Confessions of a Climate Change Convert

April 19th, 2011 at 11:00 am | 134 Comments |

| Print

I was defeated by facts.

It wasn’t all that long ago when I joined others on the right in dismissing concerns about climate change. It was my firm belief that the science was unsettled, buy viagra that any movement associated with Al Gore and Van Jones couldn’t possibly be trusted, recipe that environmentalists were simply left-wing, online anti-capitalist kooks.

It wasn’t until after I read Stanford University professor Morris Fiorina’s book Disconnect (2009) that I started to reconsider things. Fiorina noted that while environmentalism is now considered the domain of the Democratic Party, for many years it was the GOP that was identified with conservationist concerns. I was curious as to how the political climate shifted with regard to environmentalism—and whether there was something to all this talk about climate change.

I’m very fortunate to have acquaintances in the environmentalist movement, and I began discussing my concerns with them last fall. One friend recommended that I read the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggesting that it might resolve some of the questions I had about the science behind climate concerns.

I began reading the report with a skeptical eye, but by the time I concluded I could not find anything to justify my skepticism. The report presented an airtight case that the planet’s temperature has increased dramatically (“Eleven of the last twelve years [1995-2006] rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature [since 1850]”), that sea levels have undergone a dramatic and disturbing increase since the 1960s (“Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003”) and that climate alteration is having an unusual impact on avian and sea life (“…recent warming is strongly affecting terrestrial biological systems, including such changes as earlier timing of spring events, such as leaf-unfolding, bird migration and egg-laying…observed changes in marine and freshwater biological systems are associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation”).

The report highlighted the key role carbon emissions played in climate alteration, noting, “The largest growth in GHG emissions between 1970 and 2004 has come from energy supply, transport and industry, while residential and commercial buildings, forestry [including deforestation] and agriculture sectors have been growing at a lower rate” and that “[c]hanges in the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and aerosols, land cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the climate system and are drivers of climate change. They affect the absorption, scattering and emission of radiation within the atmosphere and at the Earth’s surface.” I was stunned by the report’s claim that “[t]he observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.”

If carbon-fueled climate alteration continues at its current rate, the report noted, we will bear witness to unprecedented health horrors: “The health status of millions of people is projected to be affected through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased deaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events…increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone in urban areas related to climate change; and the altered spatial distribution of some infectious diseases.” In addition, “For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5 to 2.5°C and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions and shifts in species’ geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, e.g. water and food supply.”

The report did provide some hope, noting that “[s]ocieties can respond to climate change…by reducing GHG emissions [mitigation], thereby reducing the rate and magnitude of change… Policies that provide a real or implicit price of carbon could create incentives for producers and consumers to significantly invest in low-GHG products, technologies and processes.”

I came away from the report convinced that climate alteration poses a critical threat to our health and way of life, and that “policies that provide a real or implicit price of carbon” are in fact necessary, from an economic and a moral standpoint, to mitigate that threat. Such policies—most notably the much-maligned concept of cap-and-trade—should not be considered job-killers but life-savers.

There’s a part of me that understands why libertarian pundits seem to have so much scorn for those who support state action to combat carbon emissions. Modern libertarianism is suffused with skepticism of government, and supporting state regulation of carbon emissions requires, on some level, a belief in government to get things right. Is it even possible to be a libertarian and an environmentalist—or a conservative and an environmentalist, for that matter?

I’m a bit skeptical myself. I’d argue that conservatives and libertarians should strongly support regulation to reduce carbon pollution, since pollution by one entity invariably infringes upon the rights of others (including property rights), and no entity has a constitutional right to pollute. It does not put America on the road to serfdom to suggest that the federal government has a compelling interest in protecting the country from ecological damage. If anything, it puts America on the road to common sense.

Since reconsidering climate science, I’ve had a number of debates with conservative and libertarian friends, who oppose government regulation of carbon emissions in part because they believe those regulations will cost too much. Of course regulations cost; limiting ecological damage and preserving public health requires money. The issue is whether those costs are moral to impose. If no entity has a constitutional right to pollute, and if the federal government has a compelling interest in reducing carbon pollution, then how can those costs not be moral?

In the months following my acceptance of the conclusions in the IPCC report, I’ve had a change in my emotional climate. I go back and forth between disappointment and hope—sadness over seeing Republicans who once believed in the threat of climate change (such as Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty) suddenly turn into skeptics; optimism about efforts by such groups as Republicans for Environmental Protection and Citizens Climate Lobby to sound the alarm about the need to combat climate pollution. I struggle with the urge to give in to cynicism and bitterness, to write off the American right for its refusal to recognize scientific facts. Thankfully, there’s a stronger urge—an urge to keep working until the American right recognizes that a healthy planet is required to have the life and liberty that allows us to pursue happiness.


Recent Posts by D.R. Tucker



134 Comments so far ↓

  • wolfheinl

    As a disclosure, I am a soil and wetland scientist.

    You may be already aware of this, but the IPCC report was based on research that was already at least five years old when published. (Peer review adds to the delay, plus imposed dead lines, etc.) In addition, since all governments had to approve it, the report was sanitized and it represents the best case scenerio. So, now ten years after the research was conducted, current research indicates the situation is much more dire.

    Our CO2 emission levels are the A1F1 scenerio, the highest and most governmental reports do not use this level. For example, I recently read “Global Warming Effects on Agriculture” and all their analysis was based on a lower emission level. And, the book was only a couple of years old. The end product therefore is a much rosier picture then the path we are currently on.

    I wish I could tell you how to emotionally handle this knowledge. Most of us environmental scientists learn to stow it somewhere. But, I would prepare yourself for something that is past biblical, and headed towards game over. In short, because of the long life time of CO2, the bathtub is full and the drain is plugged.

    Thank you for your post. Your views are urgently needed to get the word out to others that deny what is already occuring around us.

    • Superficial View

      You profess to be “a soil and wetland scientist”, yet you appear to be either ignorant or entirely disingenuous about CO2 in the biosphere. Your analogy “because of the long life time of CO2, the bathtub is full and the drain is plugged”, is frankly fatuous and indeed risible. No doubt you base this upon the same utter claptrap that masquerades for a fair summary of the actual AR4 report, which itself is a condensed version of the actual reseach by scientists. What you say about CO2 is factually inaccurate. World average CO2 is a really a hokum measurement. CO2 varies from season to season, from place to place locally, from night to day, and can fall as low as 100ppm or be as high as 900ppm at any given instant.

      Without prejudice or preconception I ask that you see the earlier presentation which Professor Richard Lindzen gave to the Cooler Heads Coalition. Frankly we all require “cooler heads” when considering the subject of climate change. The Climate Has Always Changed, as indeed it always will. http://www.viddler.com/v/79d667f3

  • jerseychix

    Thank you for your post

    It seems to be that right wingers hate climate change because it means changing our behaviors. It means that what we do, and how we live is more important than how much money we make.

    But really, in the end, it isn’t going to matter. Because it doesn’t matter if conservatives believe in climate change, climate change believes in them and we are going to have to deal with it. The question is how?

  • talkradiosucks.com

    Thanks for another excellent post, DR.

    I am pretty much in the same boat. Climate change is undeniable; what’s been more tenuous for me was the causal link between human activity and climate change. But that’s also becoming pretty much impossible to deny.

    “I’d argue that conservatives and libertarians should strongly support regulation to reduce carbon pollution, since pollution by one entity invariably infringes upon the rights of others (including property rights), and no entity has a constitutional right to pollute.”

    So would I. In fact, I don’t think it’s even a tough call. Libertarians are not anarchists, and pollution is a clear example of a violation of others’ property rights. The reason that this situation is more complex in terms of people’s views, is that the pollution impact is both indirect and collective– my neighbor emitting CO2 doesn’t impact me the same way as my neighbor burning trash on his lawn. But if the science shows that there is an impact, it is still the same issue.

  • nhthinker

    Human have impact.

    Beavers had and continue to have impact.

    Did beavers do the navel gazing to realize they were dramatically changing and causing substantial hardships to some species in the areas that beavers built dams?

    Would the world be a better place if they had? Who decides what “better” is?
    Scientists typically gravitate to considering Darwinist survival of the fittest it best unless humans are involved.

    Humans may have already staved off at least one ice age by their impact on Earth’s climate.
    If they did, would that have been a bad thing? It certainly would be an unnatural thing if you consider what humans do as unnatural.

    In the 1970s, most climate scientists thought there was a 2-4 degree impact on the average temperature of the Earth for a doubling of CO2. That estimate has not changed nor become significantly refined.
    The climate models up until recently did not even count deep ocean water.
    Climate is complex, science is improving.
    The US impact on CO2 is dropping but the world impact on CO2 is growing as billions more humans like the idea of climate control in their homes.

    Voluntarily kill your pets and become vegans and get sterilized (and sterilize your children) if your navel gazing compels you to. But expect Darwinist forces to resist the navel gazers.

    Are you going to have global military shooting peasants that clear land to plant crops?

    • TerryF98

      nhthinker // Apr 19, 2011 at 9:01 am

      This is even more idiotic than your Birther rantings. I seriously believe you are mentally ill.

    • jamesj

      “Are you going to have global military shooting peasants that clear land to plant crops?”

      This point of view would be truly hilarious if it wasn’t directly and adversely effecting the course of human history.

  • Brian

    Thanks for a great article. I also agree that Libertarians and environmentalists can get along just fine. Unfortunately, the oil industry has considerable influence in Libertarian circles (e.g. Cato Institute & Reason Magazine) and differing view points are suppressed.

    For anyone interested in further research, John Cook has an excellent website that examines global warming skepticism: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

  • talkradiosucks.com

    “Did beavers do the navel gazing to realize they were dramatically changing and causing substantial hardships to some species in the areas that beavers built dams?”

    No. So what? This analogy is beyond idiotic.

    Beavers don’t have the capacity to do the type of damage we are, nor the ability to mitigate that damage. Moreover, they don’t have the intellectual capacity we have (present company clearly excluded in some cases) and therefore the obligation to use it wisely.

    “Humans may have already staved off at least one ice age by their impact on Earth’s climate.”

    Evidence?

    “The US impact on CO2 is dropping”

    Evidence?

    “Voluntarily kill your pets and become vegans and get sterilized (and sterilize your children) if your navel gazing compels you to.”

    You are a total fucking idiot. There’s just nothing more to it than that. There really is no point even bothering to have a rational discussion with someone who makes comments this stupid.

  • ottovbvs

    I avoid discussions of climate science because I’m as qualified to make intelligent comment about it as I am about brain surgery. Hence I rely on the opinions of the brain surgeons or in this case climate scientists. And the overwhelming opinion of these guys for 10-20 years is that global warming is real, it’s man made, and it’s going to have a huge impact on the planet that we leave for our children, and their children, and so on. I don’t want the world wrecked to satisfy the greed of energy companies and their paid shills on the right. It’s a supreme irony that these same voices on the right are screaming about the debt and our grandchildren but ignore or deny the much more serious threat to our descendants that comes from global warming. Apparently the lightbulb has come on for one Republican at least which is progress.

    • Superficial View

      So you profess not to be an expert and rely upon “the overwhelming opinion of these guys [scientists] for 10-20 years is that global warming is real, it’s man made, and it’s going to have a huge impact”. Sadly this is naught but propagandising. The statements which you make are a sort of Goebbelsian repetition of sweeping unfounded aphorisms, mixed with the bleedin’ obvious straw men. Apparently the “Lightbulb” has yet to come on for you.

      I would wish to enlighten you however, so why not view the followng presentation with an open mind? “The View From Galileo’s Window: The Sun, The CO2 Monster, and Earth’s Climate”, a lecture by Dr. Willie Soon PhD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOih8enCPeg

  • _will_

    “I’d argue that conservatives and libertarians should strongly support regulation to reduce carbon pollution, since pollution by one entity invariably infringes upon the rights of others (including property rights), and no entity has a constitutional right to pollute.”

    ^ding ding ding.

    i mean, even if you think scientists are secret Muslins hell-bent on destroying Jesus and America, surely you can get behind this?

  • jamesj

    Good post. I consider it 100% “Conservative” to study this issue rationally, take in the overwhelming tide of scientific evidence with a critical eye, and forge logical policy in our own self-interest to prevent or mitigate a possible disaster. Romanticism (like the false sense of pride and independence that climate change deniers possess) is not a good long term strategy for human well being. I know Romanticism is part of the original Conservative outlook, but sometimes you just have to put it aside and accept overwhelming empirical evidence. Sometimes you just have to take action for the good of yourself, your family, your community, and humanity in general. Not to do so is an abrogation of your responsibility as a human being.

  • ProfNickD

    Ah yes , it was the cool-headed rationalism of the global warmists that was so persuasive to Mr. Tucker:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378178/Charles-Manson-breaks-20-year-silence-40th-anniversary-gruesome-Sharon-Tate-murders.html

    • ottovbvs

      ProfNickD has a secret object of admiration
      His name is Charlie Manson
      Prof shows he knows his climate stuff
      By bringing him into the conversation

      But Charlie murdered lots of folk
      Taking this guy seriously suggests you are a total dope
      Not I said Prof, I’m believin
      Then appearances really aren’t deceivin

  • cdorsen

    Skepticism is not always a bad thing. All the scientist believed just 30 years ago that we were headed for a mini-ice-age that never happened. I even remember as a child in school in the 80′s teachers telling us about this. Granted, the whole “Climategate” thing turned out to be much ado about nothing, but there is still reason to have some skepticism concerning the climate data. Most of the data we have comes from one place, IPCC. This is one organization who may not have cooked the science, but certainly had an agenda when creating it. A panel on climate change would cease to exist if there was shown to be little evidence of climate change. Funding for studies on non-existent issues tends to dry up pretty fast.

    I am not saying that there is no evidence of climate change or that there has been no recent warming trend. I know that in a vacuum carbon is a greenhouse gas. So, on the surface it seems a pretty likely case that the increase in atmospheric carbon is causing average global temperatures to rise. However, we don’t know what we don’t know. We don’t know that there could be other factors driving the temperature rise or at least exacerbating it. We also don’t know what will actually happen if the temperature rises such as it truly being catastrophic. The earth has been much warmer than it is now. It has been colder than it is now. Somehow, the earth and its species have survived and thrived.

    I say all of this not say we shouldn’t be good stewards of our environment. I honestly do believe at my core in conservation. I actually would like to see something done about atmospheric carbon emission rather it is causing catastrophic warming or not. We just need to stop with the sky is falling rhetoric. When someone tells me that its the end times, I roll my eyes. Growing up in the great Bible belt state of Georgia, religious nuts have been telling me that for years. Now, it seems to be environmentalist. Each believe its true as much as the next.

    As for the right, the right does need to at least admit that there is evidence and that something might need to be done. Letting the left control the conversation means that the only ideas that come about will come left of center. This also explains many conservatives reservations concerning climate change. All of the supposed solutions tend to be against the general philosophy of the right. They all seem to be tax and redistribution schemes. Such as, tax the carbon that rich countries use and send the money to poor countries for development; domestically, tax carbon to hike the price up and then send the money to the “unfortunate” to help pay their bills; they also seem to involve creating a world governing body which has long been a leftist goal. Of course, when the left suggests these as solutions, the right winces. That is why conservatives need to start to devise their own solutions. Solutions that work and that are not at their core socialist in nature (note: I am not suggesting a socialist conspiracy a la Glenn Beck). That is not to say that the right will not have to cave on some of its tendencies. Taxing may be necessary to change behavior, but there are different types of taxes that target different things. Also, there are different places that tax money can be spent. It is time for the right to join the conversation without calling it a hoax. Skepticism is okay, but burying your head in the sand will do nothing.

    • Pequod

      All the scientist believed just 30 years ago that we were headed for a mini-ice-age that never happened.

      No. A few scientists thought that it was possible that the cooling effect of the aerosols we were adding to the atmosphere might exceed the warming effect of the added CO2, but even back in the 70′s, most climate scientists were predicting warming. See http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm for more details.

      Most of the data we have comes from one place, IPCC.

      None of the data we have comes from the IPCC. The IPCC is a review body, not a research body. It reviewed existing research, producing no new data.

      We don’t know that there could be other factors driving the temperature rise or at least exacerbating it.

      We’ve got a pretty good idea that there are no other significant factors causing the observed warming. We’ve got a good understanding of natural climate drivers and none of them fit the observations. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

      The earth has been much warmer than it is now. It has been colder than it is now. Somehow, the earth and its species have survived and thrived.

      It’s certainly been much warmer and much colder in the past. The earth has survived just fine. A lot of the species, not so much. Incidents of rapid climate change are generally accompanied by mass extinctions. See the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, for example.

      All of the supposed solutions tend to be against the general philosophy of the right.

      Cap and trade is a conservative idea thought up by the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations that the left has adopted because they thought it might have a chance of passage, even though many on the left preferred a simpler carbon tax. Here’s a history of cap and trade: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html

  • talkradiosucks.com

    “Ah yes , it was the cool-headed rationalism of the global warmists that was so persuasive to Mr. Tucker”

    And another complete imbecile weighs in, right on cue.

    Sorry, issues don’t become valid or invalid based on whether or not Charles Manson believes in them. This is like saying that if I like pickles and Hitler liked pickles, that I’m like Hitler. (Which, given your posting history, I wouldn’t be surprised to see from you any time now.)

    • ProfNickD

      sucks,

      Went over your head, as most things do I suppose.

      But did you read the quote from Manson? It’s the same misinformed, irrational gibberish that the warmists claim all the time. It’s gibberish when he says it, it’s gibberish when the warmists say it.

      • Superficial View

        You must shoulder the blame for your own misplay Prof Nick, in assuming that readers in here will have the same level of analytic skill, and critical thinking as yourself.

        Of course it went right over the heads of very many people who read this blog, and seeing the name of pariah Charles Manson. No doubt many did not even read the article you referenced, not wishing to even consider those horrific deeds, let alone read the inane ramblings of that demented wretch.

        In future when criticising an opponent, do try to pitch your remarks at a level which would be understood by an elementary school pupil, without being too patronising. If possible provide some example like a dissertation or a video as I am wont to do.

  • Kurlis

    The IPCC’s AR’s are political documents written by political bodies. They are not airtight. The author is lying. He never was a convert. He’s been a true believer the whole time. Not only that, he never even read AR4. If he had, he’d have never made such stupid claims.

  • Kurlis

    Take a look at Figure SPM-2 entitled “Radiative Forcing Components” from the 4th Assessment Report on the Scientific Basis. You will note that natural forcing components have a low level of scientific understanding. Not only that, but many of the anthropogenic forcing (allegedly) components are also poorly understood, scientifically. Look at how anthropogenic carbon dioxide is given huge, enormous RF values, much greater even than the Sun! That’s some magical gas, eh? What horse-shit.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html

    • ottovbvs

      There was global warming denier called Kurlis
      Who used lots of fancy terms to confuse us
      Be skeptical, he said, of these climate liars
      Skeptical? Isn’t the first word you think of with climate deniers.

      • Superficial View

        There once was a blogger called Ottovbvs,
        who ofttimes did seek to lectvrevs.
        His poetry ran, but rarely did scan,
        as he wasn’t as bright as the restofvs.

  • TerryF98

    Nothing to see here folks.

    • nhthinker

      Your pictures show more biomass. Who is to say more biomass is a bad thing for the Earth?

    • ProfNickD

      @Terry,

      Why did you pick 1941 as your baseline — because you found some photos to “prove” your point?

      • TerryF98

        The only “point” I have is the undeniable evidence that you see before you. How you choose to interpret that evidence or in your case dismiss it out of hand is up to you.

      • SteveA

        Too bad there are no photos going back another 100 years. It would have shown that the glacier melting started long before man began burning fossil fuels in earnest, meaning that the climate could well be changing, but via natural causes.

    • ottovbvs

      There was old man called Jimbob
      Who claimed to be an expert… in all sorts of stuff
      Economics, science, healthcare and history
      But all he ever said… was fluff

      But what he was really good at
      No one else could hold his hat
      Was finding links to phoney websites
      So he could shout…take that!

  • Kurlis

    LOSU stands for “Level of Scientific Understanding”

    • ottovbvs

      “Levels of Scientific Understanding” said Kurlis
      As he threw out his chest
      You’re all wankers, I know best
      But based on his history of postings, we all know he’s really a pest.

  • TerryF98

    Nothing to see here either.

    • Superficial View

      Your map is a transparent ruse intended to confuse the uneducated. You show the Spring Sea-ice Maximum supposedly in 1979, and then the Summer Sea-ice Minimum in some other unspecified year since, by comparison in an entirely bogus fashion. Factually the Arctic Sea-ice increases in extent EVERY Winter and Spring and decreases in extent EVERY Summer and Autumn. Compare your 1979 map with the Sea-ice extent in April 2012 for example. You can plainly see that there is far more ice in April 2012 than in your map of 1979. What conclusions do the rest of you all draw from that ?

      http://i.imgur.com/Pf3Vl.jpg

  • TerryF98

    Last one.

    These changes and they are hard to deny unless you are willfully ignorant may or may not be caused by man, it really does not matter a great deal. What does matter is that man has the capacity to stop this by modifying his behavior. Instead we get tangled up in the weeds.

    I guess many will argue the cause till Boston is under water then blame Obama.

    • JimBob

      DNA reveals Greenland’s lush past

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6276576.stm

      • Frumplestiltskin

        ever hear of continental drift, greenland has not always been where it has been. What a silly little man you are. And the point is not how warm the planet has been in the past, it is the rate of change and the capability of species to adapt. We are but a part of the world, disrupt the food chain too much and we will be screwed as well.

    • ottovbvs

      Life (or Jimbob anyway) imitates art:

      [i]There was old man called Jimbob
      Who claimed to be an expert… in all sorts of stuff
      Economics, science, healthcare and history
      But all he ever said… was fluff

      But what he was really good at
      No one else could hold his hat
      Was finding links to phoney websites
      So he could shout…take that![/i]

  • armstp

    So Mr. Tucker you are basically saying you were a moron because you put politics ahead of actual science. I would not be patting yourself on the back so much for being stupid for all those years.

    The right/GOP/conservatives live in a world of conspiracies. A bunch of tinfoil hat wearing kooks…

  • Churl

    Before adopting the Creed of Global Warming, the intellectually curious might want to review some geological and historical evidence of climate shifts that occurred before humans could have had any effect on the changes. Glaciers advanced and retreated numerous times in the past and could well be continuing their retreat from the last big glaciation at present. There is the matter of the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Optimum period. Paleoclimatologists had interesting things to say before the field became politicized.

    I post this not because I expect it will change any minds, but because I hope Otto will write a poem about me that rhymes and scans. A haiku, maybe?. Alas, my alias won’t work in a double dactyl.

    • ottovbvs

      Churl loved sex with polar bears
      So why would he want them to go?
      It’s the scratches on my back said Churl
      And my bum hurts…ever so

      • sweatyb

        Lesson #1: don’t ask otto to write a poem about you.

        Paleoclimatologists had interesting things to say before the field became politicized.

        The field did not become “politicized” at all. What happened is the oil companies paid a lot of money to protect themselves from regulation. That includes propaganda encouraging lay-people to discount the work of climate experts and instead trust to a selective out-of-context understanding of the research of some paleoclimatologists.

        • Churl

          Just say “Oil Company Conspiracy” and everybody will understand everything.

        • sweatyb

          woah, seriously? You said, “Creed of Global Warming” and you object to me pointing out that most of the funding for the various climate change denial organizations comes from oil industry? I didn’t say it was a conspiracy. You said that.

          I don’t think major corporations acting together in their own short-term interest is a conspiracy. However, I do think that corporate money can significantly alter the conversation. That was, you know, my point. You think that climate change science has become politicized.

          The only change in the science between now and 20 years ago is that there’s even more evidence and less debate about the human source of climate change. That you feel it’s become “politicized” is a reflection of the vast amount of fear, uncertainty and doubt emanating from non-science sources.

      • Churl

        Not too bad, a little mess-up in the meter of the 3rd line, but on the whole, shows promise.

        With practice and persistence, you could be Obama’s Poet Laureate; the James Whitcomb Riley of the Welfare State.

  • JimBob

    With the news that S&P might downgrade our credit rating and today Dick Durbin saying that yes, Social Security does need to be cut. This is big news and Frum Forum is talking about global warming.

    • ottovbvs

      Jimbob wakes with a start
      It must have been have been the noise of the fart
      Who gives a f*** about polar bears
      I want to link to imaginary scares

  • rbottoms

    So Mr. Tucker you are basically saying you were a moron because you put politics ahead of actual science.

    The oxymoron was invented for Republicans.

  • Kurlis

    So when can we expect to see people dying from apocalyptic climate change? Where are all the millions of refugees that were expected? Has the apocalypse been pushed back yet another ten years?

  • ottovbvs

    Kurlis was a builder
    Strawmen were his great thing
    There were so many knots in his creations
    They doubled the world price of string

    • Superficial View

      Ottovbvs poetry stinks.
      It’s not as good as he thinks.
      His comments are tatty,
      or sometmes quite catty.
      He’s likely had too many drinks.

  • SFTor1

    Oh, please.

    We have real issues in this world and we have to waste time on climate change.

    Yes, there is climate change. Yes, some of it may be anthropogenic. Apart from that every indication is that the planet’s climate system is stable (and remarkably so,) and that this stability comes from a number of negative feedback mechanisms, the most important of which would be clouds.

    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should not be a concern. It is historically low.

    • TerryF98

      Actually the CO2 is only a part of it. Another and maybe bigger part is the Methane locked up in the Siberian permafrost. The permafrost is in danger of melting, when it does huge quantities of methane will escape into the atmosphere.

      Methane is also a greenhouse gas. So the greenhouse effect will accelerate with no further input by man into the equation if the permafrost melts.

      • SFTor1

        Terry, yes there is perhaps some risk of that. And for methane clathrate to be released vast quantities, and so on. There are a number of thinks that could happen, but the overwhelming evidence is that the climate system is stable, and that we will not see any of these things happen.

        Ask yourself a simple question: if the climate is not self-regulating, at least within certain parameters, why did it start to cool again after the last major El Nino event in 1998?

        • baw1064

          What’s the limit of stability, though? Only one way to find out, but once the climate has been pushed to a new regime, it’s too late to bring it back.

    • ottovbvs

      Fortunately Obama will soon be setting up concentration camps for global warming deniers like SFT so they can be re-educated.

    • sweatyb

      this stability comes from a number of negative feedback mechanisms

      Like the one where the climate on the planet becomes inhospitable to human civilization. Can’t wait!

  • talkradiosucks.com

    “The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should not be a concern. It is historically low.”

    Got anything to back that up?

  • CentristNYer

    “We have real issues in this world and we have to waste time on climate change. ”

    And how, exactly, are we “wasting time” on climate change? By mandating that we produce more energy efficient vehicles? By reducing our dependence on foreign oil? By encouraging renewable resources like wind and solar power? By reducing dangerous CO2 emissions?

    Even if there was no potential crisis looming, most of the steps being taken right now are just simply common sense and will put the US on a better footing. That hardly strikes me as a “waste.” To the contrary, to miss the opportunity would be a waste.

  • elizajane

    There is no issue more serious today than climate change. Other things are more immediate. But if you can spend your time worrying about the moment several decades down the road when Social Security ostensibly becomes insolvent, and even allow that worry to dictate your political policies today, you can definitely put some effort into considering how to deal with a much graver problem that will not be soluble once it occurs. “Adaptation” is the privilege of the extremely wealthy (ourselves). Climate refugees are not a fantasy, but a probability.

    The people posting here who do not believe these things demonstrate absurd levels of ignorance in pretty much every sentence they write. They repeat old canards that have been debunked again and again, like that we recently believed an ice age was coming (about 3 people believed it, and some reporter put it in Time magazine) or that mankind cannot effect the fundamental stability of the earth’s climate.

    I could go on. You guys would be funny if it weren’t so serious. Thanks to our resident poet for injecting humor into the discussion.

  • cdorsen

    The left says:

    “The right/GOP/conservatives live in a world of conspiracies. A bunch of tinfoil hat wearing kooks…”

    Then the left says:
    “The field did not become “politicized” at all. What happened is the oil companies paid a lot of money to protect themselves from regulation. That includes propaganda encouraging lay-people to discount the work of climate experts and instead trust to a selective out-of-context understanding of the research of some paleoclimatologists.”

    At least the left doesn’t live in world full of conspiracies that big business, corporations, big oil, etc. are conspiring to do all sorts of mean and nasty things in order to make a profit.

    • sweatyb

      Woohoo! I am “the left”! I am an entire political movement all by myself.

      Not sure what strawman you think you’re propping up there, but do you actually think we don’t live in a world where:

      big business, corporations, big oil, etc. are conspiring to do all sorts of mean and nasty things in order to make a profit.

  • Bob Armstrong

    Only the profound retardation of government school K-12 math and science education can explain how so many are duped by this GlobalStatistStupidity against the very molecule upon which all life is built and without double digit concentrations of which life would have been very unlikely to have gotten a toehold on the planet .

    From what I’ve observed , you can get a PhD in climate science without ever learning how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .

    Rather than go into more detail on how pathetic the understanding of even the most basic physics displayed on both sides of the debate is , I’ll just append this record of temperatures and ask where’s the warming ?

    We’re going to destroy the welfare of the living by Global State Force over less than 1 degree centigrade warming over a century claimed to be due to the gas which is to plants what oxygen is to animals ?

  • ottovbvs

    From what I’ve observed , you can get a PhD in climate science without ever learning how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .

    Yeah you have to wonder how all these thousands of scientists employed by govt, quasi govt, and independent research institutions, ever got qualified. They’re just alarmists. Fire em all, and just hire Bob Armstrong with his Christmas Tree. And want a snapshot of Bob Armstrong’s brain? Just go here:

    http://serfcity.wordpress.com/

    • Frumplestiltskin

      otto, the guy is a loony, did you read what he wrote? He seems like he has Aspergers: how so many are duped by this GlobalStatistStupidity against the very molecule upon which all life is built

      Hey, we are carbon based life forms so lets just eat, drink, and have sex with carbon…or something.

      “We’re going to destroy the welfare of the living by Global State Force” with their mandatory tin foil wearing soldiers flying the super silent black helicopters.

      This guy is gold.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    Bob Armstrong, that was hilarious, utterly unscientific of course since you are confusing daily local temperature with climate change….it is like you are a child who can not understand the difference between weather and climate. The global ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, this is causing islands that have existed for all of mankinds recorded history to disappear beneath the sea, might I suggest you move to Kiribati and buy some beachfront property, do it quick because in a generation it will be gone.
    And why do you hate America so much? Why do you want to fund Muslim jihadists so? And why do you insist on stealing from future generations, do you believe that Jeebus puts oil in the ground?
    Honestly, you are so funny.

    • Bob Armstrong

      ottovbvs & Frumplestiltskin ,

      I’m flattered by the intensity of the ad hominems .

      No facts ( other than the thousands of mediocre scientists on the governments’ dugs ; no mention of the tens of thousands rejecting the BS . ) No answer to the undeniable greening of the planet by additional CO2 . Stupid comment about cities from Minnesota to Russia somehow escaped the catastrophic recent global warming happening everywhere else . Except they didn’t . They show the perhaps 0.8c continuing increase over the last century since the little ice age .

      Please correct my impression that neither one of you has any quantitative background .

      • badswing

        its funny bob, as soon as they are left without fact they go ad hominem. at least we are now winning (maybe for all the wrong reasons…its cold everywhere so people think agw is bs) but winning none the less.

    • NikFromNYC

      “The global ice caps are melting at an alarming rate”

      How do you know this? After ice ages, indeed, ice caps start melting, just like when you take a cold beer out of its former location in the fridge.

      How do you know the current rate of melting is “alarming”? Do records from polar ice caps exist that are long enough to establish the natural melting trend? NO THEY DO NOT. Was Greenland called “GREENLAND” because is was formerly green? YES IT WAS.

      Antarctica, which contains 90% of the world’s ice is, except for a highly volcanic western shoreline, COOLING in the long term. Here is the satellite temperature average for the continent since 1972: http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/uah_antarctica_temperature_anomalies.png

  • Stewardship

    Bob’s charts tell the whole story. Through all the yearly fluctuations, the long term trend is up. As others have pointed out, once we hit the tipping point (some argue we’re there now), warming will accelerate due to release of methane from former perma-frost and other sources.

    A two degree increase creates a lot of fun scenarios. For a great visual, drive through the Colorado Rockies and look at all the brown ‘evergreens’ that have been killed by the pine beetle. It hasn’t gotten cold enough in years to thwart them, and they’re moving north changing the landscape as they go. So, should we fight back against climate change just because I like pine covered mountains? No, but we should consider that the canary in the coal mine.

    • Bob Armstrong

      Stewardship ,

      Other than that tipping points mathematically rare , and the only obvious one around is at 0c , how come we never got stuck in a runaway on any of the previous occasions when the earth was substantially hotter ? We are only about 10c warmer than the 279 kelvin of a gray ball in our obit .

      Here’s the view of Pike’s Peak from our home .

      There’s an area that still shows effects of beetle kill 40 years ago . The current beetle epidemics range over hundreds of miles from Canada to Colorado – over a substantial temperature range . There is no correlation between these infestations and the insignificant change in mean temperature over these decades .

      I always thought Frum was just a statist masquerading as neocon in order to support Israel’s zionism . This site seems to confirm he is in no other sense conservative .

    • NikFromNYC

      “once we hit the tipping point (some argue we’re there now), warming will accelerate due to release of methane from former perma-frost and other sources.”

      Screams of doom about the future are the very definition of madness going back to the earliest written literature which chuckled about the folly of fools as an archetype of a certain type of deficient and undesirable human character.

      Translation: “once the UFOs arrive (some argue they are here now), Xaba Rays will accelerate due to cockroach mutations and OTHER SOURCES.”

      Natural warming, enhanced a *bit* by greenhouse warming will cause all manner of negative consequences, yes, indeed, yes, and of COURSE. *Any* relatively rapid environmental change causes local catastrophe. But artificially focusing upon isolated negative effects frightens children unnecessarily, KILLS PEOPLE (via burning food in cars and ARTIFICIAL rationing of energy), and creates an atmosphere of hatred of the very idea of industrialization of developing countries. That CO2 is PLANT FOOD and that the Earth is currently greening like crazy likely due to CO2 fertilization is lost in that mix, idiotically. Pathetically, actually. Until the green movement stops being red on the inside they cannot be taken seriously by serious people.

      The leftist journalist Alexander Cockburn spells it for you very clearly in this candid interview outside his home:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y

      It’s about “the dirty secret of the environmental movement….”

  • think4yourself

    D.R. Tucker, thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I suspect you’ll take some hits from conservatives, much as Frum has.

    I don’t know all the science. All I can say is that I have young children and I’d like their children to grow up in a cleaner atmosphere than I have today.

  • badswing

    tucker should have stopped when he said that gore and jones can not be trusted. (how is gore’s new mansion vacation home on the coast doing? guess he know s the real deal with the sea level)http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/04/07/sea-level-rise-still-slowing-down/

    otto, kuris was referring to the UN prediction of 50 million refugees by 2010 . has there been any?

    http://patterico.com/2011/04/15/un-caught-scrubbing-embarrassing-climate-refugee-prediction/

    sweatyb: your event would come about with a positive feedback which doesnt happen too often in nature. but lets assume that the feedbacks will be positive so you can all play chicken little.

    talk radio: you keep asking for evidence yet when we look for evidence and proof of this agw theory there is none. there has been warming since the little ice age. sunspots, normal variation, milankovich cyclical variation, pacific decadal oscillation are overlooked and then an assumtion is made that the warmth must be from CO2 because we cant find anything else. btw, where is the warmth? last 15 years, with all this poisonous CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere, and it has only gotten cooler. is that what the models showed? i didnt think so. speaking of models: there is supoosed to be a hotspot in the troposphere if the warming is from CO2. dont seem to recall it being found (unless you count where they couldnt find it with thermometers so they used radr, i kid you not)
    cdorsen: climategate turned out to be nothing except showing one important fact: proxy data didnt jibe. that doesnt mean much except that the temperature reconstructions arent worth a damn…..wait we can hide the decline so people wont see that our proxies suck. then we can mix in data from thermomoters, which is against everything scientific and that will fool them. then we can make sure that scientists that disagree with us dont get published or we wont show them our data or when we get caught we can hire the same people that were in on it so they say that we did nothing wrong….are you people serious?
    terry: what does this have to do with man?
    the entire argument is about feedbacks and forcings. anything else is just bs. (and btw climate models are one big guess)

    • ottovbvs

      None of us posting here (including you and Christmas tree Bob) are qualified to debate this issue. For myself, if I’m going to seek medical help I’m going to go to qualified people not you or the guy with the Christmas tree. I’m totally unimpressed by your deployment of a lot of pasted nonsense by flat earthers that essentially falls into the category of:

      Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium – a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

      • badswing

        argumentum commentosum ad nauseum…when displayed facts are either not understood or problematic for said cause so you pretend to understand latin to make it appear that facts really dont get in the way of a cause.

    • Traveler

      Badswing,

      Some good points there, but all of the cyclical stuff you mention is explicitly included in the models. And many are not just right. As I recall, we have had the many of the ten hottest years in recorded history in the past two decades. I don’t recall the exact number, but this contradicts “in the last 15 years…that its only gotten cooler”. Dont know how or where you came up with that gem.

      Glad you are aware of the many factors involved, but the positive feedback loops are frightening, and very real. Methane is just one of them. Permafrost melting and carbon oxidation is another. Reduced albedo is another. Rising sea levels and declining ice caps and glaciers are incontrovertible proof that things are warming up from past activity so far. While proof that CO2 and methane are responsible for all this may be subject to debate in some circles, correlation counts, and we see that in spades. Your take on Climategate is also flawed. While I agree that it makes folks like you rightfully question the data and its interpretation, there was no smoking guns on the actual data, and the proxies work fine enough. IPCC is another BS story, with their Himalaya glacier boo-boo, but that doesnt invalidate the findings of so many others, and what we can see in our own lifetimes.

      Given all this, you think it wise to blow this all off, when the likelihood of worse things is so high?

      • badswing

        there is no contradiction in the two. we have been warming since the little ice age. we have measured that warming (amazingly to the 100th degree so you can say the warmest year since blah blah and make the 1930′s insignificant) and then about 15 years ago the warming stopped and my side amazingly measured to the 100th degree to determine that it has actually cooled by .7 degrees since 1998 or so. remarkably the same amount of warming for the past century. here is my point: when people say its the ‘warmest’ whatever for however long its as meaningless as when i say it hasn’t warmed in the last 15 years. the entire arguement has been highjacked and it started with the IPCC and their political reports. proxy data from the IPCC never included that tree ring growth had ANYTHING TO DO WITH AN INCREASE IN CO2. they just left that out. stuff like that make it political bs. they got rid of the MWP so you could say ‘hol;y shit, its never been this warm’ and run around like chicken little. it makes it hard to know who to believe but i know that your side has an agenda and the UN cannot be trusted. (remember food for oil?). i wish we could look at it like scientists using the scientific method but that is now out the window. wanting to hide data, erase data, not make data available etc etc really set science back. if i step back from time to time and look at the entire picture i find it easy to say that this trace gas that we exhale from performing our normal daily activity probably isnt going to ruin Gaia or God’s wonderful earth. i guess the key word is always going to be ‘probably’.

  • lookagain

    I think it is true that political conservatives are also conservationists. But if a person is labelled conservative, liberal, libertarian, Marxist Leninist, Green or whatever else, makes no difference when it comes to science. Facts are facts.

    Except when they are not. And that is the situation we find with the IPCC report where statements are made that are, in fact, not fact.

    D.R. might want to take another look. I suggest starting at this website:
    http://nofrackingconsensus.com/author/donnalaframboise

  • Brian

    Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Increasing Carbon Dioxide, as ‘plant food’, is not good for plants.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

    “It is possible to help increase the growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions, inside of greenhouses. It is, based on this, that ‘skeptics’ make their claims. Such claims, however, are simplistic. They fail to take into account that once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances.

    Plants cannot live on CO2 alone. They get their bulk from more solid substances like water and organic matter. This organic matter comes from decomposing plants and animals or from man made fertilizers. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth?”

  • Frumplestiltskin

    Bob Armstrong, obviously you are impervious to facts. Have you ever been to the South Pacific, I have and a great many low lying corral atolls are disappearing under the waves, this is a simple fact, these islands have been around since the dawn of mankinds recorded history.

    Simply put you are hardwired to ignore basic science for whatever bizarre reason. Well, instead of hard science how about National Security? We are spending untold billions (hell trillions) of US dollars in the Middle East funnelling money to Islamic fundamentalist regimes like Saudi Arabia, who in turn funds Al Qaeda and a whole sundry list of lunatics. It is in our own self interest to get off of oil as much as possible, this is a win win for us and the US. We will have a cleaner environment (if you love car exhaust so much then might I suggest you sleep in the garage with the car on), Al Qaeda will have less money, and more money will be here in the states.

    This is brain dead simple stupid. We can work together, nuclear, solar, wind, geo thermal, conservation, you name it we should do it, or you can bury your head in the sand, keep burning fuel like there is no tomorrow and when it runs out can say “huh, wha happened, me tink Jeebus put the oil in the ground”

  • nhthinker

    TRS,
    ““The US impact on CO2 is dropping”

    “Evidence?”

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/environment/emissions/carbon/

    Only a total fucking idiot wouldn’t know that.

  • John Mashey

    Excellent post. You are with folks like

    1) In the last 20 years, I’m afraid climate issues have gone from being relatively apolitical (IPCC really got going under G.H.W. Bush after all) to the point where many in the Republican party seem required to reject basic physics, with of course some outstanding exceptions, including:

    Arnold Shwarzenegger
    Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY, always a defender of science, sadly retired)
    George Schulz (spokesperson against California Prop 23 (to dismantle climate law) funded by Koch Industries, Tesoro, Valero.
    Peter Darbee, Chairman of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), a strong advocate for energy efficiency
    (there are more, just not too many who are visible.)

    2) But this was not natural, but manufactured…
    See the PDF and video of recent talks: “The Machinery of Climate Anti-Science”
    http://www.pics.uvic.ca/broadcast.php#mashey

    and the detailed backup analysis of funders, funding flows, thinktanks, fronts, spoksepeople, media in:
    http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/crescendo%20climategate%20cacophony%20v1%200.pdf
    See especially the matrix starting p.93, and note key players include 4 foundations involved with Richard Mellon Scaife, and 3 with the Koch brothers, and of course, ExxonMobil.

    Many of these thinktanks get mentioned in the Tobacco Archives, although it is unclear why real libertarian/conservative values would include helping get children addicted to nicotine. By comparison, causing confusion about climate is child’s play.

    3) People should know that the sparkplugs for the Tea party are AFP – Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, both funded heavily by the Kochs, Scaife, with a little help from others.
    (FreedomWorks is shown on p.93 above, AFP is similar.)

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_For_Prosperity David Koch = Chair
    http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Americans_for_Prosperity_Foundation/funders

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks
    http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/FreedomWorks/funders

    4) People also should want to know about ALEC, which has lots of Scaife & Exxon money.
    http://scholarcitizen.williamcronon.net/2011/03/15/alec/

  • Kurlis

    It’s a pity that practically the entirety of the Democrat Party and crypto-progressive Republicans like D.R. Tucker resolutely dismiss facts and science. For example, political blinders firmly affixed, a great many of them turn away from science to such an extent that they insist that only “climatologists” that agree with the polemic of the IPCC are “qualified” to speak on the subject. Quite evidently, these people don’t know what science is or how it works, much as they insist that science is “settled”. They imagine climate science to be the sole arcane province of the approved priesthood of the IPCC and only THEY are able to commune scientific truth. The net result has been that the global warmists have completely betrayed science in the name of politics. What they have opted for is a bastardized, perverted version of science that prefers feelings in the place of facts. In fact, its not science at all. They have turned it into religious dogma of the Church of Climate Change and Global Warming.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    kurliss, you asked for evidence of disappearing corral reefs, it was provided and yet you completely ignore it. What a sad little man you are. So rant away little man, you have been provided evidence, you turn your head away and say “since I don’t see it it doesn’t exist” which just proves you a fool.

  • Kurlis

    There’s a difference between “disappearing under the waves” as it was put, and simply dying, cause unknown. The cause is attributed by National Georgraphic to “global warming”. I don’t believe it. How do they know its caused by global warming? They don’t say. They simply assume it to be so. That’s not science. What does it prove in any case? Nothing.

  • Iamm

    Bring on global warming, its too cold where i live.

    • balconesfault

      Bring on global warming, its too cold where i live.

      Are you ready for many of the trees around where you live to start dying because of the climate change?

      • Iamm

        Yes, as long as it warms up. Thumbs up for Global Warming here.

      • Iamm

        That reminds me, i need to start my 2 trucks and let them idle until the gas runs out.

      • Bob Armstrong

        @ balconesfault

        Are you ready for many of the trees around where you live to start dying because of the climate change?

        Iamm , unlike you , may have considered the graph made out of living pine trees showing their enhanced growth with enhanced CO2 . He might also have considered the fact that they are built more than 90% from CO2 from the air combined with H2O from the roots by photosynthesis .

        And , of course , there’s the obvious fact that , other than deserts limited by H2O , the lushest , densest life is in the hottest tropics .

        He might also consider that an asserted increase from an atmospheric concentration of perhaps .00028 to .00039 , or 32% , our asserted temperature increased from about 288 kelvin to 289 or about 0.3% , and didn’t see too much to knot his panties about .

  • Kurlis

    That’s a great idea. I think I’ll do the same and ask my neighbors to do likewise. Thanks Iamm! We could use some global warming!

    http://youtu.be/qJUFTm6cJXM

    “Set the flamingo free!”

    • Iamm

      I’m 100% serious.

      Forgot to mention, I’m using my windfall monopoly fiat profits from PM investments to pay for the fuel. Thanks FED!

  • glenncz

    The funny thing is that it hasn’t even warmed since 1997 – over 11 yrs according Hadley, you know, the English climate unit with the climategate reputation.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/to/trend
    Most “believers” don’t even have the slightest clue that man only produces 3% of the CO2, of course that is an enormous guess, and the ice cores which supposedly prove that CO2 is the highest its’ been for thousands of years, that is another guess, fraught with all kinds of data problems.
    How about these scientists – you know, the smart NASA scientists, predicting that the Arctic will be ice free in 2013.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztz3ZdPbdKo
    We know now that is complete nonsense. Theory amplification “theory” was completely wrong.
    I bet you blind followers really get creamed in the stock market!!!!

  • Arms Merchant

    Might take this article more seriously if you hadn’t included the photoshopped polar bear.

    • nhthinker

      I wonder if the bear got his residuals for the use of his image. He should press the UN to protect his rights.