Comments on: The scientific truth about climate change
Add a Comment
- Climate change is a fact.. This planet has ALWAYS experienced climate change even before man appeared with an industrialized society. Does man affect his environment? Yes he does most CERTAINLY... But I'm highly skeptical that the affects are as great as some would claim. This planet has undergone a very very wide variation in global temperatures AND CO2 levels that are cyclical throughout its existence.
Let's for once blow the entire notion out of the water - that without man even being here - that the climate is somehow static and unchanging... The world climate has ALWAYS changed... Those who say otherwise would be denying almost ALL of the warming and cooling cycles recorded in the geological record. They would be denying the countless ice ages this planet has experienced. Without man how is this even possible? What caused the planet to warm up - after each and every one of these ice ages... We right now as a matter of fact are on the tail end of an ice age... That is a fact. An ice age that has been going on for quite some time... In the modern era, even back in the late 1700s and early 1800s people back then were even remarking and making note in the decline of the glaciers.
The VOSTOK, Antartica ice core drillings verify that global temperature changes AND CO2 level changes are a normal cyclical part of global weather. With very very precise measurements of gases trapped in these ice cores - they that 5 cycles have already come to pass the last 400,000 years... None of those earlier cycles had mankind with an industrialized society as a factor... While these ice samples provide very precise measurements of atmospheric gases up to 400,000 years.. Other geological evidence provides similar evidence going much much further back in the geological timeline... 100s of millions of years.. Climate change is a FACT... But how much is caused by a modern industrialized society... Is very debatable. - Reply to this comment
- Mr. Pogue,
You have a problem in your first paragraph, specifically sentences 5 and 6. You can not equate settled science with mere opinion. There is no debate any more in the scientific community. The argument is not between scientists and other scientists. Ask yourself why and where else do people with no scientific background get to oppose scientific experts in their fields. This doesn't happen with astronomy, for example. So why do journalists let this happen with AGW? The argument is a manufactured controversy between scientists and people being paid by the fossil fuel industry (coal, oil, even natural gas) to stop or slow the steps needed to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. The fossil fuel industry is making billions of dollars every year, so they can afford a few million to create a fake grass-roots anti-AGW effort. They will keep making their profits, but not pay for the disastrous consequences. Ask yourself why there is an active anti-AGW effort, when there is no other scientific question that has an active well-financed opposition. This happened before, with paid opposition from tobacco companies downplaying the link between smoking and cancer and delaying anti-smoking efforts. Who benefits from opposing conservation and renewable energy? Follow the money. - Reply to this comment
- Goodness, this story really brought out the kooks, dinnit? All these contrarians with their funny links and their Heartland Institute approved talking points? Yeah, they show up just about anywhere on the Internet where this subject arises. None of them are climate scientists, most of them don't understand the ridiculous arguments they make, and all of them are talking out of their rears.
- Reply to this comment
- Never before in the history of humanity has so many people around the globe been able to stand up and say, "This is our future, this is where we are headed. Better get ready"
Start reading everything you can about climate change because it is one of the most complicated problem we will ever face. Don't take the skeptics word for all their misinformation. Read everything you can for yourself and for the planet. Your world is going to change fast whether you like it or not. Get ready. - Reply to this comment
- The weakest part is where he says something can be done to reverse it. We've been polluting since the beginning of the industrial revolution. That's a lot of forward momentum.
- Reply to this comment
- Bodies are still being recovered and the lights are still out in NY/NJ and Hurricane Sandy is being politicized to lay the groundwork for a carbon tax. These days call for pragmatism not ideology.
- Reply to this comment
- Why were you compelled to show multiple scenes of cooling towers and stacks emitting water vapor in a story that professed to be about Global Warming?
Why in the entire story could you not mention any benefit to a warmer climate?
http://www.colebrookhistoricalsociety.org/1816%20-%20The%20Year%20Without%20Summer.htm
Are be better off now than we were in 1816, as in "1816 and froze to death" - Reply to this comment
- ''If we do a lot, we can avoid most of it'' (global warming?) If we do a lot would mean quite a lot wouldn't it? I imagine that would involve cleaner energy sources for industry and transport. A big ask. With fossil fuels presumably being the culprits of the carbon dioxide release increase in our atmosphere, we would need an alternative to that.
I am guessing if we were to look after our planet more we would need to embrace new technology? - Reply to this comment
- Dear Mr. Pogue,
Unfortunately, you brought too cavalier an attitude to a very important subject when you over-ambitioiusly set out to "once and for all" settle the topic of anthropogenic climate change in your recent segment on CBS Sunday Morning's Nov 11, 2012 episode.
For starters, you led off with "So I decided it's time to go on a quest to visit the top experts...". Except that among the 4 'experts' that you consulted, you did not include *anyone* of the leading scientific experts who remain skeptical as to the degree that human activity is significantly influencing climate change.
And let's rule out one of your purported 4 'experts' right away: Rajendra Pachauri. Mr. Pachauri began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. His formal training is in industrial engineering and economics. Mr. Pachauri is NOT in any way a climate scientist or 'expert' -- and certainly not by virtue of being in charge of the UN IPCC. If you have perhaps forgotten, Mr. Pachauri's famous solution to what he considers the problem of human-caused global warming is for everyone to become vegetarians in order to be able to get rid of the animal husbandry industry that raises cattle for feeding the human population ! This, all because he considers the methane release by bovine flatulence to be far more significant than the CO2 produced by all vehicle traffic ! I'm sure that Mr. Pachauri repeated his vegetarian admonition to you, but you wisely omitted it from your report.
Secondly, Mr. Pachauri referred to CO2 as the "most dominant" greenhouse gas. This further exposes Mr. Pachauri's lack of scientific qualifications to be considered "an expert". All scientists who study the physics of the climate recognize that the most dominant greenhouse gas is in fact ... water vapor !
Third, the program keeps repeating the phrase "on record" when talking about temperature extremes. This "record' barely covers 150 years of history of the planet. The fact that far higher temperature swings have occurred in the history of the planet was completely ignored in your piece, yet you created the impression that what we are experiencing today are in fact the highest temperatures of all time, not just in the last 150 years. Furthermore, even with regard to the temperature records, you completely duck the issues associated with the combination of different temperature data from a variety of different sources -- combinations and 'adjustments' of which have become themselves points of professional disagreements within the field.
Fourth, you refer to scientific experts who disagree with the alarmist assessment of human-caused global warming (notice it is now called 'climate change' ) as "deniers". Deniers ? Deniers is a negatively-charged, emotional word that stirs up connotations of "holocaust deniers" -- a pejorative term that is used expressly for that reason by those who wish to flippantly dismiss the role of scientific debate and inquiry into the study of the climate. 'Skeptic' is a much better term, as the scientific method is based on not accepting a theory or hypothesis until proven true. That is all that beingg 'skeptical' represents: do not accept a hypothesis or theory to be true until proven to be so.
Your interview with the Mullers was the only good datapoint in your entire segment. However, the fact that you did not include any number of outstanding scientists who do not subscribe to the alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming constitutes the biggest failing in your piece. The fact that you glibly show 4 'votes' being cast unanimously in favor of the theory without taking the time to have the objective science of those who do not agree on scientific terms represented in your 'poll' that was made to look 'definitive' is your biggest failing.
Mr. Pogue, if you wish to carry on a role of genuine scientific education on Nova or other PBS programs in which you can make faces and clown around in doing so, by all means continue to do so. However, you have significantly gotten in over your head as a scientific journalist on this particular topic, a complex phenomenon for which there is no single scientific discipline that has the definitive answers. I can only conclude that you either (1) do not understand the scientific complexities of the subject, nor the very significant costs involved in the inappropriate application of the 'precautionary principle' on the economies of the world required to fight what is now a religious crusade, or (2) you yourself agree with this position and are masquerading as an objective spokesman of the application of the scientific method.
In any event, I suggest you do a whole lot more investigation and study of the subject before venturing to offer up your very unsatisfactory and superficial editorial on a subject that is important enough to receive proper attention. - Reply to this comment
- I'm for cutting back green house gases. NASA has information on this as well.
- Reply to this comment
