I heard from a few skeptics after my Sunday column on what scientists have to say about the future of skiing in Connecticut. Science writer James Powell looked at peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on climate change from 1991 to 2012. He found lots of published, peer-reviewed research — nearly all of it supporting this conclusion:
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.
And this:
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
19 Responses to Memo To Climate Change Deniers: Where Are You?
About Capitol Watch
The Hartford Courant’s Capitol Watch blog provides insightful and in-depth coverage of Connecticut politics... read more- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
NEW! CT Politics App.
Courant.com brings you the latest CT political news, blogs, tweets and photos, powered by the Hartford Courant and FOX CT.
Download it now:
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
The question is how much is the global warming caused by humans. Then another question is why does the government see this a taxing opportunity and another source of income that goes into the general fund.
exactly right, Lee. There is no doubt that climate is changing. History is full of examples of climate change. Is man the cause of the current change? The answer to that needs objective analysis and the government is NOT
Never underestimate the ingenuity of the denier. Were Florida to fall under the waves, the blithe denier will continue to float his jive. Those like the master, Senator Inhofe (aka Worm Tongue)will preach religion and the gullible will nod their heads.
Comments below fulfill my prediction
speaking of gullible
Hi Rick,
How about coming on my radio show and debate the issue with meteorologist Art Horn? He would be more than willing to prove there is no man-made global warming. A true discussion of the issue would advance the dialogue on our future climate.
Dan Lovallo
WAPJ 89.9 FM
The AMS, American Meteorological Society, might disagree. They recently expressed strong agreement with the 97% of climate scientists that say climate change is real, human caused and possibly catastrophic. Debate at this point just wastes precious time. Time to act.
do you drive?
I’ll take your non-response as a ‘yes’, Jan Freed. This begs the question: If YOU don’t want to do the necessary to stop ‘global warming’, exactly who is it that you want to suffer for your views? Is this a case of ‘I believe in regulating human activity in the name of global warming, as long as I don’t need to suffer for it – someone else should’?
The war has several rational fronts: First the 13-year plateau we are in where warming has crested compared to the long-term trend dating back to 1900. Second the amount of AGW that can be attributed to humans.
If 1900 is the trend then what does that say about carbon versus population growth and deforestation as the primary cause?
This plateau thing. Have we reached a cyclical peak?
Should money be spent on R&D given the absence of a magic bullet instead of an economy-killing cap and trade regime? That seems to be a new evolving position. Ignore the Al Gore Hyperbole and the government’s “Fire, Aim, Ready, Research” approach to devouring dollars on a problem that needs additional definition and better scientific models.
Judith Curry’s response to 2009′s Climategate remains a Michael Chrichton-like indictment of the manufactured consensus of Global Warming and peer review when the underlying data isn’t even available to the peer reviewers due to politics. Peer Review isn’t much deeper than Editorial Review for large newspapers. And there are countless academic studies that the stuff rejected compared to the stuff that published is of about the same quality. In general if it passes the smell test then it gets published.
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/08/judith-curry-on-antarctic-sea-ice-climategate-and-skeptics/
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology.
Sorry, Rick, you’re wrong. There are just as many if not more scientists that call human-caused global warming a fraud. Is the global climate changing…..that’s been a fact long before man showed his face on earth. Another good clue to the fraud is that it is backed by Al Gore and Michael Moore. These two frauds have much in common. Al lost out big when the Chicago Carbon Exchange closed 2 years ago….they were all set to make billions of dollars in carbon exchange money…so much for working for the public good.
And then we get into Methane research (fittingly named) and the geophysicists who are non-committal on the hyperbole of CO2 warming due to the geological Methane cycles that are largely ignored by many present models.
The research goes on as does the hype.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/methane-0902.html
I believe much of the left’s lust for harsh global warming policies lies in the fact that every solution is centered in hindering Capitalism and funded by intra-US and worldwide wealth redistribution. So I offer the following, both as a solution to the stated causes of global warming, and as a bluff calling to the left:
We should offer any entity, including evil oil corporations, that develops a clean, renewable energy source which is as abundant, readily available and cost effective as fossil fuels a tax free monopoly on US sales for 50 years. To protect the public, the price of said alternative fuel could only rise with general inflation rates.
This would result in massive amounts of private dollars being invested in research and development of clean technology. However, it would crush decades of indoctrination that the cure for Global Warming is less Capitalism and more wealth redistribution.
Which is more important to the left? If ending Global Warming is the answer, why not advocate for this policy?
can’t wait for the replies (expect the sound of chirping crickets)
What a laughable, agenda-driven assertion. According to Rick Green’s logic, any article that in any way, shape or form mentions global warming but does not explicitly state “humans have not caused any global warming” thereby rebuts skeptics of a human-induced global warming crisis. Let’s examine just a few of the flaws in Green’s logic:
1. The subjective “review” of scientific studies was conducted by a global warming activist. This is no more objective and reliable than if ExxonMobil conducted their subjective review of the scientific literature.
2. Many of the articles that Green says “refute” global warming “deniers” merely mention global warming in passing but do not offer an opinion one way or another on the topic of attribution. The weakness of Green’s position is appallingly clear when he asserts that any person or paper who does not take a position in the global warming debate MUST agree with him. – What a joke of a weak argument!
3. Many of the articles that Green says “refute” global warming “deniers” are focused solely on asserted global warming catastrophes, and soundly reject the asserted global warming catastrophes. Green says that any paper that soundly debunks an asserted global warming crisis but does not explicitly say “humans have not caused any global warming” is a refutation of global warming “deniers.” Yeah, maybe in Green’s personal La-La Land….
4. Very few “global warming deniers” claim that humans have not caused any global warming, which Green falsely asserts is the issue that divides “alarmists” and “skeptics.” Most “global warming deniers” agree the earth has warmed during the past 100-plus years and humans have played some role in it. Thus, Green’s asserted premise of what divides “alarmists” and “skeptics” is invalid. Green deceptively argues against a “denier” position that doesn’t exist, because he cannot prevail in a debate against the true position of global warming “skeptics.”
5. The issues that divide “alarmists” and “skeptics” are: 1. What is the context of recent warming? (answer: temperatures are merely recovering from the cold depths of the Little Ice Age; temperatures were significantly warmer than today for most of the past 10,000 years); 2. What is the pace of current warming? (answer: rather modest; temperatures can keep rising at their present pace for at least another century or two before we approach the warmth experienced during much of the past 10,000 years); 3. How much of the warming is caused by humans? (answer: nobody knows; best evidence is maybe half of recent warming; half of the 20th century warming occurred before humans emitted much carbon dioxide in the post-WWII economic boom); and 4. What are the current and likely future effects of global warming? (answer: to date, despite alarmist hype, the results have been beneficial to human welfare; warmer climate periods have always benefited human welfare, and likely will continue to do so long into the foreseeable future). Green is afraid to address these topics, and instead invents a straw-man “denier” that is more convenient to debate.
Kim,
I have offered this reply on no less than 50 stories about Global Warming/Climate Change.
Not once has there been a cogent reply that rebuffs my solution.
In fact, with the exception of your reply, and one where a leftist moron stated that Capitilism is the cause of Global Warming and thus, Capitalism needed to be eliminated to eliminate the threat to Earth, my solution immediately ended the thread.
funny how your posts have that results in many cases.
This message is for James Taylor your words tells me,that you make alot of money as the world suffers.
What about James Taylor’s post leads you to believe he makes a lot of money?
Also, are you suggesting James Taylor’s personal income is the cause of, or related to Global Warming/Climate Change?
Or, and this is a blind guess, are you projecting traits you dislike (personal financial success) onto James based on other another trait you dislike (his global warming position)?