Contact
Subscribe
Pearce, Martinez share global warming doubts
Republicans Steve Pearce (left, photo by Heath Haussamen) and Susana Martinez (courtesy photo)
Republicans Steve Pearce and Susana Martinez are among an emboldened chorus of GOP candidates across the nation expressing doubts about the link between manmade greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, according to an article published today by Politico.
That could lead to a more influential voting bloc in Washington of lawmakers who doubt that global warming is caused by human activity. It could make it even more difficult to pass energy bills sought by Democrats including New Mexico’s Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.
Fresh off a trip to New Mexico in which he interviewed Pearce, who’s running for the 2nd Congressional District seat in Congress, and Martinez, the GOP gubernatorial candidate, Politico’s Darren Samuelsohn features them both as among those GOP candidates who are skeptical of or don’t believe global warming is caused by humans.
Many of the candidates, Politico reported, are “fueled by anti-Obama rhetoric and news articles purportedly showing scientists manipulating their own data.” From the article:
“Four independent reviews have concluded that the so-called ‘Climategate’ e-mails stolen last fall from a United Kingdom research unit showed nothing more than a frank discussion among scientists working through large and complicated sets of data. And while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has admitted it erred in its 2007 report by citing a report concluding Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. organization said the mistake didn’t undermine its larger body of work.”
Still, Pearce told Samuelsohn that climate scientists should be questioned more thoroughly because of the e-mails.
“I think we ought to take a look at whatever the group is that measures all this, the IPCC, they don’t even believe the crap,” Politico quoted Pearce as saying. “They’re the ones who say in the e-mails we’ve got to worry about this, keep these voices quiet. If they don’t believe it, why should the rest of be penalized in our standard of living for something that can’t be validated?”
Martinez is one of several Republican gubernatorial candidates expressing doubt about the science, telling Politico that she has doubts about the role human activity plays in global warming.
“I’m not sure the science completely supports that,” Politico quoted Martinez as saying.
Update, 9:15 a.m.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Diane Denish is attacking Martinez for the comments she made to Politico. From Denish spokesman Chris Cervini:
“With each passing day, we are learning more and more about Susana Martinez and her true colors. Whether it is draining money from public schools through a voucher plan, using border security money to hand out fat bonuses to her top aides, or denying that global warming is human caused, New Mexicans are learning that Susana Martinez is just a typical Republican politician who doesn’t get it. There’s only one candidate who is on the side of New Mexico’s families and understands that a vital piece of New Mexico’s economic future is a strong investment in renewable energy and clean-energy jobs – and that’s Diane Denish.”
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
30 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Good GBass, as a fiscal conservative, I don’t believe in spending money needlessly with a very low probability of it having any effect. This issue has the lowest of probabilities of results of most anything to spend money on in our troubled country. The public gets this right in terms of priorities. And since I pay federal income taxes (whereas over 50% of Americas don’t), this is my money so I am very observant.
Dr. J-
Thank you for these links. I will review this information. I do not doubt that we may disagree on fiscal policy but I will read these sources and look at the science.
I have an entire lecture series on this I give frequently, come see it sometime, you obviously need more education on this issue. I have been involved in it since grad school in the early ’70s, you are just too far behind for me to assist your education on this blog. But for your edification, you could start by reading the work of one of my associates from one of my alma maters here:
http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-portland/carbon-dioxide-irrelevant-climate-debate-says-mit-scientist
And here: http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704448304575196802317362416.html
As for the AAPG, of which I am a long time member and committeeman, they have a position I am very familiar with stated here:
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm
Let me quote from it: “Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, the AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.”
And: “Geologists study the history of the earth and realize climate has changed often in the past due to natural causes. The Earth’s climate naturally varies constantly, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. In recent decades global temperatures have risen. Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years.
Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.”
Really, we hardly provided solid support to the AGW hypothesis as stated by the believers in other places, like AGU (of which I am also a long time member and committeeman, but am not supportive of their AGW position),realclimate, etc..
As for AGW not being political, please. The polls say people could care less, that doesn’t prove it is not political. Just Google it and see what you get. Wiki has an entire page on the politics of it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming_(United_States)
And if you will notice the votes in Congress on anything related to AGW, it is highly partisan and thus by definition political, and thus unscientiic and illogical.
Dr. J-
Could you back up any of your claims with legitimate scientific data? I went looking, and had a difficult time authenticating your claims. For one, the “thousands of scientists” cited is most certainly misleading if you are referring to the “32,000″ scientists against global warming. The majority of those people are unqualified to make a statement, and only 39 even claim to be climatologists (and note that credentials are self reported and not vetted). Could you point me to the scientific research that supports your statements that anthropogenic climate change is a politically driven issue, and not a real one. I have read several public opinion polls running back to the GWB era, and even then with Al Gore’s movie out, climate change was never even a top 5 issues…. why would it be such a political topic then?
Here’s some recent Pew research on that: http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority
Note that global warming is in last place. Harping on things that no one cares about doesn’t win elections. So why would this be a political issue unless people are choosing to make it one… I don’t see scientists making it a political issue. Every major science organization in the world has supported the concept that humans have a direct influence on the climate. Even the Petroleum Geologists. Either every science organization has been taken over by liberals (and if you believe this you are insulting the intelligence and capabilities conservatives globally), or there is in fact substantial evidence that supports this conclusion. I would be interested to see your evidence otherwise.
Let me clarify my position on this topic, from my first post here: “..the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is not solidly supported by mountains of scientific data from earth’s climate history. The main supporting data for anthropogenic climate change comes from computer games played by scientists looking only at a tiny slice of time, backed by a political agenda to promote. This issue is little more than political science today, the science is clear, and CO2, human or otherwise, has never been the primary cause of climate changes on earth. It is only hypothesized today due to political motives by those promoting a progressive agenda.”
Yes, I believe $20 billion/year is far too high a price to pay, in the middle of a big recession, to chase a “solution” that will do nothing to cool the planet toward some fictional, “ideal” level Why is that the goal? It is illogical and without factual basis, thus it must be politics. And BTW, you need to check your facts, BP will actually pay but a small fraction of your made up $300 billion assertion to cleam up the spill.
I was not disputing this data, but your statement denying the impact of Global Warming. You said this:
I understand the assumptions made in the graph. If you do not agree with the data, that is fine too, but your primary thesis as to why this is Global Warming is bunk uses this data. Your rebuttal above against global warming is saying that this graph means that global warming isn’t a problem because they assume that we take DRASTIC step in carbon reduction. If we do this, then there will be only a .3 C rise in temperature!!!! Oh my what a terrible disaster indeed.
But all this is assuming that we took action in March, when this was published, and cut our emissions back to the levels of when we were running Windows 98 on Pentium IIIs. I think we agree that this is unlikely. Since we haven’t taken any substantive action in the decades we’ve been watching this, I think it is more appropriate to analyse those numbers as if we didn’t freeze our carbon emissions, but as if we just keep on trucking.
The numbers I provided are very rough estimates from the graph I admit, but I think it accurately portrays the number that you should be disputing. It seems illogical to me for you to use the positive outcome of an action as the justification for not doing it. It’s like saying that the money spent on Y2K preparedness was a waste because nothing happened. No, nothing happened because we were prepared. In this case, you appear to be saying that we should not be prepared, because nothing will happen if we are prepared. At least that is what you appear to be saying with these numbers as a reference. Perhaps you could clarify?
Finally, on the issue of cost and GDP: $20B of the GDP sure sounds like a big number, but the GDP in 2008 was 14.59T. That “whopper” of a price tag amounts to .13%. That’s right, less than 1/7th of 1%. Are you seriously suggesting that .13% of GDP is worth the risk of a global catastrophe. It’s taking BP $300 BN to clean up a preventable ecological disaster THEY MADE, but you think $20B is to much an investment to avoid the risk of something that makes that look like a joke? The electorate may agree with you, and I sure hope for my sake that you are right and I am wrong, but I think it’s extremely poor planning to ignore the evidence of a potential disaster because you want to save .13% percent.
GBass, the graph and article I linked to is not my data, nor do I support it scientifically. I linked to it because it is a “progressive” science blog by those very same “respected” scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change, operate by “consensus” rather than the scientific method and processes, and believe in the disaster they say is waiting for all mankind just around the corner. In other words they are your allies and believe as you do. In case you haven’t read some of the proposals from our Congress, the UN, and the Nopenhagen summit, yes, they are proposing to freeze CO2 emissions at 2000 or even 1990 levels. So this graph, if you believe in computer game models, does accurately represent what will happen to temps over the next 300 years given that condition. And if you can read the graph, it says .3 degrees C is what would happen. If you want to chose the last few decades as a temp increase rate, then can you prove scientifically only human CO2 is responsible for all that increase? If you can, let me know, because no other scientists (IPCC included) has been able to prove that scientifically beyond question. And let me remind you that weather is not climate, a heat wave or a cold snap, or a big iceberg doesn’t prove or disprove anthropogenic climate change theory. If you want to pay extra tax money to be sure human CO2 is stopped because you believe in the theory, OK, I don’t. Let’s put it to a vote and see what the nation wants. Actually, we already have and the theory has failed to attract the necessary votes to be enacted. That is a fact, and if we keep people like Harry out of Congress, it will continue to be the case. I am very happy with this, sorry you are not, but thems the breaks.
So ten years ago we were on course to have a global rise of .3 degrees. But wait!!!! If you look at where 2000 is on that graph, you will note that the spike of warming goes straight through it without slowing. The trend, according to your own data, suggests that in the past decade global warming has continued at the same rate. The drop off in this graph, as you noted, IS SIMULATING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE FROZE TIME IN 2000.
So Dr J. , your postulation is that someone is going to go back in time to 2000, FREEZE OUR EMISSIONS at a global constant, and then…. magic? Perhaps we operate on different wave lengths, I dunno, but this is just CRAZY!!!!!
Your conclusion does not follow the data at all. The coefficient of that graph suggests a continued up tick in temperature that follows the extrapolated trend. If you really want to do a best fit curve on that graph (for the real data up to 2000, not the projected data you seem to like looking at), then you’ll note that this graph is non-linear and would be most accurately described as exponential. So in the past 10 years, this data suggests that we have continued the curve upwards at the same rate, and cause at minimum, .13 degrees C of change. If you don’t believe that, just download the graph like i did into an image editing program and draw the lines yourself. (I use the measurement guides in Photoshop CS3)
So… .3 C in 300 years? hahahahaha, only if you ignore a decade of history and pretend that we stopped time in 2000. Only if you ignore the same data that you cited, and the huge amount of environment change we’ve seen in the past decade: the huge sheets of ice that have broken off, the fact that we have had some of the hottest years in recorded history, the fact that we’ve had some of the biggest weather related disasters in the past decade.
Let’s go back to the data though shall we? If we keep adding .13 C every decade because it’s just natural and we can’t do anything about it, by 2300 we’ll have a 3.9 degree Celcius change (7 F), which is more than enough to really mess things up.
But hey, If we’re screwed we’re screwed, but Steve Pearce doesn’t care either way. ‘Why should I change the lifestyle I’m accustomed to unless the world is going to end imminently” (read: i’m a millionaire and I won’t give up my unnecessary luxuries for your safety until my field are catching on fire outside my mansion). After all, the consensus of the (respected) global scientific community doesn’t count as validation, so what will? When you walk down the road of “I won’t believe it until I see it” you are playing an incredibly irresponsible game. If you want to believe that the earth isn’t changing and that your oil company has nothing to do with it, then okay Steve Pearce fine. He is running for elected office though!!!! He might have the money to afford to be wrong, but his constituents don’t. And neither do most other people.
rodeo asks a common question that AGW believers always do, that I have answered numerous times in my lectures: “Are you willing to concede even the possibility that you might be wrong on this? Any suggestions for hedging your bets?”
As a scientist stating scientific views on a scientific hypothesis, of course I could be wrong. This is true of most any scientific hypothesis. But if I am wrong then what disaster awaits us? Who’s computer model do you want to use? Remember, this is all GIGO, as with any computer model that represents barely 15% of the true variables and complexity that is our climate system. But since we need to assume something for the sake of debate, let’s choose this one:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/climate-change-commitments/
This shows models that assume a freezing of CO2 emissions at today’s (actually 2000) levels (upper line). You can see we still would warm a huge and frightening, what, .3 degrees C in 300 years. Oh my, what a disaster that would be, eh? Earth’s temp has risen 3 times that in the last 200 years and exactly what terrible things have happened to life as we know it over the last 200 years??? Has mankind disappeared, or thrived? Has civilization returned to stone age levels or something else? Sorry, not much really, really bad happened for .9 degrees C rise, so why would we fear .3 degrees C? But, according to the CBO and other economists, this level of CO2 and the economic activity associated with the regs needed to make it happen (several bills have used something similar to this), would reduce our GDP by $10-$20 billion per year. If you are wrong, this will happen for sure, and if you want the other lines on the graph (which imply much larger cuts in CO2 emissions and thus economic activity), much more will happen, 100% sure. Now, if I am wrong MAYBE, the earth’s temp will increase .3 to say .5 degrees C in 300 years. So, as a gambling man I would put my money, job, business, etc. on me. Much higher probability of return on investment than if you are wrong. Who should be hedging their bets then?
Rodeo: But come on guys, government coordination and international agreement on carbon rules may be the only way out of this — the problem is serious, and we need to work together.
Well lets start with Kyoto, how’s that working out? When you exclude India and China (and others), how serious are you? In any case, we know how “consensus” was achieved at East Anglia (hint not by the scientific method).
Please don’t characterize me as a denier, I’m just not convinced, I’m a scientist, I can’t rely on speculation, hidden agendas, fear mongering, disconnected facts being used to reach conclusions.
30-40 years ago, a new ice age was coming, the world was doomed by a population explosion and we were running out of oil.
For some evidence on China’s involvement in climate change solutions, see: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/11/2842415.htm They are doing this for reasons of self-interest: they are concerned about flooding and other serious consequences of climate change. They are also doing it for economic reasons, as they have emerged as world leaders in the production of solar and wind-based energy systems. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html )
But the key point is that climate change skeptics should consider the consequences if they’re wrong. All we get is sniggering and claims that they have unique abilities to judge the scientific evidence — which is common among those who occupy the fringe of any scientific debate.
It’s interesting how the charges we hurl (in this case the charge that the whole climate change debate is being driven by a political agenda) often reveals a great deal about our own world view and tactics. It seems to me that skepticism about government action and international cooperation fuels much of the drive to deny the problem of a rapidly warming climate. But come on guys, government coordination and international agreement on carbon rules may be the only way out of this — the problem is serious, and we need to work together.
Are you willing to concede even the possibility that you might be wrong on this? Any suggestions for hedging your bets?
Ok. Say you don’t believe in Global Warming? There are myriad undeniable reasons for humanity to turn away from a hydro-carbon based economies.
Peak Oil
acidification of the oceans/dying coral reefs
floating plastic trash islands the size of Texas
air pollution causing respiratory distress and disease
carcinogens
endocrine disruption
toxins and heavy metal pollution from burning coal
irreversible mountain top removal from strip mining/ loss of heritage.
contaminated aquifers/ground water from frakking/ loss of water heritage
conflicts and destabilization of nations
national security issues with dependence on nations that hate our nation and each other
massive oil spills
loss of habitat for other beings
corruption of political systems worldwide including ours
Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, Climate Change.
My, it appears victory has thus been achieved by this definition. Bravo!
ExxonMobil had an internal strategy memo, that was posted the Internet in 1998. It stated
” Victory will be achieved when
* Average citizens [and the media] ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’ …
* Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
* Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear out of touch with reality.”
Here is an article on the subject:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Obviously Ms. Martinez and Steve Pearce have signed up to continue to spread misinformation about global warming. Reward is campaign contributions for their war chest. New Mexicans – don’t be fooled by these candidates for the oil and gas industry!
Interesting that Ms. Denish would post this about greenhouse gas regulations as her position here: http://www.dianedenish.com/news/articles?id=0060
Let me quote: “On Thursday, March 18, it was reported that the New Mexico Environment Department is seeking to implement a New Mexico-specific greenhouse gas cap-and-trade plan. That’s the last thing we should do. In these historically challenging times, this new regulation would put New Mexico at an economic disadvantage and put countless jobs in our state at risk.”
But now she says this in this article: “With each passing day, we are learning more and more about Susana Martinez and her true colors. …or denying global warming is human caused, New Mexicans are learning that Susana Martinez is just a typical Republican politician who doesn’t get it. There’s only one candidate who is on the side of New Mexico’s families and understands that a vital piece of New Mexico’s economic future is a strong investment in renewable energy and clean-energy jobs – Diane Denish”
Huh? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me, which is it Ms. Denish? Are you in favor of stopping the disaster of man-made climate change or not? Will you support reducing CO2 and creating green jobs only or not?
Hemingway, if you chose to try and link religious groups to only those who would argue against AGW, perhaps you should read this:
http://www.climateforchangethebook.com/Default.aspx
It works both ways, there are also many evangelicals who would dispute what Pearce and the Baptists would say. Does that make it right or left to have religion thrown into the political mess of AGW? Does the implication that the preachers wife is a climate scientist make this view of AGW by evangelicals better than the other evangelicals view of AGW?
Here is an old video on Steve Pearce and Global Warming. Nothing has changed!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI1bL54JXAI
I find it hilarious that some think the rest of the world is quickly racing to join the AGW bandwagon and making drastic economic changes. Hogwash! What happened at Nopenhagen? What has the EU done? Just lots of smoke and mirrors on “offsets” (mostly non-CO2 related and in Africa) and as a result their CO2 emissions are up over the last 10 years since Kyoto. And Denmark, the poster child for windpower, has had to ADD coal fired power plants to supply increased baseload power for all the increased wind turbines that can’t supply it as demand grows, so more CO2, And China??? Are you kidding? Right, as posted they are furiously building coal power while talking a good game about other things and doing nothing for their CO2 emissions, the fastest growing in the world.
And wedum59, maybe you should check your degree again, and Stevie Chu’s. Chu’s is in elementary particle physics, as is his Nobel, nothing to do with climate or earth’s climate history he is clueless about those fields but an expert in political partisanship. Is yours in paleoclimatology, stable isotope geochemistry (as are mine) or atmospheric physics? How about climatology or meteorology? The point is well made by stever that scientists work tirelessly to research, experiment, and modify hypotheses and go where the science leads. Political science goes where the partisan agenda leads no matter what the science says and without any further research or experiementation so long as the first impressions are politically correct and suit their world view. That is not science, neither is pointing to an iceberg and saying it is the smoking gun of AGW proof. Really, how does that follow the scientific method and process surely you were taught in college. Perhaps I should point out all those unusually cold weather records this last winter in numerous places? No, they mean nothing either.
Want to hear some loud screaming? Let’s all agree that global warming is a done deal. It’s for real so no more research needed at universities or other labs getting government money. I guarantee you’d hear some loud cries and claims that maybe it’s not warming after all and we need to do much more research.
At a meeting once at NM Tech late ’80s and a prof at NMSU asked me what we folks at a certain lab thought of global warming. i said, oh hell, we’re all for it. It’s great for research. He didn’t like my irreverence. Libs think we have to genuflect and cross ourselves when we hear of global warming. Bring it on.
I am sure Ms. Martinez supports the view of Sharron Angle, the GOP opponent for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada. She said on her website in June that she thought legislation to curb global warming “is based on an unscientific hysteria over the man-caused global warming hoax.”
So global warming is a big hoax. Question is whether New Mexicans will buy this bill of goods.
Just another reason not to vote for Martinez and Pearce.
As has been said before, I’ll believe its a crisis when the people who tell me its a crisis start acting like its a crisis.
So tell me again, beyond telling me how I should live, and passing legislation which hurts the economy while empowering the government and enriching special interests, how are these people “moving forward”?
Yo, Rodeo … where are those ‘responsible socities’ throughout the world who are rushing toward the green light? I appreciate your comment on China … they are completing a couple of coal fired power plants every week and they are finding the merit of cheap energy as their economy winds down.
I find some of these posts a little scary.
It’s possible that Dr. J is right and the great bulk of the scientific community is wrong about climate change. It’s also possible, as stever indicates, that “only someone with an agenda feels certain” or that, as Ramirez asserts, this is all a Democratic Party election tactic.
Most of us, though, if we found out from our doctor that there was even a 5% chance of all our children dying if they continued to eat ice cream (or whatever), we would get ice cream the heck out of their diets right now.
It’s true that a transition to lower carbon limits will be an adjustment, but it’s one that responsible societies throughout the world are hurrying to make. Will there be industries that lose in this transition? Yes, especially the coal industry. At the same time, many assert that the change will be a positive one job-wise, especially for states like New Mexico, with great solar and wind resources. These sectors of the economy are growing rapidly. Nuclear energy may be a part of the mix as well.
The international community — including China — is moving at lightning speed on this, all things considered, especially the size of change that’s underway. Even if the probability is less than 100%, we’ve got to take this threat seriously. Luckily the adults among us — whatever their agendas — are moving forward on this issue.
Call me crazy, but I really don’t think global warming is the issue anyone should be focused on right now. Nor Social Security. Here’s why:
1. We need to bring jobs back to this country, and lower the unemployment rate. If nobody has a house to live in or food to eat because of the lack of employment, global warming doesn’t mean squat. Whether you believe in it or not, something needs to be done about pollution and protecting the environment, we all know that. But by passing legislation that kills jobs during a time of economic crisis is simply foolish.
(I know this is off-topic, but hear me out…)
2. Another issue that has been brought up in the last couple weeks; Social Security. We all know this program is headed for the trash heap if nothing is done about it. Why didn’t Democrats bring this issue up while in Congress with a Supermajority in both chambers and control of the White House. That is their plan, do nothing and pass it to whoever has to deal with it then. It needs to get fixed, but not now. Health Care needs to be fixed, but not now. Bring back jobs, then let’s tackle these important issues. If I don’t have a job, how can I pay for this health plan or social security?
These two issues are the only ones that Democrats can try to use to argue this election. They have successfully swayed the attention of the media to issues that are not an immediate concern.
It is clear from the statements of Mr. Pearce, a Baptist, that he follows the tenets of the Southern Baptist Church – read the Church’s statement on global warming – “A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming. ” It mirrors Mr. Pearce’s views. I rather trust scientific evidence.
http://erlc.com/article/a-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection/
It seems like the Republican Party has more and more painted itself into a corner. By pandering to the lowest common denominator, and taking up the cause of the more uninformed and the more easily manipulated people who want someone to hand them talking points instead of thinking for themselves, over the past several decades, the prospect for a real debate on how to create intelligent solutions to very real problems that we face in the world seems to be getting further and further out of reach.
The great thing about having an education in earth science is perspective, no one event or short period of time (hundreds of years) can realistically be used to formulate any firm hypothesis on a subject like climate. When you look just at known variations in recent human history, only someone with an agenda feels certain. This, of course, is not science, its politics. Panic, panic, panic, hurry, hurry, hurry
Well, DJ, maybe that 100-square mile iceberg will finally convince you. “Few images can capture the world’s climate fears like a 100-square- mile (260-sqare-kilometer) chunk of ice breaking off Greenland’s vast ice sheet, a reservoir of freshwater that if it collapsed would raise global sea levels by a devastating 20 feet (6 meters). This was reported on 8-10-10. The full effect may not be felt until 2012.
Now it’s quite likely that the entire chunk won’t melt, a lot of it will evaporate. But that just puts it into the atmosphere, and it is going to come down as precipitation somewhere. BTW, I too am a scientist, and I will stand by the 500 scientists who contributed to the IPCC report and also Dr. Chu, our energy secretary, not the 40 or so that are convinced that it is all due to solar activity.
Obviously they would be skeptical. But, it is not important what a politician “believes” about this scientific issue. There are thousands of scientists, who, like myself, have the educational and experience qualifications to know the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is not solidly supported by mountains of scientific data from earth’s climate history. The main supporting data for anthropogenic climate change comes from computer games played by scientists looking only at a tiny slice of time, backed by a political agenda to promote. This issue is little more than political science today, the science is clear, and CO2, human or otherwise, has never been the primary cause of climate changes on earth. It is only hypothesized today due to political motives by those promoting a progressive agenda.