GEORGE OCHENSKI: It’s getting harder to deny global warming

2012-07-30T08:00:00Z GEORGE OCHENSKI: It’s getting harder to deny global warming missoulian.com
July 30, 2012 8:00 am

Those who would deny the reality of global warming are having a lot tougher time these days as the impacts stack up. No longer are we talking about remote island nations being submerged under rising sea levels. Nope, the global warming chickens have come home to roost here in the Land of Coal and they’re not likely to leave anytime soon – especially when our clueless politicians continue to pollute like there’s no tomorrow.

Right now, an estimated two-thirds of the nation is officially in what’s being called the worst drought since the 1950s and it is rapidly worsening. Across the Midwest the corn crop is toast – no pun intended. Withered stalks stand ignored in fields that used to be filled with waves of green, well-watered from the sky. But now the parched, cracked soil looks heavenward where nary a drop of lifegiving moisture falls from the clouds.

It’s estimated that corn and its byproducts constitute a huge percentage of our food supply in all its forms, from corn syrup to flour. But corn also feeds our livestock, including chicken and pigs as well as beef and dairy cattle. Plus, under a misguided federal policy, significant amounts of corn have been diverted from food to fuel for ethanol production.

Now consider these startling statistics: The USDA has already declared “natural disasters” in 29 states due to drought. The federal government estimates 88 percent of the corn crop is “drought affected,” pushing prices to a record $8 per bushel on the commodities market and sending the futures market soaring.

The results of those crop shortages and price increases are expected to hit consumers in the form of 3 percent to 4 percent higher prices on eggs, dairy and pork and 4 percent to 5 percent on beef and veal. For most people, whose pocketbooks already are squeezed by recessionary pressures, the face of global warming means even more money now will be required just to eat.

This year’s fire season is yet another facet of global warming’s effects, with large conflagrations running not just through parched forests where trees contain less moisture than kiln-dried lumber, but across vast acreages of grassland, sage and brush.

The result is a double-whammy for the cattle industry, as hay and grazing lands disappear in walls of wind-driven flames while corn and soybeans wilt in the fields. Predictions now, with months of hot weather yet to come, are that livestock herds will be significantly reduced by sell-offs as ranchers face the reality of drought-ravaged feedstock for their herds.

Nor will we escape the impacts here in Montana, even though we sit at the headwaters of the mighty streams and rivers that drain the Rockies. Already, Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks has declared “hoot-owl” fishing restrictions on the Dearborn, Sun and Smith rivers due to drought impacts. The water temperature in the Lower Madison River, below Ennis Lake, was at 73 degrees last week. At that temperature, Montana’s world-famous trout fisheries face life-threatening stress.

Trout, after all, are not tropical fish. They require clean, cold water to survive and become torpid whenever the water temperature nears 70 degrees. Toss in increased irrigation demand, also due to drought, and one of Montana’s premier assets is on the ropes due to higher temperatures and lower water flows. The result? Expect widespread fish kills in August unless significant natural precipitation breaks the drought.

It seems a no-brainer in the face of the evidence to realize that we are now exceeding our planet’s capabilities to sustain life as we know it due to our consumption and pollution. In common terms, that’s called “fouling our nest.” But we’re entangled in feedback loops that only make the problems worse.

Our politicians have no desire to tell the American people to consume and pollute less. Quite the opposite, unfortunately. When triple-digit temperatures become the norm across much of the nation, people crank up their air conditioning just to survive the oppressive heat. The more power they use, the more coal and natural gas utilities burn to supply the power and the more politicians call for increased energy production. Instead of calming the flames of global warming, we are tossing logs on the fire and suffering the inevitable consequences.

It would be great to say there was some relief on the horizon. But there is not. In this election year, the ostriches who call themselves “leaders” have their heads deeply buried in the sand while their tailfeathers scorch in the heat.

George Ochenski writes a column for the Missoulian’s Monday Opinion page. He can be reached via email at oped@missoulian.com.

Copyright 2015 missoulian.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(40) Comments

  1. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - August 10, 2012 11:40 am
    "Mathaba" that Independent but way far left personal blog masquerading as a news site, published from a basement somewhere on the planet. I wonder if they know the guy with the Superman Cape?
  2. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - August 08, 2012 7:36 am
    @Boy...the funding of a study by anyone or any business is of no concern as to the outcome of the study...as long as the science is pure. Therein lies the rub. This is what got Hadley CRU into trouble in the first place. Unpure science.

    You want everyone to believe in bogeymen.

    SHELL (the biggest oil company) was funding Hadley CRU long before cries of ExxonMobile and Koch became the stalwart of the proponents of AGW...which had to be renamed to "climate change" (easier to sell). Why would they rename something that was true?

    So who is being dishonest here in their approach?

    What you are failing to reveal to people who didn't bother to read your study, and my study, is that they are the SAME STUDY.

    Imagine that. You're telling people it says something that it doesn't say. Then try to cover your error by asserting that it is limited in it's scope by only studying one aspect of the Ocean biology. Well...duh. But you were using it to refute what I was saying, with the implication that your study actually said something different than mine...but they are the same study.

    Now apply that same rhetoric to the cries of AGW.

    New models are being programmed to incorporate all those "things" they left out of previous models. Since we all know how well those models performed of late.

    Black carbon, aerosols, clouds...80% of the effect of climate change is attributed to them...not CO2

    CO2 has a logarithmic effect in ability to absorb heat radiation. The more CO2, the less effective it gets. So it is not a linear progression. At something just over 800ppm it becomes almost negligible in it's ability to contain more heat.

    You could actually read up on it in those quaint old studies that you tried to downplay.

    You must be a student under Eric.

    Neither one of you know beans.
  3. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - August 08, 2012 7:22 am
    So Eric...still want to claim that four different studies in four different parts of the planet that studied four different sets of data all coming to the same conclusion only mean that it was a "local weather event"?

    You're so corrupted by your ideology...you shouldn't be teaching anyone.
  4. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - August 08, 2012 7:19 am
    So what about the global fall of temperatures in the last decade? They haven't tracked at all with the rise of CO2...

    oops.
  5. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - August 08, 2012 7:17 am
    Interesting. Except...

    Muller's papers (BEST) have yet to be accepted and published.

    Anthony Watts' papers are accepted and published. Anthony Watts was one of the people working with Muller on the BEST study. Watts and other scientists refused to sign on to the finished work of Muller as they deemed it to be corrupted by "the science".

    ooops.

    Muller funded by Koch and ExxonMobile to do the BEST study. Wow, that's some major oil conspiracy huh...

    Hadley CRU was getting money from SHELL OIL long before any promoters of climate change were raising the alarm about corrupt OIL MONEY.

    July 5, 2000: email 0962818260

    Mike Kelly, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, writes to Mike Hulme and Tim O’Riordan:

    "Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner, and will contribute to a studentship fund, though under certain conditions."

    And they accuse skeptics of “being in the pockets” of Big Oil?

    "I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team, but this approach will do equally for the new Foundation, as it’s only one step or so off Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Foundation and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s within the remit."

    Sounds lucrative. Buildings don’t come cheap.

    Really...can't you guys do any better than to rehash long settled disputes?

    Facts...anyone?
  6. Eric Grimsrud
    Report Abuse
    Eric Grimsrud - August 02, 2012 11:32 am
    Hakon,

    OK, Just for you, I found another free source of information concerning the science of climate change. It is essentially an full length book available on the internet at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm . Written by Spencer Weart it is a great reference which describes scientific thought on this subject from the very beginning to the present (2011).

    I must warn you, however, in order to get to it you will have to go the the "trouble" of "wandering to" this web site - just as you would have to mine.

    Once you get there, however, you will find the whole ten yards of scientific thought on this subject.
  7. claudius
    Report Abuse
    claudius - August 01, 2012 9:57 pm
    "In a new study marine scientists have warned that the rate of ocean acidification presently occurring is unprecedented in the last 300 million years. This is due to dissolving carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, much of which human activity has contributed over the last 200 years through the use of fossil fuels. The extent and rate of acidification enhances the prospect for a mass marine extinction event this century. Research in paleoclimatology and oceanography has revealed that anthropogenic climate change is driving Ocean Acidification threatening marine ecosystems."
    http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=630314
  8. hiker12
    Report Abuse
    hiker12 - August 01, 2012 7:25 pm
    Reputable climate scientists have known for decades that humans were causing climate change. People who don’t like such scientific results can choose to ignore science, but of course that will not change what is happening. Skeptics ignore world-wide melting of glaciers, melting of polar ice caps, migration of plants and animals to higher latitudes and elevations, increasing wildfires, and much more evidence as planet earth warms.

    Science, facts, reality have little relevance to skeptics. They want to believe humans can do whatever they want with no consequences, so they choose to believe this and the heck with science or facts. The climate change disinformation industry funded by fossil fuel companies encourages this delusional thought, preying on the ignorant and gullible, to the benefit of the fossil fuel industry. Gradually all but the most obtuse people will recognize climate change, but by then it may be too late.

    Here is an article about a skeptic formerly funded by fossil fuel industry who finally acknowledges scientific reality (of course he will now lose disinformation industry support, but perhaps he realizes that the future of our planet is more important than money).

    SCIENCE:
    Converted Koch-funded skeptic now says 'Humans are almost entirely the cause' of climate change
    Lauren Morello, E&E reporter, Published: Monday, July 30, 2012

    Richard Muller's conversion is complete.

    The University of California, Berkeley, physicist once doubted the existence of climate change. Now he is convinced it's not only real but man-made, based on the latest results from his controversial review of temperature records.

    "Call me a converted skeptic," Muller wrote in an op-ed published yesterday in The New York Times.

    According to his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, the average temperature on land has risen 1.5 degrees Celsius -- roughly 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit -- since 1753. That warming has tracked closely with the rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, with little apparent contribution from natural factors like changes in solar activity, the group's latest paper concludes.

    The researchers analyzed 14.4 million observations of average monthly land temperatures from 44,455 sites around the world, looking back about 100 years further and using five times more data than independent analyses by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA and the U.K. Hadley Centre.

    "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming," Muller wrote. "Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

    It is a marked about-face. Muller initially sought to investigate skeptics' claims that flawed data and methods had skewed prior examinations of global temperature trends. His startup kitty included $150,000 from a foundation started by oil billionaire Charles Koch that has supported efforts opposing mainstream climate change science.

    'Stronger' results than IPCC

    Even after the Berkeley project's initial findings last year agreed with prior analyses by NASA, NOAA and the Hadley Centre, Muller resisted pinning the blame for climate change on man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

    "The amount that's due to humans is still open, and there are very big uncertainties in that," he said in November at a Washington, D.C., briefing organized by Democratic lawmakers (ClimateWire, Nov. 15, 2011).

    Now Muller says Berkeley Earth's new results "are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," because they found solar activity had a "negligible" role in warming observed since the 1750s.

    In its 2007 report, the IPCC concluded with 90 percent certainty that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have been the primary factor in Earth's overall temperature rise since 1950. But the U.N. panel said natural causes, including changes in the sun's output, may have been a significant factor before then.

    Still, the new findings are not likely to alter the polarized U.S. debate on climate change.

    Derision from deniers

    Muller's work has been rejected by climate skeptics, including some he once called collaborators. And mainstream climate researchers have greeted the Berkeley Earth research with exasperation, sometimes tinged with amusement (ClimateWire, Oct. 21, 2011).

    Tonya Mullins, a spokeswoman for the Charles Koch Foundation, said it "has long supported and will continue to support sound, nonpartisan, scientific research."

    "Our grants are designed to promote independent research," she said. "As such, recipients hold full control over their findings. In this support, we strive to benefit society by promoting discovery and informing public policy."

    But several prominent skeptic blogs offered harsh criticism of Muller yesterday, even as they praised his former associate Anthony Watts.

    Watts, who runs the skeptical blog "Watts Up With That?" has derided the Berkeley Earth results as "post-normal political theater" and "incomplete and rushed, non-quality controlled, error riddled" science. He has repeatedly criticized Muller for posting results on the Web before they have undergone formal peer review.

    But yesterday, in a pointed move, Watts released his own non-peer-reviewed findings, which purport to show that poorly sited U.S. weather stations have exaggerated the magnitude of recent warming -- a claim Muller's Berkeley Earth group analyzed and rejected (as did a peer-reviewed, published analysis by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

    "Anthony Watts delivers devastating scientific blow to Muller's claims," screamed a banner headline on ClimateDepot, run by vocal skeptic Marc Morano. "Breaking: From BEST to worst in less than a day," began a post on the conservative Powerline blog.

    Meanwhile, Judith Curry, a Georgia Institute of Technology climate scientist who co-authored the Berkeley Earth group's first four papers, said she declined to work on the latest analysis because of disagreements about Muller's methods.

    "Their latest paper on the 250-year record concludes that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions," she told New York Time opinion blogger Andrew Revkin. "Their analysis is way oversimplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion."

    Applause, and gentle mocking, from climate scientists

    Michael Mann, the Pennsylvania State University climate scientist who created the "hockey stick" analysis of past temperatures, had a very different reaction.

    "At this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate science within a matter of just a few years!" he tweeted yesterday.

    Mann, a favorite target of climate skeptics, later published a fuller reaction on his Facebook page.

    "There is a certain ironic satisfaction in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers -- the greatest funders of climate change denial and disinformation on the planet -- demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations," he wrote.

    "I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them, without regard for the possible political repercussions (they are of course almost certain to be attacked by climate change deniers for their findings)."

    In the meantime, the Berkeley Earth group is working to publish its findings, said Elizabeth Muller, Richard Muller's daughter and the project's executive director.

    The group has submitted the new paper, and its four previous studies, to the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, she said.
  9. Boy Wolf
    Report Abuse
    Boy Wolf - August 01, 2012 3:38 pm
    The study I posted actually cited 8 reviewed articles as well, but that's beside the point. My point wasn't that what you cite isn't necessarily "bad science," but that it's important to know who's funding it and thus the potential biases that might be found in what the articles report. The focus of the studies you've cited (and yes, those funded by Exxon Mobil--one of the largest OIL companies) gives limited perspective and are generally meant to leave readers with the optimistic impression that solid primary production is necessarily a benefit for the entire ocean community. I guess, to avoid confusion, I should have been more concise in my first post: phytoplankton don't tell the whole story unless you understand everything that's going on above them, too. It's easy enough to SAY that increased phytoplankton growth benefits other trophic levels, but only because the negative impacts of overgrowth and resultant food-web imbalance aren't default trains of thought.
  10. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - August 01, 2012 2:29 pm
    I hate this format of posting.

    The 2nd study I posted encompasses all of the diatoms, not just a HOST of them as you assert your study does all is better than a host in case you actually didn't read it which a I assume you didn't...since you merely scoffed at the place it was published. I can find that same study published in numerous sites.

    It too noted that some of the diatoms do have reduced effects at vertain times of the year (spring), but that effect is far outweighed by the larger effect which occurs during summer.

    In total there were actually eight different studies cited in the work. And you have kind of sorta shown one. Uh huh...

    Chen and Gao (2004) grew a strain (2042) of Skeletonema costatum -- a unicellular marine diatom that is widely distributed in coastal waters throughout the world and constitutes a major component of natural assemblages of most marine phytoplankton -- in filtered nutrient-enriched seawater maintained at 20°C under a 12-hour/12-hour light/dark cycle at a light intensity of 200 µmol m-2 s-1, while continuously aerating both cultures with air of either 350 or 1000 ppm CO2 as they simultaneously measured a number of physiological parameters related to the diatom's photosynthetic activity. This work revealed that cell numbers of the diatom "increased steadily throughout the light period and they were 1.6 and 2.1 times higher after the 12-hour light period for the alga grown at 350 and 1000 ppm CO2, respectively." They also say that chlorophyll a concentrations in the bulk of the two CO2 cultures "increased 4.4- and 5.4-fold during the middle 8 hours of the light period for the alga grown at 350 and 1000 ppm CO2, respectively," and that "the contents of cellular chlorophyll a were higher for the alga grown at 1000 ppm CO2 than that at 350 ppm CO2." In addition, they report that the initial slope of the light saturation curve of photosynthesis and the photochemical efficiency of photosystem II "increased with increasing CO2, indicating that the efficiency of light-harvesting and energy conversion in photosynthesis were increased." In summation, they say their data showed that "the light-saturated photosynthesis rate based on cell number, the chlorophyll a content, the photosynthetic chemistry of photosysten II and the efficiency of the light reaction all increased to various degrees with elevated CO2."

    Three years later, in a study conducted between 15 May and 9 June of 2005 at the Espegrend Marine Biological Station of the University of Bergen, located on a fjord in southern Norway, Riebesell et al. (2007) maintained nine cylindrical mesocosms -- which extended from the water surface to a depth of 9-10 meters -- in equilibrium with air of either ambient CO2 concentration (350 ppm), doubled CO2 (700 ppm) or tripled CO2 (1050 ppm), while they measured several phytoplanktonic physiological parameters. During this period, they report that "net community carbon consumption under increased CO2 exceeded present rates by 27% (2 x CO2) and 39% (3 x CO2)," and they state that continuous oxygen measurements in the mesocosms indicated "enhanced net photosynthesis to be the source of the observed CO2 effect."

    Noting further that "the phytoplankton groups dominating in the mesocosm studies -- diatoms and coccolithophores -- are also the main primary producers in high productivity areas and are the principal drivers of biologically induced carbon export to the deep sea," the eleven scientists say their findings "underscore the importance of biologically driven feedbacks in the ocean to global change." And reminding us that "increased CO2 has been shown to enhance fixation of free nitrogen, thereby relaxing nutrient limitation by nitrogen availability and increasing CO2 uptake (Barcelos e Ramos et al., 2007)," Arrigo (2007) states in a News & Views discussion of Riebesell et al.'s paper that "neither these, nor other possible non-steady-state biological feedbacks, are currently accounted for in models of global climate -- a potentially serious omission, given that the biological pump is responsible for much of the vertical CO2 gradient in the ocean." And in this regard they additionally indicate that the diatom and coccolithophore growth-promoting effect of CO2 measured and described by Riebesell et al. has probably been responsible for limiting the rise in atmospheric CO2 experienced since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to approximately 90% of what it likely would have been in its absence.

    The following year, Sobrino et al. (2008) grew cultures of Thalassiosira pseudonana -- which they describe as "a widely distributed diatom" -- while exposing them to either photosynthetically-active radiation (PAR: 400-700 nm) or PAR plus ultraviolet radiation (UVR: 280-400 nm) in 500-mL Teflon bottles maintained at 20°C, using a semi-continuous approach that employed daily dilutions with fresh growth medium (filtered seawater from the Gulf Stream that was enriched with f/2 nutrients) through which air streams of different atmospheric CO2 concentrations (380 or 1000 ppm) were continuously bubbled. In doing so, the three researchers determined that exposure of the seawater medium to air with an extra 620 ppm of CO2 increased the photosynthetic rate of the marine diatoms by approximately 45% in the presence of PAR and about 60% in the presence of both PAR and UVR, while it increased their growth rate by approximately 20% in both of the radiation environments. And in highlighting the significance of their findings, they note that "among the phytoplankton species inhabiting the [ocean's] surface layer, diatoms are responsible for almost 40% of the ocean primary productivity (Nelson et al., 1995)."

    Working contemporaneously in the Southern Ocean, Tortell et al. (2008) measured CO2 uptake of in situ phytoplankton assemblages collected at 35 stations in the Ross Sea polynya during Austral spring and summer, together with 14C uptake for a subset of 11 station samples, while they conducted CO2 manipulation experiments with phytoplankton collected at three Ross Sea locations via shipboard incubations using a semi-continuous batch-culture technique. This work indicated, as they describe it, that "for the Phaeocystis-dominated springtime phytoplankton assemblages, there was a statistically significant increase in 14C fixation between 100 and 380 ppm CO2, but no further effects observed at 800 ppm CO2 wow...no further effects in springtime past 800ppm...that's really bad huh." In the case of the diatom-dominated summertime phytoplankton assemblages, however, the CO2-induced increase in both relative growth rate and primary productivity continued all the way out to the highest CO2 concentration investigated, i.e., 800 ppm, and it promoted "a shift towards larger chain-forming species." As a result, and noting that the larger chain-forming species of diatoms "are prolific bloom formers with a very high capacity for organic carbon export to the sediments (Stickley et al., 2005)," Tortell et al. concluded that "potential CO2-dependent productivity increases and algal species shifts could thus act to increase the efficiency of the biological pump, enhancing Southern Ocean CO2 uptake and contributing to a negative feedback on increased atmospheric CO2."

    In conclusion, and has been found to be the case for essentially all types of marine phytoplankton, the real-world data that have been obtained to date suggest that earth's diatoms will manage just fine as the air's CO2 content continues to climb to ever-greater heights. And as diatoms serve as primary producers in numerous marine food chains, the several trophic levels above them should also be similarly benefited by the dreaded phenomenon of "ocean acidification."

    References
    Arrigo, K.R. 2007. Marine manipulations. Nature 450: 491-492.

    Barcelos e Ramos, J., Biswas, H., Schulz, K.G., LaRoche, J. and Riebesell, U. 2007. Effect of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide on the marine nitrogen fixer Trichodesmium. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 21: 10.1029/2006GB002898.

    Chen, X. and Gao, K. 2004. Characterization of diurnal photosynthetic rhythms in the marine diatom Skeletonema costatum grown in synchronous culture under ambient and elevated CO2. Functional Plant Biology 31: 399-404.

    Nelson, D.M., Treguer, P., Brzezinski, M.A., Leynaert, A. and Queguiner, B. 1995. Production and dissolution of biogenic silica in the ocean: Revised global estimates, comparison with regional data and relationship to biogenic sedimentation. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9: 359-372.

    Riebesell, U., Schulz, K.G., Bellerby, R.G.J., Botros, M., Fritsche, P., Meyerhofer, M., Neill, C., Nondal, G., Oschlies, A., Wohlers, J. and Zollner, E. 2007. Enhanced biological carbon consumption in a high CO2 ocean. Nature 450: 545-548.

    Sobrino, C., Ward, M.L. and Neale, P.J. 2008. Acclimation to elevated carbon dioxide and ultraviolet radiation in the diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana: Effects on growth, photosynthesis, and spectral sensitivity of photoinhibition. Limnology and Oceanography 53: 494-505.

    Stickley, C.E., Pike, J., Leventer, A., Dunbar, R., Domack, E.W., Brachfeld, S., Manley, P. and McClennan, C. 2005. Deglacial ocean and climate seasonality in laminated diatom sediments, Mac Robertson Shelf, Antarctica. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 227: 290-310.

    Tortell, P.D., Payne, C.D., Li, Y., Trimborn, S., Rost, B., Smith, W.O., Riesselman, C., Dunbar, R.B., Sedwick, P. and DiTullio, G.R. 2008. CO2 sensitivity of Southern Ocean phytoplankton. Geophysical Research Letters 35: 10.1029/2007GL032583.


    I suppose you routinely refute science based upon...just because...
  11. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - August 01, 2012 2:10 pm
    @Boy...boy you told me huh? No not really. If all you can do is pretend that the real problem is where you think an organization gets it's money from I refer you to one of the first posts I made here in this thread. CRU gets it's money from SHELL...the largest OIL company in the world. So that is rather a non-sequitur red herring all wrapped up in one tidy package...ain't it. It is widely known that all the major oil companies and other large corporations are funding research into development of alternate sources and into scientific studies. They do this so that they know (instead of pretending to know where and how to invest their money into what resources.

    As to your assertion about the study I posted...if you will note the 2nd study also encompasses and if you would care to read it it also states there are some ill effects at certain times of the year...but are far outweighed by the good effects.

    So when you want to pull someone's chain...you better have all your ducks lined up.

    You don't.
  12. Boy Wolf
    Report Abuse
    Boy Wolf - August 01, 2012 11:47 am
    Being the resident scientist on the comment board might lead one to assume you'd have a subscription. Lo and behold, you're neither an academic nor student, but in your righteous indignation think you have sufficient resources at hand to defend a topic so complex--apparently just to make everyone feel poorly, rather than informed.

    The study, in fact, examines the physiological response of T. pseudonana to various levels of CO2 exposure. The results show a table that contrasts the observed stimulatory effect it has on pseudonana with a host of other diatoms, all of which have variable responses--"variable," in this case means both inhibitory and neutral. I might add that each of the datum the authors include in the paper that don't have to do with pseudonana, but another diatom instead, are referenced in the very same table. It makes it very easy to see how your vehement defense of such a narrowly-focused study isn't scientifically sound at all. What's more is that you go on to cite an article out from CO2 Science. Their "science" receives a majority of its funding from Exxon Mobil and Richard Scaife, which I hope we know both have a history of purchasing anti-human caused climate changed data. They actually defend the point that global warming stands to benefit humankind; can you give me sound data that support that claim, too, then (please do me the favor of citing Lindzen!)?


  13. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - August 01, 2012 6:55 am
    BTW Eric. You've shown us how dense you can be by claiming that I said I don't know how to find peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change...when I have posted four of them here already.

    My immediate comment to you...was for you to post something for us to read, rather than have us wander to your website.

    Too much trouble for you?

    You see, this is an open forum for discussion. Not a closed website that would offer no discussion.
  14. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - August 01, 2012 6:50 am
    When did I say I couldn't find it or any other peer reviewed papers? Oh, that's right I didn't. I said I didn't want to buy it, as in pay for it to read it. I suppose it might be available somewhere else for free. It is more than obvious that I have found peer reviewed papers on the subject...since I posted them. In the other threads in this paper I have posted more than a dozen peer reviewed papers that all go to refute the CO2 global warming issue. You could read them. Nice strawman issue you present, without commenting on what I did post...

    I found one that was even better for you to ponder on this current issue of marine biology...which I see you have no comment on. Go figure huh...but typical from your camp.

    Uff da yourself.
  15. Eric Grimsrud
    Report Abuse
    Eric Grimsrud - July 31, 2012 6:22 pm
    So Hakon, You say that you don't know how to find peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change - while you feel qualified to pontificate on the subject? As we Norwegians are prone to say in such situations - Uff Da!!
  16. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - July 31, 2012 5:44 pm
    Well I'm not going to buy the article...literally purchase it, nor do I buy your implication that I am somehow wrong.

    The abstract says exactly what I said.

    Your point is then what? The abstract does indicate that other diatoms have different responses but they don't indicate if they are bad responses.

    Here...try this one...

    Noting further that "the phytoplankton groups dominating in the mesocosm studies -- diatoms and coccolithophores -- are also the main primary producers in high productivity areas and are the principal drivers of biologically induced carbon export to the deep sea," the eleven scientists say their findings "underscore the importance of biologically driven feedbacks in the ocean to global change." And reminding us that "increased CO2 has been shown to enhance fixation of free nitrogen, thereby relaxing nutrient limitation by nitrogen availability and increasing CO2 uptake (Barcelos e Ramos et al., 2007)," Arrigo (2007) states in a News & Views discussion of Riebesell et al.'s paper that "neither these, nor other possible non-steady-state biological feedbacks, are currently accounted for in models of global climate -- a potentially serious omission, given that the biological pump is responsible for much of the vertical CO2 gradient in the ocean." And in this regard they additionally indicate that the diatom and coccolithophore growth-promoting effect of CO2 measured and described by Riebesell et al. has probably been responsible for limiting the rise in atmospheric CO2 experienced since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to approximately 90% of what it likely would have been in its absence..

    In conclusion, and has been found to be the case for essentially all types of marine phytoplankton, the real-world data that have been obtained to date suggest that earth's diatoms will manage just fine as the air's CO2 content continues to climb to ever-greater heights. And as diatoms serve as primary producers in numerous marine food chains, the several trophic levels above them should also be similarly benefited by the dreaded phenomenon of "ocean acidification."


    Oh darn...you lose again.

    If you care to read the entire article...http://www.co2science.org/subject/o/summaries/acidificationdiatoms.php

    But hey...thanks for playing today.
  17. Boy Wolf
    Report Abuse
    Boy Wolf - July 31, 2012 3:32 pm
    I'll do it for him. This should give you a host of reasons for walking back your assumption that diatoms generally have the same physiological response based on the study of a single diatom:

    "Physiological responses of the marine diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana to increased pCO2 and seawater acidity"

    Yang, G; Gao, K. Marine Environmental Research, v79 (2012 08 01): 142-151.
  18. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - July 31, 2012 2:00 pm
    Major snicker...
  19. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - July 31, 2012 12:10 pm
    As to your claim about increased CO2 destroying the ECO-System

    “The authors state that diatoms are very important for the productivity of the world's oceans, as they contribute about 45% of global marine primary production; and they therefore say it is essential to understand how diatoms and other marine phytoplankton will respond to the higher aqueous CO2 and lower pH conditions that will prevail in their surface waters in the near future, as a result of the dissolution of anthropogenic CO2 in them... grew over 100 generations of the diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana in seawater maintained in equilibrium with air of either current (ambient) CO2 concentration or expected end-of-the-century (twice-ambient) CO2 concentration (380 or 760 ppm)...conclude in the final sentence of their paper that "if all diatoms respond in a similar fashion to T. pseudonana, acidification of this magnitude in the future ocean may have little effect on diatom productivity."...”

    [Katharine J. Crawfurd, John A. Raven, Glen L. Wheeler, Emily J. Baxter, Ian Joint 2011: PLoS One]

    So Eric...how about some published peer reviewd works as opposed to your opinion?
  20. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - July 31, 2012 11:42 am
    Isn't it odd that HADLEY/CRU was getting money from SHELL OIL long before such notions of a grand conspiracy of OIL MONEY became the false battle cry of the proponents of AGW. BTW Shell Oil is the largest OIL company in the world.

    July 5, 2000: email 0962818260

    Mike Kelly, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, writes to Mike Hulme and Tim O’Riordan:

    Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner, and will contribute to a studentship fund, though under certain conditions.

    And they accuse skeptics of “being in the pockets” of Big Oil?

    I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team, but this approach will do equally for the new Foundation, as it’s only one step or so off Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Foundation and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s within the remit.

    Sounds lucrative. Buildings don’t come cheap.

    @Eric...so what science are you denying?
  21. claudius
    Report Abuse
    claudius - July 31, 2012 10:53 am
    "Businesses and investors haven’t gotten over it. They’ve left the politics of climate science behind and are repositioning themselves to anticipate changes ahead. Ask any of the 285 investors, representing assets exceeding $20 trillion, who signed the 2011 Global Investor Statement on Climate Change. Ask any of the 3,715 companies who filed voluntary greenhouse gas reports to the Carbon Disclosure Project last year. The free market has assimilated climate change risk more readily than some of the loudest free-market advocates.

    -- the safest measures are the five major temperature records, maintained by NASA, NOAA, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems, a private research company. A useful 2011 study in Environmental Research Papers analyzes the five datasets and finds steady temperature increases between 1979, the beginning of the satellite era, and 2010. They also estimate and remove the influence of El Nino/La Nina, volcanic emissions and solar variability, to show the prominence of the human influence in driving higher global temperatures. These efforts, whose data are more accurate than our memories, are unequivocal: global warming is real, and it's happening now. There’s no way to explain it other than human greenhouse gas emissions.

    To pick just one example among hundreds of corporate efforts, Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC News, publishes a Citizenship report. The company decided to try to “achieve zero net direct greenhouse gas emissions” saying that “Current scientific conclusions indicate that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are required to avert accelerated climate change.”"

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-19/-get-over-it-climate-change-is-happening.html
  22. Eric Grimsrud
    Report Abuse
    Eric Grimsrud - July 31, 2012 10:21 am
    George,

    Excellent article. As you point out, the most tragic aspect of the AGW problem at the present is that our elected officials do not have enough courage to do the right thing. We need leadership either from them or from the CEO’s of industry. Our elected officials know that they will be defeated in the next election if they go against the fossil fuel boys and the CEO’s know that they will be CEO’s only as long as they make profits for their fossil fuel shareholders. Even Montana’s Democratic Governor and two Senators are cheerleaders for the fossil fuel industries. Will Roger’s observation, “we have the best Congress money can buy” is particularly tragic today because of the enormity of the AGW problem.

    Unfortunately, Mother Nature will do things one way – Her way – in response to our increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. In reading the comments posted here, it appears that some do not know what that one way is. If interested in finding out, see the “short course” on climate science that I have now posted on my website, ericgrimsrud.com. The only other option is denial of science.
  23. Todd Tanner
    Report Abuse
    Todd Tanner - July 31, 2012 10:12 am
    Excellent op/ed. Let's hope that we start to take serious action on climate change while there's still time. If our kids & grandkids are going to have any kind of a future, America will need to become a leader on this issue.
  24. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - July 31, 2012 10:07 am
    The claim of being hostile to science is a non-sequitur since no one is hostile to science. The fact is so-called deniers are using science to refute the claims of AGW driven by CO2.

    That's something that your dogma simply can't tolerate.
  25. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - July 31, 2012 8:53 am
    The models that James Hansen and the IPCC rely upon to create the hype of CO2 warming have all failed.

    SInce 1998 temperature has fallen. CO2 has continued to rise. Temperature wise we are well below what was predicted had we implimented some form of radical reduction of CO2 output.

    We did no reduction. In fact production has increased far past what the models predicted.

    So why hasn't temperature contiuned to increase?
    Why has temperature in fact fallen?

    Borrowed from Cato

    Decadal temperature trends, (Jan, Feb, March global temperature averages, degrees C)

    NASA GISTEMP LOT1 global mean:
    2002: 0.386
    2012: 0.225

    HADCRUT 3, variance adjusted global mean
    2002: 0.582
    2012: 0.249

    HADCRUT 3, unadjusted global mean
    2002: .606
    2012: 0.239

    RSS Satellite data
    2002: .382
    2012: -0.035

    UAH Satellite data
    2002: 0.213
    2012: -0.028

    RSS Satellite data (land only)
    2002: 0.588
    2012: -0.081

    UAH Satellite data (land only)
    2002: 0.303
    2012: -0.06

    HADSST2 global sea surface temperature anomaly
    2002: 0.386
    2012: 0.225

    HADSST2 global sea surface temperature anomaly, Northern Hemisphere
    2002: 0.318
    2012: 0.229

    HADSST2 global sea surface temperature anomaly, Southern Hemisphere
    2002: 0.454
    2012: 0.22

    Average of all databases
    2002: 0.423
    2012: 0.118

    Global temperature anomaly decline, decadal: 72%

    CO2
    2002: 374
    2012: 394
  26. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - July 31, 2012 8:48 am
    Have some data...then have a nice day...

    Reference
    Sejrup, H.P., Haflidason, H. and Andrews, J.T. 2011. A Holocene North Atlantic SST record and regional climate variability. Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 3181-3195.

    Description
    By means of the combined use of 210Pb dates, identification of Icelandic tephras of known age, and wiggle matching of 14C radiocarbon dates, Sejrup et al. established exceptionally accurate chronologies for two marine sediment cores raised from the same location on the Norwegian continental margin (63°45'44"N, 05°15'19"E) in 1998, after which they evaluated δ18O values of the planktonic foram Neogloboquadrina pachyderma (dex) -- which parameter is influenced by the temperature and salinity of the seawater in which the foram lives -- over the 8000-year period spanned by the retrieved cores. Then, after noting that the work of Berstad et al. (Journal of Quaternary Science 18: 591-602) suggests that salinity should have but a relatively small influence on the isotope values of N. Pachy. (dex) at the site of their study, they developed the δ18O history depicted in the figure below, which they use as a proxy for what they call "near surface water summer temperature." And as this history clearly shows, the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was significantly greater than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period has been to date.

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_storeggaslide.php
  27. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - July 31, 2012 8:44 am
    Ever notice how the advocates argument never relies upon data? But merely tries to promote the notion that man is bad and is destroying the planet. Use data, use facts. Don't use emotion and socialist dogma.

    This is what data looks like, and it blows your theory right out of the water.

    "A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that a large ice cap in the Canadian Arctic had surface temperatures higher than the present for the vast majority of the past 11,000 years. The paper also shows that the meltwater fraction in 2010 was slightly less than the vast majority of a 7000 year period from roughly 10,000 to 3000 years ago...At latitude 67°N, Penny Ice Cap on Baffin Island is the southern-most large ice cap in the Canadian Arctic, yet its past and recent evolution is poorly documented. Here we present a synthesis of climatological bservations...Recent surface melt rates are found to be comparable to those last experienced more than 3000 years ago."

    [Christian Zdanowicz, Anna Smetny-Sowa, David Fisher, Nicole Schaffer, Luke Copland, Joe Eley, Florent Dupont 2012: Journal of Geophysical Research]
  28. The_Boneshackler
    Report Abuse
    The_Boneshackler - July 31, 2012 8:17 am
    Just like therre is zero proof that cutting taxes for the wealthy creates jobs.
  29. Andy B Hammond
    Report Abuse
    Andy B Hammond - July 31, 2012 6:46 am
    Those who claim humans cause global warming are delusional, ignorant and represent socialist ideology of control.
  30. Andy B Hammond
    Report Abuse
    Andy B Hammond - July 31, 2012 6:41 am
    I don't deny that global warming isn't happening. It's been occurring for billions of years, in fact. The Missoula valley was once covered by a glacier which became a lake and is now dry land. Humans had nothing to do with the glacier melting or the lake drying up.

    There is zero proof that humans cause global warming.
  31. Gadfly
    Report Abuse
    Gadfly - July 31, 2012 3:22 am
    I have family and friends of more or less the right wing, conservative mind. I had a discussion with a friend at the gym on global warming. He does not believe that man has anything to do with it. He does not seem to dispute the facts of global warming (record temperatures, melting icebergs, flora and fauna moving northward each year). He argues that warming is cyclical and that the earth has gone through warming periods and cooling periods before, all of which is true. However, the amount of carbon dioxide spewed forth in the atmosphere is 50 times higher than anything that has happened in the past 400,000 years. Species are threatened with extinction, 1 in 3. Species used to become extinct a few per 1000 years, now a few per 10 years. Then we have the right wing, conservative mind arguments that economics demand a suspension of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and ESA (Endangered Species Act) enforcement and power: Let the market respond to the need for green, alternative fuels, and we really need to exploit the wilderness remaining, they argue. My friend argued that carbon dioxide is normal, natural gas, which it is. But the facts are that we are spewing forth it and other greenhouse gases exponentially since the dawn of the Industrial age (1790).

    I am beginning to understand the republican mind: Anything that interferes with unfettered capitalism is not believable and likely a scientific conspiracy. The republican mind can make up reality.
  32. NoturAverageBear
    Report Abuse
    NoturAverageBear - July 31, 2012 1:39 am
    Dude, look on the bright side. The rich man is going to be able to buy his way out of he!! with all that upwardly redistributed wealth.
  33. Kahlotus
    Report Abuse
    Kahlotus - July 30, 2012 9:33 pm
    Link?
  34. bdr
    Report Abuse
    bdr - July 30, 2012 6:25 pm
    Best part of global warming is it is self correcting at some point in the future.
    the bad part is it nearly removes man from the earth......deniers and all.

    stages of warming include
    global wetting........massive floods
    global food shortages and domino effect on country's governments
    food and water wars
    then total season loss.

    don't worry about the rest....game over.
  35. Roger
    Report Abuse
    Roger - July 30, 2012 3:04 pm
    Same old radical leftist Ochenski from the Missoula Independent. He can't even get the terms of the debate right - sure, there's been some global warming - which has stopped for at least 10 years. The issue is whether it's human-caused - and the facts show that it isn't. ClimateGates I and II revealed the corruptiion of climate "scientists" at the cutting edge of climate research - changing the data to conform to their expectations - these guys (like Phil Jones) don't appear to even understand basic science.

    World temperatures have remained virtually unchanged in the past 10 years despite predictions of global warming and America’s mildest winter in decades, according to Princeton physics professor William Happer. Weather patterns worldwide over the past few months were very similar to those in 1942 when the continental United States basked in a warm winter at the same time that Alaska and Asia were slammed with severe weather and “General Frost” stalled the German army’s advance into Russia, Happer wrote in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed.

    And any changes that have occurred should not be attributed to a rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Happer wrote in an article headlined “Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again.”

    “CO2 is not a pollutant,” he wrote. “Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated.”

    Global temperatures have increased by around four-fifths of one degree Celsius since the “Little Ice Age” of the early 1800s, he wrote. “Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming — much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably — suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.”

    Happer likened those who believe carbon dioxide is causing climate change to Nazis. “This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” he said. “What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
  36. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - July 30, 2012 1:10 pm
    You could actually look at the recent data from Hadley CRU and see that the global temperature has fallen in the last decade. Just a thought.
  37. Hakon Montag
    Report Abuse
    Hakon Montag - July 30, 2012 1:00 pm
    Dear George,

    Here is what James Hansen...the founder (or flounder?) of CO2 induced global warming said some time ago.

    The original link comes up with a blank page (sometimes)
    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long

    So if you get a blank page try this link
    http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php

    Here's the First section abstract.

    Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario

    James Hansen*†,
    Makiko Sato*‡,
    Reto Ruedy*,
    Andrew Lacis*, and
    Valdar Oinas*§

    + Author Affiliations

    *National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, ‡Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, and §Center for Environmental Prediction, Rutgers University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025

    Contributed by James Hansen

    Abstract

    A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.
  38. J CONRAD
    Report Abuse
    J CONRAD - July 30, 2012 12:08 pm
    Those who deny climate change are either delusional, ignorant, representing the polluting industries or taking campaign donations from the polluters.

    What is happening is not a natural climate cycle. Even if it were, human pollution is making the situation much worse. And the long term costs of not taking action now will dwarf the profits linked to continuing to abuse the atmosphere by using carbon based energy as we are at the present time. There is plenty room for improvement.

    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/07/29-0

    Climate Study Forces Koch-Funded Skeptic to Admit Humans Driving Warming

    "Climate change skeptic and physicist Richard Muller co-founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project three years ago to debunk global warming fears, even getting a $150,000 grant from the conservative Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation for his work.

    Climate change skeptic and physicist Richard Muller has been a regular guest on The Glenn Beck show. Today, however, he writes in the New York Times:

    "Call me a converted skeptic... humans are almost entirely the cause."

    "My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project... Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.""

    "These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming."
  39. The_Boneshackler
    Report Abuse
    The_Boneshackler - July 30, 2012 10:20 am
    Good luck finding leadership on this issue. After all, we live in a nation that has become hostile to science, and where a large precentage of its citizens think that the Earth is 6000 years old, evolution is blasphemy, non-hetero is a choice, fracking will not pollute groundwater, sewage sludge is good for the soil, and legal fictions are flesh and blood biological entities.

    Whatever happens to the climate, we are powerless to change it. Humans WILL eventually stripmine the earth's resources and foul the environment to the point where we run ourselves out of existence.
  40. DonaldM
    Report Abuse
    DonaldM - July 30, 2012 9:23 am
    There are several discreet issues at play here. One is warming; but we can't forget the difference between "weather" and "climate". You state: "Right now, an estimated two-thirds of the nation is officially in what’s being called the worst drought since the 1950s...".

    Explicitly stated here is that 60 yrs ago there was more drought than today. If we were "warming" shouldn't this be the worst ever? During the "interglacial" period 130,000 -116,000 yrs ago the temp. of Greenland, as one example, was 9%F warmer than today. Long before filthy USA was around to destroy the planet. That is "climate. Could your recent 60 yr period be "weather"?

    For the sake of discussion I will acknowledge that it appears to be warmer today than my memories of 60 yrs ago. But just because it is warmer doesn't mean that the USA did it, either all or partially. I'm mentioning USA because i have never heard a "global warmer" criticize anyone other than USA, or recommend the destruction of anyone else other than USA.

    I suspect your realize that Beijing is more polluted than anyplace in the USA, even LA. Then there is Calcutta. .

    The second issue is what is/are the causes and their relative significance? Global warmers claim that USA and its use of carbon fuels is the principle problem; plus cattle of course, considering all of the CO2 and methane they exhale and excrete. No rational person should believe that, but many who claim to be rational(they even have PhD's that claim to support that) do, vehemently.

    Then there is the issue of what, if anything can or should be done about it. Global warmers want to destroy the USA and leave poor China, India and the rest of the 3rd world alone so that they can "catch up" to the USA. That is apolitical position, not a scientific one. The Nobel Peace Prize is a political award, not a scientific award.

    I submit that nothing meaningful can be done to mitigate global warming-if it is actually happening. The responsible thing to do is prepare for the consequences in timely fashion, not to try to stop it-because you can't!

    You can eliminate all of USA-its people, its carbon, its cattle, its coal, its oil and the impact on the planet would not be measurable.

    Do you really believe that any significant number of people are going to voluntarily turn to a life of misery and deprivation because you and others want them to for the sake of "global warming". Not a chance. And any politician who attempts to force this nonsense upon them will have a short career.
Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on Missoulian.com

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian (Missoulian.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in Missoulian.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on missoulian.com.

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick