How have your views on global warming evolved over time?

A scientist who has been a prominent skeptic of global warming is making news with his latest conclusion: that global warming is real after all. The scientist, Richard Muller, conducted a two-year study of the earth’s surface temperatures. He found that temperatures are rising fast. Today’s Question: How have your views on global warming evolved over time?

  • Clark

    Yes, more concerned with global

    population reaching 7 billion. Resources necessary to feed, house, employ such a huge population will only create further strains on the planet. We’re in big trouble with no near term solutions.

  • Gary F

    It’s all about the United Nation’s Agenda 21.

    It’s about erasing national sovereignty, eliminating private property rights, curtailing personal and economic freedoms, and wealth redistribution.

    If it were truly about the environment, then Taiwan, China, India, and Mexico would be included in the global rules proposed, They have the heaviest and dirtiest industry, and the Global Warming folks, are giving them an exemption.

    The earth is not your mother. You have a mother who carried you for nine months, gave birth to you, wiped your face and butt only about a million times, put a bandaid on you bo-bo, brought you to the emergency ward after you fell out of a tree, taught you how to ride a bike, waited up for you when you didn’t come home on a Friday night and was glad there was only minor damage to the car.

  • Gary F
  • Kurt

    No. I believe temps. have risen as of late but don’t see any proof that human activity had anything to do with it. CO2 levels are the oft- sighted smoking gun as it were but they don’t seem to correlate with rising temps. very well at all-sometimes going up and sometimes going down.. I also resent the poor excuse for science that attends global warming, from Al Gore and his preposterous claims to the exclusion of data that does not fit the narrative. Science I can respect, manipulation I cannot.

    If we are the cause of Global warming, changing light bulbs isn’t going to accomplish anything. If we are not, then we are spending our resources very poorly in any attempt to counter it.

  • Garret

    Who profits from believing in Anthropogenic warming? When it was proposed, nobody. After decades there are maybe a couple hundred million dollars floating around for it.

    Who profits from not believing in Anthropogenic warming?

    Every single fossil fuel company on the planet. A global carbon tax would cost them billions of dollars. What does the current 59 year old executive care if it’s hotter 40 years from now, he’ll be dead and they have shareholders breathing down their necks now.

    They’ve been spending massive amounts of money to discredit global warming. I really hope you petitioned for a cut before posting. Being willfully ignorant for a ton of money at least makes sense. Being willfully ignorant for free. That’s just a waste.

  • Emery

    Very little.

    Basically, the answer is culture. America is culturally bifurcated to a degree difficult for even a Belgian to understand. And all the good American scientific and technological stuff came from one half of America. Blue America. Democratic, intellectual, elitist, saltwater, liberal, urban, coastal America.

    On the other hand, “red” America isn’t just incurious, it is actively anti-science. Look at evolution. To believe in evolution, one must reject another large chunk of the Bible. Obviously, red America is not prepared to publicly do so. Now science comes up with another big theory, and red America knows just what to do with it.

    The irrationality is so pervasive that if science were to declare that carbon emissions were actually cooling the planet, Republican senators would be lining up to sit on Fox TV and tell you just how hot things were getting. Then they would quietly tell their hedge fund manager to buy heating oil futures.

  • Doug

    Hold on Emery, can you justify that first paragraph? An awful lot of important innovation happens and has happened between the coasts. I’ve known an awful lot of smart Iowans, Georgians, Hoosiers, etc. And I once saw an idiot in Manhattan, although I was just passing through and hadn’t realized the store window was reflective.

  • Chuck

    OMG! The evidence is clear and convincing, but facts, and science, don’t seem to matter to some.

    There seem to be many causes for the rapid rise in temperatures – CO2 is, without doubt, the biggest single cause.

    But thank goodness we have two to three weeks less winter here in MN.

  • Philip

    My views have remained pretty much the same. I am an Evangelical Christian who happens to be a conservationist. Surprising? Maybe it shouldn’t be, though how the press categorizes people into social-political groups shouldn’t be surprising either. From my perspective being a good steward of God’s creation should be a priority. That means not littering, preserving our wildlife and their habitats, mandatory recycling for everyone, and reducing CO2 emissions. Even if you don’t believe this contributes to climate change, which I do, the health effects of CO2 are irrefutable. When God was finished with His creation He proclaimed that it was very good. We have a responsibility to maintain that which He delights in. Most Evangelical Christians I know believe this.

  • Bear

    Yes they have, but first, the term “global warming” is falling from use and being replaced by “global climate change”. This is more accurate of what is actually happening. Some regions will get warmer, e.g. artic and others cooler. Many will experience more intense weather events. The impact over time; no one is sure. If arid regions become wetter; more land on which to grow food; if arable land becomes arid; less food production. Climate has changed frequently over the history of this planet. But Clark opened this discussion with the real crisis: unrestrained population grow. Add to this that OECD countries consume resources at a relative rate of 32 times that of a developing country; 20 percent of the 7 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water; the majority of the usable water is in OECD countries; arable land is unequally distributed and concentrated in OECD countries. Now the developing countries and emerging BRIC economies all aspire to have the luxuries of the OECD countries. Resources are unsustainable at 7 billion people and an average consumption rate somewhere around 7 relative units. More people and increased resource consumption, equals crisis. But this is the proverbial frog in boiling water scenario.

  • Sara

    My views on global warming have not changed.

    What has changed is my dislike of the Republican’s rhetorical tag of “climate change” to manipulate the conversation. Why? For once the manipulative moniker is more appropriate. Global warming doesn’t mean that the entire world will simply be warmer; it means that climates will change with more extreme weather events occurring as global temperatures rise.

  • Bill

    Perhaps because no one ought to be expected to “believe in” scientific accuracy. When models predict a range of outcomes from negligible to catastrophic, it is quite clear that saying “the science is settled” is absurd. It is not legitimate to average the results of different models; we have no basis for weighting them.

    Warming is likely. The question is whether it is a dire problem requiring drastic solutions. The honest answer is that we do not know. Moreover, environmentalists have the self-created obstacle of having claimed for decades that all of their concerns are cataclysmic. Obviously, their mothers never read them The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

  • Steve the Cynic

    The climate change debate makes an excellent case study for the phenomenon of confirmation bias. People give undue weight to evidence that supports opinions they already hold and what they would prefer to be true, while discounting evidence that challenges their current opinions, especially if dealing with it would be costly to them.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias.

  • Larry M.

    One real winter in 20 years for Minnesota, it’s not hard to believe at all. The atmosphere is considered only about 300 miles thick (that’s like driving from Austin, MN to Silverbay, MN) and the earth has 7 billion people on it, in 2002 we had 800 million cars on the road worldwide and that number is exploding as nations modernize with an expected 2 billion cars on the road in 2030. (http://www.econ.nyu.edu/dept/courses/gately/DGS_Vehicle%20Ownership_2007.pdf) that’s like throwing a school of fish in a small aquarium and then giving a growing number of them cars. In the U.S. there is over 800 vehicles per 1000 people and other nations are catching us and we are 2nd in the world. To think that man can not have an impact on the atmosphere and climate is truly delusional.

  • James

    Depressing post warning! The following is what I have believed for years and still do.

    Of course there is global warming and/or climate change and of course mankind is causing it.

    And there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Oil, natural gas and coal are just such effective and efficient sources of the energy that fuels our lives we’ll be lucky if the rate of increase of consumption slows, never mind an actual decrease in consumption or a cutback to a sustainable level.

    Even if America finally decides to cut back, is China going to cut back? Or India? Or Brazil? Or any of the other countries that are getting their first tastes of wealth and comfort and convenience?

    I have absolutely no doubt that mankind is going to “drive it over the cliff” on this one. Hopefully my little pocket of the world will be relatively unaffected.

  • david

    I imagine Richard Muller finally had enough sleepless nights. After whoring for the koch brothers, manipulating data for the climate deniers, he finally realized the error of his ways. Maybe like a lot of magical thinkers he realized he’ll some day (soon) he’ll have to meet his maker and account for his sins.

    I have not changed my mind on climate change in 20 years. In fact the more I learn, the more I know it’s real. That it’s caused (accelerating) because of us. What has changed is my faith and respect in the morons who make up a large part of the American population. So many of you are dupes for this koch brothers bullshit. Several of you are on here every single day pasting in their propaganda. It’s soooo sad you can not think for yourselves. It’s a sign of the times. Critical thinking has never been taught in schools, during my life time at least. Can’t have good little sheeple who will volunteer to die in a war so koch, exon, halliburton, et. al. can rake in record profits. No one would buy ridiculous SUVs if they realized just how destructive those asinine machines really are. You people parrot bullshit about the ineffectiveness of compact florescent, but whenever you reduce electrical consumption, that has a direct correlation to the about of coal, natural gas, garbage that has to be burned to create that electricity . It might not be huge on an individual level, but it would add up if everyone did it.

    This is important, stop being dupes for the koch subterfuge. You can not drive a suburban and care about the environment too. The world is changing, for the worse, get used to it and start doing the right thing. Your kids and grandkids are going to be directly affected by your actions today.

  • GregX

    Short answer no. I think pumping-dumping stuff into the atmosphere is stupid. To those whose only proof will be some actuall, real-time observable and dramatic made-for-TV climatic event are, missing the smaller point. Dumping chemicals in the pool you swim in and drink from is just generally gonna have a negative impact on the perpetrator. Now 200 years ago – there were plenty of other “un-westernized , un-owned lands ” you sail over to, conquer and restart the process. Well, those days are over. Time to learn how live with what you got. Rule number 1 – take care of it like you are never getting more.

  • Steve the Cynic

    “To those whose only proof will be some actuall, real-time observable and dramatic made-for-TV climatic event….”

    Record-breaking ice bergs calving off of Antarctica, disappearance of ice shelves, shrinking glaciers world-wide, unprecedentedly large rivers of meltwater flowing off of Greenland, the opening of the Northwest Passage, etc., aren’t “dramatic”? Oh, right. Most of those aren’t observable from the red states, so they don’t count.

  • ak

    Ugghhh..come on MPR! This is so “2008”. Not only is the question geared to not get a solution, but you allow respondents to type in their opinions that we’ve heard for the past 5 years!

    If you’re going to ask a question, try to get somewhere! This is MPR, full of educated members right?!

    Well…back to shaking my head

  • Steve the Cynic

    “Critical thinking has never been taught in schools, during my life time at least.”

    It was in mine, not as a separate course but in the context of other subjects. But then, that was long, long ago in a metropolis far, far away, where teachers were respected and politicians considered public education important.

  • James

    Dear “ak”:

    What is the solution?

  • david

    Steve, I didn’t know the term existed until I got to collage years later. It was something I did naturally, like questioning the ridiculous religious BS my parents made me swallow. I was not taught definitive critical thinking skills until college. But then I don’t recall ever learning about anything past the Korean war until MASH came on TV, the text books were really that old. I was bused from one outer suburb to another outer suburb because the one I lived in couldn’t afford to build it’s own school. This was in the years of Reaganomics, and the downhill slide was going full speed.

  • Steve the Cynic

    David, I didn’t know it by the term critical thinking until college, but when I fulfilled my college philosophy requirement by taking a course with that title, I already knew most of the concepts without necessarily having learned the names of them. I graduated some time before Reaganomics took hold.

  • ak

    solution is 99%

  • kimMN

    Oh please MPR….why this question today when the real news is that Obama’s run Energy Dept. gets nailed again for millions in wasted stimulus funds for green energy failed companies?

    ( Beacon, Solyndra, Sunpower, and the list keeps growing while no one takes responsibility for the acts)

    I recall reading the dire warnings in the 1970’s when the environmentalist groups, the radical ones at least, were calling for everyone to paint their roofs black to reduce global COOLING! Al Gore, the self proclaimed guru of Man Made Global Warming had to change their terms to Climate Change. If it cools it is man’s fault..if it warms, it is man’s fault..It is but a “Heads I win_ tails you lose” plan. meanwhile, Al Gore has flown the equivalent of 3 times around the world in the most polluting private jet..Hmmm, doesn’t practice what he preaches I suppose.

    The EPA on their own, declares that CO2 is now a toxic gas..wow…so every breath we exhale is now contributing to the Man made climate change! Yet, they order fluorescent bulbs that contain three times the allowed exposure to Mercury that results when one breaks in your home!! How is the EPA protecting people by mandating toxic metals in our homes?

    We won’t need SUV’s to haul families around anymore when the day comes for the USA to limit the number of births as China dictated to their people. Is that what America wants?

    A family hauling five could always use two or three smart cars weighing 1,800 lbs each at 40 MPG per vehicle than ONE SUV getting 26 mpg….three vehicles to get the job done = 3 times the exhaust_so that makes sense?

    Those studies suggest our global temps could rise by 0.1 degree in the next 75 years? Warmer temps = longer growing season and more food …Good!

    What the latest study fails to show is the National boards temps of the USA in the 1930 which was 10-12% higher than it was in the 1960’s and CO2 levels in the atmosphere were lower. He also skirts the data accepted by NASA regarding the increase in solar activity during those periods.

    China burns more coal and will add more CO2 by 2020 than what could be added by 3 billion Ford or Chevy full size SUVs driven at least 15,000 miles each year. So, Environmentalists should focus upon China , not here.

    But why don’t they rale against China? Right now we have an administration pushing for more “EPA/ DOE gone wild” plans and they need to distance themselves from the failed billions in their Energy Dept. loans. So this MPR question seems more tuned to find support for Obama’s plans than to address how it affects all of us. BTW, since cars got smaller, the fed’s data shows deaths have increased.

    Lastly, before anyone cries foul on this post, just take a look at the origins and benefactors of the related Carbon Cap and Trade (tax) plan. Started by the friends of Al Gore and look into the Chicago Climate Exchange business. That group was designed to add billions to Goldman Sachs accounts as they alone would be the broker of the mythical Carbon Offsets sold and traded.

    And which Presidential candidate received more money from Goldman Sachs than any other candidate? And which huge bank received a second stimulus bail out with no strings or conditions attached in 2009? Yes sir, Goldman Sachs again. But is so much more fun to keep pushing the man made global warming crisis to get these behind the scenes scams rolling along.

    I will wait until this other issue in the below link is solved before I trust anything coming from the White House and before I should jump on the bandwagon for Man made Global warming.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=362625

  • david

    I think we are in agreement Steve. My point is someone like kimMN will be on here any minute, and it’ll bring up Solyndra like it mean anything. Like there’s some conspiracy that the green energy initiative is a plot to also give people health care, and other pseudo-socialist agenda items. OMG how terrible, everyone have heathcare, but also what a leap. We HAVE to start working toward more sustainable energy. The only way you can not believe that is if you’er a dupe for the fossil fuel propaganda. It’s easy to buy into that bullshit if you are also not prepared to give up your McMansion, SUV, snowmobile, fourwheeler, 200 HP boat, and acre plus lot in the middle of nowhere. As long as those are your biggest life goals, you can not justify your actions when it comes to the environment.

  • david

    See I was to late, the kimMN shill beat me to it.

  • Lance

    Yes, my views have changed.

    I no longer believe anything anyone says on the subject. It’s become as politicized and partisan as every other topic. The truth may be out there, but you can no longer separate the scientists from the snake oil salesmen.

    In the 70’s, we were supposedly headed for another ice age. In the 90’s we started warning about anthropogenic global warming. Is it influenced by man’s activity or not? I don’t think anybody really knows.

  • kimMN

    Global warming does not mean that it is primarily caused by man. One volcano erupting for 3 days exceeds the total amount of CO2 from every current vehicle on the road in every country for over a 26 year period…..and add in solar flares affecting the temps, the MPR Question issue seems mute. ..well, unless we need more public support so Obama’s EPA can demand more regulations which negatively affects the poor being unable to buy these more expensive cars and skyrockets-raises their electric bills meanwhile we ship coal to China and deny USA citizens to be energy independent. Hmmmm..yup, focus upon Global warming makes so much sense ( not)

  • Steve the Cynic

    “I no longer believe anything anyone says on the subject.”

    That’s precisely what the big-oil shills are hoping for: no one believes anything any more, and everyone’s opinion is as valid as everyone else’s. It’s exactly the same strategy the tobacco industry used so successfully for so many years.

  • Jason

    My views haven’t changed much because the scientific conclusions overall haven’t changed. The more informed I become, the more evolved I feel my attitude towards global warming, or any subject, becomes.

    As long as the legitimate scientific community as a whole says that it exists, then I have no reason to not believe it does. Short of doing your own research, I don’t know what the average person could do to adjust their thinking.

    Lately the real debate has been understanding why people would believe differently on this at all. If the evidence and conclusions have long since been established why does there continue to be disagreement? Certainly it’s obvious when differing opinions are influenced by big corporations who are the biggest contributors, directly or indirectly, to CO2 emissions. But for the general public I think Steve T.C. answered this with his “confirmation bias” statement (I was thinking cognitive dissonance). However its referred to, believing what you want to believe is the real obstacle to evolving one’s mind.

  • Steve the Cynic

    I refer you to what I said yesterday, kimMN.

  • Andy

    Quite a bit. However, not as much as my views on universal expansion. The MultiVerse is revealing ItSelf. So let’s take care, be aware and occupy the HeartMind.

  • kimMN

    My views on global warming changed from accepting that any change is inevitable and is NOT chiefly caused by man.

    It is difficult to trust the reports and the support coming from the White House on this topic when they said the polar caps are causing extinction of the polar bear only to find that in the past 10 years their numbers have greatly risen! How do we trust those who align themselves with special interest groups and take millions to keep their political office when we find such contradictions such as the so called grassroots Occupy Wall Street protests?

    No one ever asks the question of who is behind these movements of man made global warming or OWS for example..here’s a good example on why my views have changed. Reported in the Blaze:

    “so called “Local” supporters of occupy Wall Street:

    Communist Party USA

    The American Nazi Party

    Revolutionary Communist Party

    Black Panthers

    Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan

    CAIR

    Some big names in the political world have also lent support to the cause:

    President Barack Obama

    Vice President Joe Biden

    Nancy Pelosi

    International Leaders and Governments:

    Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei

    Hugo Chavez

    Revolutionary Guards of Iran

    The Govt of North Korea

    Communist Party of China

    Hezbollah

    “As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as ‘isolated examples’ that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism,”

    “But when viewed in aggregate like this, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss any individual endorsement as an aberration; instead, an undeniable pattern emerges.”

    This is why so many people have lost that loving feeling of HOPE and CHANGE…the truth eventually is revealed…Global warming now called “Climate Change” happens..climates change subtly over time for a variety of factors and man made CO2 whether it is from cow flatulence or cars or volcanoes or forest fires or China’s coal plants.

    Al Gore should be in China if he wasn’t that is, really more interested in profiting as he has to the tune of 5 million using a Man made global warming scam to work a Cap and trade business plan with Goldman Sachs.

  • david

    kimMN you’re a moron. Your “fact” about volcano’s is dead wrong. It’s more like humans are responsible for 135 times the CO2 released by every volcano every year. That means people spew out as much CO2 in 3 days as every volcano all year long. http://news.discovery.com/earth/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.html

    No one here is buying into your bullshit except the other dupes who are looking for evidence to prop up the fallacies they want to believe to justify their actions.

  • ak

    As a sustaining member: MPR, let’s work towards some more educational pieces on the issues of conservation/climate science/land use/restoration/the scientific method/water quality.

    As you can see from today’s posts..it’s needed.

  • kimMN

    @David’s polite personal reply..

    Better to look up Al Gore’s involvement with the Chicago Climate Change and Cap and Trade scam and it might evolve your views on global warming…just as the latest OWS facts have evolved voters minds on who not_ to support in 2012..Birds of a feather flock together as they say.

    The air and water have never been cleaner than today. How is it that in the 1930’s the average temps were higher than in the 1990’s? Less cars and less factories back then. Hmmm.

  • david

    Post some evidence kimMN, just cause you say it doesn’t make it so.

  • Mark G

    I tend to prefer the term “climate change” to global warming, especially on the winter mornings when it’s -30. But I do think that cliimate change is real, and directly affected by human activity, purposeful or not.

  • Jon

    Ideas cannot evolve, they were created by God and planted exactly as they are meant to be in my head.

  • GaryF

    So, if global warming is man made, we need to take away personal and economic freedoms and take wealth away from rich countries and give it to poorer countries?

  • Gordon near Two Harbors

    I was skeptical 20 years ago, a natural result of being trained in the sciences, One can’t argue with the laws of physics and observation in the real world, however, A thirty percent increase of one of the most important heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere (CO2) in 150 years, a result of burning billions of tons of long-buried oil and coal is now obviously impacting the earth’s climate system and pushing weather and climate extremes beyond their natural variability.

    Notice who funds the skeptics (oil and gas companies, and fringe, right-wing radicals), and watch how they attack the messenger, rather than doing any original research on climate change and the impacts of a changing atmospheric chemistry.

  • Amy

    My fundamental view that climate change (i.e. global warming) is real and is human caused has not changed one iota.

    What has changed is my belief that there is something we will do about it in my lifetime. I used to think yes. I know now with full certaintly that the question is moot as it is too late to do something as it is already here.

    We should be putting our cars, trucks and anything that uses fossil fuels down in huge numbers, yet so many billions of people are still under the illusion that things are all right (it’s not man made-this happened before-we’ll blame it on China or Obama or worse, Al Gore!) because they can’t see it and even if they could, they deny what they see.

    Wake up people! Soon you may be the one experiencing an “unusual” Nordeaster, or record flooding in Bangkok, or plain ole 60 degrees in a Minnesota November when it should be snowing.

  • kimMN

    @david….do a search for Al Gore with the Chicago Climate Change group and Goldman Sachs. Jeeeshhh___ unless you think Al lies about this or the FTC made up their data for them? Good lord, the Chicago Climate Change group has been kept under the radar for a long time by the media but government banking and stock trade data is there if you look…or just ask Al Gore himself. He has spoke so often on this that it is rather germane now.

  • david

    yes garyf, there may be a need to take away some of your freedoms when they impact the health and safety of others. You’re not already allowed to drive 100 MPH on the freeway, you are not allowed to shoot a gun off in an urban or semi-urban area, you’re not allowed to dump nuclear waste in an area where it could pollute the water supply unless you live in Texas and pay rick perry 3 million dollars first (http://www.npr.org/2011/09/15/140506401/perry-donors-radioactive-waste-site-deal-scrutinized).

    Some day when our politicians and the majority of the media stop being dupes/shills for big oil and big industry, we’ll have to have and enforce some proper CAFE standards, impose taxes on the worst polluters, and do what ever is necessary to promote green sustainable energy. It has nothing to do with taking wealth away from anyone who doesn’t deserve to have it taken away. I would bet the losses from Solyndra are not any greater then what koch and friends spends on endorsing candidates friendly to their agenda and promoting their propaganda so dupes like you keep voting for those shills.

  • http://bobtusecommentary.blogspot.com/2010/02/climate-change.html Bob MacNeal

    Today’s question is a lightning rod for ninnies, halfwits, and haters. Rather than combine critical thinking with irrefutable data, I offer:

    A CLIMATOLOGIST walks into a bar…
    Hey barkeep, gimme a Coors Artic Ice.

    Now, from ninnies, halfwits, and haters to reasoned thinkers, we can all agree this joke is not funny.

  • david

    kimMN, I have a job I need to get back to. Since your obvious job is to post BS online to promote someone else’s agenda I already know to be false, I’ll leave it up to you to post the evidence for your statements. Otherwise I’ll just sit back with the knowledge your very very wrong.

  • kimMN

    RE: the naysayers, here is a fine synopsis of how global warming, AKA: climate change, was influenced an profited by those in power today and of the Chicago Climate Exchange group.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

    The Chicago Climate Exchange is now defunct as of late 2010 but the members are still active under other groups. Is it no wonder we see a resurgence of Cap and Trade in California being passed recently? The cost to business in CA with the Obama approved Cap and Trade SCAM will be in the billions and at a time when CA is nearing bankruptcy and is asking for union pensions to be adjusted downward..wow, Cap and Trade under the ruse of “the sky is falling” from climate change.

  • david

    What is the lives of your children and grandchildren worth kimMN and others? It’s priceless to me and I do everything possible today to minimize the adverse affects of my actions tomorrow. Stop being a shill for big oil kim. I’m willing to, and DO sacrifice for my children because it’s the right thing to do. There is absolutely NO logical reason to do otherwise.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Global warming is not an inaccurate phraseology. (Funny how right-wingers are insisting on climate change as the politically correct term.) More greenhouse gasses are trapping more energy (heat) in the atmosphere, so the average climate worldwide is warming. Some of that energy is going into warming the air, but some is also going into melting glaciers and ice caps, making storms worse (including blizzards!), causing more floods in some areas, more aridity in others, and warming the oceans.

    By the way, increased CO2 in the atmosphere has consequences beyond trapping heat. It’s also making the oceans more acidic, which appears to be starting to cause problems for shelfish.

  • david

    I was going to read your article kimMN, but instead researched http://canadafreepress.com's political slant as I’ve never heard of it. Guess what, it’s considered yet another right wing/pro big oil mouthpiece. Post some peer reviewed, non-biased evidence or else shut the F up.

  • Bear

    @Steve the Cynic, so Thomas Friedman and Andrew Winston are right wingers now? Check their books, blogs and articles, both now use the term “climate change” because it has much broader implications than global warming. True the average global temperature is increasing. However, the impacts vary, not all are warming some are cooling, which is not good for that region and which give the deniers ammo to argue against global warming. However, the average is increasing which is cause for alarm. Add the impacts of population growth coupled with consumption growth and we have an unsustainable earth.

  • Shane

    The fact that some people are now considering co2, a gas that humans and animals naturally exhale and plants inhale, a pollutant seems awfully silly to me.

  • david

    Read a book shane. A human only emits about 2.3 pounds of CO2 per day on average (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html#q7). An car that gets 21 MPG and is driven 1000 miles month on average emits 36.16 pounds per day. The big difference is the human evolved naturally, and is part of a closed loop. We are part of the food chain. While we emit CO2, we eat plants, and eat things that eat plants, and plants absorb that CO2 at an equal rate. The CO2 released from burning fossil fuel was sequestered underground. Once burned it hangs in the atmosphere, changing its chemistry, getting absorbed into the oceans changing their chemistry for the worse. That’s as dumb downed as I can make it for you.

  • Carrie

    Only in America are people dumb enough to be swayed by big oil and right wing politicians into believing that the science is wrong on this subject.

  • Shane

    Wow David, take a breath and calm down for a minute. You are awfuly sensative today apparently. I think it’s clear to any objective observer that “global warming” is being used as a front for a certain political ideology. One that says people can’t make their own decisions and need to be told what to do and how to act. There is so much money being thrown at researchers I think it is perfectly legitimate to be skeptical of their results. I happen to read lot’s of books, just not ones authored by the Sierra Club.

  • GaryF

    “An car that gets 21 MPG and is driven 1000 miles month on average emits 36.16 pounds per day.”

    1000 miles/21MPG=47.61 gallons

    47.61 gallons x 6pounds per gallon=286 lbs

    286pounds/31 days is 9.2 pounds per day if the byproduct of combustion was just CO2, which it isn’t. Most of it is water.

    David, better check your numbers. And you wonder why us global warming skeptics don’t believe.

  • Steve the Cynic

    @Bear, I know that it’s not just right-wingers who insist on “climate change” over “global warming.” I was just noting the irony that folks who usually sneer at political correctness are among those who are insisting on it in this case.

  • Shane

    One more thought David,

    Isn’t it true the earths climate has always changed? I don’t care if the climate is changing or not, it probably is. What I care about is someone telling me that driving my car to work is what’s causing it. What caused the last ice age to end for example? Global warming proponents job is not to convince people the climate is changing, it’s to prove to people WHY the climate is changing AND to prove that a changing climate is going to be bad. It’s obvious so far you have failed at that task.

  • Steve the Cynic

    @GaryF, your reasoning is all wrong. David is correct. You’ve calculated how much of the gasoline gets converted into exhaust gasses, but you neglect to include the mass of the atmospheric oxygen it combines with. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12, while Oxygen’s is 16. That means that 12 grams of the gasoline’s carbon would combine with 32 grams of oxygen to form 44 grams of CO2. (Some of the energy in gasoline is also produced by the hydrogen burning and producing H20 vapor, too, but most of the mass of gasoline comes from the carbon, since hydrogen’s atomic weight is only 1.)

  • Carrie

    Okay, again, the overwhelming evidence supports global warming or climate change or whatever one wants to call it. There is also overwhelming evidence that it is caused by us. It really is settled among the majority of people in the scientific community. Naysayers are just stubborn and uneducated.

  • Steve the Cynic

    “I think it’s clear to any objective observer that ‘global warming’ is being used as a front for a certain political ideology.”

    Bullshit! While some with a political ideology might find the data on climate change copacetic with their agenda and spin it inappropriately to make their case, that doesn’t mean the scientific conclusions are wrong. What’s more obvious to an “objective observer” is that the climate change deniers are motivated by ideology to find reasons to dispute the data.

  • david

    Garyf you should have paid more attention in chemistry, or at least auto mechanics. My numbers may be off (I was conservative, but not in the way you are used to) but a gallon of gas produces almost 20 pounds of CO2.

    as per http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml

    It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn’t come from the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air.

    When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).

    A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).

    Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.

    Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).

    We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds of CO2!

  • Bear

    @Steve the Cynic … if you are counting me as a right leaning person who sneers at political correctness, don’t …in the sustainability field on this particular subject the global warming term has unfortunately taken on a negative tone and become controversial, in part because it has been highjacked for other purposes. There is a general feeling in the industry that Gore did more to harm the cause than help. At workshops and conferences global climate change is much less controversial and thus facilitates differing opinions to be on the table and heard. I can tell you that even among sustainability people who are well versed on the subject there is much disagreement. Not an easy subject to grasp because we are dealing with a complex system with multiple inputs. CO2 emissions, which actually includes six greenhouse gases not just CO2, are but one factor. However through our activities we are adding new CO2 gases to the climate system and we really don’t know how the system will react. But all indications are for greater swings in temperatures and more intense storms and weather.

  • Sue de Nim

    I agree with Philip’s 7:32am comment. Christians who think it’s more important to maintain our extravagant, fossil-fueled lifestyle than to practice stewarship of God’s creation are terribly misguided.

  • david

    And shane, I’m sorry, but you are soooo wrong I have no idea where to begin.

  • Steve the Cynic

    @Bear, it was clear to me you weren’t a right-winger, and my comment was never directed at you. But it sounds like you agree with my point that “global warming” was politicized by deniers, even though it is an objectively correct description of the phenomenon.

  • GaryF

    Mr. Bain would not be very happy with a turkey like me.

    It’s still about Agenda 21 and income redistribution and a reduction in freedom.

    Just another tool to further Marxism.

  • david

    HAHA wow, that’s funny garyf. Where do you get this stuff? Oh yeah that weirdo glen beck.

  • Shane

    @David. Try. Just because you say it and post some links to a website doesn’t make it so. So you are saying the earths climate hasn’t changed in the past, before evil humans were emitting suicidal amounts of co2?

  • GregX

    clean the place up. I don’t care if it costs money. business needs to live up to their marketing and advertising … Otherwise I wanna see the Koch brothers add that says … “We had 314 separate pipline safety infractions last year that resulted in spills, vapor releases , stream and wetland contamination, severe employee health risk, and increeased fuel costs for you – the consumer. We intend to have more next year because for us shareholder profit is more important than agressively upgrading , maintaining and observing our infrastructure. Besides – what noise does a pipeline rupture make if there’s no-one to hear it … He he he heheh

  • Shane

    @Steve the Cynic

    The major difference is one political ideoloogy doesn’t require or force me to do anything, the other one does. The thing about Democrats is they try to get you to do things you otherwise wouldn’t do.

  • Ben

    Not really.

    Cause NOBODY is saying that the oil and coal will last more than a century or so and even if global warming claims is ‘fake’ doing ‘green’ eco friendly things still makes Earth friendly sense. , So I’m doing them.

    Bye, bye Oil and Coal.

    Hello Space based Solar and Nuclear ‘Fusion’.

    That is Until the glaciers are a mile thick, covering ALL of Canada and they start pushing in my door. ;)

    –Ben

  • Steve the Cynic

    @Shane

    It’s precisely when new information would require costly changes to one’s behavior that one should be most suspicious of one’s motives in denying it. If global warming is real and human-caused, it would be unethical not to do anything about the activities that caused it, and justice would demand that the people who benefited most from those activities in the past (i.e. industrialized nations) should bear most of the cost of dealing with it. Would that reasoning be pleasing to marxists, who would exploit it for political gain? Perhaps, but that doesn’t make it false.

  • Kurt

    Ah yes,’ All the good stuff comes from blue, Democratic, elitist, coastal liberals.’ Oh, Emery, you and your tribe are soo superior. If only, if only you could rid the world of those small-minded, red inhabitants of the heartland. Sigh. Then the world would contain only a noble race up to your standards, a utopia, a veritable “master race” as it were.

    Oh wait. Thats been tried. Small guy, bad mustache, great speaker. Name escapes me.

    Turns out he was dillusional too.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Elitist? It takes one to know one, Kurt. Are you the pot or the kettle?

  • Kurt

    Steve,

    Don’t follow. I’m just quoting the pompous and condescending post from 6:47. He probably meant “elite” as “elitist” is a rather perjorative term. But, in the event I’m missing your point, I’ll let you choose first because thats the kind of guy I am. Stay well.

  • Gary F

    Dave,

    Been against Marxism for a long time now. Should I like Marxism?

    Figured the whole global warming deal was a Marxist ploy well before Beck.

    Should I embrace Marxism?

  • Steve the Cynic

    Actually, Kurt, you weren’t quoting. Alluding, perhaps, but that’s beside the point. You missed the obvious irony in Emery’s post. He was throwing the right-wing’s pejoratives for the left back at them. And your evident indignance at Emery’s implication that the folks that right-wingers deride as “elitist” actually have good ideas sure looks like it comes from a certain arrogance on your part. The truth is, you have to be a bit of an elitist to be an ideologue of any sort– left, right, or whatever. Anyone who imagines they have the answers and everyone who disagrees is either stupid or evil, is an elitist.

    And historically, the irony of right-wingers with straight faces calling left-wingers elitist is priceless. If anyone is elitist in America today, it’s the plutocrats who think their hoarded wealth is all due to honest hard work and smarts, with no credit due to dumb luck or the social structures they were raised in.

  • kevin

    kimMN…your word count is amazing! I can’t imagine how you do it! It would be neat, however if you could address the questions posed here and not detract from the conversation with obsessional diatribe.

  • CF

    Everybody needs a religion. It’s human nature, we are hard wired for it. After all is your cat or dog religious?

    Suffice to say that so-called “enlightened” liberals reject the truth of Christianity, they make up their own homemade religion. After Islam, Catholicism, Buddhism and all the other “isms”. Then the liberal communists invent, communism.. what else? Or how about Scientology, now that’s a good one.

    So here we have yet another liberal religion foisted upon us, Global Warming(ism). Well after Evolution(ism) has failed to prove itself, as they say, back to the old drawing board.

    What a pathetic group of people.

  • Kurt

    Steve,

    I think its quite a generous contortion of your behalf to believe the intent was irony. Looks like a garden variey ad hominem attack to me. And, I don’t think less of anyone because they are of the liberal pesuasion. I think most people want the same things, they just differ on the best way to get there. Sometime conservatives have the best ideas and occassionally liberals do.

    You seem to be rather well- read so I’m sure you know Eric Hofers’ “True Believer”. He hits it on the head when he says that, rather than being polar opposites, the far left and far right are essentially the same animal.

  • Steve the Cynic

    I haven’t read Hoffer’s book, Kurt, but am familiar with his thesis, and I mostly agree with it. After a while, zealots all start to look the same.

    Good ideas are neither “conservative” nor “liberal.” The best political ideas come from a level-headed, cautiously open-minded, compassionate pragmatism that is informed by high ideals but avoids ideological extremes.

    (And read Emery’s post again carefully. He goes too far in attacking red-staters, but the phraseology you alluded to is most definitely ironic, along the line of GLBT folks who proudly call themselves “queer,” embracing the pejorative label as a way of deflecting it.)

  • kimMN

    The Climate change theory says we need cost effective solar panels..free energy and no oil used as it is for making our laptops cases, phone parts, etc. If it was marketable we would have these everywhere and the business for it would be booming WITHOUT GOVERNMENT subsidies and bad loans made.

    Most may not know where the main materials for solar panels come from; e.g aluminum for frames, copper for wiring and other electrical components but_ the main material is polysilicon.

    The processing of rare earths results in a high level of environmental pollution, arising from both the initial mining and also from the subsequent primary processing of the ores. Any mining operation in America that properly deals with these pollution issues results in a high priced product. In China they don’t care, business is government owned and not allowed to go bankrupt so they over produce and under cut costs while setting export quotas on us_ effectively monopolizing the silicon needed for solar panels. China has mining areas today that are the worst polluted lands from mining.

    Once you have solar panels you still need a way to store the electricity…Batteries! And where does the battery main material come from? Just ask anyone in Canada how the strip mining has ruined lands and polluted waterways. Mining for rare earth metals has caused much more negative consequences than the oil spills across time. Yes, even the latest BP spill while terrible shows most was biodegraded as crude oil does in the ocean..it leaks every day from natural fissures but the radical so called environmentalists do not want that information shared with the general population. Look at your lap top keyboard…oil made that possible in order to create plastics.

  • Lindsay Teilborg

    My view on global warming have evolved over the past few years. A few years ago my view on global warming was that it was a small problem that wasn’t going to have an effect on the earth. Over time i have come to realize that global warming is an issue that needs to be addressed. i’m not saying i believe in everything that scientist/other people are claiming but i am acknowledging temperatures are rising and it could be a result of human activity. We need to cut back on our pollution, our waste, etc.