Carol Browner on Climate Change: "The Science Has Just Become Incredibly Clear"

Schaefer wants crowded world destroyed by consumers

Schaefer's comment sounds as if he's a Ban-Abortionist. He opposes regulating populations. He does deny there is temperature change even though the web has proofs from experts, with satellite photos of glacier and snow melt. Maybe he accepts propaganda coming from people who are sorry Gore was VP and publicizes global warning. In some nations, the water level has dropped below the capacity to refill it. De-Forestation continues as hungry people destroy old trees to make farm patches for big families. The Northwest Passage is navigable after a long time. Years ago, a magazine published a photo with packages on a lawn, showing what a family of four ate in one year. It was surprising. Multiply that by population figures and it's obvious this cannot be sustained. What good does it do Schaefer to post his denials of global warming? If he is Pro-Life, that may explain it.

Climate change...so called.

I find it ironic and ludicrous that the very same people who claim that we can't possibly control our southern border believe that we can control the climate of the entire planet. They can't really be serious, right? So what's the real reason behind all of the hoopla on anthropomorphic climate change? Is it the desire to reduce capitalism? If so, this produces on more anomaly int their thinking. How is socialism funded? Through capitalism. I don't understand the willingness of these folks to castigate a system of economics on which you depend on to fund social engineering. There is far too much hypocrisy going on with all of this; hypocrisy, mendacity, and enough hubris to beleive that the American public is too stupid or ignorant to think deeply about any given issue. Amazing, and frightening.

Global warming and global cooling are cyclical

Since the beginning of time the earth has cooled and warmed. Humans cannot effect the clmate. They have not even learned how to make it rain or hail or sleet. Greenland's ice caps are melting? Well, at one time it was green, and thus called Greenland... so how about that? Stop trying to be God just to get our hard earned money. That is what it is all about. Get our money and control ourt lives. Get lost with your global warming hoax! Leonor Tasheiko

FEAR THE ICE

Lot's of stuff lives in the middle latitudes - "Bio Mass" they call it.... Not a lot of "Bio-Mass" on a glacier or at the Poles - Just an observation. But, you can test this hypothesis yourself by planting seeds in your ice-cube tray and putting it in the freezer and then planting others in a "greenhouse" - I think you'll see the difference.

The ice has come many times before. We are now in an interglacial period - the ice will return. Fear the ice.

Don't buy the propaganda - it's about controlling people/populations...

This is so simple: the politicians are lying to get more power and money:

In 1988 James Hansen testified before congress to scare us about global warming. See his predictions on page 7 of this PDF from NASA’s website:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

All satellite data, including this from the University of Alabama at Huntsville proves that he was wrong. The predicted warming never occurred:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg

2008 was even colder than 1988. Had he predicted what actually happened, no one would have seen the need to waste hundreds of billions of dollars. Now the politicians are threatening to burden the economy with their Cap-and-Trade scheme, which amounts to a massive tax increase on all conventional energy usage, to be paid for by you every time you buy something manufactured or transported using energy, which includes everything you spend your money on. It’s ironic how they claim to be protecting the children from doomsday, when they are really impoverishing your children’s future with this additional burden. Here is more background on this deliberate hoax from 1988:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony/

31,478 scientists signed a petition opposing the man-made global warming theory. Their reasoning is outlined in a peer reviewed journal article detailing the evidence that disproved the theory. Please follow this link:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

We are being forced to pay for less economical sources of energy while being told they are viable alternatives. This is a lie. All of the so-called ‘alternative’ sources of energy, including wind and solar, equal less than one percent of mankind’s needs. Meanwhile our far more economical access to hydrocarbon energy and nuclear energy is being throttled for no good reason. Obviously Gore wouldn't mind impoverishing the rest of us to enrich himself with his ‘carbon trading’ scheme. With the size of his utility bills and the cost of jet fuel for his private jet flying him all over the world, he needs all the money he can get. If he was really worried about CO2, wouldn’t he act like he was worried about his own emissions, and energy consumption? Of course he is received like a hero in Hollywood; he makes hypocrisy fashionable.

You don't necessarily need the scientific reports...

...to be convinced of a warming trend in the last 100-200 years. Photos abound and histories all around the world is enough "evidence" for me and most others who can maintain a skepticism about climate change (i.e. global warming) and still be convinced that it's real.

Glacier National Park has far fewer glaciers than 200 years ago - aside from the photographs available.

The Alps have far few glaciers than three hundred years ago;

Argentinian glaciers recede within living memory;

the Himalayas don't have near the quantity nor thickness as even 50 years ago;

Africa's Mount Kilamanjaro's snowcap is almost nonexistent;

Greenland's cap is melting;

and what else but the polar ice caps are melting...

You don't need the science, but the science is a pretty good confirmation.

Confessions of a thinking scientist

Van, what percent of those 97% of scientists collected and independently researched climate data and drew independent but identical conclusions? Very few, I suspect. Thank God for the 3% of "hysterical geese" that pause to ask "why?" before racing the other lemmings off the cliff. Perhaps we ought to pay more attention to the 3% of atmospheric scientists that have found something wrong with the theory or extent of anthropogenic global warming--and have found the courage to stand up for what they believe despite ugly personal attacks from folks like you. What do they see that the others don't? It's easy to run with the crowd, and it requires much less rigorous science to support the consensus opinion (try defending sound sustainable forest management against the consensus public opinion that we're running out of trees, for example). It may turn out that the lemmings are right, but if your eyes are open to all the evidence, this thing is far from a slam dunk yet.

Furthermore, it is so completely anti-scientific to claim the title of "scientist" and then lend your name to a list of fellow believers in a theory that few on the list have actually tested or studied themselves...for the sole purpose of advancing the theory. Science used to be about testing hypotheses and replicating results, not about whose theory was more popular, or who had a better PR and media campaign, or whose theory could most panic the world.

I'm a scientist (at least my degree says "Forest Science") but I don't know the first thing about atmospheric science. When the pollsters call me to ask whether I believe in anthropogenic global warming (and they never have), I'll tell them I don't know enough about the facts to form an educated opinion. Nor, do I believe, do many others.

The why of global warming

CO2 based climate change can be explained in terms of simple physics.

To all of you who took physics: CO2 has absorption lines in the infrared.

Read no further.

To those of you who are not students of physics, here is my explanation.

When the sun (visible light which passes through CO2 molecules) shines on anything but a reflective surface, some of it gets converted to heat. This, of course, heats up the surface, and some of the heat escapes as infrared radiation. (See: hold your hand over a hot frying pan.)

This radiation is invisible (infrared or below red) but still contains a lot of the energy supplied by the sun.

If this infrared radiation radiates off a near-horizontal surface it will head straight for space.

The problem comes in if the ray of infrared encounters a CO2 molecule.

The molecule will capture it. After a short time the molecule will radiate a ray that is equal to that captured (for a balance of energy). The infrared ray that was headed for space now is being reradiated in an unknown direction, which means that there is a possibility that it will head back to earth, warming it.

Simple, huh?

Bob Serina, Environmental Studies, San Jose State,'88

Climate Change follow the money

As in all things political, scientific and economic you just have to follow the money. It is well known that the scientists who depend on grants for their existence are only given those grants when their hypothyses agree with the political and economic wishes of the granter. Hence the economics of science.

The global warming business is a little more sinister. Trillions of dollars are at stake for companies that depend on the regulatory initiatives that are proposed to combat global warming. Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers (KPCB), Generation Investment Management (GIM), CCX, Capricorn Investment Group, Masoma, Bloom Energy and Amryis are just a few of the companies (actually Al Gore's Companies) that are dependent on the government taking action on cap and trade, C02 limits and alternative fuels.

No one is against making an honest buck from a better mousetrap when it competes fairly, employs thousands, improves the enjoyment of life and is legal. When its success depends on political favors and limiting competition while destroying an economy it is a different story. The altruism and apocalyptic rantings of Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, GM foods, Y2K, WMD and other urgent earth destroying pronouncements have deep roots in economic interests. This one is no different. It is just Bernie Madoff on a larger scale. The difference is that the government will force all of us to become parts of the con.

Let's be reasonable folks.

Why do people insist on spouting political rhetoric that pretends to be science? I am a scientist with three advanced degrees but I won't argue the scientific details with hysterical people who don't display the common sense of a goose. Listen up folks. A very recent survey showed 97% OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD ARE CONVINCED THAT HUMANS ARE CHANGING THE WORLD CLIMATE, PERHAPS IRREVOCABLY. Do you really think that they are all either stupid or politically driven? My goodness, do you think it's a conspiracy? If you do, I feel sorry for you. Professional scientists are very good at what they do in their field and I'm not talking about your local meteorologist, the guy with the chemistry degree or some nutball (and they exist in every field) that expresses a contrary opinion just to be ornery or to score a contract. This is too important to be politics. If you care about your children or grandchildren at all stop foaming at the mouth and help find solutions. We can do this but only if we all own up to our responsibilities.