Sign Up for Our Newsletter


Reporting and commentary from OnEarth editors and correspondents

As someone who was caught out by the climate scam until I finally went and looked at the evidence - and then was convinced when I found out about climategate - I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some lunatic in the CIA decides that they must start monitoring people like me for my outrageous suggestion that like WMD - we should base policy on evidence and not the gut instinct of people like Blair who don't know the first thing about science.

All the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles documenting climate change, the potential for continuing change and its implications for humanity are a scam? No, rather the scam is the drum beat of denial that is obstructing constructive action, without peer-reviewed evidence to back up the opinions. Climategate is just a convenient media frenzy that does nothing to undermine the actual science. Read the 2007 IPCC reports.

Tony, you really need to review some of the articles by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. The 'Hockey Stick' model has been proven to be bad science and you still reference the IPC.
Bad (unreliable) proxy data and cherry picked data equals bad science. As far as AGW, correlation does not constitute causation.

Tony, you should really take a look at all the evidence, read the emails, just make an informed decision! You wouldn;t drive a car without first look all the makes and models would you?
People who tend to post without looking at all the evidence seem to make fools of themselves, at least if you still disagree you would be able to have a good debate on these boards! I know it is difficult, I myself believed!

Unbelievable. It is hard to understand why some people still think that there is a debate about AGW. Do they think that all the scientists would not be overjoyed to suddenly find out that they were wrong? Every time a new study was undertaken to show that it couldn't possibly as bad as we thought, it turned out to be worse. All the old chestnuts of 'it's the sun' 'glaciers are growing' 'the hockey stick is wrong' 'heating leads CO2 rise' etc etc are well evaluated and answered. is where the science hangs out. and is where the rants hang out

I don't engage in the "is AGW real or not?" argument anymore, and here's why:

mg, Like I said, show me your science? I too believed in AGW before knowing all the facts! I will give you an example. I recently built a new home, I spent 3 times as much on a high efficiency heating system, and I positioned my home to take advantage of sunlight for lighting heating and cooling, also placing the windows for added light! added extra insulation far beyond what any government recommendations. I also drive a 1992 Mazda 5 speed with special tires to increase gas mileage, now it exceeds what some hybrids get in gas mileage!
But I see problems with the hockey stick, I see the lies about the icecaps, the reports show extreme melting but nsidc in Boulder says During December 2009, ice extent grew at an average of 68,000 square kilometers (26,000 square miles) per day. Sea ice extent increased at a fairly steady rate throughout the month, staying slightly above the levels observed in December 2007. Which means it is low but growing, the same report last month for November, I do look at every aspect, not just one side, take a look at the evidence from deniers viewpoint also, yes they to exaggerate at times also but the science fraud on both sides need to stop now! I want to hear the truth for once!
Skeptics say humans do not make a difference, warmers scream doom and gloom, I say yes we hurt the climate but I think other factors besides CO2 is causing the changes such as nitrous oxide which from farming is a greater threat! The CO2 conclusion is just a scheme to let companies pay to pollute, still doing as much damage to the earth and letting third world countries starve!

Osha, Here is another reason I feel the way I do about AGW. Here is one of the most honest journalist I have ever ran across.
Take a look at this article, and you might feel the need to read al of his articles as I did. He honestly says up front I am a liberal Democrat and my first priority is humanity! I read your article!

Mike Haseler, do you really think you found the truth from the extreme right's croaking about "climategate"?

Why do you not, instead, read what sources like RealClimate and Newsweek says? You see, they are not bent on lying, like the UN-hating right wingers.

I agree with Tony, this so called climate gate issue has been blown out of all proportion by the media and is being exaggerated by the climate deniers. Or perhaps I should call them climate hoaxers as human made climate change is real and happening now.

There is no science behind the theory that there will be a catastrophe if CO2 levels continue to rise. Nor is there any science that says that man-made CO2 contributions will create any temperature change.

Yes CO2 has gone up. Yes man creates CO2 emissions. Yes the temperature has gone up since the little ice age.

That's all settled science.

ANYTHING beyond that is not even in the realm of science.

ALL of the models that have been created use PROXY data. That PROXY data does not match the real temperature data (once real temperatures are available). That is a BIG issue.

But assuming the data isn't flawed - the models created do not PREDICT climate change with any accuracy - nor do they (or can they) predict any catastrophes.

But it doesn't matter to the religious fervor that CONSUMES the climate-change global warming folk.


Simply because their heroes KNOW they are not using science as we know it. They are using what their behind-the-scenes philosophers have labeled "Post-Normal Science."

Look it up.

It's simply an Orwellian way to call what they do science when in fact it's a form of politics.

In 1992 and 1993 Silvio O. Funtowicz and Jerome R.
Ravetz wrote the following papers:

The good, the true and the postmodern (1992)
Science for the post-normal age (1993)

These laid out the concept of post-normal science.

Here's Ravetz on climate change models:

"…but if they are not predictors, then what on earth
are they? The models can be rescued only by being
explained as having a metaphorical function, designed
to teach us about ourselves and our perspectives under
the guise of describing or predicting the future states
of the planet…A general recognition of models as
metaphors will not come easily. As metaphors, computer
models are too subtle…for easy detection. And those who
created them may well have been prevented…from being
aware of their essential character."

I see then. I was mistaken to think that climate-change models should predict something. Forgive me. They're METAPHORS.
Got it.

But should you just think this crazy philosopher holds this view then maybe you should look at Mike Hulme.

You know Mike Hulme -

Founding director of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (UEA), co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, as well as a contributing author for several
other chapters... amongst other things.

Let's see what Mike Hulme has to say:

"It has been labelled “post-normal” science. Climate
change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in
post-normal science focus... on the process of science –
who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear
of policy…The IPCC is a classic example of a post-
normal scientific activity."

"The danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it
assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth
to power, and that truth-based policy will then
follow…exchanges often reduce to ones about scientific
truth rather than about values, perspectives and
political preferences."

"...‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not
emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-
seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth
for influence. What matters about climate change is not
whether we can predict the future with some desired
level of certainty and accuracy."

There are DOZENS more quotes like this, but the bottom
line is that when someone like Hulme talks about
"science" he's saying something far different than what
we normally consider science.

What I think is truly brilliant is that rather than
create a new word for what these "scientists" are doing the social philosophers came up with a new term that INCLUDES the
word "science."

The power of propaganda to propagate the faith.

The science of climate change is pretty basic: humans dig up fossilized carbon to fuel power plants and internal combustion machines, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Result: greenhouse effect global heating. Around 50% of all the species on the planet are predicted to become extinct by 2100 in the CO2-as-usual model. Our own species will face drought, famine, rising tides, soaring temperatures, calamity and chaos. Hundreds of millions will become climate refugees. Billions may die from starvation, genocide and war. We have precious little time to mitigate this looming global catastrophe.

Those of us still denying the depressing facts are either tragically stupid or profoundly corrupt or both.

Victor - Thanks for that Al Gore-like scientistic summary.

You must be some scientist since you think climate science is so simple. For a "science" that's in it's infancy and which contains an enormous amount of variables it's always comforting when someone comes along with as much faith and conviction as you do.

Praise Gaia!

Temperature is driven by Solar activity and high charged cosmic radiation hitting the upper atmosphere creating or declining cloud cover which effect the amount of sea water that evaporates which in turn effects the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is primarily what drives temperature. And you can verify this because it IS A FACT that a temperature increase results in higher carbon release not the other way around. Let me repeat, first comes temperature increase then come carbon release. You all need to understand that fundamental fact.

Some say that CIA stands for “communism in America.” As Lord Christopher Monckton has warned, the people who pull the strings of the United Nations want to bring in a communistic world government under the guise of saving the planet from global warming. The following clip from Fox News from the 7th of January, indicates that in spite of climategate and the recent record ( temperatures and record snow falls, the agenda to use the climate for political purposes is far from dead and buried. One would have thought it would have frozen to death, however now it looks as if the CIA (and the Pentagon) have been called on to try and to breathe life back into it.
Ah, the old "some say" gambit: the refuge of those grasping at a factual void, whether actual, or due to lack of effort.
Ok for all the guys that don't think that AGW science is not science and there is no evidence of AGW... go here... read the arguments.... look at the linked scientific papers.... then find me a scientist report that contests AGW that is not directly or indirectly funded by "interested parties"..