We Are All Climate Change Deniers

Almost all of us minimize or normalize our enormous global problems

  • Share
  • Read Later
AFP / Getty Images

An aerial view of buildings standing out amid haze engulfing Wuhan, central China's Hubei province on December 3, 2009.

One time in an airport, when a man noticed I was reading Hot: Living Through The Next Fifty Years on Earth, he leaned over and said conspiratorially, “You know that is alarmist bullshit.”

I asked, “Do you think the world’s weather is changing?”

“The changes are part of a natural cycle. CO2 doesn’t heat up the atmosphere. The sun heats the earth,” he replied.

When I asked him what he thought would happen in the next centuries, he said, “I think the sun will cool back down and everything will work out fine in the end.” I respectfully disagreed with him and quickly left to buy a sandwich.

I’ve learned not to argue too long with people who do not “believe in” human-made climate change. I figure it’s impossible to reason someone out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into. But the fact is that even those of us who do believe climate change is man-made are in partial denial about our enormous global problems, and almost all of us minimize or normalize the situation.

(MORE: Sorry, A TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict A Coming Ice Age)

Our denial is understandable. Our species is not equipped to respond to the threats posed by global warming. Humans are built to find food and shelter, reproduce, and enjoy each other. We are genetically programmed to react to threats by fleeing or fighting, and at first, our environmental crisis does not seem to allow us to do either. We’re better at dealing with problems that are concrete, close-at-hand, familiar and require skills and tools that we already possess. Our global storm is invisible, unprecedented, drawn out, and caused by all of us. We have Paleolithic arousal systems, Neolithic brains, medieval institutions and 21st century technology—not a good mix for solving our climate problems.

And so we feel paralyzed and our belief that we are powerless can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a crisis that seems impossible to confront and but too scary to ignore, many people live in a state that psychologist Stanley Cohen calls “willful ignorance.” We both know and don’t know what is going on.

But to state the obvious, we cannot solve a problem we will not face. Gregory Bateson said, “The unit of survival is the organism and its environment.” Our survival depends on our ability to acknowledge, discuss and deal with reality. Once we face our situation, we can progress through a healing cycle that moves from awareness to action. And action, especially in collaboration with others, can be an antidote to despair.

(MORE: Climate Changes Could Make Hurricanes Stronger—and More Frequent)

When problems seem too big for us, the solution is to grow bigger. Of course, we will always have some climate change deniers, but more and more of us are realizing that we will all survive or none of us will. This past February, on a cold and windy day in Washington, D.C., 40,000 people gathered in the largest environmental action in our nation’s history. Of course, even with out collective action, we don’t know for sure what will happen to our planet. But we do know what will happen to us when we act. We will feel more vibrant, empowered and connection. And we will be more hopeful, because hope comes from acting in meaningful ways towards goals we most value.

254 comments
350orbust1
350orbust1

This article really rings true for me, especially the part about not being able to reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.  That really hits the nail on the head, as does Ms Pipher's assertion at the conclusion that  becoming engaged on this issue is a way to feel "more vibrant, empowered and connection." We are all, in our industrialized society, disconnected from the earth and from each other. Working to save the ecosystem that gives us life, for our kids, is a way out of this brokenness.


AuntieTom
AuntieTom

Why do you have a Shell ad for natural gas at the top of this article? That's just a new way for them to make money from killing us. Shame on you for taking this dirty money!

yeolde
yeolde

If climate change theory is so full of holes as the skeptics keep telling us it is then why aren't the companies who stand to lose the most (oil, gas, mining...) funding research that will destroy climate change theory?  

It's not as if these mega-corporations are short of money, whereas plenty of universities and research institutes are short of money. A few $million to fund new research and more accurate climate models should do the trick...



jmal327
jmal327

The main alarmists around here are employed in the fossil fuel sector.  Articles like this alarm them, and they start freaking out and denying logic. 

JohnMoore
JohnMoore

LRonHoover - you mis-state the skeptic position (a pretty normal thing to find in these debates). The argument is that the lack of warming in 15 years falsifies the climate models, which happens to be true. The climate models simply did not predict the climate pause, because the models are poor. If you actually read the scientific papers by the modelers themselves, you will find that they state the weaknesses - for example, that they cannot model cloud feedback (the most important feedback factor by far) because they don't know enough about it, and it may be chaotic in which case they may never be able to model it.

LRonHoover
LRonHoover

Cherry picking is not just for immigrants and the guys in Kiss. I like the one about "there's been no warming in 15 years, ergo, global warming is a hoax". That's a classic! It's like saying "there's been no decline in my company's stock since March 2008, therefore I have a great company and you should invest in it". Hmmm. 

Just so happens that 1998 was an exceptionally warm year due to El Nino. Uh oh. Could it be that 1998 was chosen by the "skeptics" specifically because of this convenient feature? No, they wouldn't do something sneaky and crazy dishonest like that, would they?

edlihkire
edlihkire

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scientific process, and any discourse on the matter demands rigorous logic.  There is very little logic in this article, which harmfully dismisses and marginalizes reasoned scientific skepticism.  Truly, not all skeptics are faith-based deniers, but it would certainly seem the author has also embraced faith, which for the AGW proponents is simply Kool-Aid of a different flavor.    Yes, climate change is occurring, and yes we should learn to adapt, but AGW is a fringe (yet exceedingly popular) hypothesis supported by a rather small contingent of the earth science community.  There is no consensus.  Follow the money, and you'll see why climatologists, almost exclusively, support AGW.

edlf
edlf

All of us?  Not me.  I know climate change is real.  When I was young, maybe 4 or 5, when it rained it would rain all day.  Now it seems it only rains for five or ten minutes, maybe 15.

Jjones
Jjones

In my opinion Global Warming isn't the problem, it's global pollution. Man made objects are drastically changing the environment and the way the earth can cleanse its' self.  You have the trash vortex the size of texas in the pacific, you have acid rain, you have the damning or rivers, and even concrete cities. 

But I digress, we shall just ignore all this and pass this on to our children's, children, children...until we get to a point where we are forced to make a change in order to survive. 

ErickBlair
ErickBlair

This is almost a parody of far left arrogance combined with absolute cluelessness.First, let's start with the writer's idiotic use of the smear “climate change deniers ".This is just left wing hate.It is a campaign to shove the far left political agenda called "climate change" down the throats of people who can actually think for themselves and see that it is a hoax.By calling those right thinking people "deniers" the left is explicitly equating them with those who denied the Holocaust and angrily demanding their silence.That's reprehensible.The climate hasn't warmed in 15 years.That is a scientific fact that can be looked up and verified.The fantasy computer models of the warmists are worthless.The warmests are terrified that the billions and billions of government handouts they have pocketed over the years may end soon.The scam is now in the open.I usually don’t argue the facts with left wing ideologues like Mary Pipher. “I figure it’s impossible to reason someone out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into.”This is a terrible essay.

TroyOwen
TroyOwen

@JohnMoore From NASA ...

Global temperature rise

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

So your 15 year post is  well ... just a lie.

SAME to you rsemrau!

LRonHoover
LRonHoover

@JohnMoore @JohnMoore Doesn't matter much if I misstate the "skeptic" position, does it? It just keeps on changing. First there was no warming at all. Then there was warming but it wasn't man made. Then some of the warming was man-made but not much. It's too much work to keep chasing the moving goalposts. I think it is safe to say that the crux of the "skeptic" position isn't even scientific. Here it is: Big Government = Bad. The "skeptics" don't really do science at all. They're a political movement - an arm of the Republican party.

Now, there are two problems with your claims about climate models above. The first is that they aren't true. There HAS in fact been warming since 1998, as a glance at a chart of oceanic heat content shows unmistakably. The land temperature record shows the same thing, albeit not quite as clearly. So, for example, 2005 beats 1998. The hottest 12 month period on record occurred in mid-2009 thru mid 2010. 

Not sure where you got your idea about the models being falsified. You'd have to do much, much more to falsify the models than cherry pick a very hot start date and observe that temperatures haven't risen much since then. Maybe you don't understand the nature of statistical modeling, but natural variability is expected in the climate system. You're going to get spikes and dips, as the scientists know very well. That's what they learn in physics 101 (or statistics 101). The models continue to do a very good job of capturing what is happening with the climate. Not a perfect job, but that's not the goal.

Last point: computer models are only one small part of the scientific effort to understand climate. The case for AGW doesn't depend on the computer models at all. The computer models are a tool and a very useful one, but hardly the linchpin of the argument. The case for AGW depends on basic physics. 

Now, if the "skeptics" could produce any serious, physics-based explanation for the OBSERVED warming, that'd be something. But they can't and haven't. In fact, they've produced essentially squat. But then, as I said, they aren't scientists. They're just a political movement whose only real goal is to keep Big Government out of markets and out of their pockets.

rsemrau
rsemrau

@JohnMoore 

In fact JM, it was warmist scientists like Ben Santer who came straight out and said that 17 years without warming, would be the litmus test for climate models.

Well, it's been 16 years.

rsemrau
rsemrau

@LRonHoover 

Great argument in regards to 1998 cherry picking, except that the decline began in 2002, and there's now been no warming since 1997 ( a year earlier than the 1998 spike).

JT946
JT946

@edlihkire Excellent - I asked this below and now edlihkire might answer it. Ed asks us to follow the money. Help us Ed where does the money lead to? Who is handing out the money to the climatologists and who is telling them to support AGW?

LRonHoover
LRonHoover

@edlihkire Every scientific organization in the world (e.g. NAS, AMS, AGU, APS, NASA, NOAA, NCAR etc) and university is a part of this fringe group apparently. Al Gore has more power than Jesus. 

And are you sure about the "follow the money" advice? Because seems to me that leads straight to Exxon and Koch Industries. No, you don't want people to follow the money if your goal is to legitimize the right-wing position that climate science is a gigantic hoax. You should say "follow anything but the money". 

rsemrau
rsemrau

@Jjones 

Tell me volcanoes don't pollute.

The earth recovers nicely, despite the mess.

EdwardMacGuire
EdwardMacGuire

@ErickBlair " fantasy computer models of the warmists are worthless "

Please provide substantiation that  you are an expert in climate science and/or  computer modelling.

rsemrau
rsemrau

@ErickBlair

' impossible to reason someone out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into'

What I find to be almost universally true, is that for someone to reject an argument (i.e. Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming), they first must understand it.

Compare that with the millions of sheeple who just swallow the CAGW story hook-line-sinker because often, their friends or associates or peer group have become part of one of the thousands of Green religious groups, or they've gotten sucked into a green effort at work.

I had my thinking about CAGW radically changed by an average person who knew their stuff. All I was getting from people on the alarmist side of the argument, were ad hominem attacks.



JohnLubeck
JohnLubeck

@ErickBlair You're absolutely right - as long as you ignore all facts, factual information, and evidence. 

EricPederson
EricPederson

@ErickBlair You're either a troll who's stirring the pot, or you actually are this ignorant.  I still am not entirely sure...

LRonHoover
LRonHoover

@ErickBlair Left wing fanatics over at NASA! And the National Academies of Science. And the American Geophysical Union. And the American Meteorological Society. And the American Physical Society. And the National Center for Atmospheric Research. And the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. And Princeton. And Harvard. And Berkeley (who knew?). And MIT. And NYU. And Carnegie Mellon. And Stanford. And Oxford. And Cambridge. And so on. I'm not surprised all those hippie professor types are working for Al Gore as much as I am that they're holding jobs at all.

NewYorkHillbilly
NewYorkHillbilly

@LRonHoover@JohnMooreAs far as the models go, read the following.

An easy explanation of what ClimateGate means, ClimateGate emails and computer programs were taken from a main server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. It is not known if this was a theft or the actions of a whistleblower, disgusted with what the lead scientists at CRU were doing. ClimateGate exposed the cabal of 20 – 30 scientists (not just at CRU) that peer reviewed each others papers, strong-armed scientific journals to only print their views, and then sat on the IPCC panels as authors judging which published studies go into the IPCC final reports. This is why they always keep shouting “peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies, peer reviewed studies”. They owned the peer review process. ClimateGate exposed that this small group has been adding positive corrections to the raw global temperature data, inflating the amount of published temperature rise over the last 50 years. Both CRU in the UK and NASA-GISS in the US add these biases. At CRU, the programmers did not even know what and why some corrections were added every month. Only since satellite monitoring for comparison have the amounts of biasing leveled off. ClimateGate exposed the leaders of this cabal instructing each other to delete emails, data files, and data analysis programs ahead of already filed Freedom Of Information Act requests for raw data and computer codes, clearly a crime. ClimateGate exposed the “trick” about the Hockey stick figure and other studies that performed proxy construction of past temperatures. After all, reconstruction of the last 1,000 years of climate is the first step in predicting the future with super computer programs as explained below: Everything about all 21 super computer programs used by the IPCC to determine future global warming rely on best-determined past sensitivities to solar and volcanic effects (climate forcings) from the proxy temperature record. 1. The elimination of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (the handle of the hockey stick) was necessary so that past solar effects could be minimized, thereby allowing almost all of the warming in the last 75 years to be blamed on Greenhouse Gasses. Raw data (like tree-ring thickness, radioisotope of mud layers in a lake bottom, ice core analyses, etc.) are used as a proxy for reconstruction of the temperature record for 1000 AD to 1960 AD. To ensure desired results, statistical manipulation of the raw data and selecting only supporting data, cherry-picking, was suspected and later proved. 2. The slope of long-term 10-year running average global temperature using thermometers from 1900 to present (the blade of the hockey stick) was maximized with the sloppy gridding code, Urban Heat Island effects, hiding the declines, and even fabricating data (documented in the leaked source code comments revealed with ClimateGate). This ensured that the Greenhouse Gas effect coefficient in all 21 of the super computers was maximized, and that maximizes the temperature result at year 2100 based on Greenhouse Gas increases. This thermometer data was used to replace the tree ring-divergence after 1960 and plot this over the climate history data of (1) above giving the false impression that the reconstructed 1000 AD to 1960 AD results are more accurate than they are. 3. Because tuning of the super computer programs uses back casting, the computer outputs could always replicate the 20th Century (by design); therefore it was assumed that the models had almost everything in them. Because of (1) and (2) above, nearly all climate change predicted by the models was due to CO2 and positive feedbacks and hardly any of the climate change was for other reasons like solar, understood or not. 4. Over the years, when better numbers for volcanic effects, black carbon, aerosols, land use, ocean and atmospheric multi-decadal cycles, etc. became available, it appears that CRU made revisions to refit the back cast, but could hardly understand what the code was doing due to previous correction factor fudging and outright fabricating, as documented in the released code as part of ClimateGate. 5. After the IPCC averages the 21 super computer outputs of future projected warming (anywhere from 2-degrees to 7-degrees, not very precise), that output is used to predict all manner of catastrophes. (Fires, floods, droughts, blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, insects, extinctions, diseases, civil wars, cats & dogs sleeping together, etc.) So shut-up or be called a denier, live the way we tell you to live, pay more for everything, and just send money for my research on the effects of global climate change on horseshoe crabs (which have been around for about 440 million years through all possible temperature ranges). I hope that this makes the ClimateGate controversy easier to understand.

1NucEngineer, New York Times, Nov 29, 2009
Hacked e-mails spur uproar over climate research
THE NEW YORK TIMES

Sunday, November 29, 2009

LRonHoover
LRonHoover

@rsemrau @LRonHoover Not true. There been no decline since 2002 (or 1997 or 1998). 2005 was hotter than any of those, and the hottest 12 month period on record started in mid 2009. Furthermore, anybody can look at a chart of oceanic heat content over that period and see that the warming is continuing at a strong pace. But what difference does it make? Your position has nothing to do with actual science or data. It's a political position: Big Government = Bad. 

rsemrau
rsemrau

@LRonHoover 

Yes, Follow the Money, LRH. $100 Billion in taxpayer money over 30 years, going to 'science' to study Global Warming. 

That should keep the research 'results' flowing in nicely, eh?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you, right?

ErickBlair
ErickBlair

@rsemrau 
That's true and that's they way the alarmists are demanding it stay.  There is only one view permitted and they call that view "science"  It's a joke.

rsemrau
rsemrau

@LRonHoover @ErickBlair 

What have they all in common? Thousands of average people who desperately want to hang onto at least that average income. No more hitting the streets every year because of limited funding.

ErickBlair
ErickBlair

@LRonHoover@ErickBlair

If you are saying everyone at those places agrees with the warmists you are mistaken.  For the ones who do agree, it is all about money.   No global waming, no government handouts and a lot of egg on their faces.  Right now all of those places, with the notable exception, of Roger HHansen who retired from NASA, refuse to back down when faced with the fact that their model have been proven dead wrong and the climate hasn't warmed in 15 years.  They're just like Chicago Cubs fans: Just Wait 'Til Next Year!".I don’t expect them to stand up, show integrity and say they made some large mistakes.But I don’t like being called a denier for telling the truth.

WilliamCarr
WilliamCarr

@NewYorkHillbilly @LRonHoover @JohnMoore 

Well, I tried to read that but I could barely slog through it.

It was a morass of conspiracy theories, from dozens of scientists conspiring to rig data that's open to all scientists for review, and ending with the "it's a money-making scam" hoax.

Six official investigations cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing; and both PolitiFact and FactCheck.org debunked the claims made in "ClimateGate". 

Basically, Deniers start with the determination that they WILL deny the Science, and attempt to use character assassination and libel as their weapons.

They fail.   But since they're dumber than rocks, they keep repeating their conspiracy theories as "proof". 

If they understood anything about Science or Statistics, they'd realize  that the pre-fab conclusions being pushed on them by the Fossil Fuel Industry are feldercarb.

After all, the easiest thing in the world is to follow the money and determine who is more credible :

a) Scientists that don't make a lot of money and dedicate their lives to research, or 

b) Oil Company Executives like Charles and David Koch that are willing to spend millions trying to convince people to ignore the Science.

I mean, to ME, it's easy.    I figure the guy that's worth $33 Billion dollars will throw in a couple million bucks to protect his business, even if the world goes to Hell after he's dead.

TroyOwen
TroyOwen

@NewYorkHillbilly@rsemrau@LRonHoover For those who worship money you are correct!

As you said you are no scientist.

Your post is NO verification of AGW being untrue, it is only a personal viewpoint of yourself and how pitifully greedy you and your other poisonous business men are.

Your a very bad person, I wouldn't be putting info out as to how horrible you are.

NewYorkHillbilly
NewYorkHillbilly

@rsemrau@LRonHooverGlobal Warming is a Business, not science.

Before I retired this year, I worked for a Fortune 500 government contractor for 17 years. They bid on everything from weapons of mass destruction, to healthcare, to (you guessed it!) Green Science. I was not a scientist. I worked in Corporate Publications which meant that I saw more of what was going on than the scientists. I guess because I worked on a couple of EPA projects, I received the following invite:

From Michigan Ross School of Business Executive Education

"Steve, climate change can't be ignored, but it can be your next big opportunity."

"Within a year, it is likely that there will be a portfolio of federal policies that both set a price for carbon and establish other incentives and penalties to engourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Our climate change thought leaders hail from the University of Michigan's nationally recognized Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise and include Henry Pollack, 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner with Al Gore. Our action-based learning approach means you will go back to the office perfectly poised to immediately execute a climate change strategy with the insight to clearly sense the risks and opportunities facing your company."
(bullet) Climate Change: What's your Business Strategy?
May 17-18, 2010
Ann Arbor, Michigan

You will walk away able to:
(bullet) Understand the key science and policies relevant to business
(bullet) Plan and leverage climate change as a growth opportunity
(bullet) Customize strategy that offers cost efficiencies and ROI
(bullet) Develop methods for demonstrating good corporate citizenship
(bullet) Design a strategic plan that can be executed when you return to your company

Stephen M. Ross School of Business
University of Michigan
724 E. University Ave.
Wyly Hall, Suite 3700
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234 USA

This is a good illustration of how Climate Change has evolved as a Business.
Notice the key words:
Big Opportunity
Global Sustainable Enterprise
Climate Change Strategy
Risks and opportunities facing your company
Relevant to business
cost efficiencies and ROI
Strategic Plan
Business Strategy

The corporation I worked for is a FOR PROFIT, follow the money business. It's ethics are based on business ethics which says the number one ethical priority of a corporation is its feduciary responsibility to its stockholders.

I guess Henry Pollack is making lots of money.

bdholtzman
bdholtzman

@ErickBlair @JT946  What? Are you saying that to use the word "denier" in ANY context is to invoke the Holocaust?

Anyone who denies something can be called a denier. If you say that there is no such thing as climate change, you are "denying" that climate change exists, and you are therefore a "climate change denier."

TroyOwen
TroyOwen

@ErickBlair @JT946 The DOE gave monies to 1300 different Green companies only about 20 have failed.

Learn something.

TroyOwen
TroyOwen

@ErickBlair@BillW "The glaciers are in the Arctic are doing OK"

Oh uninformed one ..... NASA

Shrinking ice sheets

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.



TroyOwen
TroyOwen

@ErickBlair@LRonHoover 15 years huh?

NASA ---

Global temperature rise

All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

You are misinformed or a liar?

Witch is it?

JT946
JT946

@ErickBlair @JT946 You haven't answered anything and you know it. Your responses have been all over the place and now are completely off the map with references to the Holocaust!?!?

rsemrau
rsemrau

@LRonHoover @ErickBlair 

Who said anything about getting rich? I'd say the most desperate workers in the scientific community, are those who simply want a reliable, average income for a few years. They are tired of fighting for funding every year or two.

Those are the people who will tow the political line, reliably. And there are thousands of them.

ErickBlair
ErickBlair

@JT946

I've answered you question more than once but apparently you dislike the answer so you ask them again.  That's called being a troll.  Why don't you answer this question:  Every time an alarmist smears those who think global warming is a hoax as a "denier" they are insulting the real victims (overwhelmingly Jewish) of the real Holocaust.  Why do the alarmists continue to do such a despicable and viscous thing on a daily basis?

JT946
JT946

@ErickBlair@JT946Erik - and I quote " For the ones who do agree, it is all about money.   No global waming, no government handouts and a lot of egg on their faces. "

 I'll ask it again - who Erik? Who in the government is not issuing grants etc. unless their science supports global warming? Who is directing that? So during the Bush administration grants etc would only be given unless they supported global warming?!?!?

You also state "My point remains, the alarmists are greedy. cynical and totally, completely dishonest about the "science" - prove it. Why are they all "greedy and cynical"?



ErickBlair
ErickBlair

@JT946

You're putting words in my mouth I didn't say.  The pork comes in the usual way which is to say that it is everywhere. Every congressman, all 435, wants government money for their district.Every Senator, all 100 of them wants government money for their state. Sometimes these handouts are hidden as small items stuffed in large bills.  Or maybe these are huge loan guarantees like those the president gave to Solyndra and 2 dozen other "green" firms.  Most of those boondoggles are now bankrupt.There are countless “innovative” ways for outside pressure groups to steal from the taxpayer.  My point remains, the alarmists are greedy. cynical and totally, completely dishonest about the "science".

JT946
JT946

@ErickBlair @JT946 Erik - you are still not answering the question.  You claim its government pork but you have stated that the research pork has a specific agenda - who is the one handing out the grants and setting the agenda?

ErickBlair
ErickBlair

@JT946@ErickBlairIt's government pork, just like the government wastes billions and billions every year to to please special interests. To quote LRon Hoover its: "the American Meteorological Society. And the American Physical Society. And the National Center for Atmospheric Research. And the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. And Princeton. And Harvard. And Berkeley (who knew?). And MIT. And NYU. And Carnegie Mellon. And Stanford. And Oxford. And Cambridge" and the rest of the usual suspects.

JT946
JT946

@ErickBlair@JT946Nope - It doesn't tell me who is giving the directive from with in the government.
It even says "And elsewhere, we learn that even under climate change denier Bush, the US government pumped up its spending on climate-related items to $7bn pa: spending that has totalled $79bn over the last 20 years." So even Bush couldn't stop this. 

Help me here - who is directing this?

ErickBlair
ErickBlair

@BillW The glaciers are in the Arctic are doing OK, the polar bears aren't complaining. In Antarctica the the glaciers are allegedly receding somewhat in some areas yet also thickening in the pole area.  The scientists are looking into it.  It is far from s crisis.

JT946
JT946

So Erik you stated " For the ones who do agree, it is all about money.   No global waming, no government handouts and a lot of egg on their faces." Tell us who in the government is directly this? Who is telling all these scientists and researchers no global warming no money?



BillW
BillW

Erick,  tell me something. Where did those damn liberals tree huggers hide those glaciers? You should be able to figure that out, smart person that you are. No, wait, you really aren't that smart at all, are you.

LRonHoover
LRonHoover

@ErickBlair @LRonHoover I know, Erick! All about money. Lord knows there's a whole lot less of that beautiful green paper when you quit working for Uncle Sam and go work for Exxon and Koch Industries. Dr Fred Singer can tell you about that. He knows the alarmist position is nonsense. He also knows that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. RJ Reynolds paid him a hefty sum to figure that out.