Those refusing to face the facts about climate change are akin to chain smokers ignoring cancer threats.
Many people with a serious illness have trouble accepting it; they'll deny it and ignore it for as long as possible. Global warming produces a somewhat similar reaction in some people. This continued doubt has a parallel in the 1964 Surgeon General study that established the link between smoking and cancer.…
Article comments
26 - driveby
DID YOU MEAN TO SAY STUPID PRICK WHOM EATISH SHIT OR STOOPID SHIT EATING DOG? DONT MAKE A HENS EGG DIFFERENCE. THAT WOULD BE ME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT AND PRAISE BE ALA. ZIP-A-DEE-DOO-DAH, ZIP-A-DEE-AY, MY, OH, MY, WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY.
27 - Dave Nalle
I'll think about that as soon as all the bigwigs, all our leaders, at this fancy IPCC summit forgo their private jets, helicopters, and limos. When all the cult-of-Gaia egos in Hollywood and Washington change their behavior I'll know it's for real.
If we have to wait for the hypocrites to show us the way we're never going to get anything done. They're almost as slow and unlikely to do the right thing as government.
If we want change it has to start now and with each and every one of us doing his or her part individually. It will eventually add up.
Dave
28 - Doug Hunter
I agree Dave. As long as the answer to our supposed problem is paying credit taxes to third world countries to borrow their pollution I'll know this is not serious and just a method to redistribute wealth. If the carbon tax American citizens pay goes to American researchers and technology companies it'll be a sign that we're at least serious about a solution and I'd be much more likely to support it.
29 - Dave Nalle
It does seem to me that it would make a lot of sense for third world nations to start off on the right non-polluting foot rather than being encouraged to repeat our mistakes through what is essentially a carbon subsidy. Probably much cheaper in the long run for them to not pollute from the start, as well.
dave
30 - Ann NYC
"I think the IPCC's work is impressive, comprehensive and inclusive."
Are you talking about this report?
"The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week. This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon, a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report Monday.
Solomon and others wouldn't go into specifics about what the report says. They said that the 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by governments officials for several days next week and released to the public on Feb. 2. The rest of that first report from scientists will come out months later."
Are you privy to the full report? Please tell us what was in it before it was edited in secret by government officials. Citing 600 scientists is meaningless unless you include their experiments, their method, their conclusions, how they came to their conclusions, and what materials they actually contributed to the report. Furthermore, the credence supposedly gained by citing "numbers of scientists" is a sad combination of two logical fallacies, appeal to authority and appeal to popularity, two immediate disqualifiers of the argument from honest discussion. And 600 scientists? Do you know how many, scientists around the world work in these fields? I'm married to an experimental physicist and I'll tell you first hand, true science is not conducted in secret and edited by government officials. This is not a peer reviewed science paper, it is a heavily edited policy piece with no transparency. This is only a "science" report if you live in the Soviet Union, other than that anyone who isn't skeptical is either a political hack or doesn't understand science at all.
And to add to what Aku said, here's a quote from Freeman Dyson on the models:
"But I have studied their climate models and know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.
The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That's why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
31 - Joe
Dave Nalle - It does seem to me that it would make a lot of sense for world nations to start off on the right non-polluting foot rather than being encouraged to repeat our mistakes through what is essentially a carbon subsidy. Probably much cheaper in the long run for them to not pollute from the start, as well.
It'd be better had we ALL started off on the right foot but asking South Africa to go straight from grass hut to Prius is asking too much.
32 - Joe
Ann NYC - The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That's why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
I think it's worse then that. I've seen many reports from the mass media, bloggers, commentary, etc. hooting that "the debate is over" yet the report hasn't been released yet.
IPCC is just another fancy show with a targeted outcome. They got the results they intended to get.
That's why so many are already touting the report - they "know" what it's going to say.
33 - Clavos
It'd be better had we ALL started off on the right foot but asking South Africa to go straight from grass hut to Prius is asking too much.
As probably the most advanced country in Africa, I'm sure SA already has its share of Prius cars.
There are, unfortunately, far more people living in slums like Soweto than in grass huts-most South Africans, Black and White, are city dwellers.
34 - moonraven
Now, driveby, you stay away from all that Nebraska beachfront property I am buying on the cheap.
I don't want you driving up the prices.
35 - vanity saddler
yall are crazy this is whats about, climate change is not good for us and not good for people that are sick, okay .oeriod!