Well, Ian, I have news for you...science does NOT agree that there is "global warming"; in fact the latest research, per U of WI and German Universities, INDICATES A CYCLE OF COOLING.  (Borne out by evidence; we are having record-breaking cold days here in WI.)  Follow the money...most of the funding goes to studies that "find" global warming, so that's what "most scientists" find. 

This is just like the "scientists" that found that trans fat was OK, back in the 70s, when Mary Enig found just the opposite--and dared to publish her findings.  Guess what?  Her funding was cut off!

Or like the "scientists" that said smoking was OK, or fluoride, or cell phones...It's just perceived as "different" now, in that it's the government's official position.  But they (both political parties) are all in bed with the corporations, so it makes no difference as to who's claiming what.

But suppose for a moment that there IS global warming.  Then it's just a continuation of what's been going on for centuries!  Where did the tropical trees found in Siberian ice come from?  Maybe the world is returning to its former state, after an ice age.

What about the glacier that covered where I now live--how many SUVs were there back when it was melting?  How many PEOPLE were there, even?  What caused the PROVEN global warming then?  Proven, because we can see the aftereffects of the glacier that used to cover WI.  What about the fact that it used to be so cold in Europe that the village priests would stand at the end of the glacier and chant prayers to keep it from advancing!

And, yes, I consider myself a scientist, with a degree in biology and another in nursing (we are taught to look at the whole picture, and to ask "why, why, why").  So, I ask WHY is PEW quoted?  Pwe Research gets its money from Pew Trust, founded by an oil magnate's heirs.  In 2004, Pew changed to a nonprofit, so they could a) raise funds and b) LOBBY.  It would be interesting to investigate all their monetary connections.

It is also interesting to see the way they treat statistics.  (You surely know one can use statistics to "prove" anything.)  For example, "84% of scientists" agree that human activities cause earth's temp to rise.  What was the sample size?  How did they pick these scientists? Were they, by chance, ones who get grant money to FIND warming?  What about the "10%" who think earh is getting warmer due to natural causes?  By the very nature of the wording, both these questions will automatically exclude those scientists who reject the theory of warming.

So what money could be made by claiming global warming?  How about all these "climate stock exchanges"?  Now that the Wall St. variety has had all these problems, let's make money on carbon! 

I am a grass-fed sheep farmer.  I do what I do because I believe it is sustainable, it provides habitat for wildlife, and is better for my livestock.  But I'll be hanged if I'm going to "sell" my "carbon credits" on some carbon stock exchange!  Just because I do what I do, doesn't mean any company who wanted to buy credits, would change their ways! So, I'd still be raising sheep on grass, and they'd still be polluting...what has changed?  (Except someone making money.)

And if I wanted to sell credits, why'd I have to go through an "exchange", and not sell them to a company MYSELF, unless it was to help SOMEONE ELSE make money off me? 

I WILL keep telling the TRUTH, which is that the global warming enthusiasts make their claims for political and/or monetary reasons...and they are loath to change their claims, despite EVIDENCE to the contrary.

Pew is quoted because Pew did the freaking survey, of course. Pew does scads of surveys year in and out on all sorts of public interest topics.

Go on over to the Pew site yourself and find out the sample size, how they found the scientists, etc.  No one's stopping you.

Emily Matthews,

You seem confused about some of your information. 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations (like Pew) are strictly forbidden to lobby, or they will loose their nonprofit status. I know - I have been on the board of a number of nonprofit organizations.

As for global warming - anyone can publish a paper, and anyone can call themselves a scientist. When those of us that read and/or write about science in an honest way talk about science, we are talking about peer-reviewed science. Peer-review is the process used by the large and independent conglomeration of international organizations of scientists (usually divided by disciplines) set up and maintained to publish research based on scientific merit. Your computer works largely because of the integrity of this system. DNA "fingerprinting" works largely because of this system. In fact, the large majority of the science that underpins all the technology that you use every day is based on the results of peer-reviewed science. It is how modern science separates good science from bad science, and it is how almost all modern scientific research universities and institutions function.

Do you know how many peer-reviewed articles of scientific research claim that the earth is cooling, or that claim that global warming isn't happening, or that humans aren't primarily the cause of it? None. Zip. Zero.

The countless articles that you read about research that "debunks" global warming have a good chance of being funded by the large dirty-energy corporations, because these giant corporations have the most to lose by addressing the problem of global warming (as in BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to lose). These articles are NOT peer-reviewed, therefore the accuracy of their content and conclusions cannot be assured. These same dirty-energy corporations have spent over $100 million since January just to lobby the congress against laws that would really control global warming, with very good effect.

Those of us who would like to do something to halt global warming have far less to gain MONETARILY, and therefore far less to spend lobbying congress - the lobbyist ratio is about 16 dirty-energy lobbyists to 1 environmental lobbyist. The thing is, the environmentalists just happen to like a liveable earth. I am sure you would like the same thing for you and your sheep.

If you want to help save our climate, it is necessary to understand and appreciate the results of the peer-review process.

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=It%27s_all_just_the_sun

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/3.html

Bonnie,

I live in Austin, Texas. The 100ºF+ temperatures started in June this year (the average June high is 92ºF), with a record high one day 0f 107ºF. We have had 100ºF+ highs every day for a month now, many of which were records. Our water source, Lake Travis, is at a 25 year low, and still falling. Significant rainfall is not expected again until October, and the hottest months are historically August and September. Add to this the fact that the metropolitan population has grown very substantially in the past 25 years, and maybe you will get the picture.

Your information, according to my web research, is inaccurate, but without you quoting your sources, this cannot be intelligently debated. Emily Gertz, on the other hand, has always (and continues to) document her statements, and I find her to be quite responsible.

I would submit that, with the scientific evidence already at hand, your rebuttal is the true "utterly irresponsible journalism" here. The problem with this is that the project scientific outcome of believing and acting upon your denials is beyond unfortunate, it is catastrophic.

I grew up in Texas, too. We had summers like that some years, and some years not. Sometimes there would be several years of drought, or of severe weather, followed by quieter years. You can't use local anecdotal data like that to project global trends. One part of the world can be cooler when another is warmer. Global temperatures are figured by using data from many locations, most of them locations that have been collecting such data for a century or more. Scientists have explained to me that this collection method introduces inaccuracies, too, because such traditional collection spots are necessarily near long-settled population centers, so that skews the data. They are adding more non-populated collection areas to counterbalance that.

Please reread my post. The temperatures I am talking about are record-breaking temperatures. These records go back further than your recollections. 

But then, my brother, who has lived his entire life in northeastern Ohio, says the same thing about the severity of the winters up there - they are getting much less severe. But maybe that, in itself, is too subjective.

The breeding ranges of many songbirds are moving north, some have moved by 500 miles. This is documented science. But then, what does a songbird know?

Local information, anecdotal information, and scientific information, all pointing to the same thing. Hmm - interesting.

And temperature data - there are human-recorded temperatures, which can be flawed. But there is also tree-ring data, there is data retrieved from glacier cores... and they all point to the same thing: the earth is warming. The pattern of warming does not follow any known cycle, but it is closely related to CO2 in this case.

You still have not qouted any scientists or studies. So I am just supposed to take your word for it?

Oh and just for the record on this blog, Ms. Chandler's assertions related to the global warming phenomenon, and the current state of global warming research, are pretty much wholly incorrect.  

I have written for the Bolton Common, the Harvard Post, and a few other publications. The scientists whose opinions I quoted are PhD research scientists and professors at Harvard U., MIT, the Smithsonian Institute, NASA, JPL, and a few other such institutions. I repeat, I don't know where PEW found so many scientists to back up their biased report, unless they only interviewed "climatologists." The scientists I know say they do not consider climatology a true science yet, because the entire science is based on questionable computer models with built-in assumptions that have yet to be corroborated with enough years of real data to be acceptable to serious scientists. They say that before the models can be accepted as fact, they will need to wait for the results of several more years of real data collection to test them against, followed by a lot of tweaking to make them reliable. However, the public does not know these details, so they believe whatever the politicians and journalists tell them, especially if it sounds attention-getting or apocalyptic. That is why I used the words "irresponsible journalism": journalists should carefully explain all the complexities and avoid oversimplifying science, because that is where the inaccuracies creep in and, in the case of "global warming," have completely taken over and acquired a life of their own. Many climate scientists' careers are now so heavily invested in the global warming theory that it would be the death of their career if they tried to backtrack even a little when present results disagree with their own past conclusions. Surely you must see how ridiculous it is to say that the researchers on your side are all virtuous and the researchers on the other side are all venial and bribed by oil companies.

Emily, I notice that you did not reply to my assertion that NO scientists believes that the primary cause of global warming is anything other than changes in the sun's energy output -- that what scientists are talking about when they talk about human-induced global warming is around one percent of the total warming effect. Those who ascribe to anthropogenic global warming believe that that extra one percent or so, which some of them believe humans have added to the equation, could be enough to tip the warming fluctuation into an irreversible trend, instead of continuing to fluctuate as it has for the history of our planet. They hope that removing that one percent would set the Earth back on track --that is, those who believe it is off track now believe it. This is what the debate is about, and it is another aspect of journalism's failure to educate the public that the public doesn't seem to have any inkling of this.

"Emily, I notice that you did not reply to my assertion that NO scientists believes that the primary cause of global warming is anything other than changes in the sun's energy output"

Well, it's a provably mistaken assertion.  On this blog alone, I have referenced research involving dozens of scientists, from around the world, who accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Here's a whole blog devoted to climate science by active NASA - Goddard researchers: www.realclimate.org

I'm not here to do your research for you, Ms. Chandler.  The veracity of my work speaks for itself, and from what evidence I can find of your career online, yours speaks for you.

"Many climate scientists' careers are now so heavily invested in the global warming theory that it would be the death of their career if they tried to backtrack even a little when present results disagree with their own past conclusions."

Wrong.  Science is a competitive field.  If a credible (up to date on the latest research, affiliated with a reputable university or government research institution, actively publishing in peer-reviewed science journals in the arenas of climatology and earth sciences, etc.) scientist had good evidence that shook up the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and other scientists could verify these results, his or her career would be made.  

"Surely you must see how ridiculous it is to say that the researchers on your side are all virtuous and the researchers on the other side are all venial and bribed by oil companies."

Sure, that would be ridiculous.  That's why I don't say things like that.  (I think you meant "venal.")

There is definitely some worthy scientific debate going on right now about how much more heat-trapping gas the atmosphere can take before we hit an irreversible climactic tipping point.  

Great recommendation, Dave.  It's one of the books I include in the Annotated Guide to Good Books and Articles about Global Warming.

Hermon, i am not sure that's quite true, though some people get their information through forwarded e-mails and radio (some programs do have decent interviews with scientists), is that not how the global warming idea spread in the first place? through mass media? the point is that media is a tool for which ever side seems more favorable. it just so happens that there's competition in different media (*gasp he used the dreaded word!). Please do not just lump me who does his research with others who are lazy. below i have opposing scientists' views who are well qualified to be in this debate.

Roslin's quite correct about how the impacts of global warming are being felt in developing countries.  It goes much too far to say the USA, UK or Europe are benefitting from climate change, however.  Technology is better distributed in these nations so people can better insulate themselves from heat waves; and maybe the governments are in better positions to help citizens out after warming-driven disasters (although there are people living on America's Florida and Gulf coasts who'd disagree, I'm sure).

And needless to say, North Korea or Pakistan (Pakistan?) lobbing missiles at the industrialized world is not a great solution to global warming, or much else.

The key thing is that there isn't much of a debate at all when it comes to the science, not anymore.  

The notion that such a debate even exists is a documented part of misinformation campaigns that have sought for over a decade to stop or slow US action to curb global warming.

Declaring that something is so ("there isn't much of a debate at all when it comes to the science, not anymore") does not make it so. Unfortunately, when you are a journalist and you make such declarations, you affect how the public sees it, because their only source of information is news media and they are not aware of what is going on in the actual field.

Bonnie, I agree 100% that saying something is so does not make it so.

So far, you have not listed one scientist, one report, or one piece of peer-reviewed research to back up your statements an/or assumptions denying global warming. This whole debate was based on the reporting of a sampling done by well-known and respected organizations, with documentation. So far, you are attempting to refute this based on your own word, and nothing else.

So who is the one here that is merely "saying something is so?"

ah craig, but i gave an entire site of 70 (or so) scientists (not all in the same area).

first off, peer-reviewed feeds into the fire that global warming is. If they were semi-anonymous reviewed (of course actual scientists, not just some Joe on the street) then maybe i can accept the research. but the fact that your name is on the paper gives a clout of doubt whether it is legitimate or not. but to each his own

second. Emiy. there is very much of a debate since i gave you a site of 70 SCIENTISTS AND ECONOMISTS who disagree and are debating. just because 83% (not sure how accurate that number is) of scientists claim something is true, that means there is at least 17% not sure if it is or isn't. that is a debate. Period.

Steven,

First of all, the link that you give is apparently corrupt, as it consistently comes up as "page not found" on my computer. I cannot comment on what I cannot read.

Peer-review is how science is done, and has been done since long before global warming was an issue. The peer-review process was designed to fairly evaluate research for publication, and its overall integrity is accepted by scholars and institutions world-wide. The peer-review process is almost always anonymous insofar as the reviewing panel (and it is always a panel) is given a research paper without a name. The reviewing panel cannot easily remain anonymous without raising questions about the balance of the reviewing process. It is a very hard system to corrupt.

Global warming science has been undergoing peer-review since the early seventies, with literally thousands of the best scientists playing a part. 100% of scientists will never agree on anything - there are still a very few holdouts on evolution, and that debate has lasted over 150 years. When 83% of the scientists agree on something, it is safe to say that "there isn't much of a debate at all" in the scientific community.

"To each his own" - so without being a climate scientist yourself, how do you evaluate technical research? You say that you are "not sure how accurate that number is [83%]." So how do you find out? Peer-review is a useful tool to separate the best research from the rest.

How does peer-review "feed(s) into the fire that global warming is"?

First, please excuse any tangents I go off on. I tried to keep it simple but it’s 3 am and I don’t want to wake up angry at anyone.

If my link didn’t work, go to the following (i forgot HTML doesn't work here)

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

It’s a direct link to the site where the conference was recorded and is available for download.

If that link doesn't work, try a different browser and NOT safari; it's a bad browser with a massive security hole (it's true, it's been featured in PC magazine time and again).

Also, in the early 70s, the major scientists were talking about global COOLING based on a short-term drop in temperatures (perhaps a long la Nina which is known to cause global drop in temperature). Just to point that out really quick that the scientific community though credible, can be wrong

On the peer-review process, I was going by what others have said, so I won't put up a fight. It’s just when most scientists are paid by the politicians (who ultimately control the research funds from government) they are looking for the 'right' answers, not truth like how my sources look for (not paid by big oil either you can look up their records). Politicians are avoiding a disaster of their policies (such as the ban on DDT indoors in Africa to get rid of malaria is killing Africans every day) and going to the next big problem (last time it was acid rain [later proved to be less of a problem than originally thought] now it's climate change). Basically, when politicians are saying something about 'science' take it with a grain of salt, it just sounds fishy at that point

Now I’m repeating that there is a debate (once again) since there are at least 100 climatologists who say the debate's not over (you've probably seen it before): http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/ClimateAd_ChicagoTrib_Rev.pdf

I chose not to disclose the above before because rather than just give a list of names i was giving proof of the debate. Also, one piece of evidence can shred a theory to pieces, Albert Einstein knew that: "Many experiments may prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong". And Dr. Tim Ball from Canada said, "Scientific integrity is not determined by a show of hands". That's why even if there's 1% of doubt; it's worth looking into. Debate is alive and kicking within the scientific community, though it’s not as prominent as I would like.

Finally, but not to be a bigot but there is some respectable scientists (who once thought otherwise) on the evolution issue who say intelligent design may be evident in DNA rather than by chance. And even if I believe it, it's a different debate than the one we currently are focused on.

Some links to some skeptics sites in case you're interested. Browse the sites please:

Dr Roy Spencer, Author of Climate confusion: http://www.drroyspencer.com

The Web's Longest-Running Climate Change Blog: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Science and Public Policy institute: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Just a site that references papers and collaborates them into an understandable format: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

So what you are saying is that because of President Carter, Amory Lovins, Greenpeace, and the World Wildlife Foundation preventing the progress of nuclear power, we now have global warming?

What about the rest of the world other than America, like China, the current largest emitter of CO2? What about the internal combustion engine? What about the wholesale destruction of major global carbon sinks, like rain forests? What about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? Are you sure we can blame this all on your four "culprits?"

I think you need to learn more about nuclear energy because that fact that you mentioned Three Mile Island and Chernobyl  seems to me that you're just repeating propaganda spread by th fossil fuel industry, Amory Lovins who's a consultant for them, and others. I suggest you read Alexander DeVolpi's articles on google's knol especially the following article:

http://knol.google.com/k/alexander-devolpi/nuclear-expertise-the-amory-lovins/1gsyt5k142kc5/22

And check out his other articles to learn the facts about nuclear power:

http://knol.google.com/k/knol/system/knol/pages/Search?q=+inauthor%3A%22alexander+devolpi%22&restrict=general

China is building 100 new nuclear power plants because the know solar and wind can't provide even close to the power they need and coal toxins is polluting their air.

More than four culprits are to blame but I think they're the biggest reason why we don't have clean nuclear power today which doesn't produce CO2. Let me repeat that nuclear power produces ZERO CO2.

The CO2 accounting in the mining, refining, and building belongs to the plants and equipment that produce it NOT the nuclear power plant under construction. At a later stage these processes will be powered by the nuclear power plants and there will be no more excuses to say CO2 is produced in the building of the plants. Besides there now exist ways to make cement without CO2 or that are carbon neutral which means no net CO2 is produced.

I think that building and maintaining a million or more solar panels and wind turbines would require much more resources and CO2 cause you need much more of them to provide the same power that a nuclear power plant provides.

Why do you keep quoting the thing about electricity too cheap to meter? Do you have any idea of the HUGE cost of soalr and wind power compared to nuclear? Solar and wind power is for rich elites. Most people will not be able to afford it.

By the way, those articles by scientist Alexander DeVolpi are a good resource for learning about nuclear energy.

i agree with Konstantin, My father works for a nuclear facility and the nuclear fuel when spent (as in no more energy able to be produced) isn't just sent away to the bottom of the ocean. It's mostly harmless when spent and can easily be disposed of deep in a mountain with the only environmental damage being the hole to put the spent fuel into. environmentally is it the least damaging product out there, since Solar and Wind need to take up MUCH MORE area to produce enough electricity to run propel (not to mention the limited ability to use it).

Also, once or twice a year (depending on the nuclear codes) the plant shuts down and is inspected head to toe. Nuclear is safe, more compact and environmentally friendly than any other type of energy, including geothermal, tidal and hydro-electric.

If you want a better example than china, how about France? France gets 80 percent of the country's electricity from nuclear power. and they have the lowest emissions in all of Western Europe.

This is a blog about global warming. If we are to stop global warming, we must consider the ENTIRE carbon foot print NOW, and not at some undefined time in the future. It may be quite a while before we can power mining operations and environmental mitigation for them by electricity. Ethanol production from corn will not work, either, for the same basic reason - total carbon footprint.

You still have not addressed the other forms of pollution, including mining pollution (low-level radioactive mining tailings, etc.), heat pollution from reactor cooling, and the need for large amounts of water and the resulting pollution.

For these reasons I don't agree with your statements about the comparative safety and environmental friendliness of nuclear compared to the other technologies.

France still has not adequately solved the issue of where to put its nuclear waste. I know you are not a fan of Greenpeace, but they have a paper that lays out some of the problems that France faces in a way that other sites gloss over:

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclear-waste-crisis-france.pdf 

I quote "too cheap to meter" because this was stated as truth by a number of prominent nuclear scientists in the fifties. Nuclear scientists are of course going to promote nuclear energy. It is other disciplines (hydrology, geology, and relevant environmental sciences) that try to weigh the effects of nuclear energy on the environment that are going to inform us on the real costs of nuclear energy. 

Your statement: "Solar and wind power is for rich elites" is political and not scientific, and suggests political scare tactics and "class warfare." Passive solar through better architecture is thousands of years old and still works if we would use it more, and direct solar has even better potential for lots of energy.

Look at nature - nature has structured the entire world to run on energy from the sun. Not a single animal runs on nuclear energy it produces for itself because of the problem of the potential of radioactive damage to biological molecules. Do you think maybe there might be something to learn from that?

Sorry i don't have time for a longer reply right now.

You may not realize it but many of the arguments you make have been made long ago by people advocating fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry. Here is an article by Amory Lovins, published in the Council of Foreign Relations magazine called Foreign Affairs in 1976. In it he makes some of the same types of arguments. This pdf reprint is from Amory lovins' own organization Rocky Mountain Institute

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E77-01_TheRoadNotTaken.pdf

Nuclear is still much cheaper than solar or wind. That's why I say solar and wind is for the elite cause regular people won't be able to afford it. They will live in poverty conditions. Unless you're advocating everyone live like ancient cavemen who didn't use much energy. Of course the very rich will be able to afford all the energy they want. With cap-and-trade they even got special treatments for the fossil fuel industry built into the bill.

I don't agree with your CO2 accounting. What's the CO2 emmisions from manufacturing 1 million solar panels and wind turbines. Also solar panel will deteriorate quickly with sand storms in the desert.

Sorry i don't have time for a longer reply right now.

You may not realize it but many of the arguments you make have been made long ago by people advocating fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry. Here is an article by Amory Lovins, published in the Council of Foreign Relations magazine called Foreign Affairs in 1976. In it he makes some of the same types of arguments. This pdf reprint is from Amory lovins' own organization Rocky Mountain Institute

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E77-01_TheRoadNotTaken.pdf

Nuclear is still much cheaper than solar or wind. That's why I say solar and wind is for the elite cause regular people won't be able to afford it. They will live in poverty conditions. Unless you're advocating everyone live like ancient cavemen who didn't use much energy. Of course the very rich will be able to afford all the energy they want. With cap-and-trade they even got special treatments for the fossil fuel industry built into the bill.

I don't agree with your CO2 accounting. What's the CO2 emmisions from manufacturing 1 million solar panels and wind turbines. Also solar panel will deteriorate quickly with sand storms in the desert.

If you look in that article, mory lovins actually advocates coal! He set the global warming mitigations back 30 years cause we could have had clean energy by now and the cleanest most environmentally friendly energy is nuclear power.