On Tuesday, the New York Times (2/9/10) was front-paging a non-story about criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change– hyping accusations about scientific misconduct and conflicts of interest that the paper itself called “half-truths” (FAIR Blog, 2/9/10).
Well, it turns out that there was quite a bit of snow on the East Coast this week, which seeminglyinspired another awful piece (2/11/10), this one headlined “Climate-Change Debate Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze.” The whole premise of the piece is based on complaints from right-wing climate change deniers–Sen. James M. Inhofe, assorted “global-warming critics,” Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and the Virginia Republican party.
Not to worry, though; they’re anti-science hysteria is “balanced” by a few comments from actual scientists. But at one point reporter John Broder counterposes “most climate scientists” who argue that severe storms could be linkedto climate change with “some independent climate experts” who don’t see the link. Why such scientists are “independent” isn’t clear; nor is it actually clear who the so-called independents are anyway, since that argument was substantiated with this:
As an illustration of their point of view, the family of Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, a leading climate skeptic in Congress, built a six-foot-tall igloo on Capitol Hill and put a cardboard sign on top that read “Al Gore’s New Home.”
James Inhofe is no way a climate expert–unless you count the number of times he is cited in the corporate media talking about climate change.
For more on corporate media’s misreporting of global warming, see Extra!‘s “Special Issue on Journalism and Climate Change” (2/10).
This might be enlightening:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/12/climate_scientist_record_setting_mid_atlantic
I guess you could call Inhofe and ilk “snow jobbers”?
I laugh when I see the term “climate change deniers” in almost all articles supporting the man made global warming theory.
The truth is, no one is denying that the climate changes. The climate changes all of the time, hence the reason that we all watch the weather man or woman to find out what the climate will change to the next day. The climate has always changed, is always changing, and will always change wether we like it or not.
Not only does the climate change, if you look at a few million years of earths history you will see that there have been periods of extreme cold (ice age), extreme hot (the medieval warming period), extreme flooding, and extreme loss of life (extinct dinosaurs), all of which happened long before humans were here.
In addition, it is a scientific fact that other planets in our solar system have also been warming recently such as Mars and Venus. But wait, there are no humans or SUV’s on planet Venus or Mars, so I guess human carbon dioxide is not to blame for the warming on Venus or Mars.
Is there climate change? I think all sides agree that the answer is yes indeed. I think the real debate is more about if climate change is caused by human carbon dioxide. I think it is clear that the previous extreme warm and cold periods on earth before humans were here, were not caused by human carbon dioxide and it is also common sense that human carbon dioxide is not causing the warming on Venus or Mars. Maybe the real cause of warming on earth and the other planets is something much larger and more powerful such as the sun.
The problem is that the science is NOT settled, contrary to Al Gore who is not a scientist but a politician who’s family made much of their wealth from oil, and he is a business man who has recently made his first billion dollars from pushing the “man made” global warming theory. These factors damage his credibility in my eyes. In addition, the head the of IPCC, Pachauri is also not a climate scientist but a train engineer and is currently being asked to step down because of his choice to publish the totally unscientific claim that the Himalayan glaciers would all melt by 2035. On top of this, the leaked IPCC emails show possible scientific fraud and is being investigated in Europe. Couple these credibility problems with the fact that Al Gore is being sued by a group of thousands of meteorologists (real climate experts) for making fraudulent scientific claims and the fact that over 31,000 American scientists (including 9,000 PHD’s) have signed a petition (http://www.petitionproject.org/) agreeing that they have not seen credible scientific evidence that human released carbon dioxide is or will cause catastrophic global warming. The science is not settled because there is no agreement on the cause of climate change.
There is also a possibility that increased carbon dioxide levels may be beneficial for the planet since plants need carbon dioxide to grow. Many green houses pump extra carbon dioxide into them in order to increase plant growth. If you starve the plants of carbon dioxide, you will also starve humans of food, since humans eat plants.
I think everyone on all sides also agrees that man is polluting the earth and not living in harmony with nature, and that we must change the way we are living, but it is not conclusive that carbon dioxide from man is the cause of climate change, so any government policy based on that scientifically unproven premise may have serious flaws. We must do something to protect our earth and our environment but I believe there are many better solutions out there than taxing carbon dioxide (which is basically like taxing human breathing, since we all exhale carbon dioxide) and allowing the biggest polluters on the planet to buy carbon credits giving them the right to pollute the earth even more.
My husband has been in the heating industry for 30 plus years and has noticed a marked change in degree days calculations from 30 years ago. Any one who doesn’t notice the warming trend is keeping his head buried in the sand. As a person from south central Massachusetts who has been gardening for 25 years, I have noticed a change in environment. Where my gardening region once bordered on zone 4, we now border on zone 6, which is significantly warmer. Plants that would never survive winter 25 years ago, coast through the warmer winters that we have seen in this region. In childhood days, late 60’s and 70’s, we commonly saw winter temps. below 0 degrees. This has become a rarity. While the winters of my childhood were snow laden, now we get very little snow and much more ice, which indicates a warming trend as well. We have had a dramatic rise in Lyme disease due to the prolific increase of deer ticks. Many insects are moving further north. There is a proliferation of new insects that were not able to survive the climate of this area in the past. Migratory birds, which were in abundance a few years ago, like cardinals and snow buntings, are rarely seen today in my area. I had roses blooming in my garden in December along with daisies. This was unheard of years ago. And although I am not a scientist and have no background in science other than the rudimentary teachings of grade school, it is very easy to notice the warming trend if you have the least connection to the earth and mother nature. And whether this is a naturally occurring cycle or man made, one can’t help but realize that deforestation and the dumping of enormous amounts of carbon dioxide must be contributing to in the least, or actually causing, this warming trend.
And in response to “Accept Truth” climate change is NOT weather. This is where many people are confused. Climate change follows trends of data over decades of time to see if there are established patterns indicating either a cooling or a warming cycle. Weather is not the same thing. You can always have aberrations in weather from day to day, hence tracking record highs and lows. These deviations, however, are not indicative by themselves of climate change as a weather aberration is not an established climate pattern but only an oddity.
Please delete Green Girl’s comment, the purpose of which is to direct traffic to a medication sales website.
In Response to “Sharon”, I do agree that the more common use of the term climate refers to weather changes over longer periods of time (e.g. decades, centuries, etc.), but climate change IS weather change. Wikipedia states that “Climate is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period of time.” but it also adds “Climate also includes statistics other than the average, such as the magnitudes of day-to-day or year-to-year variations.” The important point that I think we can agree upon is that the weather has always changed, and will always change and that longer term weather patterns, commonly called climate, has always changed even before humans were here on earth, and will always change in the future regardless of wether we are here or not.
Climate change is an inevitable force of nature and we could not stop nature, even if we were dumb enough to pay trillions of dollars in carbon taxes to politicians (who have been known to lie) and bankers (who have been known to be greedy), because they claim that paying these huge new carbon taxes will save us from climate change.
My personal opinion from the science I have reviewed as well as common sense is that the huge glowing ball of fire in the sky called the sun that makes my skin turn brown, makes it warmer during the day, and makes it warmer in the summer might be a much more powerful force causing climate change. The only problem with this theory is that if the sun causes global warming then politicians can not use that as an excuse to make you pay more taxes and regulate everything you do, and bankers can’t sell you carbon credits. If they can convince you that carbon dioxide that you exhale everyday is the problem, then they can guilt you into paying carbon taxes.
We humans don’t need to feel guilty about producing carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide should not be confused with pollution. Trees and other plants NEED carbon dioxide to live. Plants and humans have a symbiotic relationship. We give plants carbon dioxide which they need and plants give us back oxygen which we need. If you look at the relationship even deeper, plants are food for humans, and humans eventually pass away and become food for plants. “Sharon” mentioned the “dumping of enormous amounts of carbon dioxide”. I am sure that if a plants could talk they might thank us for this life giving carbon dioxide just as we should thank plants for dumping of enormous amounts of oxygen.
Also bear in mind that there are many scientists who have studies earth’s carbon dioxide levels for the past few million years who have come to the conclusion that we are currently carbon dioxide starved. In the past we have had much higher carbon dioxide levels, as much as a thousand times higher as in the Jurassic period, and that we have had higher carbon dioxide levels even during past ice ages. An interesting discussion on the benefits of carbon dioxide can be found at http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001938.html.
Accept Truth –
You can believe whatever you want to, but that does not make it true. You say that you “believe” that the sun is the cause of our recent climate change, but a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation shows that this cannot be the case. Total solar irradiance, which is how intense the sun is, has increased between 0.05% and 0.1% since the Maunder Minimum (300 years ago). We are looking at temperature increases of maybe one degree C, which is 0.37%, in 150 years (half the time). So, maybe the sun has caused a 0.12 degree change in temperature, but it cannot be the only factor (even if you take the Earth to be a blackbody, you’re still off by a factor of two).
You also claim that carbon dioxide is good for the planet, and I don’t doubt that it has its benefits. But the question is whether or not CO2 is causing the measured temperature change. Now you can see with your own eyes that CO2 traps heat better than air – fill a small basin with CO2 and measure the equilibrium temperature under a bright lamp. The question still remains whether or not the magnitude is great enough to cause the changes we see, and you could use the same model to rigorously figure that out.
I find it sufficient, however, to believe the work of those people who understand the physics and math behind it all, until they demonstrate that they aren’t being rigorous enough. And none of the “scandals” that have broken recently have had any real substance to them. I still have yet to hear a good explanation for why CO2 is not the cause of global warming, because I’ve heard quite a few good ones explaining why it is.
Also, 9000 people with non-climate science PhDs are not much better than 9000 of your average citizens when we’re talking about climate science.
Roy Harper-
I will respond to your comment with your exact quote which was “You say that you “believe” that the sun is the cause of our recent climate change”, when in fact my actual words were “My personal opinion from the science I have reviewed as well as common sense is that the huge glowing ball of fire in the sky called the sun that makes my skin turn brown, makes it warmer during the day, and makes it warmer in the summer might be a much more powerful force causing climate change.” These are two different statements entirely.
The truth is I “believe” there are many factors affecting our climate, not just one. Although, it is my personal opinion that the sun “might be a much more powerful factor causing climate change” than CO2. We live on a spinning globe, in a spinning solar system, in a spinning universe moving rapidly through space and encountering an infinite number of unknown influences that may affect our climate. This being the case, it may be unwise for anyone, to assume that there is one cause of climate change.
In my previous post I mentioned that during the ice age the earth’s carbon dioxide levels were higher than they are now. If CO2 were THE cause of global warming then it stands to reason that the earth should not have been in an ice age. Obviously there are other factors such as the sun or numerous other unknown factors that affect the earth’s climate, possibly much more than carbon dioxide.
You also said that “9000 people with non-climate science PhDs are not much better than 9000 of your average citizens when we’re talking about climate science.” The over 31,000 that signed the petition rejecting the theory that global warming is man made at at http://www.petitionproject.org/ are ALL scientists, of which 9,000 of those scientists have PHD’s. I have not reviewed every name on the list but the probability is extremely high that several of those 31,000+ American scientists and several of those 9,000+ PHD scientists are climate scientists.
It seems that this conversation has gotten sadly sidetracked into who claimed to have said what. If “Truth” is willing to concede to the existence of global warming, let’s talk about how we might mitigate the effects of that warming. Maybe it’s the the sun’s fault (most recent) maybe it’s flatulence from cows (2009 version) maybe it’s just a cyclical thing (2008 version) but the truth is we might be able to change that effect with our behavior, regardless of initial cause. Unless “Truth”s point is that nothing we do can affect the Earth and its atmosphere, he should be focusing all of his efforts on how to leave his – and my – children a better world that we have now.
Let’s cut our carbon emissions because we can. And, while we are at it, let’s stop piling up crap in landfills and live more responsibly. Because we can. To do otherwise, or to imply that we have no responsibility to act in the face of clearly imminent danger to populations around the globe, is the height of hubris. That led Icarus to fly to close to the sun, the undisputed source of all wax warming.
Hi Question Authority –
I am willing to concede to the existence of global warming, as many areas of the globe have been showing signs of warming. I am also willing to concede to the existence of global cooling since Charlotte, North Carolina where I live, has just had it’s coldest february in 75 years. Again, the climate changes and will always change.
Since we are all connected to each other (and really just one), the actions of everyone of us affects everyone else and may even have an effect on the climate, although the significance of our contribution to climate change, which has happened for millions of years, is obviously debated by many.
I do agree that we can and must live a lot more responsibly, not because our actions may warm or cool the globe which will probably happen with or without our input, but because our actions have been damaging our environment in even more important ways. Rather than focusing on carbon dioxide which is not pollution but a gas necessary for life on this planet (plant life, and therefore also human life) why don’t we focus on other more important dangers.
There are many things we need to do differently. We can stop polluting our ground and drinking water with all types of synthetic cancer and other disease causing chemicals. We can stop polluting our air with real poisons (of which carbon dioxide is not one of them). We can stop cutting down so many trees (deforestation as mentioned above) which is having many damaging effects on our air quality and soil. We can stop “piling up crap in landfills”. We can stop manufacturing toxic products (such as mercury filled fluorescent bulbs) which will inevitably wind up polluting our environment. We can stop using so many pesticides and switch to organic farming methods. We can stop recklessly introducing GMO’s (Monsanto, etc.) without sufficient testing of the dangers to our environment and our health. Our governments can stop the entrenched powerful oil complex from suppressing new clean energy technologies. We can stop our military from damaging the health of it’s own soldiers, and polluting other countries with depleted uranium munitions. Yes, we can live more responsibly. I am willing to do my part.
There are many bright people in our world with solutions to all of these REAL environmental problems and more. Carbon dioxide is not the problem. None of the solutions to these problems requires the payment of huge new “carbon taxes” to politicians or bankers.
Rapidly increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases – water vapor and carbon dioxide, as well as methane and nitrous oxide – in the atmosphere is a REAL problem.
Carbon is essential for life on Earth. We are carbon-based life forms. However, too much carbon is absorbed into the oceans, making them acidic, and harming life in the oceans, bleaching coral reefs. Plants also soak up the carbon in the atmosphere, however, thanks to development and agriculture, more forests are being ploughed under so the excess carbon isn’t be turned into oxygen – the carbon is staying in the atmosphere and trapping heat.
Greenhouse gases are also essential for life on Earth, but we’re increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels, LOTS and LOTS of stored carbon which has accumulated over millions of years during the Carboniferous period, in a short burst – 200 or so years since the Industrial Revolution, and the rate has been increasing because human populations have exploded and more people have been living energy-intensive lifestyles – more electricity, cars, everything fueled by carbon, which is burned and gas is released into the atmosphere. Carbon is one greenhouse gas, methane is another – which is a product of agriculture and lifestock raising, and water vapor which increases in a feedback loop as global temperatures increase and water evaporates.
The point is not that these things aren’t natural – but the rate of production is a result of human dominance of the global ecosystem is unprecedented and is happening faster than the rest of the ecosystem can adjust for easily. For all of human civilization the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 275 parts per million (over the last 650,000 years the concentration has varied from a 180 ppm low to 275 ppm high, correlated with glacial periods-low, and interglacials-high) (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac_majorghg.html) and now it’s 390 parts per million and going up. Predictions for temperature increases by 2100 range from 2.5 to 10 degrees F. It’s been a lot warmer in the past, i.e. 100 million years ago, when the poles were 36-72 degrees F warmer and the equator a few degrees warmer, but never when humans were around, and world was obviously MUCH different then. In our recent history, during the little ice age and medieval warm period, the global temperature varied by less than 2 degrees F. We, and every other species, are adapted to a low-temperature, low-greenhouse gas environment.
“Global Warming” is a term for the overall phenomenon on a global scale – which affects regions in various ways. “Climate Change” is a term that describes the effects on regions – which is not uniform or completely predictable – some regions expect flooding from rising sea levels, some regions expect hotter & drier temperatures, some, like northern Europe, actually may see cooler temperatures because of a disruption of the ocean conveyor belt.
Of course climate change happens naturally over the course of Earth’s history. But these shifts happen over geologic time – millions of years. Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been around for about 75,000 years. Agriculture has been around about 12,000 years. Cities began about 5,000 years ago. What we’re putting in place by polluting the atmosphere with excess carbon will last another 10,000 + years, and its long-term effects may outlast us as a species – not because the planet hasn’t seen higher temperatures or higher atmospheric carbon, but because a) We are changing the climate at a rate associated with catastrophes that have caused mass extinctions in the past, and b) we are changing the climate in conjunction with eliminating biodiversity in other ways – when we aren’t hunting species to extinction outright, we’re replacing diverse ecosystems with monocultures and contaminating watersheds, – stripping ecosystems of their adaptive capacity. (“Polluting” is a term the refers to an excess of a natural compound or element that throws the system off balance, not only the addition of manmade ones). It will take millions of years for evolution to replace the species that are already dying out because of human activity that actively or passively eliminates habitats of most species that we haven’t genetically altered to serve us as food. 20-30% of species facing extinction is the IPCC estimate if the temperature increases by 4.5 degrees F and 40-70% if temperatures increase over 6.3 degrees F.
In the meantime our descendants will have to cope with a world of diminished biodiversity and increased pests and disease, more extreme weather events and less potable water from diminishing mountain icepacks and desertification – combined with greater population (unless/until there’s a human population collapse). With a less hospitable environment inevitably comes more human conflict over scarcer resources and misery. Our inaction and extravagance will leave them with a poorer world.
Preventing or reversing climate change and neutralizing its effects is foremost among the many environmental problems we have to deal with.
Thanks watermia, Both humans and plants need clean air, water, and earth. Plants don’t make decisions about where to dump their toxic wastes on humans. We care less about what comes out of our tail pipe than the cost of fuel or the time it takes to get to our destination.
Hi Watermia-
I share your concern about the environment but you post is filled with many gloom and doom predictions based on multiple unproven assumptions. Predictions are not facts. Y2K came and went without all of the gloom and doom predicted as have countless other predictions of gloom in the past.
You say “We are changing the climate”. That is an unproven assumption. Other planets in our solar system like Venus and Mars are experiencing global climate change just as we are, and humans do not drive SUV’s on Venus or Mars to my knowledge. Do Martians drive SUV’s? I already pointed out that over 31,000 American scientists at http://www.petitionproject.org/ have reviewed the science and come to the conclusion that climate change is most likely not man made.
You say or carbon dioxide “over the last 650,000 years the concentration has varied from a 180 ppm low to 275 ppm high. In earth history this a blink of the eye. A more accurate picture is seen by looking at millions of years of earth climate and atmosphere history. Many scientists who have reviewed this history agree that the earth is actually starved for carbon dioxide at the current time. Carbon dioxide levels in the past have been as much as 1000 times higher than they are now, and during the ice age (global cooling) carbon dioxide levels were actually twice as high as they are now.
You say “too much carbon is absorbed into the oceans, making them acidic, and harming life in the oceans”. This too is an unproven assumption. When the dinosaurs were on earth the carbon dioxide levels were five times higher than they are now and yet there was abundant life on land and in the oceans.
You mention “desertification” and a “less hospitable environment” as concerns of yours. How can you be sure that an increase in global temperatures in the range you say is predicted, an increase in carbon dioxide, and an increase in water vapor won’t result in the earth becoming a global paradise with lush plant growth? More water vapor moisture and carbon dioxide might turn our desserts into lush tropical jungles, and increase agricultural yields providing more food worldwide. Trees and plants thrive in higher levels of carbon dioxide and water vapor, which is why they pump extra carbon dioxide into many greenhouses. I myself would not mind the majority of the world being more like Hawaii.
You say that “We, and every other species, are adapted to a low-temperature, low-greenhouse gas environment.” I agree, but we and other species can and will adapt when the climate changes because the climate will change wether we want it to change or not. Climate change is a powerful force of Nature.
You say we have to deal with “Preventing or reversing climate change”. To think that we humans can prevent or reverse nature from changing it’s climate is the utlimate in arrogance and insanity. The climate has always changed, even before we were here, and will always change on this planet and on all planets in our solar system and everywhere else in the universe.
Yes, we can and must stop polluting our planet but, even if we are dumb enough to be conned into paying pay trillions in new carbon taxes by politicians (when carbon may not be the real problem), WE WILL NEVER PREVENT OR REVERSE CLIMATE CHANGE.
The petition project is at best invalid. One of the signatures was from Parry Mason. I could have signed it myself and made myself a PHD.
Even if a percentage of the signatures are from practical jokers or from man made global warming theory supporters wanting to discredit the petition, that does not invalidate the entire petition project. There are still tens of thousands of scientists who agree that man is not the cause of climate change.
An atmosphere with a thousand times the current level of carbon dioxide would not be breathable by humans–nor, I suspect, by most animal life. In the last 250 million years, the greatest concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was three times current levels. This was a time when large areas of the North American continent were under water.
See http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/full/ngeo.2007.29.html .
I did take a look at the link. According to the graph at this link http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html during the Jurassic period (Dinosaurs) less than 200 million years ago the Carbon dioxide level topped out around 2,500 ppm which is more than 5 times the current (March 2009 Wikipedia) level of 387 ppm.
I think you are referring to my previous statement that carbon dioxide levels may have been as much as 1000 times higher in the past that they are now. I was just restating the words of a paleo geologist who said it. I have not studied it personally and I was not hear 2 billion years ago so I can not prove it, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.
Here is a link to an article from NASA in 2003 that stated “(CO2) levels in the Earth’s early atmosphere must have been 10 times to as much as 10,000 times today’s level”.http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=23728
You are probably right that it was not breathable by us, but this would have been long before humans were on the planet. The point I was making is that current carbon dioxide levels (even with human SUV’s and electricity) are now lower than they have been in the past.
CO2 levels are not the highest they have ever been, but they are the highest they have been since well before humans existed, since before many of the species alive now existed. And they are rising 10 times faster than ANY known time in the past. In the past, when greenhouse gas levels rose too much too quickly, it caused mass extinctions. One time only a single land mammal survived, and if that one species had not made it, we would not be here now, and neither would all the other land mammals. So the question is, do you want something like that to happen again, in the near future, if we can prevent it?
Whether global warming is caused by humans or not, it can be extremely disastrous if it goes too far. If we have the ability to reverse global warming before it goes out of control, we must do so, or risk the future of our own species and many others. There is no doubt that humans are releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases, no doubt that those gases warm the planet, and no doubt that if we reduced or stopped our emissions, at the very least the planet would not warm as quickly as it is warming now. No reputable scientist refutes these things, and the vast majority of specialists in the field would go much further, saying that humans are the main cause of the recent warming trend.
I trust the vast majority of climate scientists much more than the deniers. There is no comparison in the quality of their work. If people who doubt climate science held the deniers to the same standards they hold the climate scientists, they would quickly change their minds. Unfortunately, even newspapers such as the NYT refuse to treat them equally, printing garbage from the deniers and giving it as much weight as the science. It’s a pity they won’t put up the money to hire someone who can tell the difference between real science and pseudo-science, because it ends up confusing their readers.
Can you please point to a specific time or event when carbon dioxide levels rising too quickly was the cause of mass extinction?
I know change is scary but why so much fear and gloom and doom? Change is inevitable and change is sometimes for the better. Change is not always catastrophic.
The Earth has always gone through periods of cooling followed by cyclical periods of warming. According to this article ( http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/ ) the earth is on the brink of the ice age, and science shows that during the last ice age carbon dioxide levels were twice as high as they are now. If CO2 was twice as high during the last ice age then there may NOT a direct correlation between global warming and CO2 levels, and other factors may influence global climate. In fact I am confident that every climate scientist will tell you that greenhouse gas levels are not the only thing that influence global temperature.
And what about this article ( http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming.htm ) that sais the recent global warming and increase in CO2 levels was caused by CFC’s damaging the ozone layer. It looks pretty compelling. Even climate scientists don’t agree on the cause of warming. Which climate scientist is right?
Climate scientists are not all knowing and they do not walk on water. Climate scientists are only human, they make mistakes just like everyone else. Climate scientists use computers not crystal balls. Ever heard the term, garbage in-garbage out. They can only make educated guesses based on the current level of our technology and science.
Enough with the gloom and doom.
A meta-comment… it seems clear that most of the posts on climate change come from people who have a name, while “Accept Truth” has no persona. Interestingly, in addition to absolute anonymity, “Accept Truth” seems to have the time to play devil’s advocate to every informed posting. It begins to look like “Accept Truth” acts like a funded response specialist as in the political game, where the trick is to have a come-back at every turn until there’s only one voice in the air. And the “yes, but” tactic is another classic of the genre, so that it looks like a conversation without contention, even while the counter-battery barrage continues… Am I the only one who finds this false dialogue creepy?