ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Receding Himalayan glaciers

Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm. The issue came replete with technical solutions that ranged from a hydrogen economy to space-based solar.

If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.

A policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March 15 in Science to acknowledge this point: “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change. This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”

The report summarized 10 years of research evaluating the capability of international institutions to deal with climate and other environmental issues, an assessment that found existing capabilities to effect change sorely lacking. The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to reform world politics and government. Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions.

Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

Behavioral economics and other forward-looking disciplines in the social sciences try to grapple with weighty questions. But they have never taken on a challenge of this scale, recruiting all seven billion of us to act in unison. The ability to sustain change globally across the entire human population over periods far beyond anything ever attempted would appear to push the relevant objectives well beyond the realm of the attainable. If we are ever to cope with climate change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are where we must focus, though. The relative efficiency of the next generation of solar cells is trivial by comparison.

Image credit: NASA

About the Author: Gary Stix, a senior editor, commissions, writes, and edits features, news articles and Web blogs for SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. His area of coverage is neuroscience. He also has frequently been the issue or section editor for special issues or reports on topics ranging from nanotechnology to obesity. He has worked for more than 20 years at SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, following three years as a science journalist at IEEE Spectrum, the flagship publication for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He has an undergraduate degree in journalism from New York University. With his wife, Miriam Lacob, he wrote a general primer on technology called Who Gives a Gigabyte? Follow on Twitter @@gstix1.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 411 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. timbo555 11:02 am 03/17/2012

    This is Soviet/Chinese style Communism with a barely discernable veneer of eco-righteousness applied for Aesthetics. A world government, replete with monolithic, unyielding beauracracies and armies to enforce their mandates, micro-managing the behaviors of the masses.

    Of course, were it to ever become a reality, the last free individual on the planet will have long since disappeared. Billions will die in the struggle between saving freedom and saving “Gaia”.

    The UN’s fevered rush to establish a new world order isn’t based not so much on an urgency to save the planet as it is on the immutable fact that the world doesn’t need saving. The UN’s climate charade is quickly being exposed for the fraud that it is, and the chance to wield real power is dwindling. This is when things get dangerous.

    Link to this
  2. 2. jctyler 12:31 pm 03/17/2012

    “Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe”

    Wishful thinking. The Russians are effectively bankrupt and the Chinese are blinded by greed, both don’t even see Syria which is absolutely obvious, I haven’t mentioned the US addiction to energy waste and its new post-Fukushima nuclear reactors or Europe’s rampant socio-political backwardness and you suggest world government?

    Effective World COOPERATION and I’d fully agree (that there could be a way). Since this is unrealistic the course of history will be the usual, the doodah will have to hit the fan before anyone will even consider switching the fan off. Until then we will cheat ourselves into believing that we’re only cooling ourselves while staring at what we think it’s just an enormous brown could when we are in fact already caught between the flying poo and the blades. Guess what happens next?

    I give it another two years before the sprinkling will be irreversible. My prediction is that early June this year the first serious, and I mean SERIOUS, freckles will appear. And it will turn out that these freckles are in fact frighteningly enormous melanoma on the planet’s surface.

    We are UNDERRATING the problem, too afraid to look at the big picture. It’s climate AND politics AND the economy AND overpopulation. And scientists unable to make a quantum jump into 21st century thinking.

    Just kidding.

    Link to this
  3. 3. jctyler 12:43 pm 03/17/2012

    timbo, I agree, a world government would take political idiocy and state-bureaucratic abuse to its most extreme, not to mention that there is excellent reason for bio-diversity even and especially in social structures.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Damarch 12:54 pm 03/17/2012

    The good part about this is just as early pioneers left England for a land free from oppression it could lead to a new exploration and colonization of a planet other than earth. I wonder what we’d call it…

    Link to this
  5. 5. erbarker 1:04 pm 03/17/2012

    The earth is 4.5 billion years old and has gone five glaciation periods. Man wasn’t around for the first four. Between each glaciation period the earth warmed up be coming hot by our standards. We started coming out of the last glaciation period about ten thousand years ago. We are not out of it yet, we still have glaciers. As we continue to come out of it, it will warm up, becoming hot, then the pendulum will swing the other way bring us a cooler climate, even another glaciation period. No world government or any other legislative body can change that. It is amazing that the once great science magazine fails to consider science instead wants to become a political rag instead of a great science magazine. Climate change is real, but faith based climate change is not.

    Link to this
  6. 6. sethdiyal 1:28 pm 03/17/2012

    What is required is some method of eliminating the corrupt power of Big Oil paying off politicians to avoid solution.

    Perhaps some massive global warming related disaster like the shutdown of the gulf stream might be the trigger,

    There is no alternative to nuclear energy for the world’s energy supply.

    With a World War II effort, in ten years 10000 mass produced nukes could easily with a fraction of our industrial capacity, with the costs covered at a 40% ROR by replacing fossil fuels, head off the the global warming and peak oil crises.

    New nuclear using factory module production at less than three cents a kwh is far cheaper internationally than even gas and coal fuel cost and would be well into a replacement as it is in Asia if not for those purchases of politicians by Big Oil. In the US what our corrupt media covers up is the fact that $3/mcf domestic gas is only a $2 LNG tanker ride to a $15/mcf international market and is being kept that way with Big Oil’s gas dumping. In Aus where nuclear is banned there are enormous LNG projects under way.

    AECL and Westinghouse are predicting 2 cents a kwh costs and 3 year build times for factory produced nukes. China is now building reactors for $1.5B/Gw and that is dropping fast towards the $1B/Gw predicted.

    Google “china-leverages-learning-curve-cost”

    Wind and solar alternatives are simply impossible industrially, politically, and financially.

    China is spending spending $100M annually developing the American invented MSR (MSR). The UK is looking at building the blueprinted IFR (GE Prism) for service in 5 years. India’s first of 5 to 2020 fast breeder is going into service this year at half the cost of new American designed AP1000′s.

    Advanced Nuke power gets lip service service only from the Obama adminstration riddled with Big Oil purchased bureaucrats pushing the Big Oil’s politically correct and lucrative renewable/gas backup agenda. Here’s IFR advocate Stephen Kirsch begging the nuclear obstructionists betraying their country in the White house to let the IFR go.

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/09/28/why-obama-should-meet­till/#more­5076

    Green people need to understand that the biggest roadblock ending the imminent threat of a peak oil GHG holocaust is the Green movement’s ill conceived, opposition to nuclear power.

    Here’s greenie superstar George Monbiot giving them a well deserved boot.

    “..This year, the environmental movement to which I belong has done more harm to the planet’s living systems than climate change deniers have ever achieved. ..”

    Link to this
  7. 7. tharriss 1:34 pm 03/17/2012

    Sigh, erbarker… really? Sprinkle in a little science knowledge, just enought to misrepresent what actually is happening and promote an agenda that is poised to hurt a lot of people.

    My, aren’t you being smart! Good work!

    And Timbo555… again really? Clearly the only possible option for world government is the Soviet model… really? I mean there is no other alternative… the current mess of irrational, head in the sand, ineffeciencies, or total dictatorship in some sort of Big Brother state? Seriously? That is your best thinking?

    Link to this
  8. 8. Trent1492 1:40 pm 03/17/2012

    @ErBarker,

    Most adults recognize that the same phenomena can have different causes. Your argument is akin to saying that since forest fires have occurred in the past long before humans ever existed that arson is impossible.

    Also, arguing that we are warming because we are coming out of the last Ice Age is not an argument. Climate like any thermodynamic system reacts to its inputs. You would need to point out what external inputs have changed. We know it is not the Sun because those inputs have remained steady and the expected characteristics of what a solar induced warming have not materialized; such as the entire atmosphere warming, the equator warming up the fastest, and days warming up faster than nights. None of that has been observed and in fact have been falsified.

    I suggest that you actually read what the world’s geophysicists are actually saying instead of relying upon fossil fuel propaganda.

    Link to this
  9. 9. jdey123 2:17 pm 03/17/2012

    Why? The globe isn’t warming. The December 2011-February 2012 winter season globally was colder than the 1987-88 winter according to Hansen’s NASA GISS website.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    Link to this
  10. 10. Coffey3c 2:30 pm 03/17/2012

    The biggest problem in science is in how badly we communicate with the populace. Just as a note, this headline is not only an absurdity, because effective government is still a completely theoretical construct, but to picture a larger more inertia intensive political system, which by definition has no outside checks and balances, is horrifying.

    I am not so conservative that I still ascribe to the popular political theories of the right which cleave to the fanciful notion that only governments that do not enact, mandate or legislate are safe and worthwhile. Nor am I blind to the fact, that the only solution – the only solution – is to strive in any way we can to improve the educational systems to the point that some day in the distant future, the majority of the population will be too embarrassed by their own education and rationality to publicly state that “the science is unclear.” However, in the interim, my political naivete will not extend to the hope that if we give more power to the fifty-five percent of the population who do not only do not understand the science, but who oppose facts on philosophical grounds.

    Remember the only salient point here, ladies and gentlemen. It is as frightening as it is profound, and it is exquisitely clear. When the republican candidates were asked who among them did not believe in evolution, a numerical majority raised their hands.

    More of that, we do not need.

    Coffey3C@gmail.com

    Link to this
  11. 11. Coffey3c 2:43 pm 03/17/2012

    Jdey123: This is why climate scientist study climate by data collection and analysis, and not by watching the weatherman. Weather and climate are two different things. Weather are short term fluctuations within a median range. Fluctuations outside the range are natural disasters. Long term trends and the movement of those averages, on the order of decades or centuries for instance, are more in line with what scientists call climate.

    As an aside, and if you’ll forgive a little well intended humor, It’s also why we don’t watch ground hogs and dung beetles to determine weather trending, and then shout: Eureka! We finally have the proof we need!!

    Link to this
  12. 12. jctyler 3:45 pm 03/17/2012

    timbo, a little addendum: when I said I agree that a soviet-style world government would be a bad thing I forgot to include that elsewhere I completely disagree with your completely unfounded opinion that climate warming is a UN charade. The contrary is true, the UN’s standpoint is increasingly strengthened by every new report based on science and not, as in your case, wholly biased opinion based on a full misunderstanding on how science works.

    Link to this
  13. 13. Coffey3c 3:46 pm 03/17/2012

    @Erbarker

    It’s not what’s in the fifth grade earth science book that we recently found it our garage; it really is only the heating currently caused by human activities, or anthropogenic climate change, that’s being discussed. (It is an interesting corollary, however, that through these studies, we may indeed be able to discern methodologies with which to mitigate future periods of natural cooling.)

    I agree with your basic assessment of the political astuteness of this article. I am heartened, that you at least recognize that things based on faith, are all to seldom based in reality. I would point out, however, that when you find yourself locked in a phone booth, where you are sure that you have no way out, it really isn’t the time to test explosives.

    May I also suggest that you check out the chapter on the Permian–Triassic extinction event, and the recent theories that an increase in ocean temperature, and the concomitant drop in dissolved oxygen levels, that may have tipped the bacterial flora toward the aerobic, leading to a increased sulfur dioxide production? Ninety-six percent of all marine species died. Seventy percent of all land vertebrates, for a total of Eighty-three percent of the then extant genera, died out. Extinct.

    I’ll also apologize here, to you, for not having faith in more subtle routs of persuasion. I’ve already declared that effective popularization of scientific realities is not our strong suit; and, that will in no great measure be improved by ridicule. I would also propose that such confusion is not only due to a lack of direct access to scientists who best understand what they’ve studied, or by any lack of innate ability to sufficiently clarify their premise; rather, sometimes it’s simply that the audience has not taken the time to educate and prepare themselves to understand.

    If you have an interest in what is real, or what is or is not supported by current science, you either have to be prepared to find, read, and understand the literature, or know to whom you can reliably address such questions. I can start you off only by saying that in matters of scientific confidence, a rush to listen to semi-popular political pundits is a worst case choice.

    Youtube and a plethora of cable channels have vastly increased the avenues by which science my be disseminated. They have also helped to identify a rather impressive number of scientifically literate people who are both entertaining and clear. However, here will always be a dichotomy of responsibility here, to be both comprehensible and correct on the one hand, and to be educated and rationally critical on the other.

    Coffey3C@gmail.com

    Link to this
  14. 14. JamesDavis 4:26 pm 03/17/2012

    World government is the republicans wishful thinking, like it was Hitler’s wishful thinking. He was unable to control the world and the republicans will not control the world either, no matter how much they promote their agenda of death, destruction, poverty, and war for all except the 1%. World government is just not going to happen no matter how much you wish for it.

    It was us humans who sped up climate change and we humans can slow it back to its normal happening, and we can do that by stop using fossil fuel. We already have the technology to do so, all we have to do now is get stupid people out of government and start building clean safe nuclear on a micro scale in each city, start building liquid salt geothermal and use solar panels to liquify the salt and a low heat solution to create the steam that will turn the turbines. The geothermal can be used to power corporations and the mini-nuclear power plants that would be placed in each city can power homes and electric cars. We can quickly clean up the environment without forming a “really stupid world government” that would only abuse its power and plunge the world into chaos.

    Link to this
  15. 15. jdey123 5:07 pm 03/17/2012

    @Coffey3C, Most climate quacks only want to look at data from 1978 onwards, since 1978 to 1998 had an accelerated warming rate.

    You claim that climate quacks are interested only in decades/centuries of data, but climate quacks don’t want to look at the world’s longest temperature record (goes back to 1659) – the Central England Temperature – claiming that it’s GLOBAL warming, and not central England warming.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    A skeptic says they wish to ignore the data because it shows minimal warming.

    Link to this
  16. 16. Carlyle 5:33 pm 03/17/2012

    By the way, Ice Extent in the Arctic has now reached the highest level in five years & is still increasing. Only a few years ago, climate scientists were predicting that the Arctic could be ice free this northern summer. Another spanner in the warmists works.
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    Link to this
  17. 17. Jerzy New 5:54 pm 03/17/2012

    Up to now, every totalitarian government quickly degenerated and made life of its citizens miserable.

    There is no reason to expect that any such climate-fighting panel will be any more effective and less corrupt than current dictatorships. Anyway, there is no external force to topple it (bare eventual visit of Martians) and extreme danger justifies extreme actions.

    Link to this
  18. 18. jctyler 6:03 pm 03/17/2012

    Coffey: “The biggest problem in science is in how badly we communicate with the populace.”

    couldn’t agree more, absolutely spot on

    Modern science and the art of plain English in the public place

    Link to this
  19. 19. jctyler 6:14 pm 03/17/2012

    to the pillock who posted this link

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.pn

    and then said that “Ice Extent in the Arctic has now reached the highest level in five years & is still increasing”.

    The idiot* forgot to read the article from which he pulled the graph and where it says:

    “Overview of conditions – Arctic sea ice extent in February 2012 averaged 14.56 million square kilometers (5.62 million square miles). This is the fifth-lowest February ice extent in the 1979 to 2012 satellite data record, 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent.”

    The idiot* has done it again!

    * idiot: a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way (wikipedia)

    Link to this
  20. 20. priddseren 7:22 pm 03/17/2012

    Additional proof the entire global warming religion is a scam. Even if we assume the globe is warming unaturally and caused only by CO2 production and nothing else, the fact that the warmists solutions always involve money and power is what makes their religion a scam. The only solution to this so called problem is a new source of energy that does not cause global warming or any other problem.

    When the warmists instead insist on taxation, ridiculous scams they call carbon trading or as this artictle describes a one world government, the only conclusion to draw is the people in charge of this religion have only self interest in money and power.

    Anyone who can convince themselves a one world government is a good idea or somehow safe for the world population is either insane or simply stupid. centuries of history proves that the more control politicians or religions have over people the worse it is for those people and the best way to obtain the most control is to centralize a government.

    The blog posters who added comments that would indicate this is not some new path to tyranny are simply incapable of thought, though this is not surprising. I can easily see how warmists who believe in the religion they created from their prophet computer models could easily pretend the history of communism, fuedalism, socialism, progressive tyranny, theocrasies and other forms of opression never happened as well as the conclusion the evil United States is too free to be sensible enough to deal with protecting the environment. After all warmists cant even look at real climate and attempt to determine facts, so how could we expect these same people to look at what happens when centralized governments take control and the millions dead and destitute caused by the European, African and Asian countries for the last 2000 years.

    As long as you warmists keep money and power distribution as some sort of magic fix to your belief, your entire warmist theory is suspect and simply a scam used by some to obtain that money and power.

    You warmists will be believed and have legitimacy after you stop with the taxation plans, pollution trading schemes and one world government desires and instead show how your theory is factually happening and invent some sort of energy alternative.

    Link to this
  21. 21. jimmy boy 7:28 pm 03/17/2012

    Now the real reason for the warming lie comes to light, they are using it to get a 1 world gov. We need to stop this junk (wanted to use another word) NOW!! or you will loose what freedom you have forever, with NO place to go in the world!!!

    Link to this
  22. 22. Coffey3c 7:34 pm 03/17/2012

    @jdey123

    I’m sorry, but I’m not sure if I understand your point with respect to whom the climate quacks actually are, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that your facts are in error in two germane ways.

    The first is that people who wish to study climate have neither the desire, nor do they dare – “cherry pick” data in a way that the cited statistics above do. Climate scientists try to incorporate as much data as they can reliably incorporate into their studies, provided it can be corroborated and evaluated as viable. If they were only looking at such a small span of data (1978), no paper would ever pass peer review. They would be pilloried by the community and rightly so.

    It’s the deniers of the human causalities in climate shift, or global warming if you’ll allow, that tend to point out facts of limited scope. It’s pretty clod today… or This year was the coldest in the last ten
    years… or Climate from 1978. “The ice spread father this year!” “Yes but it’s still half of what it was forty years ago, and less than a third a thick!!!”

    Even correct statements must be evaluated along with all the data, and the last summary I saw found that some 970~something peer reviewed papers supported the need for concern, and zero, none, nada, brought forth data that refuted the process. None. (Some folks published Pseudo papers in manufactured journals, but they never were peer reviewed, and most never actually published anywhere.)

    The second way that you are clearly in error has to do with paleo-climatology. Silly as it may sound to the uninitiated, things like Ice cores and tree rings yield much more, and in some ways much more useful, data. Not only can we surmise very much more than just a simple temperature for a suspect microclime like a congested city, measured with unverified precision; we can analyze atmospheric composition in percentages of gaseous componants. You can find particulates that identify if volcanic activity effected the local minims or maxims in temperature and snowfall. You can also tell, through particulate analysis roughly how many volcanoes, as well as estimate eruptions sizes, and even the approximate geological locations. You can see periods of increased precipitation as snowfall, or even see where rain may have fallen, or droughts…

    I could go on and on, but I hope you realize, that 400 years is not just off, it’s off by five orders of magnitude. Some forms of climate data may be recoverable for tens of millions of years, or more.

    Lastly, I’m uncomfortable with the term “climate wackos.” Given that it might either mean those to whom I refer as either ignorant of the science, or those who may be overly sarcastic about the subject by virtue of being in this abusive relationship with the political and the obfuscation for a paycheck guys. It’s sad to admit, but in the smarts department, it’s the people who sew this tripe to deliberately confuse the science who are the cleverer of two.

    Science has all the facts on their side, beyond any reasonable doubt of causality. Yet, these people will almost inevitably get what they want, which is another fifty years or so of doing whatever they can to maximize their profits, or to secure their temporary political job in some party framework. The tobacco industry did it exactly that way, and so did the power generators out west to a slightly lesser extent. It’s abhorrent logically and morally. Yet, in the face of this, most scientists will still have the instinct to react: “What do you mean you don’t believe it? Your kidding… right?”

    This like other so many other things are not a point of belief or faith. It does not apply. These are facts, documented, corroborated, and proven.

    Indeed, I have to admit that the ‘wacko’ think is even more poignant at the moment, as I was shocked to realize that it was about forty years this year that I’ve been reading pretty much everything published under the auspices of “Scientific American.” I have to say, that the title of this article is the first one that I can remember that I wish someone had put a stop too. I can’t think of anything that would inflame, or give a better rally cry to, the conservative right who appose facts … just because they do. They who are at best far too credulous to their own party line to every consider data, will need do other ‘proof’ of what the most reactionary and paranoid among them have tried to claim all along. I can’t see any way that this could not obscure the science, which far too many have made their full time job doing, and far too many have fallen for, even more.

    Coffey3C@gmail.com

    Link to this
  23. 23. Coffey3c 7:49 pm 03/17/2012

    @jctyler

    Honestly, I more expected someone to take me to task for the many grammatical errors I chose to include in my posts decrying the lack of clearer communications from scientists. I am profoundly upset by the title of this article, which I see as detrimental to the work of many fine researchers, to
    those who defend the just rational of the science, and to the cause of the planet as a whole. People who should never have to concern themselves with political agendas; a sphere of concern that has no intersection with determining the facts of a studied process. I’m hardly at my best, when in the best of times my typing speed is substantially faster than my wit.

    Coffey3C@gmail.com

    Link to this
  24. 24. scientific earthling 7:58 pm 03/17/2012

    Rapid short Term climate change is real and driven by human activities, not exclusively CO2 increase related. The primary driver of rapid short term climate change is human population levels, irrespective of their median CO2 emissions.

    Short term rapid climate change is a result of loss of volume of individual species (both flora & fauna) required to balance the impacts of the rest of the species.

    People responsible for clearing forests for homes, are probably more responsible than those who just emit high levels of CO2.

    An unsustainable Homo sapien population of 7G is the principal driver of Rapid Short Term Climate change. It will cease after this irrational species is extinct.

    Link to this
  25. 25. jctyler 8:17 pm 03/17/2012

    priddseren: “Additional proof the entire global warming religion is a scam.”

    What is?

    Link to this
  26. 26. jctyler 8:18 pm 03/17/2012

    jimmy boy: “Now the real reason for the warming lie comes to light, they are using it to get a 1 world gov.”

    oooh, clever boy

    Link to this
  27. 27. jctyler 8:41 pm 03/17/2012

    Coffey: “I am profoundly upset by the title of this article, which I see as detrimental to the work of many fine researchers”
    Still fully agree, it’s an idiotic title.
    BUT it kicks deniers’ brains into overdrive and brings out their best arguments. The one thing I regret is that one cannot copy/save the comments so I would very strongly suggest to SciAm to implement a feature that many blogs have offer, to let visitors download comments into a zip or PDF file. Instead of confining the deniers’ ramblings and rants to SciAm pages we should encourage the dissemination of their collected works to a wider audience so that everyone sees what goes on in their brains.
    As I see it, and the deniers no doubt share my point of view, no one is better placed to further heartland institute’s cause than a passionate denier and we could help heartland by spreading their supporters’ comments. I’m sure many undecided people would greatly welcome a peek inside a denier’s brain (oxymoron intended).
    See what I mean?

    Link to this
  28. 28. m 8:49 pm 03/17/2012

    #erbarker

    The ice age 10k years ago was supposedly caused by a meteor impact, id hardly call that a natural phenomenon.

    Link to this
  29. 29. m 8:50 pm 03/17/2012

    #sciam,

    your copmment system still sucks, the worst of any blogg in the known universe….

    Link to this
  30. 30. Coffey3c 10:25 pm 03/17/2012

    @jctyler: First of all, let me apologize one last time for the poor quality of my typing this evening. I think my Keyboard was made by a quality denier. My mistakes are bad enough, but things like To instead of too, or aerobic instead of Anaerobic… I apologize, and can only hope that my comments make a little sense.

    I don’t know about the potential of discourse to persuade deniers. If only it were that simple.

    It’s the same thing with evolution, and the confusion among the masses that it has any link to their theology, or that creation has (again) any intersection with the seminal biological principle for the last hundred and fifty years. In its broadest interpreting, the theory of evolution might include a footnote pertaining to the history of the science, but documenting a logical confusion is not congruent to citing a connection/juxtaposition. It certainly is not pairing it in a diametric.

    Still, though I refused for many years to engage in this type of debate of reality vs the uneducated, which I tired of around the time I was fifteen. I still maintained that people who needed to introduce some higher level of certainty were perfectly free to do so. As long is it is not an excuse for ignorance, which faith too often is, it is of no moment.

    Now, I recognize that I was probably mistaken. If a person is someone like me, and they readily admit that they don’t know, and that they are okay with looking for answers to the best of their own ability, then reason can work. If, however, you are a person who can believe in the ultimate truth, a truth which all facts must be edited, amended, or expunged in order to maintain full agreement with that ultimate truth – you will not be. You can’t be.

    This form if extreme credulity, along with a certain level of actual ignorance of the the natural sciences, are the prerequisites of blind faith. They are also what can make people fall prey to what are at best specious arguments, and at worst, obvious lies. They are not, by their nature, persuaded by arguments with which they do not already agree… which sort of precludes them as argument at all.

    We do have to try. It’s an obligation to point out the dangers. It’s thankless, because according to poles, we are outnumbered. A friend from England wrote to me last night, telling me how horrified they were by the medieval drek being troweled out in our grand republican primaries. In a time when we face very real problems, the majority of our population are not only so under-educated that they cannot understand them, but they are actually engaged in argument aimed at stifling the work of the minority of us who might actually be able to find some meaningful solutions.

    I told my friend that I still believe faith is a wonderful thing. One of the most wonderful things that people can do. It’s a shame that it is so often perverted, and used to lead the ignorant astray, but it need not be a vice. In primates, faith is something that tells me that beyond the hill that I can see through my window, is probably a place very much like the one that I see, and which is probably worthwhile to go and discover. It tells me that some of those lights in the sky are worth exploring as well. I told him that I have as much faith, and as much wonder in me as anyone alive. I just use it for different things than most people do.

    It does not extend to my convincing other people through argument any longer. The best that we can do is to lead by example. We prove, for a time when people will have listen, that we can both understand the dynamic of a planetary atmosphere, and suggest better practical ways to manage our behavior and technology. We avoid the mistakes like the one that Peter Gleick made, in trading our good name in an effort to confirm what most people already know, that the Heartland Institute (Among others.), are the venial shills of people who would gladly destroy our environment, and our species, if it meant a few more years of profit, or a bigger cell phone for them.

    And!

    Most of all, we never, ever, post something with the silly title that this article has. If the author meant to say world governance, even that would have been bad, being ill-phrased if accurate. No one contributing to Scientific American knows enough about a ‘World Government,’ or it’s risks and benefits, to even begin to suggest such a thing. Especially given that our audience are people like the one who suggested that ‘Warmists’ wanted the Cap and Trade program like the one suggested and implemented by the Reagan Administration in response to acid rain. They are much better, and much faster, at reshaping facts to fit their assumptions, than we will ever be at developing them. We have to work at it more.

    Coffey3C@gmail.com

    Link to this
  31. 31. Bora Zivkovic 11:06 pm 03/17/2012

    For most of the world, the notion of government that is separate from the people is long gone. Most states today are republics or democracies or both. The dictatorships or authoritarian kingdoms are for the most part a thing of the past – think feudal times and Middle Ages.

    Today, most governments are of the people, by the people and for the people. Almost by definition, government = cooperation. Government is not some alien entity divorced from the populace, but is the system by which people organize their own affairs as a society.

    We choose among ourselves people to do particular tasks in the society. Some of our representatives are tasked by coordinating all the other efforts. We continuously monitor their performance and, on a regular basis, replace them with other representatives of the people. Yes, it is an imperfect system because money has too much say in the process, but in general, government IS the people. So why fear ourselves?

    Link to this
  32. 32. jctyler 11:42 pm 03/17/2012

    Coffey: don’t worry about typos, I consider comments quite informal, and it is not by any means the best typers that have the brightest ideas. Now, you say:

    “I don’t know about the potential of discourse to persuade deniers. If only it were that simple.”

    Forget that approach. I don’t try to persuade deniers. They work on faith, they believe in their garbage. Ever tried to argue with a religious fanatic? They are not open to reason and logic because if they were they would not be deniers.

    What I am interested in is getting them to express their opinions, to flash the “brilliance” of their thought processes so that those who are confused by the issue see the DIFFERENCE between those who warn against climate change and those who deny it. The denier commentators most often do more for AGW acceptance than I could ever hope to achieve. If you are in a meeting and you let a denier expose how his brain works, no one in his right mind wants to be considered to be on his side. It’s a really good way to find out who the morons are. The more space you give deniers the more support AGW gets.

    Therefore, don’t try to reason with deniers, encourage them to open up, use their arguments, their links, last but not least enjoy the garbage they post and the incongruencies. They do it for us. Talk to a Texas rancher today, ask him about his cattle and his land, then let him read deniers’ arguments, he may not be science-savvy but he slowly starts to understand what is really going on. Nothing like a denier to help convince him. Deniers are not into science, deniers are into denial. Enjoy them, I love it when they hobble around with self-inflicted shotwounds in both feet. Gotta love them, the little idiots, offering the best fun in the whole AGW thing. They do what we can’t, they make anyone embarrassed to be on their side. Microsoft funding heartland, how rich is that? Now that heartland is exposed, will Microsoft continue to fund that funny self-serving organization which is mainly a good excuse for the majority of its employee to draw a high paycheck?

    And if you compare the quality of today’s deniers with that of those from three or four years back, seriously, who wants to be seen lunching with one today?

    Link to this
  33. 33. Carlyle 11:48 pm 03/17/2012

    Despite the irrational ranting of jctyler, my post #16 is irrefutably correct. Arctic ice extent has reached a five year high & as late in the season as it is, the extent is still increasing. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
    Ranting does not change facts.

    Link to this
  34. 34. jctyler 12:03 am 03/18/2012

    “Despite the irrational ranting of jctyler, my post #16 is irrefutably correct.”

    Idiot.

    Link to this
  35. 35. Carlyle 12:14 am 03/18/2012

    You really must think everyone who follows these posts is incapable of going directly to a link. Being called an idiot by a child with a soiled diaper having a tantrum is rude but it really does not carry any weight. Get someone to change it for you. Bound to make you feel better. Then go back to your crayons.

    Link to this
  36. 36. jctyler 12:15 am 03/18/2012

    “Despite the irrational ranting of jctyler, my post #16 is irrefutably correct.”

    oops, sorry, forgot to mention: see post nr 19 in reply to stupidity posted in #16.

    (explains why poster of #16 is an idiot in the academic sense; typical 2012 denier)

    Link to this
  37. 37. Carlyle 1:04 am 03/18/2012

    Are you being bullied in pre school? There must be some explanation.

    Link to this
  38. 38. BuckSkinMan 1:36 am 03/18/2012

    What the author is clearly saying is: We ARE screwed! Many of us are trying to argue for controlling fossil fuel use – and THAT is impossible because fossil fuel use is a behavior MOST people will not willingly reduce or give up. On top of that, neo-nut-conservatives’ FAVORITE ploys are to cite the “immense danger” of “New World Order” (govt.) and to attack scientists and scientific studies as fraudulent.

    The only way to save human rationality is to launch a large-scale frontal attack through “social means.” At every turn, it must be pointed out that making decisions on “faith-based thinking” IS irrational and completely detached from rationality. And by “faith-based” it must be realized, political ideologies of all kinds ARE faith-based (and operate on deception to enlist gullible, ignorant followers). The principle targets must be at the grass roots level: every priest, minister, rabbi and mullah must be discredited at every opportunity. Their special tax-free status must be revoked. Their influence with government must be eradicated. These charlatans are the worst threat to the U.S. and every other government, including the “shadow government” – the U.N.

    Link to this
  39. 39. BuckSkinMan 1:40 am 03/18/2012

    I left out: Every political party must be held to the standard of honesty and civil conduct. Our “politics” here are unconscionable: dishonest & slanderous in every way. A federal law must be passed, making the lies and deceptions and half-truths a federal felony. Arrest the lying candidates and then arrest the lying party leaders. Let them conduct politics but ensure that it’s done honestly.

    Link to this
  40. 40. Carlyle 2:01 am 03/18/2012

    Re: 39. BuckSkinMan
    Who will the judges be & who will appoint them?
    Only free speech & the ballot box give us any protection from fraudsters, hucksters & charlatans. In other words, democracy.

    Link to this
  41. 41. jctyler 8:25 am 03/18/2012

    In reply to comment Nr 35:

    1.
    I use “idiot” for this commentator in the academic sense for a stupid or mentally handicapped person, not as in the street sense to designate a clash of opinion. Since the poster objects/does not understand the usage I will stop using the term. Instead I propose two new terms to classify deniers logically. The main group this poster belongs to is the denier group. This group has two main subgroups, deniers that are uneducated guessers of why climate changers and deniers who are ignoring/misinterpreting scientific evidence because of a mental malfunction.

    Denier/UNeducated Guesser = Dunger
    Denier/Ignorant (and) Mentally Malfunctioning = Dimmer

    2.
    Poster of reply Nr 35 is a Dimmer for the obvious reason that he is incapable of understanding the sources he quotes to prove his point while the sources prove exactly the opposite of what he claims.

    Example 1: Dimmer stated categorically in previous comments (this article, the Gleick incident) that earth has stopped warming, citing articles that use scientific data to prove that the last ten years were the warmest in history.

    Example 2: Dimmer uses a graph from a report on arctic ice to demonstrate that arctic ice is extending when the graph shows that the arctic ice is presently less than before; this graph is from an article which scientifically proves that the arctic ice is presently at its fifth-lowest extension.

    Example 3: in post Nr 40 the Dimmer insists on a democratic process but refuses in other comments for example a ballot amongst climate scientists where 95% expressed that they consider climate warming a scientific fact and 85% saying that it is definitely man-made; to demand that climate be judged by election is already absurd, to then demand that the result of a democratic process should be the final judge of the problem and at the same time refuting the result of a democratic ballot with an immense majority supporting the AGW concept is ultimate proof that this poster’s mental functions cannot be considered to work properly/logically/rationally/coherently.

    Hence the future use of Dimmer for this poster.

    3.
    I appreciate the Dimmer’s post Nr 35 for a specific reason. It brings back memories of a happy childhood where one would colour paper instead of replacing batteries in one-way toys, be pampered by parents who took time for their children and else let them roam the fields freely, where winters had snow, spring arrived at the right time, summers were long and sunny instead of grey interrupted by either heatwaves or floods and where autumn would bring a proper harvest instead of burned or underdevelopped crops.

    Last, but not least, as I said before I appreciate dimmer’s unwavering, even if uninteded support of AGW by continuing to post his denier ramblings, showing undecided civilians why denying is the ultimate stupidity of our time.

    Go, dimmer, go, go, go.

    Link to this
  42. 42. jctyler 8:38 am 03/18/2012

    Funny paradox: a dimmer is a person who does not understand global dimming.

    To avoid confusion, I therefore propose to decide democratically if we should change the term “dimmer” into “dummer” (Denier/underperforming from mental malfunctioning)?

    (Germans are exempted from this vote as “dummer carlyle” is a redundancy in German)

    Link to this
  43. 43. HowardB 2:36 pm 03/18/2012

    erbarker wrote:
    ” It is amazing that the once great science magazine fails to consider science instead wants to become a political rag instead of a great science magazine. Climate change is real, but faith based climate change is not.”

    Very well said.

    Unfortunately SciAm has abandoned Science and has thrown itself hook line and sinker into the embracing arms of political correctness.
    Nowhere between it’s pages does it ever offer any real examination of the original data and interpretation of that data. Nowhere does it offer any real examination of the inner programming of the ‘models’ being relied on for the AGW predictions.
    It has given up on Science, and instead thrown it’s lot in with the Green Industry and political expedience.

    Link to this
  44. 44. mariaha 2:41 pm 03/18/2012

    The only way to deal with the “Anthropocene” is by making a coordinated effort to acquire as much land as possible that remains undeveloped and accessible only for recreational and scientific purposes. That is completely possible and would do much more good than a new World Government, whose effectiveness is entirely speculative and implementation would be wildly unpopular.

    Link to this
  45. 45. Bora Zivkovic 3:04 pm 03/18/2012

    The real question of the article is: should the denialists be ignored/marginalized, or fought, or re-educated? Social science suggests that re-education of people set in their ideological mindsets is almost impossible. Fighting requires organization. Ignoring requires that media wakes up to the reality and stops giving the denialists a platform.

    And everyone who thinks of “government” as something outside of their own existence, something alien that is imposed by some mysterious “other”, should rethink what government really means: http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/12/i_want_bigger_government.php

    Link to this
  46. 46. Carlyle 3:46 pm 03/18/2012

    Free speach

    42. jctyler
    You are a juvenile unsophisticated rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.

    Link to this
  47. 47. Coffey3c 4:14 pm 03/18/2012

    Bora, Mariaha, Howard: I have to say that I agree. I pulled out my Scientific Americans from the seventies, and I do miss them so.

    As for Re-education, I can’t believe that is possible. All one has to do is to look at how quickly name calling results from a disagreement in a public blog. Education, however, is another matter. I have to believe that we can educate much better, so that those who follow will be better prepared to work productively, and not to spend resources arguing with each other.

    There will still be those who don’t want to know, or media companies who believe that no matter how absurd the notion of giving equal time to a denier out of fairness (or a motive to create salable product.), despite the fact that the merits of the complaint itself logically does not deserve equal consideration. It’s unrealistic to believe in eliminating irrational descent, but breaking the gridlock would be goal enough.

    After that, governance might succeed through leadership. It’s of less moment to me, that a country like China might not be perceived as willing to do what we would like. It’s far more important that this country is unwilling or unable to lead by example. A real reduction in greenhouse gasses. A real set of checks and contingencies planned in advance. Reforestation. These can be done

    National governments would respond, if slowly, but not if we are so mired in ignorance that we are unwilling to begin to act.

    Coffey3C@gmail.com

    Link to this
  48. 48. Carlyle 4:15 pm 03/18/2012

    Re: 45. Bora Zivkovic
    Your so called denialists include famous people like Galileo & less well known people who for example, had they been listened to, would have prevented untold misery & death. The Chinese developed a method of immunisation against smallpox thousands of years ago. Advocates for the introduction of these techniques into Europe were ridiculed by the medical authorities of the day delaying introduction & costing millions of deaths. Darwin was pilloried as was Einstein. Go ahead. Suppress free speech & drag us back to the dark ages.
    The left is the enemy of free speech & has learned nothing from the disastrous experience of communism in the twentieth century, built on suppression of freedom of speech & a free press. Ideologues believe that their world view is so compelling that if they can not persuade everyone to their way of thinking by the power of their arguments, have the right to impose their views by force. These people pose a much greater danger to society than AGW, particularly when coupled to their irrational & ineffective solutions to their perception of the problem.

    Link to this
  49. 49. Carlyle 6:16 pm 03/18/2012

    Yet another reason why we should all be sceptics.
    Australian temperature records shoddy, inaccurate, unreliable. Surprise!
    The BOM say their temperature records are high quality. An independent audit team has just produced a report showing that as many as 85 -95% of all Australian sites in the pre-Celsius era (before 1972) did not comply with the BOM’s own stipulations. The audit shows 20-30% of all the measurements back then were rounded or possibly truncated. Even modern electronic equipment was at times, so faulty and unmonitored that one station rounded all the readings for nearly 10 years! These sloppy errors may have created an artificial warming trend. The BOM are issuing pronouncements of trends to two decimal places like this one in the BOM’s Annual Climate Summary 2011 of “0.52 °C above average” yet relying on patchy data that did not meet its own compliance standards around half the time. It’s doubtful they can justify one decimal place, let alone two?

    Link to this
  50. 50. HowardB 7:11 pm 03/18/2012

    Bora Zivkovic wrote:
    “The real question of the article is: should the denialists be ignored/marginalized, or fought, or re-educated?”

    This, regrettably illustrates the kind of political dogma that is driving AGW. The response is not to turn to Science for proof or evidence or data. The response is to demean the opposition and to insult everyone’s intelligence with talk of ‘re-eduction’.

    I am deeply proud to be a denialist and a sceptic in the great tradition of Science. I demand Science produce evidence and produce proof. A bunch of pretty graphs and stupid Dendrochronologist trying to claim that he can tell the average global temperature from tree rings from a handful of sites around the world doesn’t cut it.

    Like all current denialists we believe in Science, not political might. We believe in evidence.

    Let SciAm and the AGW dogmatists offer us that evidence and proof and open up the debate and deal with the criticisms. There is only one reason they will not and that is because most of them don’t know about the Science and spend their time regurgitation what they have heard form someone else who heard from someone else.

    Link to this
  51. 51. Carlyle 8:12 pm 03/18/2012

    I missed attributing my post #49
    http://joannenova.com.au/category/global-warming/

    Link to this
  52. 52. Coffey3c 8:37 pm 03/18/2012

    @Howard. Scientists tend to doubt, and look for proof.
    The question, and the propose alternatives. They drink a cold one now and then, on a hot summer day, and have a cookout with friends. What they don’t do, is to continue to tout insignificant anomalies or possible errors, long after decades of careful and diligent research have been analyzed by well trained and well respected researchers, and a consensus has been arrived at through an overwhelming preponderance of evidence…

    Twenty years ago.

    Denial is a word that has a whole different meaning.

    When the evidence has been presented, in the greatest clarity that can be achieved, only to be denied just because, then what recourse do you suggest?

    Should we continue to debate, if a single temperature probe is left un-calibrated, or do we try to point out how many temperature readings are taken around the globe every hour of every day? I don’t believe in re-education, only education, but how hard should we struggle to help people, who by the very clearest demonstration of the inaptness of their questions, have given exquisite proof that they do not understand what they are talking about?

    If a scientist is out there, literally risking his life jumping over ice crevasses to get this data, how much more time should he spend in convincing them?

    As for the rest, there may be scientists who want to be president, or the baseball commissioner; and, there are certainly a few who would like a chair at the national academy of sciences. Most of them are human, and they are not divorced of politics. Politics, a reality that we all live with every day, but to suggest that an overwhelming majority of climatologists, from all over the world, are somehow in locked step due to some political machination, jumps right over the ludicrous to the absurd.

    “The response is to demean the opposition and to insult everyone’s intelligence with talk of ‘re-education.” “I am deeply proud to be a denialist and a sceptic in the great tradition of Science. I demand Science produce evidence and produce proof. A bunch of pretty graphs and stupid Dendrochronologist trying to claim that he can tell the average global temperature from tree rings from a handful of sites around the world doesn’t cut it.”

    If taken as a singular hypothesis, and if validity of the techniques had not been well established by many researchers; and lastly if the data thus generated had not simply been found to have good agreement with an overwhelming quantity of evidence that spans almost every discipline in the Geophysical and Biological sciences… your skepticism would be reasonable. Denial, on the other hand, in the face of what this clearly compelling and convincing, indicates more about the level of understanding behind it. It obscures either a rational and well though out viewpoint of the science, or an understanding of might comprise good empirical data, and/or accurate analysis.

    Placing blame for the political turmoil that the denial has caused to all scientists, which by definition must include the many who worked so hard to already establish the facts and evidence you seem to still be waiting for, is worse. That’s simply dishonest.

    May I offer, that if there is some specific principle of climate science you deny, or do not feel you understand well enough to be able to evaluate; or, if there is a paper that seems to you to be tainted by logical fallibly or demonstrably bad data, that you feel free to forward it to the email that I’ve posted on so many of these comments. My knowledge is limited, admittedly, but I think it may suffice to answer this level of questioning, and being home ill for a few days, have the time for at least another few hours.

    I assure you, that if I do not know the answer, I will at least tell you that, and it might serve to avoid some of the name calling type of behavior indicated above, which will only serve to keep the more serious, and better informed, and busy experts away. It’s a genuine offer, because I would genuinely like to hear the rational behind your stance. Natural philosophy only, of course, Political ramifications are irrelevant prior to establishing the reality of a phenomenon.

    Coffey3C@gmail.com

    Link to this
  53. 53. bbhall 10:15 pm 03/18/2012

    Mr Stix. You are a looney madman. Stay the hell away from me.
    Scientific American, you should be ashamed for allowing the publishing of such unscientific rot.
    Thomas Jefferson will be ‘spinning in his grave’.

    Link to this
  54. 54. Old Engineer 1:06 am 03/19/2012

    At last, the real reason for the AGW scare is laid bare for all to see. It is and has always been a route to World Governance.
    I’d have thought the editors of “Scientific American” would be smart enough not to actually come out and proclaim it. “Scientific American” was once devoted to real science. The editors have clearly lost their way.

    By the way, the Himalayan glaciers are not receding as fast as was claimed by the IPCC. In fact, they have not had any net melting in the last ten years. Odd that you picked a picture of the Himalayan glaciers.

    Link to this
  55. 55. Old Engineer 1:20 am 03/19/2012

    To Coffey3c:
    On what do you base your belief in AGW? Specifically. What is to you the central and most irrefutable fact that convinces you that CO2 emissions will cause world-wide catastrophic warming?

    Link to this
  56. 56. jiminator 1:22 am 03/19/2012

    It’s hard to listen to scientists talk about what we need to do in science education. By any account, what’s been done over the last few decades is taking us backwards, not forwards, despite the increasing efforts of scientists. This record of pathetic failure should give them pause, but it doesn’t. It convinces them there services are more in demand than ever! Welcome to the school for the gifted.

    We can add “global warming awareness” to the list of outright unequivocal pathetic failures by scientists in their efforts to educate people. Again, while one would think this record of surprisingly consistent abject failure would lead to some serious soul searching, it doesn’t. Instead, it leads to intensifying the effort with the SOS. Perhaps, having been at the head of the class for most of their lives, today’s scientists are simply unable to accept that they might actually just not get it.

    With this record in mind, the idea of a scientist proposing an “effective” world government seems somewhat at odds with reality.

    Link to this
  57. 57. Crompton 1:56 am 03/19/2012

    Coffey3c and JCTyler. I have to say that I came to Scientific American expecting to read reasoned arguments on scientific topics. You two represent a nadir in reasoned arguments. Let’s start with the science shall we:

    1. The world in warming, has been since the end of the 17th century;

    2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will have some effect on the planet’s temperature, humans are increasing it in the atmosphere at a rate of 2ppm/years;

    3. A doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels will raise the temperature of the planet by 1C

    So far there is no disagreement in the science? Am I right?

    4. Positive feedbacks caused by water vapour will increase this temperature to 3.3C.

    5. The resultant increase in temperature will cause an vast number catastrophes, not least of which will be the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, but the disappearance of the lesser spotted voles of Iberian peninsular will cause untold damage to the ecology in that land of sunshine, and the move north of the smelly dung beetles of Mongolia will devastate the Siberian forests, people will grow extra elbows and the rest of the junk, but the basis is “bad things will happen”.

    That’s it isn’t it? That’s the CAGW theory in a nutshell.

    So let’s have the scientific proof that the increase in temperatures will cause water vapour and that will cause positive feedbacks. I don’t mean models, I mean empirical proof. While you’re at it you might want to explain why the water vapour doesn’t cause clouds and negative feedbacks?

    Link to this
  58. 58. Coconutdog 4:02 am 03/19/2012

    Have we learnt nothing from the past? Here we go again.

    Link to this
  59. 59. Coffey3c 4:53 am 03/19/2012

    @Old Engineer: First of all I don’t like the term “Catastrophic,” so an important clarification.

    A catastrophic temperature increase is certainly a possibility, a worst case scenario if you will, and a very frightening one at that; because, the one undeniable fact here is that we only have one real laboratory in which this process is running, and we are all standing on it. If the climate follows one of those worse case projections, then the result could indeed be catastrophic

    In one of the posts, I talked about agriculture in the Mid Western US, and how that could very easily be detrimental to a critical source of food production if the the area becomes hotter and dryer. Remember though, that is just one example of one localized effect. If multiple phenomena occur at once, reinforce each other: The disruption of the Halocline driven ocean current circulation, and forest fires in Asia, and a dramatic increase in the desert clime in Africa… No scientist, indeed, no person can say with an acceptable level of assurance.

    Though climate models and projections can help to understand, we can’t predict with perfect certainty, in a system so large and complex, exactly how these things will interact or how far they will go. That is both concerning, and at the same time, the core the hope of many scientists, that the changes in the environment will not be rapid, and not follow one of the catastrophic predictions, but rather that it will become noteworthy soon enough that people and governments can still initiate countermeasures.

    We hope it will before things we haven’t predicted (or have been able to program into reasonable models yet.), begin to happen. For instance, with a near half degree rise we see right now reaches one and a half degrees? A growing season could come when that increased temperature leads to locust wiping out a couple of seasons food crops – just around the time we have eight billion people on the planet.

    Sadly, at that point people will finally willing to take real action, but instead of the smaller and less disruptive steps, being suggested now, that situation will demand will be far more expensive and disruptive, and that will be a very painful day. If we misuse these intervening years, if we have not been developing more emissions free energy sources, or begun to ween ourselves away from the fossil fuel technology base, then even emergency measures may be too late to save a significant percentage of the population.

    So when you say Catastrophic, I need you to clearly understand, our best stratagem, and what people like me are advocating, is to start serious work now, in the knowledge that this is our obvious best practical course, and in hope of preventing anything ‘catastrophic’ from ever happening.

    All of that aside, what we actual know is that the climate has warmed, that human activity is warming it more, and that no matter what we do today, the projections say that it will continue to warm. Clearly, the safest and most rational course will be to implement and test rational strategies to offset the human behaviors that are damaging the climate.

    Now.

    As I answer to your question, I’m sorely tempted to say that it was the vociferousness with which the people who don’t want to see any regulation of any kind have attacked. Often with lies of the most obvious kind. It’s the same kind of strategy that the Tobacco industry used knowing of their products health impacts, or the power companies used when people were talking about acid rain. The attack has been loud, organized and concerted, and it comes in a way that has become all too familiar in the last fifty or sixty years.

    I won’t go any further down this road, as it’s too close to an ad hominem attack on the people commenting here. (There has been far too much of that in the public forum.) I would, however, bring to your attention the fact that the power companies in the mid west spent years screaming that acid rain was a million dollar problem that required a billion dollar solution. However, when they were finally forced to act, it was costly, but the actual price of electricity went down in that period. After implementation, and the OMB figured that the actual savings was on the order of twenty times, or around a hundred billion.

    They didn’t do enough with the cap and trade the Reagan Administration settled on, and Sugar Maple trees (The ones with the syrup.), will probably be extinct in large tracts of the northern forest around 2070… approximately? Remember, though, that scientists know regulation can be expensive, but that it is also not always as expensive as many predictions.

    Thus the first part of the answer is actually one that is not related to the science. I’m just not willing to sit idly by, and watch the same thing happen yet again. As a citizen I know how my government works, and when they backed away from the early initiatives, I was concerned enough to find out what the truth was to the best of my ability, the truth that had to do with the research.

    Now your answer:

    It really was, that so many things began coming together all at once, from every field of study. Even more, it was how rapidly researchers began to confirm or discover things. You realize we have some impressive technology available, but everywhere we looked, we found corroboration.

    We all talk a lot about glaciers, because it is such a key indicator, but if you go to a college library and pull out some journals, you see that they found problems everywhere they looked.

    Atmospheric scientists, theorized that if the CO2 was building up because of people, and not volcanic, that it wouldn’t be in the stratosphere, but in the troposphere. That’s where they found it.

    Marine Biologists, realizing the delicate many corals and reef systems to the smallest changes, took another look, and they found many of those reef systems worse then they realized…. along with Mangrove swamps, marshes, etc.

    In part, it was that once researchers had been prompted what to look for. they not only began to understand damage that they had seen all along but had not been able to explain, once the pattern was recognized (And grant money became available.), they began to confirm those patterns were ubiquitous. They were world wide, and they matched predictions with an astonishing predictability.

    This was shocking, even though the fundamentals of the science had been around before almost any of the researchers.

    John Tyndall figured out in around 1850 that carbon dioxide was what we call now call a greenhouse gas – what it did in the atmosphere. Then,a very famous chemist, Arrhenius, knowing of the properties, and of the natural greenhouse effect active in the atmosphere, looked around at all the coal being burned around 1900, and suggested that if we continued to do that, then doubling the amount of carbon dioxide, could raise the average temperature by as much as ten degrees. [Quite accurate, as it turns out.] Lastly, around 1938 I think, right before WWII, a guy named Callendar measured and calculated himself into producing and publishing article that suggested that the global temperature was already warming… and that it might be a bad thing

    Ergo, the first and the last of the things that convinced me, had more to do with people shouting about this being some silly notion dreamed up scientists for the purpose of some utterly inexplicable anarchistic social agenda. The science here, or rather the basic science has been known, in detail, for nearly a hundred years. When activists started shouting that it was all a right wing plot, the people who read about things other than right wing plots, were not so easily fooled. Sorry if that sounds sarcastic, I am only attempting to explain how obvious the truth was, and from which side the lies actually originated.

    Now it’s late, and I’m tired, but one more thing, touching on the almost daily ‘discussions’ I’ve been having with a good friend for these past ten years. A friend who is an arch conservative, remembers every political speech or stand made by anyone for the last fifty years, and who gets all of his science from A.M. talk radio, in defiance of my every concerted effort.

    If some scientist some where were caught on camera tomorrow, holding a disposable lighter under a thermometer… If the heartland institute is found to be run by a cabal of satanist oil drillers from Mega Oil Ltd., or even Toys-be-us… If the biggest politician you can name believes in creationism,or the biggest group of Senators ever stuffed into an elevator decide evolution is a sin… It can’t distract or dissuade us from doing what citizens or scientists must.

    It’s irrelevant to the question of the value of the science. You decide the value of the science looking at the science: Peer reviewed papers. The more you look at actual factual data, the more quickly you’ll be able to recognize the propaganda pieces that get shotgunned into places like popular weekly business magazines, or broader reaching popular media.

    A good tip to remember, is when you start to see catchy phrases like ‘Climate Gate,’ or ‘warmest,’ or… whatever. You know that’s some politically driven spin machine. Scientists are terrible, terrible, at making good science freely understandable and accessible; but, the pundits and business interests are absolute magicians when it comes to this. When you see that quality of advertising, you need to know that along with a small quantity of rational and honest descent, you’re probably being sold a line.

    That was the last of it, and all of it, all of the evidence that convinced me came along by approximately 1998. Approximately fifteen years ago, when my own doubts were fully overcome, in reading, among other sources, the more popular journals like Scientific American.

    Coffey3C@gmail.com

    Link to this
  60. 60. Coffey3c 5:09 am 03/19/2012

    @jiminator:

    You must be joking. Reductio ad absurdum, Jim. You seriously intend to attribute any blame scientists for the state of our public educational system, regardless of how many numberless sources point out the abysmal state of our primary and secondary public schools – which are run by school districts under legislated state mandates?

    If you do, all I can suggest is that you might want to look at the question again. I won’t be here to answer it, but maybe someone else will.

    Link to this
  61. 61. Carlyle 6:58 am 03/19/2012

    It is very difficult to change a persons mind once it is made up. My old father used to say, Convince a person against their will & they are of the same opinion still.
    I have no doubt you genuinely believe in AGW & feel the evidence is incontrovertible. I ask you only to critically examine the evidence you are relying on to support your position. When someone points out what they perceive as a weakness or weaknesses in the arguments supporting your position, can you honestly evaluate them, which is the scientific method, or do you simply say, I have made up my mind & that’s the end of it?
    For me, there are a few simple tests that indicate whether or not a person has the capacity to judge. By far the greatest for me is the preparedness to judge the integrity of the information being assessed. A major influence for me on whether information needs to be carefully evaluated or not is not only the integrity of those making the claims & the integrity of the evidence they present but whether based on their evidence, the consequences they predict are credible.
    The simplest test until recently that I have sought to apply is a person’s response to the email scandal. The latest test is the reaction to the Peter Gleik incident. Not the way he got the information but his attempt to insert false information to bolster his argument. These two incidents are very revealing in numerous ways. The main one being the willingness of AGW proponents to suppress information that does not support their position & even to fabricate evidence to bolster their cause. That definitely is not science, peer reviewed or not. The third major revelation is the reactions of those who claim to be unbiased yet reject this dishonesty as being irrelevant or even denying that the plain evidence is true & seek to explain it away.
    Have you condemned the people who have shown dishonesty in these two matters or do you excuse or condone them?
    It is interesting that you claim you made up your mind on the issue fifteen years ago.

    Link to this
  62. 62. Coffey3c 7:38 am 03/19/2012

    Crompton aka. D.B.:

    Our responses are nadiral, and you still want to talk? I am intrigued.

    1. The world in warming, has been since the end of the 17th century. “”

    It has. It began warming from a relatively cool period called Little Ice Age, which itself was preceded by the Medieval Climate Optimum. When you have a relative dip in temperature, it has always shifted back up again. Thankfully.

    Did you also know that in that period, the atmosphere only cooled by less than a degree? Glaciers grew measurably, and half the people on Iceland died? It was an interesting time in both history, and in climatology. And from the seventeenth century till we run all the way back up to the mid twentieth century averages, the temperature raised up by an average of nearly that degree in about three-hundred years. This is exactly why when we see an increase of eight tenths of a degree in the last thirty years, we get very interested to know why. You see, it’s mostly the Rate of Change that has people with thermometers talking. .

    2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will have some effect on the planet’s temperature, humans are increasing it in the atmosphere at a rate of 2ppm/years; “”

    I had not remembered it was so much. About seven ppm in the last four years I thought, but that’s about right. Which for now, given that the seasonal changes due to plant activity is nearly that every year, would make it hardly noticeable over so short a time. However, did you also realize, that since I was born in 1960, NOAA reports that direct measurements of CO2, as measured at the Mauna Loa observatory, have risen from around 315 ppm dry, all the way up to about 390 ppm dry? Nearly a 25% increase by your own standards of accuracy, over such a short time.

    When put that data on a graph whose average increases isn’t deviating much by the way, and is climbing steadily, it is very easy to see the concern. Imagine us in thirty to fifty years, looking back at the first fluctuation of the global temperature by about a degree, as the “good ol days.”

    3. A doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels will raise the temperature of the planet by 1C “”

    No. Not only is that inaccurate, it’s indefensibly inaccurate. We are talking about a planetary climate, where the albedo is reduced, where there are feedback loops in the biosphere will be effected, methane hydrates may begin to sublime…

    Your statement isn’t likely in a bell jar, let alone in the face of the measured changes we are seeing. Snatch a quick figure for CO2 of 275 ppm around 1700, to about 390 ppm now. Or an increase of 42 percent. Not nearly doubled, and we are seeing more than one degree shift from the time you cited. And! the CO2 is still steadily climbing. The effects lag the cause here, and cause isn’t slowing. Also, you need to look at the rate of change in the CO2 as well. Honestly, I hope we never do hit double preindustrial levels… or 550 ppm.

    Remember google is our friend. Check your data in several sources wherever you can, but give some thought finding a scientifically authoritative source. I just jumped non the NOAA site.

    So far there is no disagreement in the science? Am I right?

    In some of the data, and in the omission of the seminal issues which are the rates of increase, but you do type very much more carefully than I. You also want to be very careful of nailing down figures like they have a greater degree of certainty than they actually do. From experience, we know that a statement that the Hurricane will make landfall precisely at the corner of Third and Main, at three fifteen p.m.. These are dynamic and highly complex systems. Better to talk about ranges of probability if you are not sure; and, better to understand what a ten degree Fahrenheit rise in the average global temperature would actually mean before you ask a so what type question as in paragraph five.

    4. Positive feedbacks caused by water vapour will increase this temperature to 3.3C.”"

    No. Remember an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, and temperatures at the ocean surface lead to thing like hurricanes. In this case, category five hurricanes. It’s a thing that effected by pressure, temperature.

    Remember also that feedback loops are more scary and harder to predict than simpler systems like water solubility per temperature.

    Did you see the news after 9/11, where the FAA grounded all those flights for three days – and the average temperatures jumped up by your 1C, or 1.1C? In some parts of the country, where planes and contrails were usually more dense, the measured local change was on the order of ~five degrees.

    This relates to the principle of global dimming. In fact, we know from some agricultural data on evaporation rates, that the particulates that people constantly put into the atmosphere tend to block sunlight and cool things down. A change like that from commercial aircraft being ground, and or the predictions the modals made for the nuclear autumn, yields a slightly more frightening mechanism.

    Global Warming, and Global Dimming, may be like a couple of springs pulling in the opposite directions. Our temperature is where they are hooked together. The truth is, that we may reach a critical point, or a tipping point in either case. Two countering processes in equilibrium, will be much more interesting if one breaks down suddenly. And it’s much more complicated than even that simple example, obviously.

    Add in some of the natural processes that we can’t control, and you begin to understand that we can’t begin be so sure of what the predictions tell us conditions will be like if we are ever that far into the process. You’ll grant, however, that beyond a certain point the predictions do look frightening.

    5. The resultant increase in temperature will cause an vast number catastrophes, not least of which will be the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, but the disappearance of the lesser spotted voles of Iberian peninsular will cause untold damage to the ecology in that land of sunshine, and the move north of the smelly dung beetles of Mongolia will devastate the Siberian forests, people will grow extra elbows and the rest of the junk, but the basis is “bad things will happen”.
    That’s it isn’t it? That’s the CAGW theory in a nutshell.
    So let’s have the scientific proof that the increase in temperatures will cause water vapour and that will cause positive feedbacks. I don’t mean models, I mean empirical proof. While you’re at it you might want to explain why the water vapour doesn’t cause clouds and negative feedbacks?”"

    This focus on the water vapor aspect makes me think that you are a lawyer, using a typical sleight of hand trick to misdirect. I know this, because as soon as I tell them what I do for a living during jury selection, both opposing councils jump to their feet scream “Excused!” This kind of thing does not work on rational people in court either, it seems.

    People are pumping pollutants into the air. Carbon dioxide goes up, driving the temperature higher.

    The proof you demand, which some researchers believed they had in 1982, and almost everyone else conceded by 1995 is all around. Not only is a blog not the place to demand a recitation of forty years of worldwide research, it’s not an excuse for not looking it up either.

    I can clarify one thing though. The interesting comments on flora and fauna may not be too far off the mark, but only if you put yourself in the place of the dung beetle. You see, most people who know even a little about the actual truth of the process going on here, are mostly concerned for the human population. Even in the face of such questions.

    Nadir… LOL. Very funny.

    Coffey3C@gmail.com

    Link to this
  63. 63. Coffey3c 8:15 am 03/19/2012

    62. Carlyle

    I do condemn Gleick, what he did was foolish, and it was pointless given that no one was fooled by something like the Heartland Institute. He was a good researcher, a good communicator, and the scientific community is harsh in it’s treatment of people who commit a breech of ethics. He was worth fifty little shill organizations who knowingly lie for a paycheck.

    AS for Climate Gate Check the wiki:

    Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[14] The Muir Russell report stated, however, “We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA.”[15][16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.[17]

    Carlyle, in all honesty, I found too many of your points were non-sequiturs, and simple semantics. I do check, and re-consider, and even re-educate myself when I’m asked a question. It’s something I do for the majority of every day, and most of every night. Fifteen years ago, or seventeen really, was when the IPCC issued it’s report concluding the questions of Iff were over.

    The key point, which you don’t seem to grasp, is not that the jury was in on this issue fifteen years ago, and that I knew this even if you do not. The key point is that in those fifteen years there have been no compelling data to dissuade anyone. Just as in the years before that. There have only been logical fallacies, pundit radio, and name calling, and politics.

    In 2004 (?), Dr. Naomi Oreskes, did a study that collected the peer reviewed papers that mentioned global warming. They sorted them by those that proved or dealt with testing methods etc. They also looked for those that might offer any information that might serve as a refutation. The score was about 970 papers finding evidence, and zero that brought forth arguments or data that refuted the process. Not one.

    It’s the science that is compelling, not how I feel about one scientist’s lie, which he himself admitted to; or, about stolen emails that were examined over and over again without finding any fault other than the break-in and theft of those emails, which is the issue being investigated.

    Sorry.

    My Email is here, and you can feel free to contact me next week, if you’d like to talk further. Next week, I’ll even have had four hours sleep in three days.

    It’s been dissapointing, but it did handily prove how many people have been lead afield by the drek that Peter G. finally became so frustrated with.

    Thank you, all.

    Coffey3C@gmail.com

    Link to this
  64. 64. Carlyle 8:38 am 03/19/2012

    63. Coffey3c Re: As I expected. Revealing.

    Link to this
  65. 65. pokerplyer 9:02 am 03/19/2012

    It is interesting that those fearing CO2 are now- finally- admitting the truth. Planet earth governed by 200 independent nations with different priorities will not be reducing CO2 emissions for several decades at least. Those who fear additional CO2 have tried several strategies to convince people to accept their message, but they have been largely ineffective worldwide.

    Here are a few simple truths

    1. There is no scientific consensus on the rate of warming that is due to a rise in CO2 unless you include such a large margin of error as to make the prediction meaningless

    2. There is no reliable data to forecast what impacts, either positive or negative that would result to any specific region or nation as a result of the world getting warmer.

    3. There is no reasonable method to stop the continuing rise in CO2 levels worldwide and it will not be the US driving the increase

    4. The best reasonable solution is to build proper infrastructure to prepare for the climate of the future. nations that do that will protect their citizens, those that don’t will be harmed. It is NOT the duty of the US to fix others nations problems when they do not build proper infrastructure.

    5. Those fearing additional CO2 should be complaining about population rise as it is the root cause problem.

    Link to this
  66. 66. Dredd 9:19 am 03/19/2012

    Good post. Very topical. In the U.S. at least, the government on Friday took strong measures via an Executive Order. If the government sees that as necessary for one free country, why would that not work for the whole world?

    http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2012/03/doom-is-government-department.html

    Link to this
  67. 67. jctyler 9:25 am 03/19/2012

    carlyle, certified dummer starts his reply Nr 46 with

    “Free speach”

    not even capable of spotting an obvious mistake in his own two words but pretending to understand graphs and scientific articles…

    typical denier

    Link to this
  68. 68. jctyler 9:32 am 03/19/2012

    If you have been wondering where all of a sudden all these new deniers popped up in the last four days all over every climate article in SciAm and other scientific articles

    If you have been wondering how the style and grammar of these new deniers are a notch above the usual dunger/dummer garbage

    check this place again late today or tomorrow.

    Link to this
  69. 69. pokerplyer 9:52 am 03/19/2012

    jctyler

    Does it make your case stronger in your opinion to call people “deniers”? What exactly does someone have to disagree with to deserve such a title?

    Do you deny that there has been no change in sea level rise over the last 20 years and that Hansen and Gavin predicted that there would be a more rapid rise than was experienced?

    Do you deny that temperatures have not risen in the last decade and that was highly unexpected by those fearing CO2?

    Do you deny that there are no reliable models that can even reasonably accurately predict future conditions in any particular region or country as a function of higher CO2 levels?

    Are you in fact a denier of scientific truth?

    Link to this
  70. 70. Louis Hooffstetter 10:45 am 03/19/2012

    Here’s a classic teachable moment, so please take note: This is not a science article, it is pure drivel. The article’s ‘scientific facts’ are completely unsupported by empirical data and its conclusions aren’t based on any testable hypothesis:

    This article is based on “Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance”, which states in the abstract: “Science assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of Earth’s sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2).” – Really? Which sub-systems? For each sub-system, how was the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years determined? How can anyone possibly know “the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years”?

    “…atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations must remain below 560 ppm for the planet to be livable.” – Nonsense! Carbon dioxide concentrations have exceeded 560 ppm many times in the past, and when they did, biodiversity was greater than it is today. Please provide references to the articles that demonstrate this ‘scientific fact’.

    “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that ‘might’ lead to rapid and irreversible change.” – What are these “tipping points”? Who determined them and how? How or why are they critical? What will happen if we exceed them? Please provide references so we can scientifically evaluate this conclusion.

    This nonsense is exactly why I cancelled both my hard copy and online subscriptions to Scientific American.

    Link to this
  71. 71. Siara 10:58 am 03/19/2012

    What’s really needed is a new world religion. When Judaism began, most of its rules were desperately important rules for survival. For example: Don’t eat pig- they carry trichinosis. When someone dies, bury him/her immediately, then bathe.

    At that point, these things were essential for the survival of the culture. Religion worked- they survived. Now we need to enforce another set of survival skills. We should use religion again– it’s worked before.

    Link to this
  72. 72. chasrmartin 11:10 am 03/19/2012

    I’m sorry, Gary, have you lost your damn mind? Seriously?

    Link to this
  73. 73. DAM2NOYA 11:16 am 03/19/2012

    Roger Bacon proves over 800 years ago that mankind has been pushed back into the bush by a natural disaster of such epic portions that all society could do was try to leave clues to its heppening. Mankind is too stupid and vain to listen or learn and so once again we will be pushed back into almost stoneage times by the harmonic affect of our galaxy that will produce surface storms that will realign earths water storage.

    Link to this
  74. 74. TTLG 11:46 am 03/19/2012

    Would be nice if we could actually create a government that worked for the people. The problem is that governments are created by the wealthy insiders, so are designed to work for them, not the ordinary folk. Just look at the wonderful governments the US created in Afghanistan and Iraq: two of the most corrupt governments around. I think we need to prove that we can make something that works at a smaller level first, then work our way up.

    Link to this
  75. 75. jctyler 12:10 pm 03/19/2012

    1.

    (based on papers from various sources obtained by careff, compiled and commented by poster – feel free to copy)

    summary of memos on

    Climate change denial public strategy summer/pre-election 2012

    In the last weeks a number of events formed a rather unfortunate constellation for climate change deniers.

    First were the latest polls showing that in February 2012 around 70% of the US population now believe in climate change, an increase of nearly 20% over the last two years and that more than 50% believe now that this is man-made.

    (This of course goes against the interests of those companies that make serious profits from environmental abuse, in other words those highly interested in blocking environmental legislation. One only needs to consider that every month gained is washing millions into their accounts. Funding climage change denier organizations with a few millions per year is negligeable compared to the profits.)

    (The Gleick incident showed the aware public that deniers will increasingly attempt to influence adolescents using tactics that the tobacco industry used with great success for a long time.) Then came the Gleick incident which was for a while compared to the University of East Anglia e-mail account hacking. (Unfortunately) The mails’ content proved to be scientifically sound even if their style was not meant for the unscientific reader whereas the documents obtained by Gleick proved that the deniers resort to (dirty tactics). It has therefore become counterproductive to compare the two incidents directly.

    Also, a number of unfortunate events have struck public opinion such as the continuous press coverage of endangered animals, i.e. the fate of the ice bear population, coverage of climate problems affecting American farmers, floods and devastated crops in Australia and the consequences on climate, sea life and the environment of the nuclear incident at Fukushima, all of which having a negative effect on any climate change denial campaigns.

    (This affects mainly two own-interest groups. First are those industries that thrive on environmental abuse and which stand to lose substantial profits from updated environmental laws. Then there are quite a number of people drawing substantial paychecks for public relations work for these companies. These two groups focus mainly on that part of the population that is undecided and the goal is to switch their opinions to climate change denial and their votes to those political candidates favourable to the polluting industry.)

    Link to this
  76. 76. jctyler 12:12 pm 03/19/2012

    2.
    (This shows that there are in fact three interest groups within the denial movement: certain industries and companies , people paid for denial campaigning, e.g. PR consultants and certain media figures, and politicians. Advice is that industries can use anti-Americanism, PR should use opinion rather than fact and politicians should use the negative effect on the economy rather than anti-Americanism as too many incumbents are perceived as core American. Avoid drawing any attention to the increasing benefits and technological advance of the European green economy and industry.)

    Politically, current events seem to prove the negative consequences of pollution. This gives the undecided voters a special weight in the context. Within this leaderless group deniers should now focus on shaping opinions by taking over the role of opinion makers.

    This is even more important in the light of the latest findings that that more and more of these undecided voters turn away from pure opinion and press coverage and look for hard facts. As a result swing voters turn increasingly to scientific magazines and programs perceived as neutral for better information. It is therefore important for (the climage change deniers) that these people should find (denier) opinions and comments on magazine websites and that deniers should strongly express their views whenever possible on all media.

    Link to this
  77. 77. jctyler 12:14 pm 03/19/2012

    3.
    It has then been convened that (denier) organizations and interested companies step up opinion making. Furthermore, as by the sheer richness of data available it has become near impossible to counter those with denier-supporting data of any kind the tactic of choice will be the mass posting of all types of opinions and comments disregarding any and all facts on the subject to give the impression that climate deniers represent a public majority or at least a major and election-deciding group. (Denier spin) should stay away from rational discussions and instead use emotions, opinions, papers from deniers of all backgrounds, preferably from those with a degree, any degree, as long as it looks scientific or educated (turn engineers into scientists, describe scientists as technocrats), patriotism if the context is right and in general use anything make all comments look like educated opinions (insist on style rather than argument).

    (Why this sudden interest?) If one looks at the general situation it becomes clear that the public seems to turn into a solid majority of climate change believers. This has to be avoided at all cost. The one advantage of denier spin is that the deniers profit from substantial financial support to promote their agenda while changists act on their own. The advantage of using office time and being paid to comment should be used for greatest effect, confident that many in the media will always give someone making a big splash more airtime or reading space than they actually deserve. Deniers will peferably approach those journalists known to prefer to be handed ready-made material instead of those doing their own research.

    Link to this
  78. 78. jctyler 12:16 pm 03/19/2012

    4.fin
    (Inner circle considerations included a tactic whereby a denier would pose as a warmist but admit to sometimes doubting the figures or the procedure or findings or misrepresenting articles and graphics even when providing the correct link as many readers/viewers will not bother to check the link. It is strongly recommended to create domains that offer official charts and such and have them explained in our (denier) sense as most civilians will not have the education to understand the data or be interested in in-depth analysis.

    (The aware reader may have or will in the near future notice that quite suddenly denier comments will appear in the public place. An excellent illustration of this new strategy are the comments on articles in this magazine. Where usually both sides would argue from the the moment the article was published, the slicker denier comments have only appeared quite late (in general since 12 march) but suddenly and massively in a tactical attempt to drown educated opinion under the sheer mass of climate denial text. This can be easily verified by comparing the comments on various articles before/after 12 March.)

    Link to this
  79. 79. jctyler 12:18 pm 03/19/2012

    pokerplyer: dunger or dummer? your choice!

    no heating, no rise of sea level, no melting of ice, no global dimming?

    based on the stupidities you posted I’d guess you’re a (paid) dummer.

    Link to this
  80. 80. Mark5146546 1:48 pm 03/19/2012

    On World Government:
    It doesn’t have to be dictatorial. It could be based on grass-roots level town hall meetings and allow for ample local diversity. People are just afraid because prior to UNO most attempts at world government were by initiative of dictators and conquerors.

    On Climate Contrarians:
    There is nothing to argue. Just look at polar meltdown. Even person from the Middle Ages can clearly see it. Contrarians and Creationists just get too much attention, they should be simply ignored, is all.

    Link to this
  81. 81. pokerplyer 1:52 pm 03/19/2012

    jctyler– you really are good at ignoring scientific facts aren’t you.

    You disagree with what I wrote that there has not been any increase in the rate of sea level rise over the last 20 years, but here is the proof. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    You disagree that the world has not shown warming over the last decade, but that is also a fact.

    Do you think we can reliably predict what the climate conditions will be in specific locations in the future? No we can’t. learn about what GCM’s can and can not do.

    You talk about climate change- Yes fool, the climate changes and people are having an impact. it is the rate of change that is the issue. The rate of change HAS NOT been consistent with the claims made by many concerned about CO2.

    Idiots such as you think that there is only your answer. The truth is that many people want the benefits of low cost reliable power and fossil fuel is the best source available today.

    You write long winded comments of no scientific value.

    Link to this
  82. 82. urbangreen 2:11 pm 03/19/2012

    Come on. Is this Scientific American? I would not expect a scientific magazine to engage in hyperbolic cAGW nonsense. I’m disappointed.

    Link to this
  83. 83. jrobinson 2:29 pm 03/19/2012

    Wow, then its a good thing there is no climate catastrophe, then, right?

    Honestly, when a bunch of socialists and communists get together and proclaim that we’re all doomed unless we adopt their world government – that should set anyone’s BS detectors off.

    This is what the Left does – create a crisis, use it to assume control, then take people’s freedoms away.

    I had a subscription to Scientific American for 8 years while growing up… in the late 90s, it started to become more climate-oriented and more climate-political. By 2005, it became a total joke. I don’t know anyone who takes it seriously anymore. In 50 years, they’ll look like one of those old 1850s science readers with articles on female hysteria and problems with “the ether”.

    Link to this
  84. 84. HowardB 2:46 pm 03/19/2012

    Coffey3c

    I find your comments reasonable and I respect our point of view and willingness to discuss and argue the points without insults. That is how Science should be carried out and developed.

    It just so happens that I disagree with a lot of what you say and how the topic is handled by the Science establishment who are in control of the whole topic now in a way that is unhealthy for Science and doing it enormous damage.

    Even apart from the actual Science and evidence there is this problem of how the topic is being handled. People who disagree are insulted and new ‘labels’ are being invented all the time, such as deniers, denialists etc etc etc. A transparent attempt is being made to equate those who disagree with AGW to those who deny the holocaust and also those who deny evolution.

    You talk about a Science where there has been “an overwhelming preponderance of evidence” proving AGW for over 20 years.

    I am afraid this is simply not the case. Almost no predictions made by AGW have come true except the overall evidence of warming which is hardly proof of anything.

    It is not a matter of taking issue with tiny, insignificant, measurements or errors. It is a matter of fundamental Science. Science required examination, measurement, theorising, testing and proof. We have had lots of the first three but none of the most important steps, testing and proof. That is the fundamental problem that AGW does not get.

    So where are we now in 2012. Is progress being made in persuading the population of the world of AGW ? Is action being planned and achieved ? Yes ? No ?

    The answer is NO. That is transparent to everyone. In the light of that fact I find it rather curious that smart people like yourself, and those many scientists to claim to support AGW, don’t see that their strategy of abuse and insults, along with a refusal to engage their opponents on the facts and the evidence is not succeeding ! It simply is not working !

    People inherently know that the earth has been cooling and warming for hundreds of millions of years. They know that this is part of the earth’s nature. They also know that our modern measurement of temperatures, gasses, etc only goes back less than 100 years out of those hundreds of millions of years.

    Now it is all very well saying that CO2 and other gasses are increasing, which they are. But it is a leap of gargantuan dimensions to persuade intelligent people that just because both are happening, there must be a direct causal link, without PROOF. Proof requires repeatable predictions. We have had none.

    You can talk about overwhelming evidence but we can ask about how you interpret this evidence. You can claim to be able to measure temperatures ten thousand years ago or a hundred millions years ago, but that doesn’t mean you can. There is too much political pressure to produce the desired result, and too much in the error bars to produce accurate results. Remember errors in calculation are multiplied together to produce overall errors.

    And then we have the computer models. The computer models with parameters designed by those who want a specific outcome. Computer models that are so complex in comparison with ordinary people’s ability to understand, yet they pale in comparison with the complexity of the actual climate of this planet.

    Most people have no confidence in their outcomes for both of those reasons. And there is no confidence in the AGW establishment because they persevere in insulting and abusing sceptics and refuse to engage in Scientific debate. The MAIN reason for this of course is that almost none of them really know much about the specifics and base their total belief in AGW on the word of others, of the establishment. It is a vicious circle of self delusion.

    Link to this
  85. 85. plswinford 3:10 pm 03/19/2012

    According to most of the above, we should do nothing. We will, of course, then be subject to the effect of doing nothing. According to this article, we will not like it.

    Link to this
  86. 86. jctyler 3:19 pm 03/19/2012

    pokerplyer, you wrote:

    “You disagree with what I wrote that there has not been any increase in the rate of sea level rise over the last 20 years, but here is the proof. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    The global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.5 mm p.a. in the last 60 years and at an average rate of 3.5 mm p.a. year in the last 15 years. This I know and the chart you quote would display that graphically. How that explains your drivel is beyond logic.

    Other than normal expansion the rise results from increased ice melting. This everybody agrees on who has a functioning braing. Which apparently excludes you.

    The significant rise of sea levels over the last 60 years is in fact one of the most accepted proofs of the abnormaly fast increases in global climate.

    Read comments thoroughly before replying to them.

    “You disagree that the world has not shown warming over the last decade, but that is also a fact.”

    _I_ disagree that the world is warming? What the hell are you talking about? Again, read the thread before you comment, you blathering nitwit. Or at least quote what makes you think I deny global warming?

    “You talk about climate change- Yes fool, the climate changes and people are having an impact.”

    My exact words for years. If only you could read AND understand or is that too much multi-tasking for whatever you call that huge empty space between your ears?

    “You write long winded comments of no scientific value.”

    I don’t know what you mistook or misread or misunderstood, give yourself one last chance and read all the comments here before you attach a third foot to yourself to have another one to shoot yourself in, you pompous twat.

    Link to this
  87. 87. pokerplyer 3:44 pm 03/19/2012

    jctyler-

    We have no reliable data on sea level rise prior to the satellite measurements that began in the early 90′s. You have no reliable measurements from 60 years ago so please stop being untruthful. Since we have had reliable measurements we are on a path for less than 1 foot of sea level rise by 2100 and not the predicted rise of 3 to 6 times that level as predicted by those who fear CO2 as the root of much future evil.

    As you may or may not know, local sea level is effected to a greater degree by the land rising and falling than by an actual change in sea level.

    Please reread what I wrote. I wrote that the world has NOT been warming over the last decade and that was NOT predicted by those fearing additional CO2. This is more evidence that the system is still poorly understood. This is why there is disagreement by scientists over the rate of warming that will result from additional CO2.

    Do you think we actually know what percentage of the atmospheric CO2 today is due to humans? Do you think we know that a higher percentage is known to be due to humans today than say 5 years ago? The answer is we do not know. The fact is we can make only very general estimates of the volume humans are releasing.

    Link to this
  88. 88. nnbodens 4:15 pm 03/19/2012

    A word from the common folk:

    Stop acting so self-important. I love the condescending nature from the Sheldons and Leonards and Rajs and Howards on this thread. One even went so far as to insinuate that the general populace is too stupid to comprehend even the basic facts. From Coffey3c:

    “I’ll also apologize here, to you, for not having faith in more subtle routs of persuasion. I’ve already declared that effective popularization of scientific realities is not our strong suit; and, that will in no great measure be improved by ridicule. I would also propose that such confusion is not only due to a lack of direct access to scientists who best understand what they’ve studied, or by any lack of innate ability to sufficiently clarify their premise; rather, sometimes it’s simply that the audience has not taken the time to educate and prepare themselves to understand.”

    The quickest methodology for alienating those who could actually effect change is to tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them, tell them what you’ve told them, and then tell them that if they don’t get it, he/she hasn’t performed his/her due diligence in order to find agreement with your stance(s).

    Baloney.

    Tell us the OBJECTIVE FACTS (not an oxymoron, by the way), and let us make our own determination how best to proceed. By the way, a new world order replete with teeth-gnashing dictators and George Soros-hugging minions isn’t a remedy for solving the natural warming of the earth. It doesn’t portent well if those of you who think you know best, cannot even agree on how to parse the word “climate.”

    Link to this
  89. 89. Carlyle 4:50 pm 03/19/2012

    80. Mark5146546
    Just look at polar meltdown you say? Did you know that there has been a recent increase in older four year ice in the Arctic.
    Did you know that antarctic ice extent has been growing not retreating.
    Did you know that this years Arctic ice extent is at a five year high & still going gangbusters?
    Forget the spin. Look at the facts: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    Link to this
  90. 90. MossConnie 5:02 pm 03/19/2012

    my roomate’s step-sister makes $66 hourly on the computer. She has been fired for nine months but last month her check was $21472 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here
    CashLazy.com

    Link to this
  91. 91. Marcello09 5:18 pm 03/19/2012

    There are few things more destructive to the environment than massive authoritarian regimes. The author isn’t proposing a solution, he’s proposing suicide.

    Link to this
  92. 92. pokerplyer 5:24 pm 03/19/2012

    LOL—but if a lot of people did commit suicide, there would be less CO2 emitted and less resources used….problem solved…lol

    Link to this
  93. 93. Coffey3c 5:52 pm 03/19/2012

    Howard:

    So much for lunch.

    It’s true, that there is too much name calling, and sarcasm, and frankly though I’ve been much freer here with the snipes than usual, no matter what the issue, viciousness is the habitual last refuge of the ignorant. (I mean you should see some of the private emails I’m getting, whose sole content is a contemptible vulgarity, and to which I try to respond with an extra measure of saccharine politeness.) Unfortunately, you can’s assume that this is simply a self immolation of anger… because it’s almost as likely to be the final resting place for those who are the disenfranchised as well.

    Scientists, Carpenters, Oil-truck Drivers… We are all subject to what I like to call Anthropocentric Global Silliness, or aGS if you will. We are all subject to it, as a universal human characteristic, and it’s a constant reminder for me never claim I’m never wrong. You’ll note, that even where I take issue with a post here point by point, I can only laugh when someone calls into question that the quality of my discourse might be nadiral. How could I? It’s probably true.

    In fact, I disagree with your latest post (85. HowardB.) on a virtual point by point basis, and no where so much as when you refer to smart people like myself. The truth of the matter is, that much of what you decry for a lack to thought and respectfulness, is simply fatigue. Any scientist, who feels compelled to accomplish anything, has to spend a significant portion of his very short working life wading through a travail of unproductive argument. On this subject it’s been thirty years. The evidence accumulates, it’s compared and studied and reported faithfully; thereafter, it’s worked just as hard to improve models and improve our understanding… All in an endless cycle: And yet, the arguments never change. Not for thirty years. No amount of effort, or data, had affected greater understanding.

    Take your own post. You seem a nice man, and I certainly appreciate your dignity, but nor can I dissociate myself from the simple fact that it is yet another carefully mechanical denial on every point. It demands facts which it does not offer, it denies the body of data with a simple no, with again no exploration, and it even ascribes the root of every human and behavioral foible to ‘The Scientists,’ who are even doing that badly. In fact, a graph of that post shows me that that for the past hundred and fifty years, the scientists got nothing right. Nothing? Even to the point that widespread and obvious subtle changes that you recognize, are yet again and predictably, no evidence of change.

    All of this is why, in the final analysis, you need climate scientists studying the climate. Even without the humans here, it’s a thing that is in constant flux, and it takes training, hard work and a lot of unanswered questions, as well as a lifetime of study to even begin to understand. That’s why when you pay so much money to train and employ experts, you should listen to them. Their viewpoint is different than yours. It’s why when you go to your doctor, and say; “Doctor my arm hurts when I do this!” “Of course it does, Howard! You’re a fifty year old man… but while you’re here, we really should biopsy that thing on your nose…”

    This is my viewpoint, Howard, and given as a complete aside from the very few facts that in which I actually claimed a high degree of confidence, both because I have only a very little more confidence in climate certainties than you do, and because they would only elicit another ‘no they don’t’ response anyway.

    I see the Climate as a huge ball of metal bars, and bits, all linked together by springs and rubber bands everywhere. It’s a massive thing, that hangs over my entire living room, wiggling and swaying gently over our heads. It’s interesting too, so I sometimes hook a wire from my old TV aerial to it, to try and get better reception. Sometimes I also poke it or pull a little piece and let it go, which usually rewards me with a pleasing and unpredictable series of undulations!

    So I do it some more, and I find that in some places the springs are weak and wiggle all the time, and in others they came off a ’54 Buick, and I can’t move them at all, but I just continue move on to other more pliable springs, and watch with a glowing sense of self satisfaction that I might some day begin to understand it all.

    Then one day my neighbor, Carlyle, comes into my living room where I’m trying to enjoy the Big Bang Theory on TV, and grabs a spring and idly pulls it out so far it breaks! My attentions are drawn in horror, as another piece falls off, and the whole ball starts undulating and rocking in a way that makes me feel squeamish and uncomfortable, until yet another bigger chunk falls to the floor.

    Then another and another.

    I can see my living room is filling up with junk, and that I’m never ever going to get to see Doctor Who which comes on at eight, because I’ll be running around with a the scooping net from my fishing gear, trying to catch falling pieces… pieces that may soon be falling everywhere, and faster than I can catch them.

    And Carlyle turns to me, smiling and friendly, and holding up his first little bit and asks, “Is this important?”

    And… I have no idea.

    I have to answer for what to me is Axiomatic, that’s our golden rule “I don’t know,” I peeve, because I don’t know if that bit was the important bit, or what would have happened if… As a man whose read every episode of popular science, and seen Cosmos several times, I cant tell you if one of those Buick springs would have been a much better choice. I simply have no logical rejoinder for Carlyle, when he throws his bit onto the pile on the floor, and calls me and idiot for making fun of him.

    Looking out my window, up here in a sunny, warm, March day in Maine, I observe the evidence of warm weather you allude to. I have no idea if it’s significant, or if it’s just another bout of having weird warm weather from time to time. Who does know. I only know things when I look at more than just what I can see out my window, and compare it to books and other things that other people have seen. There, just sometimes, I can begin to see recognizable patterns.

    As for the Science, and how effective it is, My view may be different too:

    Howard’s a nice guy, so Coffey drives him up to a nice little place perched on the side of a tall hill overlooking their town in the valley below. We get out, and begin walking toward the door. I turn to talk to you where you’re making your way behind the car, and notice that the car has just begun to roll.

    “Howard! Grab the car!” I call out concerned, only to have you look down at the car which is barely moving, and which since you are directly behind it as opposed to my standing to the side, is showing no obvious motion.

    I realize, Eee Gad, Howard has a different frame of reference than I, and I know that’s important because I’m sure I read that somewhere… But distracted even more by the fact that there is no guard rail, I shout “Howard, the car is rolling, grab the car now, and we’ll debate our relative positions over a cold beer inside.”

    Howard looks again and says, “Even if that car is moving, and I do not for the first moment consign or concede such an expensive and social dangerous proposition as gravity to you, what makes you think that I should grab your dirty bumper?” he throws up his hands in very real exasperation, and ends with, “You have no idea where that car may or may not be going, let alone where it’s been!”

    I look down in the Valley as the car may already be picking up speed. Is that Gary Stix’s house right there? I pause to consider the possible outcomes, a thing which people always make fun of me for, but with due to my nature I’m entirely helpless to amend. I think quickly, this may by my only chance to run this experiment, but looking at the town where I live, I’m guessing there is a better way. A model car, like the ones my wife used to build, perhaps? Though, I have learned from pine car derby, as I assess the the slope and undulations of the hill, that it’s best to avoid the jumps… It all takes but a single fleeting fretting second.

    “Howard, I’m just too far away. Grab the car, and we can talk about it later. That’s our kids down there, and you just painted your house. I have no idea who or even if it will hit anyone, just please, grab the car.”

    Howard shakes his head, and says, “I hate it when you get like this. So sure of yourself. So – Much – smarter, than everyone else…”

    Perhaps the curb is enough to stop the car. Perhaps there is another tack I should have taken with Howard. Why does he think I’m smart? If the parking breaks did not fail mechanically, then perhaps I left the car out of gear? If facts in evidence fail, and if my belief and nature only prove I’m a prig… Howe do I convince Howard, that no matter how onerous it may seem, that it’s better to just grab the car, to give us more time to figure it all out.

    If you have an answer, I’d love to hear it. There is a woman I’ve bee living with for twenty-five years in the other room, who doesn’t find me convincing either… or funny. At least with her, all I have to do is apologize…

    Be well, Howard. Tell all your Senators and Congressmen that this latest generation of scientist are mean, and that they are neither very convincing, nor funny; and, that we really need to improve on the science curriculum in our schools if we are ever to get good enough reception on our TV’s to enjoy the funny science sitcoms we all know and love.

    Link to this
  94. 94. Android 6:32 pm 03/19/2012

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but you will never get your new world order, never!

    Free humanity will defeat you and each passing second thousands more people awake and join us.

    You have embarked on a path of waking up the sleeping giant that is humanity and once awake it will crush you.

    Link to this
  95. 95. jctyler 6:36 pm 03/19/2012

    in reply to the dummer post Nr 90:

    this dummer brings arctic ice up every time even though he had his nose rubbed into the evidence from the very source that he is quoting and which says that the arctic ice has been melting and is presently at its fourth-lowest.

    He refuses even his own evidence. The dummer is an insult and no matter what expletives you would throw at him, nothing is more insulting than his endless repetition of his own utterly idiotic mistakes which he never looks up, never corrects, never understands and is simply to bleedin stupid to even read through.

    His best = only good trait? He makes every climate changer look intelligent as he shows deniers for what they are, smears in the digital underwear.

    Go, dummer, go, go, go

    Link to this
  96. 96. jctyler 7:04 pm 03/19/2012

    Howard B:
    “Even apart from the actual Science and evidence there is this problem of how the topic is being handled. People who disagree are insulted and new ‘labels’ are being invented all the time, such as deniers, denialists etc etc etc.”

    You are trying to bring the topic down to a discussable, debatable subject, being falsely polite about the whole issue. Man-made climate change is NOT up for discussion, it is NOT debatable, the only thing that is open for discussion is its speed and impact. Everything else is nonsense. You are treating this as if NASA and the WMO were idiots. Who the hell do you think you are believing that you can drag science down to something that can be believed or not, like religion? That climate change depends on opinion?

    Bloody hypocrite you are, no idea of what science is, how it works and how it’s applied and trying to come on like you were doing the world a favour by insisting on POLITELY discussing your idiocies. Like a serial killer demanding that the victims’ relatives be polite to him.

    The debate on climage change is closed and I had enough of the likes of you who are constantly insulting anyone with a working brain.

    Keep your bleedin hypocrisy for yourself, become a preacher, go into politics, and stop pretending you’re one hell of a nice guy who only wants to discuss opinions on whether climate change is true or not. Climate change is not a matter of opinions and if you keep insisting to impress your unscientific, egotistical approach, which might work with limp-wristed jokers who are not immersed in life’s realities, fine, but it doesn’t work with me. People like you p..s me off, your stupidity, your creationist concepts, your lousy education, your self-infatuation.

    If you don’t understand science, say so or shut up, but stop pretending you do. You don’t. And I don’t hold with Coffey either who simply does not understand that people like you are responsible for holding back the necessary environmental changes and that the more we tolerate scientific illiterates like you who are not interested in learning but only in impressing their stupidity on science, the more we become guilty of what you are guilty of, that as a consequence of your stupid ego tens of thousands of people are now homeless and dying somewhere else in the world. Being the egotistical nitwit you are you don’t care. Yet. But we’ll see in a few more years and I will hold you and the likes of you responsible for everyone who will die because of your blocking solutions. Look at the plastic sea in the Pacific, it’s killing off the fish because deadbrainers like you believe that your opinion counts. It doesn’t. You should go to court for crimes against humanity.

    If you were interested in the scientific data you would read the links provided here through. You are not interested in learning, you are only interested in your little, stupid, egotistical opinion which you want to stamp on everybody regardles of and in spite of all evidence. You don’t care about science, all you want is that scientists bow to your superior brain. You are not intelligent, you are an environmental criminal and should be treated as such.

    I am not polite with the likes of you because you are dangerous, stubborn, unrepentant, closed to reason, logic and common sense criminals.

    And seen that your drivel is a permanent insult to me and my friends, you don’t deserve politeness, not even respect.

    THAT is an opinion which you can discuss. But at least my opinion is based on the fact of your hypocrite comments whereas your opinion is based on nothing except your humungous ego and your overrated idea of what you wrongly believe to be a brain.

    You want politeness? I could express my best wishes in two words, let’s do it your way:

    May your anatomy be swiftly filled with appropriate material such as that being used for pillows!

    Nothing vulgar here, just being polite!

    Link to this
  97. 97. jctyler 7:15 pm 03/19/2012

    Coffey:

    “It’s true, that there is too much name calling, and sarcasm”

    How about being permanently insulted by those who never accept scientific data, keep repeating the same lies, implying that NASA and WMO are fraudsters? THAT, my dear, is REAL name calling. We are in the middle of a war and you’re spreading your pinky in disgust? Get a REAL life!

    You remind me of the brass that stayed behind the lines, had coffee and cognac and exchanged polite notes with the ennemy when the footsoldiers in the trenches were lied to in the name of patriotism and killed by the thousands.

    Face reality, get off your high horse. We’re talking climate change, not religion, and we are dealing with people who don’t accept any evidence, simply try to fool the likes of you into “discussing diverging opinions” while more and more people’s lives become miserable because some idiots “discuss diverging opinions”. You are becoming co-responsible if you keep up believing this is about collecting stamps and tea cups.

    Unless you are doing a double agent job on behalf of the deniers?

    Don’t reply, I don’t have time for kitchensink philosophers.

    Link to this
  98. 98. Patrick49 7:37 pm 03/19/2012

    What is a Marxist screed touting a one-world government with dictatorial powers doing in an aledegly “scientific” publication? Climate change, nee global warming, morphing into sustainable development meets all the criteria of ‘Cargo Cult Science’ described by Professor Richard Feynman,a noted Nobel Prize physicist as well as failing his criteria for scientific research which requires the publication of the details of the theory or problem being tested, assumptions made, all test methods used and all results obtained, the good and the bad so that other scientists can repeat the testing to confirm or question the results and the theory.

    Link to this
  99. 99. jctyler 7:42 pm 03/19/2012

    Marcello:

    “There are few things more destructive to the environment than massive authoritarian regimes.”

    Amen.

    Link to this
  100. 100. jctyler 8:04 pm 03/19/2012

    Patrick:

    “scientific research… requires the publication of the details of the theory or problem being tested, assumptions made, all test methods used and all results obtained, the good and the bad so that other scientists can repeat the testing to confirm or question the results and the theory”

    If you suggest that this should be done, well, it has been time and again. The tests have been run and re-run, the results been verified and re-verified, the evidence has been checked and re-checked, the debate is closed. And the result is, in short, that there is a significant climate change, that it is man-made and that it is picking up speed.

    Why some people still treat it like only an opinion is beyond logic or reason.

    What is open for discussion is the impact and the actual speed of the change and how much of it is man-made where the bulk of the estimates goes from approx. 50% to 100%.

    If you are looking for something exciting, look into global dimming. It is an extremely dangerous consequence of pollution which has a very perverse effect, it falsifies the effect of global warming. It will eventually become better but this will increase global warming. The scientific equivalent of being caught between a rock and a hard place. And as if this perversion was not enough, it was the first-time proven on a large scale in the three days after 9/11.

    If you are interested in climate change evidence, there is plenty around, but if you are interested in the more astonishing aspects I would suggest to look into global dimming.

    It’s a warzone.

    Link to this
  101. 101. Coffey3c 8:18 pm 03/19/2012

    98. jctyler:

    I have not been blind to their methods, Tyler, nor am I likely to miss the source of the catch phrases, or that the are the meaningless drivel of the money interests who actually own these people. Nor is my horse so high as you think, as I’m actually just trying to stand on my own two feet here, never-the-less, I am high enough to have watched you rolling around down there in the mud, and that I won’t do.

    You are giving them what they want most.

    Sometimes, rolling around with them, you might not notice that people are no longer standing behind you, Mr. Tyler. Look in the other direction. It’s just that the real fight has passed you by.

    I am a rabidly patriotic american, Mr. Taylor. So much so, I tend to lean way too far into the My country wrong or right paradigm, and I have no humility in thinking that this is the greatest country in the world, demonstrably, and even with all of the horrifying things we’ve seen our governments do to it’s future and it’s potential. But even I know that to have a government you can believe in, one that stands for personal liberty, free speech, and the inalienable rights of the individual, it has to be able to act to the preserve the one little rock that we have to build a government on.

    These people, who deny everything, with I’m sure a few exceptions who might actually have a valid reason for denying reality, have failed in their duty as a citizen of a democracy. To educate themselves at least enough to know that they are being lied to.

    That’s why they don’t respond to facts. This is just a job to several of them. Most of the others clearly do not understand more than the smallest fraction of what they have heard; nor, do they have they have the knowledge or curiosity to discern it’s source and meaning.

    For me, It really is the evil bastards who rush these people here with silly political slogans that they don’t even seem to be able to define; and, all the while the real rapists, get on with selling them out, selling their homes and countries out from under them, and selling their children’s future;…all, for a few more years of profit that they are probably too damned old to live long enough to spend anyway.

    You don’t have to agree with me. I’m nowhere near that important. But. Those are my boots, I don’t even have a horse. And, though I came here to see if any of experts who know so much more than I do would comment, knowing full well that no one with any reputation at all would want to be within a league of this thing, I stayed on with the simple goal of not letting the more dangerous of the dissemblers have a free range.

    You can’t even keep them from getting the last word. All you can do is to do your job the best you can, and if you have the few moments of time it requires, you just try to make sure that these lies are not all that are left to be seen when someone with a genuine desire to know comes along.

    Stand up, Mr. Taylor.

    Coffey3C@gmail.com

    Link to this
  102. 102. Coffey3c 8:32 pm 03/19/2012

    92. Marcello09:

    Someone beat me to it but double Amen, Marcello.

    Link to this
  103. 103. drevabernat 8:49 pm 03/19/2012

    This is pure propaganda designed for ultimate social control, aka George Orwell’s 1984. Why is it that no one was talking about global air, water, and food control 50 or a 100 years ago? Surely it has nothing to do with climate change, since the earth’s climate has been changing cyclically every 1,500 years throughout history, and it has gone through much warmer periods in the last few thousand years (this is very well documented by scientists – e.g. 6000 – 2500 BC: Holocene Climate Optimum), and higher carbon levels than now (e.g. during the Jurrasic period), way before human industrialisation. We need to wake up! This is only about incessant public mind control, that will be accomplished with a political system of a World Government aka New World Order.

    Link to this
  104. 104. Gary Noel 9:03 pm 03/19/2012

    We are living on one small but beautiful earth, and we are embracing a stark-greed based economy without any consideration for the health of our planet. We need to balance our economy with natures’s requirement. The only way this is possible is to look at what do humans (are we?) want really? I am sure, nobody wants to have a Glass house and will have to drink, eat and breathe polluted stuff. We have seen this time and again that pollution is not confined to one country and it global. I am sure we have wisdom to share our planet with everybody in a responsible way, as in reality nothing ever belonged to us, and if we do not behave and act responsibly, then it is a matter of time we all have to suffer.

    Link to this
  105. 105. Chryses 9:59 pm 03/19/2012

    “To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers.”

    I do not understand why otherwise well-intentioned people advocate plans that will not be implemented. My criticism is not that the plan for some form of trans-national government would not be effective if it were adopted (although there is, of course, no guarantee that it would be effective in practice, let alone successful). Rather, I can only scratch my head in fuddled bemusement when people invest effort and column inches to these fantasies. The probability that the people of the world will voluntarily reorganize under a single political entity before the impact of Global Warming (AGW in my opinion) becomes immediately apparent is so small as to be immeasurable.

    Still, for those who enjoy tilting at windmills, have at it!

    Link to this
  106. 106. YetAnotherBob 10:20 pm 03/19/2012

    Global Cooling, Global Warming, Global Climate Change. I have seen it all. I have read both pro and con on this over the last 40 years. so far, no one has been right.

    By the late 1970′s, using then existing climate records, it was ‘proven’ that there was a man made cooling of the climate, and that within 25 years, we would be in a new ice age. Canada would be just a memory, and the glacers would be advancing on New York city.

    That didn’t happen.

    In the early 1990′s it was ‘proven’ using the same data as in the 1970′s that within 20 years global temperatures would climb by an average of 5 degrees C (close to 9 degrees F).

    That didn’t happen either.

    For the Climate Change People, a couple of questions.

    First, in each case, why were you wrong? If you don’t know, then you lose all credibility. It is important to understand why and correct the errors.

    Second, for the Global Cooling folks, if there are any left, as more ice forms on land, sea levels drop. How much (in Meters) has sea level dropped since your predictions? Please give the level of accuracy with it. A reading of 2 Millimeters plus or minus a meter is meaningless.

    for the Global Warming folks, same question. As more ice melts on land, sea levels rise. How much (in Meters) has sea level risen since your predictions? Please give the level of accuracy with it. A reading of 2 Millimeters plus or minus a meter is meaningless.

    Third, why is it that your solutions always seem to be that you or those who fund you be given what amounts to unlimited worldwide power? Historically, that has never been a path to success. Power ALWAYS corrupts.

    For the record, during the height of the last interglacial, sea level was around 10 Meters higher than it is today. During the height of the last Ice Age, sea level was around 200 Meters lower than it is today. (Isn’t geology wonderful?). Use that to compare your supposed sea level measurements.

    Also, CO2 is a very weak Greenhouse gas. The atmosphere of Venus is mostly CO2, and most of that plants warming is due to sulfuric acid clouds.

    Water vapor, methane, and especially Freon are all orders of magnitude more effective as a greenhouse gas. See the handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

    On the other side, for the ‘deniers’, what effect do you think these releases of atmospheric gas are having? None? then how do you explain the changes that are observed? Just look at the plant components in Siberia and in Alaska. Ranges for plants are creeping northward. (Source, Sarah Palin, former Alaska Governor, and least liked person anywhere by the ‘leftists’ you so much demean.)

    Do you have any data? what are your sources?

    I have looked, and I have to observe that this isn’t a well developed system. The solution is to do more research. Until we can make predictions that are accurate, and explain what was previously wrong, it’s all really just guessing in the dark.

    The best solution to that is to shed some light.

    The famous/infamous ‘Hockey Stick Graph’ for instance, is a classic divide by zero error. I made the same sort of mistake in College. But, my professor instead of making me a Global Celebrity, just gave me a low mark on that assignment, and made me find the error. (Major pain that.)

    Where is the code and the data for that graph? I’m sure there will be plenty of volunteers to look for the error.

    But, don’t condemn the researcher, this is how we learn.

    Meanwhile, I am still waiting for a prediction that is both specific and accurate. I don’t see it coming from either side of this mostly political debate.

    Oh, and one other thing. Yes, Scientific American did veer very far off base under the previous editor. But, the current editor seems to be steering the magazine back from the political abyss. that’s why I continue to subscribe. Unlike politics, in Science there is a grounding in reality. I can always go outside to measure and see if the temperature in mid may is still below freezing. Facts are stubborn things. Science should be about facts, not opinions.

    I remember back when I was a physics major in college, that no matter how many eminent scientists denied that something was possible, one demonstration of the phenomenon would change everything.

    I only want to see the demonstration. So far, neither side can do it. They seem to just be able to say mean things about anyone who disagrees with them.

    That’s Politics, not Science.

    Link to this
  107. 107. HowardB 10:35 pm 03/19/2012

    Coffey3c wrote:
    “The truth of the matter is, that much of what you decry for a lack to thought and respectfulness, is simply fatigue. Any scientist, who feels compelled to accomplish anything, has to spend a significant portion of his very short working life wading through a travail of unproductive argument. On this subject it’s been thirty years. The evidence accumulates, it’s compared and studied and reported faithfully; thereafter, it’s worked just as hard to improve models and improve our understanding… All in an endless cycle: And yet, the arguments never change. Not for thirty years. No amount of effort, or data, had affected greater understanding.”

    Well – for all the reason I try to bring to the discussion and respect I have for your manner overall I regrettably end up losing patience with this kind of appalling hubris. I am sorry to say.
    This is the kind of out of control hubris that comes from believing that you have the answer; that the AGW people have arrived at the TRUTH and no one else has the right or knowledge to challenge it.

    jctyler has this as well, but his is an abusive, ignorant and uncontrolled arrogance and pompous ego.

    Happily for those with whom I agree, it is this kind of extraordinary arrogance that helps us fight the AGW on all kinds of political fronts and make sure that our economic and political world is not turned on it’s head on the word of these religious extremists. In the absence of a willingness to debate the evidence and data, we are left with battling the AGW machine with other tools. The extraordinary way that the AGW machine behaves wins over a huge group of people on it’s own. After all if AGW people were right, if they really had Science on their side, why would they have to behave in such ignorant patronising dogma driven ways ?

    Having reached my mid fifties I now have a lifetime in Science behind me. I am comfortable in my experience and knowledge. I know what Science means and what it is meant to achieve. I know when I encounter people like jctyler that he has no place in Science. He is an anathema to Science and an embarrassment to it. I am reluctant to apply that to Coffey3c – but in the end he cannot hide his religious dedication to the knowledge that HE is right and the AGW establishment is the inheritor of all righteousness and TRUTH. The Science establishment has plumbed a sorry depth that this is what they represent.

    Sceptics and deniers stand firm. We are the true inheritors of Science and the search for knowledge and truth. We do not line up in lock step. We are the inheritors of Galileo, Darwin and Einstein. We demand evidence. We demand proof. We will prevail because evidence and proof always prevails over religious dogma.

    Link to this
  108. 108. jctyler 10:39 pm 03/19/2012

    Coffey:
    “I have not been blind to their methods nor am I likely to miss the source of the catch phrases”

    That I assumed.

    “Nor is my horse so high as you think”

    That was more a spur of the moment thing, simply that I believe you are far too nice to them. They don’t deserve it, they are climate criminals. People suffer and die and the sadness is prolongued unnecessarily because some paid spin doctors help some criminal industries make more money. I do resent the waste of innocent lives from the hands of paid spinners who think nothing of using every dirty trick in the book.

    Also and from my POV I don’t “roll around with them in the mud” as you put it. What I do is give them some of their medicine, treating them as they treat climate scientists. I believe that too many people are too nice with climate change sceptics, too many people let them get away with their insults and their lies. This passivity is IMO one of the reasons why climate scientists have this bad image with the public. How does the general public interpret it when someone who is attacked never fights back? Makes him look guilty. If you were accused of fraud, would you take that sitting down or would you fight back? Why do climate scientists then tolerate all the lies, attacks and frauds? This passivity of the scientific community is very counterproductive. Bullies need to be shown the limits. Which is why I am not taking stupidity from these people. I might roll with the punches for a while but there will always be a moment when the rolling will stop and the hitting starts.

    It’s time scientists started to seriously think about their social responsibility. I believe Gleick did the right thing, unfortunately he did it the wrong way but at least he did it. Hat off to him. Scientists need to take a stand, learn to express themselves in a way that is understood by the working man. They owe it to the normal people because it’s they who pay the taxes that pay for the scientists’ work. The least the working man can expect is to be explained in normal language what the scientists did with his money. And the scientists should stop pussy-footing it around the climate criminals. It’s the least they could do for the money they’re trusted with by the tax payer.

    Link to this
  109. 109. jctyler 11:01 pm 03/19/2012

    HowardB:

    “Having reached my mid fifties I now have a lifetime in Science behind me. I am comfortable in my experience and knowledge. I know what Science means and what it is meant to achieve.”

    And HowardB does not “believe” in AGW? His stand on AGW contradicts his initial statement because one cannot be a scientist and not know that AGW is real. At best will a scientist have a differing opinion on the AGW impact but never on the problem as such. So my bet is on a life spent in anything but something to do with scientific logic. My guess? Retired teacher!

    BTW, good and dedicated scientists are not retired/look back in comfort in their mid-fifties; another dead give-away. Logic is a pain.

    Don’t waste your time replying, I’ll be back at work in a few days so no time left for idle chatter.

    Link to this
  110. 110. Coffey3c 11:29 pm 03/19/2012

    108. HowardB:

    Facts are pride. Evidence is trumped by ephemeral judgments. Science has no place for people who believe the evidence, and who expect to see an actually convincing countervailing and empirical proof, before they roll over to the more profound acme that is fellowship. Galileo, Darwin and Einstein are admired not for what they proved, or what they discovered, but for the evidence they demanded. Finally, our measure and worth as men is not what we seek to prove, or our motives for doing so; but rather, it is in those truths which we can possibly deny that makes us worthy as scientist, and as men.

    Umm… So help us – God?

    Got it. Thank you.

    CoffeyC

    p.s. I was going to say that I had no idea that the science of meat packing sported practitioners who were so politically and philosophically flexibly… (LOL) But I won’t. It would be unseemly and completely unbecoming – not to mention wrong.

    Write to my Email, Howard, whenever you like.

    Link to this
  111. 111. jctyler 11:42 pm 03/19/2012

    YetanotherBob:

    Excellent points. In short:

    Yes, the first people working on climate change did not have the proper measure of things yet. A lot of strange things were said then. Climate change was new territory, one did not yet know what to look for how and where. And yet the first climate reports up to the not directly related Global Report 2000 did quite a good job under the circumstances.

    Then, when work was more or less properly calibrated or so one thought, the deeper one got the more the numbers seemed to act strange. But it took until early this century that Global Dimming and its perverse effect on our climate was finally recognized.

    We now know that trying to understand the climate without taking into account global dimming will only give a very imperfect picture. And while global dimming explained a lot of things it also propelled climate science into a new dimension. It is, in my opinion = open to discussion, quite underrrated but what we can guess of the full picture is quite brutal.

    If you are interested in the darker side of climate change, by all means, look up global dimming. It leaves a lot of room for imagination. I myself find that its timing and effect has a strange apocalyptic elegance.

    Link to this
  112. 112. George Turner 12:37 am 03/20/2012

    jctyler:

    “His stand on AGW contradicts his initial statement because one cannot be a scientist and not know that AGW is real.”

    That’s either a rhetorical question (skeptics don’t dispute that man has warmed the Earth somewhat) or a flat contradiction of what science is, a variation of “all TRUE scientists believe.”

    As mentioned previously, true scientists thought space and time were invariant. One person disagreed and all scientists were proved wrong. They changed their beliefs, which is the whole purpose of science – to learn that which we did not know, to find out which of our previous beliefs were false and then correct them. The scientific method works by testing ideas against the real world through detailed observation and repeatable experiments, backed by logic and mathematics when necessary. True scientists are always open to new data. CAGW alarmists are not.

    Warmists fail to observe the basic tenets of science. For one, CAGW is theoretically irrefutable, by which I mean that there is no set of real world observations that could possibly disprove it because it predicts all things, even mutually contradictory things. It predicts warming or cooling, droughts or floods, milder weather or more severe weather, much more snow or no snow at all. Since it predicts everything, it has no predictive value, rendering it absolutely useless to science, and since it cannot be falsified even in principle, it’s not even a scientific theory.

    There are predictions that it has made that should be adequate to falsify it, such as low tropospheric warming and upper tropospheric cooling near the equator, a smaller temperature difference between the poles and the equator, and a good fit between predicted average temperatures and those measured decades after the prediction. The theory has failed all those tests spectacularly, yet unlike a scientific theory it soldiers on, its proponents unperturbed because their beliefs aren’t connected to science at all.

    It all started badly when they skipped asking the most fundamental scientific question about climate, what is the Earth’s optimal temperature, because they assumed they already knew the answer. This was a very bad assumption because it wasn’t grounded in science, it came from their little primate monkey-brains. In making the assertion that warming is bad and people should be alarmed about it, even terrified of it, the overlooked some very crucial items.

    First, nobody actually cares about climate. Go tell one of your friends about job offers in Boston, Miami, Chicago, Phoenix, LA, and San Francisco and ask them how they’d decide which to take. They’ll compare salaries, cost of living, real estate prices, school systems, entertainment options, commutes, tax rates, and lots of very trivial things like the local bar scene before they work their way down to the local weather. They’ll do this even though the difference in annual temperatures of these cities is 27 degrees F, many times larger than the IPCC’s best guess (in 2007) at the CO2 induced temperature increase by the year 2100. These cities even vary from northern pine forest to subtropical palm groves to cactus filled desert, and people will happily move to any of them, at least as long as the bar scene is good.

    So if nobody blinks an eye about moving their family to a climate that’s 27 degrees F different from their current one, they sure as heck don’t really care if their local climate shifted by a tenth of that amount, or a fifth that amount by the time their great grandkids are around, since by then the family will have moved eighteen times and lived in twelve different states. That’s just logic. People aren’t afraid of climate, they’re afraid of something else in all those breathless press releases that climatologists bombard us with, something they can’t quite put their finger on. Oh, that would be “THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!! MANKIND TO BLAME!!!”

    Second, the idea that the results of warming will be bad, very bad, doesn’t pass basic logical scrutiny. We know that even slight cooling can be devastating to crops, wildlife, and people. This certainty is based on multiple, independent fields of study and voluminous historical records. Winter cold snaps are still killing thousands of people in industrialized countries even though we’re in one of the hottest periods for which accurate temperature records exist. During the Maunder minimum the low temperatures killed millions of Europeans through famine.

    When the climate cools, crop yields decline, often dramatically, the frost lines move toward the equator, and the productive land area shrinks. There’s a good reason we have the phrases “arctic wasteland” and “tropical paradise”, why Canadians winter in Florida, why population density maps and species counts plummet as you move from the equatorial and temperate zones toward the poles. A little cooling is bad. A lot of cooling is a catastrophe. A real one, depopulating entire regions because people can’t live on glaciers, can’t safely travel across glaciers, sure as heck can’t grow crops on glaciers, and can’t stop glaciers from advancing on their cities, especially if they’ve been stripped of extremely high-output heat sources by environmental wackos.

    Yet now we’re bombarded with messages that a little warming is bad too, and a lot of warming is also a catastrophe. That implies an incredibly improbable state of affairs; that we just happened, by pure chance, luck, or divine intervention, to have grown up in the absolute most perfect climate attainable in all the Earth’s history, and that this climatic utopia happened to exist when the current crop of climatologists were children, happily playing on swing sets and catching fireflies on long summer evenings. Either it’s true that we grew up in the absolute optimal climate, or climatologists are just as a subject to nostalgia for their lost childhoods as anyone else. Which is more likely? Excuse some of us for doubting that the sun revolves around the Earth and the Earth revolves around a climate scientist’s childhood memories.

    Third, no matter where these climatologists grew up, it’s that childhood average global temperature that is ideal, and the slightest deviation from it is disastrous, even though climatologists grew up all over the place, climatically, as my first argument about the vast differences in US cities pointed out. So not only are we asked to believe the highly improbable case that the climate in the 1960′s or 70′s was ideal, we’re asked to believe the ludicrous proposition that the climate was ideal everywhere, from the arctic tundra to the frozen steppes to the deep deserts and jungle choked rain forests. The temperatures were perfect, perfect everywhere, whether they are minus 80 or plus 130. All temperatures are perfect, which is an idea so unscientific and illogical that it boggles the mind. If all temperatures are perfect, then it doesn’t matter a bit what the temperature is, because one is as good as another, refuting the very idea that there is an optimal temperature we must maintain.

    So the argument becomes “all temperatures are perfect, but each spot has only one perfect temperature, and as long as these local temperatures don’t change then the climate is optimal – everywhere.” That’s also unsound reasoning, because the temperature at each spot varies wildly throughout the historical record (we are just recovering from an ice age), from decade to decade, throughout the seasons, and throughout the day.

    The North American record for a 24 hour temperature swing is 103F, yet we are asked to believe that plants and animals that evolved in temperatures that change by 4 degrees an hour can’t survive changes of 0.0000105 degrees per hour (the IPCC’s 2007 estimate). Nor is this long term rate of change and degree of change unusual in the fossil or historical record. The ecosystem is still here. Surviving a natural day in North America is 380,000 times harder than surviving the IPCC’s catastrophic predictions, yet warmists think skeptics are in denial about the horrible dangers of a temperature shift. Perhaps skeptics feel that worrying themselves sick over something 6 orders of magnitude smaller than shifting from breakfast to lunch is clinically insane.

    But the insanity and illogic continues, and gets worse. If you produced a matrix of temperatures by latitude and longitude, each spot has a current temperature. That temperature can be taken as essentially random, a snapshot of a year at the end of the Holocene epoch of the Quaternary period of the Cenozoic era. For plant and animal life, is that temperature the most ideal of all the temperatures that spot has had in the past? For each spot, would shifting the temperature up improve or degrade the local habitability? The global warming argument requires that the answers to those two questions (at least for the vast, vast majority of cases) are “already most ideal” and “warming degrades habitability.” Those are the wrong answers.

    Statistically, and ignoring that warmth is better for life than cold, an upshift in temperatures should improve habitability 50% of the time, like a coin toss. Global warming claims the answer should be near zero. That’s mathematically delusional, and evidence that global warming fears have little or nothing to do with science. Given the previous arguments that cold is catastrophic and cooling is bad, and that tropical paradise sounds better than arctic wasteland, the answer should actually be that warming is good in the majority of places.

    So why is warming considered bad, bad in all cases, bad in all places, bad for all peoples? It obviously has nothing to do with science or logic, so the answer must lie elsewhere. The answer is that the warming is feared to be a consequence of mankind’s over indulgent lifestyle, and evolved monkeys all know that the consequences of over-indulgence are bad. It’s a lesson written into our DNA as a check against self-destructive behavior among small bands of hunter-gatherers. The feeling shows up in all religions in countless guises, from courting punishment from God for sins, or bad karma, or as object lessons throughout mythology. Humans will always write the lesson into their religions because to humans, it’s an innate universal truth. People instinctively believe it for the same reason they think baby animals are cute. It’s hardwired in our brains, and neither scientists nor environmentalists are immune to the effect. In fact, they are often the worst afflicted.

    So even though science and logic says the consequence of warming should be good, with increased crop yields, longer growing seasons, and more abundant wildlife, monkey brains will remain convinced that the consequences must be bad, because the consequences are the result of sin, and the consequences of sin is punishment, and punishment is in all cases bad and unpleasant, something to be avoided at all costs. Since mankind bears collective guilt for our over indulgence, all of mankind will suffer due to global warming. Benefitting from it does not make a lick of ecclesiastical, theological, or moral sense – sense to our monkey brains. That’s why every press release on global warming predicts bad consequences for anyone in the particular story. Nobody will escape the devastation, because nobody is innocent (except the poor and minorities, whose horrible fates will be squeezed to prove the well-off are even more guilty of sin – and sin is a religious concept, not a scientific one).

    What kind of moral universe would we live in if a fat guy sipping a slurpy while barreling down the highway in an SUV is actually improving the planet and the lives of everything on it? That just can’t be. It’s wrong. Our moral sense tells us it’s wrong. Twenty thousand years of superstitious ignorance as spear carrying primates living in fear of gods, demons, and tree spirits tells us it’s wrong. All religious dogma tells us it’s wrong.

    Objective science, on the other hand, would go with the slurpy. CO2 is a boon to plant life, and animal life depends on plant life. If the IPCC was right about CO2 and cloud feedback (they’re not, but it would have been nice if they were), the plants would get even more direct yearly sunlight, producing more bounty at the bottom of the food chain, further improving the range of life on the planet. Growing seasons would lengthen, plants would thrive, animals would thrive, and mankind would thrive. But, since this is going to happen because of our sinful ways, we are obligated to prevent it, spending trillions to deny the third world’s poor the benefits of technological civilization, to dramatically lower the living standards of everyone on the planet, to reduce the food supply for foraging animals, fish, birds, and insects. It’s sack cloth and ashes for the lot of us. The pagan religious authorities of the green movement, those superstitious monkey primates, have spoken.

    Excuse us skeptics if we don’t buy in to the ridiculous nonsense. We’ve got a Maunder minimum to prepare for, and preparations are going to be an uphill battle because the public sphere has been taken over by a bunch of bug eyed witch doctors screaming about the fiery hell of apocalyptic climate damnation coming from exactly the wrong direction.

    Link to this
  113. 113. BcdErick 2:30 am 03/20/2012

    If there is a single person who, after trudging through this rant, doesn’t believe “global warming” is a left wing hoax the fool needs a lobotomy. This is childish and has NOTHING to do with “science”.

    Link to this
  114. 114. irvbeiman 3:11 am 03/20/2012

    What is needed as a part of the global governance process is A Strategic Framework that Enables Alignment, Focused Action & Collective Learning. Such a framework is presented at http://www.globalisr.com in the form of strategy maps presented at multiple levels: global, regional/national, organizational and urban/city. See the blog post on the home page for more information. As the author of that blog post, I can share that it is based on >2000 articles downloaded and organized into >200 folder categories. Additionally, almost 20 years practical on the ground experience in China, has taught me that MANAGING THE INTANGIBLES is critical to accomplishing the strategic objectives chosen by any human system. This strategy execution methodology is the best practice approach for managing complex change in a manner that includes technology as well as intangible variables.
    –Irv Beiman, Ph.D.

    Link to this
  115. 115. Carlyle 3:32 am 03/20/2012

    It is pointless trying to debate those who claim the email scandal was just a beat-up or who make excuses for Peter Gleick trying to pass off a false document in an effort to discredit others.
    It is insulting to be told numerous peer reviewed investigations have cleared those who displayed their dishonesty & efforts to hide data in those emails when we can read them for ourselves. No amount of someone trying to spin the truth & tell you that black is white alters what you can see with your own eyes.
    Two of the posters on this thread who have cast the most aspersions against those who do not blindly accept their point of view are on record as supporting the wrongdoers. See if you can pick them.

    Link to this
  116. 116. irvbeiman 4:04 am 03/20/2012

    I’m coming to this quite bizarre debate late, and don’t intend to engage in thrust and parry, or “I’m right” and “you’re wrong” arguments. I do think, however, that it can be useful to examine a SUMMARY of climate science data about what is happening. To that end, I encourage all readers [if there any left!] to check out the URL listed below:

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/02/17/205516/an-illustrated-guide-to-the-latest-climate-science/

    Link to this
  117. 117. jgrosay 5:59 am 03/20/2012

    As early as 1964, a non difficult to find magazine such as Popular Mechanics warned about all dangers involved in the way fuel is used in our societies, a danger that we’ve begun to realize not long ago. Don’t know if this was because some politicians do behave as functional illiterates, but as of today, a lot of noise about this has been made, but the results of the actions taken still look poor. Who said: “Ruin those which ruined the Earth” ?. Salut +

    Link to this
  118. 118. Carlyle 8:20 am 03/20/2012

    116. irvbeiman
    Right up there with the Mayan end of the world prophesies. I urge people to save a hard copy of this alarmist garbage to show their children & grandchildren. I do not even know where to start to refute this nonsense. Throw it in the same bin as the Nostradamus prophesies. Give greater credit to the X-Files & aroma therapy.

    Link to this
  119. 119. parker51 9:03 am 03/20/2012

    Hey, I’m for science and all, but the author is completely tone deaf to the abuses this might cause, and not solve the problems anyway, or even the political backlash that this viewpoint is likely to provoke. Statements like these, along with the Thomas Gleick incident (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/29/fake_but_accurate_science_113294.html) show that human nature and ethical abuses can invade even the most (supposedly) purely-motivated and objective professional fields.

    Link to this
  120. 120. jctyler 10:23 am 03/20/2012

    George Turner:

    I can live with the way you put it. From my POV, when comparing the sceptics’ arguments with the warmists’, I tend to believe that the warmists have the better arguments and therefore side with the warmists. I see the sceptics’ role today mainly to keep climate scientists on their toes.

    Now, one cannot endlessly debate things, there is a time when decisions need to be made. A look at the present state of the economy would illustrate my point. Politicians were still discussing the 2000 Internet bubble when Wall Street was crumbling in 2008. The politicians missed the deadline and it made things worse. There is a time for debate and a time for decision. Seen that the warmists’ arguments “win” over the skeptics’ arguments by whatever small margin, since the deadline has come and passed, I am of the opinion that measures need to be taken. Look at the first Bush election. Had Gore gone on disputing the result it would have led to a major poliltical mess. The deadline passed, the result was retained, Bush became president for better or worse. If the 2000 presidential election results had been handled like the climate debate we’d still be in court waiting for the final verdict. There is a timelimit for everything. And this timelimit has come. More arguments speak for man-made climate warming than against and so we should move on to the next step.

    At worst, and as it was explained to me, the point is not whether climate change is ENTIRELY man-made or not, the point that we are responsible for our part in it. And our part might just make the difference between life and horror.

    So that in the end and at this point in time my position is that regardless of how much is man-made, that the deadline for debate has been reached and the debate is therefore closed, that data indicate that a significant climate change is under way, that its effects could very well be catastrophic, and that regardless of percentages, we are at least in part responsible for it, the conclusion of which meaning that we have to start implementing measures to reduce our part in the climate warning. This is a new deadline and if we miss this one also, we will be in enormous trouble.

    There are already wars over the consequences of climate warming. Unfortunately, seen human nature, we only face up to reality when things happen to us physically and unescapably.

    I believe that the next thing is water wars (a private opinion) for the simple reason that strangely enough, even if lack of air is the quickest way to death, one can breathe bad air for decades but one cannot live without water for that long. Water hot spots are Central China, Australia, South-East Africa and – the US Midwest. And that is only the beginning.

    We already suffer the consequences, we can’t afford to continue discussions. Got to stop the talk and do the walk.

    Link to this
  121. 121. fieldmedic 10:51 am 03/20/2012

    This article and ones like it are the major reasons that this subscriber for more than 35 years is NOT going to renew SciAm. When SciAm sticks to real science, maybe I’ll resume. Multiple examples exist to show that consensus does not equal science. Expenditures of Trillions of dollars need to be based on real science with all options explored and second and third order effects of those options evaluated. If mining for rare elements for high capacity batteries causes more damage than use of petroleum, have we gained by use of hybrid cars? Feel-good solutions demanded by autocrats who haven’t the education or scientific background to ‘run the numbers’ on both sides of the equations really only increase the power of the autocrat, not help the economy or the earth.

    Link to this
  122. 122. la la la 11:32 am 03/20/2012

    This is just another reason why I dropped my SCIAM subscription many years ago.

    SCISM used to be a prestigious scientific journal. Now it is packed with pseudoscience containing disturbing political undertones.

    Link to this
  123. 123. jctyler 11:59 am 03/20/2012

    To those who regret the SciAm of old and while I symphatize to a certain point:

    There were no blogs then. Articles were as they were and one accepted them or not. At worst would one write a letter to the editor, very few of which would be published and there was no interaction between readers.

    This changed with the Internet and blogging software. This article is of a blog. SciAm offers a platform for bloggers and although its choice of who can blog here I often find highly dubious the blog platform in itself offers a far better opportunity for interaction amongst readers as the old SciAm ever could.

    If I wanted to stick with the purely scientific items I’d simply overlook the blogs.

    Personally, and you might completely disagree, I do appreciate the interaction, even as in this case the starting point is rather out of this world.

    What I really regret is that SciAm does not offer that readers can download comment sections as a whole because the comments are surprisingly often far more interesting than the blog itself. OTOH it takes the blog entry to start the comments.

    And I do apppreciate the input from the sceptics, and even the insight into the minds of the irrational deniers.

    (To clear this, to me a sceptic is someone who questions certain aspects of climate change, a warmist is someone who supports the AGW concept, a denier is someone who denies AGW; I myself am a warmist and I fail to see how sceptic, warmist or denier would be an insult. These terms are convenient labels for daily use, nothing more, nothing less. Call me a warmist because I am one. No insult in that. Something I learned from these blogs.)

    Link to this
  124. 124. pabarge 2:14 pm 03/20/2012

    Quick. Look. The credibility of Scientific American just went extinct. The way of the Dodo Bird. AGW? Hoax. World Government? Fatuous and dangerous. Gary Stix. Risible.

    Adios losers.

    Link to this
  125. 125. jwbarton 2:23 pm 03/20/2012

    I believe the author’s view is the reverse of the headline: “Climate Catastrophe required to stave off resistance to effective world government”.

    It’d be nice if there was a magazine out there that reported on the cutting edge of science and left political agendas to others.

    Link to this
  126. 126. amenjohnson 2:39 pm 03/20/2012

    Oh please, find another line of work Gary. It’s OVER. OVER. DONE. GONE. You had your moment, now disappear. You just sound ridiculous.

    Link to this
  127. 127. merthin 3:11 pm 03/20/2012

    Scientific American is no longer scientific. You slavish devotion to what is a poorly thought out and unproven scientific theory of global warming proves it. I stopped subscribing years ago because of this and the dumbed down articles your magazine switched to. Only think I am amazed about is that you’ve managed to jump the shark yet again.

    Link to this
  128. 128. cal000 3:20 pm 03/20/2012

    This is an example of why I canceled my subscription a few years ago – after a 20+ year run.

    Link to this
  129. 129. hawkeyedjb 3:21 pm 03/20/2012

    “It’s the social engineering that’s the killer.”

    Oh well, isn’t it always the case? So many utopian schemes somehow end in mass death, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon utopian schemes. No, let’s perfect them.

    How interesting that “deniers” is the preferred label for those who think that it’s appropriate to engage in doubt, skepticism, and constant testing of assumptions and conclusions. We used to call that “the scientific method.”

    Link to this
  130. 130. amenjohnson 3:47 pm 03/20/2012

    Great observation hawkeye!

    “It’s the social engineering that’s the killer.”

    LITERALLY – It has an unblemished record of failure.

    Link to this
  131. 131. Less1leg 3:49 pm 03/20/2012

    You guys are hilarious. Where do you dig up this stuff? We need a World government to protect us from what? And who keeps these unelected whackjobs from robbing us of home and incomes? Da I dunno boss! You print off this garbage to sell climate change and blame man kind for what? Lying? Where’s the evidence? Where’s the rebuttal stories you people release. Nothing, zero, nada. Zilch. Not a fluken thing in response. But surer than poop, Scientific American will release another propaganda story supportive of World Governments and more outlandish eco-socialist BS.

    Link to this
  132. 132. Carlyle 4:09 pm 03/20/2012

    Re: 120. jctyler
    This poster has repeatedly abused others on this string who disagree with him, claiming the high ground while also claiming that the email scandal was all about nothing & in post #108 he says : I believe Gleick did the right thing, unfortunately he did it the wrong way but at least he did it. Hat off to him.
    How do people with no sense of integrity manage to claim moral superiority?
    He claims Australia is suffering dry conditions as a result of global warming. In fact we have had several consecutive years now where water has flowed even into the vast inland Lake Ayre that usually remains bone dry for decades on end. Virtually every major dam in the whole continent is full or at higher levels than seen in thirty years.
    I am heartened by the resistance being shown by so many to this dangerous propaganda & people who think lies are an acceptable way to promote a cause.

    Link to this
  133. 133. jctyler 4:38 pm 03/20/2012

    I can’t help but notice that suddenly a lot of people appear who claim to have been SciAm subscribers for years and now cancel their subscriptions because SciAm has discredited itself.

    You know what, these guys simply look like paid parts of the denier summer strategy: invade a Sci mag’s comments page and discredit the mag so that newcomers start doubting the science.

    Still, let’s hear it from more people who keep coming back to the magazine they unsubscribed from donkey’s years ago.

    (you know why I find this unsubscription business insulting? because it implies that stupid as the tactic is, it is expected by the paying industry to work because this is the US after all)

    Link to this
  134. 134. hcrawford 8:00 pm 03/20/2012

    Wow, jctyler, how’s the view from your moralistic high ground?

    Actually I’m not here to rebut jctyler, or anyone here for that matter, but to pose a simple question. Why is everyone so up-in-arms over AGW?

    I mean, never mind the aspects that are routinely ignored by the ‘warmists’, like cosmic radiation and the impact on cloud cover, or the evolving energy output of our star, or the fact that volcanoes pump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, or that as the CO2 increases, plankton and other plant life rise to gobble up the excess. (Hey, it’s a complex system. Get used to it.)

    You can cherry-pick arguments pro and con all you like, but the fundamental questions stand. What is the big deal? Why are we afraid of change?

    Someone here suggested that given global warming, our extinction is around the corner. Before we flee to Antarctica and huddle in an igloo waiting for the end, I’d like to know how can that possibly happen, in a scale of 1000 years, let alone the next 100. Because there is no model out there that can demonstrate that AGO can do that. It’s a fantasy.

    Now for the Yellowstone caldera to erupt and triple the amount of CO2 in the air (not to mention the more direct threats that it obviously poses), that I can believe in. And statistically, it’s due to come calling in the next 1000-2000 years. I’d be more concerned about that. But I’m not going to stop driving my car and shell out bucks just because some Greenie thinks I’m causing AGO. Especially when there are far, far more viable threats out there.

    But back to my change question. Because if temperatures are indeed heating up, then we will adjust. Evolve. We’ll plant those sugar maples further north. Enjoy balmier winters. Move further away from the oceans (are you really so concerned about the rich folks in the Hamptons?).

    To set up a world government to make everybody behave ecologically (oh yeah, that WAS the point of this article, wasn’t it?), I think you’ll just create more unrest, and even MORE wasteful spending. I mean, it’s not like we’re embracing serious attempts to deal with the problem, like promoting nuclear, are we?

    Just sayin.

    Link to this
  135. 135. macuser 8:29 pm 03/20/2012

    Aside from the fact that “climate change” is a pseudo-scientific scam that falsely demonizes “carbon” in order to rake in Cap&Trade $trillions, only a lunatic would propose handing over our sovereignty to a corrupt den of kleptocrats like the UN. Yeah, let’s have a vote by 196 countries over what to do with America’s wealth. How do you think that will work out?

    Niccolo Machiavelli wrote, “Men are bad, unless compelled to be good.” Who is going to compel a one-world government? It would become a dictatorship from day one, because it would be run by evil men and women. Like Gresham’s Law, the bad would promptly put the good out of circulation. Only those ignorant of human nature and history would believe otherwise.

    There are only two kinds of people who want a world government: credulous fools who believe in the innate benevolence of mankind, and truly evil people who want that kind of total power over you.

    Thus ends the Age of Reason. Bow down to your new overlord, Pol Pot, 2.0. All dissent will be crushed by green-shirted, jackboot wearing UN Smurfs. Almost all of human history is exactly like that. And now we have computers. You can’t hide. You will be assimilated. You will obey, or it’s the Gulag for you. Or worse.

    Think I’m exaggerating? I might be describing the V.I.P. lounge.

    Link to this
  136. 136. Skipper50 8:56 pm 03/20/2012

    This is satire, right?

    Link to this
  137. 137. Carlyle 9:54 pm 03/20/2012

    The argument for a world government proposed in this article are so vacuous that most posts, including mine, have ignored it. I just noticed the heading purporting to show Receding Himalayan glaciers.
    The fact is as recently reported, for the vast area of the Himalayas, glaciers are NOT receding.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains

    Link to this
  138. 138. jctyler 10:35 pm 03/20/2012

    hcrawford:

    “Why is everyone so up-in-arms over AGW?”

    don’t know about the others but take a look:

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Effects-of-Global-Warming-in-Africa-41077.shtml

    and think it through (you won’t but others might), from fleeing to Europe (started) to waterwars (started in parts of the Middle East and south of Russia) to foreboding the future of the Dixie belt… and most of Australia… and huge parts of China… and England (yes, already short on drinking water in some main areas), Portugal, Spain, Greece, the south of Italy…

    but on the good side, Vancouver’s Third Beach will become the Promenade des Anglais of the DuPont, Dow and GE shareholders

    Just kidding…

    “Wow, jctyler, how’s the view from your moralistic high ground?”

    funny how all of a sudden so many climate change deniers turn up on this page… since March 12… volunteers all of them I suppose… mind if I come rub your nose in your comments in a few years?

    And I’d rather be a climate moralist than a climate criminal.

    How to distinguish the sceptics from the deniers? The sceptics may question the data but they know what they’re talking about!

    Link to this
  139. 139. George Turner 11:13 pm 03/20/2012

    jctyler:

    You do realize that Africa only has a high population density along the equator, don’t you? Maybe they think the rest of the continent is too cold, or maybe all the food grows where the equatorial (heat generated) rain lands. If the warmists actually cared about African famine, they wouldn’t be so desperate to divert all the aid money to their personal projects, spent in the West on lavish conferences and supercomputer centers instead of, you know, keeping people who won’t even be born for fifty years from starving by withholding food from their grandparents. Hopefully it won’t be as bad as the last panic-induced environmentalist crusade, eliminating the use of DDT, which killed tens of millions of African children.

    Back to the temperatures. In the IPCC AR4 assessment, they projected a temperature increase of 1.8 to 3.6 degrees C by 2100. The US states have a range of average temperatures that spans 24.5 degrees C, and people happily live in all of them, though the hottest state is also the most popular. If the high range IPCC estimate was true, in a hundred years Kentucky would be as hot as South Carolina (Yay!), Alabama would be as hot as Louisiana, Montana would be as hot as Nebraska (WTF?), Tennessee would be as hot as Georgia, and the hottest state, Florida, would become almost as hot as Puerto Rico is now. And that’s if things match the IPCC’s worst projections, yet temperatures haven’t even followed the low end of the IPCC’s projections.

    Between 80 degrees latitude (the arctic circle) and 25 degrees latitude (the tropics) temperatures go up 1 degree Celsius every 90 miles. If the IPCC’s high-end estimate were to come to pass, each new generation of Americans would in effect be born 81 miles south of where their parents were born. Think of that. In an hour you can drive from where you are to what your climate would feel like twenty-five years into the future, IF the IPCC’s worst case, badly flawed projection is true (they use clouds as a positive feedback, when logic and satellite observations say the feedback is negative).

    How much would the average American pay to mitigate that worst case threat? Not a dime. In fact they’d gladly pay to bring it about, because why should anyone have to drive an hour south to get nicer weather? The rust belt might even manage to retain some residents.

    But for those dead set on staying at exactly the same average yearly temperature, they can walk north at 3.4 miles per hour for one hour, one hour only, just once a year, and beat the heat. Walk one hour a year (or drive for three minutes!). That’s all it takes, and that’s all it takes in the worst case scenario the IPCC envisions. So the temperature scare fails on its face, even when wildly exaggerated by positive feedbacks, which is why alarmists have spent so much time and resources trying to come up with scary scenarios that WILL frighten people.

    Unfortunately each of those gets debunked, like the threat of more numerous and severe hurricanes, catastrophic sea level rise, melting Himalayan glaciers, frog extinction, malaria, locusts, and any other Biblical plague they can think of. Pounding out adolescent disaster stories isn’t science, it’s a personal issue.

    Using pictures of starving Africans to convince people to divert money AWAY from starving Africans is pathetic.

    Link to this
  140. 140. SCMike 11:35 pm 03/20/2012

    Whatever the impact of climate change may be, efforts to force reductions of CO2 output are going to be resisted. While some may hope for a benevolent worldwide controlling authority to parcel out indulgences in the form of carbon credits, even the threat of regular brownouts and inability to travel where one wants will cause many in the first world to resist restrictions on energy production because of their quaint notions of liberty and sovereignty.

    Well, some degree of force may be required you say, but that’s problematic in some areas. Take Vespucciland, for example, where the means of force, the military, is drawn primarily from the cultural groups who would most object to the regimentation that carbon crackdowns would most affect. Do you really think that banning Kingsford’s charcoal or restricting Big Oil’s output is possible among a segment of the population accustomed to cooking meats outdoors, distilling its own potent beverages, and evading tax revenue collectors by means of high-powered vehicles consuming high-octane petroleum which could be replaced by high-octane alcohol? Did I mention the guns that theses freedom-loving citizens have?

    A little time spent studying political science, this nation’s founding, the founding documents, NASCAR, The Club for Growth, and the NRA seems to be in order. Afterwards we can continue the discussion with a bit more realism.

    Just pay some attention to those who end their tirades with the phrase “from my cold, dead hands.”

    Link to this
  141. 141. vanderleun 12:15 am 03/21/2012

    Stix,

    Please. This is Scientific American you are writing for. Doing this kind of mouth breathing is embarrassing.

    Link to this
  142. 142. vanderleun 12:18 am 03/21/2012

    “To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. ”

    Ah yes, so says the smarmy little fascist creep.

    Link to this
  143. 143. I Am Melba 1:02 am 03/21/2012

    Jim Davis Says: “World government is the republicans wishful thinking, like it was Hitler’s wishful thinking”.

    The above is easily the most uninformed, preposterous comment I’ve ever read. Jimmy, dearest, it is the Left that seeks a massive, centralized State, not the Right. Hitler was a Socialist,of the Nationalist variety, that’s what the ‘Nazi’ acronym stands for. (An example of extremist rightists would be Islamofascists). Republicans are for smaller, limited government, while Democrats are for no borders and a one world government,(The UN was the invention of leftists, namely, Soviet spy Alger Hiss.)hence this farcical article on the ever so troubling problem inherent in manipulating the earth and all of its inhabitants via massive bureaucracy and fascistic jackboot Eco-enforcement. We don’t need salvation from CO2 – we need salvation from environmental zealots who dilute our freedoms daily, and from goofballs like you who spread ignorance and hatred with revisionist history.

    Link to this
  144. 144. jctyler 8:57 am 03/21/2012

    George Turner:

    “You do realize that Africa only has a high population density along the equator, don’t you? Maybe they think the rest of the continent is too cold, or maybe all the food grows where the equatorial (heat generated) rain lands.”

    That makes climate change from pollution acceptable?

    Your comment is easily one of the most cynical excuses for social egotism I’ve read in a long time, a show of contempt for people outside your ethnic group that I find repulsive.

    And ultimate proof of your complete population geography ignorance at the same time.

    This disqualifies you as Watson disqualified himself with his remarks about Africans, resp. Afro-Americans.

    Link to this
  145. 145. Carlyle 10:19 am 03/21/2012

    Are you saying George Turner should reflect on what he says? That in other words you are reflective but he is not? Confusing. How ridiculous. Probably lack humour too.

    Link to this
  146. 146. George Turner 1:13 pm 03/21/2012

    jctyler:

    CO2 is NOT polllution, it’s plant food. A significant increase in African crop yields is due to the increase in CO2. That’s why greenhouses spend lots of money installing CO2 generators. Where you are comfortably sitting probably has CO2 levels hovering around 800 ppm, far higher than the outside atmosphere, because animals emit CO2 and Westerners live in buildings. Should we kill them all, and all the animals, starting with the worst offenders, those evil greedy whales?

    I suggest you pull up a population density map of Africa. It’s really, really easy on the interwebtubes. The population hugs the coast of the Mediterranean very very tightly, follows the Nile, and then appears as a broad, thick swath centered on the equator, tailing down the east coast toward Madagascar. In comparison, the northern and southern parts of Africa, the areas AWAY from the equator, are sparsely populated, much like Montana or Wyoming compared to New York or Florida.

    The environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg is quite famous for establishing CO2 reduction as the least effective of all known ways to help Africa. The billions upon billions of dollars being spent on CO2 reduction and global warming studies come out of very limited government funds budgeted for the environment. Those dollars are spent in the West on things like supercomputer centers, conferences, powerplants, wind farms, and solar arrays. Those dollars have been diverted from programs to bring clean water to African villages, replacing wood cooking fires with propane stoves, and meeting other vital needs.

    The horror is that the people leading this effort are hijacking the public’s finite attention span and limited charity on a quixotic quest to save the planet from a fadish, irrational Western fantasy. Environmental organizations are making a fortune, billions of dollars of the Western public’s limiting giving, and hardly a dime of it will ever reach an African because it’s all being spent making fake movies about polar bears. This even though polar bears are thriving (there are about three times as many of them now as when I was born).

    If the CAGW alarmists succeed in hobbling Western economies to limit CO2 emissions, forcing dramatic reductions in our economies, what do you think will happen to our charitable contributions? What do you think will happen to our foreign trade – with Africa? What do you think will happen over there when we double or triple the prices on basic appliances, farm equipment, and household goods? African development will be cut off at the knees, that’s what, and tens of millions will die as a result.

    Link to this
  147. 147. macuser 2:11 pm 03/21/2012

    jctyler seems to actually believe that a temperature rise from 288K to 288.8K, over a century and a half, will cause the population of Africa to move to the U.S. — a typical scare tactic of the scientific illiterati.

    Scientific illiterates don’t seem to know that any putative warming will occur in winter, not summer; in the higher latitudes [opening up millions of acreas of productive new farmland in places like Mongolia, Canada and Russia], and the warming will raise lower temperatures, not higher temperatures. Any global warming will take place at night, not during the daytime. Furthermore, the planet has been several degrees warmer several times during the past 10,000 years, when civilization flourished and the biosphere teemed with life. More warmth is good; cold kills.

    The ENTIRE ‘runaway global warming’ alarm is a pseudo-scientific scam intended to keep the grant gravy train on track. Federal grants to ‘study climate change’ amount to almost $7 billion PER YEAR. What are the recipients of that taxpayer payola going to do? Admit that there’s not a problem? What is really distressing are the mouth-breathing lemmings who have bought into Al Gore’s runaway global warming scare tactics, and who blame every thunderstorm, and every two-headed frog discovered on ‘global warming’.

    But it is heartening to see the large majority of commenters here acknowledging the fact that the ‘runaway global warming’ scam has NO scientific evidence supporting it [and by "evidence" I mean testable evidence, reproducible experiments, and raw, unadjusted data; note that models are not evidence]. The scare is based on computer models, which are in turn based on other computer models. The same circular arguments can be found in climate pal-reviewed papers.

    The planet is still emerging from the Little Ice Age, the second coldest event of the entire Holocene. The rising temperature trend line since the 1600′s is still the same: http://i35.tinypic.com/2db1d89.jpg

    There has been no acceleration of the warming trend from the time CO2 was 280 ppm, and today’s 392 ppm. What does that tell us? It tells us that the warming effect of CO2, if any, is too small to measure.

    The “carbon” scare has nothing to do with the environment. CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Life could not exist without it; more is better. The “carbon” scare is just a cover story for world government. As Ottmar Edenhofer, the Co-Chair of the UN/IPCC WG-3 stated:

    “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

    That candid statement should be a wakeup call to every American. Edenhofer is being blunt: he and his UN ilk intend to transfer the wealth that Americans have earned into the pockets of third-world dictators [and the UN as usual would take it's hefty cut as the middleman].

    Edenhofer could not be more clear: the “carbon” scare is the stated basis for international theft by totally corrupt UN kleptocrats, and the environment has nothing to do with it. Only a fool would not take him at his word on this.

    Link to this
  148. 148. jctyler 6:56 pm 03/21/2012

    in reply to Nr 147:

    daft as usual

    Link to this
  149. 149. jctyler 7:02 pm 03/21/2012

    In reply to Nr 148:

    if I understand correctly, that poster says that Africans are either starving to death or migrating in masses because “CO2 is NOT polllution, it’s plant food”.

    That must be it, the food drives them away.

    Pollution = food = disqualified from further attention (also because the poster seems to be part of the post-12 March paid spin force)

    Link to this
  150. 150. jctyler 7:31 pm 03/21/2012

    In reply to Nr 149:

    “jctyler seems to actually believe that a temperature rise … will cause the population of Africa to move to the U.S.”

    ??? typical spin doctor tactic: pretend to quote something that the person quoted never said to follow it usually with something brainless.

    (BTW, did the readers notice how some people suddenly started using carbon in their denier comments, make it look as if the warmists said that carbon was the sole responsible for climate change, then bring in the Dane, who apparently unbeknownst to our paid PR men has end of last year admitted that a substantial part of his studies was too limited in scope and that he is therefore revising his stand?)

    ” — a typical scare tactic of the scientific illiterati.”

    Ladies and Gentlement, the follow-up to the wrong quote!

    First he pretends that I said that climate change would drive Africans to the US, which I never said, then he counterattacks by saying that I used this statement which I never made to scare people.

    It’s cheap, stupid, brainless, a pure paid-for spin doctor ploy, making up lies and quotes = that would end with a stupid little face sticking out from a mac screen in real life. This type of paid corporate denier puppy makes even the most ignorant but honest denier look good.

    There’s a limit beyond which cheapskates stop existing.

    Link to this
  151. 151. jctyler 8:39 pm 03/21/2012

    I note that this comment section has now been fully taken over by the professional spin doctors as announced in comment Nr 77.

    Their tactic will now be to massively comment until nobody else will post again.

    The countermeasure was to attempt getting them to uncover.

    It worked.

    Easy to spot them (Carlyle is not one of them, he seriously believes that Galileo was a climate denier Kudos to all warmists, sceptics and the honest deniers); to pick corporate-paid spin doctors, watch for quite decent grammar and style and twisted argumentation such as tweaked quotes or focus on secondary aspects.

    Gone fishin’

    Link to this
  152. 152. jctyler 8:56 pm 03/21/2012

    (thanks for mailing me, yes, it was not the purpose from the start, it all started quite “innocently” enough, then moved into quite a thread, and thanks to SciAm for the blogs which make very interesting secondary reading, but teasing the spin doctors into action was a natural after the 12 march agreement between certain corporate-driven denier organizations – my personal conclusion is that their ship is sinking if this is the best they can do these days.)

    Packed up and ready to board – have a nice trip all!

    Link to this
  153. 153. Patrick49 9:56 pm 03/21/2012

    As a check on the censorship on this site i asked my brother to check to see if my three posts were available on his iMac computer in the following email
    “Brother Gene,
    I posted three comments on a SA site over the past several days. The first one #98 was posted and available on Reenie’s Microsoft laptop the iPad and my eMac. The second one was numbered #122,in reply to #100, and was initially found on the laptop but it disappeared and was not available on the iPad or eMac. I reposted it as #133 and then it reappeared on the laptop as #122 and #133 and now both showed up on the eMac but not on the iPad.
    Would you check and see if all three show up on your mac.
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe
    Brother Pat

    This is his reply indicating that #122 and #133 are not available>
    Brother Pat — have read thru the posts and Patrick 49 # 98 shows up. The #122 is posted by “LaLaLa” and #133 is posted by some motor mouth (pen) retard named “jctyler.”
    Would you be kind enough to explain how you censor the posts?

    Link to this
  154. 154. Coffey3c 11:12 pm 03/21/2012

    154 patrick/ or carlyle as the case may be:

    “The censorship.” What most of these negative posts lack in credibility and knowledge, they largely made up for with one of the most entertaining lists of logical fallacies, that I can ever remember. Accusing the site of censoring any of these posts, gives them far more weight then they would ever hope to garner on merit. This insinuation isn’t just shameless, it actually lacks self respect.

    The comments are numbered, and have not changed. I have a printout. Maybe you can find someone to help you with your computer problems.

    Coffey3c

    Link to this
  155. 155. Sanford 11:16 pm 03/21/2012

    I find it amazing that rather use air separators, the author would push for a world government. His 560ppm reference must be a typo because life was fully sustained well above 3,000ppm. If an author is going to cite a ten-year study, he should cite the NASA study proving that C02 has not increased in the upper atmosphere in past ten years. Furthermore, a science journal should know that C02 is the heaviest air component and is not immune to gravity. Therefore, a science journal should know any man-made global warming theory based on C02 is pure junk and utter bunk. It’s fascinating that a journal would print anything on the subject in a serious manner, let alone an article pushing for a world government based on bogus hypothesis.

    Link to this
  156. 156. agwisreal 11:30 pm 03/21/2012

    In reply to 155 by Sanford, when Stix says “livable”, he means not survivable for some life forms, but convenient for humans.

    CO2 at 3000 ppm would drive temperatures to levels that would severely injure most of our main food crops, and that would melt even the Antarctic ice cap. We’d lose a lot of prime crop land to rising seas. That’s “inconvenient”.

    As to CO2 being not immune to gravity, Stix never said it was immune. CO2 atmospheric levels really have increased, when measured at sea level. If they haven’t increased when measured at some extreme altitude, and I wonder if you’re right about that, so what? Perhaps at the interface of atmosphere and space, lighter molecules are more common. Gravity, you know.

    Link to this
  157. 157. Andrew Raines 11:31 pm 03/21/2012

    The same crowd that can’t control the price of oil, wants us to believe that they could control the weather by taxing the oil (energy).

    Hey, if people are foolish enough to vote for the slogan Hope & Change, then anything is possible.

    Link to this
  158. 158. Andrew Raines 11:32 pm 03/21/2012

    Oh my God! You half-wit American’s are so dense! How on earth does our glorious President Obama tolerate you?

    Obama and Secretary Chu have explained patiently that you drooling feebs in flyover country are to abandon your SUV’s that you use to go to gun shows or snake-handling churches.

    The President of the United States and all of his czars, unlike you cretins, are socially enlightened enough to ride in comfortable and well appointed 5,000 lb. luxury vehicles without being corrupted.

    Enjoy the freedom that generations of serfs have known when they relied only on their feet! Imagine the pride you will feel when a member of the ruling Party elite whisks past you in his/her government provided Escalade and you get a whiff of their social justice!

    Oh, it would be too much to dream of that you might catch a rare and splendid glimpse the Dear Leader Barack as you trudge to work in one of his wonderful solar wind algae unicorn factories!

    Link to this
  159. 159. LewisS 11:32 pm 03/21/2012

    Environmentalist Religionists just ignore facts contrary to their foundational tenet of man-made global warming.

    Please see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

    NOTE: 30,000 weather stations show NO warming since 1997>

    “• Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
    By David Rose
    Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012
    The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
    The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
    Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.”

    And the report does not acknowledge the biased data from the 10,000 rural US weather stations closed by Clinton in the early 90′s leaving the 5,000 urban located stations to scew the temperature data upward.

    Link to this
  160. 160. Andrew Raines 11:34 pm 03/21/2012

    Oh my God! You half-wit American’s are so dense! How on earth does our glorious President Obama tolerate you?

    Obama and Secretary Chu have explained patiently that you drooling feebs in flyover country are to abandon your SUV’s that you use to go to gun shows or snake-handling churches.

    The President of the United States and all of his czars, unlike you cretins, are socially enlightened enough to ride in comfortable and well appointed 5,000 lb. luxury vehicles without being corrupted.

    Enjoy the freedom that generations of serfs have known when they relied only on their feet! Imagine the pride you will feel when a member of the ruling Party elite whisks past you in his/her government provided Escalade and you get a whiff of their social justice!

    Oh, it would be too much to dream of that you might catch a rare and splendid glimpse the Dear Leader Barack as you trudge to work in one of his wonderful solar wind algae unicorn factories!

    Hope & Change 2012, because you were foolish enough to vote for a slogan and an empty suit in 2008

    Link to this
  161. 161. profchuck 11:38 pm 03/21/2012

    I am a retired scientist with Phd’s in theoretical physics and astronomy. I know a lot of very smart people but I don’t know anyone smart enough to create or even specify the kind of civilization this article suggests. I do know some that think they are smart enough but they are driven more by ideology than scientific principals. If we insist on regarding anthropogenic climate change as a social problem instead of a scientific and engineering challenge we will wind up living in a world where both politics and weather will conspire to destroy us. Scientific advancement is the result of the combined efforts of thousands of strongly motivated individuals that can freely exchange information. The imposition of a world government run by political “experts” would destroy the very fabric that makes science possible. “We had to destroy the world in order to save it” could be the sophistry of the future.

    Link to this
  162. 162. agwisreal 11:39 pm 03/21/2012

    In reply to our esteemed author himself, please consider this: to be feasible, a solution has to command some support. The easiest way to get mass support for a solution is to cook up a solution that makes money for those that implement it. Investors will be scrambling to get in on that.

    This is why the next increment in solar panel efficiency is, after all, important. The moment the efficiency surpasses coal-fired electricity generation, that moment spells the end of coal-fired generators. It also spells the end of this political recalcitrance in granting that there’s a problem. Nobody will any longer need to fret that acknowledging the correctness of AGW science means doing without electricity.

    Link to this
  163. 163. LewisS 11:40 pm 03/21/2012

    @155. Sanford Here’s some info re the effect of CO2 on atmospheric heat retention you might find pertinent:

    http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

    From the above wenfmag link, Dr. Bryson answered the following questions:

    “Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

    A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

    Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

    A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

    Link to this
  164. 164. Charles Austin Miller 11:43 pm 03/21/2012

    Pardon me? So we need an “effective world government” (replete with carbon taxation and “green economy”) in order to SAVE THE WORLD from climate change??

    Pardon, but the Scientific community DOES NOT KNOW how to influence the climate one way or another. We might be able to seed clouds in an extremely localized situation, but we have NO IDEA of how to REVERSE climate change. The very notion is absurd.

    No, we’re not to that level of technical sophistication, okay? In order to REVERSE climate change, we’d first have to UNDERSTAND climate change.

    And we don’t.

    What we THINK we know is that Earth’s climate is entirely capable of changing suddenly and drastically, and WITHOUT the chemical contributions of humankind, and that’s been the case since DAY ONE.

    No, I’m not buying the argument that mankind is capable of re-engineering the climate. Nor am I buying the argument that mankind can voluntarily re-engineer HUMAN BEHAVIOR. It’s not happening. Not in my my lifetime and not in yours, and not in the lifetimes of our children and great-great-great grandchildren.

    As “intelligent” creatures, we should recognize that we we’re NOT ABOVE following the same path of the 99% of terrestrial organisms that have gone before us — Extinction comes to every species eventually, and some sooner than later.

    We’re not a particularly SUCCESSFUL species, compared to most. Perhaps we’re not supposed to survive; our suicidal behavior may be an indication that we’re on a dead-end evolutionary path.

    If we were TRULY intelligent, we would’ve thought twice before digging the hole in which we now find ourselves, yes?

    Link to this
  165. 165. RHO1953 11:51 pm 03/21/2012

    Ah yes. If only we would simply agree to world governance and let the elites make our decisions for us everything would be okay! Just how do you figure to get China and India to forego economic and industrial development? Surely you realize that nothing we do can offset the increases in co2 that they will produce. And just why is it that the Anglican University cannot provide any evidence of warming for the last fifteen years?

    Link to this
  166. 166. irongodzilla 11:52 pm 03/21/2012

    hey im all for it… as long as you surrender to the United States and swear to uphold our constitution. otherwise fuck you!@

    Link to this
  167. 167. Seant'e 12:05 am 03/22/2012

    Reading this is exactly like reading a page from Atlas Shrugged. Wake up people Obama is trying to make the book come true.

    Link to this
  168. 168. thoseyanks56 12:08 am 03/22/2012

    “Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”

    Aha! Mr. Stix, this is the loose thread that will inevitably unravel any future NWO … there is never any guarantee against a global power grab once you implement a global power structure. Whether it takes decades or centuries, if you make a NWO, it WILL evolve a dictator!!

    This is why having many individual nations is so much better: when a few of them go corrupt, or turn hellish under a dictator, people can always flee to a nearby free nation.

    But if a NWO gets compromised, where will you run ……….. ?

    Link to this
  169. 169. jerryglen 12:17 am 03/22/2012

    So what you really mean is control.

    Link to this
  170. 170. aki009 12:19 am 03/22/2012

    It is communist cr@p content like this that caused me to cancel my Scientific American subscription about a decade ago. The name is really misleading as it should be Socialist American. When they finally go out of business, I’ll call it good riddance.

    Link to this
  171. 171. irongodzilla 12:25 am 03/22/2012

    “professing themselves wise they became as fools!”

    Link to this
  172. 172. squalus 12:35 am 03/22/2012

    Palm covering face. Not this commie crap again!

    Link to this
  173. 173. mrohm 12:47 am 03/22/2012

    I was so offended by this blog that I registered just to add this comment. How is this opinion piece related to science?

    Over many decades I’ve enjoyed SA, had a subscription once, and picked up many copies at the news stand. I don’t think I’ll be doing that again… I used to have great respect for this publication, now it is a sorry excuse for toilet paper.

    Stick to science and technology, and leave the political opinion to the other worthless rags.

    Link to this
  174. 174. NxtYrInJerusalem 12:57 am 03/22/2012

    The author of this article/blog is a total NUTBURGER. Not only does he STILL believe Global Warming is man-made. B ut he also suggests imposing a cruel and oppressive world government to manage it. Where do these ass-wagons come from? The only positive side to this nightmare is that his “kind” would be the first to be rounded up by his BabyStalin for the NewWorldGulag. Dear G-d, please deliver us from the academics and politicians.

    Link to this
  175. 175. visceralrebellion 1:05 am 03/22/2012

    Hilarious. I am supposed to submit to an UN-based world government with the ability to force me to do their will, all because I’m deathly afraid of 0.0373% of the atmosphere’s composition? A substance, incidentally, that I exhale many times daily? The same substance plants require to grow? That’s going to scare me into giving up my life?

    I’m supposed to bow in servitude to Kofi Anan terrified of 5°F change in temperature over 50-100 years when in my daily life I happily enjoy swings of up to 40°F in a mere 24 hours?

    The AGW crowd jumped the shark a long time ago. No one, and I do mean no one, believes the nonsense coming out of UEA, NASA, etc. We have memories. We remember these people insisting that the number of strong hurricanes was going to skyrocket due to global warming. We remember the Met in GB using the precious models created by the AGW crowds to predict climate a year in advance, a failure by any measure. We remember all the declarations of imminent doom if we didn’t surrender our sovereignty and money to the government, and we remember that none of it happened.

    We are on to the scam.

    Mr. Stix must not have checked with the Politico before posting this. In the Politico today, the AGW crowd is trying to “rebrand” itself for the third time because no one in America believes them or cares what they say. We pass them like a ranting, drunk street preacher.

    For those who declare scientists the only arbiters of TRUTH I ask: how did the 1920′s Eugenics program in the elite American universities work for you? Or was that just a training exercise for the real thing?

    Scientific American, RIP. It used to be a science magazine but now it’s a prostitute for a small cabal’s political agenda. Sad.

    Link to this
  176. 176. TwoEyedJack 1:11 am 03/22/2012

    Hello from a dedicated skeptic! I have read a fair amount of bashing of skeptics on this board, and am more than a little disappointed how little discussion there has been on the extreme amount of faith required to really buy into AGW.

    Let’s take a step back from the curve fitting and computer models that form the entire basis for the “science” of AGW. Let’s look at the argument of the AGW defenders, shall we? Here is the crux of their argument:

    There is an extremely complex non-linear partial differential equation that describes the temperature of a finite volume of atmospheric gas over time.

    Variables in the equation include initial conditions, radiation from the sun, the effect of cloud cover, the magnetic field of the earth, distance from the poles, heat constants of the various elements that make up the surface and near surface layers of the earth, and the makeup of the atmospheric gas.

    Nobody knows all of the variables, how they interact, or if the “constants” are really constant (for example the flux of cosmic radiation, or the strength and direction of the earth’s magnetic field). What these AGW promoters are saying is that the entire equation boils down to how much CO2, a trace gas at 0.04%, is in the atmosphere, and not only that, but only the tiny part that man has added since around 1900.

    Nevermind that the temperature has been going up and down for millennia, no it is CO2 from humans that is the forcing function.

    This does not even pass the laugh test and these “scientists” know it.

    Not only that, but they also know that water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect, and that the spectrum interacting with CO2 is almost identical to the spectrum interacting with water vapor.

    Now with the headline on this article, we clearly see that AGW was never really about “saving the planet”, it is about money and power, which are the only things that government really cares about anyway.

    Look,the jig is up, the news is out, and AGW is being exposed for the fraud it is every day. Do you global warmists not remember the fraud exposed in the leaks from the East Anglia CRU? The computer model code with a vector called “fudge factor”? Conspiring to suppress other view points? The whole thing is a scam and a fraud.

    Link to this
  177. 177. WeAllDieSometime 1:17 am 03/22/2012

    I’m stunned. Are we humans so arrogant and afraid of dying (and meeting our maker) that we are willing and madly determined to curtail the natural human instinct for betterment and advancement and empower a self-appointed world cabal of the worst human form to issue edicts to the rest of us? Have we lost our collective minds? If Mother Earth is unable to handle our existence, she will certainly let us know — and record us as the next in line of extinct inhabitants. What makes us humans so special that we seek an exemption?

    Link to this
  178. 178. Vendicar Decarian 1:55 am 03/22/2012

    This article has been linked to by the Drudge Report.

    So what you are seeing here with the more extremist messages are the opinions of the lowest of the low – Gutter Trash – Conservatives who have very small brains, and very big mouths.

    Not content with destroying their own nation, they are now bent on destroying as much of the world as possible.

    Know the enemy.

    Link to this
  179. 179. mikesvoice 1:59 am 03/22/2012

    POPPY COCK or just plain BS…..from your own article the following:“Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change.”
    NOTE the use of the word “might”….when you have exact scientific proof of your facts you would not need the word “might”. Too many scientists disagree with your views on Global Warming or the “new” term Climate Change.
    When a National televised debate btween both factors is aired and judged, then spew your “beliefs”…not before without untainted “facts”!

    Link to this
  180. 180. edbarbar 2:32 am 03/22/2012

    Why is “Scientific American” calling itself “Scientific?” This isn’t “Science.” Science is about the “Scientific Method.” The Scientific Method includes replicable results, and we know models are not replicable. We know the “97%” of climate scientists who agree with someone’s definition of catastrophic man made global warming is 77 of 79 eclectic climate scientists, chosen by selection bias.

    This article is opinion. In this particular case, about a Journalist’s opinion about a complex, nascent field that has been caught up in politics. So Scientific American, “E Tu Brute?”

    Link to this
  181. 181. Commack Mark 2:45 am 03/22/2012

    Doesnt the link of a oneworld government and global warming reveal the motive behind the scame? A poster here has stated that the sun doesnt change its energy input and doesnt effect the climate. Really? And you subscribe to Scientific America? The sun varies in intensity quite a bit. The recent solar storm was shown to warm the upper troposhpere. Whatsmore…the little ice age of the 1700′s has been linked to reduced solar activity. Are you stating that the sun does not change input so that the recent (past 3 decades) of warming must only be through heat capture and not from external input? If so…that affords no opportunity for cooling. Yet there was pronounce cooling from the 1950′s through the 1970′s….while CO2 increased. How would such cooling even be possible if not for an external change? The climate models assume a positve feeback between slight increases in CO2 that are amplified through increased water vapor…and that this interaction has a positive feedback. But better analysis reveals that the feedback is negative. Recent satelite observation have detected an average decrease in global humidity levels….which makes sense given the leveling off of global temps and the cooling. Currently global temps are running below normal. Other arguements put forth suggest that incoming radiation is greater than outgoing longwave ratiation. But even here the amount of outgoing has been detected to be increasing. Also, this energy budget can never be in equalibrium. Why? Because a massive amount of inoming radiation never has an opportunity to escape. IT is locked into complex carbon molecular bonds through photosynthesis. An enormous amount of solar radiation is used by plant life to effectively do work. We will never detect more heat escaping to space than is incoming….and despite this…and as shown by the episodal cooling…the earth can and will cool. AGW is a false hood. Every weather event…cold or warm…ry or wet…snow of lack of it….is attributed to AGW. This is not science. This is an agenda….a one world government agenda apparently. Oh and by the way…despite the exceptionally warm winter in the USA….northern hemisphere snow cover is still running above noraml. Alaska is ice and snow bound. Summer temps are forecast to be well below normal. Here is another point over looked by the simple minded AGW folks. A degree F temp change in the tropics is not the equivalent of a degree F temp change in the Arctic. Temp change in the tropic with humidity laden air represents a much much larger change in energy than temp change in dry arctic air. A simple temp average across the globe…both high and low latitudes….is not an accurate refelction of the earths energy budget. Find a mpa of current global temps…the deviations from normal. The tropics have cooled substantially. A huge net decrease in global energy. But to trick us….the AGW “scientisits” add arctic temps which are running above normal (but obviously still fridgid) and compute a straight, non weighted average. This does not reflect the enormous heat loss that has really occurred recently. Sorry. I am not funded by big oil. I am funded by a God given brain.

    Link to this
  182. 182. huntznfishz 2:56 am 03/22/2012

    Effective government is quite the oxymoron, however I will play along with the premise. I believe that the only way to attain this One Global Government would be for the USA system to be utilized.
    Beyond all of the gasps, let’s explore this a little bit. It is stable.
    Everyone would be protected under the Bill of Rights, which limits government action into the citizenry’s personal lives.
    The system encourages innovation and scientific growth.
    Free flow of capital to fund projects essential to saving the planet.
    Protected religious freedom (see Bill of Rights above).
    Protected freedom of media and personal speech.
    Protected freedom to defend yourself and property and a right to own a gun.
    Protected freedom to vote (women included).
    And the list goes on…
    I suspect that much of these freedoms are what people, who long for One Global Government would despise.
    I find that it is simply logical that the people should be trusted with the aforementioned freedoms (and some not listed), because no government should exist or survive if they are not able to stand before free people.

    Thanks and PS: climate catastrophe is a money and power grabbing hoax!

    Link to this
  183. 183. Randyrollerrocker 3:00 am 03/22/2012

    When the people are being lied to by their leaders, and their leaders are engaged in defrauding the public of their wealth, by making their money worth less through excessive massive printing of an unbacked fiat fantasy based currency, and their leaders are engaged in unsustainable false wars under false pretexts, you expect the people to like sheep quietly accept another false fable, whereby they will give up all they’ve known and accepted, to have some arrogant hypothetical benevolent dictator take over the helm of the United Nations a wanting disappointing body of governing morass and ignorance, to lead the world and it’s economy into just and righteous manners, based on the assumption that the world will thereby be saved from becoming breathless, may I say what you’re suggesting is breathless in itself.
    Better you have every nation on the planet, grow marijuana in as many fields as possible, for the simple reason that biologically they not only grow as fast as possible, they absorb CO2 and distribute Oxygen, by freshening the air, therefore the climate itself, at one of the fasted rates ever. Furthermore all profits gained from a percentage of sale of the product, can be used to fight the American Government’s misuse of Chemical Trails that they’ve been dropping everywhere on the planet.
    Why should sovereign governments need to give up their rights, when there can be cooperation amongst them, unless the move is only to create a New World Order takeover on the part of Zionist conspirators to rule the world’s finances and all activities therefrom by the banks.
    The public have a right to know, before you charge in trying to take away and deny them any of their legitimate rights at all. Only madmen pursue madness, and that’s all that you are proposing here. For simple sake man, you want an unidentified leader for the UN to have dictatorial power and a control over the lives of billions of people, kinda like the unknown un-vetted President that’s running the United States right now, and look at the financial mess that that country’s in. It’s a joke.
    The problem mankind’s facing, are people like yourselves who pretend to be concerned, but have ignored having legitimate governments do what they’re supposed to do, which is get out of the people’s way and get out of the way of mankind’s progress, having as little government as possible. The pollution truly resides in the very governing bodies you want to empower. Rather than write articles, maybe you should be planting a garden instead. That’s if your government allows you.

    Link to this
  184. 184. marvl 3:15 am 03/22/2012

    This article is neither “Scientific” nor “American.” There was a time when Scientific American was a respected scientific journal, and the majority of academia seemed to possess functioning cognitive senses. Apparently, those days are gone.

    Link to this
  185. 185. Vendicar Decarian 3:19 am 03/22/2012

    This article has been linked to by the Drudge Report.

    So what you are seeing here with the more extremist messages are the opinions of the lowest of the low – Gutter Trash – Conservatives who have very small brains, and very big mouths.

    Not content with destroying their own nation, they are now bent on destroying as much of the world as possible.

    Know the enemy.

    Link to this
  186. 186. emceegriff 4:00 am 03/22/2012

    Good evening,
    My name is Andrew, one of those Dungers that you hold in such high esteem. I have a couple of questions. I’m sure you will consider them elementary and not worthy of an answer but I will ask them anyway.
    A scientist decides to fudge his data in order to prove a Hypothesis. Is that ethical?
    Why are scientists who do not believe in the anthropogenic approach to climate change being silenced and shunned?
    Why did 78 of your peers sign an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal calling on your side to stop trying to silence dissenting peers trying to ruin them because they choose to disagree with you? Science? Please tell me why the CERN experiment CLOUD could not duplicate any of the models your crowd say are irrefutable fact?
    Didn’t they ask you to change your climate models?

    I am just a simple guy so if answer any of the above questions please use small words so that I can understand what your saying.
    Hitler’s Anthropologists had irrefutable proof that Nordic Aryans were the master race funny thing there was no honest or scientific debate with that irrefutable fact either.Whats that called when you believe in a scientific theory so much that you have to fudge data, shun peers and lie in order to prove that your theory is irrefutable. Is anything in science irrefutable fact. Science that cannot be proved is Pseudo science.

    Link to this
  187. 187. Carlyle 4:16 am 03/22/2012

    Re: 155. Coffey3c
    11:12 pm 03/21/2012
    Those who think posts in SIAM are not deleted are delusional. It is particularly prevalent in the Blog section.
    It is not unusual to see examples like this: Note a poster replying to me but my post was subsequently deleated. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nitrogen-pollution-likely-increase-climate-change&posted=1#comments
    1. 1. Dredd 10:33 AM 2/17/12
    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 2. Dredd in reply to Carlyle 10:34 AM 2/17/12
    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

    At least one article was pulled entirely after I commented on it.

    Link to this
  188. 188. dbeall 5:09 am 03/22/2012

    Climate change is the realm of socialists whose effort to destroy capitalism failed and had to find another vehicle for their efforts. I am an American citizen and will never accept a “world government.” The United States is a sovereign nation with a Constitution. That’s the end of the discussion.

    Climate change is an outright lie. The AGW/Climate change community has been caught far too many times lying, manipulating data, hiding contrary evidence, ignoring contrary evidence, shouting down those with contrary evidence, and generally treating climate change as a religion, rather than a science.

    A warming climate CAUSES more CO2. CO2 does not cause a warming climate. The Earth has warmed and cooled for billions of years. It is following a cycle. It is presumptuous and arrogant to think we can do anything to this planet that it will not fix.

    Frankly, the vast majority of the human population does not believe these lies. So you can give it a rest.

    Link to this
  189. 189. Danno1180 5:34 am 03/22/2012

    What a crock—the climate is constantly changing ,we do not need another stupid bureaucracy feeding at the public trough ,for that matter the UN is of little use other than to provide a bunch of third world boobs a chance to live high on the hog on the public dime .

    Link to this
  190. 190. Coffey3c 5:39 am 03/22/2012

    TwoEyedJack:

    Your facts are a little off. There is a lot in your post non-linear differential equations, spectrum interaction, which frankly seems to be more persiflage than anything approaching useful information. Double-talk really, obfuscation, for the purposes of this discussion. We do model things in computers mathematically, I think people already knew that.

    Most people know throwing jargon around like that generally denotes someone trying to confuse the issue, or make themselves sound more important, even if they don’t use non-linear differential equations every day.

    People that know how this works, know that water vapor can account for 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide, and there is very much less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (CO2 390ppm or .039%, and water… well humidity down low but 1.5% water in air max @ ~80F, there is a lot more water),but CO2 still causes about 9-26% of greenhouse heating. Depending on conditions – local weather.

    Spectrum means… heat or sunlight. Heat radiates. It hits something, which makes molecules vibrate and move faster. That average zippy-ness of molecules is the temperature.

    People seem to be posting in a lot of negative blogs that the temperature is or may be going up… some. Many who don’t believe, say it is getting warmer. That’s good, because it is.

    Consider that water vapor cloud formation, which you can see, happens close to the ground mostly, up to 30,000 feet say, or 5 miles. Although contrails show you that on some days there is bit more water vapor a little higher. CO2, tends to rise up and mix in with the Troposphere, which is the part that that goes up to 12 miles.

    In other words, C02 is like a blanket that is down with the clouds mixing in there too, but also well above the clouds. Here’s the ‘Spectrum’ bit, or for eagle scouts It’s the Electromagnetic Spectrum. Sunlight radiates down through atmosphere, which is clear, so sun goes until it hits something pretty solid, which gets warmed by the light – Dirt, clouds, pigeons, etc.

    However heat, once it heats something up, it radiates too. Things cool off, cause Heat, always wants to get away. So something that’s warm, sand on the beach, Engine blocks, Water and CO2 molecules, when heat hits them, they heat up. Radiation is energy, so that makes sense to us.

    The molecules (or atoms in a solid), do that vibrations zippy a little faster thing for a while, but they also cool off, and give up that energy. If there is a lot more Green House Gasses around (Mr. wizard says, stuff that heat radiation runs into instead of passing through.), then the next particle/molecule heats up, and so on – and thus the heat tends to radiate slowly away. Even more slowly because heated particles like air molecules rise spread out and rise up, but when a solid gives up its heat as radiation, it can go in anyudirection, including down and hit something lower down.

    Most people never think about how insulation actually works. It’s the same with those little spun glass fibers in your walls. If you turn off the heat in the house, and walk away (assuming it’s not an earth ship and the sun is blasting in the windows), it gets just as cold as is outside. Insulation doesn’t stop heat, it just slows it down. If you take insulation outside, and stand beside it on a cold day… nothing. Just as cold both sides.

    The heat radiation, or even a heated molecule actually hits the glass, which absorbs the heat, but it can’t travel through the fibers like a solid piece of glass, because they don’t touch much, and glass is an good insulator. However, the heat still tried to escape or radiate away, and some of it radiates back toward the house, sometimes forward… Two steps forward, and one step back… Cha-Cha-Cha.

    The thing is, which we all know, is that the hotter the air heats, the more water it can contain, so it can get pretty muggy and warm when you have a lot of both heat and water vapor. More mass, greater heat capacity of the atmosphere: miserable summer.

    It’s the blanket that we are pulling over the weather we’ve already got, that’s the problem. All the rest of this stuff being posted, except for the pollutants we put in there, particulates and sulfur that block sunlight/heat, and the CO2 that lets the sunlight in but really slows the heat down on the way out.

    All the rest about equations and such. The people who study climate know that. It’s amazing how many people posting here, who get their information from articles that are posted in Business Magazines (Ever wonder who has the pull to get a “Science Expose’” article published in Business Weekly?), all seem to say that the scientists don’t what science actually is, or don’t know how to do their job because they haven’t noticed water in the atmosphere, and don’t really give up on money and girls, and money, and nice things money buys, to live in apartments over garages, just so they can play with the cool science toys at universities and things… that is… when they are not plotting word takeovers like Pinky and The Brain.

    [I knew I'd see that story before, it just took me while to remember where. I only saw it once.]

    This article did have the most silly title to an article I’ve ever seen. Just Stupid, and pointless. If a guy would post a title like that, he’s really not the guy who takes over the world, and you don’t have to worry about him. That world domination thing is usually done by the sneaky bastards who have all the money, politicians who believe in themselves, and in our modern world, the Multinational business interests who don’t about people, but can afford to buy the services of the other two. Yes, I think I’ve seen that in several history books around here.

    Just don’t forget

    Sunny muggy hot days, and backyard barbecues. Charcoal puts out lots of heat, but usually you have to spread something over it to get it to start heating up first – to start the reaction.

    If this sounds simplistic, it not. It’s not sarcasm either.

    164. LewisS While I’m at it.

    Nice old guy who explains that when the earth, which has been heated from the energy of the sun starts to radiate that heat back up into the atmosphere, most of it gets caught by the water vapor that’s close to the ground. Remember he actually said in the first thirty feet.

    Sure! The heating of the atmosphere starts close to the warm ground, like the bottom of the pot. That warmer water air, CO2, chrysanthemum fragrance, Nitrogen, Oxygen, the primary and secondary exudation butterfly flatulence… well over here at the science club we call it the atmosphere, catches the heat because that’s what’s next to the earth. And, the atmosphere warms up and some rises in convection, and moves around, and that whole Cha-Cha-Cha of energy warming; then Radiating away; warming… as the heat escapes.

    Pretty obvious that the Nice guy was just explaining something simple and Science-y, which sounded damned authoritative because this guy has probably been splain’n this stuff to students for 40 years. Then some… person took it and screamed “Look at this. How come those Scientist [i.e. the ones who seemingly don't know what science even is. Ed.], Never said This!!!

    They didn’t think they had to. They are trying to explain what was different, and why it’s important. CO2 is going up, the average temperature of the Earths atmosphere and oceans is going up, and than has a much bigger effect than anything you’d believe in very small numbers.

    Remember the… ice age. Ice sheets miles thick as far south as Illinois and New York? Six (6) degrees [~6.0 to the guys over at the science club.] Six degrees was the difference between Woolly Mammoths and 196O’s summer of Love. You can walk away from a glacier too, but I’d sure hate to live on one.

    Climate change Does not mean it’s three degrees warmer and we just get nicer days. In models it means that the Midwest dries up a lot more, probably not good wheat growing weather. (Remember the dust bowl?) The sad part is, instead of just moving a little north, and we staunch american patriots just have to bear with Canada growing our wheat… Turns out no.

    The floods in the Midwest that are coming twice as fast as usual? (Do people believe in floods?) You guessed it. That part gets wetter. No Wheat there either, because, it’s a river three-hundred miles wide four months of the year.

    I loved the one where we get to grow the Wheat in Mongolia. So what? Well if you’r Mongolian, you go out and by the new Yak 916 turbo boost Steppes Mobile. In America, you’re looking for wheat and treading water. It’s all relative.

    People don’t become extinct, the sky doesn’t fell, and nothing sudden wipes us off the earth, for a while anyway. What the scientists people are trying to stop from going extinct our way of life going. They hope, and are trying to work to slow down things so that nothing really bad will happen. They are only trying to tell you of some of the thing that could very likely happen.

    Oh, and lastly before I get to that Cosmic-Ray guy…

    That wretched African thing people are talking about. Do people remember in the early eighties, those killer droughts in Sub-Saharan Africa? Feed-The-World and Band aid? Tens of millions threatened, and dead in the hundreds of thousands. They tried to walk away, and seems no one could get them water or food in time. Because the surface of the pacific ocean changed by a few degrees. Folks remember that? These bad things that could happen are very real, and completely unrelated to the sky falling.

    Physiology: Did you guys know that dying of dehydration is like a really bad hangover? That’s what it feels like, but so much worse. It literally is the hangover that kills you.

    People who make light of all of this, making up little names and spreading what they know to be lies, or even those who just get their science information from Rush Limbaugh, a giant in the field of science, or the Midwestern Energy Business News -are doing everyone a terrible disservice.

    No Credible Scientist is screaming the end of the world, or extinction of man. If you ask any one of them, other then Edmund Teller, they’ll tell you they don’t really know what will happen. They just know that as more carbon dioxide is being pumped into the air, the temperature is going up, and although they are waiting it out like every other person on this planet – knowledgeable and misinformed alike, that they are very worried.

    The ones who are throwing round the Religiously, like a religion remark. The Ones who are preaching pretty hard themselves. Don’t listen.

    Link to this
  191. 191. wordmuse 5:43 am 03/22/2012

    What’s a dirty rotten shame is that scientists in this field allowed it to become an “industry” where money, politics and the allocation of resources tainted whatever good research might have been produced. People like me have a very difficult time TRUSTING people in this business because it seems like a business rather than an endeavor resembling science. You have so-called professionals demonizing dissenting opinions. Since when are dissenting opinions within the scientific community something to discourage? You have stories of skeptics having their careers threatened. You have stories of scientists (so-called) hiding the ball, exaggerating findings, etc. Was there good science performed in all this mess? Heck if I know. What I do know is that even if there was, I wouldn’t be able to tell the science from the propaganda. This endeavor needs to have a restart; people who were part of the breech of trust need to be taken to the woodshed, and allowed to return – if they have learned that science and politics do NOT make good bedfellows. We may have lost 10 or more years, but at least with a reset, we could make up for lost time. Without it, I don’t believe a word anyone in this business says – whether they are proponents or skeptics; all I know is I don’t trust any of you. It’s a dirty rotten shame.

    Link to this
  192. 192. proud denier 6:17 am 03/22/2012

    Gary, I at least admire your headline’s bold honesty. It’s refreshing in a movement steeped in propaganda, intellectual thuggery, scare tactics and outright fraud. The endgame is upon you and “world tyranny” is the last shot in your cannon.

    Your problem is that more and more of the duped are becoming “unduped.” Or, “Deniers” as you refer to them, who should be shot or imprisioned as James Hansen, Robert Kennedy and other fanatics have demanded.

    It’s been nearly a month now since East Anglia issued a press release meekly admitting that the globe hasn’t warmed in a decade and a half. But the jig was up long before then. You see, although you climate”scientists” did an excellent job of cloaking your whole movement in a veil of secrecy, a great deal could be learned by watching what was happening around the movement.

    There were the purges of journal editors, who were unfriendly to your “cause” as Michael Mann and others refer to your crusade. There were clumsy attempts to make certain inconvenient data disappear, as with the bogus hockey stick graph.

    You even called the whole charade “settled science” which is the biggest oxymoron since George Carlin uttered the words “jumbo shrimp.” The very nature of science is that it’s NEVER settled. Physicists wake up every day looking to poke holes in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, for goodness sake.

    But the single thing that brought you down were the numbers themselves. No matter how you distorted them, they refused to bend to your tyranny. (Remember Manhattan is supposed to be under 12 feet of water by now.) And of course there was that embarrassment when two Canadians rechecked NASA’s math and found a whopping error. Oops.

    So your ilk has dishonered themselves and, day by day, is becoming more exposed as snake oil salesmen. Ultimately, and absurdly, you’ve re-enacted Galileo’s battle with religion. But this time you climate “scientists” are the ones playing the role of the Church.

    Link to this
  193. 193. jburack 6:21 am 03/22/2012

    The most hilarious sentence in this very amusing spoof is this: “Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?” Could we, indeed? Were this “editorial” meant seriously, I’d recommend you look in the mirror. There is your dictator. Now, can we get back to science, perhaps?

    Link to this
  194. 194. Coffey3c 6:23 am 03/22/2012

    135. hcrawford:

    Cosmic Radiation? Really? Just say’n.

    This actually comes from this article, again published in one of those cathedrals of science – as an opinion piece – in The Financial Post. Of course, their long history of breaking world shaking scientific discoveries in their opinion pages speaks for itself, but this level of informative truth and clarification has not been seen since that great philanthropist and humanitarian, Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, left Berlin for a short weekend in Bolivia.

    Cosmic rays. How did it escape notice that for Cosmic rays to suddenly start heating up the earth, there would have to be more… Cosmic Rays? Yes.. That makes sense. So once they discovered that the Earth has not become a cosmic Microwave if you will allow my license with the ‘spectrum’, and no one said anything.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/31/no-a-new-study-does-not-show-cosmic-rays-are-connected-to-global-warming/

    There are articles everywhere that explain this, and unfortunately many more that repeated the original The explanatory articles say that it’s not true, and the repeated articles are published in farm weekly under opinion. The difference is obvious after a few lines.

    Here is the important part.

    People wondered if a flux in cosmic rays might cause increased, or really just effect, cloud formation. It is important to the models of course, percent coverage, but it was a good question.

    They guys at CERN, they have the radiation handy, created vessel into which they placed a mixture like our atmosphere, and did what kids do, they blasted it.

    Cosmic rays are not very good at hitting stuff in the atmosphere. Many go right through the seat your sitting on, without ever having hit anything atmospheric. However, they do have a lot of energy, so they can every once in a while break something like a molecule. Broken molecules are ions, and Ions have a charge. If a charged particle is in proximity to water molecules, it can attract them. Friendly water molecules, lead to droplets, and those are… Clouds.

    Only problem you don’t see it really. Air that is very clean can even become supersaturated with water sometimes. More water than it is technically happy to have in it, but still it does not turn to a liquid droplet. It remains a gas, as long as no one slams a door or something.

    If I were explaining this to someone who needed in-depth information, I’d be talking about nucleation, boundary-layers, and Cloud condensation nuclei… What this means is, that the water does not just form droplets of liquid, or just change physical state for no reason. That change is called Nucleation, gas to liquid, liquid to gas, etc. Usually the Nucleation, or droplets of water if you will, form abound particles of dust in the atmosphere. It’s always there, but usually around 1/100 the size of the droplet. Smoke particulate, very fine dust, sulfur particulate pollution. Those are called Cloud condensation nuclei.

    But, they were looking to see if the clouds could form by cosmic rays impinging on atmospheric atoms/molecules. No one thought it would be a big thing, but boys and their toys, and scientist and their data, turn on ray gun.

    The guy giving the report, speaking to other scientists concluded:

    “… However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid [i.e. aerosols] are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.”

    Pretty obvious, bigger suspended molecules and pollutants ,etc., make it happen a little faster than in just clean But it’s Insufficient to account for any observed cloud formation.

    The Op Ed Guy, Assuming people would not understand the above, and were dumb wrote things like this:

    New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun – not humans

    Of course when people questioned some of the post, many from the denial lobby said that scientist had covered up the real science.

    No, I don’t understand that either, since we had the scientist’s quote from the CERN laboratory, and the Op Ed. pieces explaining it.

    Link to this
  195. 195. Coffey3c 6:27 am 03/22/2012

    194. jburack:

    Since so much that has been posted here is either outright lies, or misdirection, the vast majority of that falling into political motives, pseudo scandal, and innumerable claims that the Science done by the scientists isn’t really science, what would the point in that. Especially since I’ve just been explaining a little bit of the science, and someone didn’t recognize it.

    CoffeyC

    Link to this
  196. 196. nonbeliever 6:30 am 03/22/2012

    A New World Order is listed on Wikipedia as a conspiracy theory. hmmmmm

    Link to this
  197. 197. fergy 6:47 am 03/22/2012

    And the REAL motive for the Global Warming/Climate Change hype rears it’s ugly head……….

    Link to this
  198. 198. saduslover 6:52 am 03/22/2012

    First,the terms “effective” and “government” are mutually exclusive. Second, apprently the mag should be called “Political American” if it is going to promote the whole global warming nonsense as “science”.

    Link to this
  199. 199. Coffey3c 6:54 am 03/22/2012

    188. Carlyle:

    To be honest, about things being pulled, I may have found something in the numbering after I was going through something. A number in my notes that did not match what I thought it was. It may be that they pulled several of the more offensive ad hom remarks. I’m honestly not sure, as I did not have a printout of that remark, and only a note on the number.

    There may have been something pulled.

    Coffey3C

    Link to this
  200. 200. jp1021 6:54 am 03/22/2012

    The problem is not one of enforcement. The main “problem” is that well informed people don’t believe global warming is occurring. Global temperatures may be rising; however the root cause (and what if anything, should be done about it) is still undetermined. Until the climate change science matures, it will be premature to make any policy decisions based on global warming theory. The American people understand this.

    A better approach, and one that is not just pie in the sky theory but has actually been proven with a wealth of real data, is to incorporate market based incentives to encourage consumers to make the best decisions.

    Link to this
  201. 201. Lowcal62 6:58 am 03/22/2012

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

    Link to this
  202. 202. Coffey3c 7:01 am 03/22/2012

    In appreciation for entertainment, and the time I enjoyed confirming facts that were in dispute, and looking things up in general.

    I offer the following link to the video of the late great Groucho Marx singing “Whatever it is, I’m against it!” in the aptly named “Horse Feathers, and ably sung in homage to the Venerable Grand sire of the cause, Prof. Quincy Adams Wagstaff:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7cry-4pyy8

    Link to this
  203. 203. NHPatriot 7:06 am 03/22/2012

    World government is not the answer and opens up tyranny. Thanks for being the political arm of the NWO Scientific America, you have lost all credibility.

    All of you bashing ErBarker do not know your history at all. The earth does go through cycles of warming and cooling. You greenies are laughable. Do you not know that the medieval warm period, which was around 900 AD to about 1250 AD, was warmer then than it is now? It is dicumented they were growing grapes and making wine Great Britain. It is not warm enough to do that today. So please tell me since you think you have all the answers and are just so smart why was it warmer then? There was no industrial age, the world population was roughly 260 million?

    Link to this
  204. 204. saduslover 7:09 am 03/22/2012

    Coffey3C: You really ought to switch to decaf! If the global warming “science” is so obvious and convincing, you must be way smarter than many international scientists who still question both the “science” and the conclusions. This has been complicated by the global warming “scientific community’s” own deception, lies, and arrogance. What most people really wish for is an honest, intelligent, and non-political discussion of the science and data.
    That this is so difficult to achieve is due much more to the political-bent of the warming advocates than of those who question. There really are three separate, important questions- 1.) Is global warming real and permanent? 2.) If it is, is it due to man-controlled activities? 3.) And…if THAT is so, what is the best means to mitigate the effects.

    The “Freakonomics” authors focus on an important aspect of examining controversial issues…mainly, look for the motivations before judging the behaviors. In the case of global warming, much of the claims come from academics who benefit from the belief that global warming is a problem by getting grants to study the issue. And…politicians support global warming because it gives them an opportunity to increase governments’ size and power under the guise of controlling emissions, energy sources, etc. etc.

    Follow the money!

    Link to this
  205. 205. WBSMKen 7:12 am 03/22/2012

    Clearly the “enlightened one” lash out at the voices who point out a few holes in the theory of climate change cause.

    “Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” … They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement… Science magazine helpfully refused to publish the findings, by the way.” – Chris Horner

    Like typical liberal fascists, many protecting the ruse of “Global warming = increased CO2″, they will attack the messenger and never address the counter evidence brought to them. As a licensed detective, I leave the area of expertise to the experts but I do monitor each sides evidence and willingness to share data.

    There is no evidence in the fossil or geological record suggesting high levels of CO2 preceded a warming trend but climate change advocates insist this time it will create one.

    What I see here instead is an elaborate smash and grab by politicians, scientists and activists who are creating wealth for themselves and forcing others to endure financial hardship.

    If the science is settled, why do we see scientists lying on record in emails? Why are people like Senator John Kerry voting to continue funding grants to further global warming cause research?

    Al Gore is the voice of global warming alarmists yet he creates immense pressure on America to crush CO2 output while he praises China who is in the midst of building their planned 2,000 coal burning, electricity generating plants?

    This is the biggest smash and grab scandal of the century, Nothing more.

    Link to this
  206. 206. cassiusclay 7:29 am 03/22/2012

    Bullshit.

    Link to this
  207. 207. Emma53 7:31 am 03/22/2012

    Although human beings and many other animals would do well with no CO2 at all in the air, there is an upper limit that we can tolerate. Inhaling air with a concentration of a few percent, similar to the concentration of the air we exhale, hinders the diffusional exchange of CO2 between the blood and gas in the lung. Both the United States Navy (for submariners) and nasa (for astronauts) have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the Navy recommends an upper limit of about 8000 ppm for cruises of ninety days, and nasa recommends an upper limit of 5000 ppm for missions of one thousand days, both assuming a total pressure of one atmosphere. Higher levels are acceptable for missions of only a few days.

    We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a very wide range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than to the upper end. The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years—and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings.
    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases

    Link to this
  208. 208. JcScientific144 7:32 am 03/22/2012

    One need only search the terms ‘Himalayan Glacier Mistake’ to bring up the London Guardian article “IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers . . . Senior members of the UN’s climate science body admit a claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 was unfounded”.

    Of course the head of this body at the time, one Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, was not a scientist or even a climate scientist, but a railroad engineer.

    In fact I’m not even sure I see any actual science being discussed in this ‘Scientific American’ article in the first place; if the Himalayan glaciers are receding, then why do we see only one picture here and not the year-over-year photographs proving the author’s point?

    In fact there is no global warming and I just flew from Eastern Europe this winter where in the northern Ukraine people were suffering record COLD temperatures and DYING, to include many workers suffering devastating frostbite that require amputation of all their toes!

    And flying back over the Atlantic, between Greenland and Newfoundland, over the ocean I could see ONLY ice floes that stretched all the way to the horizon – I couldn’t see any open ocean!

    GIVE IT UP you one-world government types! We’re not going to pay your stinking carbon tax!

    Link to this
  209. 209. DLEMD 7:37 am 03/22/2012

    What a crock! I thought this was Scientific American. Change the name to “Internationalist Journal of Totalitarin Control and Social Engineering”. This is scary stuff. Who are you to decide that we must instill “a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries”? Typical communist tactic. Scare the populace with a phony crisis in order to control them, seize and redistribute wealth. You ask, “Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations”? Of course not! Your WHOLE article reveals your dictatorial aspirations – but of course you’re a “scientist” and your motives are pure. You muse about “recruiting all seven billion of us to act in unison” – utopian drivel. Show me any group of more than 100 people, other than your global warming cadres, that has acted in unison. Perhaps your most laughable point is your call to replace one ineffective U.N. commission with another U.N. council that is guaranteed to be even less effective, larger, more corrupt, and more expensive. Who picks up the tab for all this bureaucratic nonsense? The U.S. taxpayer, of course. All while China and India are exempted. Why not start by cleaning house at the U.N. and reveal all of the corruption and lies surrounding their climate warmist agenda?

    Link to this
  210. 210. Hopleyyeaton 7:48 am 03/22/2012

    Gary:
    Find a cave.
    Dwell there.
    Dress in fallen leaves.
    Eat berries, also fallen.
    Live by sun time.
    Die in winter.
    Gaia thanks you.

    Link to this
  211. 211. LysanderSpooner 7:49 am 03/22/2012

    Disregarding the moral assumptions in anything prescribing what the mythic “WE” needs to do; this is not a scientific proposal at all. Rather, the clamouring for inacting a policy or rather a slew of policies by a newly minted organization, is the height of emotional recationism.
    In controls engineering, as with many fields of scientific endevaor, there are many stages that are involved prior to unvieling a new “solution” to a problem. First among them is creating a system model and running simulations with the proposed controller. Then the first round of prototypes are constructed, applied, and tested. Many iterations of these two steps occur before anyone rolls out a “solution.”
    The idea is to get the solution correct before large investments are made, and before customers suffer the effects of poorly concieved ideas.
    So in conclusion- the notion of “we” and “us” is sloppy thinking-particular groups exist but there is no grand united “we.” This failure to identify specifics remains throughout the article as a solution is proposed without any reference to a system model, simulations, and/or prototypes. I dislike the prospect of being ruled-especially by fools.

    Link to this
  212. 212. Al Gored 7:54 am 03/22/2012

    ‘Global warming’ gets a rebranding
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74263.html

    “Shhhh! Don’t talk about global warming!”

    Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/

    I used to enjoy SA.
    When I was young.
    Hey SA,
    Even Al Gore is moving forward and is onto a new scam.
    Time to give it up SA.
    Your looking foolish.

    Link to this
  213. 213. Peps13 8:02 am 03/22/2012

    “n principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere”… Oh, yes, that pesky chaotic political sphere, where people stupidly insist in governing themselves, instead of submitting to their pompous, bombastic betters. This article is the perfect example of why people distrust and disdain voices on the left. And those voices have — most unfortunately — bled into science to such a degree that average citizens are also learning to distrust science. Sad.

    Link to this
  214. 214. OldCoot 8:10 am 03/22/2012

    Will somebody, anybody, please get the hook! We’ve all just about had enough of this global warming hoax as an excuse to introduce the Satanic New World Order. Scientific American and this guy, Gary Stix (whoever the heck he is)need to stay in their echo chamber and talk to each other. Please spare intelligent the rest of the population from this quackery.

    Link to this
  215. 215. Techboom 8:23 am 03/22/2012

    Mars has been warming and cooling during the same time periods that the Earth has been. Does Mars need a world government too? Let’s get real “scientists”, the Earth is actually cooling again and has been for around 10 years. The reason the planets have been warming and cooling together in time is because the sun is causing these cycles. Scientists know this but are getting too much funding from the government to admit it. If we are horn swoggled into a world government for this reasoning, we deserve what we ultimately get! I used to believe in a one world government, and that we were solely responsible for climate change, then I did my homework! Both concepts were developed to usher in world dominance, while we all cheer it’s arrival.

    Link to this
  216. 216. Al Gored 8:40 am 03/22/2012

    @178. Vendicar Decarian

    Your comment seems to say a lot about what goes on here.

    Link to this
  217. 217. bobdee 9:11 am 03/22/2012

    Effective World Government is an oxymoron!
    Stop geoengineering and “environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)” accomplished through High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP)and we can all live happliy everafter =)
    And always remember…Political Correctness is Social Dementia… Unless plain speaking is allowed, clear thinking is denied.

    Link to this
  218. 218. buddy199 9:22 am 03/22/2012

    “The debate is over.”

    When is a complex scientific debate ever “over”?

    Debate and contesting the current theory are what drive science forward.

    Climate science has devolved into Leftist pseudo-science. Or worse, Global Warming Religon.

    Link to this
  219. 219. jayguy10000 9:49 am 03/22/2012

    ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

    Link to this
  220. 220. ProjMayhem 9:52 am 03/22/2012

    This is another example of an elitist windbag. Blah, Blah, Blah. global governance.. blah climate change blah… Add to this the comments… Peak oil… blah
    HARRP (wtf?!) GMO food … blah… Please leave me, my family, my wallet and my freedom alone. I will work to support me and mine peaceably. The world was here waaaaaaay before us and will be here wayyyyy after us. Everything will be just fine.

    Link to this
  221. 221. jayguy10000 9:54 am 03/22/2012

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

    Link to this
  222. 222. jayguy10000 10:03 am 03/22/2012

    I cannot add much to the great comments already made here. However, i will add my voice to the “are you kidding me” group.

    World government would be ten times worse that what we have now. People are not good at governing. They become too corrupt to quickly.

    Our gig is to ride this planet not control it or break it down to our whimsical control of it and of each other.

    We are passengers on this ball in space and we should try to enjoy the ride. When the ball wants us off, we should just accept that nothing lasts forever and we will have had our time.

    The ball will continue to spin on without us. No one will care, nor hard will have been done.

    Link to this
  223. 223. jrboss93 10:07 am 03/22/2012

    Is there any science in this article? The author argues for one world order, and says it is justified because change is difficult. …but he never mentions WHAT change, or WHY it is necessary. The author is apparently arguing this is more of a Change Management issue and less of a technological issue … but he clearly doesn’t understand the first thing about Change Management. An authoritarian regime controlling the whole world is not an effective change management strategy. The most effective strategy is to build the case for why the change in necessary … and this article seems like they have given up on that and just want one world order with an iron fist to make it happen. …now there’s some high-level thinking.

    Link to this
  224. 224. lel2007 10:08 am 03/22/2012

    I’m embarrassed for Scientific American publishing this political crap. I’m just an ignorant John Dow who suspects that if global warming is occurring it has something to do with the Sun and not CO2. I’m certainly not will to surrender my freedom to a One World Government under the pretense of saving mother Earth from Carbon Dioxide. Shame on you Scientific American.

    Link to this
  225. 225. tatanka 10:10 am 03/22/2012

    This piece shows the underlying utopian movement below the surface of the ‘climate change’ community. The author believes that only a ‘utopian’ tyrannical authoritarian government can lead us out of climate disaster. To these academics who treat ‘climate change’ like religion it is just like Genesis 19 and the destruction of Sodom. All this is based on falsificationism and not the scientific method. In what world is it the job of a ‘scientific’ publication to publish a paper promoting global tyranny?

    Link to this
  226. 226. TwoEyedJack 10:11 am 03/22/2012

    Coffey3, It is not incumbent on me to disprove your theory. It is incumbent on you to prove it. I have seen the research on AGW and it does not pass the laugh test. As I said before, least squares curve fitting, computer models that don’t even pass a Monte Carlo test, and anecdotal evidence don’t even come close to proving anything one way or another. And governments spend more $ on climate research than industry by far (40:1 or so). And ever since Algore was VP, the *only* research that the government will fund is to investigate human-caused factors.

    I do not object at all to the inquiry. The question “does man’s activity influence global temperatures” is valid. Where I strenuously object is when people who should know better claim that they have an irrefutable answer and then impact my life with higher costs, taxes, and ever expanding government power.

    The same government that claims they need more and more control over my life to keep people who won’t be born for hundreds of years a little cooler has run up debts that cannot possibly ever be paid back and will enslave our children and grandchildren. This is a fraud, pure and simple. Luckily, the people are starting to wake up and reject the whole thing.

    Link to this
  227. 227. frustrated 10:12 am 03/22/2012

    How arrogant are humans to think that the climate will stop changing simply because a few scientist decided to write down the temperature. The climate of the planet has been changing since it began, otherwise none the ice ages would have either started of finished. Global climate change happened before homo-sapiens walked the earth and will continue long after the species is gone. I wish politicians would stop using the ruse of global climate change to try to grab more power.

    Link to this
  228. 228. dktampa 10:14 am 03/22/2012

    Green is the new Red. Give me Liberty or give me death. I, and millions like me, have as much chance of giving into this one world government BS peaceably as our Dear Leader has of becoming a free market capitalist (teleprompter treatise aside). We all know that climate change is real. Evidence demonstrates that climate has changed wildly throughout the eons and logic suggests that it will continue to do so. Using the natural order of things so as to justify the political changes demanded is an outrage and it isn’t going to happen without upheaval. We are getting cleaner and greener all the time as a consequence of technical innovation and advancement. We don’t need, want or will accept one-world government come hell or high water (if even it is from the melting polar ice caps).

    Link to this
  229. 229. tbirdey 10:14 am 03/22/2012

    It goes without saying that controlling everyone on earth and their behavior is going to be a hard way to address climate change issues that may arise in the future.

    As a computer specialist, I always make sure to have at least two similar and well-protected computers to work with. If one has issues, I can use the other one as I “fix” the one with issues.

    In addition to all the thoughtful ideas on saving the globe from climate change by attempting to control the behavior of humans, in my opinion it is imperative that we find at least one other place in the universe where we can live. Even huge expenditures of resources would be worth having a “fail over” option for mankind.

    Link to this
  230. 230. stargirl 10:18 am 03/22/2012

    “Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?”
    what kind of joyless life would that be—always dreading imminent catastrophe, made to feel guilty for using resources, and ceding control over ones life to an authority whose sole interest is their own perpetuation and enrichment?

    Link to this
  231. 231. phantomguy 10:19 am 03/22/2012

    There’s no such thing as “effective world government”. This is every bit as much of a lie and a hoax as is the fantasy of “global warming”. This is a deceitful attempt by handfuls of the world’s Socialists and their Utopian visions, to enslave the entire world population by means of what they believe is the best alternative to war in order to brainwash the population into believing that a handful of elitists can more effectively manage their affairs than individuals can.

    Link to this
  232. 232. dopplerspotter 10:22 am 03/22/2012

    Just what we need a one world government with unlimited power, nullifying our Constitution. Seriously? After reading this tripe, I now see why no one takes climate change without laughing.

    For Scientific american to publish poppycock with no science, just hot air is beyond me.

    Link to this
  233. 233. mikefolkwa 10:23 am 03/22/2012

    No one is buying your “The Sky is Falling!” BS – This is simply a Fascist power grab… Welcome to the new ‘Mafia’ – They’re called your friendly, local Central Bank via the UN.

    Link to this
  234. 234. bgarland 10:38 am 03/22/2012

    Finally the socialists are coming out and admitting their true agenda behind the whole global warming / climate change scam. Note to Marxists: you never fooled us.

    Link to this
  235. 235. ajnock 10:48 am 03/22/2012

    A One World Government? What a “great” idea. Let me ask this author (or anyone else who thinks a One World Government is a “great” idea) the following question(s):

    If you are left-wing, were you happy being governed by Bush for eight years?

    or:

    If you are right-wing, are you happy being governed by Obama for the past four years?

    If you have answered “No” to either of the above questions, then tell me how happy you would be if the above person that you were not happy was governing the United States were governing the ENTIRE PLANET?

    Why would anyone (except a dictator himself) want to put that much power into the hands of any other human being(s)?

    Link to this
  236. 236. Jim Clarke 10:49 am 03/22/2012

    Let us compare two things that took place during the 20th Century that can impact the well-being of humanity: climate change and government. Specifically, let us look at global warming and the type of government espoused in this opinion piece; a government seeking additional powers to protect and enforce a noble cause.

    There is little argument that the global lower atmospheric temperature warmed during the 20th century. To date, there have been no deaths attributed to this warming. There has been little property loss attributed directly to this warming. In fact, it is difficult to find any significant negatives associated with this warming at all! When we factor in the positives, like improved growing conditions for agriculture, one can even argue that the warming has been a net positive.

    Now let us compare governments that have restricted freedom of individuals to protect or enforce a noble cause. Among these we can list the Communist governments of Mao and Stalin, Hitler’s Germany, Pol Pots Khmer Rouge, and even the economically enforced ban of DDT that would prevent malaria in Africa. There are many more, but these alone will suffice. Please, do not make me list the deaths and misery caused by these actions of governments and bureaucracies.

    Isn’t it obvious that the real threat to humanity is our own government institutions, not climate change?

    Here is the formula for misery:

    1. Adopt a noble cause
    2. Exaggerate the threat to that noble cause
    3. Claim to have the only viable solution to the threat.
    4. Vilify any opponent as being against the noble cause.
    5. Extract freedom from the populace to enact your solution.

    This formula has been followed throughout history to garner power and enslave the masses in misery, and now we see it again with global warming. Certainly, the threat has been exaggerated. The only solution offered is mitigation (not technology or adaptation). Those who point out the problems with the exaggerations and solutions are vilified as being ‘deniers’ and pawns of ‘Big Oil’ and therefore, against the environment (the noble cause). And now we have a blatant call for the 5th and final step in Scientific America (and many other places).

    Have we learned nothing from our own history? Are we really going to fall for this again?

    Link to this
  237. 237. constantvigil 10:52 am 03/22/2012

    Bad conclusion from a bad premise: Anthropogenic global warming is at best bad science and at worse fraud or should I say world propaganda: the “theory” is inept: MWP with a global temp of 1-2 degrees above todays global temp without catastrophic flooding (2010 Greenland ice core study); the heat loss to space is much greater than the theory predicts; Water vapor is 10 times more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 – there is negative feedback for both water vapor and CO2; Sun spot activity is a better predictor of temp than CO2 levels; The theory is at best problematic and thus doesn’t warrant any alarm.

    Link to this
  238. 238. BobM54 10:54 am 03/22/2012

    Funny this author use the classic moonbat Himalayan Glacier scare story as his lead in picture.

    This has been totally dis-proven….
    “The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

    The study is the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains

    Link to this
  239. 239. RoxyMarie 10:55 am 03/22/2012

    All this talk about an “Effective World Government” has to stop. That’s all we need, all power in the hands of a few over all countries. Sounds sinister to me,

    Link to this
  240. 240. Gtjohn 11:02 am 03/22/2012

    This article explains why i canceled my subscription to this, once great, magazine. I wanted to read about science, not politics. This entire article is BS and assumes that we humans know everything about climate, which we do not. In fact, we actually know very little. The Earth will go on and nothing we do will change it. We can certainly clean up our act somewhat but mother nature will control climate, not us. All it takes is one giant volcano eruption (yellowstone ), one asteroid hit, ocean currents changing, jet stream changing, poles reversing, etc. We humans are mere guests on this giant ball and when we wear out our welcome we will become extinct like the dinosaurs.

    Link to this
  241. 241. constantvigil 11:03 am 03/22/2012

    The only people still pushing the failed anthropogenic global warming theory are either tyrant propagandists or ignorant – which one are you?

    Link to this
  242. 242. Deuce_The_Two_Cats 11:04 am 03/22/2012

    Two observations:
    1). This world has had cycles of Ice Ages and arming lasting approx. 10,000 years.The last of the ice ages in human experience (often referred to as the Ice Age) reached its maximum roughly 20,000 years ago, and then gave way to warming. Sea level rose in two major steps, one centered near 14,000 years and the other near 11,500 years. We are still in the midst of the latest Ice Age. To presume to change this cycle is hubris.

    2). Even if we could we will not. Does anyone think thye west will radically change their lifestyle? Or China/India/Brazil stop their full speed ahead economies? China’s per capita wage is $3000 year. Or poorer countries from emulating China/India?

    No. The reality is we will simply adjust or die. As we always have. The political desires of the few will not overcome the economic/cultural demands of the many.

    Link to this
  243. 243. Deuce_The_Two_Cats 11:11 am 03/22/2012

    Another observation:
    The last of the ice ages in human experience (often referred to as the Ice Age) reached its maximum roughly 20,000 years ago, and then gave way to warming. Sea level rose in two major steps, one centered near 14,000 years and the other near 11,500 years. However, between these two periods of rapid melting there was a pause in melting and sea level rise, known as the “Younger Dryas” period. During the Younger Dryas the climate system went back into almost fully glacial conditions, after having offered balmy conditions for more than 1000 years. The reasons for these large swings in climate change are not yet well understood.

    To concentrate on only OUR time is myopic. To suggest a World Government when none but the most local governments are generally unresponsive is asking for revolution. While seeming a dream it can only evolve into a nightmare.

    Link to this
  244. 244. exhunter49 11:15 am 03/22/2012

    Man-made global warming is fraud, pure and simple. CO2 levels have been 7-8 times higher in the past even when the earth was in an ice-age. CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature changes, by about 800 years. The AGW alarmists have NO real data to support their wild claims, and have resorted to manipulating past temperature records to show current levels are unprecedented. There is absolutely no justification for changing the temperature records of the past, but James Hansen at NASA is doing so on a constant basis. Another favorite method of creating a ‘warming world’ is to cherry pick the temperature recording stations you use, such as eliminating those at higher altitudes and latitudes. When this is done, voila – those remaining are in warmer locations, so the ‘average’ is warmer. I am an engineer who has studied this issue for over 12 years, and if I used the same level of ‘science’ as these alarmists, every one of my projects would have failed miserably and I would have been looking for another line of work years ago.

    Link to this
  245. 245. Mfixx 11:17 am 03/22/2012

    modern-day equivalent of class struggle. Climate change is an easily understood, historically inevitable concept in Marxist Science designed to help the Party to crush capitalism & institute a Global Socialist Revolution. In the absence of classical Marxist preconditions for the Revolution (global crisis of capitalism combined with massive poverty and despair), Global Warming stands out as the most convenient replacement thereof, providing both the means to manipulate the masses and a moral justification for doing so. As such it replaces the previously promising but failed agitprop tools as “Overpopulation,” “Ozone Holes,” “Global Famine,” and “Ice Age 2.” Until the time when it gets replaced by another convenient agitprop tool, Climate change must remain an unquestionable dogma in all political discussions (you will be notified of any change, if any, by NPR and the New York Times.) The importance of Global Warming for the Revolution is too great to leave it in the hands of scientists. The masses must believe that it is beneficial to have faith in Climate change whether it can be proven or not (see Pascal’s Wager). If Global Warming didn’t exist it would be necessary to invent it.

    Link to this
  246. 246. josephofsteel 11:18 am 03/22/2012

    I read several posts that speculate that part of the trouble in ‘convincing’ skeptics of the ‘realities’ of global warming is the poor manner in which science is presented and communicated to the general public.

    I would postulate that acknowledgement of this is essential in moving forward in any unified terms.

    Communication, in a systems sense, is NOT what you SAY. Communication is, in practice, the RESULTS of what you say.

    In this context, while global warmists BELIEVE they are communicating the pertinent facts that should convince any rational mind that warming is real; what they are really communicating is that they have NO tangible scientific solution.

    What the skeptics hear is simply: Redistribute wealth, raise taxes, central government. So, why would someone expect them to jump on board the science….when the science is offering no tangible scientific solution?

    I fully understand that in THEORY, redistribution, taxation and central government might be capable of advancing behavior and practices that could impact in a positive way the inputs that are affecting the climate system: However, it must be understood that ALL of these suggestions are fully capable of being abused….and HAVE all been abused in myriad ways over the centuries.

    So, when the ‘science’ world suggests that solution for a ‘science’ problem are rooted in politics (specifically in political means that have a history of being used in extreme and hurtful ways); why is there ANY surprise at all from the science world that many don’t believe them?

    The fact is: The onus is on the science world to come up with tangible alternatives that can and will gain popular acceptance. Pretending that redistribution, taxes and centralized government will be the ultimate solutions is kind of naive. And even more naive is pretending that these solutions won’t be fully abused by power seekers.

    Link to this
  247. 247. exhunter49 11:21 am 03/22/2012

    More Global Warming Alarmist Drivel
    I have lost all respect for Scientific American. This is why I gave up my subscription years ago & have not been surprised with the continuing downward spiral in honesty and integrity. This is just another in a long list of ‘scientific’ articles pushing a watermelon agenda, control of our lives through energy usage. The earth has been warmer several times during this ice-age cycle, not even counting prior ice age warm periods. When the earth entered this last ice age, the global temperatures plummeted, but the CO2 levels remained high for several thousand years. How could that be if CO2 controls climate?
    It was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Climate Optimum, etc. The CO2 levels have usually been much, much higher over most of the planet’s geological history. There was one period where the CO2 levels were about 10 times higher than present, yet the earth was in an ice age. By the way – where are the news articles trumpeting the fact that the earth has been cooling slightly over the past 15 years, even while the CO2 levels have increased 7-8% during the same time?
    These alarmists have NO empirical data, but rely only on computer models, which are easily programmed to get predetermined answers. What ‘real’ data they do get is often manipulated, distorted, or hidden to ‘fit’ their agenda. (See the Climate Gate d-mail files.) The only ‘warming’ they can claim is entirely due to two main factors: 1. Urban Heat Island effect where temperature monitors located in cities show warming, because of urban development, and 2. Most of the temperature recording stations in rural or higher elevations have been dropped from the group of those actually used to determine the ‘average’ global temperatures. Remove all temperature monitors which show colder readings and, voila – warmer averages!
    A higher level of CO2 is in effect, airborne fertilizer for plants, which also has the following benefits:
    • Greater resistance to insects & pests
    • Higher resistance to drought
    • Plants grow larger root mass
    • Plants require less water
    • Plants have greater above-ground mass
    • Plants produce more oranges, nuts, wheat, timber, etc.

    Where is the alarm in this?

    Climate responds to changes in the sun (sunspot cycles), natural cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Southern Oscillation, Milankovic cycles, etc., NOT variations in CO2 levels. We only contribute 4% of all CO2 emissions. Humans could revert back to Stone Age conditions and the global temperature would not change enough to measure. Do you really want to live without heating, transportation, lighting, modern food production, jobs, etc.? Stop being sheep following the Al Gore,

    Link to this
  248. 248. marg1 11:24 am 03/22/2012

    “…heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers.”

    Oooh,oooh, (hand waving wildly in the air) pick me to run that! Pick me!! I want to be the one wielding the weapon.

    You may call me the Power Queen.

    My first act will be to line up all hypocritical liberals and force them to live like Ed Begley, Jr. Their first dinner will be tofu baked in their backyard solar ovens. Water will come from their downspouts.

    Link to this
  249. 249. Mr.Slippyfists 11:26 am 03/22/2012

    This is a joke…. The “believers” are mostly people who were brainwashed in a college class by a liberal, or decide that global warming is cool to believe in and use it as a cause for argument. There have been emails released that show that climate data is often times fixed to justify the funding, just like when city workers decide to tear up your street when nothing is wrong with it so that they can support their inflated budget. Anything Al Gore says must be taken at face value, this is the man after all that said he invented the internet, he just wants attention. He is leading a movement of Ecoterrorists, people who have stood up and had very good evidence that this is all a natural occurance have gotten death threats and had their work bashed by the bloc of scientists who believe in this sham.

    Link to this
  250. 250. DJfromSalem 11:32 am 03/22/2012

    Well, at least the progs have actually stated what the agenda is behind all of this climate alarmism actually is

    Link to this
  251. 251. sb36695 11:36 am 03/22/2012

    Keep dreaming! haha

    Link to this
  252. 252. TxnByBrth 11:36 am 03/22/2012

    Averting a Climate Catastrophe is an acceptable reason to form a ‘World Governing Body’…and if not this issue, there will be another, for example: Starvation.

    The evolving ruling class of the world will continue to endeavor forming an all encompassing governmental power to form the foundation for their influence to reach their individual goals/objectives…the people at the bottom of the food chain are merely the subjects to be ruled by this evolving oligarchy. I nominate Bill Clinton or Al Gore as King of the World…

    Link to this
  253. 253. owen39nyc 11:37 am 03/22/2012

    A one-world government that controls every aspect of our lives to control a problem that doesn’t even exist. You are insane.

    Link to this
  254. 254. jackj 11:37 am 03/22/2012

    isnt that why we have the un ha ha ha ha ha ha

    Link to this
  255. 255. speedle 11:38 am 03/22/2012

    Mr. Stix writes, “How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow?”

    I feel your pain Mr. Stix. Conservatives have been stewing over this problem for years in trying to address the economic insanity foisted upon the country by the “Progressives”. You know what I mean I am sure, outrageous deficit funding of entitlements, green projects, social safety nets, etc. The good news is that I don’t think you have to worry so much about the future of mother earth in terms of damage done by mankind. It seems that long before that could happen we will have reduced ourselves to stone age economic societies, and the least of our problems would be Co2.

    Knock Knock. Helloooooooo. Is there anyone around here with any common sense?

    Link to this
  256. 256. Tree Planter 11:40 am 03/22/2012

    “They who would give up Essential Liberty, to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty, nor Safety.” -Benjamin Franklin
    Humans can affect the planet only on a very small scale.
    Humans can affect other humans on a very large scale.
    It is good that we educate one another to keep our planet clean, it is a proactive approach, akin to fire prevention. One world government is a reactive approach, akin to fire suppression, and is not the best idea for the future of mankind…
    Since our planet needs cleaning I suggest you grab a broom and start sweeping, and if you believe that CO2 is a poison start planting some vegetation, either way the exercise will do you good. Jeez Louise, people!
    LIVE FREE OR DIE

    Link to this
  257. 257. brimp 11:41 am 03/22/2012

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. And there isn’t a third time.

    Governments have lied to me so often that I don’t believe any of their propaganda (so called news). The “climate scientists” do not seem to be scientists for they don’t challenge the hypothesis of man-made global warming. “State Of Fear’ explains many of the defects in their “science”.

    Centralization seems like a good idea because of economies of scale and the ability to take action. But the central power becomes a take over target. Once the “bad” people are in control of a world government then we have much bigger problems than the possibility of temperatures rising a few degrees.

    Link to this
  258. 258. Coffey3c 11:42 am 03/22/2012

    206. saduslover:
    44% of what scientists where? Now, even thought over on the keep wikipeida from taking over the world blog, where I’m screaming for sanity all of the time they need to be stopped, they are a quick way to find stuff when you don’t have the facts at hand. There may have been a figure like that somewhere polling oil company geologists, or even back in 1990 or so, there were a lot of people who scientists and those who work around science who didn’t know in didn’t believe. The latest data look quite a bit different.

    I don’t consider myself being smart, really. What I am is a real skeptic. I’m an honest skeptic. I’m a skeptic, who when I see someone making a statement that looks like it might be important, I start looking things up. I’m not comparing my smarts to the many smarter people who agree or disagree. I’m comparing my skepticism, and I’m doing it in the only way it is possible to do so, with an honesty, and a willingness to look into what people try to sell me, and try with books in my lap and a calculator on my desk.

    Not everybody agrees, nor do they need to. In the end, I found out that regardless of how smart I may or may not be, I am finding myself in pretty good company, and that at least I was not stupid enough that I could not track down sources and reasons for he sell job that is being perpetrated on the American people who want ten more years of selling oil at whatever price they want.

    I mean I believe in technology. Every cell phone, toaster… I know where they came from. A semi-intelligible scientist, a hardworking engineer. The real question is, why is it that there is not action by an individual or government, natural disaster, or sudden three mile shift by stampeding caterpillars, or a flutter of a star in the nighttime sky, that isn’t a sufficient and obvious reason to raise the price of oil by ten cents? And why is it that when they find the governments did the opposite, or that the Caterpillars were actually asleep, the price will thank goodness drop back down five cents. Why is it that anyone would listen to those people about anything having to do with their self interest? Figure out why anyone would, and I’ll be calling you smart, and willingly.

    I am actually the biggest skeptic to anyone on either side of any argument who try to sew garbage or pseudo science: The most dangerous incredulously doubtful skeptic on here. Science is really all about what you don’t know, or what you doubt or can’t explain, and the first step is to look very carefully at what you’re supposed to think you know, and carefully go on from there.

    Look at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    To quote a caption:

    97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming.[106] In another study 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of earth scientists, broadly construed, say that significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn’t, most were unsure.[107]

    CoffeyC

    Link to this
  259. 259. cediii 11:43 am 03/22/2012

    All of this for a “might”? ~ “Human societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change.”

    Is it or isn’t it? If we eliminate 20% of the humans how much time can we buy? How about 90%?

    Link to this
  260. 260. alogar 11:45 am 03/22/2012

    Alas, Scientific American has debased its image over the many years since I first picked up an issue: It has become painfully and myopically politicized – as evidenced by its obtuse support of the unfortunately widespread, infectious and erroneous theory of AGW – now embraced by many otherwise perfectly nice people, with fervor reserved for religious dogma, but based on collusion, massaged data, much self-interest and painfully little rational science (and a lot of hot air). To shake up all those “scientists’ I offer a simple example which does rely on reasoning by analogy – frothed with danger admittedly – but nonetheless suffused with rational logic.

    According to Newton’s Second Law of Motion, if the venerable Queen Mary were set to float freely, absent any other forces, and a clothes line attached to the bow were to be pulled by even just one person, the ship would respond to the steady application of that (weak) force by eventually moving – at first ever-so-slowly – and then faster and faster. BUT, there would be a great time-delay between the application of that comparatively tiny pulling force and a resultant perceptible motion of the relatively enormous mass and its inherent inertia.

    Though Newton’s Second Law may have little direct bearing on global climate – it has everything to do with illustrating the absolute necessity of applying common sense in attempting to evaluate the essence of even the most complex physical systems. The Queen Mary metaphor serves to debunk the basis of the Global Warming alarmists’ argument that man is the cause of a global warming trend which started circa 1850, with the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Note the following: Climatologists associate the term “forcing” with various effects that induce climatic changes as in, for example, atmospheric energy levels. Also, there is universal agreement that carbon dioxide is a weak greenhouse gas, hence its “forcing” capabilities are also weak.

    All that having been said, let’s take another look at the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) argument first noting the following: The proponents of AGW are saying that, right from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when there were no automobiles, very few steam engines, only 1.2 billion people (versus today’s 7 billion), the introduction of initially tiny quantities of a weak greenhouse produced, without time-delay, an in-phase and measurable rise in global temperatures that continues to this day (except for dropping temperatures from 1940 to 1970). That is like saying the application of a weak force to an enormous mass sets that mass into immediate and measurable motion. That does not happen in simple mechanical systems nor would it in enormously complex and massive systems such as our atmosphere.

    Link to this
  261. 261. robertg222 11:48 am 03/22/2012

    We are better off with climate catastrophe then we would be with a world government. But on the bright side. There will be no climate catastrophe unless we all start living inside of a computer model because that is the only place such a catastrophe will ever exist.
    http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html
    http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html

    Link to this
  262. 262. Mr.Slippyfists 11:49 am 03/22/2012

    This whole this is a joke it is just the U.N. and the the powerful looking to gain more control over the masses. Al Gore just wanted attention, he did also proclaim that he invented the internet! Most people who say this is real are people who watch msm, were brainwashed in college by some liberal douche, or are gaining something from this scam. How many people who swear up and down by this do you see riding a bike to work? Last time I was out in Cali. about 95% of the cops I saw were driving around in huge SUVs, it is another one of those “do as I say not as I do”. The sad thing is anyone who stands up with proof that it is a sham, are attacked by pro warmers and the msm, which includes death threats. I also recall reading how the carbon credits, were traded through private companies…… How about using that carbon credit to go rebuild the precious rainforest they are always complaining about? The U.N. is once again over stepping is authority, the global gov. will never happen it is wishful thinking by left progressives, who always assume they know what is best for everything and if you disagree with them you are mentaly inferior or should be killed. There have been people who have made engines that run on water, which produce little to no carbon emissions, but they always seem to have a funny way of disappearing along with their work. I live by a nuke plant and hunt and fish near it as well, I can say the marshes around it are way more healthy than any marsh I have seen, which is quite a few. To sum it all up, this is all about meaningless paper that people view as a lifesource. I bet the global warming scientists would like to see one unified world gov. so they can get more money. If we were in that big of trouble then they would not allow inovators to be silenced, and their work destroyed… Its all about the pay check!!!!

    Link to this
  263. 263. dlynne 11:50 am 03/22/2012

    I would rather slowly choke to death in a haze of greenhouse gases than submit to a one-world government. I can barely tolerate the one-continent government.

    Link to this
  264. 264. John A. Jauregui 11:51 am 03/22/2012

    Let me get this straight, 6 atmospheric CO2 molecules in 10,000 (ie 600 PPM) is causing out of control Global Warming so we need a world socialist totalitarian police state to make it all better. I can guarantee one thing. I will never buy any Scientific American magazines ever again. It is my sincere desire they simply go out of business. You tell me, what are the chances that CO2, which has the lowest Global Warming Potential (1) of all the atmospheric trace gases, has any significant impact on our climate? Besides it enables photosynthesis which keeps this brain dead author breathing. The answer of course is “nil”, and everyone with a couple of neurons to rub together knows it.

    Link to this
  265. 265. AfraidOfReprisals 11:51 am 03/22/2012

    Shame on you. Man made climate change has been almost entirely debunked at this point, and “Scientific” American continues to print this stuff. In the very list, you owe it to your readers to show the viewpoint of those who have followed the scientific process to arrive at a far different conclusion.

    Link to this
  266. 266. josephofsteel 12:02 pm 03/22/2012

    I do ask:

    Why do the climatists NOT share their original data? We don’t know what transformations they apply to the data to get the results they present. This is paramount. As a statistician, I can take original data and transform it to show ANY result I choose.

    By not allowing us the knowledge of how they have applied specific statistical methods…they deprive us the opportunity to fully vet their results.

    I keep seeing warmists in this commentary section talking about how skeptics reject the science.

    Folks, there has been NO real science. Just speculations. A requirement of science is testing the hypothesis. Conducting a proof.

    Warmists won’t allow it. The moment one mentions an issue with their presentations, that person is labeled a hater of science.

    If warmists won’t allow skeptics to indulge in appropriate challenges to their data as means to test/proof the hypothesis…..it is a stretch to call the results ‘scientific facts”.

    Link to this
  267. 267. JoeHoliday 12:12 pm 03/22/2012

    The self interested scientists who keep this myth going should be ashamed of themselves. The latest data show no unusual changes in tempature and global scale warming. It has actually cooled down enough to support the global cooling scenerio. All this is cyclical.
    The World Order talk is simply a way to pry tax money off wealthy nations before socialists like O’Bama destroy their economies.

    Link to this
  268. 268. 87.flint 12:16 pm 03/22/2012

    The earth has been warming for 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age. True or false?
    That warming was natural, not manmade. True or false?

    The warming we see today is a continuation of the natural process. If that isn’t true, when did the manmade global warming begin and the natural global warming end? Please show us the undisputed evidence. Stick with Occam’s Razor until you have proof that the warming is manmade. Sorry, junk science isn’t acceptable.

    Link to this
  269. 269. 87.flint 12:16 pm 03/22/2012

    There is scientific consensus about manmade global warming? Scientific consensus is politics, not science. According to Michael Crichton, “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.” Scientific consensus is about protecting stodgy careers and fat university paychecks. Scientific consensus is dogma. Want some examples of previous scientific consensus screw-ups?
    1. George Washington died in 1799. His doctors used the current scientific consensus of bleeding to cure him. That is, Washington’s doctors used leeches to bleed the pneumonia out of him. The learned doctors took so much blood that they killed Washington. Scientific consensus can hurt you it seems.
    2. Here is a scientific consensus laugher. Remember the planet Pluto? From its discovery in 1930 to 2006 it was considered a planet. On August 24, 2006, the International Astronomical Union voted to change Pluto’s designation from planet to dwarf world. I guess that is how science works now, you just vote on it. Voting is political, not science.
    3. How about this scientific consensus gaffe? Meteorologist Alfred Wegener presented his continental drift hypothesis in 1912. His theory was widely rejected because he lacked a mechanism for continental movement and he wasn’t a geologist. As late as 1953, the theory of continental drift was rejected by geologists, despite mounting evidence, because it went against the prevailing scientific consensus. Jack Oliver is credited with providing seismologic evidence supporting plate tectonics with a paper published in 1968. Why so long in the uptake? Geologists had careers to protect. Thirty years of research and a big paycheck make compelling reasons to stick with outdated theories. Now, continental drift and plate technics are the new scientific consensus.
    4. In the 1920s, geologist J Harlen Bretz speculated that the Channeled Scablands of Washington were caused by massive floods based on his extensive field work. Bretz’ theories met with vehement opposition from liberal, east coast geologists, who tried to explain the features with uniformitarian theories, the scientific consensus of the day. To these antagonists, Bretz’ idea sounded too much like Biblical flooding! Bretz was thoroughly discredited by the liberals and their scientific consensus/dogma. For the next 50 years, Bretz and other geologists collected evidence that eventually identified Lake Missoula as the source of the Spokane Floods and creator of the Channeled Scablands. In 1979 at the age of 96, Bretz received the Penrose Medal — the Geological Society of America’s highest award. After this award, Bretz told his son: “All my enemies are dead, so I have no one to gloat over.”
    5. Want another scientific consensus blunder? In 1982, Doctors Marshall and Warren theorized that the Helicobacter pyloris bacterium caused stomach ulcers. This theory was widely rejected by the medical profession on the grounds that no bacterium could survive in the acidic stomach. Marshall drank a H. pyloris mixture and developed stomach ulcers. He then cured himself with antibiotics. Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005 for their discovery. Scientific consensus is so outdated.

    Link to this
  270. 270. TheLizard 12:18 pm 03/22/2012

    There is already a plan: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_publcorepubli.shtml

    The US is reporting progress: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_ni/ni_pdfs/NationalReports/usa/Full_text.pdf

    Link to this
  271. 271. wjamyers 12:20 pm 03/22/2012

    Anyone else find it amusing that the graphic chosen is of the himilayan glaciers that SURPRISE!! reveal the alarmist “consensus” to be wrong yet again? Wrong at every turn yet we should give these people absolute autocratic power over individuals and sovereigns. Brilliant!

    Link to this
  272. 272. Tom Genin 12:21 pm 03/22/2012

    Hahahaha: “below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm” What a joke of a lie. The average CO2 for the 145 MILLION years before the recent global freeze is 900-3,300 ppm. So the Cretaceous Period, you know, the greatest proliferation of life in the planets history, survived wonderfully on 900-3,300ppv, but 560ppm is now the sky is falling we’re all gonna die number? Lol, sheesh, Scientific American, learn some science before publishing such un-informed tripe.

    Link to this
  273. 273. citizenC 12:22 pm 03/22/2012

    This is worth everyone’s reading.

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

    Link to this
  274. 274. Tom Genin 12:23 pm 03/22/2012

    And seeing as Glaciers are formed during an ice age, why must I keep listening to those who lament them melting after an ice age…it’s so painful. “Mommy, mommy, my ice cream is melting.” “Yes dear, it’s supposed to melt once it’s out of the freezer. Sheesh kid you’re stupid.”

    Link to this
  275. 275. publictakeover 12:26 pm 03/22/2012

    The UN campaign to stave off climate disaster has only been shown to be valid to the vast majority of people in the world. They don’t have the money or power we climate-deniers have, so they’re not digesting the same reconfigured data and corporate messaging our consolidated, military intelligence-controlled mass media provide us. It’s a good thing we have a world-wide empire of military bases and the biggest bloated national defense in history. It will buy us a few more, expensive years to succor at the fountains of grandiose delusions before the rest of the world finally overwhelms us with a remedial dose of poverty, thirst, famine, and reality.

    Link to this
  276. 276. cash$ 12:29 pm 03/22/2012

    Can some scientist explain to me, what kind of shape we would be in right now, if we went ahead and implemented a new world order plan to address the issue of the “New Ice Age” that the same geniuses were convinced would destroy the earth back in the 1970′s?

    Link to this
  277. 277. Southern Writer 66 12:30 pm 03/22/2012

    Thus, then, our descendents will be doomed to live on a wasted world with dwindling resources, and disappearing flora and fauna. No doubt they will not think kindly of us.

    Link to this
  278. 278. JohnLocke 12:39 pm 03/22/2012

    Let me paraphrase this “scientician”

    WE NEED ORDER!!!

    Hmm, where have I heard this before???

    The aim of the IPCC since 1988 has been global power and global taxation to “stop” global warming…..even before they “investigated” it!!!! It’s in their charter, read it!!!

    Link to this
  279. 279. Coffey3c 12:41 pm 03/22/2012

    227. TwoEyedJack
    Mercifully, it is not incumbent on you to prove anything, although your posts seem to indicate that is more in line with your goal. What a person is obligated to do, is to try and at least assure that their facts are reasonable, and that their logic is sound. You can’t know the answers to most thing, and no one asks that; but, it is expected that you at least check some facts, and that your logic is reasonably sound. I’m afraid that is where you didn’t convince me. Not to put too fine a point on it, it wasn’t really close.
    Even though it’s not my theory, because that came around eighty years before I was born, I am at least relieved to tell you, it is comprised of some very basic science that has been predicted, tested, and confirmed many more times than necessary to make an informed person, a person informed of what was tested and how – and not by op ed. disinformation schemes, that it is far enough beyond a reasonable doubt that people should really want to look at the next step of figuring out what steps could and should be taken. Perhaps painful yes, but perhaps something that does not crash our economy, and put people out on the street.
    Right now, the plan seems what people like Senator James Inhofe talk about. We can pump oil as fast as we can, give them as much money as we possibly can, for the next hundred and ten years– In other words, it’s only American to run the wells dry, and then deal with a collapsed economy, in an environment so damaged we may not be able to eat, or people in the northeast are being inundated by cold snowy winters? I would much rather try to reduce the oil consumption, and the greenhouse carbon dioxide emissions as quickly as we can. Cut off any oil from the middle east, the Persian Gulf, Venezuela or anywhere else. Develop the resources we need in this country, and allow a new drive in the science and engineering to move us away from something that’s going to be a train wreck.
    That kind of technical innovation, is what can bring jobs back. That’s what will keep people working now, and in the future. Not by driving off the cliff, while screaming “You’re not taking my job.” New technologies and energy sources. Improving what we have as best we can, and finding ways to move to safer and cleaner technology… Better technology, that always created jobs and stimulates economies, and makes the people in charge think it’s worthwhile to start educating our children again, instead of trying to maintain them at, what is it today?, fortieth in the fee world in math and science?
    I am an opponent of big government. I can’t even be objective about it. People who are doing what is being done right now are openly and quickly destroying everything we ever hoped to enjoy. It’s good that they are largely inefficient, and that our constitution at which I marvel every day keeps them on semi-stretched leash. If they were not, we wouldn’t be allowed to talk about World Governments. The people who owned us wouldn’t like it, and that’s exactly why the more imminent crisis it to take our senators and congressmen away from the people who outbid us for their loyalty. Watch the election. Do we really need more people whose only hope of the job they want, is to pander to the lowest common denominator of not rocking the boat, and wouldn’t call bullshit on a member of their own political machine if they were suffocating in it? If it is, Global Warming is just the cherry on top of that disaster.
    The flip side is, that sometimes we have to have a government that can act for the common good. There needs to be one, take action and promulgate laws, to keep everyone safe and on the right track. That, in itself is not a bad thing. We’ve just lost the way in doing that. We certainly don’t need people spending money, that will not help, and that at this point, is theoretical money that comes so far in the future our grand children won’t live to see it, because the economy and the government is being run right into the ground… by the same people who will do anything to get you to support them doing it.
    Al Gore? A rich guy who never had a real job (sorry.), blasting around the sky and making money with picture books. Okay, so he was in a position to be convinced, but he’s not what is this about, or what is at stake.
    No.
    It’s not your job to disprove anything. (Sorry.) But, it is still your job to make better use of the information you can find to push against real problems, whither it’s some aspect of climate science that you have some reason to feel they got wrong, or just some venial interest doing its best to snow you under and sell you down the river.
    When you are serious about that, you start with a question:
    “I saw a piece in the London Daily mail, that says global warming is not true and England is going to freeze. They also have a quaint Christmas card picture of the frozen Themes River from Dickens to convince me, and to get their point across… Anyone know what’s up with that?”
    “Well, Jack, if it’s in their Daily Mail, then you better go and look at the report pretty much automatically, to make sure it is a real government report, and not a panel of concerned subjects and former government ministers. On the other hand, if the gulf stream slows down, which I think I saw somewhere, which is really the British Isles’ central heating… That’s the thing about climate. You mess with it enough, it’s not like everything becomes a warm parkland or a public garden. Prairie seems to turn to desert in one place, where others can actually get much colder and miserable. It’s complicated.”
    CoffeyC

    Link to this
  280. 280. bugstopper 12:44 pm 03/22/2012

    without wasting words, mr. stix you are just another useless idiot (except that you make a good number of people look smart). to scientific american magazine, this sort of bullcrap in your magazine is why many of my acquaintances and i no longer subscribe to the magazine.

    Link to this
  281. 281. Coffey3c 12:46 pm 03/22/2012

    275. cash$:

    Yeah. It would suck so badly that no one would be even care to be worried about ten years down the road. We’d just be trying to keep from being used as a fossil fuel.

    Excellent Question, and when they try to come and get your gun… or take away your vote, or mess with, revise, or improve the first amendment to the constitution – you know what to do.

    CoffeyC

    Link to this
  282. 282. ElPolacko 12:49 pm 03/22/2012

    When will these Algore socialists realize we ARE NOT BUYING THIS SCAM!!!!! They will have to do better than skewed data to push a socialist agenda that will literally destroy the world’s economy. I am not buying any “carbon credits” so I can continue breathing when there are a dozen volcanoes belching CO2 and every other pollutant into the atmosphere. George Soros and Algore will have to “invent” some other phoney crisis if they want us to pay.

    Link to this
  283. 283. ForwardOsmosis 12:50 pm 03/22/2012

    Now dear Sir, which climate catastrophe might we talking about??? The coming ice age that was hyped back in the 70′s??? Or the so called MMGW that is now being hyped by New World Order fools??? By the way, can we do anything to stop the same warming on Mars??? Where MAN isn’t…..

    You MMGW nuts are a hoot.

    Link to this
  284. 284. ForwardOsmosis 12:54 pm 03/22/2012

    “Coffeyc3′s talking points.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf

    Plagiarism is an ugly thing.

    Link to this
  285. 285. TK421 12:56 pm 03/22/2012

    Coffee, I’d like to thank you for your patience in responding to a lot of these posters. I have only read to #200 so far (and not every single one to that point), so I don’t know if anyone has made you aware that almost all posters over the last 24 hours have been funneled to this page via Drudgereport. Usually the comments sections on articles I arrive at via Drudge aggravate me, however due to your patience and wit I’ve found this section entertaining and informative. Once again, thank you.

    Link to this
  286. 286. citizenC 12:57 pm 03/22/2012

    Reconsidering the Climate Change Act Global Warming: How to approach the science.
    Richard S. Lindzen
    Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Seminar at the House of Commons Committee Rooms
    Westminster, London
    22nd February 2012

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

    Link to this
  287. 287. squalus 12:59 pm 03/22/2012

    Liberlism is a mental disorder.

    Link to this
  288. 288. JohnLocke 1:00 pm 03/22/2012

    In high school, in 1988, I was taught about the “theroy” of global warming. In college in 1992 I was taught about the “reality” of Global warming.
    Where did we “prove” it in those 4 years?
    This is, and has always been a lie. It is strictly about political power. This article more or less expresses that frustration. The writer no longer wants to “convince” people what they should do. He wants the power to force them. This has happened countless times in the history of humanity. Religion has wanted the power to enforce it’s beliefs, idiologies have wanted the power to do the same, now big enviro (it’s own new age religion) is making a grab for the brass ring.
    At least the writer, whether on purpose or not, is admitting that this is about politics, power and control. Know your enemy, guard your freedom.

    Link to this
  289. 289. eblair 1:02 pm 03/22/2012

    What is Mr. Stix educational background? There doesn’t seem to be any bio on the SA site, nor on his book. Apparently, the only biographical information he lists is being editor of SA. And apparently, all of his publications are in SA.

    Link to this
  290. 290. Coffey3c 1:05 pm 03/22/2012

    283. ForwardOsmosis:

    Sorry my stuff comes from EPA.gov. IPCC. Wiki. Never saw that, and my talking points come from the posters here. No place else.

    Congratulations on a new low. That actually plumbed the depth of accusations based on what you couldn’t possibly know, and the despicable.

    CoffeyC

    Link to this
  291. 291. rrbouch 1:11 pm 03/22/2012

    Is the World Warming..maybe
    Is Man Kind the Cause…not likely
    Are there Left Wing forces that think they know more than you about how you should live your life….Certainly!

    Don’t hand over your Freedom to some Hippie with a fake cause. How many successful Communist Cultures with fulfilled people can you come up with …. ZERO in the end.

    Link to this
  292. 292. Coffey3c 1:12 pm 03/22/2012

    288. eblair:

    And fortunately editors come and go. I was rereading 1982 issues last night. I miss them very badly. I know a magazine, even one that’s been around nearly two hundred years needs to make a prophet.. oops, I mean a profit, but I can’t point to one change.

    There was one time when I really loved the editors lately:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis#comments

    Everything changes.

    I used to say that they could kill me, but at least they couldn’t eat me, because it was against their own damned ‘religion.’ I’m so damned smart that I was forty before I noticed that their damned ‘religion’ doesn’t actually prevent them A N Y T H I N G.

    CoffeyC

    Link to this
  293. 293. JohnLocke 1:17 pm 03/22/2012

    Dear Coffee. I am sitting in Southern Ontario, Canada at present.
    In the very place where I am sitting, a little over 25 000 years ago, the ice was 2.5 KM thick.
    I am aware of many theories that suggest Humans were far more advanced in our distant past than previously thought (in fact I beleive this, Golbeckli tepe in Turkey is incredible and 7000 yrs older than the pyramids and Stonehenge), however, I am reasonably certain that SUV’s, Haliburton, evil Capitalists, and the U.S.A. did not exist.
    Why am I sitting in an office where 2.5 KM thick ice should be? How did it melt? Why did it melt?
    Our climate “evidence” amounts to, at best, 150 yrs of sometimes sketchy records. Proclaiming that the debate is over concerning “climate chage” is the eqivalent of watching one inning of a baseball game and then announcing you are certain that you know who will win this year’s World Series. In fact you know who the next 100 World series champions will be based on your “overwhelming evidence”. Not only that but you will shout down, demean and disparage anyone who disagrees with your predictions, and call them “deniers”.
    You are a religious zealot. The is no other comparison I can come up with.

    Link to this
  294. 294. Paleoguy 1:24 pm 03/22/2012

    This is why I dropped membership in Scientific American. Rather than treating this issue like any other phenomenon deserving study, they bypassed scientific method completely and immediately declared Global Warming is Real and Must be Stopped. Of course no proof is presented we must just BELIEVE based solely on faith, otherwise known as religion. Having been a geoscientist for more than 35 years and interpreting geoclimate based upon fossil assemblages it’s clear the planet has been FAR hotter, NO ice at all, and far colder, surface covered in ice. This is a political theory that Scientific American has bought into, nothing more.

    Link to this
  295. 295. Coffey3c 1:36 pm 03/22/2012

    285. citizenC:

    Quick scan. I’ll read that report tonight, but just on the surface, look at the graphs. Beware of climate/temprature graphs from 1979 on. It’s a sure indicator of intent. Also be very aware when someone says ‘yes, yes, and yes. but it only goes up one degree.’

    People who are genuinely trying to understand don’t do that.

    We already see more rise than that. If you go back from my post about Co2 and temp rise, I got that data from NOAA and IPCC interviews. To me it looks like about a 42% increase in the best CO2 data, is already over a degree. The new estimates have them drawing increase lines even higher now, and seeming to see changes that they thought they would have another fifty years before they became obvious.

    Assuming this is not just a warm spell in the normal climate fluctuations that there always are, but it really does not look like that.

    You check out this link that Dr.Beiman posted. It’s really very good, and I’m sorry that I was ready to completely discount it, because his very first post made me peg him as a business consultant. Well he sort of is, but he is also a reasonable guy, who can point to some really convenient sources of data. Check out the video interviews on his suggested site:

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/02/17/205516/an-illustrated-guide-to-the-latest-climate-science/

    Oh, and please do check out my post 198 for a decent representation of the mother-of-all-hockey-stick graphs. That is what the best data we have actually looks like.

    Oh, and someone feel free to check my math on that Carbon Dioxide, and temperature increase from some authoritative site like EPA, or NOAA or even better other vetted sources.

    Please feel free to email them to my public email after you post.

    CoffeyC

    Link to this
  296. 296. Al Gored 1:37 pm 03/22/2012

    Apparently comment numbers are not a reliable way to reference previous comments.
    Comment numbers change when other comments are removed.

    Link to this
  297. 297. TeddyNovak 1:39 pm 03/22/2012

    Yes, junior, social engineering is always a killer (ref. 1920s Soviet Union, 1930s Nazi Germany, 1960 Communist China, etc.). This article is in Scientific American? When did “scientists” start wearing bones in their noses and worshiping sun gods? Look, sparky, global warming has been proven to be a fraud and those that slavishly continue to believe in it belong to the Religion of the Stupid. At least your article lays bare the drive to foist this hoax – increased governmental control.

    Take your Kool-Aid somewhere else.

    http://www.zazzle.com/FirstPrinciples

    Link to this
  298. 298. Coffey3c 1:49 pm 03/22/2012

    292. JohnLocke:

    “Our climate “evidence” amounts to, at best, 150 yrs of sometimes sketchy records.” Just not true, and not even close.
    We have some really good data, meaning that which people were not responsible for recording,that goes back much further.

    Me thinks that is an error so egregious and so profound, I’ll just end with a bit of personal experience.

    I saw a minor league game where the top of the dugout fell in on one poor team. I have to say, that based on my direct observation, my prediction was correct.

    All I can say for you is, go to Wikipedia. Look up the ice age. Look up ice cores. Look up climate. Then if you have questions, ask, or look up other site information, and you tell me why the climate warmed up in that exact period, and also look up ‘ShowBall Earth.’ (I do assume you’ve see that, but Climate science as a whole, and not just the current observations and worries is kind of fascinating – even for a Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Math guy like me.

    I always thought Climatology should be moved to the Psychology department. I was very wrong, but didn’t find out till I got interested reading some historical geology books, as in Ye old Geology books. I find things I was wrong or ignorant of every day.

    CoffeyC

    Link to this
  299. 299. Ryan Dyne 1:52 pm 03/22/2012

    agree with erbarker; this kind of nonsense..
    (jumping on the AGW bandwagon early and eagerly)

    ..is why I canceled my subscription to SA years ago.

    It used to be a highly valued publication.

    ..and that’s not to mention this 1984-flavor civilization-ending – and stale – idea

    Link to this
  300. 300. Coffey3c 1:55 pm 03/22/2012

    P.S.

    At least that was in the form of a question Locke, even though it was really a logical absurdity because it presumed the dis-positive data required for the answer did not exist, and thus could never be proven or disproved, and was thus null. At least it gives a place to start. The scientific method is always driven by what we do not know, but never by what we can not know, as it the supernatural.

    Demosthenes

    “Oops. I didn’t want to give my real name.”

    Link to this
  301. 301. theshawn 1:58 pm 03/22/2012

    Reconsidering the Climate Change Act Global Warming: How to approach the science.
    Richard S. Lindzen
    CitizenC – “Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Seminar at the House of Commons Committee Rooms
    Westminster, London
    22nd February 2012

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

    Watch your mouth son, that’s blasphemy what you’re doin’ This is in direct contradiction to my faith in man made climate change sir. If you challenge my faith in man mad climate change, I shall have no choice but to try and eviscerate you publicly for challenging my view of the world.

    Consider yourself warned.

    Signed,
    Anotherglobalwarmingsheep

    Link to this
  302. 302. 141879 2:03 pm 03/22/2012

    Sadly, as a whole our planet has been defined more as a confrontational and non co-operative entity over our history rather than anything more positive that might suggest we have a mutual interest in surviving. With the inequality in wealth I doubt that will change even as we are threatened with climate change, though it is possible the wealthy countries will lead the way, for a price of course.

    Link to this
  303. 303. 1kcent 2:05 pm 03/22/2012

    The scientist in this article and their bogus results, and the writer who bought into this nonsense are the far worst threat to our world.

    Link to this
  304. 304. piskeptic 2:06 pm 03/22/2012

    I stopped my subscription to Scientific America when they stopped supporting the use of scientific method.

    There is no way to measure the temperature of the earth at any one time today, most less 100 years ago.

    Let me repeat that a little differently: With today’s technology, we cannot measure the temperature of the earth.

    Some believe that there is a way to statically sample the temperature of the earth, such that the temperature can be “estimated,” but these samples do not capture the depths of the earth, i.e., we can’t sample the temperature of the earth’s core.

    Without true measurements, we can only create models and these models cannot be verified.

    Additionally, in order to create a good model, you need valid historical data. Even if the data used in the global warming model was actual measurements, the margin of error in any temperature gauge from 100 years ago and the sampling error would exceed the temperature changes that are being suggested as being true.

    What we have is another model created by “massaging” and “cherry picking” data that was used to go backwards in time to predict the temperature 100 years ago.

    Garbage in, Garbage out.

    Link to this
  305. 305. 1kcent 2:32 pm 03/22/2012

    Amen, peskeptic. When the people in charge in our government make decisions that effect eveyone’s daily living….special eco packaging on just about eveything we buy, you name it, were paying more for everything we consume, the only people that are effected are the very poor or soon to be poor. I can afford to buy the $5.00 case of bottled water, or the product that just 4 years was half the price it is now, but many people and some I know, cannot; True life example…I believe it was this last year the EPA made those inhalers that people with breathing conditions, can no longer buy those inhalers over-the-counter. Someone I know used those inhalers was scared and didn’t know what to do. I don’t know what ever happened to that person. I did some research on why the EPA discontinued the inhalers. The reason, the gas in the inhaler was bad for the enviroment. I think it is important that the lights be turned on to who the real danger to our society is. Everybody needs to learn how dangerous these scientist are. I will keep commenting. I won’t go away.

    Link to this
  306. 306. George Turner 2:34 pm 03/22/2012

    Actually, the author of the article may have unintentionally hit upon a brilliant idea.

    Global warming alarmists warn us of a future where hundreds of millions die from famine and disease, hundreds millions more become refugees, cities fall apart and civilization collapses. But this is based on models, guesses, and many unknowns, so nobody can be sure about it.

    By instituting “effective” world government, the uncertainty is removed! Even if the temperatures are unchanged, we WILL see hundreds of millions die from famine and disease, hundreds of millions of refugees, and the collapse of civilization.

    Markets hate uncertainty, and the author’s proposal would remove all doubt about how catastrophically bad the world will get.

    Link to this
  307. 307. ScienceNotPolitics 2:43 pm 03/22/2012

    Scientific American should change their name to Politically Scientific American. I subscribed to Scientific American for decades, but reluctantly cancelled a few years ago as the magazine turned increasingly political and increasingly left-wing/PC… too much political advocacy, not enough real science.

    Link to this
  308. 308. mershad 2:49 pm 03/22/2012

    Why do you lie? Why do you pander to the elites? EVERY ONE is waking up to the lies and the made-up bs out there. we do not need a world government. the SO CALLED EXPERTS are bought and paid for “scientists” that parrot what they are told to say for the agenda to tax us to death for something that DOES NOT EXIST.

    Link to this
  309. 309. mershad 2:53 pm 03/22/2012

    THE WHOLE THING IS A SCAM. cancelling my scientific american subscription.
    SELLOUTS!

    Link to this
  310. 310. HowardB 2:59 pm 03/22/2012

    jctyler wrote:

    “. . one cannot be a scientist and not know that AGW is real.”

    What a stupid, stupid and ignorant statement. Typical of the astonishing arrogance that we now associate with the AGW movement. It makes one wonder if this guy ever studied science at all in his life.

    Link to this
  311. 311. The Realist 3:01 pm 03/22/2012

    There is a model for the utopia Stix seeks. We all become the Borg of Star Trek, Next Generation.

    Link to this
  312. 312. Bob A 3:07 pm 03/22/2012

    I’m not a scientist, but after reading all the ramblings here on who is right about climate change, I think all of you are missing the elephant in the room. Accepting all the data indicating CO2 emission increases leading to increased world temperature, you have to ask the question, ‘why is the CO2 increasing?’ Simple answer is that POPULATION is increasing world wide at an exponential rate. This means that more people equals more resources needed to sustain life and increase living conditions. That means more energy needed and used, equaling more combustion engines, equaling more CO2. NOTHING can be done in a meaningful way to reduce CO2 levels without addressing the increasing population. The ONLY answer to ‘global warming’ is to decrease the population. The decrease may be done by war, disease, sterisaztion, famine, etc. Until the world’s population decreases (or ceases increasing), the multiple factors forcing a climate change will not cease and will only increase beyound any proposed solution.

    Additionlly, the preposed solution of a one world government is impossible/ridiculous considering, again you guessed it, the shear number of people.

    Personnally, I think that the increasing world population will put such a strain on resources that it will reach a critical level long before ‘global warming’ will have a measurable effect.

    Link to this
  313. 313. ondskap 3:12 pm 03/22/2012

    2,3,12,18,19,25-27,32,34,36,41,42,67,68,75-79,86,95-97,99,100,108,109,111,120,123,133,138,144,148-152

    jctyler:

    You are obviously very intelligent, likely a PhD in some obscure subject, possibly a product of ‘international learning’ having maybe studied abroad which undoubtedly would have helped shape your ‘enlightened’ liberal perspective, working on research papers on some very complicated subject us ‘little folk’ in fly-over country would never understand. Having said that, upon reading your posts, I was troubled by your insistence that ‘we are in the middle of a war’, regarding the debate on AGW. By proclaiming that others who disagree with you should ‘go to court for crimes against humanity’ and should be ‘treated as environmental criminals’ (is that code for executed?), and that ‘scientists should start to seriously think about their social responsibility’ (as opposed to just objectively analyzing facts?), you expose yourself as one huge flaming example of a social elitist and a dangerously fanatical progressive.

    Question: Do you daydream of filling mass graves with the likes of me and others who question your opinions on AGW because you would declare us guilty of crimes against ‘mother earth’ or ‘humainty’?

    Joseph, just think about this the next time you are sitting back and spinning some tunes:

    You will never live to see the day where your dream world becomes a reality. So deal with it.

    Link to this
  314. 314. HowardB 3:17 pm 03/22/2012

    Coffey3c wrote:

    “Galileo, Darwin and Einstein are admired not for what they proved, or what they discovered, but for the evidence they demanded.”

    100% correct. This is at the core of the AGW controversy. Sceptics demand evidence and proof. Believers offer politics, graphs, scare tactics and the destruction of the careers of opposing scientists.

    Link to this
  315. 315. dennis in ohio 3:28 pm 03/22/2012

    Sad when a reputable magazine turns to politics to provide “science” for its forums. I would judge the odds of finding a “world government” actually doing anything worthwild at this time, or anytime in the future, to between slim and none. Despite amazing powers to control situations, the UN has managed nothing of note in the past 65 years except to refine graft and corruption into a PhD course. As for controling or taming the climate – this shows a complete failure to grasp reality or understand global history, where radical changes in the Earth’s climate have been occuring for many thousands of years far outdating the arrival of our meager race of mental midgits making their impact. We can’t even find a town council who can agree on garbage pickup dates, but yes, by all means, lets make the sun cooler, stop hurricanes and turn summer into winter and back again. Again, why would Scientific American lend space to such folly?

    Link to this
  316. 316. leuken 3:40 pm 03/22/2012

    Do any of you have jobs?

    Link to this
  317. 317. Carlyle 3:44 pm 03/22/2012

    Re: 200. Coffey3c 6:54 am 03/22/2012
    The remarks that were offensive? To whom? None of the remarks insulting me have been pulled. My remarks are offensive to the true believers. Especially the authors when I point out glaring errors. I have on occasion forced retractions or alterations to articles. Very offensive to the authors apparently. You apparently approve of such censorship. When it conflicts with the AGW world view.

    Link to this
  318. 318. MrHappyMay 3:45 pm 03/22/2012

    These hard scientists are awefully naive if they think that world governance will result in policies that result in long-term reduction of carbon-based fuels.
    First of all, should a world government be put into place, it is going to quickly degenerate into a totalitarian dictatorship. If the government is democratically elected, it will be the world’s poor who will decide who will be in charge. And the group that will be in charge will be the group who promises to raise living standards above everything else – and environmental policy will take a back seat. To do this, they will quickly consolidate power, destroy checks and balances, and undertake human right abuses.
    If the governent is not democratically elected, and we put hard scientists in charge, they will be quickly bullied out of their positions of power by thugs who have a much better understanding of human behavior, and who are much more desirious of naked power than promoting ideological change – and they will get away with it because of the lack of checks and balances that would result.
    The argument that those with advanced degrees (calling such individuals educated may be an inappropriate description, because their training is in their speciality and is quite narrow, as is evidenced by the author of this article) are best to run society is an ancient one, going back to at least Plato. Such individuals think they can create a utopian society, but fall far short of their goals – because utopian goals require tremendous social engineering, which requires tremendous restrictions. Humans have a desire to live without restrictions, and they will immediately look for loopholes when the restrictions become too strigent. To close every loophole requires a police state. And the only people who can effectively run a police state are thugs. That is because those who run the apparatus need to be brutal, and can easily overcome those who are guided by compassion. We saw this when socialism/communism turned out to be far different than the visionaries who originally suggested it. And it will be the same with climate change.
    So what would happen under world governance? Eventually, all the scientists would eventually be, uh, “liquidated”. And the thugs, who are mentally tough, will “justify” this by claiming that those scientists are actually getting in the way of a carbon-free world (even though this might not be the case, deceivers can make anything up for the masses to believe, and under a totalitarian state, the thug at the top “embodies all the truth”).
    Quite simply, this is a good example of naivete under the auspices of sophisticated argument.

    Link to this
  319. 319. Coffey3c 3:45 pm 03/22/2012

    313. HowardB

    If there is a rational that would allow someone to make answer to something like that, I don’t know what it is. However, since facts or reason have no place in your little, umm… Malleus Maleficarum, I can only give you my former answer back.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7cry-4pyy8

    Perhaps you can pick up a few tips with which to make your denials at least a little… entertaining?

    CoffeyC

    Link to this
  320. 320. Jayhawkjohn 4:00 pm 03/22/2012

    Your proposed use of “heavy handed transnational powers” would meet with an “equal and opposite reaction” by a whole bunch of folks. Japan decided not to invade the continental US because Yamamoto said, after having lived in the US for a year, “There is a gun behind every blade of grass.” Things have changed a lot since WW2. Now there’s lots of guns behind every blade of grass, and the owners know how to use them.
    I am much more willing to take my chances with climate change than with anything you suggest in your article. Try setting aside the science books for a few hours and read about the former Soviet Union and it’s record on human rights. Some of the very first victims of Stalin’s madness were the educated. They were also some of his last victims as well. What you may want to do also, is to learn some people skills. Learn how to “sell’ an idea so that people will buy into it. Forcing me to do what you want me to do is as tough as me forcing you to do what I want you to do. It just won’t work.

    Link to this
  321. 321. Willis Nilly 4:00 pm 03/22/2012

    Fictional crack-potism for folks addicted to whimsical Marxist-like fantasy summarizes this latest desire to organize and maintain human activity.

    Link to this
  322. 322. Coffey3c 4:19 pm 03/22/2012

    319. Jayhawkjohn, Wyllis Nilly:

    I have to say, that I agree. I myself believe that climate is the fourth problem on the list. And the first victims are always the ignorant cognoscenti, from all sides. I do under stand Stix’s basic point that we are not going to see anything good anytime soon. The I ever saw anything that wasn’t absurd in Marx, was when he referred to neo-Marxist political correctness.

    I just wrote this on my email, to a PM, and I’ll post my part here:

    “On the whole, I’d have to say that the mood of the scientists I know is that it’s not so much a debate as a waiting game.
    It certainly is not that they are not talking their little hearts out, it’s just that after they do, ten people will jump up and
    scream it’s not true, and for reasons that are usually openly fallacious. If I had been not home sick with a virus, I wouldn’t
    be taking the time to argue with those people either.

    You have a uniquely negative view, but one that you probably haven’t realized I largely agree with. Scientist see what is
    happening, and they see that it is a dead horse politically. I mean, the republican candidates are asked if they disbelieve
    in Evolution, and over half raised their hands… and trap doors did not open up under them. No, the scientists who are really
    convinced, are really convinced that after thirty years of explaining, that they now have to wait. About another three to five years it looks like.

    We believe that in the next election there is a very good chance the first question candidates will be asked will be; “How do you intend to fight the Warming of our climate, that the last two administrations ignored?…”

    I believe very little of what I hear is fact, but I admit that I do believe that is more likely than not.

    Sadly, I think it’s only one of about three or four dire problems we have right now, and for me, it’s still fourth on the list…”

    CoffeyC

    Link to this
  323. 323. workingstiff 4:28 pm 03/22/2012

    Mr. Stix … You asked: “Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”

    No. The answer is no. That is why I will continue to read, study, teach, and proclaim the values of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Judeo-Christian traditions and Bastiat’s libertarian philosophy which provides protection from such totalitarian dystopia as threatened in this misguided article.

    Editors! How did you pass a radical political screed like this in an issue of “Scientific” American? Shame.

    Link to this
  324. 324. Coffey3c 4:44 pm 03/22/2012

    321 Coffey3C:

    That was weird. I had typed:

    I do under understand Stix’s basic point that we are not going to see anything good anytime soon. His choice in title to quote another article, was inflammatory, and foolish. Then again, the only thing I ever saw anything that wasn’t absurd in Marx, was when he referred to a ["]neo-Marxist political correctness.["]

    [Quotes added.]

    Link to this
  325. 325. stonehillady 4:49 pm 03/22/2012

    Many people are well aware that we are headed for a Polar Shift, as our Government & all Governments are aware. People like Al Gore took advantage of the sheep being asleep about this & are trying to make money & blame your SUV’s for what really is happening as our Magnetic Field is weaken even as I write. Which is the sign that a flip is inevitable. There is a radiant force entering our solar system & effecting all the Planets NOT just the Earth. This brown drawf star & our sun are are reacting with great force & is going to & is coming from the bottom of the Earth & soon all will see the 2 suns. This has happened before & as it happens it could take a few hours or a few days, the Earth will actually stop rotating for a day or so then the Sun will come from the west as our waters will reshape the Planet & just prior to the event great earthquakes & volanic eruption will be servere but, who ever survives will live in a new world on the same planet.

    Link to this
  326. 326. mmilesll 4:57 pm 03/22/2012

    Funny, I didn’t see algore’s name anywhere in the article. Global Warming or is it now Global Cooling is a scam to keep the money from various governments rolling in. The US does not have the money to play these games and the scientific community reputation on this matter has been found out. Like most things, it is all about the money.

    Link to this
  327. 327. Vettatude 5:21 pm 03/22/2012

    If Mr. Stix’s comments weren’t so, potentially damageing, sad and predictable, it would be laughable. When ideas don’t seem to change the minds of the masses that Mr. Stix thinks are ignorant or mis-informed at best, he and his kind invariably resort to some form of government or a new governmental body, in this case a “World Government”, that will “inform”, “re-educate”, and generally “whip” the great unwashed masses into the proper attitude and way of life. This time we the “proletariat” have prodigeous amounts of information that would indicate that Mr. Stix and his fellow believers are trying to sell a horse painted like a zebra and now that they have been stymied, they want to resort to the governmental force process. Your social reasoning is just as defective as your scientific “reasoning”. Youre idea stinks and Free, Thinking individuals are really tired of the scientific and political commuinities incessantly making moves to control every aspect of the global community to suite your desires and pipe dreams. Your thinking is suspect, as is your evidence and your presumption that your self proclaimed higher importance gives you license to alter the lives of everyone on the planet. Many of us fought for the right to tell you to get off the podium and let us decide for ourselves. Good or bad. Your “earth system governance and planetary stewardship” as proposed by “scientists” many of whom have been caught with their e-mail pants down and their hands in the “data till”, and yourself, are myopically developed, self serving pieces of seudo science and an embarrasment to the bygone days of real scientific logic based on hard won data, and not “gaia”/ ero radicalism and man-made global warming junk science.

    Link to this
  328. 328. Paolo 5:27 pm 03/22/2012

    Science is wishing for a fascist government to manage everything like an experiment. We the people are not lab rats.

    Higher education enables one to be very intelligent about specific things but often fails to provide a well-rounded and life experienced individual capable of reason.

    Link to this
  329. 329. Ebeisner 5:28 pm 03/22/2012

    “… the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.” Uh, right. Y’know why, Mr. Stix? Because engineering inanimate objects is easier than engineering animate objects; and engineering insensate animate objects is easier than engineering sensate objects; and engineering non-rational sensate objects is easier than engineering rational objects. And people are rational objects. And it JUST COULD BE, Mr. Stix that some of those rational objects choose not to let you engineer them. It’s called being human–and free.

    Link to this
  330. 330. cslagenhop 5:37 pm 03/22/2012

    The problem we have now is that there is a community of scientists that depends on the dollars flowing to them in the name of Global Warming. If these scientists do not find Global Warming, they are culled from the pool of scientists that we take seriously on these matters, their funding is reduced or eliminated and they are shunned. If you create a “one world government” of people built around the religion of global warming, this entity will develop mechanisms to consume more and more of the world’s wealth until it can consume no more, and as with a malignant tumor, the world dies. I urge my fellow scientists to reject the cult of Global Warming and reject efforts to develop an all consuming parasitic world government body. The fantasy that there is some massive tipping point that causes the world to die is utter nonsense. Even if it is so, there is a lack of evidence that humanity can effect change, even with an all-consuming world government. Humanity, and the world, will adapt. Some will die, some will live- but humanity and the world will be here in some form 1 million years from now.

    Link to this
  331. 331. IndyinAL 5:41 pm 03/22/2012

    I happen to believe in man’s conribution to climate change – but what I find interesting is this…I go to a web site (www.sciencedaily.com) and frequently there are articles about new CO2 scrubbers for coal stacks or new ways to clean up nuclear waste (an article on each in the past week, the nuclear waste process being tested at the Savannah River facility)but I never see these stories mentioned on the nightly news, just the adverse climate change news…why is that?

    Link to this
  332. 332. dugaldtaylor 5:45 pm 03/22/2012

    Ah, the Vision of the Anointed. We have seen it before, we know how well it works.

    Link to this
  333. 333. mchughjj 5:50 pm 03/22/2012

    Why would an editor at Scientific American write a piece taking such a beyond the fringe political position? It never ceases to amaze me how extremists don’t seem to ever get how wildly unpopular certain ideas are. Americans signing up for global governance? Regardless of the breakdown of how many think global warming is a serious threat, I don’t think binding global government would poll above 2%. For even a liberal politician to make such a case, they’d be running for cover.

    Link to this
  334. 334. grumpgrand 6:14 pm 03/22/2012

    6 years ago. What were the predictions about the future like 6 years ago? Pretty dire as I recall. None of the predictions made back then has come to pass. Why should we listen to you now? Himalayan glaciers are not receding, sea levels are actually dropping, temperatures are dropping, winters are becoming more severe. It is becoming more and more obvious that the agw scare was nothing more than a three headed scam. One head in academia to garner more research bucks, one head in financial circles to set up carbon markets and the last head in political circles to forward the goals of the radical left.
    This dog won’t hunt anymore.

    Link to this
  335. 335. schumer 6:19 pm 03/22/2012

    TYPICAL ACADEMIC IGNORANCE sans ARROGANCE MASQUERADING AS INTELLIGENT SPEAK,,,,,,,. SCCHHHAZAM does Scientific America get donations from FUNDED ACADEMICAL SLUSH FUNDS. Next to every-single thing HILLARY, BJ BILL, BROWNER, HANSON,OBAMA, EPA & AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH-CHU have said,,,,, your editorial FLATULENCE takes the LEAD. Did the IPCC hired you to further stir the HYSTERIA POT PAL???????????

    Link to this
  336. 336. jmc0802 7:23 pm 03/22/2012

    This is simply wrong. Resist with the three boxes…soapbox…ballot box…catridge box! Never surrender to globalists, purveyors of dictatorship in the name of green.

    Link to this
  337. 337. hermes3m 7:25 pm 03/22/2012

    Maybe, if you want any credibility at all, you should start with an investigation of the known hazardous chemicals that the “world government” has been throwing into the atmosphere first without the knowledge and now with some admission but no explanation.

    Not only is the “world government” putting these chemicals into the air on a daily basis, but they are creating CO2 in the process, because they use big ole hulking jet aircraft to do it.

    Maybe then, before you start your psycho campaign on people you should look to your government and the amount of CO2 they throw into the air for military purposes.

    Now, I think there are a lot of people in the world and as a whole we do a lot of destructive things … and good things as well. However, if you want to penalize people for living, you might want to start with the people who have the GREATEST effect on the problems of the world and not whine about the people who are just living their life and simply do not want to be hassled by people who they them THEY have to change.

    Link to this
  338. 338. stevenuwm 7:29 pm 03/22/2012

    “societies must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change”

    It’s too bad Stix feels this way about the “global warming” and not about the U.S. deficit.

    Link to this
  339. 339. stevenuwm 7:39 pm 03/22/2012

    ” I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer”

    I believe David Koresh and Jim Jones were “social engineering”; Stix pointed out “that’s the killer”.

    Link to this
  340. 340. ianbio 7:44 pm 03/22/2012

    Utterly missing the point I am afraid. No “solution” that requires a world government is going to work. There is only one solution to the (possible) problem of anthropogenic global warming that has any chance of success. Develop an energy source that is cheaper than coal. That’s it. That’s all. That’s enough.

    And here is how to do it. Nuclear energy has been made too expensive because of fear. Two things can fix this. First develop reactors which are not catastrophes if they fail. The molten salt reactor fits the bill because it does not accumulate fission products over its life. Second, get rational about the danger of radioactivity. A bit of radiation is not a bad thing. People living in granite mountains do not die young or have mutant children. Having a CT scan does not make you scared of cancer. Treat other sources of radiation the same.

    Then we can have cheap safe non CO2 producing energy. We could do it now. No breakthroughs are needed.

    Link to this
  341. 341. Issac_Bickerstaff 8:13 pm 03/22/2012

    I know the climate science community enjoys hearing the “denier” perspective, so as I service I will chime in.

    Stix sees his problem well enough, but his solution is an attempt to reinvent the wheel. All he needs is a run-of-the-mill secret police service just bigger. Special courts, secret prisons, unlimited surveillance powers, a network of informers……the works. There are several 3rd world powers whose systems he could use as a model.

    It wouldn’t hurt to have an actual military arm either, just in case.

    Since most schools and media in the West already function as an effective propaganda wing, he doesn’t need to invent this piece. If the threat weren’t so dire he could just wait 30 and 40 years and the opposition will most likely have vanished. Of course, then he wouldn’t get to be part of the new governing class so understandably things will have to be sped up.

    He’s so close to solving his problem, he just needs to take a step back a get things in perspective.

    Link to this
  342. 342. 1kcent 8:16 pm 03/22/2012

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about conservation. Conservation to me means not wasting what you have. I don’t waste, I can’t afford to waste anything.

    I really don’t believe in general, people waste, but people have to live, live within their means.

    America is all about being individual if you choose, and the freedom to not be burdened with higher prices of everything, even the essentials of every day living.

    Global warming is a myth, it has to be. If only a few people can survive with unreasonable prices for goods and services, then we become a third world country economy.

    This is America, not a socialist, or communists, or dictatorship. Global warming must be a lie!

    Link to this
  343. 343. reynmeistr 9:59 pm 03/22/2012

    Yes, I eagerly agree that World Government, with carefully handpicked elite regulators, will stop all variation in the Sun’s radiation. Furthermore, these Public Servants, only distantly related to UN blue-helmeted goons which rape Congolese schoolgirls they were sent to protect, will easily, with advanced regulatory procedures, stop the return of crushing, remorseless Ice Ages, despite the plain fact that we live in a temporary warm period between conclusively documented Ice Ages stretching over millions of years of recent geologic history.
    Yup, I am with the Blue Helmeted Elites, whatsay.

    Link to this
  344. 344. KarlStalinPhD 11:50 pm 03/22/2012

    Rubbish……

    Link to this
  345. 345. thomasv 12:41 am 03/23/2012

    The central spiritual issue facing all people…whatever their nation, religion, or ethnic origin, is that of laying the foundations of a global society…The unification of the earth’s inhabitants is neither a remote utopian vision nor, ultimately, a matter of choice. It constitutes the next, inescapable stage in the process of social evolution…Until this issue is acknowledged and addressed, none of the ills afflicting our planet will find solutions, because all the essential challenges of the age we have entered are global and universal…”

    Link to this
  346. 346. Swemson 12:50 am 03/23/2012

    It’s the sun stupid!

    Any effect on the climate that Co2 has is statistically insignificant.

    What’s really shocking to me is not just that a publication like Scientific American could publish rubbish like this, but that even assuming the CO2 fairy tale was true, it takes a major mental malfunction to come to the conclusion that warming is to be feared.

    Warming is good!

    Throughout history, it’s been obvious that the one type of climate change that’s been dangerous to life has been extreme cooling, because when it’s cold crops don’t grow, and when that happens, well figure it our for yourself if you’re capable…

    Anyone who wishes to learn the truth about this hoax should look at one simple graph, on the bottom right of the following web page:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

    If the answer doesn’t seem obvious at first, look at the correlation between the various factors in the 1940′s and 1950′s.

    Without CO2, Nothing would be green!

    fs

    Link to this
  347. 347. Cartalucci 2:01 am 03/23/2012

    With all the time trouble and resources wasted trying to establish this Hitlerian world government, you could just as easily focus on developing cleaner energy, more efficient transportation (instead of models driven by auto manufacturers) and decentralizing manufacturing which can be done locally or even in the home instead of in factories overseas and then resources wasted to ship it worldwide.

    All of this can be done NOW. It can be done without government or giant corporations – it already IS being done in many cases with corporations and government trying to stop it with regulations and laws.

    You see, it is the monopolistic backwards business models and forms of governance we have now that impede proper technical educations and pragmatic solutions by people who do genuinely care about the environment. These monopolies are the ones that seek to create this Hitlerian dystopia described above – not altruistic technocrats!

    We see how local, national, and even supranational governments are co-opted by nefarious interests, how would Mr. Stix’ Hitlerian dystopia turn out any different?

    Link to this
  348. 348. citizenC 9:01 am 03/23/2012

    The arrogance of the human race in believing we have any control over God’s nature is obsurd. I am very glad to see that real scientists are now speaking out.

    Link to this
  349. 349. ttyler5 9:21 am 03/23/2012

    Publication of such psuedo-scientific ideological drivel as the above article undermines the credibility of this magazine.

    Link to this
  350. 350. ttyler5 9:38 am 03/23/2012

    1974 Nobel Lecture, Hayek, F. A.,
    “The Pretense of Knowledge” in the Social Sciences …

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html

    Link to this
  351. 351. brainfan 10:12 am 03/23/2012

    I would think that the past few years of exposes of lies and cover-ups would have been enough to have the author wiping his brow in relief that he hadn’t suggested these things before. It’s time we drop the CO2 rubbish, mop up what’s left of the environmental movement’s credibility, and start looking at the numerous, catastrophic environmental catastrophes that have taken a back seat to this preposterous fairy tale.

    Link to this
  352. 352. econmagic 11:08 am 03/23/2012

    World government is far too complicated, requires unanimous compliance in the event in which there is a definite gain to be had for non-compliance atitude. This is the same old stumbling block that kept us from achieving global action on sustainability:
    I recomend reading the Book “Sustainable Trade”, by Zoltan Ban, for an actual viable solution based on modifying trade.
    I also recomend his blog “Sustainable Economics”.

    Link to this
  353. 353. bucove 12:14 pm 03/23/2012

    If humanity cannot get it together as a unified organism the article descibed the inevitability of a global extinction event driven by us.

    It’s not a climate change argument or a political argument, it is a mathematical argument. Humans are collectively and predictably as stupid as their deities.

    Link to this
  354. 354. navsolve 12:23 pm 03/23/2012

    Regarding, “To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers.” Heavy handed – wow, just be sure your side has the most firepower to kill/threaten the rest of humanity so they will submit to your enlightened way of thinking (along with paying appropriate taxes/tribute to afford such a “heavy handed” security force)!

    I am interested to know what entities contribute to the author’s salary/bonuses. I am so disappointed that Scientific American, with its many past good academic articles, has become just another outlet for the extreme wealthy to push their enslavement fantasies!

    Link to this
  355. 355. jctyler 12:32 pm 03/23/2012

    from the “office of the Director of National Intelligence”

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mankind-kept-2011-global-temperatur

    who of course is a communist according to the mental underperformers crossing over from the Drudge Report site.

    and the WMO which explained that the last ten years have been the warmest on record publish the newest here

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mankind-kept-2011-global-temperatur

    but then of course, and according to the same illuminatis, the WMO is a communist organization anyway.

    I do recommend whomever has the slightest scientific background to visit the Drudge Report, IMO the best US satirical site on the net.

    I can’t help but notice that the March-12 paid denier spinners have been helped by the Drudgees. Wonder if that was planned. Never read this much garbage on climate since these pillocks showed up here. What is amazing that all these people are former subscribers of SciAm who realized a long time ago that SciAm is not worth their brain power. SciAm income must have suffered enormously when these people decided to cancel their subscription.

    Although, prone to democratic fits, I’ll also type what others have said, that none of these pillocks ever subscribed to SciAm and that pretending otherwise is such a cheap tactic that it’s utterly ridiculous.

    Also, to every second Drudgee repeating the same stupidity, that the weather has cooled, that sea levels have not risen, that Africans don’t starve: hurry with the inanities, we’re only docked for a few hours after which connections will be cut again. You know how these communist warmist tree-hugging bio-food eating panic spreading anti-capitalists are with their energy-saving mania.

    Link to this
  356. 356. jctyler 12:41 pm 03/23/2012

    and to the pseudo-warmists who pretend that fun and sarcasm have no place in scientific dialogue: this is NOT scientific dialogue. An article with such an idiotic headline urgently invites anything but scientific dialogue. And since this is then nothing but internet banter, fun and sarcasm sprinkled with facts is the way to go. If science was more fun and better explained we wouldn’t have the drudgee pillocks, or at least not as many. But then, the US education school system…

    go, dimmers, dungers and drudgees, go, go, go, AGW needs your support – let the world see how your brains work!

    And thanks for the hours of laughs we had on the watch going over this page’s comments print out. Keep up the good work! Climate satire central needs you!

    Link to this
  357. 357. kbs2244 2:06 pm 03/23/2012

    This whole thing was an attention getting mistake.
    It was printed 3 weeks early.
    I was meant for the 4-1-12 issue.

    He knows he has put forth the classic pompous, elitist, technocrat argument of “The masses must be cared for. They cannot care for themselves.”

    Link to this
  358. 358. Coffey3c 3:11 pm 03/23/2012

    355. kbs2244, 354. jctyler:

    I agree Mr Tyler.

    Honestly I did have a fleeting thought that this had to be some kind of experiment designed to gauge the response on the political side; but, even if that were the case, it would still have all the value of running up behind a cape buffalo and gabbing him with a pointed stick. It would have little in the way of probative or statistical value, and it would not be very elegant experiment – result wise.

    Link to this
  359. 359. jctyler 3:37 pm 03/23/2012

    Coffey:

    “all the value of running up behind a cape buffalo and gabbing him with a pointed stick”

    Ah, the lovely Kaffirs! Such nice pets! I’d be too chicken to try that but if one of the drudgees wants to have a go? I bet some of these climate “sceptics” could fit a whole herd of them tiny cows in their mouth the size of which I came to admire here.

    Great way of putting it though.

    Link to this
  360. 360. smullins85 4:22 pm 03/23/2012

    From the article – “recruiting all seven billion of us to act in unison”. You’re not going to get seven billion people to act in unison literally or metaphorically on this planet, no matter how many “radical solutions on the social side” you devise. Thinking that way just reinforces the notion that climate scientists are little dictators at heart who want to run the planet. Instead, spend some time trying to understand the heterogeneity of culture in our world and then help people collectively or individually do things that make sense to them. Along the way, be willing to let people from entirely different backgrounds act a little differently than you think they should and you’ll have much more success in the aggregate than trying to force seven billion people to act in unison.

    Link to this
  361. 361. jctyler 4:38 pm 03/23/2012

    smullins:

    best on-topic review in the whole comments section

    kudos

    Link to this
  362. 362. tucanofulano 4:52 pm 03/23/2012

    Yet another “one-worlder” or “open borders” type spewing drivel.

    Link to this
  363. 363. Carlyle 4:58 pm 03/23/2012

    Re:355. Coffey3c
    3:11 pm 03/23/2012
    It is just so sweet to see you & jctyler kiss & make up after the way he abused you in that earlier post. He was just establishing his dominance after all. But now you know your grovelling place. Pathetic.

    Link to this
  364. 364. jctyler 5:15 pm 03/23/2012

    carlyle = kiss

    Link to this
  365. 365. webking@optonline.net 5:38 pm 03/23/2012

    Its sad how technocrats and the like think a world government is the answer to global warming, economic issues and all the ills we face. If we can learn one thing from all the wars, environmental abuses and economic collapses is Government is the problem not the answer. Their is a group of politicians, bankers and technocrats that want the populations of the world to believe they are the cause for global warming and the environmental issues, when in fact it is Corporations and Corrupt governments behind it. Another issue is whether global warming is related to the increased sun activity or in fact man made, either way we need to first determine if it can reversed and what will be needed to reverse it, should be established first before we hand control over to corrupt system of control. What the people of the world need to do first is clean their governments of corruption and greed, end the power of corporations over our politicans and take back control of their natural resources and the earth. If people had control of their governments around the world we would not have wars. Most people have no idea why they are at war and for what reason. Oil companies should not profit from the earths resources because it belongs to the people of earth not to oil companies. So we can start by taking back what belongs to the people and start bringing back local governments, local businesses and local finance. Smaller self sufficient communities with their own local production, banking, industry and trade is the answer. This is no other than the New World Order Crowd looking to have to classes of people, the working slaves and the elite.

    theredpillnetwork.com

    Link to this
  366. 366. bgotts 6:43 pm 03/23/2012

    Where have you been? The world has acted in unison! It has rejected you technocrats who continually make the Malthusian mistake of assuming we’re incapable of making discoveries and adjustments that change the present and secure our future. You technocrats and control freaks would put a quick stop to that, being incapable of conceiving a world more diverse than you can imagine. You simply can not allow a world in which you are not in control.

    Malthus was WRONG! Now you want the power to force the planet into the same error. Show me a centrally controlled command economy that ever prospered to the benefit of humanity. Every one has been a disaster. At what point will you subordinate your beliefs to actual results? Read “Human Action” by Von Mises, an obvious deficiency on your education.

    Link to this
  367. 367. Fordie 10:54 pm 03/23/2012

    Every great journey begins with the first step. Gary Stix needs to start at his desk at Scientific American. He should convert his fellow workers into homosexuals. By promoting this life at Scientific American he can save the planet. I know they can do it,,gee whiz the 4 billion year old planet decided to become fragile, delicate and limp wrist-ed in the last 100 years due to trains, planes and automobiles. WTF,,everyone’s a tree hugger today ? Misery loves company.

    Link to this
  368. 368. Carlyle 2:01 am 03/24/2012

    Fortunately, many of The Greens are non breeders.

    Link to this
  369. 369. pammalamma 2:23 am 03/24/2012

    I can’t tell you how exciting it is for a Christian like me to see that Scientific American is turning away from its secular mindset and even including some religion in its pages. I mean, why else would they be prophesying the coming of the Antichrist?

    You say, “To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with *heavy-handed,*transnational*​enforcement*powers.* … In principle, *species-wide*alteration*i​n*basic*human*behaviors* would be a sine qua non…”

    That is just the kind of global, draconian, religious domination that the Antichrist is promised to provide for our future! Please do not take umbrage at my mention of religion, it was the author who spoke of “species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors,” which is something only a messiah can do. The Antichrist is supposed to pretend to be Christ coming to govern the world, which is predicted in Revelation 20, so he will most certainly promise to make us better people, just as Jesus did, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” Ezekiel 36:26

    So, the next time anyone reading this begins railing about “religious wackos,” please understand that if you believe this article, your soul is ripe for harvest by an evil, global dictator, and also that even atheists are building temples these days (google “Alain de Botton”) and yes, even Scientific American is now claiming that the only way to “save the world” is if some central, undeniable, irresistible authority were to come into the world and change all of our hearts, causing us to be more righteous people who will choose to do good. I liked this idea better the first time when it was called “Christianity.” It’s getting to the point where it’s tough to tell the “religious wackos” from the “logical, reasoning atheists.” Even Penn Jillette says that “if atheists get to be mystics, then I need to find another term for myself.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbPiPelqbEg

    Link to this
  370. 370. macuser 8:12 am 03/24/2012

    Patrick49,

    Of course SciAm censors. Every blog that pushes the catastrophic AGW nonsense censors readers’ comments. What does that tell you? It tells me that their arguments are incapable of standing on their own.

    And I had to laugh at “jctyler’s” lunatic belief that I am paid to post my comments. Life has been good to me, and I will pay $1 million to “jctyler” if he can provide any verifiable proof that I am being paid to comment. He can reply from his mom’s basement, in between his porn surfing.

    The plain fact is that AGW is a scientific Conjecture. It is not a Hypothesis; a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. AGW is not testable, therefore it is not falsifiable. And of course AGW is not a Theory, because a theory must be able to make accurate predictions. But no computer model predicted the past fifteen years of flat to declining global temperatures. Thus, AGW is simply a conjecture; an opinion. And it is becoming increasingly obvious that the AGW opinion is wrong.

    Even the far-Left Daily Kos readers don’t believe the purveyors of AGW any more. This is the result of the latest Kos poll on the premier catastrophic AGW promoter, Michael Mann:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/daily_kos_poll.png?w=640

    Link to this
  371. 371. llewelly 10:14 am 03/24/2012

    “Every blog that pushes the catastrophic AGW nonsense censors readers’ comments”

    Clearly SciAm let through your comments because your arguments are so bad they make denialists look like idiots.

    Link to this
  372. 372. jctyler 10:28 am 03/24/2012

    macuser:

    “And I had to laugh at “jctyler’s” lunatic belief that I am paid to post my comments.”

    So you felt that this was about you? Hm…

    And your rebuttal of something I did not say is intended to prove that you post your comments for free?

    Meaning you have no excuse at all for your misinterpretations of scientific data, your misunderstanding of national organizations’ official reports and the made-up claims you never back up by any hard data???

    My, my, my, aren’t you giving mac users a strange reputation?

    Link to this
  373. 373. jctyler 10:50 am 03/24/2012

    macuser:

    “This is the result of the latest Kos poll”

    WHAT latest Kos poll? LINK to it. I’d like to READ that myself so I can make my own opinion.

    Not that I care much about polls on science. As if polls were however remotely valid assessments of scientific research… why not poll a bunch of right-wing extremists on their opinion of communism or a crowd of vegetarians on McDonalds? Poll 2000 citizens on which way the sun revolves around earth and approx 400 will say from left to right. Does that mean the debate is open on which way the sun revolves really? Does that give any credibility to the 400? Does that prove any… what? Oh, sorry, you think that it’s from right to left?

    Your statement is bare of any scientific value whatsoever. Or to put it so that you understand it, your statement is stupid.

    Link to this
  374. 374. Sean_ut8t5 3:12 pm 03/24/2012

    Gary Stix, if you had restricted yourself to again publishing your AGW junk science one could excuse you as being merely a poor deluded buffoon and a faithful member of the carbon cargo cult. An ignorant fool who should not be entrusted with editing or writing for any popular science magazine.

    But with this article you demonstrate that you are actually another evil left wing ideologue and advocate for the oppressive governance of some totalitarian regime. You have shed your Luddite cloak and revealed your true self.

    How far has Scientific American fallen to employ such cretins as you. They have spent what little credibility this once fine magazine had in allowing your political advocacy for your new AGW world order. How sad.

    Link to this
  375. 375. 1776 Patriot 4:49 pm 03/24/2012

    OK. first off. this whole ‘global warming’ ‘climate change’ thing has already been proven to be false by top scientists around the world. whole scientific groups and company’s (and al gore) are all being sued by thousands of people manly other scientists for discrediting science with their blatant lies. as for global govt and reduced population. that’s the UN’s agenda 21 which wants to reduce the human population to a tenth of what it is. we are talking about genocide on a scale that this planet has never seen. and finally a one world govt? really? no way that can happen nor would any American give up our freedom and independence for some world group to take away the rights given to us by our creator (what ever it may be) and our founding fathers and mothers who sacrificed all for freedom.

    Link to this
  376. 376. jctyler 5:07 pm 03/24/2012

    patriot (what has patriotism to do with climate? bullshit tactic):

    “this whole ‘global warming’ ‘climate change’ thing has already been proven to be false by top scientists around the world.”

    says who? proof? your opinions do not count as proof.

    WE WANT PROOF – WE WANT PROOF – WE WANT PROOF.

    “whole scientific groups and company’s (and al gore) are all being sued by thousands of people manly other scientists for discrediting science with their blatant lies.”

    again, says who? again, proof?

    WE WANT PROOF – WE WANT PROOF – WE WANT PROOF

    cos, if unproven it’s a completely idiotic claim. Idiotic claims come from Nobelprize winners of course!

    “that’s the UN’s agenda 21 which wants to reduce the human population to a tenth of what it is. we are talking about genocide on a scale that this planet has never seen.”

    your spellchecker has more brains than you.

    “and finally a one world govt? really?”

    ah, we agree. and why not? after all humans and monkeys have 96% of their DNA in common so why wouldn’t we have something in common (although I doubt it’s anything near 96%)?

    “no way that can happen nor would any American give up our freedom and independence for some world group”

    get off it, you’re neither free nor independent. Corporate USA owns you, Fox News owns you, you’re only granted the illusion of freedom and independence created by big money. In the grand scheme of things you are Wall Street property. Wait until you get seriously sick and you see who owns what and the price of it. Yes you can be free and independent in the US but you need a brain for that. Your chances…

    “to take away the rights given to us by our creator”

    that’s really funny – greatest one-liner on this whole page

    “founding fathers and mothers who sacrificed all for freedom”

    what founding fathers? the guys who came over here escaping England because they believed England was too tolerant? Or the people who came over here to rip off the natives?

    But thank you for supporting AGW through the insight into your brain.

    and hurry with another satirical broadside, we will be off again later tonight.

    Link to this
  377. 377. 1776 Patriot 5:15 pm 03/24/2012

    if you cant be bothered to educate yourself on these things then you should not speak on them as you show what an ass you truly are.

    Link to this
  378. 378. 1776 Patriot 5:17 pm 03/24/2012

    funny how the leftist communist attack anyone who does not agree with their lies.

    Link to this
  379. 379. 1776 Patriot 5:18 pm 03/24/2012

    and sharing DNA with monkeys? bestiality is never the answer. there must be a woman somewhere who will want you. maybe your mom? cause only an inbred idiot would actually believe in this global warming bull.

    Link to this
  380. 380. mpetkus 5:27 pm 03/24/2012

    Why can we not get at least a 1 hour, hopefully 2 hour debate, once or twice a week, for as many weeks as possible, where both sides of this debate (including anyone who is not on a side, purely an information supplier/commenter) can contribute their ideas and data to hash this out. I believe there are far more important issues in our world, but that does not mean this debate would be frivolous at all. WHY???? This would beat the crap out of the BS on TV right now, and I believe within a two month period would really hash this out.

    Can anyone agree to this? Give regular people credit (non-PHD holding etc.), and let them view these results as a choice for them politically.

    This would go much farther than us taking shots at each other on a web blog.

    Peace…

    Link to this
  381. 381. 1776 Patriot 5:29 pm 03/24/2012

    lmao @fox news. no i don’t watch any main stream media as they are all leftist liars who spread only panic and bullshit like ‘global warming’

    Link to this
  382. 382. 1776 Patriot 5:30 pm 03/24/2012

    but hey if you agree with these lies an really do think we need to decrease the human population then by all means go shoot yourself and save the gene pool.

    Link to this
  383. 383. Coffey3c 5:32 pm 03/24/2012

    374. jctyler:

    LOL.

    I still do not, in principle, like adopting the lesser tactics that many of the obfuscationists or deniers live and die by; but I do have to say that was funny. (I miss George Carlin.) I mean the guys running around in the threadbare sackcloth of professional martyrdom – you know Mr. “no matter what I say, the scientist just won’t agree because they are mean” guy, are bad enough, even without the ill mannered, and Illogical. The ill-informed and the inarticulate, I can understand, because we’ve all been there.

    That was poignant and funny.

    Coffey3C

    Link to this
  384. 384. Coffey3c 5:41 pm 03/24/2012

    380. 1776 Patriot:

    Mr. Patriot. I’m pretty sure that reduction is going to happen, unfortunately. I don’t think anyone is going to get to choose who and where.

    I think a real question would be, what lies? Is there any information that you bring to the discussion, which would indicate some kind of mistake or error that effects the consensus of climatologists. Of course, I refer to something not argued on cost, politics, religion, punditry, or so help us all, Op. Ed’s on Fox News?

    If so, please, put up a link. I would very much appreciate the opportunity of seeing anything new.

    Coffey3C

    Link to this
  385. 385. jctyler 5:49 pm 03/24/2012

    patriot:

    “if you cant be bothered to educate yourself on these things then you should not speak on them as you show what an ass you truly are”

    I see what you mean. You educated yourself, right?

    “sharing DNA with monkeys?”

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

    But then, maybe that’s where you and I differ. My family started with a monkey…

    “lmao @fox news. no i don’t watch any main stream media as they are all leftist liars who spread only panic and bullshit like ‘global warming’”

    Fox News = leftist liars spreading bullshit like global warming??? Isn’t that libel? Not afraid that Fox might sue you? Wow, that’s strong.

    Really, what can I say about you that you don’t say yourself?

    In the meantime, thank you for your wonderful comments. We shall savour them in the coming days like the precious pearl of scientific wisdom they are.

    Link to this
  386. 386. jctyler 5:56 pm 03/24/2012

    mpetkus:

    how do you want to reason with these people? I can communicate with a sceptic, I can’t with a denier because deniers are fanatical believers and you can NOT reason with religious fanatics!

    My approach is that they have to be shown as what they are so that undecided climate sceptics realize what kind of person is denying climate change.

    Part of that approach is not to abandon the public place to them else the undecided think the deniers are right.

    And it’s more fun this way than having to re-post the ever same links to scientific proofs which these people don’t bother to read, much less understand anyway.

    Don’t make the mistake of applying standards of scientific discourse to this, only way is to show them for what they are. Them showing how brain-dead they are is the best way a denier can support AGW. Makes me proud to be a warmist. In fact anything that shows that I am not like these deniers makes me proud.

    Link to this
  387. 387. mstwo 8:31 pm 03/24/2012

    Articles like this one is why I gave up years ago, buying this magazine. The science of Global warming is in no way settled but you would never know it by reading this mag. I can’t help but think they have another agenda other then science.

    Link to this
  388. 388. jctyler 10:30 pm 03/24/2012

    mstwo “The science of Global warming is in no way settled”

    Another former subscriber of SciAm talking through his solar-powered mouthpiece! (yes, kiddo, it is but who cares?)

    Ever noticed on this comments’ page how all those who don’t understand science are the ones who claim to have stopped subscribing/buying/reading SciAm (and yet show up here)? Which leaves me wondering how it is that it is precisely those who do not know how science works that are the ones who claim to understand it best?

    Anyway, we’re off in an hour or so and I look forward to more insanity next time I can connect.

    Heartfelt thanks go to all you deniers out there. Where would we be without your sense of humour, your brain power, your scientific insights? Without you AGW would be just another boring research project!

    And special thanks to Fox News which according to “1776 patriot” comment nr 380 are “main stream media leftist liars who spread only panic and bullshit like ‘global warming”. Where would we be without you? Keep up the good work!

    yours gratefully

    jc (warmist)

    Link to this
  389. 389. George Turner 11:40 pm 03/24/2012

    “Ever noticed on this comments’ page how all those who don’t understand science are the ones who claim to have stopped subscribing/buying/reading SciAm (and yet show up here)? Which leaves me wondering how it is that it is precisely those who do not know how science works that are the ones who claim to understand it best?”

    Looks closer. All these people used to subscribe to Scientific American because it used to cover SCIENCE. Then it went through a change of editors, got rid of most of the hard science and readers’ favorite columns like “The Amateur Scientist” (I used to e-mail back and forth with the author) and “Mathematical Recreations” and replaced them with idiotic, squishy social science as envisioned by left-wing utopian socialists with degrees in creative writing, journalism, and _______fill in the blank_____ studies.

    In college terms, the target audience majored in physics, astronomy, engineering, geology, and mathematics. Suddenly their favorite publication was taken over by a bunch of majors in communications, gender studies, journalism, home ec, interpretive dance, and deconstructionist literature. Instead of hard science, the articles became hippy eco fantasy masquerading as science, and the readers could tell.

    That’s why you’re hearing a consistent refrain from former subscribers, people who DO know science from wacko green religion and find confusing the two repellant.

    So again, have warmists asked, much less answered, what the Earth’s optimal temperature should be? Have they even tried to establish if an optimal temperature exists? Have they moved away from “average temperature”, a thermodynamically meaningless metric? Have they decided to quit deleting their raw data and methods so other can attempt to replicate their results? Are they prepared to practice actual science as practiced by scientists in other fields where the statisical methods must be valid, the data accurate, and the mathematics correct, or are they going to keep playing computer games with garbage in and garbage out?

    As an example of this, global climate models, with the exception of MIT’s model, are based on the shallow-water equations for a rotating sphere, which were developed back when we all wore powdered wigs and tube socks. Unfortunately the equations are only valid for an infinitely thin surface, and using a vertical proxy for the third dimension gives them equations which wildly violate Newton’s laws of local motion (momentum is not conserved when mass is moved vertically). Ignoring F=ma would destroy the career of any professional engineer. In climate science it’s the norm. Of course they also ignore Newton’s inverse square law of gravity, use fudge factors for feedbacks, and commit every other known sin in simulation writing.

    The MIT model tried to use Navier-Stokes equations, which unfortunately are invalid if the fluid undergoes a change of state, such as condensation or evaporation. Since climate is all about clouds, Navier-Stokes is particularly useless, especially when the dynamics are driven by very slight changes in temperature, humidity (and thus air density), evaporation, condensation, and rainfall in an endless cycle – as opposed to a tiny parcel of air getting smacked by a NACA 5-digit airfoil at 500 knots, where the mathematics gives good results for a fraction of a second.

    We haven’t yet developed the tools to attack the problem, much less produce a valid simulation. In fact, all the models can be run both forward and reverse, since the math they use doesn’t have a time arrow that accounts for entropy. In any chaotic system of dynamic fluid flow that involves eddies and turbulence, that’s a fundamental fatal mistake.

    Link to this
  390. 390. Carlyle 6:48 am 03/25/2012

    Re: 386. George Turner
    11:40 pm 03/24/2012
    I too was a subscriber from 1961 until shortly after the new regime took over. During that time I could not wait for the next addition to arrived. Great discoveries were made & discussed during that period in astronomy, unravelling genetic secrets, and the discovery of the double helix, the advances made in subatomic particle physics, medicine, mathematics & many other cutting edge scientific endeavours. Subscribers felt privileged to be part of the advances & discussions that took place between scientists.
    I subscribed to Time Magazine for many years too. Too long in fact. Could not stomach their handling of the Patty Hurst affair & Chappaquiddick for starters.
    We are ill served by the news & scientific media. The medical journal The Lancet has also been infected by socialist leftists more concerned with pushing a political agenda than medicine.

    Link to this
  391. 391. jctyler 11:05 am 03/25/2012

    george turner (and carlyle):

    my connection time is short:

    “All these people used to subscribe to Scientific American because it used to cover SCIENCE.”

    “All” I doubt, many just use the subscription thing to look important. But yes, I do agree in great parts. SciAm was dumbed down for mass sales. Quantity beat quality, the pressure of corporate ownership.

    “left-wing utopian socialists with degrees in creative writing, journalism, and _______fill in the blank_____ studies.”

    Funny but IMO not true. Creative writers tend to be to the left, maybe a pendulum effect to those times when SciAm had no socio-political conscience at all. Before the 60s it was frowned upon to be into science AND politics. And if you were into both McCarthy would instantly be after you.

    “Suddenly their favorite publication was taken over by a bunch of majors in communications, gender studies, journalism, home ec, interpretive dance, and deconstructionist literature.”

    ggg

    “wacko green religion”

    If SciAm had stuck more closely to pure science people like you and carlyle may possibly not be as confused about the climate issue. The facts would possibly not have been as obfuscated by the authors’ personal convictions.

    “So again, have warmists asked, much less answered, what the Earth’s optimal temperature should be? Have they even tried to establish if an optimal temperature exists?”

    The wrong question in reply to the wrong articles. The point is not what optimal temperature is, the point is this: it does at this level and in this context not matter if the climate change is entirely or only in part man-made, what is important is its speed. It is too fast for the planet AND humans to adapt, and the excess speed is man-made. THAT is the point. In the end, nature will adapt one way or the other, WE are the ones that will suffer catastrophically.

    And this would be helped if SciAm stuck to publishing the facts and then offering a platform to discuss these instead of authors bringing in personal opinions.

    One major problem IMO is though that the US educational system has been consistently dumbed down over the last decades (as perfectly illustrated by multiple-choice exams) so to find readers SciAm may indeed have believed to have to adapt = dumb down to the level of its newest readers (again also under the pressure of financial demands from the owners).

    “Have they moved away from “average temperature”, a thermodynamically meaningless metric?”

    Average temp is irrelevant. It’s about speed and what we can take without the world around us falling to pieces. change is too fast and we overstepped heavily.

    “Are they prepared to practice actual science as practiced by scientists in other fields where the statisical methods must be valid, the data accurate, and the mathematics correct”

    Climate scientists still stick to the rules, scientific integrity is not corrupted. What I criticize is that the guys don’t (want to) understand the needs and necessities of modern society. They are IMO responsible for how their work is presented publicly. Instead they pretend it’s not their problem and that they don’t have to “lower themselves” to the communication levels of the plebs. In fact they don’t have to lower their quality but they have to learn to communicate quality to the masses.

    IMO it doesn’t really matter anyway. Things have gone out of control, politicians are too stupid, people are too greedy, what we have is what I call the Japanese attitude, nothing will change no matter how stupid it is until “an earthquake” hits. All we can and will do in the meantime is monitor the impact.

    Hope to get this posted beforec connection breaks, else I’ll simply enjoy the great weather here – unfortunately FAR too hot for the season.

    Link to this
  392. 392. mstwo 11:48 am 03/25/2012

    George and Carlye, your spot on concerning my sentiments toward this magazine. And as for Gary Stix he missed his calling by 70 years. He would have been an unquestionable and loyal Nazi scientist for Hitler.

    Link to this
  393. 393. mpetkus 7:54 pm 03/25/2012

    jctyler and too all

    I appreciate the response. However, I am not on anyone’s side, believe it or not, however belief means nothing. You say you are a warmist, fine, and there are deniers. I do not mean to offend you or anyone, but this is not going to help this understanding of our situation. We cannot have sides in science. There are facts, and then there is everything else: presumptions, assumptions, pre or post conceived based on anyone or any ideoligy these represent. I will still hold to principles and say that a debate MUST take place in order to establish a basis for all undertanding. This type of blog (O.K. – but here we are/irony) is no place to make a firm stand or completely detract from man made global warming.

    I believe to my deepest core this needs to take place.

    Now although this can be called a copout:

    Do I beleieve that man’s activities have NOT affected the climate over the last 200 years? absolutely not

    Do I believe that there are many other factors possibly not totally understood that have affected the climate over the last 200 years that are also part of a centuries long cycle? absolutely

    The answer I believe is somewhere in the middle of course.

    Is it 5% cycle 95% man?
    Is it 95% cycle 5 % man?
    50%/50% ?

    This needs to be discussed, period.

    Neutrality is really the key to good science debate and discussion, regardless of your personal “database”.

    I will never allow myself to view anyone who may appear to be a “climate denier” as someone who hates the world’s nature, NOR will I allow myself to view anyone who may appear to be a “warmist” as someone who wants to control everyone’s freedom.

    There is a balance of information, let’s stop feuding, and get a civilized debate and understanding going. After all, it is civilization that all of us are attempting to preserve, regardless of what “side” someone “may” be on.

    Peace…

    Link to this
  394. 394. Carlyle 1:06 am 03/26/2012

    The leader of the Australian Greens Party, Bob Brown. A coalition partner of the ruling Labor (Democrat equivalent) national government & leading supporter of the new Carbon Tax they are introducing poses a possible answer to a cosmic mystery.

    Here is one sobering possibility for our isolation: maybe life has often evolved to intelligence on other planets with biospheres and every time that intelligence, when it became able to alter its environment, did so with catastrophic consequences. Maybe we have had many predecessors in the Cosmos but all have brought about their own downfall.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
    By the way, the State government of Queensland was turfed out in the biggest landslide ever at the weekend retaining only five seats in the eighty seven seat parliment. Two seats remain undecided. The state Governments support for the Federal Government in introducing this tax, after promising days before the Federal election that they would not introduce such a tax had a bearing on this disaster for them though they are trying to claim it was only state issues. The Federal government is deeply unpopular with the electorate itching to turf them out also.
    No wonder people like the author of this article want a World government that can over rule national electorates.

    Link to this
  395. 395. jctyler 9:46 am 03/26/2012

    From pure science one may regret that SciAm is not as exclusive as it used to be. OTOH they must go with the times and I’ve reconsidered my comment somewhat so even if I sometimes believe they’ve gone too deeply into mass appeal I do actually appreciate the width of information of modern SciAm.

    Re “AGW” debate: that debate is closed. There is a nearly 100% consensus amongst scientists that AGW is happening. They only differ on the impact and speed where a majority believes that we underrate the problem and only less than 15% scientists believe the effect is overrated. Meaning approx 85% have reasons and data enough to firmly say, it is happening and we better do something about it urgently.

    To eternally want to re-open that debate is utterly useless. It’s the crux of the internet and certain massmedia, especially the dumber, corporate-driven US ones, that everybody and his dog can claim that the Martians done it and then demand that he be listened to and given equal speaking time. These self-styled voices of reasons talk rubbish. There are already enough of them to demand a new debate on the moonlandings, the 9/11 events, the communist infiltration of the NewYorker, the sun around earth (yes, 20% of adult US citizens still believe that -> Dr Miller, Chicago U of med, 2006), that the Holocaust never happened and that Obama is not a US citizen. Or pretend that the climate is influenced by radiation from Mars or that incompetent Australian politicians lose elections because they believe in climage change.

    All these debates are closed and so is the debate on AGW. Get your sources right, understand the conclusions, think about the implications, but don’t come here pretending AGW must still be debated because you are incapable of understanding the hard facts and mistake your opinions for science. There is enough of that rubbish in creationism and intelligent design. Demanding to re-open the discussion is only proof of someone living in the deepest scientific stone age. And doing so _categorically_ is ultimate proof of someone overestimating himself enormously.

    And if you don’t understand global dimming, you also don’t understand temperature averages rising, ice shelf regressing or the influence of Sahara winds on South-America, much less the consequences of US pollution on the southern hemisphere.

    That the author of this blog has chosen a rather unfortunate title for his essay or that his opinion on how things should be run does not add up, well, live with it. He started a discussion. It’s what blogs are about. This does in no way discredit the scientists covering climate change, it does not in any way mean that there is a communist conspiracy to take over the free world via climate change. That is such rubbish.

    So unless you post educated, intelligent comments and questions I will not comment here anymore because the AGW debate as such is closed. (Although, if someone posts an extremely funny stupidity…)

    There is also no climate scientists’ conspiracy to take over the US, there is no marsian influence on the weather in Australia, I don’t care about local politicians down under. So there is no need to further comment on the article here and the discussion on speed and impact of AGW is elsewhere.

    As for this article itself, read smullins’ comments (nr 359) if you disagree with the blogger. But I do appreciate the author’s effort and I’d say he’s hitting on something necessary, that there must be a world-wide consensus on how to tackle the problem urgently or we will go headfirst into a catastrophy against which the world wars will look like child’s play. Except that for the reasons that smullins explained perfectly, a world government is not the solution.

    And if you disagree with AGW, well, you got it wrong then. Learn to live with the truth even if it goes against your religion, your opinions and your subjective inner conviction. Whether you like it or not, AGW is real, the facts are in, have been checked time and again and therefore – the debate IS CLOSED.

    Link to this
  396. 396. A_Critic 11:18 am 03/26/2012

    “Re “AGW” debate: that debate is closed.”

    Since we are still debating it, that is not true. All you are doing is trying to censor your critics, which is a red flag that you are very wrong.

    “There is a nearly 100% consensus amongst scientists that AGW is happening. ”

    That is incorrect, and even if all scientists agreed it is still an example of the logical fallacies known as the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity.

    “Demanding to re-open the discussion is only proof of someone living in the deepest scientific stone age. ”

    A core scientific principle is that there is nothing closed to debate. A key scientific and history lesson is that the science of any given time is later overturned.

    “So unless you post educated, intelligent comments and questions I will not comment here anymore because the AGW debate as such is closed.”

    You aren’t being scientific. You are being religious. You have blind faith and so you are blind. I will credit you for not falling in line with the blogger who unwittingly called for genocide, war, and a global dictatorship.

    Link to this
  397. 397. jctyler 12:30 pm 03/26/2012

    a_critic:

    “(nearly 100% consensus amongst scientists that AGW is happening) That is incorrect”

    Just because it doesn’t suit you does not make it incorrect. (check the above comments for the link to a survey of climate scientists.

    “and even if all scientists agreed it is still an example of the logical fallacies known as the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity”

    Regardless of any evidence, you still want to stick to your opinion? Like a guy with cancer who doesn’t want to believe his doctor, gets a second opinion, doesn’t believe that either, third, fourth, fifth, finally finds a quack from Backwoods City who tells him it’s only a zit, and the guys goes “told you so”. Then dies a week later from an untreated tumor. Still don’t travel cos you’re afraid to fall off the edge?

    According to the fishermen here the climate is perverting the fishing. They already had a hard time accepting that they were overfishing, now the climate is messing with their minds. And a few miles inland the farmers complain about the fifth or sixth too-dry spring in a row? Or as the old Indian saying goes “When the sea is empty and the land is dry, then you will understand that fish’n chips isn’t made from roadkill” or something to that effect.

    Looking forward to get away from all this AGW-not-happening-re-open-debate rubbish.

    I do hope this page stays online for another five years so that we can come back and wipe the floor with the denier rubbish here.

    Link to this
  398. 398. A_Critic 12:45 pm 03/26/2012

    “Just because it doesn’t suit you does not make it incorrect. (check the above comments for the link to a survey of climate scientists. ”

    You didn’t say climate scientists. You said scientists.

    “Regardless of any evidence, you still want to stick to your opinion? Like a guy with cancer who doesn’t want to believe his doctor, gets a second opinion, doesn’t believe that either, third, fourth, fifth, finally finds a quack from Backwoods City who tells him it’s only a zit, and the guys goes “told you so”. Then dies a week later from an untreated tumor. Still don’t travel cos you’re afraid to fall off the edge?”

    You didn’t address your use of logical fallacies.

    The evidence is disputable. A good deal of it appears to be bogus. The rest of it is theoretical. If a series of doctors all agreed that their computer model showed that you have cancer would you undergo chemotherapy?

    “According to the fishermen here the climate is perverting the fishing. ”

    And that proves…nothing. Even if the climate is changing it doesn’t mean that man made gases are the cause.

    “I do hope this page stays online for another five years so that we can come back and wipe the floor with the denier rubbish here.”

    I haven’t denied anything. I’m only questioning your blind faith in a very complicated model that uses bogus data. I started reading Al Gores book. It sure reads exactly like Dianetics or any other cult’s book. It just oozes that slick clever pseudo-truth that smart conmen use. And you, and the climate scientists, and the rest of the believers, all act exactly like cult members. You’ve abandoned the principles of science. You refuse to debate or consider alternate ideas. You refuse to acknowledge the serious errors and fraud underlying your belief.

    Now, y’all might happen to be right. I don’t know one way or the other. One thing that is for sure is that you are a member of a cult, a mass delusion, and it will only be a fortuitous coincidence if you happen to be right. And I pray that you are right, for if it is true that these man made gases raise the global temperature, then we have found a solution for the cooling of the sun – HALLELUJAH!

    Link to this
  399. 399. jctyler 1:24 pm 03/26/2012

    “http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-pollution-tipping-scaled-toward-more-weather-extremes”

    or as the deniers will put it, just another communist manifesto

    to a_critic:

    “You didn’t say climate scientists. You said scientists.”

    gnagnagangnanaha

    “The evidence is disputable”

    No.

    “You didn’t address your use of logical fallacies”

    Look who’s talking.

    “Even if the climate is changing it doesn’t mean that man made gases are the cause”

    Whatever bloats your comments to Montgolfière size would kill a small planet all by itself.

    “I haven’t denied anything. I’m only questioning your blind faith in a very complicated model that uses bogus data.”

    How do you know it’s bogus data? You don’t. You wouldn’t know real data from an own-gas-filled comment if you get my drift.

    “I haven’t denied anything…Al Gores book reads exactly like Dianetics or any other cult’s book. It just oozes that slick clever pseudo-truth that smart conmen use. And you, and the climate scientists, and the rest of the believers, all act exactly like cult members. You’ve abandoned the principles of science. You refuse to debate or consider alternate ideas. You refuse to acknowledge the serious errors and fraud underlying your belief.”

    Not a denier, nah, an objective, impartial defender of the truth you are – and then you go on a rampage of brainless accusations… that paragraph is quite an achievement as I’ve rarely seen anything as illogical and senseless. You are the cake master, the undisputed king of footwounds. Are you even aware of the self-contradictory mutually annihilating garbage you wrote?

    Thank you for your comment. It is a gem.

    “I don’t know one way or the other. One thing that is for sure is that you are a member of a cult, a mass delusion, and it will only be a fortuitous coincidence if you happen to be right.”

    You don’t know anything but you know that climate scientists and AGW is a mass cult and that it will be only by luck that scientific data will be correct?

    “for if it is true that these man made gases raise the global temperature, then we have found a solution for the cooling of the sun – HALLELUJAH!”

    WROARMwahaha… this guy can’t be real…

    (five seconds later:) What am I saying? But of course you are right, yes, a_critic, you go and explain it all to us, seriously, I’ve suddenly become a great fan of yours and I do hope Fox News and that Limbaugh character give you airtime. I would sign any petition to give you a slot on their prime time. “A_critic and proof that AGW is but a fart in the universe.”

    Where do you people come from? Is there a nest somewhere? Do they clone you people from bad acid? Are you the new generation of deniers? You’re the Hindenburg of climate denial. We warmists need more of you.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. Nothing supports AGW as you do, thank you, I couldn’t do better. If I ever publish a book on AGW and its critics you will feature prominently. And you made my day, you should hear the comments here and the guys laughing their butts off, seriously. And you are allowed to vote? Hm, wonder what’s wrong with democracy, maybe we really need a world government elected by anyone who has more than one million in the bank…

    stop posting, man, you’re killing me, can’t go on laughing all the time, I’ve got a job to do.

    bye for now, my unvolontary AGW supporter friend(s).

    And to the others, keep on truckin’.

    Link to this
  400. 400. A_Critic 1:43 pm 03/26/2012

    “gnagnagangnanaha”

    That’s the least intelligent response I’ve ever gotten online, out of tens or hundreds of thousands. You represent the global warming believers very well.

    “No.”

    Since it is commonly disputed it must be disputable.

    “Look who’s talking.”

    I haven’t used any logical fallacies, nor have you even claimed that I have.

    “How do you know it’s bogus data? You don’t. You wouldn’t know real data from an own-gas-filled comment if you get my drift.”

    I know because I read the hacked emails in which leading climate scientists discuss how to fabricate the data.

    “Not a denier, nah, an objective, impartial defender of the truth you are – and then you go on a rampage of brainless accusations… that paragraph is quite an achievement as I’ve rarely seen anything as illogical and senseless. You are the cake master, the undisputed king of footwounds. Are you even aware of the self-contradictory mutually annihilating garbage you wrote?”

    If you are correct about me and my statements – why can’t you submit something more substantial than ad hominum attacks? Why can’t you point out the contradictions I am allegedly making?

    “You don’t know anything but you know that climate scientists and AGW is a mass cult and that it will be only by luck that scientific data will be correct? ”

    Yes, it’s a cult. If it talks like a cult, thinks like a cult, has blind faith like a cult, has charismatic leaders like a cult, and sucks up huge sums of money like a cult – it’s a cult. And the data isn’t scientific. It’s religious.

    “And you are allowed to vote? ”

    I don’t vote because I wrote the theorem proving that a representative electoral system is impossible.

    “Nothing supports AGW as you do, thank you, I couldn’t do better. ”

    See, if you can’t do better to support your theory than to produce pointed criticisms of the logical fallacies and religious nature of your own cult, that really doesn’t help prove your case.

    Link to this
  401. 401. A_Critic 1:54 pm 03/26/2012

    10 Warning Signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

    Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. (The globe is warming because of man made gases and this is absolutely true because powerful politicians and scientists say so)

    No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. (“the debate is closed”)

    No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement. (applies to governments, NGOs, and for profit groups all making a buck off of the hysteria)

    Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. (Obvious)

    There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. (Again, obvious)

    Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. (There’s a few brave folks who have come forward, there will be many more)

    There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader. (Al Gore’s involvement in many criminal actions is a matter of public policy)

    Followers feel they can never be “good enough”. (The constant self flagellation over ones “carbon footprint”)

    The group/leader is always right. (Obvious)

    The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible. (Obvious)

    Oh yeah, this is a dangerous cult.

    Link to this
  402. 402. jctyler 2:50 pm 03/26/2012

    a_critic, thank you for your continued support of AGW.

    Link to this
  403. 403. wsugaimd 12:00 pm 03/29/2012

    A_critic…exactly! Another silly article by a silly author demanding silly solutions to an incompletely studied phenomena.

    Link to this
  404. 404. macuser 9:35 am 03/30/2012

    JamesDavis says @ 4:26 pm 03/17/2012 [ ... ]

    Davis, you belong in an insane asylum along with jctyler and Gary Stix.

    Malthusian Luddites believe they have all the answers, when in fact they are engaging in a pseudo-scientific circle jerk.

    The fact is that CO2=AGW is a scientific CONJECTURE. There is zero testable, falsifiable evidence showing that the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 ["carbon" to the scientific illiterates] causes global temperatures to rise. In fact, on all time scales the rise in CO2 FOLLOWS the rise in temperature. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore the entirely natural global warming since the Little Ice Age is the cause of outgassing CO2 from the oceans; the same process that makes a warm Coke outgas CO2.

    The runaway global warming scare is based entirely on the falsified claim that more CO2 causes more global warming. But there is zero testable, empirical evidence that this is so.

    Climate alarmism is the result of the ≈$7 BILLION in federal grant money shoveled into “climate studies” EVERY YEAR. That much money is a huge motivation to claim that runaway global warming is upon us. But that is a lie, pure and simple. Nothing unusual is occurring. What we are observing is no more or less than natural variability.

    Link to this
  405. 405. mpetkus 3:12 pm 03/31/2012

    I think we can all agree that we need a debate, possibly an internet viewable one, with no preset rules by either side. A tally of points made by each side at intervals, and at the end, with data from each side. Then a consensus of all viewers on the arguments represented.

    jctyler the essence of science, is that nothing is ever concrete, that is why it is a study, with ongoing investigations/research forever.

    This is really not meant to be a slam at all but:

    If we allowed a “closed” set of individuals ( in this case Climate Scientists who agree with AGW – sorry, but it is not 100%) to claim “debate closed”, well the earth would not only be flat right now, we would still be the center of the universe. You see, it would have been made illegal to build a spaceship to investigate these claims, and anyone pointing out problems would have been labeled mentally deviant and needing to be “treated” such as Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London to say exactly so.

    This is very dangerous folks.

    Peace…

    Link to this
  406. 406. Adolf (ze denier) 12:00 pm 04/29/2012

    Of course we should have a world government! Ein Volk, Ein reich, Ein fuhrer!

    Link to this
  407. 407. stoprunning@ymail.com 9:16 pm 07/19/2012

    The anti-science crowd is too large. We’re going to either hit a mass extinction event, or clean house. That’s the truth of it.

    Link to this
  408. 408. Coffey3c 10:41 pm 07/20/2012

    Stop Running:

    I am fatalistically fearful that you are correct.

    Even as I mentioned in the blog, I have always seen the catastrophic range of the climate change to
    be that which will occur when the crop failures in the US Mid-West become the norm. I have little
    fear that Manhattan will flood, and nor do I care if the North Carolina Legislature will be busy passing
    laws to tax the prime underwater properties just off their former coastline. When the food runs short,
    about the time there are then nine to ten billion people on the planet, it’s going to get ugly.

    The Chinese will have to deal with it, and given their record, they will likely be the ones wiping out whole
    populations off the map, just because they have the poorest of misfortunes to be living on top of some
    needed resource; and, I shudder to realize that although this country does things so awkwardly on the
    world stage from time to time, usually because we are on the merely better side of some unresolved
    issue, that the chances of us not acting then are nil.

    I think I pointed out, that in the 80′s, a single degree of warming in the surface waters of the pacific ocean,
    but millions of people at risk for their lives, and an unknown number in the hundreds of thousands died of
    thirst. All at a time when the power of the nations in the western world was less diminished, and resources
    were far more freely available then they certainly will not be when the excretory exudation impinges on the rotary
    atmospheric impeller. And!, even then, the only response was that we were powerless to provide them with
    substantial aid, or aid substantial enough to prevent the horrendous deaths of what – three quarters of a million
    people? How much worse will it be in a time when we will undoubtedly be struggling to feed our own population.

    Probably the most remarkable aspect of this whole denial phenomenon may be, that those political advocates
    who attack every jot of the science via non-sequitorial argument, on the basis of inept and inapt political science,
    discredited political science, unsustainable energy technologies, and paranoid conspiracy theories…
    have apparently never read a history book.

    I thought your comment was sadly but eminently plausible

    Link to this
  409. 409. Cajetan 4:58 am 06/9/2013

    Now, I finally understood. It looks like, some people are using the climate catastrophe as a way to get power over the world. Oh wow. Who didn’t expect that?

    History repeats itself. That’s a fact.

    Link to this
  410. 410. dinbay 9:52 pm 10/10/2013

    Good replies in return of this difficulty with real arguments and telling all regarding that.https://www.rebelmouse.com/wartrolreviews

    Link to this
  411. 411. kevinbrands 1:50 am 02/19/2014

    Hi there to all, it’s really a nice for me to pay a visit this web site, it includes important Information.worldwide brands

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Give a Gift &
Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now! >

X

Email this Article

X