Climate Change Is Not Taken Seriously Because Media Is Not Highlighting Its Significance, Expert Says

"Climate change will not be taken seriously until the media highlights its significance, say researchers."

That's a good one, given how the media had been sensationalizing and exaggerating the issue.

Once climate, and potential changes, became politicized, the topic appears to have lost some level of credibility.

The media and politicians have been doing an extraordinary job of highlighting.

The problem is not one of quantity, but quality of data.

There has been a huge amount of agenda driven misinformation to the point that no one takes anything anyone says seriously.

The second problem is the more immediate concern people have with feeding their families and keeping a roof over their heads. Someone said it a few elections ago, "It's the economy, stupid."

"Dr Neil Gavin, from the School of Politics and Communication Studies, believes the way the media handles issues like climate change shapes the public's perception of its importance."

So, my question here (or the first one) would be - Does Dr Gavin have any other credentials than as an expert in media manipulation? Say - in meteorological science for instance? Or is this article an example of his craft?

"Dr Gavin explains: "Our research suggests that the media is not treating these issues with the seriousness that scientists would say they deserve. The research company lpsos-MORI found that 50% of people think the jury is still out on the causes of global warming."

From what I read here on CR4 and other places the jury is still out, not just on the causes but whether the problem exists at all.

When helping the climate pays more than making it worse, things will get better. The "media" is actually staffed by many people who are dedicated to reporting the truth. Advertising is another job. The murdering of journalists is common. Telling the truth is a riskier business than advertising for sure. I can't remember a case where some Advertising copywriter got murdered for what they wrote. The facts about the climate have been known for a long time. The New Yorker published a story about how birds were returning to their roosts in the Arctic earlier and earlier. Iceland is melting. Burn everything up, and it gets hotter. Diatoms in the Oceans are getting scorched. CIA told Nixon that the biggest threat to national security was overpopulation. Machiavelli got it right when he said a struggle with nature is not enough to make a nation. So, there you go. We'll fight with each other over water, get hit with an asteroid, many, if not all of us will die, and things will be cooler.

I agree with Biomed. The problem is most people are to lazy to dig for the facts. They would rather just read what ever the media is saying without checking into the other side of the story.

Climate change will not be taken seriously until the researchers review the past similar climate change periods and the effect they have had on the planet. Unfortunately all they now do is try to frighten everyone and solicit more funding for their research...know in business as cash flow. The Politicians, of course, jump on the bandwagon and view it as a way to raise more revenue to squander. Just look at the taxes being levied in Europe to "combat global warming".

I live near the terminal moraine of the Great Wisconsin Glacier...I'm sort of happy there was Global Warming 10,000 years ago or I'd be living at the edge of a 5000' thick Glacier.

Accent the positive! All this Global Warming crap will do nothing because no one has decisively shown that it is caused by humans. There weren't and SUV's or power plants 10,000 years ago and that is what I call Global Warming.. the end of the last Ice Age.

When scientists analyze the entire problem in view of the past climate change, then thinking people may begin to believe them. As of now, they are not credible.

Maybe the doom and gloomers pr agency could hire Chicken Little..."The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

The media has lost credibility to such an extent that if there were a real disaster looming, global climate change or otherwise, no one would believe them.

A good example is the so called "bird flu" threat. The world has thrown millions of dollars to stave off an epidemic that threatens to decimate civilization. Is there a real threat with bird flu or is it the "Microbiologists Full Employment Plan"?

I admit to being cynical. It comes from observation.

The potential for disaster is real. This is supposedly an "engineering forum". Any engineer worth his salt knows the rule of designing for "worst case scenario". Period.

That being the case, why not err on the side of prevention rather than "we HAVE to prove this is REAL and the CAUSE. And that it WILL end in disaster." The reason people drive across bridges, work in high rise buildings, etc., is that they trust that they have been properly "engineered" to be safe. (Destructive testing does play a part.)

To me, it's a no-brainer. If you have brains you plan for the worst. If you don't you merrily run off the cliff chasing the end of the rainbow.

As a manager or business owner you should understand risk management. That's not necessarily a requirement for an engineer, but it wouldn't hurt.

The idea that you always design for the worst case is simply not true (being polite and not calling it BS). If that were the case everything would be designed as if it was built by NASA. Nobody will pay you for that level of design. Hell, even aircraft are not designed to that level of engineering.

So, what is your estimate (cost and schedule) for erring on the side of caution in this case?

"The idea that you always design for the worst case is simply not true ... If that were the case everything would be designed as if it was built by NASA. Nobody will pay you for that level of design..."

But there is the concept of ALARP, yes?

You still have to first agree that the risk is a real risk, not just one dreamed up to further someone's career or stuff thier pocketbook.

Agreed - I was taking the statement at face value.

Personally, I think the risk in question is real (_{waiting to be shot down in flames - it's a pretty contentious issue}).

(I'm not the same "Guest" as #14 above. Honest!)

Agreed! But only conditionally. Let me elaborate:

Look, I'm not an environmentalist screaming "REPENT!" from atop a 100 foot high pile of discarded PET bottles. But so much of what humans do is done with remarkably little thought about the long term.

Politically-correct-snuggle-the-Earth-ism aside, there are often elegant solutions to reduce or re-use the voluminous waste we create. Sometimes at no or very modest cost. It just seems prudent for us as engineers to strive to seek out and incorporate those solutions whenever possible.

I'm reminded of the recent story of a sewer worker in Japan who worked out that it's cost-effective to extract gold that ends up in the municipal waste system from various local sources (including apparently from the local residents, who ingest gold-containing health suppliments).

If you think bridges and buildings are designed for 'worst cast' then you are dillusional. Air planes aren't or they could survive a goose crashing into the engine. Real world means you can't design for all risks. You sometimes have to manage risk the best you can. Any good engineer knows that.

Dear Daddio, There is a difference between an airplane and a bridge. What do you think it is?< Do you really think you can go so far as to call someone on this forum delusional when you are comparing apples to oranges, and get away with it?< In fact bridges are designed for worst case scenarios, since it is actually possible to know what those might be, since they are not flying around.< There is a little gray here.< I admit that neither the airplane designer, or the building or bridge designer, ought to be charged with designing for asteroid or comet impacts.< I'm also a little cranked to be defending a Guest.< Anyway a bridge is a different thing from an airplane.< For a bridge when you build it you can actually anticipate all forces that may act upon it. For an airplane you get some instructions and limitations about what it will do.< Okay, air is the bridge for a plane.< A bridge is a structure built to carry cars, trucks or trains.< Those things are like an airplane.< How do you see the difference?< Frankly I think a bridge builder in Rome was pretty good at building for worst case situations considering how many of them are still standing.<

Dear Dillusional, There is a difference between max load plus a safety factor and 'worst case'. If you can't recognize that then you won't know the difference between apples and oranges either.

So you are saying you don't know the difference between apples and oranges, or am I fully delusional? Frankly I think you would be more polite to write, Transcendian, I think you are delusional.< There is a connotation of psychopathy associated with the word delusional.< I allowed that there was some grey area where the designer, engineer, ought not be faulted for doing the best they could with the resources, and knowledge at hand. I am aware of the difference between 'worst case', and max load plus a safety factor, and essentially said so, when I pointed out that in the case of an airplane, you are told what it will do, and if you ignore the warnings, you break the wings off. If you put too much weight in it, it might not fly.< It truly is amazing how much humans are self aware, and even aware enough about the actual world we live in, so as to make things that stand up as long as they sometimes do.< As far as the planet, and the climate, there is very strong evidence that if we continue to do what we have done, we will break the wings off.< I have been a professional journalist, and I know that there is a significant difference between a journalist, and a propagandist.> Anyway, in this case I am in agreement with Roger Pink, though we and Roger may have some disagreement later about something like whether or not you could put a hologram on a photon.< Jorrie fairly beat me up over that, but I have no hard feelings, and nobody said I was deluded, maybe mistaken, but not particularly psychopathic. It was a fair fight. Anyway I object to your reply as it is couched, and look forward to a reconsidered apology.<

And to add to it how do you plan for any scenario when the data and the evidence don't add up. You can only plan as good as your fact finding is accurate. I'm planning for cold until the Sun Spots get going. Do I take more long term precautions for all changes I can justify? Yes.

Worst case scenario- you are about to die, so get dieing or do some quick living, but don't bother my living unless you have some solutions based on factual data not chicken little marketing for my wealth. What little is left of that.

Now what will hurt us the worst is trying to fix something we don't understand or something we don't expect. We are not even up to the Medieval warm period temps with global warming.

Logic not emotions resolve issues. or plan with accuracy motivate with emotions.

Brad

I can't fathom how anyone can doubt climate change anymore. I mean at this point you have to be trying to be stupid not to see the obvious. Christ, I live in Albany New York, and it's hit 60 F in January or the very end of December (30th) the last three years. 60 F! We're screwed. I can't wait till you dummies start bitching about climate change costs. It must be awesome to go through life and never be the problem.

"Christ, I live in Albany New York, and it's hit 60 F in January or the very end of December (30th) the last three years. 60 F! We're screwed."

Well, I am not Christ, but I do know that one data point taken three times at one location on the planet is not statistical evidence to convince man or heaven.

Globally, we had a fairly steady rise in temperatures through the last century, then abruptly started a cooling trend at the end of the 20th century, that has continued to this day (except in Albany at the end of each year).

I do not doubt that climate changes over time. You are absolutely right. Doubting that the Earth's climate is dynamic is akin to claiming the Earth is flat.

However, I am skeptical as to the cause because almost all of the evidence is problematic in one form or another. We can rehash all of that in great detail, Roger, but it is labor intensive. There have been more than enough discussions to that effect here that a simple search can reveal.

The answer to the original post's question is simply audience burnout. Too much quakery and Chicken Little squawking have turned the subject into a discussion that simple rolls eyes and produces moans.

That might be a shame, but welcome to reality.

That's absolute nonsense AH. There is no confusion as to the cause, the cause is CO2 released by fossil fuels that were buried under the ground. I've said it before and I'll say it till its obvious to every last one of you.

There is no scientific debate on this. None. The only debate is in the minds of the uniformed.

I'm sorry if you don't like that. I'm sorry if that isn't politically correct. But that's how it is. Someday, some of you will realize you've been had. Others will go to the grave clinging to false beliefs to avoid feeling like suckers (which they shouldn't, there is no shame in learning the truth late, expecially when mislead).

You know I like you AH but some Good Answers are not really Good Answers their just popular ones.

No hard feelings, see you around the CR4. I'm gonna get out of this thread, the stink offends me.

It is February in the central part of North Carolina. Used to be reliable when I was 16 that it rained every 5 days, and it snowed 4 times a year to at least 4 inch events. I hear birds I wouldn't expect to hear till April. Climatolgists, (Weatheologists) Whatever... have put up graphs that say yes, there have been periods of Climate change before, but not like this.< Earlier I mentioned Diatoms, these little things that live in the oceans and are the basic food in the food chain. These things add up. Every little thing hurts. There is really strong evidence. Even if you don't accept that overpopulation is a spur for the problem, the problem still exists. Frankly I want some people around to read my tombstone, even though I have willed my body to science. Lets be cheery, but not stupid.< It does no good for us to spend time ignoring the facts, or even saying, its not my fault. Fact is there is a problem to fix. We must protect the food chain, and that starts in the seas.>

Because you don't know what you're talking about. If you actually bothered to go into the scientific literature on Solar Flux, Geological Sources of Methane, etc. You'd see their contributions are not statistically significant with regards to the massive uptick in warming.

Also, anyone who actually believes that the past 10 years have witnessed cooling are just plain delusional. The past ten years have been some of the hottest on record. I don't know how you guys come up with this stuff. It's like you guys don't even try anymore. You just make stuff up now, or use links from Exxon research to support your claims. Its embarrassing. You all should be embarrassed.

Try GISS.

Tried it myself. Didn't see how it did other that buttress what Roger was saying.

Hmm, I looked at the raw data (a few months back) and there was a definite trend down.

As you suggested, I looked at it today. Overall what I saw supported Roger Pinks positions. I have to admit that I held a certain belief for 15 years, and eventually encountered evidence that that belief was mistaken.

Hi AH,

Sure, here is an article from the front page of GISS. Please read it.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

You'll see that it says "Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record."

I'm telling you AH, I know your not delusional, but you are being mislead.

Coincidently, take a look at the solar output chart below and guess why 2008 is the coolest year of the past 8 or so:

or this one:

That's right....we're in a solar output min right now. A minimum! Kind of scary, isn't it?

Could be, Roger, I don't know. Right now I don't have a lot of time to research this, but I see where you are coming from.

Time will tell, but I do know that this subject is so steeped in politics that a wise man is good to doubt everything until proven true.

Not steeped in politics, covered in politics. Think of it as a Science cake with a politics frosting.

The point I'm trying to make AH is that Global Warming has already been proven true, its just that the messengers are getting there butts kicked because no one wants to face the truth.

If the trumpet makes an uncertain sound (i.e. steeped in politics) how can the people prepare for the battle?

Let me see if I can explain.

Imagine John and his friend Tom are about knee deep and sinking very slowly in quicksand. Tom says "I think this may be quicksand, if we work together we can get out of this". John says "I think it's mud, don't panic, you don't need my help, just climb out of it"

So time passes and now they are both about thigh deep. Tom is getting nervous and says "I think it's clearly quicksand, lets work together and get out of this. John mocks him for being so easily scared and tells him its just mud. John is amused how squeamish Tom is.

So some more time passes by and Tom is getting angry, he says "you didn't believe me when it was knee high and thigh high but now its waist high and if you don't help me we're both going to be in trouble. John tells him not to be hysterical and relax, its just mud, it just seems like quicksand because Tom's panicking. John has seen all kinds of deep mud. Tom yells "but we're sinking!!" and John laughs and says "We're not sinking, we're settling". Tom responds "you don't settle 3 feet in mud!!!" John lectures Tom on the importance of open mindedness.

Finally the both of them are neck deep. Tom is very quiet. Now John is angry because he realizes that it's quicksand. John turns to Tom angrily and says "this quicksand is going to kill us and its your fault. You had the map and were leading the way and you lead us right into quicksand. We've got to do something to get out of this"

Tom looks at John amused and says "It's too late, we can't move our arms or our legs, there's nothing we can do."

John says "so your just gonna let this quicksand kill us?"

Tom says "You're the one who killed us you idiot"

So you see, the Global Warming "debate" is just like Tom and John's Quicksand "debate", except Global Warming won't kill us......I think....it will just cause unfathomable amounts of damage due to climate change.

I hope that helps clear things up. By the way, in case you're wondering, we're about chest deep.

So then you are equating anyone that doesn't think like you that there is, first of all, a real problem, secondly it is a man caused problem and last that man can fix it, with stupid John, who first of all, doesn't know the difference between quicksand and mud and then can't make a decision to get out of it.

I was merely trying to point out to you that there is enough 'evidence' on both sides of the debate, depending on how the stats are skewed, pertainent parameters left unexplored or overstated, to cause there to be an uncertain sound that no one can form a decent response to.

The fact that climate is cyclical on many different levels, corresponding to events astrological (cosmic if you will) first of all (so that they are well beyond the scope of man's ability to address), relating to the whole of the biosphere secondly (as pertains to the various gasses involved) and then to the geosphere with all it's groaning, shifting and belching, is not addressed in most of the 'lies, damn lies and statistics' I see promoted as 'this study' or 'that study' telling us we are such bad children who need to 'get right out there and clean that up' and, by the way, beggar the nation while you're at it.

And I'm pointing out there is no debate, except to the uninformed. Every major scientific organization has posted a statement that says that Global Warming is real and caused by man. Here's a list of the organizations and their statements.

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

For example, here's the official statement from the American Physical Society, which has over 50,000 members, of which I am one.

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

So basically you want a debate when organizations representing hundreds of thousands of scientists say there is no debate.

But my own knowledge that Global Warming is real and caused by man isn't based on that. It's based on the 15 years of school, research, and work that I've had that has taught me about absorption spectrum, blackbody radiation, and statistical analysis, not to mention latent heat of solids (ice melting) and the specific heat of water (ocean temperatures rising).

You get your dime store facts all jumbled up and confused and mistake you're own fumbling ineptitude at understanding science for doubt in the science itself.

I'm telling you this for your own good. You are probably a decent guy, and probably smart about the things you know, but understand that there is no debate in Global Warming except in the heads of fools. It's up to you to decide whether that includes you or not.

OK Roger,

You are certainly right about my education. I am, for the most part, self taught.

If what you say is true (and I haven't been swayed there yet) then someone needs to present the information in a way that can be grasped (and seem rational to) people of my lowly estate.

The articles I have seen (and yes I do read the scientific journals, just probably not the really good ones that people of your caliber are privy to) are either sensationalist pieces with very little in the way of hard facts or dissertations one has to wade through hoping to get to the point.

So, I am not attacking the science per se but the presentation of same.

I will concede a point to you here Shadetree. Scientists are part of the blame. See, I think scientists should be more outspoken and proactive addressing these misconceptions. Unfortunately many scientists believe that such public debate is beneath them. Many scientists believe people like you aren't worth convincing. They believe you've made up your mind and it can't be changed and that facts are irrelevant. I think that is nonsense and think the scientists who think like that are fools. My dad was a drycleaning delivery man for 30 years and he's one of the smartest guys I know. I rely on his judgement on many things.

Scientists have a social obligation to the society to attack the lies and misformation that pervades society regarding science.

As for your level of education, I could care less. Anyone who's ever worked in the real world knows you trust the highschool dropout with 30 years experience at a job over the kid with a phd straight out of school. When I was telling you that stuff about myself, I wanted to emphasize my experience more than my education.

All I care about is that you inform yourself rather than listen to any media. Use common sense. If the national organizations representing scientists tell you something about science, believe it. Believe me, scientists are bickering, argumentitive people, they wouldn't agree on something and allow a statement to be issued unless the vast majority of them accepted it as fact.

Best Regards, and I mean that Sincerely,

Roger

Not just scary the solar spot activity has been almost nil since September. The last time in recorded history that it continued at nil we had the little ice age. Haven't checked the sunspot activity for about a month(?) due to being real busy. (three jobs)

I have not had time to really check any of the new CO² data (over the last year) Global warming was real what I never could find was data that points to CO2 as the cause. As for the solar output the data I seen does not match the data you have presented. If I find the time I will have to do some more research. The data I research was by an Israeli scientist who found that much of the solar energy was being blocked in the upper atmosphere by carbon soot particles and if they were removed mean world temps could raise as high as 2^oC higher.

The NOAA data I looked at earlier also did not reference the natural CO2 being put into the system. Nor do I completely trust the US's data. They have little credibility as far as I'm concerned. Not the scientist but the system.

Brad

That there is a problem there is no doubt. I don't buy into the CO2 issue. Over population, ignorance, governments running amok, Greed of the few over the many, lack of stewardship of the land and skys, piss poor planning, pollution, waisting of resources, over fishing, destruction of habitats, the press and governments sensationalizing emotional issues to the point they are trusted less than the base.

Those in control of the momentary systems could have avoided this by altruistic leadership but instead chose to ignore or make it worse by mudding the waters.

We are living in the most interesting of times. Do we evolve or fail? Will we find leaders or charlatans. The truth is out there but the BS is tempting.

Global warming is a fact when the Suns output has been up 10% Now can someone please take the rise in temp from the other planets and correct our rise to see if our pollution is warming or cooling more than if there was no pollution.

Trust is earned let see what our new leader with his proven corrupt cabinet do. Their words mean nothing until they do what they say.

Brad

Your referring to a rise in temperature on Mars. The very paper that brought the rise in temperature on Mars explained it was due to albedo effect due to increased dust storm activity from the planet's orbit. There is no sudden warming on any other planets.

Heres the paper:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html

There has been no 10% increase in Solar output. Heres a link:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

I'm sick of people I enjoy interacting with in other threads make such ridiculous statements when it comes to global warming. Seriously guys, if only so that I can have a bit of faith in this world, stop perpetuating these lies and falsehoods.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

actually they support my opinion of CO2 as only a part player not the major cause.

I also think if some more digging is done they would find that sun spot activity has been recorded back to the 13th century not to the 17th century. The Chinese have been keeping records far longer than Europe.

Brad

You Said:"actually they support my opinion of CO2 as only a part player not the major cause."

No, they don't. The title of the article is "Climate Myths: Global Warming is due to the Sun, Not Humans"

The last paragraph says:

"But even if solar forcing in the past was more important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny"

So again, no, the article doesn't support what your saying at all.

"But together with the indisputable fact that CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation and thus acts as a greenhouse gas, the close correlation is strong evidence that CO₂ levels were one of the major factors determining global temperature during the past half million years, although they were not the trigger that started or ended the ice ages."

Their words not mine.

CO2 is a Problem, but is it the problem. I wish I had the time and money to put this through a root cause problem solving analysis to really pin it down but I don't. I don't disagree Global warming will impact the 45th parallel North to the 45th parallel South with devastating results if it continues, and it will continue unless something changes.

The glaciers I played on in my youth are gone. For two years in a row the lake I grew up by froze again and the winter snows are deep. So far this winter has been the coldest in many years. Raised in an alpine forest I notice things others don't. Pine Bark Beetles attack stressed trees and the trees of the American West are having major Beetle problems.

When I checked on CO2 and Ice thickness over the years from about 2000 to 2007 I did so to the Data level. I come to the conclusion we are missing something. What I'm not sure. I see models that don't take things like the change in sulphide's or our destruction of the Ozone lair that still continues. Lots of conclusions that made leaps of facts not supported by the data. I kept legal boxes full of them. Now I don't have the time to put it all together. Heck I don't even get time to read my pier review magazines as much as I would like. CR4 is more addictive.

Sorry you don't like my conclusions but they are not just based on feel good opinions.

I never got to see the actual solar data because it was denied pier review. I do know solar spots and our weather here have correlated too well over the last 6 months. It could be just coincidence but both are abnormal for my lifetime.

Brad

UV,

You are half understanding everything which is the source of your confusion. It's true that CO2 does not cause natural climate variations, in fact that's the point. When the Earth is left to natural climate cycles, which by the way are caused by variations in the Earths distance from the sun due to periodic perturbations of its orbit along with variations in the Earths tilt (the larger the tilt, the more extreme the winters), then CO2 acts as a feedback amplifier. As things heat up, CO2 that was stored is released which increases the heating due to the greenhouse effect.

The point is, what's going on now is natural. What we are doing is releasing CO2 that is never released in the natural cycles, that is the CO2 generated from burning fossil fuels. There is absolutely no scientific doubt that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere causes increases in trapped heat.

As far as this being one of the coldest winters, that is completely wrong. Here is the scientific data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Here is some data on solar output:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

Rather than making blanket statements that are just false, why don't you read the articles above from NASA and correct your misconceptions.

Again, this is not a debate. My goal here is to just stop you guys from embarrassing yourselves with your misconceptions.

My goal here is to just stop you guys from embarrassing yourselves with your misconceptions.

That's alright Roger, I have no embarrassment because I have no emotional attachment to any side of the discussion.

My statement was to the effect that we are having cold here that has not been seen for 30 years not that world weather is not of higher temperatures.

Frankly the acidification of the oceans by pollution and CO2 worry me more than the rise in mean temperatures. The temperature variation is within geological norms but the acidification seems to appear only in cataclysmic events. At 70 plus % of the world and more biomass than the land. Over harvesting, destruction of habitats, dumping ground for waste, peeing in the pool is a bad idea. We now have 6 billion doing it.

As for NASA I have friends who work and have worked there. Lots of politics to the point it kills astronauts and makes satellites that can't see. The engineers and scientist are not the issue. They are not above burying data that is unpleasant. I get data from them daily most of it is marketing of their agenda.

What will cause major issues is the rotting of the permafrost, and if we warm the oceans enough that the methane hydrates start gasifying. The greenhouse gasses from that will make CO2 irrelevant.

I still haven't seen the smoking gun that shows CO2 is the root cause only a issue among many.

I understand you find this frustrating and I sympathize but I can not for your piece of mind state something I have not interpreted the same as you. If I do find some empirical evidence of this I will post it asap.

As a side note published in Science Feb 20, titled A Matter Of Humidity,page 1020, they conclude that most of the evidence shows water vapor is doubling the rise in temperatures that would otherwise occur. (came in the mail today) The data was not presented only the perspective.

If this is correct then 50% HOH vapor, 37.5% CO2 and 12.5% other compounds such as methane could very well account for our global warming. (by activity not volume or mass) My swag factor.

Of the 50%, not water vapor, green house gasses we produce what %?

I don't remember what our contribution is, the rest is of non man sources. Of what we produce how much must be reversed to fix the issue?

Brad

Of course you remain unconvinced, you doubt the intellectual integrity of NASA. And since the American Physical Societies statement on climate change is quite clear, I can only assume you doubt them as well, as well as the national societies for climatology, meteorology, chemistry, etc. etc.

How can you not doubt when you have clearly turned your back on science. Of course you doubt. And don't try to tell me that not believing any of the professional societies of scientists official statements isn't turning your back on science.

I don't care that you doubt Global Warming, what bothers me is that you misunderstand the scientific process so much, that you feel justified discounting the statements from these organizations as politically motivated. I defy you to take 5 physicists to lunch and see if you can get them to agree on anything except the most basic, indisputable facts. Scientists argue, it's how they make their living. When they aren't arguing, you better pay attention, because that means you just heard a fact.

Whether you want to believe it or not, your doubt is not related to any uncertainty in the data, it's a result of you complete misunderstanding of the scientific community. The reason I say its embarrassing is because its the equivalent to back in the day when the regular guys, often smart guys, refused to believe in the heliocentric model, who refused to accept quantum mechanics, who refused to believe flight was possible, these guys were on the wrong side of history. That's where you are right now.

What you need to do, is accept the fact that Global Warming is real, and get in the fight over the solution. Because as sure as scientists are about man caused global warming, that's how uncertain they are as to how to proceed to solve the problem. And we need your help, but only if your offering solutions.

You Wrote:"If the global warming issue is, in fact, man made, so what? What's to do about it. There are powers that be, that would like to see me living like a caveman. Of course, that wouldn't apply to them, because they are the thinking elite."

First of all, I just want to say, that IS the right question. What do we do about it? Because you know what, Carbon trading is not a solution, it's a stop gap, and a doubtful one at that. And despite what you may believe, there is no "thinking elite". Just guys and gals, just like you, trying to work this stuff out.

The reason I'm so aggressive attacking the "Global Warming isn't caused by man" nonsense is because as long as there is a large portion of the population who believe that junk, they wont be participating in the discussion of how to solve it. We've got problems that need fixing, and the only way well do it is if we argue over the solutions, because that's when democracy shines, not when lies pervade society, but when there are honest differences in the philosophies of the solutions.

We need real solutions, not tough talk from weak souls. First everyone needs to admit the problem. Stop ducking it like some child trying to avoid eating their vegetables. Then we suck it up and solve it. That's what it used to be to be an American. Lets get back there. Science can solve this problem through Fusion, through Solar Power, Hydropower, etc. But not if we turn our back on it and pretend it isn't there. There is no "thinking elite", only snake oil salesman who made the idea of them up so you doubt everything. These snake oil salesmen have been around forever, look how they profit from the confusion. We'll never solve this stuff till we unite, and well never unite till we stop being afraid of the truth and the good old American sweat that it will take to fix it.

I'm not "trying" to do anything here man except tell it like it is.

Dear Bricktop, We may well convince someone on the "other side" that their position is incorrect. You're using the ploy, not us.

In this debate, I haven't seen any advantage for me or Roger to lie, or use any ploy. Basically we regard you all as friends. That's about the limit of the political overtones.

Since I'm not getting a paycheck from anybody right now, I guess you ought to listen to me more than anyone else, aye?

As far as Al Gore is concerned, well nobody and no party has a patent on Hypocrisy. I thought from what I knew a predicted 20 foot sea level rise was a bit high, but 3ft is looking likely, and would be bad enough.

The prior administration has certainly redistributed wealth to a bunch of incompetent manipulators and crooks who've done plenty to eradicate any hope of even achieving what was Middle Class status. Socialism for the Rich has been the operational agenda for so long now it will be a miracle if the US ever again has a Middle Class.

If you really don't give a rats-ass anymore, then why are you participating in the discussion?

What exactly is the parable? It could be worth a laugh.

Caves are sensible these days, as they were earlier, considering there is a base temperature, and they are known as safe from a certain amount of radiation we might anticipate as more and more nations get ahold of atomic weapons.

I'd say we weren't about to, but were reliving some of the Roman history.

Please elaborate on how the health of the planet is being used as a weapon against the people? I thought it would be a good thing if new technologies for power generation were created and put into the infrastructure to help people. I don't get that point. What sort of ploy is it referring to?

I agree we should be looking for better ways to meet our energy needs. Government subsidies, or support for R&D to make it cheaper and more competitive are supposedly on the table now, more than before.

Working men like me are already living near or at poverty levels. I am very sorry your tax rate is so high. Maybe if the Unions weren't bust and there was Universal Health Care, and the educational system wasn't so screwed up, regular working people would get more money and then be able to pay more taxes so it wasn't thrown on you.

I'll bet you actually have much better guns than I do. All I've got is a little 32 revolver and an antique single shot 20 gauge shotgun. If you don't want a "shitbox electric car" get a Tesla.

P.S. and as far as I can tell the cascade of events is that overpopulation raised CO2 levels, things got hotter as predicted, then the Methane started to get out of the permafrost accelerating the trend. Cow farts aren't helping either. What a paradise this planet could have been if Human Population had been kept to One Billion.

Please elaborate on how the health of the planet is being used as a weapon against the people?

If I may interject, but you may have answered your own question. May it not be true, but if so much problems are to follow.

What a paradise this planet could have been if Human Population had been kept to One Billion.

My guess would be 1/10th of present.

What I meant was if we had a population on the planet smaller, with the technology we have now, instead of the technology that existed, when the population was at that level, we would not be facing nearly insolvable sets of problems, with the wonderful tools we have developed.

Of course you would be entirely correct in your cynicism if there were no social or political advances in step with the science and technology. I myself am nearly convinced that Technocracy is called for, over Oligarchy, as we have now.

As a straight out journalist still, I'll tell you, I'd no more lie to you, than you would as an engineering professional sign off on a bridge you knew would fall down.

I con cur with the Technocracy but Facts upset the couch potato public.

My cynicism is based on the Golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. As far as I know only a few countries that still control their own money. We don't. Those that do control the momentary systems of the world are not very forthcoming on their plans and as a matter of history have not been pro life.

The population problem was realized at about 1billion but to many countries a base of their power is on out populating their opponents. Religious groups have used this for eons.

The only lies I tell are by omission and then only in the name of tact and diplomacy. One of my Axioms is "if you don't want to know don't ask". Most don't consider omission a lie but I do. There is no difference between telling a lie and causing a lie by not including a pertinent fact. Besides my memory is not the best and lies are hard to remember.

There is one form of lie I have used with success. When you have a information leak start giving everyone involved a specific version to leak. The differences will isolate the problem.

Brad

Alright guys, I think I've said enough for now. We've got to stop letting these snakeoil salesmen divide us with lies. I don't care if we disagree, that's what makes us strong as a nation, but there is a difference between debate which is what we need, and promotion of misconceptions and falsehoods, which we have.

It's easy not to believe anything, to doubt everyones motives, to always think the worst of the world. It doesn't make you clever, just a quitter.

Get back in the game, we need you. This nation can't fix it's problems till we're united.

Roger,

It's good that you want to make nice and think that we should all just get along. It's the part about being in agreement with you (lockstep as it were) that is the stickler.

How about we find something we can agree about concerning this problem?

I think it makes total economic and national security sense to move away from fossil fuels. To prove my commitment in that direction I should have my waste-wood gas/steam-engined car on the road sometime in this current year. I believe I have finally worked out the valving.

"This nation can't fix it's problems till we're united."

Don't want to muddy the water any further, but may I point out that it's a global problem - a global solution is needed. Maybe combined global efforts would expediate a solution?

Wait a second!... Just what are you implying?...The world doesn't revolve around (the) US?

You bring up an excellent point, no matter what we as a country do to better our environment without some global thinking on this issue we aren't going to have any noted change other than maybe just slowing things down a little. And I'm not saying that we (US) have to wait until we all have some grand global plan, but we need to start making some drastic transitional changes in a leadership role with the hope the other large industrialized nations will follow. My personal belief is that the first thing to change would be everybody rides a motorcycle during the warmer months, it will lower our dependence on oil and it will lower stress levels by an estimated 37% (made up estimate btw)

Of course the world revolves around the US. We are a quarter of it's total economy.

Please don't assume there is only one solution to this problem and that solution requires government cooperation. I don't agree. There is a free market solution to it, but in order to get the ball rolling, you've got to invest in the science to make it cost effective, once that happens, just get out of the way and everything else will take care of itself.

I know that without the US it would be back to the dark ages but that quarter you talk about used to be worth a lot more than it does now.

Where in the post did I lead you to think I was proposing there was only one solution? I stated that the first thing (which implies there would be a second thing) to do was get motorcycles. Which truly isn't a bad idea, agree with me or not.

Where did I state anything about the government being involved? Because of my statement about we as the US? We as the US have led the world in many innovations without the government. But now the government is threatening the market by seeping into a whole lot of companies...sorry, wrong thread for all that.

You Wrote: "I know that without the US it would be back to the dark ages but that quarter you talk about used to be worth a lot more than it does now."

I agree.

You Wrote: "Where in the post did I lead you to think I was proposing there was only one solution? I stated that the first thing (which implies there would be a second thing) to do was get motorcycles. Which truly isn't a bad idea, agree with me or not."

My bit about Carbon Trading was directed at you but meant to be a general statement, sorry about the confusion. Motorcycles would make a big difference, or mopeds. I just don't know if Americans would willingly give up their tanks, I mean SUVs.

You Wrote:"

Where did I state anything about the government being involved? Because of my statement about we as the US? We as the US have led the world in many innovations without the government. But now the government is threatening the market by seeping into a whole lot of companies...sorry, wrong thread for all that."

No where, I was responding to someone else in the same response. I was making the statement that Government coorperation isn't necessary for a solution. Sorry about the confusion.

My solution, develop Fusion and Solar, doesn't require governments to cooperate. Basically we dump a lot of money into Solar research, develop effective solar panels, sell the rights to the technology to American companies, and have the free market take care of the problem.

In other words, if you want people to stop burning fossil fuels, offer them a cheaper alternative. Greed will take care of the rest. The planet is save, the U.S. gets rich, everyone is happy.

Carbon trading doesn't work because it's in opposition to human nature. It's a nice stop gap, but it isn't a solution.

Heading: Expert is fired because serious people don't need his advice anymore.

Serious people make fun of themselves and crack jokes Expert doesn't understand was cited as reason for the firing of Expert, say editors.