Breaking news: Climate change denialism revealed

Confidential internal documents from the far-right "think tank" Heartland Institute have been leaked by an anonymous person going by the handle "Heartland Insider". These documents reveal their plans to sow confusion about climate change, where they get their funding, and how they plan to use it. Perhaps most disturbing is the casual language they use about all this, including one part where they want to engage in "dissuading teachers from teaching science".

Heartland is very cozy with the tobacco industry, and has spent a lot of effort trying to downplay the connection between tobacco and cancer ( Just so you understand the folks you're dealing with here.
Angela Crawford's profile photoMatthias Gattermeier's profile photoHeather Sorensen's profile photoGlobal Consensus's profile photo
But yeah, what gives? All I know is that there are lies produced to make money. Call it swine flu, call it asteroids destroying earth, call it climate change, at the end of the day, they want money. And they get it.

The sad thing (to me) is that I would really like to know the truth.
Kay Hayen
+Gabriel Perren Who is not lying about science these days? There was the money making via swine flu "pandemic", after bird flu was scammed in Europe before. There are teeth doctors who are paid by the sugar industry and have everything on their list of bad things, except one, etc.

There is a whole food industry promising more health and yes, it's only ever worse food.

And what the truth is, I don't know. My problem is, due to these and other liars, I cannot know, because I would be stupid to trust.
+Kay Hayen Science is normally trustworthy at the journal level, but gets badly misrepresented in the popular media. Sensationalism sells. It's difficult to see what we can do about this, but it's important to know where the real problem lies.
I hear they get the majority of their funding from the Tides Foundation!
+Kay Hayen Who is not lying about science these days?

Peer reviewed published scientists. Go to the sources and stop listening to scumbag politicians if you want the non-biased version of things.
Two words. Al Gore. First of all, I am an avowed skeptic. I have read all that he has written and watched his film. There is so much there that is taken out of context, had the data spun, and several outright lies. I think in his environmental fervor, he has shortcutted science. If ever there was a person worthy of scrutiny by the skeptical community, it is he. However, as far as I see, they are curiously quiet. That is a disappointment to me.
LL Pete
+Kay Hayen I know they say that just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes you are just paranoid.
Al Gore? Isn't that like complaining about the Muppets?
+Dave Tansley The "real problem" is something normally under very heavy dispute. Normally the "real problem" is that the society must give money to some subset of it, small or large.

And science has degraded to a tool for that.
+Peter da Silva your statement is a non sequitur.

Al Gore has done a lot to bring attention to climate change. He has also damaged the credibility of honest scientists by his "inaccuracy". Therefore, I believe that his work deserves skeptical scrutiny. That this has not happened in a high profile manner says to me that there is a lot of bias, even among the skeptical community.
+Kay Hayen Are you saying that scientific consensus forms around the largest sources of funding?
I think everyone here is pretty intellectually honest. If you haven't seen this site, it's very good, and presents pretty simple facts about climate change. Please watch the video. It's about 1.5 hours, so if you're not an engineer or math-based science lover, you may need to break it out into 20 minute segments, as it can get dry. But it's really worth looking at if you're interested in the truth and not just reinforcing your first emotional reaction to the topic....
I'm always skeptic of released sensitive information, any delusional person can make stuff up, I'm not denying they aren't out there for our purpose but still
+Steve berto Bertolacci of course I read the article. And I do not take everything it says as gospel. I just cringe every time I hear a "scientist" saying words to the effect that "the science is decided". They make some good points, but I still see a "defense lawyer" attitude of minimizing data that tends to disprove their theory.
Having grown up in a part of the country that suffers cold, long, snowy winters, and compared that to what's been going on in the last decade, I can say, based on nothing more scientific than observation, that our climate is experiencing fluctuation.

Whether or not that indicates actual change, I don't think it matters anymore. No one is really doing anything about it, so we will have to adapt or die. Same game, different day.
Jon Dye
also, the right wing conservative think tank is not responsible for climate change science, so i dunno what the big deal is. no scandal here.
Science is only our "latest best guess". Tomorrow the whole thing could be turned on its head with a single discovery.
I think it's more of a problem that the left thinks climate change is caused by humans.... Obviously the earths temperature always fluctuates, and has been warmer in the past than today. It's nothing new
I hope this will get some momentum if it's true!
This might be a big deal if these guys actually had any influence...
Jon Dye
sorta like how that climategate thing gained momentum? oh wait, that actually mattered and nobody cared.
What if they both turned out to be wrong and a way of grabbing research money? You are assuming that their numbers add ...
Brad D
Remember the rule....if someone's argument doesn't agree with you, you must immediately label them, discard their arguments without any consideration, and then label them as ignorant and dangerous. It is textbook behavior of both the far right and far left. This is a textbook example.
I have to say, I read this a lot - about how research scientists manipulate and obfuscate data to secure the most funding money, and I find it amusing more than anything. I can only presume that people who say this haven't actually met any real scientists?

I mean hell, if they were in anywhere near as calculating and materialistic as is made out, they'd at least buy some new clothes! ;)
Jon Dye
"real scientists"

what does that mean? you don't have to meet a scientist to go over their theories. hell, the scientific community operates on the very same principle. do you think most of the world's scientists have ever met? do you think most of them even speak the same language?
Brad D
As an academic myself who has witnessed manipulation and obfuscation for the purpose of funding, I can assure you that it does happen, Dave. The pressure to publish and get attention overrides just about everything.
I'm not getting into this. I'm not. Because I hate ignorance and/or blatant topic avoidance/topic skewing tactics.
Almost as bad as the global-warming/climate-change/what's-it-called-this-week folks faking data... almost. :-)
GTFO off of my Google feed. Someone doesn't believe the man made portion but wants to sort out the climate? You idiots go on the attack. Get the hell away from me you insane fark.
+Ciaran Coghlan The hole in the ozone layer is still there, just ask the southern hemisphere. The greenhouse effect is still there as well as global warming, just ask the relentless rise in average temperatures and places like Bejing sliding closer and closer to the definition of a desert climate.

Loved the article, by the way. The notion that Earth has a temperature ceiling is particularly amusing, given the fossil record points to far, far more upside possible.
I don't get why people seem to think that, if a scientist gets paid, CLEARLY that means their results are invalid. Only volunteer scientists can be trusted! It's a huge conspiracy that scientists keep coming up with bad results but all quietly agree on it so as to keep the research grants coming, because otherwise, no one would pay for science to happen somehow for some reason! All those greedy billionaire scientists...

Yet when the oil companies and related industries say that climate change doesn't exists, the fact that they're some of the richest industries in the world doesn't factor into it. A high level, senior climate scientist can't be trusted because he or she makes $200,000 a year for doing their job (after spending 5-10 years and tens of thousands, maybe a hundred thousand dollars getting a PhD, then another 10 years getting paid average wages working toward tenure, then finally securing a high paying job at a university or research firm), but oil industries that bring in hundreds of billions of dollars a year and are heavily subsidized by various governments and couldn't survive if everyone took climate change seriously can be trusted when they and their scientists say "climate change is a hoax by money grubbing scientists."

Sure, makes sense to me.
If only we could give these deniers their own planet, and make them live on it....
All one has to do, apparently, is use the word "climate" and the stupid just explodes. See above.
+Brad D Could not agree more. This is hardly breaking news. Opinions have been polarised for years. Unfortunately for most debates that become politicised -it is difficult for the truth or for those with independent viewpoints to be heard above the political noise
+Brad D That's a shame. I never saw any of that myself, but I have no doubt that some shady shenanigans happen. Scientists are just humans after all. But the kind of large scale, cross discipline, conspiratorial manipulation often speculated on just seems laughably implausible.
Heartland, yet another Koch Brothers funded organization.
Speaking for myself, I am tired of hearing about it. Having Al Gore, a lying politician at the core of the issue of Global Warming, now called Climate Change... is not warming my heart. There has been changes all along and there will be changes coming... it will never stop. Also, if you look at how much money and resources Humans have dedicated to stop erosion of our beaches, perhaps it can give you an idea of just how nuts we are. I am just happy the "Ice Age" has come and went.
I have a successful, intelligent friend who is adamant that climate change is a conspiracy amongst scientists, he uses the same kind of language to defend his views that religionists do - which says a lot.
Brad D
Sometimes the laughably implausible is more frequent than we realize, but we don't notice it because we are convinced that it is laughably implausible. Even then, I don't know if it is conspiratorial manipulation as much as it is go where the money is, tow the line, and be one of the cool kids. In other words, good old-fashioned peer pressure! :-)
Because the people supporting climate change aren't doing the same damn thing. It's all bogus man, the topic needs to just go away.
Scary stuff, "dissuading teachers from teaching science". Nothing good can come of that.
Spent time applied science (R&D) field in the 60's putting the first man on the moon. Major steps going from postulation to theory then to fact. Global warming may have gone from being a postulate to theory, but it certainly has not been proven to be scientific fact. Since enough evidence has been gained for it to be a theory, we should err on the side of caution to do as little harm as practicable, but not so far as to destroy our way of life.
Scientists are and must remain skeptical in order to effectively find real truth before stating scientific fact. "The science" as a term means only research results to date. Politicians, media, and most bloggers using the term have no idea regarding the scientific process. Science teachers should present all angles to students or they become nothing more than opinionists.
The whole point of peer reviewed study is that it eventually disproves or strengthens hypotheses, and it doesn't MATTER who funds what, really, because unless one interest group is doing ALL of the funding, it'll work balance out sooner or later.

You cannot simply say "this research is invalid because of who funded it." It can be reason to question the findings, but you can't question the science based on funding; you can only question it based on science.

If the "cookie industry" came out with a study finding cookies are really good for you, you can't say "OH HEY THE COOKIE INDUSTRY FUNDED IT, IT'S NOT TRUE." But you can look at decades of research showing cookies are bad for you and compare it to this study, or do you own study where you attempt to replicate the results.

The fact that scientists get paid to do research doesn't invalidate decades of building evidence. Especially when extremely diverse sources have funded research.

Even though a LOT of the research that questions climate change is funded by industries that produce the most climate change impact (according to those who "claim" climate change is a real thing), that doesn't automatically invalidate their findings either.

Summary: god a lot of people are stupid.
in my opinion most people are just looking for a reason to justify what they are already doing.
I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here but, the scientific consensus is that the the fact that the climate is changing, that it is getting warmer, is real and measurable. It's worthwhile to note that most scientists quoted as being opposed to climate change are not climate scientists or even meteorologists, but are commenting outside of their field of expertise. But, if you don't trust the scientists and their data, perhaps you will gain insight from another institution that has been meticulously taking independent climate measurements for over a century: the US Navy. They have come to the conclusion that climate change (warming) is real and something that must be prepared for strategically. Here is their 2010 climate change roadmap. The reduction of arctic ice for example increases North America's risk of a naval attack from the north. Another government agency to pay attention to is NASA - most people think of the space program, but it is the National Atmospheric and Space Administration. Here is a link to an animated map of measured surface temperatures between 1937 and 2011:, draw your own conclusions.
Hey i think that we should all come to gether and swim for a couple of hours
I must say, the amount of intelligence shown by both parties that are debating on this is astounding, especially considering that it's actually on the internet.

From what I've read so far (Only the first 18 or so arguementative comments) the debate seems to over the legitimicy of the studies done on climate change as of late. I'd just like to say, while science is still regarded as mostly truth, it is, like everything else, vunerable to influence brought on by money or bribes. A company can be persuaded to report something that it didn't find to be truth with the right amount of monetary insentive.

On a person note, I live in central New York, where usually our winters are harsh and we get pounded with serious snow storms twice before Christmas. This year was rather different. We had several light dustings of snow that faded quickly before Christmas. We've had one serious snow storm at this point in the year, and it's been reaching nearly 40 degrees everyday. It's almost unheard of this time of year for those tempratures to be found anywhere in New York, much less central.

As I said, I haven't really read the rest of the comments so I'm not sure if the focus of the discussion changed, but this is just my two-cents as to the start of the debate, based on what I read. And no, I have not yet read the articles but I intend to once I get home, seeing as how right now I'm on a school computer.
Brad D
Amen...and a lot of people who should know better have no clue how the scientific method works at all. It is beyond irritating and undermines legitimate discussion.
Fortunately we have leftist ideologues to translate it for us.
Argument by anecdote, I know, but I know number of climate physicists (used to be an astrophysicist myself) and we've discussed this. If anything there is a hunger on their part to prove the negative, because that's where the interesting result would be.
Jon Dye
+Buck Bradley , religion is what people have instead of evidence. I appreciate your sentiment (and agree, even), but good luck getting that through to the hard-headed.
Brad D
@ Buck...thank you for demonstrating what a straw man argument is. This has nothing to do with religion at all. It has to do with science and discussing its findings and implications. The only religious conviction stated here is yours...i.e. calling those who question scientific findings "flat-earthers." Way to avoid a discussion and just label those who question your own views. Dogmatism at its finest, and a perfect example of what we have been discussing in this thread. The only jig that is up here is that what you have posted is any kind of argument at all.
If individuals want to throw their money down the Climate Change rabbit hole they should be free to do so. The problem occurs when people who believe in this want to throw other people's money down the rabbit hole as well.
+Aviana Knochel Yes, if we stick our fingers in our ears, and shout "LALALALALALALA" loud enough, all the world's problems will go away by themselves.
if global warming was a reality, i say bring it on, its fucking cold outside, and i like the idea of oceanfront property in central virginia
Wow. I see the AGW nutballs are out in force today. I guess this is what happens to the folks who copied the nerd's answers in high school science class.
nothing biased about that news source... :(
if you are a snowboarder and follow winter weather patterns, you know climate change is real. The sad part is if they repeat their lie enough, people will eventually believe it.
the same meteorologists who cant tell us for sure if it will rain on tuesday are telling us the ice caps will melt in ten years. hahahahahahahahahahahahah.
+Darby Powell Please just click on your "What's hot" stream, and in the upper right corner set "never show up in my stream". And please, don't troll and offense people. He is godless? Yeah, he's a scientist. Hello!
Jon Dye
Gore wouldn't have to lie to the public if it was 100% accurate
+Delray Twait Your assumption that the meteorologists working at news stations are the best the field has to offer.... also there is a difference in fields, methods, etc between those who predict weather patterns and those who follow changes over extended periods of time and temperature is different from precipitation.... Just saying. ... it makes me laugh far harder than your hahahahahahahahahahahahah.
I think it is fascinating how some posts bubble up to the "Hot" list. I must have seen a dozen posts on my stream about this topic since yesterday, none of which have gotten all this buzz.
i have a theory about our changing seasonal weather patterns, (its not climate change) i think a year is wrong or has been made wrong by man its not actually 365 and a 1/4 days long :-/ just a thought, it would explain a few of the weather patterns we now see like later summers and winters.
who cares.
oh environment blah blah, blah blah more environment - we're all going to die one day. JUST KEEP THE GREEN NOTES COMING!
Points all well taken. As far as there not being scientific evidence of Global Warming and wanting to distract people from the very real consequences of it, by making the great debate about the cause of it, a political one, it seems to me that the general public who has any scientific education has come to that epiphany that this is happening as I described it. Nevertheless, for those who haven't the education to understand it for themselves yet, we should remember they are many who are still out there who need to be properly informed that these hard facts exist and that EVERYTHING is not relative because anyone can voice their opinion.

IMHO the bigger danger is this Post Modernistic Relativity and the bastardization of changing everything in a revisionist way that comes with it, that is rampant in our modern society. Black becomes white, and even the definition of words are being changed in a revisionist manner to suit a political aim rather than one that is focus on discovering some agreement of truth. Don't take my word for it pick up a 20+ year old dictionary and see if what I claim is accurate.

As far as the evidence that Global Warming is happening we have very real measurements of temperature by reliable and accurate instrumentation to do that:
The proof is in the photos of the earth. There isn't as much ice as there was period. We can ignore the hell out of the fact that Europe is having one of the coldest winters on record for a reason.
I usually look forward to seeing intelligent discussion in the comments on +Philip Plait 's posts. Now I see what happens when he makes the What's Hot feed.
Can an entire organization be eligible for the Darwin award? If so, the "Heartland Institute" would certainly get my vote.
The USDA updated the planting zones chart this year, and for the first time in 20 years, many areas have gone up at least one zone. So many of these areas are at least 5 degrees warmer on average over the course of a year. If you don't see that as accelerated climate change, you have to be blind.
But we'll choose to ignore the leaked emails from East Anglia University that show the data for climate change studies themselves were faked, cherry-picked and just made up at times.
Gore stood to make millions over the phony science of climate change. He would lie to anyone to cash in on the opportunity. Just another crooked politician. reality is there has been no temperature change in 10 years since the left started crying about warming.
I can not understand why something so obvious like the greenhouse effect can be ignored.
Thankfully, we still have people who think (such as +Ed Gray ) and who aren't just dying to be on the discovering end of some super-conspiracy so that they can be made part of history or some other fantasy.
Of course there is "climate change" ... duh! There was long before humans showed up.... and there will be long after humans are gone. The issue isn't "climate change" ... as with all politics the issue is... "What does the government want to waste our money on, this time?"

THAT is the issue.
I like how the blog poster contends that this is a big deal and that the Climategate e-mails were not. Belief in Climate Change doesn't even require any scientific evidence these days not that is has become a full-fledged religion.
+Robert Elliot The first part of that has been largely done - see the last 20 years of published literature, it's mostly all open for you to follow yourself and there's a number of good layman's guide to it.

The second part is the tricky part, because science can't really help you with policy and spending, and this is where things start to fall down. If the outcome of the science is that it will cost money to solve, then this is going to inevitably impact people in the short term, and it's difficult to convince people of the long term benefit. So you get resistance to the scientific findings, and a tendency for politicians to capitalise on this for their own gain (on both sides).

All we can do is keep pointing to the science, and hope that it eventually gets through. The stakes are high.
+Philip Plait you should know you made it as "Hot on Google+" :)

Thanks for the article!!! (I won't have time to read the comments on the post though).
+Michael Miller Proof of that claim?... the part about no change in 10 years... not the other part... I'm not here to discuss politics
Is it global warming or climate change? They changed it from warming when we went into a cooling cycle and now it's climate change huh..

Global warming or climate change "snicker" is nothing more than a scandal to get stupid people to give away their money and it's worked. Ask Al Gore, he's gotten stinkin rich off of you dummies! Plus he don't practice what he preaches. His giant house uses 20 time more energy than an average person uses. More of the do what I say not what I do huh?

What happened millions of years ago during the ice age? No Cars, planes, trains, coil fire plants ect..Must have been the Dino poop....

Wake up people and pull your heads out of your asses wipe the shit from your eyes and think for yourselves!!!
"Just so you understand the folks you're dealing with here"? Yeah, this is going to help the reader objectively analyse the situation. What about the people who wrote the article? What kind of people are they? The kind who makes a living from sensationalized news maybe? What kind of person are you, maybe somebody with no deep understanding of either climate change or politics but who likes to have and spread an opinion anyway? What kind of person am I... maybe somebody who is looking for a good rant to take a break from their work and is slowly realizing that ... meh, have a nice day stranger :)
Cute, +Ed Gray. They used to claim global cooling thirty years ago. The story keeps changing. And we keep forgetting about the emails where the 'scientists' admit that they're cooking the books. You ever start to really wonder why if you go against the orthodoxy, you're declared anti-science? Why all the 'treaties' designed to help 'climate change' target the first world, who are moving away from pollutants, while the third continues to dump crap into the oceans and rivers with almost no consequence. Hold everyone to the insane standard, or hold no one.
-That is all.
+Darwin Smith You are against science because you take as evidence the rumors of a few actions of some climate scientists instead of looking at the facts.
its a hoax. its still cold in winter and hot in summer, +- 5 degrees.
If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. The kings of denialism (sic) and making up evidence to support a bogus cause, point the finger at those who are skeptical. Nice piece. :-|
I love how a post pointing to an article that exposes a politically-motivated think tank's deceptive practices designed to foment distrust of science and anti-intellectualism immediately turns into a bunch of people professing blanket distrust of science and anti-intellectualism.

People who actually believe this whole "global warming is a scam by 'Big Green' to make money while tanking the economy" are just profoundly stupid. Period. That's a Dr. Evil kind of plan, not a real-life one.

The REAL scam is being perpetrated by the energy sector (and other interested industries) who pay these think tanks to convince the public that science is untrustworthy and scientists are a bunch of money-grubbing assholes, so they can continue to make obscene profits at the expense of our global ecology.
A recent study, funded in part by Koch and Gates foundations, and conducted by Dr. Muller, generally considered a skeptic, confirmed what other studies have found, that our average temperatures are increasing. Our corporations and governments know this - and are preparing for it - with flood control and other warming-related projects. Watch what they do, not what they say - they understand the situation better than they let on.
Even if we accept everything the Eco-socialists (i.e., proponents of global warming or "climate change") tell us about the "scientific" data (you know, the data they have in no way screwed around with an a biased, political, and wholly unscientific way) - even if we accept ALL of that, there really isn't much we can do to stop global warming without sending ourselves back to the 18th century. What the eco-socialists need is A Common Sense Approach to Addressing Climate Change.
The fact that you started with "Eco-socialists" tells me the rest of your screed isn't worth reading. Come back when you can talk like an adult.
Everything is politically motivated these days, It all depends on what you think is more right, in this case, I believe global warming is a farce, and if true, probably naturally occuring. theres been ice ages and global warming in the past, what makes this one so special other than the fact we are alive during its time.
I think +Anneliese Kvamme is right in pointing out that "Science is only our 'latest best guess'. Tomorrow the whole thing could be turned on its head with a single discovery." as far as the underlying mechanism of the cause is concern and how we can reverse it. As I share in her optimism in our ability to have some positive impact on it, rather than scummed to some hopeless fatalism because many "scientific types" tend to born with a "realist" temparment. So I think it is important to remember that although there are hard facts we can agree on, the inherit differences in our temperaments and our values might be come more pronounced as this becomes a bigger and bigger issue so that people pull out of context only what pops out at them, and as many are in general denial about many things already, to begin with, having a cohesive message that the facts are static, but the interpretation is dynamic, is one that many people need to hear right now.
+Noel Bagwell Yeah, all those eco-socialists in the Pentagon listing "climate change" as the #1 strategic threat facing the US -- those guys are just crazy. I agree with you that what all hard-headed pragmatic, long-term military planners lack, and need, is "common sense". Eggheads.
Eric Z
This is great stuff - so the heartland institute is just as corrupt as the IPCC - great! Now nobody knows who to believe. Who wins that one?
Here is an excellent article from a German insider of the IPCC - after 10 years of pushing climate hype - he saw the light and has now written a new book denouncing it. The insights are profound. Fact is - every report the IPCC ever produced was a "re-mix" from the greens and other agenda driven politicians. The Scientists were only "quoted" and never asked/allowed to interpret the data. What kind of "science" is that?
The entire global warming / "climate change" debate isn't about the environment. It's about economics. Eco-socialists dominate the agenda on the side of the debate that insists, despite the evidence to the contrary, that global warming is a man-caused phenomenon. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate to talk about eco-socialists. Don't run and hide. Engage on the issues. Cowardice is disgusting.
+Darwin Smith - you make it sound like climate science has not continued those e-mails were written 10 years ago (and btw they were only written by some climate scientsist and only in connection with the UN report on climate science, and then they were to remove their names in order to dispute some of the conclusions being attributed to them, not to say that the science was wrong). Since then progress has continued and it is pretty definite that the principal factor in current for global climactic change is human industrial activity (primarily in the form of CO2 emissions).

As for the treaties, it is true that they are aimed primarily at developed countries. however it is not true that developed countries are moving away from pollutants. Yes emisson controls have become more stringent in some developed countries, but don't let that kid you, Developed countries remain the world's biggest polluters. That said, that role is increasingly being taken up by major "factory countries" primarily china.
It's fine to be a skeptic. It's another to be an idiot. What is an Eco-socialist, anyway? How lame is that?
I love how people dismiss the concept of Global Warming outright. We don't fully understand the earth's climate changes, though data points to human involvement contributing to those changes. Just because you may not see the change happening in front of your eyes, we're just a speck on the long history of this planet. 10/20/30 years of temperature changes does not give the full picture.

Listening to a politician talk about science is like listening to my dog bark about physics. And deciding that one view or another is wrong, when you haven't done the proper research, is just about as dumb.
Please do not bring God, Jesus or religion into arguments attempting to be rooted in science. It's this mixture of faith, religion, political bias and complete and utter rambling bollocks that has made this whole issue a shambles.
+Noel Bagwell It's a challenging problem - that's why we would benefit from getting more minds informed and involved in the solution. We want our energy - and at the same time, we want a clean, safe environment. For the most part, we've done that here in the US quite well. Now that we understand there's a bigger problem with having it all, we need to work on it. It is not beyond us to figure out how to address it. We'd be better off starting now, though. :)
Well, first you have unbiased scientific studies, then biased and unbiased interpretations of the studies by denialists / uneducated / end of the worlders. Those parties digest the information and repeat their interpretation to others and the masses, while corporations who could lose money spread propaganda convincing the masses that it's untrue whether true or not, then the supporters create their own propaganda to coerce the masses into believing it using misinformation. It all just creates a big mess.
With unemployment so high I can see people lining up to be paid internet climate trolls. I doubt this leak will get any play in the media though, it doesn't follow the narratives.
we created capitalism and extremely greedy corporations as long as money is being made this earth does not have a hope in hell , which we are creating by the way
The earth has a FEVER
+Steve berto Bertolacci "At what point does it sound like a bad idea to them?" The corporations who make their money extracting and selling oil, gas and coal will never conclude that continuing to extract and sell oil, gas and coal is a bad idea. It's what they do. And what they do (and what we do with that oil, gas and coal) is what is causing climate change. They will never conclude that changing their behavior (or we changing our behavior) is a good idea anymore than you'll conclude that it's a good idea for you to stop breathing. What they do is their life just as much to them as breathing is to you. And they will fight, sometimes openly and sometimes stealthily, anything that would adversely affect their ability to continue extracting and selling oil, gas and coal.
"Think Tank" is a misnomer. It's actually "Think Like a Tank" i.e. an inanimate object incapable of actual thought. Not that inanimate objects are not perverse mind you, as we all know they are, but they do it out of instinct and not because they think about it. Is there a chance that if we observe their experiments we can affect the outcome, thereby bringing the Institute into the realm of reality? Doubtful - So Sad.............
A big part of the motivation - once we realize we really CAN'T burn all that carbon based fuel the big oil companies have in reserves, the oil stocks are worthless - they'll lose almost all their value over night.
Cut Your Carbon Footprint by 10% Or We Will Kill You

Yeah, totally no eco-socialism, here (see above link). No fascist bigotry towards so-called "deniers," here. Move along, sheeple.

My point is not about whether or not there is global warming or so-called "climate change," nor is it about whether it is man-caused or naturally occurring. My point is that we would have to abandon modern society for generations in order to make even a marginal impact on the temperature of the earth. That is not going to happen, because even if Western nations adopt such a suicidal socio-economic policy, the Eastern powers will not. China, India, and the other emerging economies will not do that to themselves.

So, it's pointless to do all the crap that the federal government, and international governments like the E.U. and U.N. and others are doing under the Kyoto Treaty, et al., etc., are doing. People need to look beyond the "science" of the situation - whatever it may say - and try to see what doing something on a global scale would cost us. The price is too high, and it will not be paid.

Adopting eco-socialism or climate fascism to try to solve the problem (if there is one) of global warming is like selling your car for gas money.
No one seems to realize that our Earth is BILLIONS of years old. We know the climate of the last how many years? Less than 1%? It is a joke when our sample size is severely skewed to even talk about this.... It's like flipping a coin about a billion times and saying OMG we got heads 10 times in a row!
We all knew these bastards were anti-scientific and crocked. Nice to finally have proof. :)
Dave Tansley - Scientific consensus does form around the largest sources of funding. There is a reason for this. Have a look at Actor–network theory which explains why.

Ed Gray - peer-review is the holy grail of science but it has its flaws and has failed too. Look at the peer-reviewed research relating to aluminum causing alzheimer's. It all turned out to be completely wrong. Looking back at the articles published in the all so earnest peer reviewed journals is laughable now that we know the truth. I wonder if the same thing will happen with "Global Warming".
Ever wonder how "Global Warming" changed to "Climate Change" ...??? That alone should tell you what this is all about....
The truth about Global Warming/Cooling is...There is no truth, only point of view.
This coming from USA. :-(
I know the outlook is grim when you crunch the numbers but I am of the mind that with our global populations recent awakening with Occupy and the fact that we cannot "kill" the earth, only make it harder for us and other species to survive, we absolutely have the ability to turn things around if we start believing in ourselves. Part of it is that we cannot be selfish and expect our vision of a perfect world to happen in our life times but if we keep fighting for it, it can and will happen for our future generations.
The question of why climate scientists in particular are subject to such ill informed vitriol is almost as interesting as the question of climate change itself.
+Kathleen Ralph +Scott Wadas Seriously. Going to the library and looking at the peer-reviewed scientific evidence is something the media could stand to do more often.
A shorter +Noel Bagwell: "I'm not saying there's no data -- even though I just posted half a dozen times saying that-- I'm saying it's economics. And even though, economically, India and China are pursuing nuclear and wind power as fast as humanly possible, I'm going to claim, economically, that they aren't. Black, in short, is white, and I just make this shit up as I go along. I'm Noel Bagwell, and I approve this message."
There is money to be made presenting the "balanced" view. You know, balanced where the truth is on one side and the balanced view is on the other. Without a viewpoint to balance the truth, the news media won't run the story.
+Steve Corneliussen I did once wonder about that. Then, I did a little research, and I wrote about what I found.

What “Climate Change” Really Means

“Climate Change” is just a euphemism for “Global Warming.” The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” (The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, March 21, 1994.)

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change also states that the parties to the Convention believe “human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind.” (The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, March 21, 1994.)

So, whatever arguments, scientific data, opinions, beliefs or attitudes apply to “global warming” also apply to “climate change.” Once “global warming” became unpopular, climate change activists (aka global warming activists) understood what Saul Alinsky said about power in his vile treatise, Rules for Radicals,

“We strive to invent sterilized synonyms, cleansed of the opprobrium of the word power, but the new words mean something different, so that they tranquilize us, begin to shepherd our mental processes off the main, conflict-ridden, grimy, and realistic power-paved highway of life. To travel down the sweeter-smelling, peaceful, more socially acceptable, more respectable, indefinite byways, ends in a failure to achieve an honest understanding of the issues that we must come to grips with if we are to do the job.”

Alinsky was describing the necessity for clear, unashamed usage of opprobrious words, despite their infamy. Alinsky also said, “A revolution without a prior reformation would collapse or become a totalitarian tyranny.” Global warming activists understand Alinsky’s rules and philosophy regarding how change should be brought about. They understand that the vast majority of people in the United States and around the world are not ready for the changes that would be required to achieve their goals regarding climate change (more on that, later).

Understanding these things, they have been engaged for decades in a campaign of deception to promote reformation of the current political system, laying the foundation for a social and economic revolution that they hope will bring about the changes required for them to be able to achieve their goals. Once the reformation stage draws to a close, you will see their language shift from “sterilized synonyms” like “climate change” that attempt to lead the unwitting masses down the ” sweeter-smelling, peaceful, more socially acceptable, more respectable, indefinite byways.” Then you will once again hear opprobrious terms like “global warming” which will have been cleansed in the reformation and made to shine in the light of revolution as icons of that heinous shift toward the end of liberty.

In the past, “global warming” and, in the more distant past (the 1970s), “global cooling” were used as the global warming activists made tactical forays testing their side’s strength in the political war they have been covertly waging against capitalism and the republic in the United States. One of the major signs that further reformation is required before the global warming activists can launch their revolution is that they have changed their language, and have stopped using opprobrious terms like “global warming / cooling” in favor of “sterilized synonyms” like “climate change.”

The current “climate change bill” (a sterilized synonym for Cap-and Trade, a regulatory system in which businesses are forced to buy “carbon credits” – imaginary units of permission that have less actual value than Monopoly® money – in order to continue to operate their business; this has the effect of increasing the cost of doing business without providing any compensatory benefit; it remains to be seen whether Cap-and-Trade legislation would amount to a regulatory taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) aims to further test the (unwitting) support of the American people for the climate change activists’ agenda.

But I digress… “Climate change” means “global warming,” and “global warming” really means “man made global warming that you should feel guilty enough about to give up some of your rights in order to save the planet.” Ultimately, as I will show you, there is nothing we can do to save the planet from global climate change without literally ending civilization as we know it.

"A Common Sense Approach to Addressing Climate Change"
It's 43 years after the Moon landing. If climate change is going on why can't these scientists figure out that planned obsolescence is going on in cars and talk about how much unnecessary CO2 comes from unnecessary manufacturing? This Technology+Economics+Climate is all linked together. Can't physicists figure out that the Laws of Physics don't change year to year? So can't they point out how dumb it is to keep redesigning cars because they aren't making good cars in the first place?

And then the economists say nothing about the DEPRECIATION of all of the junk but buying more is Economic Growth. Is this some kind of pseudo-intellectual deadlock or merry-go-round? Is everybody supposed to stay in their own intellectual box and not comment on other areas that affect their own?
+Denise Evans, what great economic gain is there, if human activity is responsible for climate change, to fund research and reveal it? If it's true that we are causing climate change through our human activity, thereby releasing lots and lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, then changing this will require far less consumption by all of us, of almost everything. If we are all consuming less, then industry and our economy will certainly suffer. What industry would engineer this concept of human-caused climate change for big future profit? The makers of CFL lightbulbs? C'mon!

+Harry Pajamas said it best. Scientists working for tenure might have a small economic incentive to do whatever it takes to get research funding, but it does not compare with the economic incentive that the Koch Brothers have to make scrutiny of human causes of climate change go away.
I am truly amazed. This debate is very enlightening. I can't believe the uninformed people. Not worrying about it is fine if you don't have children or know kids you hope have a good future. We are a product of greed & over indulgence. The live for the day & not for the future mentality is horrible.
Now if only this could be shared on Facebook.
+Noel Bagwell, I think you are spouting nonsense. What is an eco-socialist, then? And what do they want?
In any case this debate about climate is secondary to the more urgent problem of fossil energies dependency.
Focussing on climate change is playing the game of Heartland and other petrol lobbyists. While climat change and its potential/actual impact can always raise contraversy (just read this thread), and you can be diverted to debates about how to bury CO2, it is much harder to deny petrol resources get depleted very fast (and therefore more and more costly), other fossil fuels will follow quickly, and we need to replace them asap if we want our economy, our civilization and our cars to keep working in the next 30 years.
I read since 5 or 6 years on the subject and highly recommend it.
+Andrew Zimmerman "Denialism" is a word. Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth.

Citation: Janet Maslin (November 4, 2009). "Michael Specter Fires Bullets of Data at Cozy Antiscience in 'Denialism'". New York Times.

+Aaron Andersen Eco-socialism, green socialism or socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, green politics, ecology and alter-globalization. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transnational structures.

Eco-socialists advocate the dismantling of capitalism and the state, focusing on common ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers and restoration of the commons.

Citation: Kovel, J.; Löwy, M. (2001). An ecosocialist manifesto.
If we really do prevent global warming, can we also then prevent the next ice age? Delicate balance based on +/- few degrees. Stuff just happens. It may be that we can stave them off, but maybe not totally prevent.
+Jack Smith The best response to new scientific findings is to share them and test them. :) The suggested strategy of tossing opinions at reality is a funny strategy - it has no effects on the facts. The only dubious benefit would be to keep more people unaware of the findings. Not quite sure how they manage to mobilize that strategy - or why people would participate (assuming they're not getting paid). What's true is true - the more we learn about our world, the better choices we can make. Choosing to remain ignorant is rarely a wise course. (And yet, this comment thread is, in a way, a great example of precisely the suggested strategy.)
+Steve Corneliussen " Ever wonder how "Global Warming" changed to "Climate Change" ...??? That alone should tell you what this is all about...."

No, I didn't wonder. Too many morons yammering about every time the weather is cold and how it somehow disproves global warming, and the scientists gave up and catered to the morons by calling it climate change. That is what this is about: on one side, scientists. On the other, money from industry, anti-science ideologues, and an army of morons with megaphones.
+Richard Beebe They do actually, it's politicians and lobbyists who don't.

+Robert Elliot It's a bit more complicated than that. The variable and data we're talking about is incredibly vast, complex, and granular. This means there are all sorts of small variations and seasonal changes involved that make it hard to analyze.

It is quite plain to see that the amount of ice on our planet is decreasing in glaciers and snow caps. This means our planet is warming. We also know that the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing to levels greater than any levels we've found historically. Increased CO2 has been linked with warming on our planet in the past. We know that we as people, with our technology, produce a lot of CO2.

Those three things are fact, indisputable. It seems pretty plain to see that we're causing it. The only reason we can't say it's a tested certainty is because we don't have a collection of planets to test different variables on.

On a completely unrelated note, discussions like this make me wish I could +1 a specific part of someone's post or comment. I agree with part of what some people are saying but then take the train a stop too far to crazy town.

I'm jamming a lot of topics in one comment but there's a term out there called 'global weirding' which is used to describe the weird changed due to climate change. This means things like the cold winter in europe and droughts, etc. These are caused by changing weather patterns caused by the fluctuating circumstances on earth. Weather prediction is incredibly hard because so much factors in. Down to the color of the ground and the size of cities has an impact on on how weather behaves so massive changes like warming average temperatures will have crazy result.

Another side note, the weather in europe is actually a curious anomaly to begin with. Due to warm air that flows up from the caribbean, it's usually significantly warmer than anywhere else on the same latitude (lines of measurement around the globe). It's on par with northern US and southern Canada which is significantly colder. They get weather like europe is experiencing now annually.
"Confidential internal documents from the far-right 'think tank' Heartland Institute have been leaked by an anonymous person going by the handle 'Heartland Insider'."

This entire sentence made me laugh IRL.
+Thomas Simpson " If we really do prevent global warming, can we also then prevent the next ice age? " We shouldn't. An ice age would turn the Sahara into fertile farmland. It would be a boon for humanity.
Pure ad hominem bashing a group that is politically unpopular.
what happened to global warming was an ice age and thats where we are headed and there is nothing you can do except to just go with the flow and let it happen ,like we can change things that much ,i dont think so or even the illusion that we can
+Thomas Simpson Good question, but we sure do have good incentive for working on it. :) Earth can handle ice ages, complete warming, all kinds of major events - it will continue around the sun until the sun expands and engulfs us. We, however, care a lot about habitable environments. Some of us even care about a habitable environment for humans for generations and futures we'll never see. :)
Can't wait to see what happens when the denial crew see this article. "OMG NO ITS AN AD HOMINEM LEFTIST STALINIST ATHEIST CONSPIRACY"
+Jamie Sloan You're right. 100 years of data (your claim) would be stupid. Lucky, then, that we have 800,000 years of good data from ice cores, and 420,000 years of really good data.
A lot of the comments here have led me to the sad conclusion that the Heartland Institute's strategy is working even better than I would have thought.
+Jamie Sloan Yes the planet is billions of years old, but we know that climate features can change over the course of centuries. As an analogy, a person may be a hundred years old with a long history of illnesses. That doesn't mean that they are immortal. An illness that's been going on for several weeks should not dismissed because a few weeks are merely a "blink of the eye" in comparison to 100 years of life.
Hmmm.. made-up so they can tax us, I think...
Ugly, cynical, bad for our kids, and bad for our country. Shame on the Heartland Institute.
+Jamie Sloan The short timescale is part of why what we see happening is so worrying. For example, we've seen CO2 levels raise to 390ppm (parts per million) in just a few hundred years, which is far higher than it's been any time in the last 100,000 years. It was down around 200-250ppm for most of this time.

That's not to say that it hasn't been this high before, in fact it's been 20x higher, but previous changes were always gradual or caused by some epic event.

The worry is that we're changing things so fast that there won't be sufficient time for ecosystems (including the human ecosystem) to react quickly enough. And that this will lead to extinctions (in the natural world) and massive upheaval (in society).
I like how little people think that they can change climate, earth was heating up and cooling down long before a man came, and it will long after. Where do you think all the fossil fuel that we burn came from in the first place?
I don't get the denialists. I also don't get the doomsayers.

What's to loose by making the world a cleaner place? I think, when faced with a smoke stack, that everyone would agree it is a bad thing. Why is there a fight about this? Fix the problem, it will take creativity, ingenuity, and investment. It will generate jobs, promote craftsmanship, reduce dependence on non-renewable resources. It will increase awareness of ecology, add to peoples overall comfort and beautify so many communities.

Where is the reason not to?
But also, why are we trying to scare people into becoming greener?
As an anarchist my view is simple. No man is born with a leash or to be lorded over. I am in no need of a leader, I am an adult and can make my own decisions, when I was in school I needed a hall pass. Now I am a man, - like they, you and everyone else, an adult.

I do not believe in global warming, and if indeed it is real, then I say, let the world burn down, as no man is given to be the slave of another. A man who is captive to another's idea is still but a slave.
The biggest threat to science is groupthink. Getting stuck in the same paradigm thinking and being too scared to challenge convention.
+Denise Evans Shouldn't it then be more important to find a way to survive a global warming event or an ice age event, rather than trying to stop what is inevitable?

Also, it's worth noting that Mars is experiencing global warming on a scale never seen before. Man has never been there, and the most we've done is dropped a few rovers on the planet, which all ran on "green" solar power. The obvious conclusion is that global warming happens by itself, not because of us.
Coming from the far right, I'm not surprised at the length's they'll take to lie, subvert, cheat and instill fear. Disgusts me.
I'm pretty astounded by some of the comments on this post about the proof of climate change/global warming actually being real or not!! By any chance are the majority of people being AGW from the USA? Funny that, considering that it's the most technologically advanced country in the world, due to the very thing people are speaking against, SCIENCE. There is NO doubt people, it IS happening and it's rate IS directly related to what we, human beings, are doing to the enviroment. Even if you've never read scientific papers about the subject and have actually travelled around the world, as I have been lucky enough to do, you will find that local people who make their living off the land they live on have noticed a vast difference in the last 10yrs from Australia, Asia, Africa, Europe and yes even in the Americas. This argument isn't about religion or politics it's about scientific peer reviewed papers that all come to the same conclusion about this subject.
It's a shame that people are still bent on denying climate change. I've watched seven year olds do an experiment that proves that carbon dioxide causes global warming. They could explain it to you if you're still not sure how this works.

It's pretty simple: You have an incandescent light bulb shining into two identical containers, with the same amount of black gravel in each (to simulate earth's surface). Put just a little room-temperature water in a flask that can be stoppered. You need a stopper with a short piece of tubing through it. You also need an alka-seltzer tablet (or just plain old sodium bicarbonate). When you put the alka-seltzer in water, it produces carbon dioxide. Set up the flask with the water so it is also the same distance from the light as the two containers. You need a thermometer hanging inside each container, set up so the tip is as far down as possible without touching the black gravel. We have thermometers that clip to the wall of the containers.

The light will produce heat. As the heat enters the "atmosphere" of the two containers, some of it will be absorbed, and some will bounce off. You're going to make carbon dioxide in the flask with the alka-seltzer and direct it into just one of the containers and watch what happens to the temperature.

Remember, the temperature inside the two containers might not start out exactly equal, and the temperature in both will probably be rising because of the light. You want to see if the container into which you direct the carbon dioxide heats up more and faster than the other.

When we do this experiment with kids, we always—barring the very rare times when something interferes, like the water being too cold and bubbling into the container—get a 2-5 degree difference between the container with more carbon dioxide and the container with regular air.
In any case this debate about climate is secondary to the more urgent problem of fossil energies dependency.
Focussing on climate change is playing the game of Heartland and other petrol lobbyists. While climat change and its potential/actual impact can always raise contraversy (just read this thread), and you can be diverted to debates about how to bury CO2, it is much harder to deny petrol resources get depleted very fast (and therefore more and more costly), other fossil fuels will follow quickly, and we need to replace them asap if we want our economy, our civilization and our cars to keep working in the next 30 years.
I read since 5 or 6 years on the subject and highly recommend it.
"I know, it sounds like I’m making that up" You got that right!
Please people, believe the scientists. Not the bloggers, not Forbes, not Lords. The claim that thousands of climate scientists have been turned to The Dark Side is so obviously silly.
Ignore those few loud voices who go on about their credentials, how they 'realized' the science was wrong. It's baloney. The award winning website: calmly answers all those impressive sounding claims made by deniers (like Jack R above*). You can even ask questions yourself if you're curious.

*30 years of data? We have data going back thousands upon thousands of years and we have measurement records going back 130 years.
Don't conflate your own views of and recommendations on climate change with anarchism. It gives anarchism a bad name.
So, +Noel Bagwell, it is easy to conclude that these ecosocialists are somewhat radical, and are very, very, very unlikely to have allies in industry and government, since they think industry and its government enablers are the ultimate problem. So how would they have gained so many friends, so much support, funding, and the ability to corrupt so many scientists? The thing about radicals is that they don't tend to have lots of resources, and they have trouble even getting an audience, much less capturing a whole field of science.

If you call every environmentalist an ecosocialist, that is like equating every supporter of the military with the Michigan Militia. It's like equating European style social safety nets with totalitarian Communism. You might as well just call Al Gore "Hitler" and prove Godwin's Law.
If there was a Ice Age doesn't that mean that the planet has been warming ever since then? How else would we get from an Ice Age to where we are now? It's a good thing those primates began polluting the earth back then or else the earth might still be frozen!
We'll only ever know the truth when the truth is tied to money.
How much carbon and sulfer is released by the thousands of submerged and above ground volcanoes? oh.. how much land covers the earth.. oh how much of that land is habitable by man? how much of THAT land has been industrialized by man... just doesnt make much sense to me i think this would happen naturally either way
Here is my take on the climate change topic. Science has observed that temperatures overall seem to be on the rise. Ok fine. However, the tiny slice of time that this has been observed over is two small to make any big predictions as to where this "climate change" may lead. Accurate and reliable temperatures and coverage has only been consistently measured for about the last hundred years or so. There have been other measurements, such as by Ben Franklin, etc, going back another hundred years, however, they were not as regularly measured, nor providing widespread good coverage.

That being said to generalize that these rises in temperatures are going to lead to disaster at this stage is premature. I am not opposed to monitoring the situation and I think it should be monitored, but not in a doomsday sense. Take a simple graph of the sine function, between say -Pi/4 and Pi/4 or even a smaller region between there, and the function seems to just rise and rise, but if you graph a little more, you'll see that it reaches a peak, then drops back down, and repeats that pattern. We do not yet know whether we are climbing a small hill in climate, or on a bigger slope, or there is also the possibility that the climate has been on the rise since Earth's beginning, with peaks and valleys along the way.

Also the thing the media is notoriously doing is publishing that the result of a study shows that A causes B, when that is not the case. A study or studies can show that there is a link between A and B or that there is a correlation of data from A to B but not that A necessarily causes B. It takes lots and lots of studies to solidify that connection, and even then, a future study or sets of studies can come along that shatters our perception and shows that it was something else entirely that had not been considered yet that plays a factor.
It's a good thing those animals polluted the earth back in the Ice Age otherwise the earth might still be frozen.
Why does this have to be a "right" v. "left" issue? Can we not all agree that as race of humans we ARE doing things that are very bad for our respective environments? Do we really need to make air quality a political issue when asthma rates and cancer rates soar? Once littering was considered acceptable, that doesn't mean we need to allow sensationalized politics take over logical thinking. I'd prefer that a company make slightly less profit to produce products in a safer, cleaner fashion. I will even pay more for it.
It is interesting to me, that this has been done for years by the radical left (especially concerning man's contribution to 'global warming') and anyone who calls them on this is marked ignorant, stupid, or 'unscientific'. Still the media refuses to correct the bunk of Zionistic propagandists like Al Gore. Sure looks a lot like the pot is calling the kettle black from my viewpoint.
+Shane Peiris Climate always changes. Ever heard about Little Ice Age? Go read up on that :) So no, this isn't the point. What's causing this change — now that's an entirely different thing. Because there's a huge mix of reasons, all of them contributing to the effect in a certain proportion. The problem is: figuring out the real mix these days is too damn complicated. We didn't start watching weather around the globe until late 19th century, and crazy people have been (successfully) trying to affect science since 60s or 70s already. All in all, we are in a deep crap, because at some point it comes down to industries, and where money is concerned, science stops.
This is too abstract. It's not bad to make the place cleaner, but it's bad when people make it into a cult and force others into fixing a perceived problem where it doesn't really exist. Those who say will fix the problem only force us to cough out more of our hard earned money and then waste it. In reality it hasn't created a single real job (they count a disel bus driver as a created green job, is it really?), but created a lot of scam and manipulation - that is the only creativity and ingenuity tha this affort created so far. Unnatural idealism of the global warming sect is no different from idealism of fashism or communism. The people who are running this war is a mix of impotent idealists clever scam artists. Other than that reality, it's certantly good to live on a clean planet, in theory. Sure, no one against that.
I like how older less educated people are the #1 deniers of science, and the way school funding is going, this number is going to increase. YOU CANT CUT THE BUDGETS, YOU WILL REGRET THIS!
I find the most difficult part to explain to people is the difference between climate and weather. Look out the window, that is weather. Look through about 100 feet of soil or ice, that is climate. Begin to understand the vocabulary and you MIGHT begin to break through the ignorance. Hopefully.
+Tommy DiGiorgio Sounds implausible right? But this is work that has already been done ( and it turns out that humans emit 135 times as much CO2 as volcanoes. In fact, when you have a particularly heavy year of volcanic activity, you tend to see a dip in the temperature because of all the dust and ash in the atmosphere. We saw this in 1991 after Mount Pinatubo blew, and global temperatures dropped by about half a degree in the northern hemisphere.
I looked at the list of Heartland's donors, and started checking who they are. It's funny, but the Nucor Corporation, which donated $402000 in 2010 to them, has on their site the following message about global warming ( - Concerns about global warming not taken lightly by Nicor.

Yeah, $402000 in donations to anti-global warming propaganda think tank do look like concerns not taken lightly.
idk what it is but it looks sweet!
THe problem is we should stop blaming and start fixing. Lets make changes and not lay blame on anyone or anything. I think that is part of the problem people have with the whole argument/situation. It's also finding out how much we can actually fix. There are how many billion people on the planet. What was the planets population during the last ice age? I am sure there are more living things on Earth today than there were what...15,000 years ago (don't recall when the last Ice Age was) of course we're going to have an impact.

Also in regards to the article. Both extremes have their agendas, one side will make it look worse than it is, the other side will make it seem like there is nothing to see here. I think it's safe to say nearly 100% of all issues the truth lies pretty much exactly in the middle.
+David Barrow Yes, the distribution of ice around the Antarctic is changing, and around the ocean there is an increase. meanwhile, on land, ice cover in Antarctica is decreasing. This kind of cherry picking of single data points here and there is grossly dishonest, and for you to be running around the net echoing it, well, it's moronic, and shows a lot about you.
+Doug Joseph James Keeling, the man in charge of Hawaii's CO2 data collection, is a staunch conservative. Climate scientists are not radical socialists. They are scientists, pure and simple. Turning a scientific question into a political fight like this is called Lysenkoism, and it's no prettier when right wingers do it.
+Aaron Andersen That argument is a form of reductio ad absurdum, and is fallacious. The truth is, the President of the United States supports Cap-and-Trade (an eco-socialist policy) despite the fact that he knows it will cause economic devastation in the U.S. (Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube

Van Jones, the ousted "Green Jobs Czar" from the Obama administration is an infamous Climate Communist, and he was hired by people who are still in the Obama administration, today. (Van Jones: We will Fight to the Death - YouTube

Obama, a former community organizer, knows Saul Alinsky's tactics well (See Rules for Radicals: Alinsky wrote:

“We strive to invent sterilized synonyms, cleansed of the opprobrium of the word power, but the new words mean something different, so that they tranquilize us, begin to shepherd our mental processes off the main, conflict-ridden, grimy, and realistic power-paved highway of life. To travel down the sweeter-smelling, peaceful, more socially acceptable, more respectable, indefinite byways, ends in a failure to achieve an honest understanding of the issues that we must come to grips with if we are to do the job.”

That's what Van Jones is talking about in the video (see above link), when he talks about cloaking the Climate Communist message in the language of patriotism. To assert that because eco-socialism (or climate communism, or eco-fascism, or watermelon socialism, or whatever other label you want to put on it -- Big Government + Anti-capitalism) is too fringe to become politically relevant or to impact public policy in a substantial way is simply naïve (at best) or (more likely) misleading.
Both sides of the argument are wrong, Its global-warm-cooling and my snide argument that lacks any scientific backing is correct.
While the tactics employed for this spin-machine are pretty pathetic I still remain unconvinced that climate change is primarily a man-made issue. It's quite the egotistical stance to take.

Are we so sure of ourselves that we can rule out that the earth doesn't go through these changes naturally on a much larger scale then our collective species can look at?

That being said, it's obvious pollutants and other environmental problems that we're facing do have some impact on our immediate surroundings. I think there's so much garbage being spewed from both sides of this issue that it's particularly hard to get down to the real issues.
Well presented. Only the most biased of individuals would deny what you have laid out here ... I can hear them gearing up the pseudo-facts now ...
An anonymous person going by the handle "Heartland Insider"? Such credibility. That's where I lost interest. Next!
+Michael Seifert, oh, I don't know... perhaps because there was a BLIZZARD?!? Are you one of those simpletons who thinks that 'global warming' is a blanket descriptor for all weather events? It is not. It is merely shorthand for 'global climate destabilization due to processes that correlate to anomalously higher planetary temperature averages, hypothesized to be anthropogenic in cause'.
"[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."
The deny it and it might go away attitude seems to be working for climate change and evolution.
About time these clowns got unmasked.
This comment thread is asinine. To everyone who believes that global warming is a hoax, prove it! And I mean prove it with science -- good science. How about a big group of you guys go to college and get a Phd in climatology, go down to Antarctica or Greenland, drill some ice cores, spend a couple years studying them, and then publish your results in a peer reviewed journal?

If you go through the scientific process and discover evidence contrary to the current theory and have it replicated by someone else, congratulations, you've just proven global warming wrong! I will happily change my opinion on global warming if you can come up with a new theory, backed up with data, that explains ocean and atmosphere increasing, melting glaciers, more extreme weather, etc. Until then, I will continue to trust the 99.999999% of climatologists that say that anthropogenic global warming is real.
First of all, Heartland is a political group, whereas the UEA is one of the leading influences in climate policy. One never tries to hide its bias whereas the other refuses to admit it exists. No one is impartial, and anyone whose career is built around a particular theory being true can ever be called impartial. The million dollar conferences and high-powered UN positions would be gone overnight if human-caused climate change is not real. They might have to go back to hard science.

No one can tell me those folks are unbiased.

Also, the debate here isn't about whether its getting warmer lately. Anyone who knows history knows we're coming out of a cool period. The question is whether we're causing it or whether its natural.....just like every climate shift in the planet's history.

Until that is proven, I'll take my national sovereignty and economic freedom, thank you very much, Mr. Gore.
Eric Z
@thomas sanjurjo
Remember in the late 70's when the Ozone hole was a big issue? Everyone went ape-shit.
BUT - the scientific community proposed a solution and it got backed by politicians and the Americans were the first ones to ban FCKW's and aerosols etc.
This made a MEASURABLE result in a matter of years(!).
Now we have what I call "Idealism gone bad" and a role reversal:
A bunch of politicians with an agenda trying to get the support of the scientific community.
Whereas the scientific community is also split - for every scientist who BELIEVES in global warming there is at least one who does not.
At the same time only the loudest people are getting the attention.
The way to hell is paved with good intentions.
I think it is important for us (i.e. all of us!) to recognize that there is not a consensus and any amount of new taxes or carbon credit scams/schemes are NOT A SOLUTION.
Idealism is nice but not the basis for a solution.
There you need cold hard facts and as we have seen from the IPCC - the scientists aren't even allowed to put their final approval on the reports! A lobbyist has the final say!
WTF does that tell you?
+Noel Bagwell, Cap&Trade is not an "eco socialist" policy. it's in fact a right wing policy first proposed by conservatives and IMPLEMENTED by the Republican president George H.W. Bush for sulfur emissions. The right wing propaganda machine is exploiting the ignorance of people like you and relying on you not to know that honest conservatives were the first people to propose cap&trade.
The worst thing to happen to the debate about Climate Change was for Al Gore to become the self-appointed champion of the cause. He did what any politician would have done, he used it as a tool for election by turning the issue into an Us vs. Them fight between the Left and Right with plenty of fingerpointing and name calling. By tying the issue to peoples personal philosphies about how society should be run the chance for fact based debate about the science involved got tossed out the window.

What we have now is two sides of an argument who have a personal reason to take one side or the other based on something totally unrelated to the actual issue. What we see is a lot of extreme, and often kooky, arguments from non-experts (to put it very kindly) that do more to damage the cause than to help. It's not surprising that both sides are able to find "scientists" willing to take their money to conduct research that supports their side of the argument..
+Matt Sutter This is like saying, "You can't possibly understand the pain of childbirth, if you're not a woman." Direct experience is not the only way to achieve understanding. One does not have to have a Ph.D. in climatology to understand the basic contours of the climate change debate, or to be able to contribute in a meaningful way to it. You don't have to have been run over by a truck to understand that being run over by a truck really hurts, and has a detrimental effect on your health. Common sense is not asinine, but requiring (1) someone to prove a negative, and (2) have a Ph.D. in order to credibly contribute to a public conversation, in my opinion, is about the most condescending, silly, absurd notion I have encountered since I first came across this thread.

+Omri Schwarz The 1990 Clean Air Act to which you are referring was a bad idea. Cap & Trade is a bad idea. As a libertarian and a registered independent, I don't care at all whether bad ideas are proposed by Democrats or Republicans. I just want the federal government smaller, leaner, and more in line with the Constitution. As a juris doctor who believes in an original meaning interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, I believe that the Clean Air Act, ostensibly enacted under Congress's power to regulate commerce, is unconstitutional. Similarly, I believe a federal Cap & Trade bill would be unconstitutional.

I don't care about Red vs. Blue, Republican vs. Democrat, or right vs. left. All I care about is restricting the federal government to its constitutionally enumerated powers (and those ancillary powers granted by the Necessary & Proper Clause of art. I, sec. 8). This would result in the government being mostly limited to providing for the common defense (i.e., protecting life & liberty), and to providing some public goods (the ones not more appropriately provided by state governments), as that term is properly understood.

This thread is not about U.S. public policy or the U.S. Constitution, however. I only mention all these things to say that my motivation or point of view in this discussion is economic, not political or ideological. As I said, above, it's pointless to do all the crap that the federal government, and international governments like the E.U. and U.N. and others are doing under the Kyoto Treaty, et al., etc., are doing. People need to look beyond the "science" of the situation - whatever it may say - and try to see what doing something on a global scale would cost us. The price is too high, and it will not be paid.
+David Barrow You might want to take a closer look at what you posted.

That article discusses things based around the MEDIAN value of ice from 1979-2000. That means you take 21 years of ice values, arrange them in order, and take the 11th value. The MEAN, or average value, would be more interesting.

You also need to look at what time of year each measurement was taken. If we're comparing current winter and past summers of course it would be bigger. None of this information is supplied in the blog you listed.
Glaciers have been shrinking for 11,000 years. The earth is in an interglacial period. At some point in the future, the glaciers and ice caps will expand. That's climate change, anything else is just weather, or natural variability.
Despite +Ed Gray and +Shannon Roy using a lot of ad hominem attacks and trying to distort what I'm saying and put words in my mouth, I hope my message, here, is clear: The cost of trying to implement a (federal or international) government "solution" to climate change would be prohibitively expensive, and developing nations will not adopt such "solutions," because they value economic growth over ecological idealism or ideology. I don't deny any climate change data - pro or against. I do, however, question the political and ideological motives of people on both sides of the debate. Proponents of global warming or "climate change" or whatever they're calling it this week don't have the best track record on accuracy (e.g., "Global Cooling" predictions in the 1970s, et al., etc.), but I'm not really talking about the data, here. I'm talking about what we theoretically could do, assuming the global warming alarmists are right.

Also, I do not deny that developing countries, and others, are pursuing an "all of the above" energy policy that includes nuclear and other non-fossil-fuel energy sources. I do not believe, however, that those pursuits are driven by a "green energy" agenda. By the way, I support an "all of the above" energy policy and energy independence. I've written about that, too. (From Sea to Shining Sea: Drilling for Prosperity

"All of the above," however, does include fossil fuels. I want more goods and services for more people at lower cost. I think the best way for that to happen is for the government to get out of the way, and let the trade in the free market do what it does best.
+Noel Bagwell "The 1990 Clean Air Act to which you are referring was a bad idea. Cap & Trade is a bad idea. " Those of us living in the acid rain regions beg to disagree. It's nice to see our forests recover from those sulfur emissions, and our lakes see their fish stocks recover. It's particularly nice for those of us in upstate New York and New England to know that with the deforestation addressed, we don't have to worry as much about major floods every spring.

"As a libertarian and a registered independent" as a libertarian, you should be aware of the existence of EXTERNALITIES, and your duty to pay for those that you impose on your fellow man. We have institutions engaging in science to measure those externalities. We have discovered that sulfur emissions impose them, and so we put in cap&trade. We have discovered that carbon dioxide emissions also impose externalities. To deny those externalities exist does not make you a libertarian. It makes you a Lysenkoite.
+Noel Bagwell after all, does your libertarianism go so far to believe you have to right to own and use a Yard-a-Pult?
In 40 years.. no lab rat has ever contracted cancer from being exposed to high levels of cigarette chemicals.
I will add that ever since we started splitting atoms we have had many cancers, though.
+Omri Schwarz The problem - well, one of the problems, for there are several - with what you're saying about externalities is that Cap & Trade makes everyone pay for the externalities some people impose on others. The cost of the externalities is not limited to the people who impose them on everyone. This is why Obama says that under his plan of a Cap & Trade system, electricity rates [for everyone drawing electricity from the power grid] would necessarily skyrocket.

Also, I think you meant to call me a Neo-Lysenkoite, but I'm not one. I'm just a person who believes that we should wait for someone to actually be harmed and then recover for the amount of harm inflicted against the person who inflicted the harm. The alternative is a nanny state that tries, ex ante, to prevent harm to everyone, everywhere, all the time, and I believe that is prohibitively expensive. If you disagree, take a gander at the national debt. Big Government is much more likely to choke the life out of this country than smog is.

Finally, yes, I do believe I have a right to own and use a Yard-a-Pult, but I also believe my rights end where my neighbor's rights begin. If I cause damage to my neighbor's property (including any trespass), then I owe my neighbor the damages equity requires me to pay. You see, I operate under a presumption of liberty. ( Eco-socialists (and other advocates of Big Government) do not.
It makes no difference how many studies come out either way since we are so riddled with cognitive biases any new evidence contrary to your position will only serve to strengthen your resolve to refute it, all part of our great evolutionary baggage.
+Ed Gray I'm sorry that sentence wasn't as clear as it apparently should have been. I lumped you in with +Shannon Roy, and said that you-and-Shannon were using ad hominem attacks and distorting what I was saying. I probably should not have lumped you in with Shannon like that. I apologize. So, just to be clear, you're just distorting, not using ad hominem attacks. Better? :)

EDIT: Oh, and I suppose if one really wanted to get nit-picky (which I don't), one could interpret the following sentence you used, supra, as an ad hominem attack: "Common sense is basically lowest common denominator knowledge, the bottom of the barrel and almost always the opposite of the truth." By attacking "common sense," which I referenced in my posts here, and in the article I wrote, you, by extension, are attacking me personally as someone who scrapes the "bottom of the barrel" and as a liar (by implication: "the opposite of the truth."). Again, I won't be that nit-picky, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that may not be what you meant in that sentence.
+Noel Bagwell, everyone drawing electricity from the grid is adding to the pollution generated by our power grid. "Also, I think you meant to call me a Neo-Lysenkoite, but I'm not one." You've proven otherwise on this thread. You continue to deny the existence of an externality because it doesn't suit your politics. That's a textbook example of Lysenkoism.

"Finally, yes, I do believe I have a right to own and use a Yard-a-Pult, but I also believe my rights end where my neighbor's rights begin. If I cause damage to my neighbor's property (including any trespass), then I owe my neighbor the damages equity requires me to pay." Very nice. Now quit denying the damage your activities (and mine) cause on those whose property and economy is damaged by pollution, CO2 and other, and we can get somewhere.
+Noel Bagwell So you think land owners should be the only ones allowed to vote? Slavery should be implicitly allowed? Woman shouldn't have the right to vote? All these things are supported in the constitution that you claim to follow so strictly.

Ironically, so is Cap&Trade. Read the constitution and you'll see that it gives the federal government the right to impose laws for the welfare of the people. That's as specific as it gets on the issue but it's mentioned specifically.
+Noel Bagwell No "words in your mouth" at all, budski. You said "the cost of trying to implement a (federal or international) government "solution" to climate change would be prohibitively expensive". Which is just pure, unadulterated spin, unsalted with anything that even approaches fact. There have been several very well researched and resourced studies about concrete series of actions to bring carbon emissions in line: Lester Brown's "Plan B" is just one such (and the great thing about Brown is, when he's wrong (like on population) he admits it and corrects).

Even Bjorn Lomborg, the "Skeptikal Environmentalist" (and one of the original deniers, although he's since faced the data and recanted) was happy to edit and approve Gary Yohe's study of a range of global carbon taxes that showed very positive cost vs. return numbers and (albeit with some identified assumptions) excellent results -- i.e. the opposite of the "prohibitively expensive" that you claim.

It's not "ad hominem" to say "you're just making this shit up" when, clearly, you are.
+Ed Gray I'm going to let you figure that out for yourself. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. If you don't see where you're distorting on this issue, no amount of me waving it in your face will help you. No hard feelings.

+Omri Schwarz Again, I'm not denying externalities, I'm simply saying, to return to and reiterate my original point in this thread, that in order to make a substantial difference with regard to global temperatures, we would have to abandon modern society. Cap & Trade would not go far enough to make a difference, but it would bankrupt the country. Countries, like Spain, that have implemented Cap & Trade have had a terrible time with it. (The European Experience with Cap and Trade It is my opinion, reinforced by the available evidence, that the costs of Cap & Trade outweigh the benefits, even under conditions most favorable to proponents of the policy.

I don't think the redistribution of wealth on a global or societal scale (i.e., on a scale larger than an individual scale) is the solution to ecological concerns. If you are harmed by a company, sue the company. If you are harmed by your government, sue the government or elect different politicians (to the extent that option is available to you). Seek legal, equitable remedies for actual harms that have actually been inflicted. Don't try to use the government to control and manipulate people into what you think they're too stupid to realize is in their best interest. I'm not sure you can see the distinction, but as I told Ed, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

+Benjamin Staver No, I don't believe in all of those things. I do, however, believe that "support" and "allow" are not the same thing, although you're using "allow" where you should be using "support." Moreover, the Constitution has a valid method for adapting it to changing social norms and societal values. It's called the amendment process. The 13th Amendment, for example, prohibits slavery. So, you're wrong about the constitution supporting slavery. The constitution explicitly bans slavery. Also, the constitution allows Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, but does not allow Congress to legislate for the general welfare. Pull up your pants, son, your ignorance is showing.

+Shannon Roy Things I didn't say: (1) "I'm not saying there's no data -- even though I just posted half a dozen times saying that... (2) And even though, economically, India and China are pursuing nuclear and wind power as fast as humanly possible, I'm going to claim, economically, that they aren't. (3) Black, in short, is white, and I just make this shit up as I go along. (4) I'm Noel Bagwell, and I approve this message."

(1) Again, I am not denying data, and that's not what I'm talking about at all, really. I'm talking about the economic infeasibility of implementing federal or global climate change regulation.
(2) I just flat out never said or even implied this. Putting words in my mouth.
(3) Reductio ad absurdum, based on your prior misconstructions.
(4) I certainly DO NOT approve this message.
+Noel Bagwell Your first comment: " Even if we accept everything the Eco-socialists (i.e., proponents of global warming or "climate change") tell us about the "scientific" data (you know, the data they have in no way screwed around with an a biased, political, and wholly unscientific way) - even if we accept ALL" I stand corrected. You're only implicitly denying the existence of the externalities imposed by CO2 emissions. But that is bad enough. If you don't deny it, then don't deny it.
+Ed Gray I'm not here to satisfy you.

+Omri Schwarz I'm not denying anything, except this (and this is the last time I'll say it, because we're going around in circles, here): even if the global warming alarmists are right, there is nothing (substantial, meaningful, etc.) we can do about it without abandoning modern society. Maybe this will help:

“Here is why there is no point, economically speaking, in doing anything to curb our carbon emissions, even if, as we now know, in fact, the U.N. is wrong*, but let’s pretend it’s right… Here’s why nothing will work.

We burn 30,000,000,000 tons a year of CO2 worldwide, alright? 30,000,000,000 tons a year. Now, that is the equivalent of 2 particles per million per year in the Atmosphere, so that’s 15,000,000,000 tons per part per million, alright? Are you with us, so far? Right, that’s very simple: 30, divided by two (is) 15 billion, okay. With us so far.

Now, the U.N. says we are going to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, unless we do anything about it by 468 parts per million, in the next century: 468 bpmv. So that means, you multiply (pointing at a blackboard) that (15 billion) by that (468 bpmv) you get 7,000,000,000,000 tons we’re going to emit of CO2 if we don’t do any mitigation over the next century. Seven trillion tons, okay?

Now, they say that those 7 trillion tons are going to cause 7° Fahrenheit of warming in the next century. That’s wrong, but that’s what they say. That means that, in order to forestall 1° Fahrenheit of warming, you have to forego the emission of 1 trillion tons of CO2. Now, divide 1 trillion tons by the number of tons, the 30 billion tons per year that we started with, that we’re burning at the moment worldwide, and how many years is it going to take before we have saved one (1) Fahrenheit degree? …

It’s 33 years for one (1) Fahrenheit degree. Now, 33 years means no automobiles anywhere on the planet, no electricity, no planes, no trains, no hospitals, no factories, no carbon emissions at all for 33 years, just for one (1) Fahrenheit degree. That is why it is absolutely no point trying to mitigate carbon emissions. It makes not the slightest difference to the climate. End of lesson!”
+Noel Bagwell "Don't try to use the government to control and manipulate people into what you think they're too stupid to realize is in their best interest. " Let's get one thing straight: I don't give a rat's ass what is in your best interest. I care about what's in MY best interest. It's in MY best interest not to let sulfur emissions ruin the forests uphill from where I live. It's in MY best interests to try to prevent the climate change that threatens the productivity of farms in my region, including the farm I want to retire to. So when I set out to regulate your activities, I do it because of the effect your activities have on my best interest. I don't do it for you.
+Noel Bagwell, I recommend reading closer if you want to continue this discussion. I'm being obviously sarcastic about Godwin's Law, because I think you are resorting precisely to reductio ad absurdum, by implying that any environmentalism is an expression of this radical ecosocialist agenda you've cited. And you continue to take things to ridiculous extremes through your choice of language. Is an "infamous Climate Communist" the same thing as the definition of an ecosocialist you provided earlier? The most extreme thing that Van Jones said in that whole clip is that we will "fight to the death" for his vision of America, but you might have (or might not have) noticed that by the time he said that, he was speaking of equal rights and justice for people--more than just environmentalism. And earlier, when he talked about equating environmentalism with patriotism, I actually believe that he meant it. I actually believe he was speaking up for his vision of America that he really believes in, where our natural resources are a source of pride, and are treasured more than corporate profits are treasured. Maybe you think that makes me... what? Brainwashed because I think he's sincere?

But if anything the Van Jones example illustrates what I said before. The more radical or extreme the idea, the more difficulty it has in gaining or holding ground among the business and governmental elite. Van Jones is probably more progressive than most people who attain positions of serious influence. And he's not there anymore. His views were either too extreme (if you're a conservative) or too uncompromising (if you're a liberal) to be tolerated for long in Washington DC.

OK, RE: Alinsky, he is actually saying that euphemizing everything is appealing but wrong and short-sighted and not helpful. You seem to be saying that Obama tones down the rhetoric of your "ecosocialists" to make it palatable because he's following this advice from Alinsky? Or are you saying something else? Did you carefully read the Alinsky passage you quoted? Also, you're drawing a connection between community organizing and radicalism, without supporting it. Also, you're suggesting that everything Alinsky would have to say would be of use only to radicals. You are making so many cognitive leaps and unjustified inferences here.

Finally, do you know who supports cap & trade plans? Conservative economists. I studied economics at a school with a very conservative reputation, a school almost synonymous with neoclassical economics, and what did Kevin Murphy, one of the smartest neoclassical economists currently working say about climate change? That it's happening, and that cap & trade is a decent, incentive-based way to deal with it, and would work OK if certain governments wouldn't flood their economies with so many carbon credits that they become too cheap. Cap & trade was never branded as "socialist" until the 2008 election cycle. He was not speaking as an idealist, but rather as somebody who looks at the reality of the situation coldly and realistically. That used to be a characteristic widely associated with conservatives.
+Noel Bagwell " I'm not denying anything, except this (and this is the last time I'll say it, because we're going around in circles, here): even if the global warming alarmists are right, " That is an implicit denial, along with a denial that you are engaging in denial. Good thing you're a lawyer. I certainly would not want to buy a used car from you.
+Omri Schwarz I take your point about acting in your own perceived best interest. I just wish you could see that the climate change regulation (Cap & Trade) it seems you have been supporting in your arguments, here, is in no one's best interest.

When you said, above, "That is an implicit denial," you were mistaken. It's not a denial, but an attempt to say that even in the light most favorable to the opposing side of the debate [what I went on to say].

We would all be a lot better off, in my opinion, if we innovated beyond the need for sources of energy that produce harmful emissions. I believe that innovation comes out of competition, and regulation is often anti-competitive. ( I don't have all the answers, but I know what a few of the wrong ones are, and it is my firm and sincere belief that, to quote Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

+Aaron Andersen
+Noel Bagwell You're funny! You write:

"Now, they say that those 7 trillion tons are going to cause 7° Fahrenheit of warming in the next century. That’s wrong, but that’s what they say."

So, you summarize (via strawman, but nevermind) what you state that they state the data is, and then you say "That's wrong". But then just a moment ago you said:

"Again, I am not denying data"

Game over, pal.

And my "shorter Noel Bagwell"? The one you specifically disclaimed? You just repeated every word of it in your last comment, to whit (and I'll go in the order you did): there's no economic solution, the data is wrong, here's some numbers I just made up.

Just keep commenting. Please. The more you say, the easier it is to see you are just flailing the same broken point again and again (whilst denying and then restating things that you wrote moments ago).
+Shannon Roy Not that you noticed or anything, but that was me quoting a source to make a point. I wasn't summarizing or stating data or anything of the sort. I wasn't denying any data (still don't, never have). For the quote and source, you have to follow the citation link. That's how the internet works!
And, +Noel Bagwell, something in response to your point that developing economies care more about their own economic development then they do the environment. I think that is certainly true for some, if not all. And if climate change is going to have a serious negative impact on our lives, or our children's lives, or our great-great-great-great grandchildren's lives (which peer-reviewed scientific consensus suggests is quite likely), then those of us in the rich world will have to basically bribe those in the poor world to help deal with it by reducing their dependence on fossil fuels (of course, it won't make much sense if we don't reduce our own dependence). This is not ideology, obviously. This is pragmatism.
+Noel Bagwell That is indeed how the internet works! You'll notice, then, since you so obviously know how to google, that my citation for the negligible global economic effects of a high carbon tax (but good carbon reduction results) was Gary Yohe's excellent study. Have you read it? If no, then your handwaving about the end of the world occurring if any significant concrete actions are taken to reduce carbon emissions are, frankly, not even slightly informed.

But we're used to that. That's all you've got, apparently.

That and your assertion that the relationship between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and its climatic effects is linear! I mean, if you can show that it is there's a Nobel prize with your name on it! Years of students running titrations in chemistry 101 for nothing! Bagwell's Law of Chemical Interaction trumps all!
Teach the controversy! You're taking it out of context! Mommy!
+Aaron Andersen Or... or... and this is just a suggestion, we could use our resources to innovate beyond the need for sources of energy that produce harmful emissions. Until that day, however, I'm checking the box for an "all of the above" energy policy, and so will anyone else who prefers prosperity to poverty.

+Shannon Roy I'll put my remarks here and elsewhere up against your ad hominem attacks, any day.

Time for lunch.
+Noel Bagwell "When you said, above, "That is an implicit denial," you were mistaken. It's not a denial, but an attempt to say that even in the light most favorable to the opposing side of the debate [what I went on to say]."

And there you go again. First you implicitly deny the existence of the problem, then you claim the light you put on the problem is the "light most favorable on it", (in order to cast yet more aspersions on it) and then try to change the subject. I would not buy a used car from a man like you, nor would I let you date my daughter.
One last thing, +Noel Bagwell, the U.S. Navy thinks that climate change posits a national security threat. Our life and liberty is most definitely in jeopardy if our climate becomes unlivable and toxic. If these threats are credible, that puts them squarely within the federal governments responsibility, according to the Constitution.

Maybe the climate scientists are wrong, and there is no danger that our coastal cities could be flooded, or that more climate zones in the world might become uninhabitable. Science only deals with probabilities, not absolutes. And these systems are really, really complex, so our ability to comprehend them improves with time and more data and more computational power. Yeah, the dangers might be overstated. But if they are not overstated, we don't get a do-over. Maybe your legal background doesn't lead you to be concerned with probabilities or risk management. Maybe your libertarian ideals are unconcerned with certain populated parts of the world potentially becoming unlivable, or whether our ecological system could become unbalanced, with negative ramifications. But this pragmatic, economics-minded person thinks these are very important considerations.
+Noel Bagwell wrote: "I'll put my remarks here and elsewhere up against your ad hominem attacks, any day."

That's what I'm counting on! You see, as we scroll up we can see you denying, and then denying your denial. We can also see your citation-less FUD about economic collapse (and the numerous citations of others who have, unlike you, actually read the literature on the projected economic effects of any carbon amelioration policy you care to name).

I'm absolutely counting on your "remarks" being put up against those of mine, and others. That's the second best bit of all this.

But the best part will be readers putting your remarks up against ..... your remarks.

Oh, and you don't seem to know what "ad hominem" means. Let me help. An "ad hominem" attack would be me saying "Noel Bagwell is a fucking idiot". However, the statements "Noel Bagwell's arguments are idiotic" or "Noel Bagwell is making stuff up" are not ad hominem. Neither is anything I've written above.

Enjoy your lunch.
Quick everybody! Get out your "Jump to Conclusions" mat!
+Shannon Roy, help me out. Was it an ad hominem attack when +Noel Bagwell called me a troll (albeit indirectly, with a link)? I'd just hate to see evidence that +Noel Bagwell is a hypocrite. /sarcasm

And, +Noel Bagwell, does it bother you that your preferred energy policy, "we could use our resources to innovate beyond the need for sources of energy that produce harmful emissions. Until that day, however, I'm checking the box for an "all of the above" energy policy, and so will anyone else who prefers prosperity to poverty," is remarkably similar to what the President said in his State of the Union Address a year or two ago?
+Alexandre Prokoudine obviously, English not being your first language, you haven't quite understood my point, that being since the industrial age human beings have had an affect on the enviroment and in the last 20/30yrs that effect has been more damaging.
And yes I do know about a 'little thing called the ice age' ;)
You don't have to be scientist or know what a logical fallacy is to know that the planet has been getting hotter and hotter. Just like they said it would - And only one side of this debate has been right about that..

It also becomes clear that the other side has manufactured a lot o lies, smears, and scandals.

Meanwhile the planet is still getting hotter and hotter. Anyone can see that.
I am not here to convince anyone I am right or that anyone else in the thread is wrong. After all, this is the internet. It's not like arguments or debates here can be conclusively won in the sense that there is an objective moderator or judge that would determine debate victory. Some people may be persuaded by the remarks I have made. Others will not be. That is up to the readers to decide. I will not be participating in this thread or checking its progress anymore, however, because it has devolved into a bash-the-guy-I-disagree-with thread, and is no longer producing any constructive dialogue, as far as I can tell. Good day to you all.
I go through threads like this and harvest climate change denier's names to block. If you're getting something this big wrong I don't see the point in ever reading your garbage again.
What if it is all a big hoax and we end up creating a much better world for nothing?
Heartland: "How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address. Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes."
US is kind of a rude place to be, when religion is addressed.
The level of ignorance displayed by many here is appalling. No one denies that there are natural causes of cooling and warming. What climate scientists are actually saying is that the rate of that change and overall amount has been changed by human activity. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been known since the 19th century. Scientists then just never thought that we'd produce enough of it to make a difference. But we add not only CO2 to the atmosphere but also methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas. We also deforested vast regions of the planet. On top of all that we build massive numbers of structures with dark surfaces to reduce our planet's albedo. When you combine everything we have a climate getting warmer faster than it otherwise would.
I'm all for conservation and being a good steward of the Earth. I just think that we should protect nature without pushing the reason for doing so as preparing for an event that may or may not happen in half a century or more (if at all). From all I've read in scientific journals catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is a working hypothesis (an accepted conclusion for further research) whereas anthropogenic climate change has its foundation in physics theories. The questioning of anthropogenic climate change among members of the scientific community is not "does it exist" but rather "how much effect does it have?" the details of which regard climatic forcing functions and +/- feedback in climate models. Journalists and politicians took this and ran with it (of course neglecting the working hypothesis and the questions regarding feedback, etc.) and made it into "settled science". I don't deny climate change I just deny "settled science" based on heavily politicized opinion regarding catastrophic climate events.
I mostly agree Jim, only one small correction on your explanation: "What pro climate scientists are actually saying is that the rate of that change and overall amount has been changed significantly by human activity."

Very simple experiments can show CO2 and all the others cause a greenhouse effect, but it has also been shown that the impact of CO2 (and others) decays exponentially with concentration. If CO2 in the atmosphere reached 0.1% (currently it's 0.0387%), wouldn't it be displacing H2O which has also been experimentally proven to have more of a greenhouse effect? Thus improving the situation (albeit marginally)?
+Robert McCathren seems to have the most nuanced approach to an attempt to 'straddle the fence'. Kudos. I think most people who are worried about the issue, though, are not getting it from alarmist journalists and/or politicians (though they may have been initially made aware by such alarmists), and are considering it from a risk-management angle. What are the likelihoods of the possible outcomes, what are the costs of those outcomes, what are the possible mitigations for the more negative outcomes, and what are the costs of those mitigations? What's the cost/benefit ratio?
Ok +Keagan Chisnall I'm going to assume you're not an idiot and are really an engineer as your profile suggests. Why haven't you learned to read peer reviewed journals yet? Do you think that "science" is only valid in engineering and that people in other fields are just fudging it? Are dentists and microbiologists allowed to dig around in your work and put halt to your projects until their, out-of-field, questions get answered to their personal satisfaction?

If you're actually interested in the science you might start looking for references to the appropriate journal articles here:

If you read the journal articles and maintain your line of questioning; well then, you're an idiot.
so, at best, this MAY prove that a small group of people is fighting lies with more lies.
How do you "lie" with temperature records from all over the world taken by many different disinterested parties? If you are interested in a topic, learn about it. This isn't a faith based argument, like sports or religion where the best you can do is pick a side and stick to it, there is clear non-conflicting observable data from multiple credible sources. Weigh the evidence (and the sources) yourself; learn something, think for yourself.
*** Long post warning ****

Back when I was in elementary school the coming ice age was all the rage. Scientists were just as convinced as they are now about warming, and pointed to data to support the claim that we were entering a new ice age. In fact ideas were put forward about preventing it by burning coal and fossil fuels and such. Fast forward many years and the hole in the ozone layer was going to kill us all, then the chatter about man-made global warming started. Again mountains of data supposedly proved the certainty of it all. A decade or so later (when the data and more importantly reality did not bear out the dire predictions) it shifted into "climate change". How convenient...

So, excuse me while I stifle a yawn and have nothing but contempt for the self-serving snake oil salesmen who are profiting from the mass hysteria. Yes, the Earth's climate is changing. Has it ever not? For billions of years before life even appeared on our planet, climate was changing and it will keep changing billions of years after we're gone. There is no proof that man's activities have any impact whatsoever. At best, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a hypothesis. Unfortunately it is quickly becoming a religion. If one does not believe in the dogma of AGW he/she is a denier, an unbeliever, a heretic.

It is beyond arrogance to claim with certainty that anyone knows what the climate will be like 20, 30 or 50 years from now. The Earth's climate is a system so complex that it's orders of magnitude beyond our ability to model, analyze, and extrapolate into the future with certainty, or even high probability.

Even if the models were accurate, there are certain crucial steps required if one aims to mandate drastic societal changes to attain a goal. A clear and unassailable case must be made that the proposed changes will in fact bring about the intended result AND that the result is a net benefit to mankind. The burden of proof rests on those who claim AGW is dangerous. Not a single AGW proponent ever endeavored to satisfy this requirement, but they all expect the rest of society to jump off the cliff with them, like lemmings, based on faith.

The process for societal change on a massive scale (such as proponents of AGW advocate) must, at a minimum, include the following steps:
1) Recognize a potential problem.
2) Study the problem and document the findings.
3) Have solid, peer-reviewed, scientific data and analysis to make the case.
4) In specific, quantifiable terms, characterize the magnitude and effects of the problem if not corrected.
5) Prove that the proposed solution can and will result in the desired correction.
6) Prove that the "cure" is not worse than the "disease" (i.e. Cost vs. benefit analysis)

Almost all effort is focused on steps 1), 2), and 3) while the AGW faithful are failing big time in satisfying steps 4), 5), and 6). What good is it to stop the warming trend (assuming we could) if it required us to give up the benefits of modern civilization? And were is the proof that a warming climate is overall harmful? Are we to just accept that premise? No thanks...
+Balazs Lanyi "Back when I was in elementary school the coming ice age was all the rage." And you weren't paying attention. Cooling effects come from soot and sulfur emissions. Warming effects come from CO2. And the ozone hole comes from CFCs. Nowadays, our coal plants have scrubbers, so we don't emit as much sulfur or soot. So, no more need to worry about cooling effects. And we've regulated CFCs, so the ozone hole is beginning to close up. But, there is still CO2, and it is still warming the planet. And you should be ashamed of how easily you can write so much verbiage without educating yoruself. There's this thing called the Internet. There is lots of information on it.
Had to listen to our Senator Inhofe about this one time, go do what you are really elected for.
Our friend +Balazs Lanyi (sorry Balazs, blocked you already) is a perfect example of an AGW-denier sockpuppet. Check out his profile, no face, no photo, no public posts; the profile doesn't exist except as a vehicle for denier-memes. This is the opposition in the global warming debate to peer-reviewed science. Bots.
@Omri Schwarz How nice, you presume to know whether or not I paid attention in school and have the superior attitude that I should be ashamed of myself. Thanks for illustrating several of the points I made. Namely that AGW proponents are arrogant and will attack/besmirch those who don't tow the line, as well as the observation that they painstakingly avoid addressing steps 4), 5), and 6). Please keep posting, I'd love to be further vindicated.
This is resembling Apple / Android flame wars.
Man-made climate change is real, Apple suck ;)
+Balazs Lanyi your comment demonstrates very well that you did not pay attention. And your response demonstrates that you still don't pay attention. And yet, you have the arrogance to cast aspersions at climate scientists for expressing concerns that have since been addressed.
" It's noteworthy that the pro AGW folks seem to rely almost entirely on ad hominem attacks that denigrate the non-believers' i"

No, actually we start with dissecting the arguments deniers like you put out, to show what inane arguments the are, and THEN we go ad hominem at the deniers for making those argument.

"Also, forget receiving a convincing explanation of how condemning our economy to return to the middles ages"

That is a straw man argument, and you are a stupid person for making it.

"Of course, you will also not hear any rebuttal to the recent admission by NASA that in fact that there has been NO WARMING FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS. "

That is not what NASA said. 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded. The past 10 years have not been as warm as 1998, but they have been warmer than any year since 1980. You are lying, and you are a bad person and a stupid person for lying in this way.

+Buck Bradley
So, +Balazs Lanyi and +Robert McCathren want certain proof (which doesn't exist in empirical science) that climate change would have catastrophic consequences before agreeing that we should do anything about it. Do you want certain proof that you will be hit by a drunk driver before laws are passed making drunk-driving illegal? Do you want certain proof that jumping in a canoe will capsize it before you agree to sit down? It might not, but if I'm in the canoe with you, the decision does not belong to you, alone.

We have enough information to come to the conclusion that we are at considerable risk for a wide range of potential climate change outcomes. And since you are understandably concerned about the economy, how do you think the economy will be affected if large, currently populated parts of the globe become unlivable? I have a 1 year old daughter, and so to read somebody say we shouldn't be that concerned about a catastrophic event that might or might not happen 50 years from now strikes me as the absolute height of selfishness and foolishness.

The deniers point out that a religiosity has developed around "belief" in global warming or climate change. I've seen that from time to time, yes. But while some advocates might get carried away with their rhetoric, and overstate their sense of certainty about climate change, it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of scientists in this field continue to be highly concerned about the effects of climate change on the livability (and economy) of our planet. We only have this one. And so when we hear the deniers setting back progress based on their misunderstanding of risk management, or their insistence that any scientific study denying global warming is just as legit as peer-reviewed, widely cited scientific research... well, we get quite annoyed. You're like the drunk guy at a party who won't stop acting like a moron, putting the rest of us in danger.
So the response from The Heartland Institute says one of the documents "leaked" was completely fake. I'm trying to find someone way to defend the DeSmogBlog folks. Any ideas?
+Judy Fritsch It is hard to defend the indefensible. Desmog should have corroborated the material before publishing.
The amount of angst, hysteria, and ad hominem attacks on this one thread alone are amazing.
Climate investigations, studies, and science should be a rather dry subject, inspected closely based upon evidence, not passionate discourses based on propaganda. And the propaganda goes both ways, a lot of it, clearly espoused by those with no basic understanding of science, or the scientific method.
+Judy Fritsch, the DeSmogBlog itself has explained why it hasn't retracted. They point out that all the individual components of the memo that Heartland Institute says is fake are corroborated by other information. You can read it here.

At worst, Heartland Institute is lying. The most charitable interpretation is that somebody created this document as a summary of the real budget priorities and activities of the Heartland Institute, and then tried to pass it off as an internal memo.
complicated threads of lies, won't stand for long.
Eric Z

Where is the missing carbon? "It's a really major mystery, if you think about it,"
says Wofsy, an atmospheric scientist at Harvard University

Just more proof that the TOP scientists don't know what's going on either.

But for the sake of argument can we just take "climate change" as a given?

I have a major problem with the proposed "solutions" by the politicians.

And the actions of Al Gore and Julia Gillard are just more proof of where the politicians are taking
this mislead idealism - more taxes!

Can you really "offset" carbon?
Do carbon credits lower the amount of carbon in our air?
If you look at Julia Gillards plan - all of the carbon taxes in Australia are
going into carbon portfolios. Guess who they are managed by?.....Goldman Sachs - Lehmann - Citicorp!
Answer me this - WTF does that have to do with environmental protection!?

Basically what Al Gore is showing/saying to us is thus:
You can be as dirty as you want, just as long as you pay the carbon credits.

So it is a "feel good" industry. You are basically paying off your guilt feelings, putting more money into
Al goreshit's pockets , and his buddies' pockets,
AND not lowering the amount of carbon in the air one iota!

This is the best most blatant reason for us to say "STOP FOLKS! NOT WITH ME!"

The politicians are not capable of implementing a solution without implementing
a new world order based on money transfer.

This is NOT A SOLUTION and will not impact the C02 one minuscle bit.

We have to pull the emergency brakes and take a real unbiased look at this.
Knee-jerk politics has never gotten us anywhere ...ever!
+Aaron Andersen "You're like the drunk guy at a party who won't stop acting like a moron..."

Thanks for keeping it classy. Yes, I do demand proof of extraordinary claims. They require extraordinary proof. Such claims as you just made: "...large, currently populated parts of the globe become unlivable"

Really? You know that a warmer climate will result in unlivable conditions? How? Should we just take this proclamation as fact without even asking for any substantiation? Well, unless it can be proven, most rational people will reject that premise. The climate alarmists would have us drastically change our way of life and let me tell you it's not for the better.

Also, has it occurred to you that both examples you provided as things one could not have certain knowledge of, are in fact verifiable and testable events? That is to say we know for sure that harm/injury comes from being hit by a car (drunk driver or not), and we know with certainty that canoes can and do capsize if the occupants are careless. There is no element of uncertainty in either of these events. They happened and were observed time and time again.

The problem with climate science is that the time scale is so vast that one’s lifetime is barely enough to see the actual outcome of even short term predictions. Climate change occurs very gradually which means charting trends is only meaningful in the context of 100s of years, if not millenia. So this makes it very susceptible to people making wild claims because it's impossible to verify them, and by the time they are verified (or proven wrong) the impostors have gotten away with their deception. I'm not saying there should not be any effort made to understand the nature of our climate, but it had better be coupled with the appropriate amount of humility and be up-front and realistic about the limitations of the models and analysis.
Desmog versus Heartland Institute

Upon investigation, I find that these two organizations are both essentially Public Relations / pseudo education organizations.

As far as I can tell there is no one with any science background at

From their own website they appear to be a PR shop:

It would be nice if people promoting climate science investigations actually had some type of credential other than Public Relations.

The Heartland Institute is a free market think tank:

"Mission: Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems."

Why is Desmogblog still publishing the document which Heartland indicated is fake?

Desmogblog actually does a disservice to its cause by continuing to publish a falsehood. Why would they continue to promote the fraud? It actually makes their other products and publications suspect.
Update: According to Slate, "Heartland Institute won't confirm the authenticity of the documents but nonetheless is apologizing to donors" while still claiming "fraud." According to Politico, Heartland is claiming that at least some of the documents were "stolen." Stay tuned; this could get interesting. –GP But the bombshell among the mortar blasts is this (h/t Digby, my emphasis and paragraphing):

Most eyes will probably fall first on the "Anonymous Donor" who, the documents show, personally funded Heartland's "climate change projects" to the tune of $8,602,267 between 2007 and 2011.

The largest donation came in 2008 when "he" donated $3.3m – the same year that Heartland began its annual climate change conferences which have attracted just about every prominent climate sceptic since. This mystery donor has apparently pledged a further $1m for "climate change projects" during 2012.

Heartland admits in the documents that this wealthy individual sometimes provides as much as half of its entire funding from donations in a year, but there are few clues about his identity other than he has also personally funded a couple of Heartland's non-climate projects in Illinois and Wisconsin which might suggest a personal, local interest.
Hello, I read your blog posting about the Heartland Institute's role in climate change denialism with great interest. I, and fellow students of Shimer College, have witnessed Mr. Bast's taste for spin-doctoring and retaliation first hand. During the (roughly) two years he and recurring allies of The Heartland Institute dominated Shimer College's board: they assisted in destroying internal moral; threatened to fire teachers; suggested taking on the curriculum review process; re-wrote our mission statement into something disconnected from school traditions and ethos; tried to introduce a free-market curriculum put together by a local Montessori teacher; and refused to grant diplomas for graduating students after the sitting college president received votes of no confidence from students and faculty and alumni. Basically, Mr. Bast was instrumental in trying to turn our college into a quasi think tank after failing to create something free-standing within the University of Chicago (in my opinion). After serious digging, many students/alums believe that this was financed by Mr. Barre Seid, a Chicago business man who likes to quietly finance political raconteurs.

Anyway, I thought I'd share a Chicago-centric blogger's posting to the Dailykos, suggesting that Mr. Seid is a primary backer for the HI's climate change denialism campaigns. For many Shimerians, mentioning Mr. Bast also brings Mr. Seid to mind. I'm gland this blogger had the time to search HI's leaked strategy documents, since for many Shimerians, our internal struggles remain painfull to think about. If Mr. Bast and Barre Seid are both related in the climate change denialism campaign, be assured that a small group of concerned, rational, and persistent folks can disrupt their plans--hopefully without the pain and uncertainty that our community experienced:

Thanks Again for your article. Sincerely, Avery Bean
+Roger Hall Ah, I knew Watts would take that angle. Gleick's methods are not the main issue at all. The actual issues are 1) Heartland's blatant hypocrisy in cheering email theft when it benefits them but threatening lawsuits when it doesn't, 2) Heartland's long ties to climate change denial, and 3) the overwhelmingly-supported fact that the Earth is heating up.
If Gleick was willing to commit fraud to advance his position on anthropogenic global warming, wouldn't all of his products, publications, and efforts deserve scrutiny?

Gleick's work could all be fraudulent, and therefore it needs to be listed as suspect.

The planet has warmed approximately 0.7C since the mid 19th century, and at least some of delta T may be due to CO2. At 380 ppm CO2, it is far less than the planet has seen in the recent geologic past.

The question of course is whether it is an emergency or catastrophe remains to be proven. I do not believe that the climate catastrophe groups have met that burden of proof.

Since one of their most prominent scientists is willing to commit fraud, why should anyone believe any claims about the climate hysteria industry?
+Roger Hall What you are doing is called "poisoning the well" and is a logical no-no. Again the issue here is not how he got the documents, it's HI's hyprocisy and the relaity of global warming.

Oh- I'll add that the truth of the documents is still an issue as well; sorry I didn't put that in my earlier comment. We have no solid evidence either way. But Glieck does say he can explicitly prove they are real, so we may yet find out.
Except for the fake Heartland Institute Climate Strategy "Memo".

If a fraud is disclosed, doesn't that make all of Gleick's and Desmogblog's efforts suspect?

Gleick committed fraud, and the ends do not justify the means.

The fact that Desmogblog continues to promote and publicize the fake memo is an ethical lapse on their part. But since they are Public Relations people, they are actually paid to lie. It still does not make it right.

Hence, ALL of Gleick's work is now tarnished and suspect.

They do not advance their cause for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (climate change) by committing fraud. They should be denounced in the interest of pursuing good science by those most closely allied with them.

After all, if you can produce good data, and draw suitable conclusions which can stand up to peer review, why do you need to commit fraud?
Add a comment...