assault on science" because Lamar Smith is seeking detailed information, as part of a congressional investigation, on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a government agency. This is unfortunate because it further deepens the already existing sharp political divide on climate. If the NOAA has nothing to hide, what is preventing it to share all information related to the scientific study in question? I am wondering if the author would resort to a similarly fiery rhetoric on the Exxon Mobil climate issue. In early November, this private company received a subpoena from the New York Attorney General seeking internal company documents on climate research as far back as the 1970s to determine whether the oil giant lied to investors and consumers, and withheld information about the effects of climate change. Isn't this also an "assault," including possibly even on confidential business information? Let's not use double standards!
2
Its as if global warming denier deniers dont believe in evolution. If there were never any variation in climates there would be no evolution. Striving for climate equality and climate stagnation will doom our planet. The health, growth and evolution of life on Earth has always required changing conditions that stress populations of organisms and lead to adaptation of species. This all just reflects the fact that there is no actual scientific experimentation when it comes to climate science. Yes, there seems to be scientific measurements using scientific equipment, but, as only us true true scientist know, these are irrelevant without prospective controlled scientific experiments based on testing of hypotheses. Measurements and trending is a matter of history, not science. You can create computer models for ever and ever but that will not replace experimentation. Seems to me the climatist movement has also sought to subvert the very definition of scientific method in order to make climate science appear legitimate.
2
"Government scientist" is an oxymoron. Government employees are bureaucrats. Employees of NGOs that receive funds derived from taxes are bureaucrats-lite. They will follow in their "scientific" inquiries any line that leads to more more tax revenues for their bureaucratic fiefdoms. Michael Man is a bureaucrat-lite who has prospered from government spending on so-called "climate science."
While I don't dispute Mr. Mann's claim "that the Earth is warming and that we're responsible," I must point out that governments throughout the world always have been and are the greatest source of damage to the Earth's environment including the atmosphere and any changes in its climate. So an important question is, who does he mean when he says "we" are responsible? If, as I suspect, he means people in general then it is up to people in general to take responsibility for the warming--not governments.
As the source of most of the Earth's pollution problems, governments are the last entity a sane person would ask to address climate change. Based on experience, whatever the politicians and bureaucrats come up with in Paris will only make matters worse. The US government mandated ethanol in gas to solve a crude-oil shortage that didn't exist and caused starvation. It mandated 1.3 gal. per flush toilet tanks to conserve water, causing toilets to require multiple flushes and more waste water. God help us if they try to "fix" the Earth's climate.
While I don't dispute Mr. Mann's claim "that the Earth is warming and that we're responsible," I must point out that governments throughout the world always have been and are the greatest source of damage to the Earth's environment including the atmosphere and any changes in its climate. So an important question is, who does he mean when he says "we" are responsible? If, as I suspect, he means people in general then it is up to people in general to take responsibility for the warming--not governments.
As the source of most of the Earth's pollution problems, governments are the last entity a sane person would ask to address climate change. Based on experience, whatever the politicians and bureaucrats come up with in Paris will only make matters worse. The US government mandated ethanol in gas to solve a crude-oil shortage that didn't exist and caused starvation. It mandated 1.3 gal. per flush toilet tanks to conserve water, causing toilets to require multiple flushes and more waste water. God help us if they try to "fix" the Earth's climate.
9
The climate scare story is a hard-enough sell, but no credible data have even come close to showing us that human activity is to blame. We have had massive CO2 in the air before - but here we are. The North Pole has been totally liquid multiple times in the past, yet we still have polar bears.
2
"I must point out that governments throughout the world always have been and are the greatest source of damage to the Earth's environment including the atmosphere and any changes in its climate."
Nonsense.
That false premise is the foundation of "Ned Netterville's" point, which may thus be disregarded.
Nonsense.
That false premise is the foundation of "Ned Netterville's" point, which may thus be disregarded.
1
You have a blanket rejection of the works of "government scientists." How do you feel about corporate scientists paid by the oil industry?
5
The ongoing brawl in the political arena regarding the "science" of anthropogenic climate change is like Nero standing on the balcony playing the violin while the city burns. The United States cannot possibly take the high ground on this issue when we are, per capita, the most wasteful nation on earth with energy, water, food and materials. If we're going to lead by example, then US citizens are going to have to take action and change their consumption patterns and drastically reduce waste. Waiting around for the politicians and the corporations to fix this problem is like waiting for Godot.
36
What I really don't understand, and frankly I think no one truly does, is how "conservatism" has morphed into a culture seeking out bizarre and false outlier positions on almost each subject and doubling down with fanatical ferocity on an apocalyptic vision of the world.
It's the same everywhere: on climate science; on economic issues; on social issues; etc.
It's the same everywhere: on climate science; on economic issues; on social issues; etc.
6
How did a Republican from Texas get to be a chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology?
4
Seems Mr. Smith hasn't learned the axiom "The nice thing about facts is that they are true whether you want to believe them or not."
Perhaps what we need is to stop testing students so much and give civics, science, math, and (especially) IQ tests to political candidates themselves. Then, with people like Sen. Inhofe and Sen. Smith relegated to actually working for a living, the planet won't be under such existential threat from U.S. ignorance and blindered ideology-driven or profit-hungry climate-change deniers. Maybe we should include the major media and pundits in this testing...
Perhaps what we need is to stop testing students so much and give civics, science, math, and (especially) IQ tests to political candidates themselves. Then, with people like Sen. Inhofe and Sen. Smith relegated to actually working for a living, the planet won't be under such existential threat from U.S. ignorance and blindered ideology-driven or profit-hungry climate-change deniers. Maybe we should include the major media and pundits in this testing...
6
And I thought the dinosaurs were extinct! They are alive and well and living in Texas.
7
Closer to home in Miami, I have a blog that pleads with my city not to allow building homes on sumpland re sea rise. They approved, and worse, did so without a drainage plan upfront, saying drainage would be approved upon occupancy.
The pictures are stunning and clear: since the land was tampered with in 2008, filled and elevated, we flood.
http://pinecrestfloods.blogspot.com/
Building began October 29, and now seven weeks into building, wouldn’t you know it, MOAT LAND arrived In Pinecrest.
Oh, and our county zoo is closed now, first time since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. A big tourist and local pull, flooding the reason, the moats there insecure.
The zoo had moats designed into the plan. In Pinecrest, neither floods nor moats were considered. Money and greed prevailed.
The pictures are stunning and clear: since the land was tampered with in 2008, filled and elevated, we flood.
http://pinecrestfloods.blogspot.com/
Building began October 29, and now seven weeks into building, wouldn’t you know it, MOAT LAND arrived In Pinecrest.
Oh, and our county zoo is closed now, first time since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. A big tourist and local pull, flooding the reason, the moats there insecure.
The zoo had moats designed into the plan. In Pinecrest, neither floods nor moats were considered. Money and greed prevailed.
1
We were warned about CO2 over fifty years ago by our finest lab Bell Labs.
We buy fire insurance, though not certain of fire
We watch our diets, though not certain of medical views
We buy bonds, though not certain of returns.. etc.
Yet, we turn our backs on the risk to life on earth, when warned by every science academy in world. There are no words to plumb the depravity of Mr. Smith and his cohorts.
Deniers/delayers are complicit in the climate change deaths of hundreds of thousands per year, 88% of them children.
World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/
Those that think they can escape the moral consequences of their inaction, their pathetic excuses. do not believe in God, or think they can con Him, too.
We buy fire insurance, though not certain of fire
We watch our diets, though not certain of medical views
We buy bonds, though not certain of returns.. etc.
Yet, we turn our backs on the risk to life on earth, when warned by every science academy in world. There are no words to plumb the depravity of Mr. Smith and his cohorts.
Deniers/delayers are complicit in the climate change deaths of hundreds of thousands per year, 88% of them children.
World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/
Those that think they can escape the moral consequences of their inaction, their pathetic excuses. do not believe in God, or think they can con Him, too.
5
The ongoing bar-room brawl in the political arena regarding the "science" of anthropogenic climate change is a real waste of time. It's like Nero standing on the balcony playing the violin while the city burns. The United States cannot possibly take the high ground on this issue when we are, per capita, the most wasteful nation on earth with energy, water, food and materials. If we're going to lead by example, then US citizens are going to have to change their consumption patterns drastically and reduce waste. Waiting around for the politicians and the suppliers to fix this problem is like waiting for Godot.
1
To use a phrase often repeated by Republicans, I'm no scientist. I am, however, of an age that allows me to say I have my own observations on the issue, and the deniers are flat out wrong, IMO.
Growing up in the deep south, the heat and humidity was beastly, it made my hair frizz and I hated it, but knew it would soon end with September. By September's end, we were wearing knee socks and sweaters to school. By Halloween there would be frost. One January it snowed - 14 inches. My parents had never seen snow. Yet every fall seemed to come later, and spring earlier, summers hotter. Presently, there are impatiens and begonias still blooming on our deck - it's December.
We have owned a small property on a trout stream since the early 90's. The first yr. it flooded, but no serious damage. The locals said it was the 100 yr. flood - never seen it out of the banks. It's now flooded three times, in less than three yrs., much worse than the first time, damage, massive debris, roads compromised or washed out.
Us humans have been sending all manner of pollutants into the atmosphere since Dicken's time, the quantity and noxiousness growing exponentially worse. Why, dear deniers, would you NOT think this would affect this big blue marble we inhabit? It doesn't vanish into thin air - it IS the air.
As for Messrs Barton & Smith, they need to be on a science committee about like I belong on the space station.
Growing up in the deep south, the heat and humidity was beastly, it made my hair frizz and I hated it, but knew it would soon end with September. By September's end, we were wearing knee socks and sweaters to school. By Halloween there would be frost. One January it snowed - 14 inches. My parents had never seen snow. Yet every fall seemed to come later, and spring earlier, summers hotter. Presently, there are impatiens and begonias still blooming on our deck - it's December.
We have owned a small property on a trout stream since the early 90's. The first yr. it flooded, but no serious damage. The locals said it was the 100 yr. flood - never seen it out of the banks. It's now flooded three times, in less than three yrs., much worse than the first time, damage, massive debris, roads compromised or washed out.
Us humans have been sending all manner of pollutants into the atmosphere since Dicken's time, the quantity and noxiousness growing exponentially worse. Why, dear deniers, would you NOT think this would affect this big blue marble we inhabit? It doesn't vanish into thin air - it IS the air.
As for Messrs Barton & Smith, they need to be on a science committee about like I belong on the space station.
6
Aw, c'mon, you know that the Times will eventually print the headline - Global Warming Shown As False Alarm
2
The attitude of Lamar Smith towards the reality of climate change reflects that of an American citizen commenting Donald Trump’s proposal that all Muslims should be banned from entering the USA.
Speaking on a BBC news programme, the gentleman agreed with Trump’s proposal because Muslims are killing Americans and the problem with the current situation in the States is that “…people have to die before we take action.”
So the victims in the daily mass shootings across the US have yet to die, proven by the fact that no action has been taken against the all too ready availability of every type of gun?
Has American “logic” actually sunk to this level?
Speaking on a BBC news programme, the gentleman agreed with Trump’s proposal because Muslims are killing Americans and the problem with the current situation in the States is that “…people have to die before we take action.”
So the victims in the daily mass shootings across the US have yet to die, proven by the fact that no action has been taken against the all too ready availability of every type of gun?
Has American “logic” actually sunk to this level?
3
In paragraph four you write:
"In fact, 2014 was the warmest year on record, and this year is likely to end up even warmer."
This may be true, but it does not refute Mr. Smith's claim that the rate of warming is decreasing. The fact the 2014 was warmer than all other years and 2015 will probably be even warmer speaks only to direction of the climate change, not to its intensity.
"In fact, 2014 was the warmest year on record, and this year is likely to end up even warmer."
This may be true, but it does not refute Mr. Smith's claim that the rate of warming is decreasing. The fact the 2014 was warmer than all other years and 2015 will probably be even warmer speaks only to direction of the climate change, not to its intensity.
4
Dr. Mann justifies the refusal of an agency 100% funded by the federal government, to turn over information on its deliberations to our elected officials. He says “…the confidentiality of communications between scientists is “essential to frank discourse. For that reason, the agency rejected his [Smith's] demand.”
The NYT and everyone else likes to talk a good game about freedom of information held by our government. To my knowledge, the only exceptions to the requirement for government agencies to turning over information relate to either personnel matters or national security. How on earth does discussion of climate science warrant denial of a request for information?
The "essential to frank discourse" argument was used by those who opposed the Freedom of Information Act when it was being debated. Can someone please help me understand why discussions/e-mails on climate science truly deserves a special exception?
The NYT and everyone else likes to talk a good game about freedom of information held by our government. To my knowledge, the only exceptions to the requirement for government agencies to turning over information relate to either personnel matters or national security. How on earth does discussion of climate science warrant denial of a request for information?
The "essential to frank discourse" argument was used by those who opposed the Freedom of Information Act when it was being debated. Can someone please help me understand why discussions/e-mails on climate science truly deserves a special exception?
13
Too lazy to look it up, but I think it was Einstein that said something like "if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
The column's author brings this (probably paraphrased) quote to mind, for some reason.
The column's author brings this (probably paraphrased) quote to mind, for some reason.
3
to stop co2; 2/3's of people must go ,planes,trains,boats ,cars must stop.more tree's planted but that will not happen so deal with it ,only so much can be done don't lie to your self!!
2
Methinks Mr. Mann is afraid of losing his taxpayer-funded grants. Do a web search to find the CBO's Federal Climate Change Expenditures
Report to Congress: $20+ billion/year. And that's just the US. Mr. Mann and all of his buddies have gotten rich off this taxpayer largess and they don't want the money spigot turned off. Hence, his assault on Congress, which has the power of the purse.
That $20 billion pays for a lot of climate scientists' (and their hangers-on) mortgages. And their kids' private school tuition. And those fabulous vacations to the Maldives. It's funny, though, that the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, and The Los Angeles Times have all filed amici briefs against Mr. Mann in his nonsensical libel lawsuit against Mark Steyn. Amici briefs filed for Mr. Mann? Zero. Not even from the New York Times. Who's foolin' who?
Report to Congress: $20+ billion/year. And that's just the US. Mr. Mann and all of his buddies have gotten rich off this taxpayer largess and they don't want the money spigot turned off. Hence, his assault on Congress, which has the power of the purse.
That $20 billion pays for a lot of climate scientists' (and their hangers-on) mortgages. And their kids' private school tuition. And those fabulous vacations to the Maldives. It's funny, though, that the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, and The Los Angeles Times have all filed amici briefs against Mr. Mann in his nonsensical libel lawsuit against Mark Steyn. Amici briefs filed for Mr. Mann? Zero. Not even from the New York Times. Who's foolin' who?
7
Sadly, the comments by "CapitalistRoader' as well as many others, seem to suggest that Senator Smith's defenders are both as uninformed and as looney as the senator himself. I fear for our democracy when so many people make nonsense statements, seemingly unaware of how silly they sound.
But maybe they are aware of it and don't care. I'd suggest that the super-wealthy do in fact have a motivation for this point of view, incredibly selfish though it is. I suspect they believe -- credible of not -- that their wealth will allow them to live a comfortable life in those few places on the earth where climate change will actually result in more attractive weather.
But maybe they are aware of it and don't care. I'd suggest that the super-wealthy do in fact have a motivation for this point of view, incredibly selfish though it is. I suspect they believe -- credible of not -- that their wealth will allow them to live a comfortable life in those few places on the earth where climate change will actually result in more attractive weather.
2
Rather than spending another dime on climate research, it would be wiser to spend that money investigating the roots of greed, and how elected officials can so easily abuse the power of government to warp democracy and policy, to defend the greedy, at the expense of the public.
1
Mr. Smith's is objecting to a Science article that questions the post 1998 warming hiatus, a conclusion largely based on NOAA's correction of global ocean temperatures. These were based largely on random ships reports (NOAA does not use satellite data for its global assessments, but rather conventional thermometry). Temperature data from more recently deployed stationary buoy systems, which are still not fully deployed across the world's oceans, did deviate (and not unexpectedly) from the prior haphazard temperature gatherings. Since world's oceans cover 72% of its surface area, a correction (and it was a slight increase) has an overwhelming effect on the overall global surface temperature. One underappreciated fact is that the heat storing capacity of a unit volume for water is over 3200 times larger than that of air of equal volume. That is, by far most of the increase in the extra global heat storage due to heat trapping gases is stored in the oceans. This is a blessing and a curse as the oceans effectively dampen air temperature increases, but at a price of a very slow and sustained release of stored heat that will maintain global temperature increases over extremely long times.
Basic high school physics, but not apparently understandable to oil states congressmen like Smith and Inhofe, respectively the science leaders in House and Senate, and adamant global warming deniers, but self-proclaimed science experts on issues affecting the interest of their oil overlords.
Basic high school physics, but not apparently understandable to oil states congressmen like Smith and Inhofe, respectively the science leaders in House and Senate, and adamant global warming deniers, but self-proclaimed science experts on issues affecting the interest of their oil overlords.
4
So often we hear columnists lament, in response to the lunacy that afflicts our nation, that, "We are better than that. " It is becoming increasingly difficult to find evidence to support that claim.
3
OpenSecrets.org lists Oil & Gas as Rep. Smith's top donors.
He's yet another attorney, with no experience or training in science, space and technology.
Yet this man has been given a position of responsibility, or at least visibility, in our Congress.
Haven't we had enough of this yet?
He's yet another attorney, with no experience or training in science, space and technology.
Yet this man has been given a position of responsibility, or at least visibility, in our Congress.
Haven't we had enough of this yet?
4
Professor Mann conveniently omits the source of the contention that global temperatures had not risen for 18 years. That's because it was the IPCC, the gold standard in all things climatic, who claimed that "there had been a slowdown in the rate of global warming in recent years".
That inconvenient truth did not fit the ambitions of the AGW-in-Chief, so the folks at NOAA had to massage their data to come up an increase in global temperatures that would play well in Paris. All they had to do was tweak some initial conditions, and voila, there complex models spit out the right answers.
I can understand why Mann, the author of the debunked hockey stick fantasy, would not want to mention the IPCC. After all, most of the world is aware of the reality that 97% - the figure gleaned from peer-reviewed journals - of scientists agree that AGW is real and the biggest threat the planet will face until the sun swallows us up in five billion years.
If Mann were honest, he would have to acknowledge that there is a rift between the IPCC and NOAA over methods, measurements, and models. He knows that Deniers would cease upon this rift to claim that the science of AGW climate change is not settled.
So, Mann's reaction is another ad hominem attack on a god-fearing, know nothing Republican anti-science denier from Bible Belt country. That approach will always play well with the choir of the Church of Climate Change. At least he didn't bother to throw in references to Inhofe and the Koch boys.
That inconvenient truth did not fit the ambitions of the AGW-in-Chief, so the folks at NOAA had to massage their data to come up an increase in global temperatures that would play well in Paris. All they had to do was tweak some initial conditions, and voila, there complex models spit out the right answers.
I can understand why Mann, the author of the debunked hockey stick fantasy, would not want to mention the IPCC. After all, most of the world is aware of the reality that 97% - the figure gleaned from peer-reviewed journals - of scientists agree that AGW is real and the biggest threat the planet will face until the sun swallows us up in five billion years.
If Mann were honest, he would have to acknowledge that there is a rift between the IPCC and NOAA over methods, measurements, and models. He knows that Deniers would cease upon this rift to claim that the science of AGW climate change is not settled.
So, Mann's reaction is another ad hominem attack on a god-fearing, know nothing Republican anti-science denier from Bible Belt country. That approach will always play well with the choir of the Church of Climate Change. At least he didn't bother to throw in references to Inhofe and the Koch boys.
8
The only assault I see here is the assault OF "Climate Science." I'm still looking for just one of Al Gore's predictions to be shown to be true.
7
ALTERNATIVES TO INTERMITTENT RENEWABLE ENERGY CAN UNDERCUT THE ASSAULT!
New science makes possible engines that will run 24/7 on atmospheric heat. This is a huge untapped solar energy resource, larger than all Earth's fossil fuel potential.
A Ford engine was converted to run without fuel. This Proof-of-Concept engine was filled with propane, which is not consumed. The propane acts as a refrigerant and provides the needed internal temperature differential for the engine.
The science involved, like Cold Fusion, is very hard to believe. Trolls publish rants containing lies and distortions accusing AESOP of fraud and dishonesty. Converted engines validated by independent laboratories will speak louder than words.
AESOP is converting a small Briggs & Stratton engine and a Mitsubishi V6 to Fuel-Free operation. Both will run 24/7 if desired and can spin generators. The V6 will provide air-conditioning as a bonus. See aesopinstitute.org
Methane heating + Global Warming indicate we must aim to achieve a 90% reduction in the burning of fossil fuels within 5 years. Existing intermittent renewable energy sources cannot come close to achieving that objective.
Bombers were built every 59 minutes 24/7 by Ford during WWII. A similar effort is needed now for production of breakthrough technologies.
AESOP could have one or both prototype engines running in a few weeks. Once validated, they open the door to 24/7 cheap green energy - and undercut the assault on climate science.
New science makes possible engines that will run 24/7 on atmospheric heat. This is a huge untapped solar energy resource, larger than all Earth's fossil fuel potential.
A Ford engine was converted to run without fuel. This Proof-of-Concept engine was filled with propane, which is not consumed. The propane acts as a refrigerant and provides the needed internal temperature differential for the engine.
The science involved, like Cold Fusion, is very hard to believe. Trolls publish rants containing lies and distortions accusing AESOP of fraud and dishonesty. Converted engines validated by independent laboratories will speak louder than words.
AESOP is converting a small Briggs & Stratton engine and a Mitsubishi V6 to Fuel-Free operation. Both will run 24/7 if desired and can spin generators. The V6 will provide air-conditioning as a bonus. See aesopinstitute.org
Methane heating + Global Warming indicate we must aim to achieve a 90% reduction in the burning of fossil fuels within 5 years. Existing intermittent renewable energy sources cannot come close to achieving that objective.
Bombers were built every 59 minutes 24/7 by Ford during WWII. A similar effort is needed now for production of breakthrough technologies.
AESOP could have one or both prototype engines running in a few weeks. Once validated, they open the door to 24/7 cheap green energy - and undercut the assault on climate science.
no one believes you, no matter how many capital letters you use.
Do the demonstrations, sell the power, then you won't have to bother writing crank letters.
Do the demonstrations, sell the power, then you won't have to bother writing crank letters.
5
of course the republicans will never permit this.
I find your claims HIGHLY dubious, but if they're true that would be wonderful.
1
The reality of climate change is immensely threatening to many, because it challenges both their deeply held dogmas about economics and their social values. It is a kick in the pants to laissez-faire, predestination, greed, and the invisible hand, while it boosts rationality and communitarianism. No wonder passions are so great.
At least climate change will force false dogmas to be refuted and allow history to identify the mistaken.
At least climate change will force false dogmas to be refuted and allow history to identify the mistaken.
5
No, you are far too optimistic. All except the rich will suffer. The rich will buy respite from all the environmental ills that will occur, everyone else will suffer from war, disease, and famine. History will be written by the survivors.
1
Rep. Smith has every right to investigate a shoddy study by Tom Karl at NOAA. Karl massively altered the observed data on sea-surface temperatures, by adding a warming factor to the most advanced automated ocean buoys (Project Argo). The Argo buoys (4,000 of them) showed SSTs were cooler than the days of buckets over the side and intake valve readings from ships with crude thermometers.
This maneuver by Karl altered the data record and "disappeared" the global temperature pause, in much the same way as Michael Mann disappeared the Medieval Warming period in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report. Mann's sympathies for Karl are therefore, quite understandable.
This maneuver by Karl altered the data record and "disappeared" the global temperature pause, in much the same way as Michael Mann disappeared the Medieval Warming period in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report. Mann's sympathies for Karl are therefore, quite understandable.
9
I think these republican leaders are not the exclusive deniers.
Fossil fuel burn is not the major cause of climate change. Animal agriculture is much more important. Meat, fish and dairy production produce more than 50 % of green house gases (when you add grains production for animal feeding). We grow a lot grains but we don’t eat them, just feeding animals. Of course the planet is not the only hurt by this behave. Human health and its costs, and animal welfare are two incredible things we don’t talk too much.
That is suspicious, is not it?
Fossil fuel burn is not the major cause of climate change. Animal agriculture is much more important. Meat, fish and dairy production produce more than 50 % of green house gases (when you add grains production for animal feeding). We grow a lot grains but we don’t eat them, just feeding animals. Of course the planet is not the only hurt by this behave. Human health and its costs, and animal welfare are two incredible things we don’t talk too much.
That is suspicious, is not it?
3
I have friends and family in Texas and they are of normal intelligence. Who are the uneducated people who continue to vote in these goof-balls... Barton, Gohmert, Cruz, Smith, Perry, Bush? How can anybody these days think we are not going through a tremendous climate change (due in part to humans) - Texas get any rain this year??
5
Yes, actually we got a lot. We had a rain a few days ago and my yard is still damp. When we first moved here it rained a lot and the neighbors told us, 'it will dry up for a few years too, it comes and goes'. Many of the so called experts have problems with their research and their transparency. Trust but verify.
1
"…Texas get any rain this year??"
Oops...
Oops...
1
My scathing rebuke to Mr. Mann's "Our nation is better than that." did not make the cut.
One cannot assume the NYT is that afraid of the truth, just because it names names!
One cannot assume the NYT is that afraid of the truth, just because it names names!
6
What I assume is that the Times errs on the side of partisanship when it comes to selecting which comments not to post and which ones to give gold stars, which ones to post immediately and which ones to delay toward the end after most of the readership has gone on to other activities. Of course, I might just be paranoid, but then, the Times could reveal how many posts they reject and why -- to any column.
4
With the two most populous nations on Earth-China and Russia rushing to emulate American socioeconomic "success" there is a waning influence of America and Europe on the climate. With 12% of the planet's people and 46% of the Earth's nominal GDP the "haves" are seen as cruel and selfish while guarding their privileged perch. How China and India, with about 30% of humanity, respond to the threat of climate change matters much more than America misled by Texans and Republicans.
3
China and India will see little reason to act if the United States doesn't. This problem needs help from all parties, not a losing game of "you first"
He's in charge of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Inhofe is in charge of the Senate Environmental Committee...
What has this nation come to? We put the firmest deniers of modern science in charge of its protection.
What has this nation come to? We put the firmest deniers of modern science in charge of its protection.
10
"the Earth is warming and that we’re responsible.". this is scientifically unsupported. i am Professor Emeritus at a major research university with PhD's in both theoretical physics and in chemistry and the author of many technical scientific publications as well as 4 books on computer programming so i have come street cred to discuss this subject even though i am not a climatologist (but then a lack of technical knowledge doesn't seem to be a deterrent to others having an opinion on this - or any other subject). climate changes. of course. that's too obvious to waste time discussing. human activity has contributed to climate change is also obvious (though to what extent has not been established). but neither of these statements is even relevant to the REAL issue which is "can (or should) humans do anything to try to stop or reverse climate changes?". anyone who is aware of the catastrophic results of past attempts by humans to manipulate ecological systems would hesitate to advocate human attempts at climate control. The climate is a complex adaptive system (if you don't know what this means then you have no basis for any opinion on the subject) and the law of unintended consequences should make humans proceed very carefully, if at all (watch the first few minutes of the movie "Snowpiercer" to see a cinematic depction of the possible consequences of human attempts to manipulate the weather).
10
I agree that the REAL issue is what could, and should, be done about the changes in climate that we have triggered. But .... we can't get to THAT debate while we still have influential deadbeats like Lamar Smith endlessly denying that anthropogenic climate change is occurring.
1
"the Earth is warming and that we’re responsible.". this is scientifically unsupported.
Those two statements are contradictory and show that you are not the scientist that you claim to be - there is overwhelming scientific evidence, and plenty of published materials - in peer reviewed scientific journals - that it is no longer a question. But since you claim to be a professor emeritus at a major research university with multiple publications, let us know where and what titles so we can verify your expertise. There are only a small number of major research universities in (or even near) Chicago, so which one is it, sir? Thanks!
Those two statements are contradictory and show that you are not the scientist that you claim to be - there is overwhelming scientific evidence, and plenty of published materials - in peer reviewed scientific journals - that it is no longer a question. But since you claim to be a professor emeritus at a major research university with multiple publications, let us know where and what titles so we can verify your expertise. There are only a small number of major research universities in (or even near) Chicago, so which one is it, sir? Thanks!
Wow, a 0.1 percenter!
1
Correlation is not causation. If Mr. Mann has "no doubt" then he is unqualified to hold his position.
9
You are no scientist. A scientist uses words like 'no doubt' when the vast weight of all available data points to a specific conclusion. Kinda like the theory of gravity--it doesn't matter whether you 'believe' in it or not. But if you don't believe it, please put your theory to the test and step off a cliff. Unfortunately, the climate-change deniers are willing to step off that cliff and take the rest of humanity with them.
2
I assume you are referring to surface air temperature increases and GHG emissions. No other subject has been studied greater in our lifetimes than climate change. And there are ample studies that have investigated causation (attribution) of rising temperatures, and effectively all of them have concluded that GHG emissions are the overwhelming driver of warming. The IPCC 2014 Report stated, "Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." It should be noted that "extremely likely" in the IPCC's definition is greater than 95% certain. For science, that is about as certain as one gets.
2
I'm a scientist and an earth science professor at an Ivy League university. I have no doubt that the Earth is round. Does that lack of doubt make me unqualified for my position?
The evidence for climate change is not merely correlation, but an understanding of the basic physics involved. That physics has been understood since the 19th century, when the theory of greenhouse gas-driven climate change was first proposed.
(By the way, I also have no doubt that the Earth is warming and greenhouse gases are the cause).
The evidence for climate change is not merely correlation, but an understanding of the basic physics involved. That physics has been understood since the 19th century, when the theory of greenhouse gas-driven climate change was first proposed.
(By the way, I also have no doubt that the Earth is warming and greenhouse gases are the cause).
4
The only way to thwart people like Lamar Smith in our politics is to vote for Democrats. If you are an independent or one of the vanishing breed of center right Republicans you have little choice. Movement conservatism is accelerating it's march to the fringe of reason and our politics. Sitting on your hands and hoping for the best will not help you here. You have to stand up to these people if we are ever going to get past them. Help us create another 'Goldwater' moment for what John McCain labeled the Wacko-birds.
5
Paul, I'm among that "vanishing breed of center right Republicans". In describing our plight, you failed to mention the equal number of "Wacko-birds" on the Left. There's really nowhere for center Right or Left people to go any longer. Extremism rules. Everywhere.
The Climate Change debate is a perfect example. You're either a "Warmist" or a "Denier". There's no middle ground. That my personal position is one of waiting & letting more data come in before implementing major policy decisions is always met with gnashing of teeth & accusations of some sort, depending on the audience. Insanity.
I prefer laughter to tears, but it's getting more difficult every day.
The Climate Change debate is a perfect example. You're either a "Warmist" or a "Denier". There's no middle ground. That my personal position is one of waiting & letting more data come in before implementing major policy decisions is always met with gnashing of teeth & accusations of some sort, depending on the audience. Insanity.
I prefer laughter to tears, but it's getting more difficult every day.
2
Things might be different if the Times routinely published information on elected officials. Especially ones like Joe L. Barton, former Texas Republican chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Lamar Smith, Republican chairman, House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. But no, what we get are op-ed pieces while the only front page news are press release photo op events where the paper parrots agenda driven lies unchecked thus propagating GOP manipulation of the news media.
Our American news media aids and abets an uninformed public. Take a look at the front page any day, lets take today. What do we have leading the days news? A steady diet of the sensational. Where do we find the supreme court declining to hear on assault rifle ban, three or four down under the relentless hot air on the terrorist, even the same articles from past days. Every day the terrorist lead in the headlines is a victory for Isil and defeat for an intelligent informed America.
Our American news media aids and abets an uninformed public. Take a look at the front page any day, lets take today. What do we have leading the days news? A steady diet of the sensational. Where do we find the supreme court declining to hear on assault rifle ban, three or four down under the relentless hot air on the terrorist, even the same articles from past days. Every day the terrorist lead in the headlines is a victory for Isil and defeat for an intelligent informed America.
1
I suggest we abandon the fight about climate change being man-made. The earth is warming, no debate about that. So let's come together to manage the dire consequences - whether the problem is man-made or a natural occurrence. Whatever the cause we better get on track with dealing with droughts, floods, super storms, rising ocean levels, melting ice caps, etc. Real problems require real solutions - not grandstanding.
3
From Lyndon to Lamar. What a sad political decline experienced by the Lone Star state. Rack it up to Texas Devolution. Someday, it may be decades, with the Browning of the Southwest, Texas will join other border states California, New Mexico, and Arizona in their turnabouts to a saner policy. For now, one can only hope, and wait.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
3
When millions start dying from the effects of climate change - oh, wait they already have started to die - can we charge the executives at Exxon who hid data showing the disasterous effects of global warming due to fossil fuels with murder?
4
Why is confidentiality between scientists (paid by US taxpayers) required? Sunlight is the best disinfectant so lets see the communications.
14
While we are at it, let's also see ALL communications involving every single member of Congress, who are also paid by the U.S. taxpayers. We can make a small exception for national security - only a handful of them would qualify for that anyways - and then air out Congress's dirty laundry. While we are at it, we need to also release ALL campaign contributions and ALL communication with donors, including detailed visitor logs for each member of Congress. Why could they possibly need confidentiality? Aren't they public servants?
5
Come on now - you and I both know that this is a fishing exercise to find a sentence or two that will make a good sound-bite for the deniers, once it has been pulled out of context and thoroughly spun around on its head.
Or, if you don't believe that, can we please see all taxpayer-funded Lamar Smith's personal emails too?
Or, if you don't believe that, can we please see all taxpayer-funded Lamar Smith's personal emails too?
5
Confidentiality is essential for these scientists so that they aren't hounded, intimidated and harassed out of their jobs. That was one of the major points of the editorial.
3
What a great week. Fascism on the rise. Now if only a few Americans would pick up a history book.
6
I would very much appreciate a technical response by climatologists, such as Mr. Mann, to the recent white paper from the Societe De Calcul Mathematique decrying the climate change "myth." So far, all I have seen is an effort to ignore the white paper arguments or ad hominem attacks on its author.
If the issue is as important as Mr. Mann claims, it would seem that a technical evisceration of the white paper's assertions would go a long way towards answering critics such as.Mr. Smith.
If the issue is as important as Mr. Mann claims, it would seem that a technical evisceration of the white paper's assertions would go a long way towards answering critics such as.Mr. Smith.
10
If you get a chance please watch the documentary film MERCHANTS OF DOUBT. It is revealing just how easily they dismiss science and data to promote ideology and profit.
7
Assault on science is one thing but denying math is another, I still see acres of forested land everywhere I turn yet I know as time progresses there is more and more demand upon this planet by hungry humans who will 'soon' outpace the space available. The carbon cycle may not rear its powerful forces through a powerful greenhouse effect, but it may. As for me I am gonna get my self a planet where I can make my own difference, what's that ? ... Live large and leave a large footprint.
3
Rep. Smith should have remembered the old adage: when people are doubting your intellect and common sense, don't open your mouth and confirm people's doubts. But I guess for him the campaign contributions he receives from the oil and gas industry trump the harm he is doing to our planet, our country, his state, his constituents and his grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Barring a miracle of biblical proportions, Rep. Smith and his GOP colleagues won't live long enough to see it, but the odds are pretty much every human alive in 100 years from now will likely be cursing the memory of Lamar Smith and his ilk who saw the writing on the wall, then reburied their heads in the sand.
Barring a miracle of biblical proportions, Rep. Smith and his GOP colleagues won't live long enough to see it, but the odds are pretty much every human alive in 100 years from now will likely be cursing the memory of Lamar Smith and his ilk who saw the writing on the wall, then reburied their heads in the sand.
4
They will have no idea who any of these people were. There will be no money available for general education, and people will be struggling to survive.
1
Dr. Mann justifies the refusal of an agency 100% funded by the federal government, to turn over information on its deliberations to our elected officials. He says “…the confidentiality of communications between scientists is “essential to frank discourse. For that reason, the agency rejected his [Smith's] demand.”
The NYT and everyone else likes to talk a good game about freedom of information held by our government. To my knowledge, the only exceptions to the requirement for government agencies to turning over information relate to either personnel matters or national security. How on earth does discussion of climate science warrant denial of a request for information?
The "essential to frank discourse" argument was used by those who opposed the Freedom of Information Act when it was being debated. Can one of you enlightened NYT commenters help me understand why discussions/e-mails on climate science truly deserves a special exception?
Or maybe you don't really believe in freedom of information when it puts your beliefs (climate change religion, really) in a bad light.
The NYT and everyone else likes to talk a good game about freedom of information held by our government. To my knowledge, the only exceptions to the requirement for government agencies to turning over information relate to either personnel matters or national security. How on earth does discussion of climate science warrant denial of a request for information?
The "essential to frank discourse" argument was used by those who opposed the Freedom of Information Act when it was being debated. Can one of you enlightened NYT commenters help me understand why discussions/e-mails on climate science truly deserves a special exception?
Or maybe you don't really believe in freedom of information when it puts your beliefs (climate change religion, really) in a bad light.
6
The US Congress has exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act. Would Mr. Evil Conservative like to see Mr. Lamar Smith's government emails on the front page of the Times as well? I'm sure it would make more interesting reading than the arcane climate science discussions of federal scientists.
1
Lamar Smith is not one of the truly ignorant Texas representatives, like Louis Gohmert. Smith is not anti-technology and anti-science out of ignorance; he is more the cynical, intellectually dishonest type of politician. He's a puppy, a tool, for the big data, big surveillance, big oil special interests. He says whatever he needs to say to serve those masters. As such he operates in a realm inaccessible and immune to any intellectual argument that might contradict their agendas.
3
I keep hearing, "Our nation is better than that", from the purveyors of guilt.
Is our nation better than an IRS that plots against our own citizens because of their religious or political beliefs? Apparently not! Ms. Lerner, Mr. Koskinen.
Is our nation better than an Attorney General that promotes gun sales to drug cartels to undermine the second amendment to our constitution or to speak out against a real and constant threat to our personnel and national safety. Apparently not! Mr. Holder, Ms. Lynch.
Is our nation better than a president and advisers that were elected to protect our nation, our allies and citizens from external threats of those who would overrun and destroy our way of life and institute a religious or tyrannical regime? Apparently not! John Kerry, Hillary Clinton...The list is too long
Now you tell us all Mr. Mann who should be filling the pages of news and the airways and about what certainly not you about Lamar Smith.
Is our nation better than an IRS that plots against our own citizens because of their religious or political beliefs? Apparently not! Ms. Lerner, Mr. Koskinen.
Is our nation better than an Attorney General that promotes gun sales to drug cartels to undermine the second amendment to our constitution or to speak out against a real and constant threat to our personnel and national safety. Apparently not! Mr. Holder, Ms. Lynch.
Is our nation better than a president and advisers that were elected to protect our nation, our allies and citizens from external threats of those who would overrun and destroy our way of life and institute a religious or tyrannical regime? Apparently not! John Kerry, Hillary Clinton...The list is too long
Now you tell us all Mr. Mann who should be filling the pages of news and the airways and about what certainly not you about Lamar Smith.
5
I had an interesting discussion on climate change and the devastating impacts it would have on future generations with a co-worker of mine who identifies as an evangelical Christian.
After I explained the impacts sea level rise would have on our economy because of the destruction by flooding of critical infrastructure, of the impact of massive migration away from areas impacted by flooding or drought, of the destruction of our power grid, and other systems by the stronger storms and all she agreed that it was happening and would have such impact.
Then she said it was all part of god's plan.
This is not an uncommon opinion among many evangelicals and they do not care. Selling them on the science is not going to change their politics and by extension the climate denying politicians making a good living out of serving themselves and the fossil fuel lobby.
Yes, it is that bad.
After I explained the impacts sea level rise would have on our economy because of the destruction by flooding of critical infrastructure, of the impact of massive migration away from areas impacted by flooding or drought, of the destruction of our power grid, and other systems by the stronger storms and all she agreed that it was happening and would have such impact.
Then she said it was all part of god's plan.
This is not an uncommon opinion among many evangelicals and they do not care. Selling them on the science is not going to change their politics and by extension the climate denying politicians making a good living out of serving themselves and the fossil fuel lobby.
Yes, it is that bad.
4
These sorts of Republicans have a disregard for science in general. They are the political mercenaries of any industry that is under attack by the Left biased 'Reality' and those pesky 'facts' that come with it. Be it Big Oil, Big Chemical, Big Agriculture, or Big Beverage, they'll take the job, for a hefty contribution, of course.
3
The Republican Party is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry. It is populated by shameless anti-science buffoons from rural areas of the South who are drunk with power and yen for a return to the Confederacy. If the 2016 elections do not defenestrate this party from power, we deserve what we get.
6
If only fighting climate change could induce the maximum profits (at sole taxpayer expense) that would be reaped by the military-industrial complex if we go back into the Middle East full force, as all the GOP candidates except Paul are advocating. Then we could probably solve the carbon problem through a series of known solutions within a 5-10 year period of time.
Oh yeah - Ryan and his buddies are NOT going to pay for any of the climate change solutions or agreements.
Oh yeah - Ryan and his buddies are NOT going to pay for any of the climate change solutions or agreements.
2
In less than a minute, the ignoramus could google up to the minute CO2 numbers from the observatory on Mauna Loa - and records going back to the late 1950s demonstrating the parts per million increases in the world's atmosphere - not just the air over Texas.
"This is not Mr. Smith’s first attempt to stifle science when it conflicts with his ideology. During his tenure as the committee’s chairman, he has attempted to slash funding for earth sciences research by the National Science Foundation. He has threatened to replace the foundation’s vaunted scientific peer-review process with a system where congressmen like him help choose which scientific grants are funded."
We got rid of just such a person and his Conservative underlings in a federal election, less than two months ago, north of the 49th. The CO2 emission levels are no longer dismissed - federal scientists are now allowed to discuss their findings openly - and while it will take some time to bring greenhouse gas levels down, the air will at least smell fresher in the meantime.
"This is not Mr. Smith’s first attempt to stifle science when it conflicts with his ideology. During his tenure as the committee’s chairman, he has attempted to slash funding for earth sciences research by the National Science Foundation. He has threatened to replace the foundation’s vaunted scientific peer-review process with a system where congressmen like him help choose which scientific grants are funded."
We got rid of just such a person and his Conservative underlings in a federal election, less than two months ago, north of the 49th. The CO2 emission levels are no longer dismissed - federal scientists are now allowed to discuss their findings openly - and while it will take some time to bring greenhouse gas levels down, the air will at least smell fresher in the meantime.
5
There is no better argument showing the failure of education in the U. S. than reading the actions of our elected officials and the comments of their supporters pasted below. Hilarious and tragic at the same time.
6
How about we subpoena all of Mr. Smith's internal notes, emails, and correspondence concerning his chairmanship and see from which science denying special interest groups he get's his direction.
10
I say both sides should lay their hand down at the same time.
1
All this helps support an idea that the art of political persuasion can, at times, be seen as an exercise in "cognitive dissonance": http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/06/the-art-of-political-persu... and https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.asp... . The more evidence you give to someone like Mr. Smith, the more he/she will double-down in denial. There is little new in the process.
Although many people display these preferences for closely held opinions, the ability to become bellicose with investigators you do not like gives people like Mr. Smith an advantage.
Although many people display these preferences for closely held opinions, the ability to become bellicose with investigators you do not like gives people like Mr. Smith an advantage.
3
It's time to call the bluff of all these McCarthyite committees. Refuse to appear and dare them top impose criminal sanctions. Either they'll back down or they'll make martyrs.
5
It has been said that the Republicans are taking the world back to the Dark Ages.
This is false.
King Canute understood he could not control the tides no matter how slavering his courtiers.
This is false.
King Canute understood he could not control the tides no matter how slavering his courtiers.
13
How can you believe a man who created the hockey stick graph. This involved selecting from thousands of trees the cohorts that would work. He had to splice on data from land measurements because the trees showed a decline in temperature, something that would make us question the value of trees as proxies. Then we had to run a smoothing algorithm which was shown would produce a hockey stick from white noise. A deliberate attempt to create a false version of history. Mann was the man who did this. The whole thing. It took a "skeptic" to discover the lies. The climate science community did NOT police itself as they so frequently say they do. The competition was to enhjance the lies and hide the decline not to find error. They say there is no conspiracy but the climategate emails clearly show a conspiracy to hide the data and construct false histories to suppress the source of the data and deny anything to those seeking to understand outside the closed circle. They say it is ridiculous to talk of conspiracy when there is proof they did conspire. Of course, those who did these things were punished right? No. The colleges looked at other issues and ruled that other research mann had done was clean. He was exonerated never having to face if he fabricated or conspired. So, what do you think the chances they continue to do it with no punishment?
12
Mann is probably not the only 'climate scientist' who has fabricated data in order to obtain grant monies. The satellite data compared to the ground generated data would seem to indicate it's pervasive. Smith's modest efforts can't make up for the scientific community failing to police itself.
5
Careful, DBrown.. Professor Mann's shown a propensity to go litigious on people for statements like that. Seems he can dish, but not always take, such criticism.
1
Arbiter of science?
How much education has Lamar Smith had?
What did he study, what grades did he get?
Then, ask what oil industry ties he has.
Then evaluate his credibility to stand in judgement of global warming.
How much education has Lamar Smith had?
What did he study, what grades did he get?
Then, ask what oil industry ties he has.
Then evaluate his credibility to stand in judgement of global warming.
4
While the title of this piece is "THE Assault on Climate Science", it's really about AN assault by a single congressman. Let's not get the troops riled up.
1
But, of course, that is the purpose of the article: to elicit pity for the poor, put upon climate activists.
1
First it was Global Cooling, then it was Global Warming, now that there is no warming it is now "Climate Change." Whichever of its ever-changing disguises it goes by, this silliness is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated.
These "climate scientists" are not really scientists and what they are doing is not science. Fact is that the Earth's climate is always changing. Natural sources put CO2 and other things in the air in hugely greater quantities than do humans. Further, the Earth has recently recovered from the Little Ice Age as from the 1500s through about 1900. A little warming is expected, i.e. Regression to the Mean. (Most of these "Climate Scientists" have probably never taken and passed a course on basic statistics.)
Fools is what these people in Paris are. Fools.
These "climate scientists" are not really scientists and what they are doing is not science. Fact is that the Earth's climate is always changing. Natural sources put CO2 and other things in the air in hugely greater quantities than do humans. Further, the Earth has recently recovered from the Little Ice Age as from the 1500s through about 1900. A little warming is expected, i.e. Regression to the Mean. (Most of these "Climate Scientists" have probably never taken and passed a course on basic statistics.)
Fools is what these people in Paris are. Fools.
13
Roger,
Conservatives, lead by strategist Frank Luntz, coined the phrase "climate change" because they found "global warming" too inconveniently accurate.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
Don't let facts bother you though Roger.
Conservatives, lead by strategist Frank Luntz, coined the phrase "climate change" because they found "global warming" too inconveniently accurate.
http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
Don't let facts bother you though Roger.
3
So....a giant hoax, it's all natural cycles eh? Tell me then, why is there so little Arctic sea ice left? Why is most of the observed warming at night and during winter? How do "natural cycles" account for this?
3
Sir, on what basis are you saying, "These 'climate scientists' are not really scientists"? What are your scientific credentials?
3
Dr Mann states: "Let’s hear more from these sensible voices. And let’s end the McCarthy-like assault on science led by the Lamar Smiths of the world. Our nation is better than that." Unfortunately, with the Know Nothing Republicans controlling the House and the Senate, the governance of this country is not better than that. The Republicans have us on a road to catastrophe as they seek to establish that cavemen rode dinosaurs like themselves right off the edge of the flat earth. Here are a couple of suggestions to get them thinking right. Any congressman and his/her family who doubts the scientific process and peer reviewed journal findings are hereby prohibited from taking any cancer treatments based on modern science. The same congressmen and families are also prohibited from supporting any military initiatives or equipment based on science and modern engineering (atomic weapons, radar, modern aircraft); and let's top it off with these same congressmen and families being prohibited from using cars and sent back to the days of horse and buggies where they belong.
4
They can't compete scientifically with the scientists so they ae using the claasic bait and switch tactics. They don't want to talk about the science so they are going to to through emails and try to find anything controversial, take it out of context and change the conversation to those remarks. Repubicans often use these tactics and the media always goes along with it.
Don't release those emails and allow this trick again. Make them fight science with science but they know they can't so they wukk screan louder about the conspiracy of 99% of the world's scientists. It's a ridiculous contention but the media always goes along with it.
Don't release those emails and allow this trick again. Make them fight science with science but they know they can't so they wukk screan louder about the conspiracy of 99% of the world's scientists. It's a ridiculous contention but the media always goes along with it.
4
Bill,
The emails were about how to corrupt the science. For example, how to make sure that contrary research never saw the light of day, and how to put the researchers who dared disagree out of job or keep them from getting a job.
The emails were about how to corrupt the science. For example, how to make sure that contrary research never saw the light of day, and how to put the researchers who dared disagree out of job or keep them from getting a job.
Dr. Mann justifies the refusal of an agency 100% funded by the federal government, to turn over information on its deliberations to our elected officials. He says “…the confidentiality of communications between scientists is “essential to frank discourse. For that reason, the agency rejected his demand.”
The NYT and everyone else likes to talk a good game about freedom of information held by our government. To my knowledge, the only exceptions to the requirement for government agencies to turning over information relate to either personnel matters or national security. How on earth does discussion of climate science warrant denial of a request for information?
It’s amazing that the NYT can publish an opinion piece by Michael Mann, and the reader not know about his complicity in “Climategate”, in which Mann and others secretly conspired to quash the publication of work by other scientists which was in opposition to their views on global warming.
Yes, there was an investigation, and yes, no evidence of wrong-doing was found. A truly independent investigation would be done by people having no prior connection to the institutions being investigated, which was not the case.. As the Wall Street Journal said, “It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140
The NYT must be supportive of Mann’s star chamber, “we’ll tell you what you need to know” approach to science.
The NYT and everyone else likes to talk a good game about freedom of information held by our government. To my knowledge, the only exceptions to the requirement for government agencies to turning over information relate to either personnel matters or national security. How on earth does discussion of climate science warrant denial of a request for information?
It’s amazing that the NYT can publish an opinion piece by Michael Mann, and the reader not know about his complicity in “Climategate”, in which Mann and others secretly conspired to quash the publication of work by other scientists which was in opposition to their views on global warming.
Yes, there was an investigation, and yes, no evidence of wrong-doing was found. A truly independent investigation would be done by people having no prior connection to the institutions being investigated, which was not the case.. As the Wall Street Journal said, “It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140
The NYT must be supportive of Mann’s star chamber, “we’ll tell you what you need to know” approach to science.
10
The Wall Street Journal article was written by Michael J, Patricks of the Cato Institute. He's a long time climate science denier backed by lots of money from the coal industry. So great job on that non-partisan source!
No wrong doing was found because there was no wrongdoing. The allegations were completely made up and the "investigation" was a purposeful witch hunt. Mann has been vindicated over and over.
You also failed to mention that conservatives waged a disgusting harassment and intimidation campaign against him for years, including death threats.
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-s...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/denialist-harassmen...
No wrong doing was found because there was no wrongdoing. The allegations were completely made up and the "investigation" was a purposeful witch hunt. Mann has been vindicated over and over.
You also failed to mention that conservatives waged a disgusting harassment and intimidation campaign against him for years, including death threats.
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/protecting-s...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/denialist-harassmen...
1
And the Republicans like to portray themselves as wanting the government out of our hair, yet support this government intrusion into science research.
Climate Science? News to me. Seems over the last forty years all the 'climate models', done by 'science' never came true. So, what is science in this area all about, certainly not science. It is about money and politics, nothing else.
16
"While there is no doubt climate change is real and caused by humans, there is absolutely a debate to be had about the details of climate policy, " REALLY?
The changes made to data (rounding off) that made it look as if there was no interruption in warming, the change isn't really 1.7 degrees but somewhat less, which according to real scientists. SCIENCE is never settled. The climate cult knows full well that their computer models don't take into account all of the variable, in fact, they acknowledge their are variables that have yet to be vetted. When Yellowstone caldera explodes and the world is thrown into a deep freeze, i'm sure that they will just go on and say it is climate change, not global warming. What crap!
The changes made to data (rounding off) that made it look as if there was no interruption in warming, the change isn't really 1.7 degrees but somewhat less, which according to real scientists. SCIENCE is never settled. The climate cult knows full well that their computer models don't take into account all of the variable, in fact, they acknowledge their are variables that have yet to be vetted. When Yellowstone caldera explodes and the world is thrown into a deep freeze, i'm sure that they will just go on and say it is climate change, not global warming. What crap!
10
Let's not focus on Lamar Smith's scientific credentials. He surely has plenty of advisers who have made him aware of the truth of climate change. He is not stupid. Rather he is a man who has concluded that a head-in-the-sand-ignorance is what the voters want from him. This is the true tragedy. In any other advanced democracy, such an ostentatious and wilful display of scientific ignorance would end is political career - but in the US, it is only going to advance it.
Perhaps Mr. Smith has no children or grandchildren so he has no qualms about selling out the future of the planet. Perhaps he is being influenced by oil-company lobbyists in ways that we cannot even imagine. Whatever his personal situation, removing him will at best provide temporary relief.
Ultimately, we need to address the problem at a more fundamental level - perhaps it's about scientific education, perhaps it's about ethics - to reach a point where voters will not accept this kind of intellectual dishonesty from a politician of either party as a political strategy.
Perhaps Mr. Smith has no children or grandchildren so he has no qualms about selling out the future of the planet. Perhaps he is being influenced by oil-company lobbyists in ways that we cannot even imagine. Whatever his personal situation, removing him will at best provide temporary relief.
Ultimately, we need to address the problem at a more fundamental level - perhaps it's about scientific education, perhaps it's about ethics - to reach a point where voters will not accept this kind of intellectual dishonesty from a politician of either party as a political strategy.
6
Unfortunately, there is not enough solid evidence to support dangerous man-made climate change. Just a few weeks ago it was reported by NASA that the polar cap has actually been growing, not shrinking as some climatologist have been crying wolf about. Today, the NY Times reported that greenhouse gas emissions appear to be on the decline in 2015, despite China's willingness to rein in its pollution behavior. Real scientists know that climate has to be studied for at least 10,000 years to prove climate change. Since the beginning of time, the climate has gotten warmer and colder over many climatic eras evidenced by growing and shrinking glaciers.
Also, criticizing someone for rejecting the studies of our own government scientists automatically dismisses the credibility of the author as being incapable of writing an unbiased editorial piece. Our own government scientists work for a President that believes that by addressing global warming, ISIS will be defeated. Consider how much of our economy has been damaged and how much of the soon to be $20 trillion in debt was due to the cost of addressing global warming. It's only okay if there is solid proof that there is man-made climate change and no conflicting facts being reported on regularly.
Also, criticizing someone for rejecting the studies of our own government scientists automatically dismisses the credibility of the author as being incapable of writing an unbiased editorial piece. Our own government scientists work for a President that believes that by addressing global warming, ISIS will be defeated. Consider how much of our economy has been damaged and how much of the soon to be $20 trillion in debt was due to the cost of addressing global warming. It's only okay if there is solid proof that there is man-made climate change and no conflicting facts being reported on regularly.
10
how much of the soon to be $20 trillion in debt was due to the cost of addressing global warming.
that debt is bc of bush's 2 unfunded wars, sparky
that debt is bc of bush's 2 unfunded wars, sparky
5
THX1138, You are wrong about that, Sparky. About two of those trillions in debt are due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As to "No Spin 128's" comment about the cost of addressing costs of climate change, he made no estimate of the actual dollar amount dedicated to that purpose.
The debt is due to attempting to deal with climate change? Please provide data.
1
The other day I heard an interview by a BBC reporter with Congresswoman Marcia Blackburn (R-TN), the Vice-Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Toward the end of their conversation, the reporter bluntly asked Blackburn if she could imagine any evidence that would make her reconsider her belief that climate change is a hoax. Her blunt answer was "No."
5
Before his death, Michael Crichton told Charlie Rose that climate change was being exaggerated for political purposes. He said that although carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere, it is a trace gas and is probably not responsible for the slight warming that has occurred in the 20th century. He said the data shows that the effects of climate change most likely will not be catastrophic and in fact might be beneficial. Crichton said that he had come under vicious attack for stating this. He even worried that he might be killed for arguing that climate change was not a major problem: http://bit.ly/1NQKMpa
12
Michael Crichton was a physician and novelist. Tell me again why he should be considered an expert on climate science.
6
Peter, you first -- tell us why Michael Mann -- a noted fabulist (Nobel Laureate) and inventer and promotor of the "hide the decline" hockey stick graph (since demonstrated to produce the same curve given purely random inputs) -- "should be considered an expert on climate science".
3
The point, Peter, is that Crichton was bullied & intimidated for having an opinion. Something other commenters have decried happening to Professor Mann.
1
As a carbon-based, carbon consuming, carbon emitting life form, it's just offensive that people refer to carbon as a form of 'pollution'.
Michael Mann is a 'Disgrace to the Profession' who regularly employs the type of bullying tactics he sheepishly decries here, not to mention bogus SLAPP suits he has no intention of actually litigating.
Despite the simpleminded objections to the contrary, all of NOAA's data, including email transmitted on government owned servers, are the property of the government and must be discoverable by lawmakers. The incredible amount of resistance to turning over this information strongly suggests someone is hiding another 'Climate-gate' episode of data manipulation.
Michael Mann is a 'Disgrace to the Profession' who regularly employs the type of bullying tactics he sheepishly decries here, not to mention bogus SLAPP suits he has no intention of actually litigating.
Despite the simpleminded objections to the contrary, all of NOAA's data, including email transmitted on government owned servers, are the property of the government and must be discoverable by lawmakers. The incredible amount of resistance to turning over this information strongly suggests someone is hiding another 'Climate-gate' episode of data manipulation.
13
I suppose you consider NO2 to be a non pollutant? It too can be created naturally.
Regarding Michael Mann's call for an end to the McCarthyesque assault on climate scientists, it would be nice if there were enough intelligent Texans in Lamar Smith's district sufficient to terminate the presence of ignorant, subservient ideologues like him in the House of Representatives, and the Senate for that matter. One may not be able to fix stupid, but there's no reason for tolerating it, unless his constituents are as willfully and pridefully ignorant as Mr. Smith. If so, they should honestly consider the very real and damaging consequences for their children's and grandchildren's futures indicated by the preponderance of scientific evidence coming in from all quarters for the past twenty-five years. It is hard to imagine anyone concluding that their prejudices are more important than their children's futures. That is exactly what is at stake.
5
Sure, this is an outrageous attempt to intimidate painstaking independent scientific research. But why is it that Mr. Smith's party has made climate change denial part of its party platform? How do Republicans gain and appeal to their audience by engaging in climate change denial? How will the party's supporters and paymasters gain from the effects of global warming?
There is a reason big oil supports republicans.
5
Money!
2
The insanity here is that those seeking policy responses to the changing climate are being made to bear the "burden of proof" in the U.S. Congress. It should be the other way around.
With potentially devastating global consequences at stake, those who claim there is no change or no man-made causation need to PROVE that assertion beyond a reasonable doubt. Because if there's even a hint of doubt, then nations must act. What proof does Smith and his kind offer that the climate is just fine?
With potentially devastating global consequences at stake, those who claim there is no change or no man-made causation need to PROVE that assertion beyond a reasonable doubt. Because if there's even a hint of doubt, then nations must act. What proof does Smith and his kind offer that the climate is just fine?
4
burden of proof always lies with those who make the assertion. If I claim there are little green men on the other side of the moon plotting as we speak to throw green cheese bombs at the earth until all of our oceans escape their boundaries and flood our great cities and we all die slow horrible deaths --- it's up to me to prove what I assert, not on anyone else to prove me wrong. In science, those who produce a theory are responsible for proving the theory -- it's not up to the rest of us to prove them wrong. Now, if we say we are skeptical of theoretical claims, it is reasonable to demand that skeptics make their case, state their reasons -- but -- that's different from disproving a theory. Now, if I state the Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong, I do need to produce an alternative theory, and derive falsifiable hypotheses, and show why if my theory is correct, Einstein's cannot be.
good luck with that one.
good luck with that one.
If you don’t talk about animal agriculture, I think, you are committing an assault on climate science too.
1
As a scientist and a taxpayer, I have two comments for the climate deniers.
First, I do not want to pay for your foolishness once your houses are flooded because the seas have risen and your farms parched because of drought. As massachusetts and other states try to deal with climate change, why should we also have to pay for states that ignore the science? Once it's too late, Texas and other denier states will scream for the federal government to bail them out, something that I as a taxpayer am unwilling to do. There should be a clause that states agree that if they deny climate, they will not ask for federal help for extraordinary storms, floods or droughts.
Second, renewables are the future, and someone is going to make big bucks on the new energy. We led the world in cars a century ago, and yet now we are happy to let other countries take the lead - and the profits - on the renewable technology that will supercede our current technology. How short sighted.
First, I do not want to pay for your foolishness once your houses are flooded because the seas have risen and your farms parched because of drought. As massachusetts and other states try to deal with climate change, why should we also have to pay for states that ignore the science? Once it's too late, Texas and other denier states will scream for the federal government to bail them out, something that I as a taxpayer am unwilling to do. There should be a clause that states agree that if they deny climate, they will not ask for federal help for extraordinary storms, floods or droughts.
Second, renewables are the future, and someone is going to make big bucks on the new energy. We led the world in cars a century ago, and yet now we are happy to let other countries take the lead - and the profits - on the renewable technology that will supercede our current technology. How short sighted.
151
Exactly this hypocrisy on disaster relief is already happening.
The same conservatives who wanted to deny New Jersey relief funds after Hurricane Sandy, because the costs of saving their fellow Americans were supposedly too expensive, turned around with their hands out demanding money right after the big storm a few months back.
Considering the blue states pay more in taxes than they get back, and that the red states get more than they pay, I think we should give the republican states exactly the type of independent self reliance they want. #DefundSouthCarolina
The same conservatives who wanted to deny New Jersey relief funds after Hurricane Sandy, because the costs of saving their fellow Americans were supposedly too expensive, turned around with their hands out demanding money right after the big storm a few months back.
Considering the blue states pay more in taxes than they get back, and that the red states get more than they pay, I think we should give the republican states exactly the type of independent self reliance they want. #DefundSouthCarolina
As far as I can tell, with just a cursory review of renewable energy offerings, the only "profits" are from taxpayer subsidies, not profits in the traditional sense. Perhaps I missed the profitable renewable energy projects that didn't require large subsidies in order to remain in business.
2
As a scientist I tell you fossil fuel burn is not the major cause of climate change. Animal agriculture is much more important. Meat, fish and dairy production produce more than 50 % of green house gases (when you add grains production for animal feeding). We grow a lot grains but we don’t eat them, just feeding animals. Of course the planet is not the only hurt by this behave. Human health and its costs, and animal welfare are two incredible things we don’t talk too much.
So, I think these republican leaders are not the exclusive deniers !!!!
I am sorry for my English !!!! I have to improve this beautiful language !!!
So, I think these republican leaders are not the exclusive deniers !!!!
I am sorry for my English !!!! I have to improve this beautiful language !!!
"..the confidentiality of communications between scientists is “essential to frank discourse.” "
Does anyone else see the irony in that statement? It's interesting that Mr. Mann doesn't even discuss the topic of NOAA adjusting historic temperatures downward in order to obtain such 'historic' current temps. That is the premise of the entire discussion here.
Does anyone else see the irony in that statement? It's interesting that Mr. Mann doesn't even discuss the topic of NOAA adjusting historic temperatures downward in order to obtain such 'historic' current temps. That is the premise of the entire discussion here.
9
Scientists, I guess, need to operate like the Nicene Council: publish the creed for the believers, never mind the sausage-making.
Extremist political operatives like Lamar Smith claim the US taxpayer has to support too much government. Yet he wastes valuable government resources and time waging political battles against scientific experts at tax payer expense, He clearly has no interest in seeking facts but rather protecting his big money interests. It is a national and global embarrassment and sham he is allowed to run such an important committee. Joe McCarthy indeed,
3
Captain Hockey Stick to the Rescue!! Awesome.
It's fairly convenient, don't you think, that just before Climatepalooza 2015, you "scientists" suddenly find all that warming that's been missing for the past 18 years? You know, that "pause" that completely discredits all your ironclad models?
"Hey Guys, I found the warming!! It's right over here, in the bottom of the ocean! You can't see it, cuz it's really deep, but trust me!"
Here's an idea - instead of focusing on smugly demonizing your opponents - you know the folks who've actually gotten this right - why don't you focus on bettering your models and your science. I build forecasts for a living. I understand how models work, and I understand that one miniscule flaw in your model, most especially in a very long-term forecast, can completely invalidate the entire model and throw out ludicrously wrong results. You might want to inculcate that thinking into your science instead of resorting to threats of jail time to the people you disagree with. I don't deny the climate is getting warmer because of human activity, I deny that a bunch of partisan academic minnows can predict the future.
If the Left truly believes that catastrophic climate change is right around the corner, why did Obama save GM and Chrysler, the two biggest contributors to climate change in the history of our country? Why is every "solution" to climate change focused primarily on punishing enemies of the Left?
It's fairly convenient, don't you think, that just before Climatepalooza 2015, you "scientists" suddenly find all that warming that's been missing for the past 18 years? You know, that "pause" that completely discredits all your ironclad models?
"Hey Guys, I found the warming!! It's right over here, in the bottom of the ocean! You can't see it, cuz it's really deep, but trust me!"
Here's an idea - instead of focusing on smugly demonizing your opponents - you know the folks who've actually gotten this right - why don't you focus on bettering your models and your science. I build forecasts for a living. I understand how models work, and I understand that one miniscule flaw in your model, most especially in a very long-term forecast, can completely invalidate the entire model and throw out ludicrously wrong results. You might want to inculcate that thinking into your science instead of resorting to threats of jail time to the people you disagree with. I don't deny the climate is getting warmer because of human activity, I deny that a bunch of partisan academic minnows can predict the future.
If the Left truly believes that catastrophic climate change is right around the corner, why did Obama save GM and Chrysler, the two biggest contributors to climate change in the history of our country? Why is every "solution" to climate change focused primarily on punishing enemies of the Left?
9
The "pause" is a result of cherry picking your starting point. There is no "pause".
See here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
My guess is your "modeling" isn't really anything very scientific, and you're angry that those "partisan academic minnows" were smart enough to finish the PhD that you can't.
See here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
My guess is your "modeling" isn't really anything very scientific, and you're angry that those "partisan academic minnows" were smart enough to finish the PhD that you can't.
3
Gee, even the IPCC admits that rise in their estimates of global temperatures measured since the 1970's PAUSED after the El Nino of '98. If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause ('course, you can deny the science and claim temperatures are still rising as predicted by the models. Of course, that just isn't true.)
1
Hi Stephen, and thanks for the credentialism, much appreciated. No, I don't have a PhD, you're right. I don't even have a Masters, just a stupid little BA in economics. What a dummy!
I'm not really clear whether my models are "scientific" or not. Are the scientific ones the ones that shoot out the same results no matter what the inputs are?
2 + 2 = Hockey Stick!
3 x 4 = Hockey Stick!
Turkey + Cranberry Sauce = Hockey Stick!
Rain + Snow = Hockey Stick!
Is that the scientific method? Thanks for clarifying.
I'm not really clear whether my models are "scientific" or not. Are the scientific ones the ones that shoot out the same results no matter what the inputs are?
2 + 2 = Hockey Stick!
3 x 4 = Hockey Stick!
Turkey + Cranberry Sauce = Hockey Stick!
Rain + Snow = Hockey Stick!
Is that the scientific method? Thanks for clarifying.
Why do you always talk about fossil fuels and never about animal agriculture?
What about meat and dairy production? I think animal agriculture is much more hurtful and you don’t say anything. That is suspicious, isn´t it?
What about meat and dairy production? I think animal agriculture is much more hurtful and you don’t say anything. That is suspicious, isn´t it?
And I thought none of the Republicans were scientists. Even though Mr. Smiths scientific knowledge is questionable, financially he is quite aware of who is holding his purse strings. He is a lackie for the Texas oil industry and will say whatever is needed to keep them happy no matter how ridiculous he looks. I am not a politician, but my self esteem is more important to me than being made the fool by the fossil fuel industry.
1
"While there is no doubt climate change is real and caused by humans, there is absolutely a debate to be had about the details of climate policy, and there are prominent Republicans participating constructively in that discourse." There's the rub. The fringes are far apart and most of us in the middle are left to wonder. Ask a question doubting doomsday or suggest a political component to climate science and you're dismissed as a bible thumping climate denier. Is there anything worse? Scientists have said the damage has been done (since 1900 we've increased CO2 from 300PPM to 400PPM). Isn't that a lot? Asking industrially emerging countries to scale back seems silly so why is there no large scale mitigation in progress. It's just not as simple as buying a Prius and blaming the climate deniers.
3
There you go, John H. Spoiling all the fun with your...pragmatism.
1
India calls out the The West as environmental Imperialists: no scaling back in sight on pollution or population.
We've seen this scam before. Subpoena EVERYTHING. Then hunt, hunt, hunt for something they can use against their opponents. (Usually, the Clintons but sometimes climatologist, as in the case of the East Anglia climate center.) Then find something, anything, however innocent are irrelevant, and magnify it's importance. And, most importantly, bring it up over and over again.
What the administration should do, is say, 'Sure, we'll give you everything in exchange for you showing us all of YOUR communications.' Seeing how many times they communicated with the Koch brothers alone would be worth it.
What the administration should do, is say, 'Sure, we'll give you everything in exchange for you showing us all of YOUR communications.' Seeing how many times they communicated with the Koch brothers alone would be worth it.
1
Um...
The science of climatology and the art of predicting climate changes are two different things, but both will drive very important policy changes. Perhaps congress is trying to get it right.
Most observations have noted no change in global temperatures for almost 20 years. NOAA did some recalculations and said, "nope, all those other guys are wrong." Congress wants to look at the data. NOAA says no.
Science is the process of testing hypotheses with facts and having those experiments prove repeatable. It is more than reasonable for Congress to ask NOAA to open their data and calculations to other scientists and experts.
The future is not written. If we do the things that climate alarmists want, we will pay squillions of dollars globally. If they are right, those squillions are worth it. Doesn't anybody really want to know?
The science of climatology and the art of predicting climate changes are two different things, but both will drive very important policy changes. Perhaps congress is trying to get it right.
Most observations have noted no change in global temperatures for almost 20 years. NOAA did some recalculations and said, "nope, all those other guys are wrong." Congress wants to look at the data. NOAA says no.
Science is the process of testing hypotheses with facts and having those experiments prove repeatable. It is more than reasonable for Congress to ask NOAA to open their data and calculations to other scientists and experts.
The future is not written. If we do the things that climate alarmists want, we will pay squillions of dollars globally. If they are right, those squillions are worth it. Doesn't anybody really want to know?
10
Um...
"Congress wants to look a the data. NOAA says no."
"NOAA to open their date and calculations"
This shows your total unwillingness to actually examine what's happening. NOAA's data is publicly available online. The NOAA has made Smith aware of this fact multiple times. The papers are published and the methodology behind their conclusions is clearly laid out.
He's not interested in the data though, just in cutting out of context lines from personal emails and leaking them to the press so they can be printed by the conservatives news media to slander the scientists.
"Congress wants to look a the data. NOAA says no."
"NOAA to open their date and calculations"
This shows your total unwillingness to actually examine what's happening. NOAA's data is publicly available online. The NOAA has made Smith aware of this fact multiple times. The papers are published and the methodology behind their conclusions is clearly laid out.
He's not interested in the data though, just in cutting out of context lines from personal emails and leaking them to the press so they can be printed by the conservatives news media to slander the scientists.
1
Stephen, what are you afraid of? More "hide the decline", "use peer-review" to deny publication to valid but akward to your point of view papers. Does the University of East Anglia document dump worry you?
Norman,
I'm not the one who's scared. As I said, the NOAA's data and methodology are publicly available. If you can provide a scientific refutation of their work, feel free to include it in a reply.
I'm not the one who's scared. As I said, the NOAA's data and methodology are publicly available. If you can provide a scientific refutation of their work, feel free to include it in a reply.
1
Just remember that if global warming does happen, vast tracks of Siberia become arable just as droughts hit us. We'll be importing food from them and under their thumb soon enough.
There are too many science illiterates on both sides of this issue.
Consensus & the validity of a scientific theory are 2 independent constructs. Science illiterates conflate the two.
Consensus is often wrong over time, e.g., flat-earth model vs Pythagoras/Aristotle, Lamarck vs. Watson & Crick, Galileo vs Einstein.
Because scientific theories are inductively established, they are unprovable. But they are falsifiable: A single inconsistent example devoid of confounding variables renders the theory false.
Regarding the theory at issue here, even if the growth model is initially exponential, unbounded growth is not physically realistic & will be limited by ignored factors that become significant, or by the collapse of assumptions about the model, e.g., continuity or instantaneous feedback.
Anthropogenic "interference" is not a vice unique to modernity. In fact, it is not a vice at all. The correct word is "interaction."
As for anthropogenic contamination, it arguably started c. 10,000 BC, when Homo sapiens began farming.
Pseudo estrogens discussed in an (obliquely) related Kristof piece, exist naturally in many of our food, e.g., isoflavones in dairy & soy
Modernity exacerbates the problem because:
•increased anthropogenic interaction increases exposure
•increased lifespan & technological advancement increase exposure
•a potential toxin actualizes when time since exposure, a function of lifespan, exceeds the toxin's latency period
Consensus & the validity of a scientific theory are 2 independent constructs. Science illiterates conflate the two.
Consensus is often wrong over time, e.g., flat-earth model vs Pythagoras/Aristotle, Lamarck vs. Watson & Crick, Galileo vs Einstein.
Because scientific theories are inductively established, they are unprovable. But they are falsifiable: A single inconsistent example devoid of confounding variables renders the theory false.
Regarding the theory at issue here, even if the growth model is initially exponential, unbounded growth is not physically realistic & will be limited by ignored factors that become significant, or by the collapse of assumptions about the model, e.g., continuity or instantaneous feedback.
Anthropogenic "interference" is not a vice unique to modernity. In fact, it is not a vice at all. The correct word is "interaction."
As for anthropogenic contamination, it arguably started c. 10,000 BC, when Homo sapiens began farming.
Pseudo estrogens discussed in an (obliquely) related Kristof piece, exist naturally in many of our food, e.g., isoflavones in dairy & soy
Modernity exacerbates the problem because:
•increased anthropogenic interaction increases exposure
•increased lifespan & technological advancement increase exposure
•a potential toxin actualizes when time since exposure, a function of lifespan, exceeds the toxin's latency period
2
I guess the moral here is if you can't deny it obfuscate, confiscate, subpoena, and cut funding. Ignorance is great excuse until the tide comes in and washes every illusion away.
4
If lawyers like Mr. Smith get to say what science is correct, then it's only fair that scientists like Mr. Mann should get to say what law is correct.
14
Dan, what degree does Obama have? What degree does Al Gore have?
8
Ralphie,
Obama and Gore don't have degrees in science, therefore they defer to the experts, i.e., the scientists. The repubs don't have degrees in science but defer to the oil companies and others with stakes in the game. Big difference.
Obama and Gore don't have degrees in science, therefore they defer to the experts, i.e., the scientists. The repubs don't have degrees in science but defer to the oil companies and others with stakes in the game. Big difference.
1
Ralphie,
"what degree does Obama have? What degree does Al Gore have?"
You seem confused on some basic logic, so let me help you.
President Obama and Al Gore are agreeing with what virtually all scientists on Earth say. These are people who have earned their doctorate, and proven themselves through years of research and peer reviewed publication. When you're not an expert, taking advice from the experts is the smart thing to do.
Meanwhile, republicans are taking their advice from a consortium of fossil fuel interests, TV weathermen (I've literally seen their writing here cited as proof against climate science), and people in unrelated fields who have no idea what they're talking about. Their "facts" are more often than not blatant lies which have been debunked for years.
See the difference?
"what degree does Obama have? What degree does Al Gore have?"
You seem confused on some basic logic, so let me help you.
President Obama and Al Gore are agreeing with what virtually all scientists on Earth say. These are people who have earned their doctorate, and proven themselves through years of research and peer reviewed publication. When you're not an expert, taking advice from the experts is the smart thing to do.
Meanwhile, republicans are taking their advice from a consortium of fossil fuel interests, TV weathermen (I've literally seen their writing here cited as proof against climate science), and people in unrelated fields who have no idea what they're talking about. Their "facts" are more often than not blatant lies which have been debunked for years.
See the difference?
1
Shocking! Members of Congress who get millions from energy companies denying climate science. That would be like people getting money from the NRA voting against gun laws! We need to put up a "This Member For Sale" sign in front of each of their offices. If the invasion of Iraq was the worst foreign policy disaster in modern America, Citizens United was the worst domestic disaster.
23
Where was Mr. Mann and the NYT when Democratic representative Raul Grijalva was demanding that universities turn over documents related to scientists who were more skeptical about the effects of global warming?
Let's not have a double standard here when it comes to disclosure. Either both sides fully disclose or both sides get to limit what they disclose.
Let's not have a double standard here when it comes to disclosure. Either both sides fully disclose or both sides get to limit what they disclose.
8
Why doesn't NOAA sue the Congressman for harassment?
4
Of course Mr. (Hide the Decline) Mann wishes these pokes and peeks behind his curtains would cease -- just as the "Pause" has arrested Mr. Gore's beloved narrative, "The Earth is ON FIRE!!!". Alas, these academic swine slop at the public trough and really can and should be held accountable for their frauds.
Kudos to you, Mr. Smith. Let the sun shine in!
Kudos to you, Mr. Smith. Let the sun shine in!
15
Sorry, "hide the decline" taken out of context, there is no "pause" I have graphics/data to prove it and there is no "fraud".
Nice to know, however, that you strenuously disagree with the US Military that climate change is, in their words "a present security threat".
Nice to know, however, that you strenuously disagree with the US Military that climate change is, in their words "a present security threat".
4
So you have "graphics/data" to "prove" there is no "pause". Are your data and graphics based on the unbiased satellite records -- or the much abused and massaged surface temperature records which purport to cover the world with very few stations?
Nice to know you "strenuously agree" with the US military (you provide no cite) when the commander in chief is the climate alarmist in chief. Anyway, of course climates always change and any change can be an existentialist threat. Your point is?
Nice to know you "strenuously agree" with the US military (you provide no cite) when the commander in chief is the climate alarmist in chief. Anyway, of course climates always change and any change can be an existentialist threat. Your point is?
1
I didn't notice the authors name when I responded. Obviously, a completely objective source.
4
Obviously an emminently qualified source.
Your scientific credentials, please?
Your scientific credentials, please?
1
I am totally perplexed by the GOP argument. Lets say, just to appease them, that they are correct. Humans are not responsible for climate change that it is a simple correction done my "mother nature" every million years or so. Now the question arrises of what to do about it, if anything? If we let "nature" takes its course, the world economy will collapse and millions of lives will be lost. If we do something the world will be a better place, as air and water pollution will drop and the earth will be a cleaner and healthier planet. Remember, this is the only Earth, the only place where life, as we know it, exists. Why are we so set on destroying it for economic reasons? Insane.
14
If humans are not responsible then the billions (trillions?) of dollars spent globally to fight a non-existent boogeyman (CO2) could instead have been spent on other worthwhile endeavors such as hunger, housing and infrastructure. The AGW crowd likes to claim that the 'deniers' love to pollute the rivers and oceans and have no interest in cleaning up pollution. This debate is not about pollution, it's about spending trillions of dollars on fighting a miniscule percent of all pollution (0.004% CO2). The only thing man-made that is to blame are the horrific, scientifically inaccurate computer models that time and time again have proven to be terrible at predicting future climate.
5
".. it is a simple correction done my 'mother nature' every million years or so."
Try every thousand years or so.... Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period, etc. Why should this millenium be any different? The planet has warmed naturally on roughly millennial cycles prior to this one, and this makes our current warming period appear to be entirely natural and in line with the past several millennia. In order for our current warming to appear unnatural, in fact, it would be necessary to try to make up arguments showing that these previous warming periods didn't really happen, or that they were only local rather than global, etc... for which I give you Mr. Michael E. Mann!
Mann made his reputation by devising exactly such a thesis. That his thesis was torn to shreds by skeptics does not seem to have mattered at all to the climate faithful, but it should. People who are motivated to find answers in statistics will almost certainly find them, and there is currently a mania for making temperature reconstructions in the shape of hockey sticks. Prior to our recent obsession over mankind's alleged role in destroying the climate, however, these previous global warming periods were well understood and accepted, and in the light of them, our current warming period would not appear to be exceptional in any way.
Try every thousand years or so.... Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period, etc. Why should this millenium be any different? The planet has warmed naturally on roughly millennial cycles prior to this one, and this makes our current warming period appear to be entirely natural and in line with the past several millennia. In order for our current warming to appear unnatural, in fact, it would be necessary to try to make up arguments showing that these previous warming periods didn't really happen, or that they were only local rather than global, etc... for which I give you Mr. Michael E. Mann!
Mann made his reputation by devising exactly such a thesis. That his thesis was torn to shreds by skeptics does not seem to have mattered at all to the climate faithful, but it should. People who are motivated to find answers in statistics will almost certainly find them, and there is currently a mania for making temperature reconstructions in the shape of hockey sticks. Prior to our recent obsession over mankind's alleged role in destroying the climate, however, these previous global warming periods were well understood and accepted, and in the light of them, our current warming period would not appear to be exceptional in any way.
3
How on earth do people that stupid.get placed in positions in the dysfunctional government we are stuck with? No resistance from fellow republicans about climate change denial? The republican folly continues to fester.
16
The operative fact here is that liberals often can't be trusted. They will say and do anything to advance their agenda, truth be damned. Is it any wonder that many do not believe their "science"? I've been waiting since the 60s for the planet to run out of oil.
7
How about the US Military, which on July 23 told the US Congress that climate change is a "present security risk". You don't believe them either?
3
Amazing. Blame progressives when the bad behavior is from the GOP. Fortunately people who think this way are on the decline. Seventy five percent of the world believes climate change is real. The rest are American conservatives.
3
Biggest hoax in history, that's the real news. My only regret is that it won't get reported in our lifetimes. By the way, I'm in big oil's pockets--I wish!
9
I certainly hope Sen. Smith owns coastal property in Texas so he can watch first hand as it floods. Common Sense Senator!
4
For those who say Lamar Smith lacks scientific credentials, neither does Obama but he is leading the CC charge.
Remember that alarmists don't just want everyone to agree - "yeap, the climate is getting hotter, dad gum it" no, they want to make fundamental changes in our economy, slow it down and assert that failure to follow their directives will result in devastation. So, the bar for accepting such radical policy assertions and the "science" that supports it should be high given the importance.
Remember what happened. We have a large historic data set (multiple sets) of global temps since the 1880s. However, we have used different methods at different locations at different times and have had variations in global coverage over the last 135 years (e.g. no arctic or antarctic stations until the mid 20th century). Thus, climate scientists have adjusted the data sets to account for differences -- according to their rules and assumptions.
Then the warming pauses and CS's can't explain why. Suddenly, scientists from NOAA make some new adjustments to the data, and voila, the pause disappears. Error in our favor.... hmmm. Not only that, the data adjustments were significant at the .1 level, not the .05 that is the gold standard in science.
So if I were Mr. Smith, I'd be curious about these adjustments. I'd also wonder, how valid the data set(s) are and what other biases might exist, and how many favor warming theory.
That's not anti-science.
Remember that alarmists don't just want everyone to agree - "yeap, the climate is getting hotter, dad gum it" no, they want to make fundamental changes in our economy, slow it down and assert that failure to follow their directives will result in devastation. So, the bar for accepting such radical policy assertions and the "science" that supports it should be high given the importance.
Remember what happened. We have a large historic data set (multiple sets) of global temps since the 1880s. However, we have used different methods at different locations at different times and have had variations in global coverage over the last 135 years (e.g. no arctic or antarctic stations until the mid 20th century). Thus, climate scientists have adjusted the data sets to account for differences -- according to their rules and assumptions.
Then the warming pauses and CS's can't explain why. Suddenly, scientists from NOAA make some new adjustments to the data, and voila, the pause disappears. Error in our favor.... hmmm. Not only that, the data adjustments were significant at the .1 level, not the .05 that is the gold standard in science.
So if I were Mr. Smith, I'd be curious about these adjustments. I'd also wonder, how valid the data set(s) are and what other biases might exist, and how many favor warming theory.
That's not anti-science.
14
Ralphie,
All of those temperature measurements, and the subsequent modifications based on a better understanding of the uncertainties and other factors underlying them, have been peer reviewed, published, and are easy to find. I suggest you read those papers, and then reply with a clear scientific rebuttal of exactly what was wrong with their analysis. All you've done here is mention something and assume it's wrong. How about you PROVE it's wrong.
As for the "pause", there is none. That only exists when you cherry pick your starting date. Good job repeating a lie that's been debunked for over half a decade though!
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
All of those temperature measurements, and the subsequent modifications based on a better understanding of the uncertainties and other factors underlying them, have been peer reviewed, published, and are easy to find. I suggest you read those papers, and then reply with a clear scientific rebuttal of exactly what was wrong with their analysis. All you've done here is mention something and assume it's wrong. How about you PROVE it's wrong.
As for the "pause", there is none. That only exists when you cherry pick your starting date. Good job repeating a lie that's been debunked for over half a decade though!
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
1
Yes, its the religious fervor for any solution at any cost, whether it is a solution or not, whether a solution is possible or not that fosters resistance to the cause.
Stephen
if it's been debunked then why did Climate Scientists feel compelled to adjust the data? Why have so many papers been written about the issue. And why does the graph at NOAA that shows the temp record from 1880 to present clearly show a "pause?"
if it's been debunked then why did Climate Scientists feel compelled to adjust the data? Why have so many papers been written about the issue. And why does the graph at NOAA that shows the temp record from 1880 to present clearly show a "pause?"
Everyone should watch the film "Merchants of Doubt" so that they understand the motivations of the contrarians and deniers.
The world is already locked into an undeniable spiral of change, can we slow it down? Given the lack of will by politicians, dictators and despots worldwide, this seems unlikely.
If humans are serious about doing something, there are some simple steps that can raise the money needed to adapt society to a much changed world of tomorrow.
1. Tax Carbon - At least $1/liter of gas ... this money to be used for investing in alternate forms of energy, infra-structure improvements, defence against rising sea-levels for the ENTIRE planet...yes we have to help all of the less fortunate!
2. Stop mining coal immediately and close down all the "unclean" human killing power generation stations. Yes, this means helping China and India, by giving them clean coal technology and helping them invest in serious large scale carbon capture... at least the planet's air will become cleaner.
Troubled times call for equally radical and serious global approaches. Deniers like Mr. Smith can be swept aside by the global outrage caused by his, and many others like him. We cannot allow him to continue "business as usual", denying progress. The world needs to recognize the need to save us from ourselves (and Mr. Smith).
The world is already locked into an undeniable spiral of change, can we slow it down? Given the lack of will by politicians, dictators and despots worldwide, this seems unlikely.
If humans are serious about doing something, there are some simple steps that can raise the money needed to adapt society to a much changed world of tomorrow.
1. Tax Carbon - At least $1/liter of gas ... this money to be used for investing in alternate forms of energy, infra-structure improvements, defence against rising sea-levels for the ENTIRE planet...yes we have to help all of the less fortunate!
2. Stop mining coal immediately and close down all the "unclean" human killing power generation stations. Yes, this means helping China and India, by giving them clean coal technology and helping them invest in serious large scale carbon capture... at least the planet's air will become cleaner.
Troubled times call for equally radical and serious global approaches. Deniers like Mr. Smith can be swept aside by the global outrage caused by his, and many others like him. We cannot allow him to continue "business as usual", denying progress. The world needs to recognize the need to save us from ourselves (and Mr. Smith).
1
While Dr. Mann describes Mr. Smith's subpoenas, he doesn't make it clear how ridiculous Mr. Smith's "investigation" is.
Mr. Smith alleged nothing other than that the paper by Karl et al. in the journal Science ( DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632 ) was "rushed." He provides no evidence of any sort for this claim, nor does he claim that the paper is wrong in any material way as a result of being "rushed."
The editor of the journal has stated that the review process was not rushed, indeed that the paper faced an extended review and a senior editor took responsibility for it, no doubt appreciating the likely controversy.
But beyond that, the Karl et al paper simply points out the conclusion that results from two earlier works: the Huang et al. ERSSTv4 paper (DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1) and the availability of more data from the IST project ( doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS3124.1 )
Smith is not alleging that either of these papers are wrong, or were rushed, or anything else.
Smith is being compared to Joe McCarthy for this idiotic witch hunt, but he's stupider, and will be less dangerous. He was having fun picking on social scientists with NSF grants with titles that offended him, and then he decided to rake on bigger game. As the old line about bear hunting goes -- "some times the bear gets you" This won't work out well for Lamar.
Mr. Smith alleged nothing other than that the paper by Karl et al. in the journal Science ( DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632 ) was "rushed." He provides no evidence of any sort for this claim, nor does he claim that the paper is wrong in any material way as a result of being "rushed."
The editor of the journal has stated that the review process was not rushed, indeed that the paper faced an extended review and a senior editor took responsibility for it, no doubt appreciating the likely controversy.
But beyond that, the Karl et al paper simply points out the conclusion that results from two earlier works: the Huang et al. ERSSTv4 paper (DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1) and the availability of more data from the IST project ( doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS3124.1 )
Smith is not alleging that either of these papers are wrong, or were rushed, or anything else.
Smith is being compared to Joe McCarthy for this idiotic witch hunt, but he's stupider, and will be less dangerous. He was having fun picking on social scientists with NSF grants with titles that offended him, and then he decided to rake on bigger game. As the old line about bear hunting goes -- "some times the bear gets you" This won't work out well for Lamar.
4
I recently read a report regarding the future of shipping via the Northwest Passage. So far, numbers are small compared to Panama Canal transits. However, since ships can now make the Northern trip without ice breakers- a very recent phenomena. Obviously, when a ship going from Vancouver BC to Finland can cut 4 days off the alternative Canal voyage, the business world will not ignore climate change opportunity!
So, maybe we should offer a bunch of climate deniers a free cruise ship tour through the Passage next summer. Let them have some fun and a little vacation from all their lying!
So, maybe we should offer a bunch of climate deniers a free cruise ship tour through the Passage next summer. Let them have some fun and a little vacation from all their lying!
Mr. Smith is yet another example of how deranged the Republican Party has become. Future generations will suffer greatly because of the greed-driven ideology that has infected Smith and his ilk.
20
How much money are Smith, Barton and their fellow climate change denialists getting from Koch Industries and the other members of the 4F (Fools For Fossil Fuels)? Remember, we have a fundamentally new reality since the Roberts' Court opened the flood gates: a government that is up for sale to the highest bidder. Forget the logic of science. It is trumped by the logic of greed.
9
The Center for Responsive Politics reports that the second largest contributor to Smith's campaign coffers is the oil and gas industry, most of which comes from their PACS.
1
Politics has become like a schoolyard game where you must let everyone play regardless of competence,
But those games didn;t threaten the survival if civilization.
But those games didn;t threaten the survival if civilization.
4
We will all be dead from GMOs pretty soon, so who cares what some jerk from texas (big surprise) says?
He will be gone soon and the planet will do whatever the planet will do regardless of his "position" or "beliefs" about climate change. I guess he belongs right up there with the tobacco companies' "doctors" who found out the truth but withheld it for $$.
The thing is, it doesn't matter. We are now a divided nation with the haves making sure that the have-not's matter less and less. We have way too many people and we only need about half of them, so who cares if most Americans are under-educated and sick or dying? The upper group is big enough now to run the country without all of us serfs, so our dying is of no consequence any more. If the planet goes into a bad phase, these people will be able to survive with their $$ and the rest of us can simply die while they live on in comfort. Isn't that in the bible or constitution somewhere? If not, they can always write it in and say it was there all the time.
Remember, all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others (Orwell).
He will be gone soon and the planet will do whatever the planet will do regardless of his "position" or "beliefs" about climate change. I guess he belongs right up there with the tobacco companies' "doctors" who found out the truth but withheld it for $$.
The thing is, it doesn't matter. We are now a divided nation with the haves making sure that the have-not's matter less and less. We have way too many people and we only need about half of them, so who cares if most Americans are under-educated and sick or dying? The upper group is big enough now to run the country without all of us serfs, so our dying is of no consequence any more. If the planet goes into a bad phase, these people will be able to survive with their $$ and the rest of us can simply die while they live on in comfort. Isn't that in the bible or constitution somewhere? If not, they can always write it in and say it was there all the time.
Remember, all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others (Orwell).
Soylent Green. Remember that, and everyone said it was just a movie.
Please... elaborate on which GMOs - or ANY GMOs - that have been found to be remotely problematic to the health of persons who have consumed them? Any?
While I continue to believe deeply in democracy, our system unquestionably has a nasty tendency to elevate troglodytes like Smith and Barton to public office. I vote against Barton every two years, but I might as well be spitting into the wind. The man publicly apologized to BP for the public's temerity in objecting to that company's negligence in the massive Gulf oil spill.
One of the ironies that afflicts our political system is that Texas, whose political elite scorns the federal government, sends more representatives to Congress than any other state except California. Some of these people serve the true interests of their constituencies, but most join our two senators in adhering to an anti-government ideology that imposes real hardships on the people of this country.
Smith's role in the climate change debate highlights the harmful impact of my state's political prominence. Instead of focusing on the legitimate issue of how to distribute the costs of the campaign to limit global warming, he panders to the prejudices of those whose ignorance or narrow economic interests dictate opposition to any effort to counter our damage to the environment.
Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst political system ever devised by man, except for all the other available choices. When I observe Smith, Barton and Cruz, I have to repeat Churchill's statement to remind myself that things could be much worse.
One of the ironies that afflicts our political system is that Texas, whose political elite scorns the federal government, sends more representatives to Congress than any other state except California. Some of these people serve the true interests of their constituencies, but most join our two senators in adhering to an anti-government ideology that imposes real hardships on the people of this country.
Smith's role in the climate change debate highlights the harmful impact of my state's political prominence. Instead of focusing on the legitimate issue of how to distribute the costs of the campaign to limit global warming, he panders to the prejudices of those whose ignorance or narrow economic interests dictate opposition to any effort to counter our damage to the environment.
Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst political system ever devised by man, except for all the other available choices. When I observe Smith, Barton and Cruz, I have to repeat Churchill's statement to remind myself that things could be much worse.
134
Unfortunately, you continue to be the victim of the great mid-term Gerrymander of Tom DeLay that weakens your vote!
1
Winston Churchill also said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
3
The calls here to focus on adaptation over mitigation are based on the flawed belief that CC will just stop at some level to which we have adapted, even as we continue with business as usual (BAU) at burning fossil fuels until they are gone. In fact, the longer we continue BAU, the greater the chance the environment will banish us back to the stone age, and make any conceivable adaptation moot. In WWII we stopped making cars and dealt with the problem as fast as the society was able. If the pace of change is as fast as adaptors believe (and it probably is) maybe fossil fuel companies should be banned from making further infrastructure investment (pipelines, refineries, etc) and their profits dedicated to building the non-carbon replacement system at a rate calculated to keep up with fossil fuel collapse. I know that is unlikely.... but no less likely than the proposition that we can adapt to runaway climate change.
2
There is a mindset, widespread in the Republican party, that feeds on the notion of dominion, i.e. the premise that man is the master of nature and can do as he pleases without consequence. When this worldview is fused with the ambition to preserve the vast wealth latent in oil and gas reserves around the globe, the resulting politics are noxious. The cost to future generations is unfathomable.
21
Again, we can thank Christianity for that one. Even those Republicans who serve that other god (money) they still behave derived from the Bible play book.
2
So, as I understand, the same guys who deflected questions on climate change by asserting, "I am not a scientist," now deem themselves qualified to pick apart the scientific notes, research and conclusions of the world's best climate scientists.
115
When it comes to climate change, this is a strange time to be worrying about a fruitcake denier. This morning the price of oil dropped below $40 per barrel, which is as low as it's been for years. The main reason the price is so low is because oil production is at record highs in the US. During the last 6 years, oil production in the US has exploded. And so prices are bottoming out. With the low gas prices, Americans are driving more than ever and worrying less about the thermostat. I suspect industry is using oil in record quantities as well. I haven't read much of anything about this problem. But it seems to me that however idiotic climate denial may be, the biggest climate change problem today is American overproduction of oil.
7
@michjas
Phoenix
More US domestic production means less imports. The effect is substitutional, it doesn't necessarily mean greater overall consumption. In fact with alternative energy sources, greater fuel efficiency for vehicles, the switch to natural gas, and the mild weather in the NE the US is probably consuming rather less oil based products than six years ago.
Phoenix
More US domestic production means less imports. The effect is substitutional, it doesn't necessarily mean greater overall consumption. In fact with alternative energy sources, greater fuel efficiency for vehicles, the switch to natural gas, and the mild weather in the NE the US is probably consuming rather less oil based products than six years ago.
12
John
I checked everything I said before I wrote it. I don't just make up stuff. Your comment is totally contrary to fact.
I checked everything I said before I wrote it. I don't just make up stuff. Your comment is totally contrary to fact.
Isn't your state (AZ) that eliminated rate compensation for home solar?
Let's have look at Mr. Smith's emails and phone calls to see if he has some connection with special interests groups who oppose climate science. It could clear the air a bit if he would also make public where his campain funds come from and how many right wing political groups ( the Koch Brothers) he meets with on a regular basis. The press needs to drag this whole mess out in the open and let the public see what goes on in back rooms in Washington.
197
I agree but, unfortunately, the press does not normally weigh in on such things under the premise of being even handed. They allow statements like those of the chairman to stand without challenge and by doing so give them tacit support in the minds of many.
1
Unfortunately, those of us who live in the area represented by Smith cannot get rid of him, no matter how hard we try. As usual ideology trumps (a funny) science and common sense.
35
Why not? Have you even tried to get rid of him ? Science and truth always win, maybe not at first but in the end they always win. Im still waiting and hoping for Texas to secede as your former Gov. Threatened. Funny I didn't hear anyone say Please don't.
1
And Democrats still don't vote. The crazies always vote.
1
We point to his fallacious statements, vote, and try to influence others to vote, against him. But alas are outnumbered by dinosaurs. As far as secession, might not be a bad thing as it would show the dinosaurs how dependent Texas is on the Federal government and trade with other states.
1
Mr Smith is a partisan hack, put in place by Republican hacks whose only job is to serve the corporate interests that collude with them to keep them in office.
Does this person have no children or grandchildren? I'm sure he pretends to some kind of Christian orthodoxy, in which case does he care so little for God's creation that he's happy to see it destroyed by Big Oil?
And I know most politicians play a waiting game, comforting themselves with the notion that when something really needs to get done, something will get done, but the straw that broke the camel's back of Climate Change has already been laid on.
Remediation and innovative science are the only things that we can hope for now. We do not have time to have medieval-style mandarins making policy.
Does this person have no children or grandchildren? I'm sure he pretends to some kind of Christian orthodoxy, in which case does he care so little for God's creation that he's happy to see it destroyed by Big Oil?
And I know most politicians play a waiting game, comforting themselves with the notion that when something really needs to get done, something will get done, but the straw that broke the camel's back of Climate Change has already been laid on.
Remediation and innovative science are the only things that we can hope for now. We do not have time to have medieval-style mandarins making policy.
35
Right, time for a politburo of scientists to order the world, forget the muss and fuss of democracy.
How in the world did Mr. Smith get to be head of this committee?
22
The GOP has gone out of its way to put anti-science buffoons in charge of Congressional science and environmental committees. It's a deeply cynical form of sabotage - they don't want the committees to function, because that might lead to "job-killling" "big government" "socialist" regulations.
Thus, instead of paying attention to the science of climate change, Republicans hold Benghazi-like inquisitions, in an attempt to smear and intimidate the people who did the science.
Thus, instead of paying attention to the science of climate change, Republicans hold Benghazi-like inquisitions, in an attempt to smear and intimidate the people who did the science.
148
I try to picture what these Republican strategy sessions must look like, when they decide to take these approaches that are against our national interest and only serve their fossil fuel benefactors. What do these folks say when they're sitting around the table trying to come up with ways to de-rail the inevitable? Same for the tobacco industry back in the day, among others. These are not stupid people. They do not really disbelieve all the climate science. They are manipulative and selfish and only care about pleasing their wealthy benefactors. And they certainly do not represent the religious values they so often toss around when they point fingers. How on earth do they sleep at night? How do their family members sleep at night? Is it really all about winning? I don't get how people can be like this.
7
Unfortunately Mr. Mann's litigiousness and obviously partisan methods have tainted his kind of science for good. One cannot be an science and not be objective; and Mr. Mann has proved this throughout his career.
14
I'm sorry to say this, but you must not be a scientist. I am and I've read Michael Mann's papers and his book, as well as many others by numerous scientists. Mann is a leader in his field and the vast majority of scientists agree. If you had someone breaking into your emails would you just take it? If you had people leaving dead rats on your doorstep, making threats to your life, etc. how would you feel if all you are doing is your job. People who say the kinds of things you are saying are not much different from a plumber telling a surgeon step by step how to do a surgery on him. It's said that you do not understand that it is scientists like Mann and many others who have done seminal work on this topic who are trying to save humankind from itself, including you and your children despite your denial.
11
Excuse me, quantumhunter, but you seem to equate a search for the truth with "litigiousness."
4
The NOAA is 100% funded by the Federal Government and is not an objective player in the global warming industry. Congressman Smith has every right to access to their processes and procedures, that is his job. NOAA was perhaps the biggest winner in the Sandy Relief Bill, being awarded stunning amounts of new funding that should have gone to homeowners. Their biggest blunder is docked at the Newport Navy base. The $76 million Henry Bigelow was commissioned to count cod fish off Cape Cod, something the fishing industry does every day. it's a beautiful ship, fully staffed 24/7 that leaves the dock half a dozen times a year. The NOAA is a self-promoting agency that has become a boondoggle.
6
The depressing aspect of this piece is its unwavering optimism that it's not already too late. All of these warnings from scientists presuppose that we can yet save our planet. We can't. We passed that opportunity some time ago.
Far from being able to step back from the abyss, we are the lucky few not too far down in it to still be able to look at the sky and say, "It's a nice day today." Climate change deniers assume "nice days" are proof of a climate not so bad.
Those farther down into the abyss are those like the Marshall Islanders who will have to abandon them because of rising oceans, those coastal communities subject to increasingly devastating tidal surges, and those who experience increasingly common drought and severe weather.
Are we to blame? You betcha. As this paper pointed out in its remarkable series about the shipping industry, 80% of the Earth's material goods, already long at sea for Christmas, are delivered by ships that annually pollute the air and water more than all of the planet's land-based vehicles. And we have no control over them, flagged as they often are by poor African nations that have no coastline much less any interest in inspecting their merchant ships.
So gaze in wide wonder at joy of the gifts under your tree, get a long last look at the sky, look lovingly on your children as they open their gifts, and abandon hope.
Far from being able to step back from the abyss, we are the lucky few not too far down in it to still be able to look at the sky and say, "It's a nice day today." Climate change deniers assume "nice days" are proof of a climate not so bad.
Those farther down into the abyss are those like the Marshall Islanders who will have to abandon them because of rising oceans, those coastal communities subject to increasingly devastating tidal surges, and those who experience increasingly common drought and severe weather.
Are we to blame? You betcha. As this paper pointed out in its remarkable series about the shipping industry, 80% of the Earth's material goods, already long at sea for Christmas, are delivered by ships that annually pollute the air and water more than all of the planet's land-based vehicles. And we have no control over them, flagged as they often are by poor African nations that have no coastline much less any interest in inspecting their merchant ships.
So gaze in wide wonder at joy of the gifts under your tree, get a long last look at the sky, look lovingly on your children as they open their gifts, and abandon hope.
129
"...and abandon hope."
And Merry Christmas to you too.
And Merry Christmas to you too.
1
You are correct. The suffering is only beginning. With an increase in the frequency and intensity of severe weather events, and changing global climate patterns, we will see mass migrations and worldwide political upheaval. We have embarked on a great experiment and future generations are the guinea pigs. They will damn us for what we have done to them.
5
Is there anybody who can rationally say we are going to be consuming less fossil fuels in the next fifty years rather than more, most likely a lot more? As more and more of the world prospers, they will be wanting more cars, more red meat, and of course more air conditioning.
4
A anti-scientist/science creationist football puppet is appointed to be in charge of a House committee on science? In country filled with world class scientists doing cutting-edge research, we can't even find one trained scientist for this job? Not too surprising. After all, a remarkable number of people think either a mumbling aging brain surgeon or a flamboyant casino owner are qualified to be president. Whatever happened to hiring people who are seriously qualified, trained and educated to do the job? The endgame is no game, it is downright scary.
400
You do realize that this trained scientist whom you propose to replace Mr. Smith would also have to be a current Republican member of the House with some degree of seniority on that committee? That would be nice, if such a person exists.
Don't forget that idiot from Oklahoma, Sen. Inhofe, is head of the Senate's Committee on Natural Resources and the Environment (or whatever it's formal name). Another fossil fuel puppet working against our national interests.
3
The GOP did not try to find a qualified scientist to support the committee. They tried and succeeded in placing a lawyer in there to destruct science.
What I do not understand is that we seem not to have any checks and balances - and this person can get away with it. Democracy, where are thee?
What I do not understand is that we seem not to have any checks and balances - and this person can get away with it. Democracy, where are thee?
1
How can someone as ignorant as Lamar Smith become chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology?! If we don't reign in government corruption soon, we are doomed.
12
Since Rep. Smith is so distrustful of NOAA and their scientific findings, perhaps they should stop providing all weather data (radar, forecasts, etc.) for the Republic of Texas...
24
It always amazes me how Republicans can be so blind to a major source of the prosperity we enjoy in the United States. We did not get here by burying our heads in the sand and denying the results of scientific research, even when we don't like those results. We got here in part because during much of the 20th century, the country poured money into scientific and technological research, which paid off handsomely for us all.
Now, however, many of our elected leaders are ideologues who have no understanding of the role that government promotion of science and technology has played in our country's growth. I imagine it's the same group that thinks it's okay to make students borrow huge sums of money to get a college education and even better to allow banks to make a profit on those students' loans. (Other countries understand that their children are a national resource and advanced education should be promoted, not stymied.)
These so-called leaders are so shortsighted it takes my breath away.
Now, however, many of our elected leaders are ideologues who have no understanding of the role that government promotion of science and technology has played in our country's growth. I imagine it's the same group that thinks it's okay to make students borrow huge sums of money to get a college education and even better to allow banks to make a profit on those students' loans. (Other countries understand that their children are a national resource and advanced education should be promoted, not stymied.)
These so-called leaders are so shortsighted it takes my breath away.
60
Important, cogent piece, Mike, thank you much!
13
That the Republican Party, having achieved a majority in the House, appointed this anti-science cretin chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology should say all anyone needs to know about the ownership of the Republican Party. That the fossil fuel industry can direct elected minions to lie through their teeth, intimidate scientific study, and bolster their continued stranglehold on energy at the expense of the public and the planet, is certainly appalling, but it is also traitorous. Wouldn't it be better for us and the world to place an actual scientist in the position of chairman of ANY and ALL committees that consider the merits of scientific research? We will not remain a great country for long if our leaders insist on promoting ignorance instead of intelligence.
360
"...this anti-science cretin chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology should say all anyone needs to know about the ownership of the Republican Party."
I don't think so. Sure, large donations by the fossils make it easier, but at the end of the day they still have to answer to the voters. Many, if not a majority of their constituents don't believe in evolution either, but there is no anti-evolution industry. You can't blame money for everything.
Unfortunately, fighting hugely rich corporations is easier than fighting a religious mind-set.
I don't think so. Sure, large donations by the fossils make it easier, but at the end of the day they still have to answer to the voters. Many, if not a majority of their constituents don't believe in evolution either, but there is no anti-evolution industry. You can't blame money for everything.
Unfortunately, fighting hugely rich corporations is easier than fighting a religious mind-set.
2
Of course, there's Ben Carson who is promoted and claims to be -a medical man, a kind of scientist. He, of course, is an anti-reason, anti-scientific crazy who is part of the problem in the USA and elsewhere. CRAZINESS and out of all whack with consensus (to scientific) reality, lack of accountability, magical, corrupt, psychopathic and delusional thinking (which is often self-serving to narcissists and politicials). Ditto the blatant immorality of these deniers of Life and life-giving systems that will not ultimately bend to human egotism. Our and countless other species' survival, never mind quality of life, depends on The People waking up and forcing more science, sense and compassion/humanity/morality into decision-making chambers and the people there.
1
"...let’s end the McCarthy-like assault on science led by the Lamar Smiths of the world." More important, let's end electing McCarthy-like Lamar Smiths.
The attempt to intimidate scientists and research is not just bad for our nation, it is the sign of a despotic mind. While a few Republicans may have objected to Smiths' tactics, the Republican Party has itself demonstrated that it is the force behind climate change denial.
The attempt to intimidate scientists and research is not just bad for our nation, it is the sign of a despotic mind. While a few Republicans may have objected to Smiths' tactics, the Republican Party has itself demonstrated that it is the force behind climate change denial.
262
I anticipate this letter in another twenty years: Dear Grandpa Smith, Why did you stifle all climate change information and withhold funding. We have the same dark, smoky air China used to have before it started cleaning it up. We have to keep your great-grandchildren home from private school a few days a week and drive only on designated days to try and keep their asthma under control. We are luckier than the rest of Texas which doesn't have money for gas masks because the oil has run out and the rest of the world has renewable energy. Something like that. What do these people imagine will happen.
15
Has the Republican party, which freed the slaves, finally come 180 degrees and become the not-see-truth-justice party?
7
Yes!
Any work published in Science magazine undergoes what is likely the most rigorous vetting and peer review anywhere. To suggest that this work needs the oversight of the likes of Lamar Smith to ensure “the quality of the analysis and decision-making” would be laughable in a normal context; here, it is obscene.
102
And why hasn't Representative Lamar Smith subpoenaed Galileo's observations on the moons of Jupiter? He certainly can't permit the heliocentric hoax to continue unchallenged after all these centuries and the Vatican's best efforts (since repudiated)!
36
If NOAA adjustments to raw temperatures in their data sets agreed with other temperature data sets, including satellite data sets, I would agree with the commentary. However the satellite data and even the Met Office data sets are still confirming the temperature plateau over the past 19 years. Also, according to satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year on record. Satellite data is more reliable than NOAA surface data sets because it is consistent and not affected by urban heat sinks.
NOAA adjustments are not new. Raw data shows the 1930's to be the hottest decade on record. It was not until the 1990's that NOAA started adjusting the data that always made the 30's cooler and todays temps. warmer. The most recent adjustment, based on questionable sea surface adjustments, coincidently occured last spring just before Obama began his climate change push.
Enough evidence exists to question NOAA.
NOAA adjustments are not new. Raw data shows the 1930's to be the hottest decade on record. It was not until the 1990's that NOAA started adjusting the data that always made the 30's cooler and todays temps. warmer. The most recent adjustment, based on questionable sea surface adjustments, coincidently occured last spring just before Obama began his climate change push.
Enough evidence exists to question NOAA.
14
Your comments suggest either or both of two things: the first is that your own personal analysis of climate is more accurate or trustworthy than the overwhelming number of scientists that support the idea of human contribution to climate change. The second implication is that there is a conspiracy that "coincidently occured last spring just before Obama began his climate change push." It would be logical to ask who you think such a conspiracy would serve.
6
There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin. Let me just say that you make much of the satellite data. However, NASA has independent analyst and they agree with NOAA's assessment of a warming planet and that man is the main driver.
The 30's was the hottest decade, huh. Did you get that from the 1930's satellite data?
The 30's was the hottest decade, huh. Did you get that from the 1930's satellite data?
5
What utter and complete nonsense. Systematic differences in temperature readings obtained by ships and buoys were corrected for, and new data and greater coverage of the globe were taken into account. The fact that their precious "hiatus" was just an illusion is merely one more fact, on an ever-lengthening list, for the willfully ignorant to continue to deny.
The larger public, thankfully, is beginning to show signs of greater intelligence.
The larger public, thankfully, is beginning to show signs of greater intelligence.
3
Dr. Mann, in all fairness there are a number of things that you really need to acknowledge.
First of all, the pause in global warming was real until temperatures were adjusted by NOAA to show an increase. In fact, the pause still exists when using satellite infrared data instead of flawed earth temperature measurements. These are obviously flawed, they need tweaking by NOAA scientists in order to show an upward trend.
Secondly, how many times have earth temperatures been adjusted? Why are such adjustments necessary? If anything, modern temperature readings from airport monitoring stations should be adjusted downward to account for the heat island effect.
Thirdly, even your colleagues Phil Jones at Hadley CRU and Gavin Schmidt in Colorado earlier acknowledged that the pause in temperature increases was real, which showed honesty on their part. Are you saying now that Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt were wrong?
First of all, the pause in global warming was real until temperatures were adjusted by NOAA to show an increase. In fact, the pause still exists when using satellite infrared data instead of flawed earth temperature measurements. These are obviously flawed, they need tweaking by NOAA scientists in order to show an upward trend.
Secondly, how many times have earth temperatures been adjusted? Why are such adjustments necessary? If anything, modern temperature readings from airport monitoring stations should be adjusted downward to account for the heat island effect.
Thirdly, even your colleagues Phil Jones at Hadley CRU and Gavin Schmidt in Colorado earlier acknowledged that the pause in temperature increases was real, which showed honesty on their part. Are you saying now that Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt were wrong?
10
The purpose of the subpoena is twofold: to encumber the scientific community with the threat of ongoing harassment and to provide special interest lawyers with a landfill's worth of content to comb for any impropriety, exasperated gasp, snarky humor or frustrated venting with which to paint the research as politically motivated. These "smoking guns" will be taken out of context and magnified to provide evidence that truth is in service of the scientists' political agenda as a way of discrediting their research. It's what lawyers do.
204
Not all lawyers.
But all climate deniers do do the same thing.
Over and over and over and over.
But all climate deniers do do the same thing.
Over and over and over and over.
1
I am not convinced that "confidentiality of communications is essential to frank discourse" on matters of what is and is not true, nor am I worried that the scientific community, which, as a matter of policy, only takes fights it knows it can win, can be intimidated by the posturing of a corrupt politician. That said, I would suggest that the science continue to rely on the candor and directness which has made it the most influential demographic in the history of history and just admit that they will not entertain suggestions of co-operation with Representative Smith because he is an ignorant, morally vacuous, crooked little man; and we're busy...
13
Lamar Smith is a politician and a lawyer. He has no scientific background, training or expertise. He is no more qualified to "investigate" climate science than Donald Trump.
225
Lamar Smith is saying what he's being told to say by the vested interests and rich of this country. Just another bought and paid-for, uninformed, loud-mouth republican.
4
So you would rather trust someone who conspired to manipulate and then hide data, and prevent those whose analysis arrived at different conclusions from publishing?
The notion of having any member of our Texas delegation as chair of a committee that has anything whatsoever to do with climate change (Hellooo?!?!? Big Oil?!?!!) is so absurd as to make the head spin. Texas legislators for the most part seem to be rushing headlong into the nineteenth century, although it may be a bit scientifically advanced for them.
300
I don't think 'rushing "headlong"' is quite the proper way of putting it. Methinks they are leading with the opposite end of the horse.
1
The 19th century? We should be so lucky.
They're in a mad dash back to the feudalism of the 12th century.
They're in a mad dash back to the feudalism of the 12th century.
1
Whether Congress has the power to investigate scientific research is not a new question. Investigations of research related to drug approvals are not uncommon and have disclosed considerable fraud. In response, the scientific community has argued that there are numerous mechanisms to investigate such fraud and that Congressional oversight invades privilege. Such a claim could apply to tobacco research, research regarding the effects of oil spills, and research into misuse of federal dollars in connection with university sponsored research. A privilege for communications between scientists could too often be used for the purpose of fraudulent concealment. Bad faith investigations like that of Mr. Smith should be opposed by other means than the ill-advised privilege proposed by the NOAA.
5
The irony of buffoons like Smith denying climate change is how his home state is being baked by global warming. While he may think he is serving the interests of his oil soaked benefactors, his ignorant obstinance only condemns his state and its people to an even hotter hell than they had last year
.
.
252
Indeed, @jdevi.
I live in the Texas Gulf Coast region, and in the future fully anticipate being caught between drought and drowning.
Seriously, the dire consequences are likely to come long after I'm gone, but they still inform our decision-making process today -- we will likely look for a community and home further inland in the next few years in order to not have our assets swallowed up by an expanding Gulf of Mexico.
Why this simple prudence isn't obvious to Lamar Smith, I don't know. Maybe he, like so many other Beltway politicians, can't bring himself to leave the Beltway Bubble to see what the world really looks like.
I live in the Texas Gulf Coast region, and in the future fully anticipate being caught between drought and drowning.
Seriously, the dire consequences are likely to come long after I'm gone, but they still inform our decision-making process today -- we will likely look for a community and home further inland in the next few years in order to not have our assets swallowed up by an expanding Gulf of Mexico.
Why this simple prudence isn't obvious to Lamar Smith, I don't know. Maybe he, like so many other Beltway politicians, can't bring himself to leave the Beltway Bubble to see what the world really looks like.
5
The Texas governor has it under control. Remember when Governor Perry prayed to end the drought back in 2011. Well apparently it worked at least according to Glenn Beck.
http://national.deseretnews.com/article/4794/did-rick-perrys-prayers-end...
Now if we could just get Mr. Perry to pray about all of those gun deaths.
http://national.deseretnews.com/article/4794/did-rick-perrys-prayers-end...
Now if we could just get Mr. Perry to pray about all of those gun deaths.
4
"I live in the Texas Gulf Coast region, and in the future fully anticipate being caught between drought and drowning."
I would think about moving if I were you.
I would think about moving if I were you.
1
Forget Lamar. Just listen to NPRs softball coverage of the Paris climate conference. Where is coverage of alternative views, of native tribe protests, of the Philipene representative famous for crying, at a previous conference. Where is an interview with him, NPR, since he has been disinvited from all subsequent conferences, or an interview with James Hansen, or coverage of the corporate presence at the conference? Even our best news organizations have been corrupted and weakened, no longer asking any questions of the plutocracy, just repeating what they are told to say. Lamar is just one point on a rake that has ripped out our hearts And brains, and turned most of us into thoughtless drones on this issue.
5
If the globe is warming, how is it that NASA just released a photo showing that Antartica is expanding?
1
Maybe you should read and find out:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-recor...
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-recor...
3
The so-called "assault" would quiet considerably when the climate change advocates answer the following critical questions:
1. How will renewables be brought into cost alignment with carbon fuels so that they can serve as substitutes and eventually take out the need for oil, gas, and coal?
2. What will the conversion from carbon fuels cost? When calculating this, please consider every coal-fired electrical plant and oil or gas boiler burning carbon fuels everywhere on the planet? Once calculated at a macro level, pencil out how each family will make that cost transition at a micro level.
3. What level of economic growth will we permit developing regions to achieve, in light of their claim that near-term growth is permissible for them to bring their people to the same standard of living that Americans enjoy.
The climate change movement needs to begin to address all of these questions. It is not enough to talk about Earth in 200 years; we need to put out a strategy of the cost to people right now, and we need to determine how the deferral of present comforts and benefits will affect human beings.
The loudest voices are from affluent citizens contemplating a move from their over-saturated carbon life. That's easy. What is going to be difficult is actually effecting a turn in our dependence to renewables. It will take more than a few rebates. It will take a serious calculus of the investment to bring it about.
Once that is on the table, serious progress will follow.
1. How will renewables be brought into cost alignment with carbon fuels so that they can serve as substitutes and eventually take out the need for oil, gas, and coal?
2. What will the conversion from carbon fuels cost? When calculating this, please consider every coal-fired electrical plant and oil or gas boiler burning carbon fuels everywhere on the planet? Once calculated at a macro level, pencil out how each family will make that cost transition at a micro level.
3. What level of economic growth will we permit developing regions to achieve, in light of their claim that near-term growth is permissible for them to bring their people to the same standard of living that Americans enjoy.
The climate change movement needs to begin to address all of these questions. It is not enough to talk about Earth in 200 years; we need to put out a strategy of the cost to people right now, and we need to determine how the deferral of present comforts and benefits will affect human beings.
The loudest voices are from affluent citizens contemplating a move from their over-saturated carbon life. That's easy. What is going to be difficult is actually effecting a turn in our dependence to renewables. It will take more than a few rebates. It will take a serious calculus of the investment to bring it about.
Once that is on the table, serious progress will follow.
2
It is , simply put, quite shameful to the United States the events of these last few days. The GOP field is a menace to the whole world, given the importance and relevance of the US. The response to President Obama`s speech on Sunday night, mocking him and offering nothing minimally coherent, allowing people on no fly lists to buy weapons of war based on nothing, and now attacking climate scientists as if they were outlaws! My goodness!! America, a country that I have always admired and respected! How can this be the only developed country in the world that goes against the findings of the climate COP gathering in Paris! To me, this is not the country I have always looked for as inspiration for my life. So sad....
32
Our nation has fallen so far behind in maths and sciences that it's no wonder that we have many millions of spoiled babies insisting on driving the largest behemoths ever built by Detroit. Those same people inhabit needlessly huge structures that waste inordinate amounts of electrical current to cool them and combust huge quantities of fossil fuels to heat...and then they have their frequent airplane trips. No, don't try to make these brats examine the shallow useless existences they are so proud to maintain, they'd rather fight to the death than relinquish any of these tokens of energy hyperconsumption. And the 1% who thrive on the dividends won't hear of it...
6
The media really need to do a better job at highlighting the stark differences between the major parties right now where it comes to cognitive engagement with scientific research, especially research that reveals inconvenient facts.
19
Science has been wrong from time to time. It happens. So-called scientists once thought the world was flat.
And, even when science has been right, the policies that have been subsequently followed from new science have been wrong.
So, let's be careful about 2 things:
1) is it possible that disagreeing with "climate science" does not constitute an "assault" as the headline suggests? Is it possible to simply have a discussion about this topic?
2) To the extent that "climate science" is supportive of the notion that global warming is due to human behavior, what are the appropriate policy initiatives? Is it necessary to mount a huge bureaucracy (which will need cars and offices and travel to conferences in Las Vegas and Paris)? Or is something as simple as increasing the tax on gasoline a much better alternative?
There is room for discussion on the topic of "climate science" - of a civilized non-demonizing nature.
Maybe the NY Times could take a second look at its headlines.
And, even when science has been right, the policies that have been subsequently followed from new science have been wrong.
So, let's be careful about 2 things:
1) is it possible that disagreeing with "climate science" does not constitute an "assault" as the headline suggests? Is it possible to simply have a discussion about this topic?
2) To the extent that "climate science" is supportive of the notion that global warming is due to human behavior, what are the appropriate policy initiatives? Is it necessary to mount a huge bureaucracy (which will need cars and offices and travel to conferences in Las Vegas and Paris)? Or is something as simple as increasing the tax on gasoline a much better alternative?
There is room for discussion on the topic of "climate science" - of a civilized non-demonizing nature.
Maybe the NY Times could take a second look at its headlines.
2
I've thought a gas tax hike works in all the right ways except that 'cheap' energy allows. wasteful thinking to carry.on like it doesn't. matter, bravo to the simple fact that a tax confronts a reality square on without useless lies about saving through credits.
2
it was not 'so-called scientists' who called the world flat. It was the populace and religious leaders; it was written in some bibles. The ancient Greeks already thought the world was round, based on their (scientific) observations of the constellations, and their learning was passed down to medieval europe and islam.
4
Good luck getting the GOP behind your "simple alternative." Given the chance, they'd reduce fuel taxes, to increase consumption and boost oil company (a.k.a. political donor) profits.
Their entire approach to the problem is "do nothing", because the only government action they believe in is military action. (Actually, there is one other area where they love maximum government interference: women's reproductive choices.) When they can no longer stay the course on denial, they'll move on to other excuses, some of which we're already hearing (China won't do it, it's too expensive, it would destroy civilization, there's nothing we can do about it, we can just adapt, etc. etc. etc.)
Their entire approach to the problem is "do nothing", because the only government action they believe in is military action. (Actually, there is one other area where they love maximum government interference: women's reproductive choices.) When they can no longer stay the course on denial, they'll move on to other excuses, some of which we're already hearing (China won't do it, it's too expensive, it would destroy civilization, there's nothing we can do about it, we can just adapt, etc. etc. etc.)
3
Fifty years ago, a Texan much more accomplished than Lamar Smith, had this to say:
"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere, on a global scale, through a steady increase in CO2, from the burning of fossil fuels".
President Lyndon Johnson, in,
A Special Message to Congress, 1965.
"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere, on a global scale, through a steady increase in CO2, from the burning of fossil fuels".
President Lyndon Johnson, in,
A Special Message to Congress, 1965.
326
And back when Johnson said it they were blaming it for cooling. Same Culprit, different crime. It's like a prosecutor that can't accept defeat chasing the same accused with charge after charge just to skirt double-jeopardy.
Certainly we should do the sensible things: conserve; reduce our use of carbon based fuels; prevent deforestation; develop solar and wind power.
But consider the global temperature graphs in this article from the Utah Geological Survey http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-wha... (the same graph that's in "Climate History and the Cryosphere" from Earth Labs and numerous other places in the literature http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/cryosphere/4a.html). The data shows that there is a spike in temperature after each ice age dating back at least 650,000 years--similar to what we are experiencing now. Looking back at the data, this temperature spike has sometimes been higher than current temperatures. Indeed, what causes each ice age to end is global warming.
The Milankovitch cycles largely predict temperature changes since the beginning of the Pleistocene Ice Age 1.8 million years ago. These cycles are due to variations in the earth's tilt, variations in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, and the precession of the earth's axis. Shifts in oceanic currents and variations in solar output are also factors. Talks in Paris are worthwhile but will not change this.
We should do the sensible things I mentioned above. But we should also devote our energies to adaptation. That's what we humans and our advanced brains are best at.
But consider the global temperature graphs in this article from the Utah Geological Survey http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-wha... (the same graph that's in "Climate History and the Cryosphere" from Earth Labs and numerous other places in the literature http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/cryosphere/4a.html). The data shows that there is a spike in temperature after each ice age dating back at least 650,000 years--similar to what we are experiencing now. Looking back at the data, this temperature spike has sometimes been higher than current temperatures. Indeed, what causes each ice age to end is global warming.
The Milankovitch cycles largely predict temperature changes since the beginning of the Pleistocene Ice Age 1.8 million years ago. These cycles are due to variations in the earth's tilt, variations in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, and the precession of the earth's axis. Shifts in oceanic currents and variations in solar output are also factors. Talks in Paris are worthwhile but will not change this.
We should do the sensible things I mentioned above. But we should also devote our energies to adaptation. That's what we humans and our advanced brains are best at.
Do you not think the greenhouse effect .i.e. CO2 etc. is unique to the present conditions?
1
one adaptation is to drop dead. If we consider a rise in temperature of 6°, there may not be many alternatives.
3
Prof. Mann has avoided the issue that really concerns Mr.Smith, which is that the data adjustment of the Global Historical Climatology Network, GHCN, which is maintained by NASA, is reputedly carried out by computers. But when long-accepted historical data are revised downwards by exactly 1 degree for five years in a row, then 0.9 degrees for five years in a row, then 0.8 degrees for five years in a row, and so on, then it looks suspiciously like human intervention. The end result is that, in one case I have been studying carefully, the raw data record from 1880 until 2011 shows a clear cooling, whereas the "homogenized" data, dating only from the 1940's shows a strong warming. First question - why was so much of the historical data discarded? Secondly, why was it necessary to adjust data from the 1940's and 1950's so arithmetically.
Moreover, I tend to believe the raw data, because the statistical properties (mean and standard deviation) of the various months of the year are identical for the two periods 1880-1939 and 1940-2011, which is not a test that the latest dataset passes.
We all need confidence in the estimates of global temperatures. Right now, it seems the limited satellite data are to be preferred to the bodged GHCN.
Moreover, I tend to believe the raw data, because the statistical properties (mean and standard deviation) of the various months of the year are identical for the two periods 1880-1939 and 1940-2011, which is not a test that the latest dataset passes.
We all need confidence in the estimates of global temperatures. Right now, it seems the limited satellite data are to be preferred to the bodged GHCN.
3
"I tend to believe the raw data"
It is nice that you have beliefs.
And the "raw data record" that you are studying, is it a 2 dimensional gridded dataset? Because that would be the raw dataset. How have you dealt with the discontinuities that are inevitable in data that comes from tens of thousands of individual instruments over the course of 130 years? How have you dealt with changes in the time of day that temperatures have been recorded? How have you dealt with the changes in technology of temperature measurements? How have you dealt with the year to year, decade to decade, dropout of stations and addition of new stations that change the pattern of geographical locations? How have you dealt with the varying techniques of measurement that have changed over the course of the 130 years? How have you dealt with the varying techniques that result from geographical and environmental differences, the most obvious being land vs ocean measurements? How have you dealt with the irregularities in spacial coverage that biases raw data towards temperatures in particular areas? How have you dealt with the heat island effect that the denier crowd insisted biased the raw data? How have you dealt with spatial and temporal auto-correlation?
Beyond the highschool basics of mean and variance, what is your expertise in statistical techniques?
It is nice that you have beliefs.
And the "raw data record" that you are studying, is it a 2 dimensional gridded dataset? Because that would be the raw dataset. How have you dealt with the discontinuities that are inevitable in data that comes from tens of thousands of individual instruments over the course of 130 years? How have you dealt with changes in the time of day that temperatures have been recorded? How have you dealt with the changes in technology of temperature measurements? How have you dealt with the year to year, decade to decade, dropout of stations and addition of new stations that change the pattern of geographical locations? How have you dealt with the varying techniques of measurement that have changed over the course of the 130 years? How have you dealt with the varying techniques that result from geographical and environmental differences, the most obvious being land vs ocean measurements? How have you dealt with the irregularities in spacial coverage that biases raw data towards temperatures in particular areas? How have you dealt with the heat island effect that the denier crowd insisted biased the raw data? How have you dealt with spatial and temporal auto-correlation?
Beyond the highschool basics of mean and variance, what is your expertise in statistical techniques?
12
Your academic, statistical minutiae does not explain the sea water now coming up through the storm drains in Miami Beach at high tide.
1
"most of the planet seems to have awakened to the reality that the Earth is warming and that we’re responsible"
Too little, too late.
As this acknowledges, "the Earth is warming." It is not helpful to talk as if we can prevent warming. Too late for that.
Now the subject must be, "What are we going to do about warming?"
Yes, we can try to limit it. But we know the best we could possibly limit it is not really good enough to avoid serious trouble.
There are going to be refugees. There is going to be a global shift in agricultural growing areas, including right here at home. There will be storms like we've rarely seen before, Katrina over and over again, as it just was in New Jersey. Coastlines will change, including our own, not just the Marshall Islands, and it will be heavily populated and very expensive real estate that changes.
So what are we going to do about it? They are not talking about that in Paris. They are pretending this can be prevented. For prevention they are offering only some half-hearted concessions nobody quite thinks will be honored.
The subject is vitally important. The "solutions" discussed are farce.
Too little, too late.
As this acknowledges, "the Earth is warming." It is not helpful to talk as if we can prevent warming. Too late for that.
Now the subject must be, "What are we going to do about warming?"
Yes, we can try to limit it. But we know the best we could possibly limit it is not really good enough to avoid serious trouble.
There are going to be refugees. There is going to be a global shift in agricultural growing areas, including right here at home. There will be storms like we've rarely seen before, Katrina over and over again, as it just was in New Jersey. Coastlines will change, including our own, not just the Marshall Islands, and it will be heavily populated and very expensive real estate that changes.
So what are we going to do about it? They are not talking about that in Paris. They are pretending this can be prevented. For prevention they are offering only some half-hearted concessions nobody quite thinks will be honored.
The subject is vitally important. The "solutions" discussed are farce.
54
How many of the 99.9% of scientists supporting AGW agree with you?
The 99% fallacy has been widely and repeatedly debunked. Anyone who continues to use it is simply relaying propaganda to the detriment of their argument.
Canute the Great comes to mind every time a politician denies climate change.
25
Dear CP Hinton-- my understanding is that King Knut, or Canute, combined King of England and Denmark, more than 1000 years ago was demonstrating to his courtiers that he did not have the power to command the tides. If that interpretation is correct, the ancient ruler was more sophisticated and intellectually savvy than today's intellectual know- nothing, Lamar Smith. Good job Texas.
6
The number of influential people who dispute the basic elements of climate science are few – Lamar Smith and others have an agenda they’ve chosen to advance with this fiction because it’s handy. But most Republicans like me might question the imminence of predicted doom but don’t question the basic facts.
Earth’s biosphere is warming, and human activity, to a lesser or greater extent, is contributing to that reality. Regardless of causes, if we don’t do something about it, the climatic conditions under which we live will grow significantly more severe.
The lead we shouldn’t bury is what to do about it, and at what pace. Ours is a global biosphere, and unless ALL the nations of Earth contribute substantially to reducing carbon emissions, efforts by only developed nations BEYOND the VERY substantial and costly efforts we ALREADY take won’t save us; yet, dramatically enhanced efforts taken solely by us WILL damage economies and affect our own prosperity. The developing world will represent upwards of 70% of those emissions in just a few years, and they clearly don’t want to participate unless the developed world pays for it, because otherwise their economic growth will stall from higher costs. And it could take many years to convince the West to pay for the entirety of the effort, if ever.
We should be dedicating AT LEAST as much effort in figuring out how to live with climate change as we dedicate to what may be pyrrhic efforts to get the entire world to fight it.
Earth’s biosphere is warming, and human activity, to a lesser or greater extent, is contributing to that reality. Regardless of causes, if we don’t do something about it, the climatic conditions under which we live will grow significantly more severe.
The lead we shouldn’t bury is what to do about it, and at what pace. Ours is a global biosphere, and unless ALL the nations of Earth contribute substantially to reducing carbon emissions, efforts by only developed nations BEYOND the VERY substantial and costly efforts we ALREADY take won’t save us; yet, dramatically enhanced efforts taken solely by us WILL damage economies and affect our own prosperity. The developing world will represent upwards of 70% of those emissions in just a few years, and they clearly don’t want to participate unless the developed world pays for it, because otherwise their economic growth will stall from higher costs. And it could take many years to convince the West to pay for the entirety of the effort, if ever.
We should be dedicating AT LEAST as much effort in figuring out how to live with climate change as we dedicate to what may be pyrrhic efforts to get the entire world to fight it.
19
"We should be dedicating AT LEAST as much effort in figuring out how to live with climate change as we dedicate to what may be pyrrhic efforts to get the entire world to fight it."
Just to be clear: if the rest of the world isn't readily acting on it, we should figure out how to live with it, and continue as we are? So if everyone doesn't act, then we shouldn't. Unlike Lamar, you acknowledge the problem, but you dismiss it as inconvenient to your way of life. Interesting how your belief system exempts you from the consequences the rest of the world will endure.
Just to be clear: if the rest of the world isn't readily acting on it, we should figure out how to live with it, and continue as we are? So if everyone doesn't act, then we shouldn't. Unlike Lamar, you acknowledge the problem, but you dismiss it as inconvenient to your way of life. Interesting how your belief system exempts you from the consequences the rest of the world will endure.
9
Have you ever taken a look at the planet Venus?
1
Mr. Luettgen -- do you want to come down yo NC and advise the Republican Controlled State Government that maybe in setting coastal development, it is unwise to keep ignoring the risk of rising seas.
9
Lamar Smith, climate change denier,
Acts like by Big Oil he's for hire,
And if not, without fail,
Something's gone off the rail,
In his judgment faith does not inspire.
All Repub would-be-nominees,
Likewise simply make one's blood freeze,
As Big Oil kowtowers
Disaster endowers,
The Planet's greatest enemies.
Acts like by Big Oil he's for hire,
And if not, without fail,
Something's gone off the rail,
In his judgment faith does not inspire.
All Repub would-be-nominees,
Likewise simply make one's blood freeze,
As Big Oil kowtowers
Disaster endowers,
The Planet's greatest enemies.
62
LYSENKOISM is roughly the agricultural equivalent of climate change denial. Except that Lysenko, Soviet minister of agriculture, had some scientific training. Another similarity is present: Lysenko denied the universally accepted Mendelian theory of the relationship between genes and the inherited traits. Too bad, Mr. Smith from Texas is barking up the wrong DNA. Oops--little slip there. Fortunately, Mr. Smith does not hold the power of life and death over scientists who will not capitulate to his peculiarly Texan version of global climate change. After all, not all scientists are convinced that the best way to study climate change is using the subpoena power of a member of Congress, who seems to be owned lock, stock and barrel by the petroleum industry. The oil guys may, indeed, be able to afford their own studies they misrepresent as being scientific, but they cannot silence the process of peer review where fellow scientists whose services are not bought on the basis of the dictates of business people without scientific credentials, whose motivation is clearly to maximize their profits and assure uninterrupted or even expanded use of fossil fuels, despite all the evidence that burning them is the primary cause of global climate change. The writer of the article cites various well-respected scientists who properly refuse to violate their professional training and ethics to meet the demands of a scientifically ignorant member of Congress. Global warming McCarthyism!
122
Not only is "Our nation better than that", the entire world and the place of human and other beings in it depend on clear leadership on this issue from every country. We are counting on you, team U.S.A. !
49
Lamar Smith and Joe Barton--both of Texas. As a scientist and a citizen, I'm appalled at the seeming unplumbed depths these people will risk--the Union's risk, not theirs.
What can I do? I live in NYC, where our representatives and senators know better than to revert to the age of Galileo or of Giordano Bruno. If Administrator Sullivan needs someone to hold her place in jail, or to play Texas hold 'em with her there, I'll gladly volunteer.
What can I do? I live in NYC, where our representatives and senators know better than to revert to the age of Galileo or of Giordano Bruno. If Administrator Sullivan needs someone to hold her place in jail, or to play Texas hold 'em with her there, I'll gladly volunteer.
67
This type of which hunt and suppression of scientific data is more than embarrassment for the level of ignirance in this country. Because it is so deliberate, it reminds me more of the Vatican crackdown on Galileo centuries ago, when his research collided with a religious view of the universe.
I am glad at the very least that Republicans joined with Democrats in trying to reign Smith in. But more importantly, the very fact that a politician – a low information one at that – has so much power is deeply disturbing. One can only imagine the damage that could be done if representative Smith had his way with the allocation of funding for future scientific studies.
Politics – which is just another term for commercial interests – should never be mixed with science. I hope more articles like about Smith and others like him get published here so the public can be stay on top of what is going on with their tax dollars.
If I lived in Texas I would be outraged that this intellectual hijacking my money to suppress knowledge for the benefit of his political donors in the oil and gas industry.
I am glad at the very least that Republicans joined with Democrats in trying to reign Smith in. But more importantly, the very fact that a politician – a low information one at that – has so much power is deeply disturbing. One can only imagine the damage that could be done if representative Smith had his way with the allocation of funding for future scientific studies.
Politics – which is just another term for commercial interests – should never be mixed with science. I hope more articles like about Smith and others like him get published here so the public can be stay on top of what is going on with their tax dollars.
If I lived in Texas I would be outraged that this intellectual hijacking my money to suppress knowledge for the benefit of his political donors in the oil and gas industry.
164
I left out the most important word in my post! I meant to say I would be outraged that this intellectual "thug" was hijacking my tax dollars.
81
I do live in Texas and am more than just outraged. I am embarrassed that Lamar Smith represents my state.
The Founding Fathers would be so depressed to see how Congress is currently functioning.
The Founding Fathers would be so depressed to see how Congress is currently functioning.
21
Anyone who believes "politics is just another term for commercial interests" has capitulated to the climate deniers and become part of the problem, whining instead of working to get it right. Our political process isn't very pretty but it's worked for a couple of centuries and is the way to get things done. That process includes being loudly vocal to let leaders -- yes, they're politicians -- know that this (correctly labeled) McCarthyism won't be tolerated.
4
I love the idea of congressmen with a third grade understanding of science serving as a scientific grant review committee. But in order to be truly peer review, this committee needs to be restricted to applications from elementary school students.
292
That is an insult to elementary school students and the third grade science curriculum.
6
It would be interesting to,see who his campaign contributors are?
117
He got 96K from the oil companies.
8
That's easy enough to look into.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2016&cid=N0...
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2016&cid=N0...
5
The Oil & Gas Industry has donated over $630k to his career, as per opensecrets.org
3
There is no war on climate science; there is questioning of the conclusions of emotionally invested people.