The April 25 op-ed titled, “Global warming: An appeal to basic fairness,” is factually incorrect and misleading. The article is a bad argument for the fossil fuel industry, as to say don’t worry about climate change, pollution is good for you.

Contrary to the writer’s opinions, climate science is not “a young science.” The Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (1031-1095) observed climate change by studying fossilized bamboo. Edmund Halley mapped trade winds in 1686 and Ben Franklin was the first to map the gulf stream.

The author stated the “earth has not warmed at all for the last 15 years” but he doesn’t site any source to back up his claim. According to NASA scientists, “2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long term trend of rising global temperatures.” Excluding 1998, “the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.”

The author takes what James Hansen of NASA said out of context. Hansen said the “pace of warming appears to have slowed somewhat, describing a temporary standstill, (scientificamerican.com).” However, Hansen attributed the cooling to La Niña and noted that each past several decades has been hotter than the last and warming should pick up again.” On the decadal time scale, it’s going to get warmer because we know the planet is out of energy balance” Hansen said.  

The author recommends climatedepot.com for a single source on climate change which was created by CFACT, (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow). Similar to the Cooler Heads Coalition and the National Consumer Coalition, CFACT has received $582,000 dollars from ExxonMobil since 1998, (exxonsecrets.org). Also mentioned in the article is the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute which also refutes the dangers of second hand smoke, is a member of the corporate bill mill, ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), which receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from billionaires like the Koch brothers, (sourcewatch.org).The author’s point of view is less a climate science dissenter’s than a playbook for the fossil fuel industry.

He concludes by appealing to fairness of a balanced approach by listening to both sides of the climate change argument, like both sides are equally numbered, credible and objective — but they are not. All national and international science agencies from the National Academy of Science to the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Pentagon, the World Health Organization, the United Nations to a huge majority of climatologists, all say that the earth is warming, climate change is real and is caused mostly by humans.

So who do you believe: the reputable scientists that actually study climate or, preyed off scientists, weathermen, graduate students in unrelated fields, fraudulent surveys and public relation firms that are hired by the fossil fuel industry?

Even if runaway global warming and climate change aren’t caused by anthropogenic CO2, it is illogical and irrational to argue that continuing to pollute our atmosphere is a good thing, especially since there are renewable energy alternatives that don’t get nearly the subsidies and tax breaks that fossil fuel gets.

It’s not even a question of the environment at this point. It’s a question of the future for our children and in the worst case scenario, the survival of our species. We can’t stop human caused climate change because it’s already started.

The devastating effects of climate change that will cause unprecedented suffering will only increase, unless people take the issue seriously, take a risk assessment, put a price on carbon by implementing a cap and trade program, divest in fossil fuel, invest in renewable energy, rid our media and government of invested interests that control them.

An important question is, when is the point of no return and have we passed it? Can we curb human desire fed by unbalanced free market capitalism that always wants more of a finite resource base that externalizes costs to the environment and condenses the wealth in the ever decreasing hands of the few at the expense of every living thing on earth?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Post a comment

renewable guy
renewable guy

I couldn't agree more with the writer in this article. CO2 is a green house gas that humans are adding in large proportions never before seen in earth's history. It takes a great deal of effort to break that momentum and go in a new direction. The author has stated correctly that renewable energy is the investment to make.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-power-the-world

There is a way to completely go 100% renewable energy. This is the path to complete energy independence and security. Better employment and a cleaner environment. This is a win, win, win.[smile]

Xion
Xion

Everyone agrees the earth has warmed a degree in the last hundred years. However, it is doubtful that this will cause "unprecedented suffering". The earth has been much warmer in the past and it didn't cause "unprecedented suffering".

The resistance is to the hyper-alarmism declared in your last paragraph, namely the hatred of free market capitalism. This exposes the alarmist agenda for what it is, i.e. not really about the environment at all, but about creating a socialist green economy.

idontknowfosure
idontknowfosure

no comments???????

averageguy
averageguy

The earth hasn't warmed in over 15 years. Here you go - straight from the horse's mouth.

http://ktwop.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5-draft-models-vs-observations.png

lightheart
lightheart

A counterpoint:

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

concerned citizen
concerned citizen

Xion, of course the Earth has been through climate change, thousands upon thousands of times, and its been considerably hotter than it is now. But what you fail to grasp is that humans and our civilization came into being quite recently, and under very specific environmental and climatic conditions. Change those conditions too much by sending excessive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and you can get suffering on a major scale. Try weathering a hurricane in Bangladesh, something that will likely increase as the climate warms, and tell me that isn't suffering on a massive scale.

Just one example: topsoil. Climate change deniers like to claim that warmer climates will create new agricultural zones. The plains of, say, Oklahoma, might become too dry to grow food crops, but new land will become farmable up in Canada. This simplistic view ignores the fact that topsoil, the stuff that crops can grow in, takes thousands of years to form. We can plant tomato seeds on the warm, bare rock of the Canadian Shield, but that doesn't mean those seeds will sprout.

renewable guy
renewable guy


Burt Rutan's comprehensive report on Global Warming science fraud

I have heard the word fraud so many times and yet no evidence of it.

These are unpaid volunteer scientists, some of the best in the world in their fields of expertise coming up with a conservative view of the climate. Conservative enough that the actual climate is moving faster than they said. Yet there are groups of people that just can't come to grips that we have to make a huge change to society.

The science is settled, but enough people are so unsettled by this, that they can't come to grips with REALITY.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

renewable guy
renewable guy

The earth hasn't warmed in over 15 years. Here you go - straight from the horse's mouth.

http://ktwop.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5-draft-models-vs-observations.png
###############

There is warming signal detectable at 14 years and statistically significant at 19 years. Are you willing to bet the farm the earth won't warm more?


14 years there is 6 out of 8 temperature sets showing warming with higher uncertainty. At nineteen years there is 7 out of 8 showing warming at 95% significance or better.
Does this mean the earth won't warm any more from here on out?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
…………………………….1998 to 2012…………………… 1993 to 2012
giss Trend: 0.95 ±1.61 °C/century (2σ)Trend: 1.88 ±1.07°C/century (2σ)
NOAATrend:0.43 ±1.49°C/century(2σ)Trend: 1.45 ±1.02 °C/century (2σ)
hadcrutv3Trend:-.05±1.55°C/century(2σ)Trend:1.32±1.14°C/century(2σ
hadcrutv4Trend:0.83±1.72°C/century(2σ)Trend:1.78±1.11°C/century(2σ
BestlandTrend:1.59±3.84°C/century(2σ)Trend:3.24±2.26°C/century(2σ)
NOAALandTrend:1.24±2.52°C/century(2σ)Trnd:2.86±1.60°C/century(2σ)
rss Trend: -0.41 ±2.73 °C/century (2σ)Trend:1.22 ±1.76 °C/century (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.54 ±2.89 °C/century (2σ)Trend:1.83 ±1.79 °C/century (2σ)

renewable guy
renewable guy

Everyone agrees the earth has warmed a degree in the last hundred years. However, it is doubtful that this will cause "unprecedented suffering". The earth has been much warmer in the past and it didn't cause "unprecedented suffering".

The resistance is to the hyper-alarmism declared in your last paragraph, namely the hatred of free market capitalism. This exposes the alarmist agenda for what it is, i.e. not really about the environment at all, but about creating a socialist green economy.


#######################################

We have warmed .8*C and have .6*C more warming from the present co2 in the atmosphere now. More co2 is just more warming. Anything else is just denial.