Global warming graffiti in Camden Town, London on Regents Canal

Climate skeptics sweep into Congress, but lack traction among young Americans

By
Monday, November 08, 2010 at 6:00 am

UPPA/ZUMApress.com

The midterm elections brought an unprecedented number of climate skeptics into Congress, with no incoming Republicans acknowledging the existence of man-made climate change. Environmentalists have all but given up on passing significant climate legislation in the near future, but in the long term, it may be difficult for climate skeptics to hold their ranks: Young Americans are significantly more concerned about global warming than older generations, and there are no major organizations of young climate skeptics.

This raises the question: What will come of climate skeptics as young people begin to rise to positions of power?

[Environment1] The Washington Independent put this question to Warren Meyer, who runs the website climate-skeptic.com. Meyer, in an email, said younger generations are drawn to “the ‘civilization in peril’ line,” and he suggested that people’s views change over time. “The lack of teenage skeptics today is meaningless for whether there will be skeptics in 20 years,” he said.

Meyer said young people will eventually become more attuned to the economic cost associated with lowering greenhouse gas emissions. “This seems really compelling to the young,” he said. “Until you understand that on the other side of the equation is a 100% chance of really high economic costs.”

There is evidence to suggest that older people care much more about the cost of policies like cap-and-trade than younger people. A June National Journal/Society for Human Resources Management poll shows that while 65 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds favor “protecting the environment” — to 29 percent concerned with “keeping prices low” — those numbers change for older people: 40 percent of people over 65 care about protecting the environment, while 47 percent are concerned with keeping prices low.

Overall though, the issue breaks down along party lines. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that about 79 percent of Democrats and just 38 percent of Republicans believe the earth is warming. Among Republicans who identify with the Tea Party, just 23 percent say there is solid evidence of climate change. The majority of Tea Partiers are over 45, with just 7 percent between the ages of 18 and 29, according to an April New York Times poll.

In an effort to find young people who question the science behind global warming, I allowed Meyer to put a call out on his blog. During the last several weeks, I’ve heard from about half a dozen young people who question climate science.

Andrew Funk, a 27-year-old biologist at the Department of Agriculture, is one of those people. Funk rejects the term climate skeptic in favor of “rational optimist.” In a phone conversation, Funk said he believes climate science is “pretty shaky.” He added, “I think it’s a shaky platform to re-engineer large portions of society.”

In a city flush with young Democrats, Funk said he has found a small group of like-minded individuals. “I end up hanging out with friends that are more independent, a little more libertarian-minded,” he said.

Other skeptics preferred to remain anonymous. For example, one 26-year-old graduate student at the University of Maryland said in an email:

It would be imprudent of me to let my heterodoxy on this issue be publicly known, as, sadly, I feel this has become more of a political matter in academic circles than a scientific one. I would rather my name not be associated with dissent on this matter.

The student’s comments say a great deal about the way young people think about climate change and the potential implications for somebody who questions the broad scientific consensus on the issue.

Anthony Watts, a prominent climate skeptic who runs the popular and controversial site “Watts Up With That,” blamed the “liberal” education system for the lack of young climate skeptics. “I suppose such a group would be unlikely because our children are conditioned by textbooks and a generally liberal education process to believe in the [man-made global warming] premise as factual and without question,” he said.

“In colleges, there are so many activist groups recruiting to ‘save the planet’ that skepticism generally gets drowned in the cacophony,” he added.

Maura Cowley, national director of the Sierra Student Coalition, organizes the types of “save the planet” activists Watts criticizes. “My opinion is that this whole dialogue will just fade into the past,” she said. “If you look at the millennial generation, you look at a generation that is savvy and soon to be the best educated generation.”

Cowley said young people recognize what’s at stake if nothing is done to address climate change “It’s really clear that this generation has the most to lose with this issue,” she said. “I think that’s a big part of the reason they care about this.”

Polling shows that climate skepticism has increased significantly in the last couple of years, as the issue has heated up in Congress. A recent Pew Research Center poll shows that between April 2008 and October 2009 — a period that saw the passage of a cap-and-trade bill in the House and the beginning of debate on a similar bill in the Senate — the percentage of Americans who believe there is “solid evidence” that the earth is warming fell drastically, from 71 percent to 57 percent.

Joe Romm, a former Clinton administration official who now runs the popular blog Climate Progress, said any effort to address climate change in Congress will run into opposition from a number of powerful industry interests.

“The disinformation campaign is incredibly well funded,” he said. “There’s a staggering amount of money in it.

But he said the effects of climate change will become more obvious over time, forcing skeptics to change their tune. “Come 2020 we’re going to be desperate to respond to global warming and the skeptics will be condemned,” he said.

Follow Andrew Restuccia on Twitter


Comments

72 Comments

Tweets that mention Climate skeptics sweep into Congress, but lack traction among young Americans « The Washington Independent -- Topsy.com
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 7:22 am

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Clint David Samuel, WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: Climate skeptics sweep into Congress, but lack traction among young Americans http://bit.ly/bNBceB [...]


Fox: Top U.S. Officer Surprised at Marine Chief’s Dissent | Katy Pundit
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 8:59 am

[...] Climate skeptics sweep into Congress, but lack traction among … [...]


Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics – Los Angeles Times : doing-it-green.com
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 9:20 am

[...] should be a conservative causeWashington PostThe GOP's Coming Climate Witch HuntMother JonesClimate skeptics sweep into Congress, but lack traction among young AmericansThe Washington IndependentChronicle of Higher Education (subscription) (blog) -New York [...]


Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics – Los Angeles Times
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 9:54 am

[...] should be a conservative causeWashington PostThe GOP's Coming Climate Witch HuntMother JonesThe Washington Independent -Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription) (blog) -New York Timesall 80 news [...]


Putting The Nutritional Health Program Into Action | Information About Dieting, Nutrition And Weight Loss
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 9:57 am

[...] Climate skeptics sweep into Congress, but lack traction among … [...]


Climate scientists gear up to fight climate change skeptics publicly – USA Today
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 11:10 am

[...] Magazine (blog)Climate scientists say enough is enough and mobilize an armyGrist MagazineThe Washington Independent -Science 2.0 (blog) -Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription) (blog)all 81 news [...]


mememine
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 11:14 am

This is the same candy a s s generation of pretend radicals that sits in the dark once a year with the lights turned out for an hour and calls it “progressive” and radical.


mememine
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 11:14 am

This is the same candy a s s generation of pretend radicals that sits in the dark once a year with the lights turned out for an hour and calls it “progressive” and radical.


Obama Jumps Into G-20 Surplus Spat | The News of World
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

[...] Climate skeptics brush into Congress, though miss traction between … [...]


Alex the skeptic
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

“Come 2020 we’re going to be desperate to respond to global warming
and the skeptics will be condemned,”

Wasn't it supposed to be 2010 the year of the tipping point? Now its 2020? The planet hasn't warmed sicne 1997 and the oceans are getting cooler according to the Argo bouys but this data is being hidden from the general public. Fraudsters use the same tricks.


Alex the skeptic
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

“Come 2020 we’re going to be desperate to respond to global warming
and the skeptics will be condemned,”

Wasn't it supposed to be 2010 the year of the tipping point? Now its 2020? The planet hasn't warmed sicne 1997 and the oceans are getting cooler according to the Argo bouys but this data is being hidden from the general public. Fraudsters use the same tricks.


Orson
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

Alex (below):
Actually, according to the IPCC's first report in 1990, it was supposed to be after 2000 – ten years later – when we might finally “know” that the earth was warming up, anthopogenically. Thus the dogged way the dogma of the “Hockey Stick” was disemenated and defended.


Orson
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

Alex (below):
Actually, according to the IPCC's first report in 1990, it was supposed to be after 2000 – ten years later – when we might finally “know” that the earth was warming up, anthopogenically. Thus the dogged way the dogma of the “Hockey Stick” was disemenated and defended.


Windy Windy
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 2:49 pm

When the models(projections) began to diverge from measured sources, the historic temperature adjusters emerged to remove the MWP which existed in prior IPCC reports. UHI (which JPL has verified exists in Southern CA at 6F degrees) was dogmatically ignored as a contributor to rising urban temperatures (the key IPCC source for UHI ignorance is being scrutinized and will likely lead to an investigation of the bad science behind the peer reviewed paper).

After ENSO adjustments satellite data is showing decadal warming that is only 50% of what Hansen projected in 1988 with his Congressional testimony where he claimed he was 99% certain of his projection. Anyone in the real world who makes a mistake that large would be fired but when you're a hero to the political left, selective amnesia is your best friend.

Finally it was revealed in a 2007 a Newsweek article documented for the record (can be used in court) that Gavin Schmidt had to re-educate Al Gore that only 40% of global warming could be attributed to CO2. Since then, further research has shed light on other factors that influence warming that have many scientists believing CO2 likely contributes to less than 25% of warming. So when we hear that 97% of scientists believe in global warming and man has a significant contribution, that is the starting point for real science inquiry IMO because if we find out that that man made CO2 contributes only 15% of the warming, a strategy of spending trillions on CO2 reduction may yield poor results.

Every young engineer that I speak with has weighed the data for themselves and most are not compelled by the global warming data. The political progressives on campus are rabid fanatics who are clueless about the science but buy the progressive dogma hook line and sinker. These types are not interested in calm discussion of science and typically organize to shout down opposing views on campus via Saul Alinsky radicalism. It will be a very difficult challenge for skeptics to reach these youth and if progressives are successful in getting CO2 junk science into the school curriculum then the challenges become insurmountable for the skeptics.


Windy Windy
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 2:49 pm

When the models(projections) began to diverge from measured sources, the historic temperature adjusters emerged to remove the MWP which existed in prior IPCC reports. UHI (which JPL has verified exists in Southern CA at 6F degrees) was dogmatically ignored as a contributor to rising urban temperatures (the key IPCC source for UHI ignorance is being scrutinized and will likely lead to an investigation of the bad science behind the peer reviewed paper).

After ENSO adjustments satellite data is showing decadal warming that is only 50% of what Hansen projected in 1988 with his Congressional testimony where he claimed he was 99% certain of his projection. Anyone in the real world who makes a mistake that large would be fired but when you're a hero to the political left, selective amnesia is your best friend.

Finally it was revealed in a 2007 a Newsweek article documented for the record (can be used in court) that Gavin Schmidt had to re-educate Al Gore that only 40% of global warming could be attributed to CO2. Since then, further research has shed light on other factors that influence warming that have many scientists believing CO2 likely contributes to less than 25% of warming. So when we hear that 97% of scientists believe in global warming and man has a significant contribution, that is the starting point for real science inquiry IMO because if we find out that that man made CO2 contributes only 15% of the warming, a strategy of spending trillions on CO2 reduction may yield poor results.

Every young engineer that I speak with has weighed the data for themselves and most are not compelled by the global warming data. The political progressives on campus are rabid fanatics who are clueless about the science but buy the progressive dogma hook line and sinker. These types are not interested in calm discussion of science and typically organize to shout down opposing views on campus via Saul Alinsky radicalism. It will be a very difficult challenge for skeptics to reach these youth and if progressives are successful in getting CO2 junk science into the school curriculum then the challenges become insurmountable for the skeptics.


Alex the skeptic
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

The challenge will become insurmountable to the truth, to science….what we skeptics say is not really the point. It's the truth that counts which will all set us free one day..free from the lies of the money grabbing r”esearch scientists”


Alex the skeptic
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

The challenge will become insurmountable to the truth, to science….what we skeptics say is not really the point. It's the truth that counts which will all set us free one day..free from the lies of the money grabbing r”esearch scientists”


Alex the skeptic
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 3:05 pm

And how come, the writer of this article decideds that Anthony Watts' blog is 'controversial' while Romm's is 'popular'? I bet that Anthony Watts' blog gets much more hits than Joe Romm's. Am I right to say that Wattsupwiththat is the most visted climate blog this side of the solar system?


Alex the skeptic
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 3:05 pm

And how come, the writer of this article decideds that Anthony Watts' blog is 'controversial' while Romm's is 'popular'? I bet that Anthony Watts' blog gets much more hits than Joe Romm's. Am I right to say that Wattsupwiththat is the most visted climate blog this side of the solar system?


Jayson
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 4:18 pm

Have you noticed gas prices at the pump lately? They've jumped almost 35 cents/Gal over the past 2-3 weeks and show no sign of slowing their upward climb. Just wait until $3.00/Gal most likely before Thanksgiving and people slam their wallets shut on holiday shopping. Then they'll blame the Republicans and the “George Bush effect” for re-voting them back into office. And so the song plays on.


Jayson
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 4:18 pm

Have you noticed gas prices at the pump lately? They've jumped almost 35 cents/Gal over the past 2-3 weeks and show no sign of slowing their upward climb. Just wait until $3.00/Gal most likely before Thanksgiving and people slam their wallets shut on holiday shopping. Then they'll blame the Republicans and the “George Bush effect” for re-voting them back into office. And so the song plays on.


Work Boots and Work Environment – steel framed buildings – What Causes A Stroke | What Causes A Stroke
Pingback posted November 8, 2010 @ 6:16 pm

[...] Climate skeptics sweep &#1110nt&#959 Congress, b&#965t lack traction &#1072m&#959n&#609 … [...]


webcelt
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 7:59 pm

No one ever said in what year the tipping point would be reached, just that if we don't reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, the rate at which we cause changes means we'll reach the point where we experience the effects, and efforts to curb emissions will just shorten the time we feel the effects.

The planet has warmed since 1997. I can't guess how you got that idea. This last decade was the warmest on record.

Data isn't being hidden. There was a report just in the last few weeks that the Arctic ocean has warmed more than predicted. The data is quite clear if you're not determined to cherrypick what you like and claim fraud about the rest.


webcelt
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 7:59 pm

No one ever said in what year the tipping point would be reached, just that if we don't reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, the rate at which we cause changes means we'll reach the point where we experience the effects, and efforts to curb emissions will just shorten the time we feel the effects.

The planet has warmed since 1997. I can't guess how you got that idea. This last decade was the warmest on record.

Data isn't being hidden. There was a report just in the last few weeks that the Arctic ocean has warmed more than predicted. The data is quite clear if you're not determined to cherrypick what you like and claim fraud about the rest.


johnthetreehugger
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 9:01 pm

maybe you could cite some scientific papers to prove your point?


johnthetreehugger
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 9:01 pm

maybe you could cite some scientific papers to prove your point?


johnthetreehugger
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 9:01 pm

yes, the truth is what counts, too bad many of you “skeptics” don't know how to read and interpret scientific papers and data.


johnthetreehugger
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 9:01 pm

yes, the truth is what counts, too bad many of you “skeptics” don't know how to read and interpret scientific papers and data.


johnthetreehugger
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 9:04 pm

yeah, same as the generation of softy couch potatoes that mouth off on the internet about stupid hoaxes and conspiracies and can't prove a single fact.

yeah, same as the generation of middle class wing nuts that wear tricorn hats to protest big gummint messin' wit der Medicare…

and they call themselves “patriots”….


johnthetreehugger
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 9:04 pm

yeah, same as the generation of softy couch potatoes that mouth off on the internet about stupid hoaxes and conspiracies and can't prove a single fact.

yeah, same as the generation of middle class wing nuts that wear tricorn hats to protest big gummint messin' wit der Medicare…

and they call themselves “patriots”….


Derek
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 10:51 pm

Why does Joe Romm avoid debating others in climate issues? The answer is simply that Romm knows he cannot defend his beliefs based on the scientific evidence contradicting those beliefs.

Anthony Watts independent site is far more popular that Romm's politically funded blog. Why? Because Anthony allows discussion on his site while Romm's blog deletes anything not conforming to his dogma.


Derek
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 10:51 pm

Why does Joe Romm avoid debating others in climate issues? The answer is simply that Romm knows he cannot defend his beliefs based on the scientific evidence contradicting those beliefs.

Anthony Watts independent site is far more popular that Romm's politically funded blog. Why? Because Anthony allows discussion on his site while Romm's blog deletes anything not conforming to his dogma.


Derek
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 10:53 pm

How about 800 odd peer review papers contradicting the global warming dogma of the IPCC.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


Derek
Comment posted November 8, 2010 @ 10:53 pm

How about 800 odd peer review papers contradicting the global warming dogma of the IPCC.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


Chamminy to be Kochi Mayor | MATCH DATING ONLINE ON HERE
Pingback posted November 9, 2010 @ 12:35 am

[...] Climate skeptics sweep into Congress, but lack traction among … [...]


Nice Which Car Reviews Uk photos | Which Car Reviews
Pingback posted November 9, 2010 @ 4:52 am

[...] Climate ske&#112&#116&#105cs sweep into Congress, but lack traction among … [...]


jaykimball
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 6:58 am

Here's a great example of a young person who gets it, and is part of the solution.

http://8020vision.com/2010/10/26/iris-parker-pavitt/

Jay Kimball
8020 Vision


jaykimball
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 6:58 am

Here's a great example of a young person who gets it, and is part of the solution.

http://8020vision.com/2010/10/26/iris-parker-pavitt/

Jay Kimball
8020 Vision


Elections Have Consequences - Franklin County Democrats
Pingback posted November 9, 2010 @ 9:44 am

[...] charge of government we have just elected a group of political neophytes, conspiracy theorists, and global warming denialists who openly state their top political priority over the next two years is to deny President Obama a [...]


links for 2010-11-09 | KevinBondelli.com: Youth Vote, Technology, Politics
Pingback posted November 9, 2010 @ 2:46 pm

[...] Climate skeptics sweep into Congress, but lack traction among young Americans « The Washington Inde… [...]


Matt
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

I haven't seen you quote one source thus far, John.


Matt
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

I haven't seen you quote one source thus far, John.


Mariss92705
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 8:02 pm

Come 2020 I will read his prediction and laugh. I will show it to my children to explain how foolish people were back then.


Mariss92705
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 8:02 pm

Come 2020 I will read his prediction and laugh. I will show it to my children to explain how foolish people were back then.


johnthetreehugger
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 10:48 pm

so fucking what?

I am arguing for the ESTABLISHED science. It is a matter of public record.

Deniers are the ones bringing the fake ass critiques. Burden of proof is on the skeptics.

yep, that's a cop out, but i don't spend every waking hour on internet, so tough shit.

but, on a source note, here is a brilliant, cited, take down of that prissy Brit “Lord” Monkton, king of the bug eyed deniers.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/


johnthetreehugger
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 10:48 pm

so fucking what?

I am arguing for the ESTABLISHED science. It is a matter of public record.

Deniers are the ones bringing the fake ass critiques. Burden of proof is on the skeptics.

yep, that's a cop out, but i don't spend every waking hour on internet, so tough shit.

but, on a source note, here is a brilliant, cited, take down of that prissy Brit “Lord” Monkton, king of the bug eyed deniers.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 10:57 pm

Actually it is because you can't debate with people who lie. People who get paid to lie are even worse debaters because they can claim they won even when they get ganked by facts. Watts is just a dancing street prostitute telling fearful monkey people that all their prejudices are true. There is more money in that than in all the real world problem solving a scientist could ever do.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 10:57 pm

Actually it is because you can't debate with people who lie. People who get paid to lie are even worse debaters because they can claim they won even when they get ganked by facts. Watts is just a dancing street prostitute telling fearful monkey people that all their prejudices are true. There is more money in that than in all the real world problem solving a scientist could ever do.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 10:59 pm

Crack is a heck of a drug, isn't it? Money grubbing research scientists is the craziest Fox News Glenn Beck lunatic phrase I have seen yet.
More like Alex the well behaved boy robot.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 10:59 pm

Crack is a heck of a drug, isn't it? Money grubbing research scientists is the craziest Fox News Glenn Beck lunatic phrase I have seen yet.
More like Alex the well behaved boy robot.


johnthetreehugger
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 11:01 pm

first off, cudos to you for being only the second person in a year and a half of me pissing away time on these argument, i mean comment, boards to actually attempt to cite real science challenging the accepted paradigm of anthropogenic climate disruption. the first one used the same website.

so, when i last looked at “popular technology” it was 500 peer reviewed papers, and some of those “peer reviewed” were actually news bulletins for fossil fuel industry groups. but a lot were from legit scientific journals. however, I could not find a single paper in that 500 that really challenged the accepted view of anthropogenic climate disruption. I found a few that challenged some minor points here and there, but that was it.

have you looked at 'em all? any that really bring the whole thing into question?

I'm gonna look again, but on a long time frame that will outlast this “discussion.”

and, really, climate change is happening and its happening 'cause our “civilization” destroys vegetation (forests) and pumps too much CO2 into the atmosphere outside of the normal planetary carbon cycles.

the scientific evidence points to this. it also points to the fact that the warming is NOT natural due to the fact that we are supposed to be entering a very long, slow cool down as we move into the next glacial cycle. don't worry, it's supposed to be 100,000 yrs to the next glacial maximum.

btw, the scientific dogma is of the legitimate scientific community – the IPCC was just a bunch of scientists pulling together the evidence from research that has already been conducted.

and a question from left field, why is ok to trust the DOE and DOD using super computers to model energy needs and national defense problems but not ok to trust the scientists who use the same friggin' computers to do climate modeling?


johnthetreehugger
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 11:01 pm

first off, cudos to you for being only the second person in a year and a half of me pissing away time on these argument, i mean comment, boards to actually attempt to cite real science challenging the accepted paradigm of anthropogenic climate disruption. the first one used the same website.

so, when i last looked at “popular technology” it was 500 peer reviewed papers, and some of those “peer reviewed” were actually news bulletins for fossil fuel industry groups. but a lot were from legit scientific journals. however, I could not find a single paper in that 500 that really challenged the accepted view of anthropogenic climate disruption. I found a few that challenged some minor points here and there, but that was it.

have you looked at 'em all? any that really bring the whole thing into question?

I'm gonna look again, but on a long time frame that will outlast this “discussion.”

and, really, climate change is happening and its happening 'cause our “civilization” destroys vegetation (forests) and pumps too much CO2 into the atmosphere outside of the normal planetary carbon cycles.

the scientific evidence points to this. it also points to the fact that the warming is NOT natural due to the fact that we are supposed to be entering a very long, slow cool down as we move into the next glacial cycle. don't worry, it's supposed to be 100,000 yrs to the next glacial maximum.

btw, the scientific dogma is of the legitimate scientific community – the IPCC was just a bunch of scientists pulling together the evidence from research that has already been conducted.

and a question from left field, why is ok to trust the DOE and DOD using super computers to model energy needs and national defense problems but not ok to trust the scientists who use the same friggin' computers to do climate modeling?


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 11:01 pm

Engineer /= climate scientist. If you want to run trains, get an engineer. If you want to measure stress preloads in prestressed concrete members, get the other engineer. If you want to know why all the glaciers are gone and the polar bears are moving to Minnesota, don't ask an engineer, or a physicist, or a chemist, or a creation scientist, or your mom. Climate scientist.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 11:01 pm

Engineer /= climate scientist. If you want to run trains, get an engineer. If you want to measure stress preloads in prestressed concrete members, get the other engineer. If you want to know why all the glaciers are gone and the polar bears are moving to Minnesota, don't ask an engineer, or a physicist, or a chemist, or a creation scientist, or your mom. Climate scientist.


Poptech
Comment posted November 10, 2010 @ 1:13 am

Your statement is incorrect as there are no papers on the list nor were there from any “news bulletins” of the fossil fuel industry. All the counted papers are from peer-reviewed journals.

Your confusion may have come from a journal that calls itself a “bulletin” but is a peer-reviewed science journal,

AAPG Bulletin is a peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 0149-1423)
http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Full=AAPG%20Bulletin


Poptech
Comment posted November 10, 2010 @ 1:13 am

Your statement is incorrect as there are no papers on the list nor were there from any “news bulletins” of the fossil fuel industry. All the counted papers are from peer-reviewed journals.

Your confusion may have come from a journal that calls itself a “bulletin” but is a peer-reviewed science journal,

AAPG Bulletin is a peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 0149-1423)
http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Full=AAPG%20Bulletin


Ganglion
Comment posted November 10, 2010 @ 1:38 am

That is a pretty bold claim to make! Please supply the evidence that Watts is lying. If your statement about people like Romm refusing to debate skeptics because they're liars and it is impossible to have a debate with a liar, isn't a lame excuse I don't know what is!

You really need to stop drinking the the AGW alarmist Kool-aid. I've sworn off the stuff for 3 years now, and I'm never getting hooked again!


Ganglion
Comment posted November 10, 2010 @ 1:38 am

That is a pretty bold claim to make! Please supply the evidence that Watts is lying. If your statement about people like Romm refusing to debate skeptics because they're liars and it is impossible to have a debate with a liar, isn't a lame excuse I don't know what is!

You really need to stop drinking the the AGW alarmist Kool-aid. I've sworn off the stuff for 3 years now, and I'm never getting hooked again!


Geo
Comment posted November 10, 2010 @ 3:12 am

And if you want to have your palm read, you go to a palm reader!

I got it now!!!


Geo
Comment posted November 10, 2010 @ 3:12 am

And if you want to have your palm read, you go to a palm reader!

I got it now!!!


Report: 59 Million Americans Lack Health Care :: Natural Health
Pingback posted November 10, 2010 @ 10:31 am

[...] Climate skeptics sweep into Congress, but lack traction among … [...]


US scientists to speak out on climate change – The Province | businessofgreensite.com
Pingback posted November 10, 2010 @ 1:11 pm

[...] study found that 50 percent of Americans know global warming is caused mainly by humans, …Climate skeptics sweep into Congress, but lack traction among young AmericansThe Washington IndependentClimate change: Biggest threat to human rightsThe Daily Star50% of the [...]


twisted_colour
Comment posted November 10, 2010 @ 1:27 pm

Well done, Alex. You've really thougth this through. Hell, if I was a sciency type I'd certainly spend more time on blogs, because opinions, especially in the science world, are so definitive. I can really understand why skeptic blogs get higher hits.


twisted_colour
Comment posted November 10, 2010 @ 1:27 pm

Well done, Alex. You've really thougth this through. Hell, if I was a sciency type I'd certainly spend more time on blogs, because opinions, especially in the science world, are so definitive. I can really understand why skeptic blogs get higher hits.


twisted_colour
Comment posted November 10, 2010 @ 1:30 pm

Will that be before or after your kids have been hospitlised for dengue.


twisted_colour
Comment posted November 10, 2010 @ 1:30 pm

Will that be before or after your kids have been hospitlised for dengue.


Polymer Processing » Blog Archive » Is there a "Virulent Left-Wing" Bias in Education?
Pingback posted November 16, 2010 @ 12:03 pm

[...] In an article about the political realities of climate change given the recent elections, it was stated that young [...]


nike shox
Comment posted November 22, 2010 @ 11:34 am

nike shox all the hot sales, you will find nike shox shoes will be on the website, welcome to visit nike shoes store http://www.pickshoxshoes


Pizza
Comment posted November 27, 2010 @ 4:37 pm

Whats you nike?


Pizza
Comment posted November 27, 2010 @ 4:37 pm

Whats you nike?


Is there a "Virulent Left-Wing" Bias in Education? | News
Pingback posted April 17, 2011 @ 7:22 am

[...] In an article about the semipolitical realities of position modify presented the instance elections, it was [...]


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.