At this rate, in about two more Presidencies all the deniers will finally believe in science! Yea for optimism!

Then maybe we could get back to a time, pre 1970′s, when Republicans also felt the need to protect the environment and passed the legislation to do so with bi-partisan appeal.

But alas, corporate greed has taken over the nation, as we blindly slide behind the rest of the world in math, science, and overall well-being.

Elitist? Well if you’re so sure you’re right then how about YOU go to university and become an atmospheric physicist? Then your opinion will be worth something.

Do they feel their ideology is threatened? Sadly, we are dealing with a particularly acute form of psychopathology, exacerbated by a certain media that spews the same vitriol, thereby encouraging those who share their ideology to do the same with impunity.

As Sime (above) says: if climate scientists are wrong, but we move to a carbon-neutral economy,gradually replacing a fossil fuel based economy, where’s the harm in that? We’ll have to do it anyway, as fossil fuels are not infinite, and are increasingly much more difficult to obtain, as evidenced in the Gulf.

Cooler heads, and tongues, are needed. Sadly, the state of discourse has declined markedly.

Because the theory behind “man-made global warming” garbage is an abject fraud, that’s why, and it has been hampering the economy and society for too long now (like about 10 years of really insane fanaticism about it).

CO2 has been part of the atmosphere for like 4 billion years, at concentrations far higher than present, and 10 years of nothing happening but a lot of threats and bogus claims aren’t doing anything but hurting people.

Get over your fantasy and get out of the way of other people who are sick of your sickness.

The entire AGW scam is based on seriously flawed, notoriously inadequate computer moddeling. Even if the modeld were perfect, the data is at best questionable! It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee, AGW “the sky is falling” projections are being discredited and the retreat is gaining momentum. If the leading AGW promoters realy believed their own doomsday stories, they would be the first to reduce their own “carbon footprints” instead of living the high life with ever expanding “carbon footprints” and waistlines.

Acquaint yourself with the basics before pontificating:
(a google-doc)

http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw

Too much jiggery-pokery has gone on in climate science, and now the genie of doubt is out of the bottle forever.

So provide the peer reviewed scientific evidence, from qualified climatologists that back up your claims.

“The science isn’t settled”, denier canard number 78 up on Skeptical Science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

“There is a large body of evidence accumulating that suggests the sun, among other entities, has an influence on cooling and warming the entire solar system”

No there is not, the sun is at a solar minimum and just starting to become active again, what you have claimed is another denier canard, please provide your peer reviewed evidence or stop spouting stuff that has been made up by the very people the article above is discussing.

“It’s the sun”, denier canard number 1 on Skeptical Science.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727793.100-the-sun-joins-the-climate-club.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20

You might learn something about the subject at realclimate below, and yes it’s really complex, which is exactly why we have experts who spend their entire careers doing this stuff, strange as it may seem 97% of them agree with the science yet you don’t, and you are a “qualified climate scientist?” Or are you just repeating stuff you saw somewhere on the internet because you are angry and probably scared?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

Question..If you or a member of your family had the miss fortune of being diagnosed with cancer would you argue with your doctor, OK so you get a second opinion, not good enough for you OK so 97% of all doctors in the world tell you you have cancer you still going to argue, after all cancer science is not settled and apparently you are better versed in climate science then the experts so why not cancer specialists…

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

“…major portions of the global database have been ignored by the CO2 cohort.”

Which portions, explain what that means, and having done so please provide references to credible sources to backup what is meant by said claim or please stop inferring that scientists are in some way dishonest and part of some conspiracy of omission, quite frankly they have better things to do.

The oil companies and their cohorts have huge sums of money, they have had 40 years to set up labs and employ the best of the best to study the science and blow it apart allowing them to continue their madness, crow like cockerels, wear their “Told You So” T-Shirts and collect their Nobel prizes. Have they succeed… no, will they succeed no… because “no surprise” the science is sound ergo they resort to the tactics of FUD as described above.

These are the same PR firms and individuals that sat in front of the US Senate and claimed “Smoking does not cause cancer” yeah right!

So if the scientists are wrong (and assuming we do something) we get a cleaner planet with clean reusable infinite energy and the chance of a reasonable climate.

If you are wrong and we do nothing (means emissions will continue to increase), sooner rather than later all hell will break loose and millions, probably billions will die for nothing other than greed, stupidity and an insistence on using an 18th century energy technology, and the stupid bit is the energy source you want to continue using is finite so we will have to change over 30 to 40 years anyway.

In the mean time perhaps you can solve this conundrum for us dumbo scientists by answering 1 and 2 below…

If increases in CO2 are not causing modern day global warming then two things must be true:

1) Something unknown is suppressing the well-understood greenhouse effect (and doing so during massive increases in GHGs).

2) Something unknown is causing the warming that mirrors the GHE.

So we can accept what we know to be true (AGW) or we accept two unknowns.

- Proffessor Scott A Mandia 18/08/2010

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/index.html

I’ll trust the lives of my friends, family and the rest off humanity and other life on the planet to the scientists rather than a bunch of greedy oil men and their hangers on.

However, you are of course just a poor deluded dupe of the oil-industry funded deniers!

There are as I write two comments to this article. Both succinct and sane and both in direct opposition to the thrust of it.

I wonder if “Conservation Magazine” has a decreasing or increasing subscription list?

Jack Savage
Ex-member of Greenpeace.

Most people would be (and will eventually be) appalled at how badly twisted the “science” of climatology has been by green groups, political processes and media sensationalism. There are natural cycles and MOST of the warming of the last few decades was a part of that cycle. We are now experiencing 40% of whatever “forcing” we should expect from a doubling of CO2 and yet since the 1880s warm period peak the earth has only warmed .6C! Since the 1940s warm period peak the earth has only warmed .4C

Be real! The story is more about job preservation – the business of preserving their grants to continue studies on how to fix it and the root causes. Following your own advice and follow the money – all the money.

As an example of bad balanced reporting I suggest you look at your own publication. Until you exercise intellectual honesty, articles such as yours will continue the march towards marginalization.

The globe may be warming, and we need real science not politicized hype to rule the discourse. Until that happens it will continue to be a sophmoric debate between sides, and their is only one adult in the equation.

Take your own advise and follow the money. Perhaps, just maybe, depending on your willingness to see all aspects of the debate, you’ll be ready to talk with the grownups.

W. Dunn
Former Member of Greenpeace and Audubon