The Intersection of Climate Science and Politics in the U.S.

How can they not believe Climate Change is not occuring? Certainly the Ice is melting on the North and South Poles...but we are also seeing frigid and extreme cold in areas that were not so cold before....such as in the United States and in North China.. There are 2 phenomenons happening at once.

The earth has moved in concern to it's tilt...thus making the colder poles warmer while making warmer cold regions more cold. The hole in the ozone is said to have contributed to the earth's tilt occuring....hence the warming effect pressurized the earth into moving....heat does that...and now with the earth in its new tilt position it has given colder results to the southern inlands, while warmer results to the Northern and South Poles.

This condition will remain until a new ozone hole is created again...if industry does not put the brakes on to its Carbon emissions.. Then the earth will again go through another tilt process....affecting the regions that have become colder to remain cold...while expanding the cold reach further into the Southern Inlands...while increasing the warming in the North and Southern Poles..

The cycle will continue; thereby affecting farming and harvest production rates, and affect weather and wind patterns....to cause more disasters and global destruction.. It is also recognized that this new tilt affect caused by Global Pollution is causing earthquakes as well. The changes in the earths position changes the moon lunar pull...affecting tidal water movements changing ocean floor bottom pressures with unstable temperature movements that radiate like waves that move when a common stone is thrown into a body of water... The inner earth rock shelves and cores move around like watching a Lava Lamp...inciting shifts and rock movement that registers as earthquakes around the globe.. Predictably more Tsuami's will occur, and devastion will take center stage....destroying the idea that man has control over his environment and economic conditions..

Sorry, I don't share your "chicken little 'the sky is falling'" mentality. You just been watching too many scary movies.

Wake up Wesley.
It may not be you that suffers but all future generations.
You don't have to 'believe' but try to be part of the solution instead of the problem. At the very least just be neutral if you can only bring negativity, doubt, pessimism and cynicism to the conversation.

"The hole in the ozone is said to have contributed to the earth's tilt" Wow. What foolishness. Climate changes. Period. The man made part of the equation is a political movement that has now reached religious proportions.
The key players in the climate change are all currently under investigation, there have been lawsuits started, and more fraudulent data collection techniques are being uncovered by the day.

There is no 'normal' climate. It fluctuates as it always has. The fact that the climate fraudsters tampered with the (our) data to attempt to prove otherwise is fraud as they receive huge amounts of cash from the public, and most are heavily invested in phony carbon credits. They need to go to jail.

Penn & Teller went to a 'green' rally for whatever goofy 'cause' it was –likely taxing cow farts or one of their other brilliant ideas – and asked people to sign a petition to ban all use of Dihydrogen Monoxide. They used the same tactics as the 'green' activists saying things like "they put this stuff on vegetables", " they are able to detect large concentrations in homes", and "babies are testing to have massive amounts in their blood".

All true. Dihydrogen Monoxide is water. But all signed the petition without having a clue as to what they were doing, including the organizer. Nobody refused or asked questions. One person even said "I know all about that stuff", and signed.

We do need an alternatives to, and more local exploration for, oil as dependency on terrorist supporting countries and stiff competition from China and India will drive up prices dramatically in the coming years. Wind and Solar are useless without a primary source, which should be nuclear until fission is ready. The 'greens' have blocked nuclear for 40 some years now, and are very much responsible for our predicament today. Vote all greenspeakers out of office this fall (both parties).

manbearpig is confused. Picking on some obviuosly not brilliant people to enforce an obviously no brilliant solution to a probability of global human affected weather change. No normal Du! Significant change in averages? Warmest decade ever recorded? Solar and wind are useless (we might run out soon) without a primary source? As the sun provides the warmth and energy to support our life shall we religate it to secondary? Thousands of years of nuclear is without problems? I'll stick with the sun. Its done well so far. Intelligent use of the most abundant free source of energy available leaves all other solutions lacking in merit and wisdom while obviously flawed in reasoning.

Stephen Lacey repeatedly uses the pejorative term "climate deniers" in this podcast to refer to everyone who questions the accuracy of some of the science related to global warming. This strikes me as unprofessional and counterproductive. Virtually NO ONE denies that the past century has displayed a systematic warming trend and virtually no one disagrees that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased ~30% over a similar period. There are reasoned disagreements concerning the CAUSES of this climate change--NOT its existence. In particular, climate is subject to many cyclical factors that are poorly understood and which lead to large temperature fluctuations over time periods of the order of decades. Disentangling these very complex and poorly understood trends from the influences of atmospheric CO2 changes is quite challenging and the extant climate modeling is subject to large uncertainties that deserve close scrutiny and careful assessment. The various climate models have a very mixed record at both predicting future trends and adequately explaining the historical climate record. The tendency of some in the climate modeling community, as well as many more non-scientist activists, to understate the uncertainty in the models and demonize anyone that dares to question the work is ultimately damaging to the credibility of the field, and is thus highly counterproductive. Solid science is easily defended by rational arguments and careful validation tests; insults and name calling are typically the last resort of those who think they are defending weak work.
Steven

Steven---it is one thing to be a "climate denier" who questions the the input and relative values attached to those inputs.

It is quite another thing entirely to be a "climate denier" on political grounds. Meaning attempting to twist and manipulate data to support a politcal stance.

-------" Solid science is easily defended by rational arguments..........."-------

Not if the rational arguements fall on deaf ears because they do not support the political agenda being pushed. Right wing pundits and politicians like to make great use of the "global warming denial" arguement to gloss over all the environmental, political, social and economic damage being done by coal, petroleum and nuclear energy. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and the golden goose of their entrenched profit machines.

The interview with Dr. Hansen was a nice surprise.

For those that are interested, the IPCC (international panel on climate change) provided a collection of scientific data and projections on the earth's climate change. It is from 2007, and a lot of new data on earth's climate change has been collected since then. But, in my opinion, it is a good source for those want an overview of the science. It is located for free (in pdf files) at the IPCC website:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

Although the politics and climate-gates can sway public opinion, in the US, the final decision rests with the people.

Irregardless of what the science tells us, the promoters of climate change policy are telling us to take sacrifices for future problems- essentially pricing in the cost of future problems into current lifestyle. Is that realistic in a capitalist country, where cheap goods made Walmart what it is today?

Not until alternatives energy is clearly cheaper than fossil fuels, or until people feel climate change is clearly affecting their own quality of life, will LARGE changes in carbon emissions likely occur.

Bottom line is we can disturb the balance in nature up to a point, after which there is no compromise. I believe we, as a species, are still in the process of learning that.

Matthew, I donot share your "sky is falling" mentality too. You know nothing of me and yet like others caught in the "religiosity" of anthropogenic global warming, race to the conclusion that I am a iliterate redneck that clings to my guns and Bible....Thats funny.

Yes, I am a "denier". Like Galileo, during the inquisition, we "deniers" are outcasts from the "scientific" community. Which is ironic because as a scientist, I thought we must always be inquisitive and challenge the prevailing norm. One of the greatest skeptics of Einstein's Theory of Relativity was Einstein himself as he questioned the Cosmological Constant he had to fudge to fit his view of the universe at that time.

And as being part of the problem, well, I did not think spending $100,000 on my home PV 24 Kw system (Solar Power), passive lighting using SolaTubes, SolaHart solar water heating system, and rain catchment system for my farm home qualifies as a "problem". And yes, I drive a Civic. How 'bout you?

I do believe in global warming. After all, we are only 10,000 years out of a 100,000 year ice age. Hey, maybe thats why baby frozen woolly mammoths are defrosting out there in the tundras.

We produce 27 BILLION TONS OF C02 EACH YEAR!! yikes!! but what is the denominator? I'll tell you, it is 3,600 billion tons of C02 already in our atmosphere. In other words, we add just three fourths of 1% of all C02. The greatest greenhouse gas is water vapor and clouds, as much as 90% of total effects. The other 10% is CH4, 03, S02, N0x, SF6, flurocarbons and a few others including 3,600 billion tons of C02 that account for 2-3% of that 10%. So the math doesn't quite add up.

And who came up with the figure of greater than 400 to 500 ppm causing the end of the world? I believe it was James Hansen of the Goddard Space Center. How did he come up with those numbers? Thin air...?

I see the "religiosity" of AGW overtaking the "science" of global warming. And so the politicization of a very important topic. And the blame goes to "deniers", like myself. Very convinient...eh?

The cause and possibility of GW is a mute point to me. The consumption of burnable fuel is happening, showed by increasing prices. Burning everything for energy is obviously not sustainable from an aerable topsoil or air quality viewpoint. Nuke energy is a massive net heat increaser and spent fuel hot potatoe. We have the technology available now to produce our energy with current sunshine.

Like Bill Cosby's fave Nun teacher said; "What is wrong with you?"
Your ignorance makes me laugh! Silly rabbits. Watch Out!

Phil writes in comment #12: "Nuke energy is a massive net heat increaser and spent fuel hot potatoe (sic). We have the technology available now to produce our energy with current sunshine."

Equipment to convert sunshine to energy is rare and expensive. Unfortunately, we do not live in a utopian world where we can immediately have plentiful, affordable, and clean energy so we must carefully balance risks as we make hard choices. Today, billions of people have the choice of coal generated electricity or living in the dark and millions of others do not even have the luxury of this choice. The risks of climate change must be carefully assessed and weighed against other concerns. Nuclear energy has risks, but those that are truly concerned about global warming, such as Hansen, judge these are lower than that of climate change--at least in the short term while renewable technologies achieve the economies of scale needed to have influence.

Incidentally, the heat generated by nuclear power plants (and any other power plant) is entirely negligible when considering climate change .
Steven