Alexa, take a deep breath and relax. It is all a bunch of BS. I'm guessing that your professors have an agenda. Yes, it is a common problem.

Just for fun, try Googling "Newsweek global cooling 1975." You'll find the same solutions offered for the exact opposite "crisis." It is all about socialist solutions in search of a problem.

I don't deny that climate changes. It always has and always will. But, the impact of human activity is negligble.

We've done away with that whole "global cooling" meme elsewhere on the blog.  Global cooling was an idea the popular press made much of in the 1970s, for a while. But nothing that the overwhelming majority of scientists or scientific journals were taking seriously.

Mr. Geologist didn't like that answer, and has chosen to ignore it rather than admit he didn't know the full picture.  It's a sad thing for someone who claims to be a scientist to do, but Mr. Geologist's comments are consistently more about his neo-conservative ideology, insults, and fear, than about facts on the table.

Oh really, Emily? I was there. Were you?

As it happens, I graduated from college in 1985.  Do the math.

That said, it's remarkable how these amazing research, writing, and reading skills that humans have developed allow us to learn about what was going on in the past!  Even for times when we weren't alive!

By the way, Emily, we "deniers" are aware that global cooling has been sent down the memory tube. Unfortunately, for you, it can still be accessed on that pesky thing called the Internet, ironically, invented by Algore.

"Sent" down the memory tube?  Was that done by the Trilateral Commission, or the Illuminati?

The "journalists."

Alexa, I am a geologist, and I have also had climatology courses. It's possible I know more about this subject than you do. The whole "global warming" issue is trumped up by people with a socialist agenda. It seems that a "troll" is just anybody who disagrees with the popular (but misinformed) notion prevailing on this site.  

Do you even know what socialism is? Socialism is a political orientation. So, how exactly is a socialist agenda behind what you call "global warming?" And I am sure that as a geologist that you are aware that within every science there is disagreement on every issue. You are in the small minority of scientists on this subject.

Yes, socialism a political orientation, and so is belief in manmade global warming. Sure there is disagreement within the geology community, but I dare say that most geologists are non-believers. We look at earth history. At any rate, that is why we have open and honest debate in science. It is why we don't say (unless we are Al Gore) "the debate is over." 

All of the so-called solutions to "global warming" involve much increased government regulation, higher taxes, increased costs to consumers ("cost for electricity will necessarily skyrocket"), loss of personal liberty, and massive redistribution of wealth. Where I come from, we call that socialism. Call it what you will.

Most geologists are non-believers? How exactly?

And no not all the solutions to global warming involve "socialism", as you call it. Using energy-save lightbulbs, carpooling, washing your clothes in cold water, taking shorter showers. How are these socialist ideas exactly?

Yes, geologists study earth history, and they know that there is nothing happening now that hasn't happened before, many times. Climate is cyclic. The SUN is the primary control of earth's climate, and we have no power to control it. Even our Messiah can't. If you want to do the things you mention, VOLUNTARILY, more power to you. Forcing me to use MERCURY-LADEN "energy-saving" light bulbs is totally wrong. If I choose to use them, that is another matter.

Ok. I'm sure somewhere in everything you said that you answered my questions, but I'm not sure where in your post you answered my questions. Actually, you didn't respond with a direct answer to anything I said. I asked you how are certain things socialist ideas and how are certain geologists non-believers and you managed to talk your way around any real answer. All I caught in your statement was something about the Messiah and "mercury-laden" energy-saving bulbs (I use LED lights not the "mercury-laden" CFL lightbulbs).

P.S. I know how climate works. I have been an environmental science major for the past two years and know that the climate is cyclic and that the sun is mostly responsible for our climate. But I also know that when certain gases get released into the air that they keep the energy, from the sun, in our atmosphere and thus heat up the climate more quickly than it would on its own.

Lauren, I feel that I am repeating myself. The socialist policies are onerous regulations, excessive taxation, massive redistribution of wealth, and loss of personal liberty. I guarantee you that all are a part of the cap-and-trade, which will do great damage to the economy and will have zero impact on the climate. I think that you, and I, and everyone should have "choice" when it comes to what light bulbs we use, whether they be LED, CFL, or incandescant.

I am glad you have a basic idea of climate and know that the sun is by far the primary driver of it. Did you know that the earth has been much warmer in past geologic times? Did you know that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has been much higher in past geologic times? Did you know that "manmade" CO2 accounts for no more than about 3% of that in the atmosphere? So, knowing what you know about the sun and climate cycles, plus the facts I just gave you, please explain how human activity can be causing dangerous warming of the earth. Also, ask yourself if you have been seeing it so much hotter as years go by. It was colder than a son-of-a-bitch in MN this past winter, and I'll bet it was chilly in Chicago, too. I was back to MN in mid July, and it could have been late winter. Use your own powers of observation and a little common sense also.

Yes, I know that the climate was once warmer (case in point - Antarctica). Yes, I know that CO2 levels were once higher. I also know that nearly half of all human CO2 emissions are absorbed by our oceans and other bodies of water. Yes CO2 levels RELEASED DIRECTLY INTO THE ATMOSPHERE are responsible for anywhere between 1% and and 5% of the greenhouse gases. But water vapor is responsible for nearly 95% of all greenhouse gases. A lot of that water vapor is made up of naturally occuring gases, but a lot of that water vapor is made up of the gases that were absorbed from human life (driving, manufacturing, etc.). Thereby making manmade CO2 "a little bit more" of a problem than you seem to want to make it. And that has not a damn thing to do with "socialism."

I really have nothing else to say to you because it seems like it is just going to be a back and forth between us. So, I would like to very nicely say that I'm done.

Thank you and have a wonderful day and life. Over and out.

Worn out dualisms like "socialism vs. capitalism" and catchphrases originating from a century (or more) ago such "redistribution of wealth" -- these have been resuscitated in the past year to help package fear around the presidency of Barack Obama.  

But they obscure very complex and dangerous present realities.

Corporations hold a huge amount of power in our government, and far from being "socialist," the Obama administration may in fact be as willing to leave that power in place as the Bush administration was.  Look at the negotiations on climate legislation, for instance -- the realities of the science have been well diluted under the influence of fossil energy interests and corporate agriculture. 

Wealth has been concentrating upwards into a very small portion of the population for the past thirty or forty years.  You don't need to make this stuff up, it's well documented.  See for instance this interesting Gini Index list from the CIA Factbook -- to make a long story short (Wikipedia's got a good explanation) the higher the number next to the country, the more unequal the distribution of wealth.  Among relatively prosperous nations, the US is right up there with Russia, Hong Kong, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey for concentration of wealth among a minority of the population.

As for the rest: being a scientist, Mr. Geologist, you surely know the difference between weather and climate.  Weather is the short-term phenomenon within climate's longer-term trend.  

So one really cold winter (or cool summer, or even super hot summer, for that matter) indicates less than what the overall temperature trend has been for at least a decade, in terms of sighting shifts in climate.

I will let the "lout" statement pass. Perhaps I have less of an agenda than three of your professors. Many of them are willing to prostitute themselves for government funding. How much funding is available for the "I don't think there is any problem" point of view? The big education establishment is hardly pure in its motives.

Climate change is the norm and always has been. There is nothing unusual about the climate of today's world. In fact it has been cooling for about the past ten years. It has been much warmer in times past, even before SUV's. There have also been higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Human activity has accounted for perhaps 3% of the total in the atmosphere, hardly a big problem.

I don't advocate wanton waste of natural resources. Neither do I think we should shut down the economy for the sake of very dubious science. Do you want to send all our jobs to China and India? Millions of "green jobs," my backside.

Alexa, I know it's frustrating, but please ignore the Geologist.  He's not here to be constructive, just to yank people's chains.

As for other channels: David Brooks is regularly on PBS.  He's a much more evolved conservative than Buchanan, but probably doesn't register a tick on the cable TV's news-o-tainment scale.

Emily, could you send me more information on Exxon and Peabody's involvement via PM? I would love to share that with my group and readers.

Well, this is pretty well reported information, for anyone to find.  

Here are a few articles on Exxon Mobil:

Exxon Chief Makes A Cold Calculation On Global Warming -- BP and Shell Concede Ground As Raymond Funds Skeptics And Fights Emission Caps, Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2005

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial, Guardian, Sept. 20, 2006

Exxon Mobil Warming Up To Global Climate Issue, Washington Post, Feb. 9, 2007

Exxon again cuts funds for climate change skeptics, Reuters, May 23, 2008

ExxonMobil continuing to fund climate sceptic groups, records show, Guardian, July 1, 2009

What fascinates lately is that Exxon's now playing both sides of the fence.  Perhaps it sees the writing on the wall about carbon regulation in the US:

Exxon makes first big investment in biofuels, Associated Press, July 14, 2009

Over at Grist this week, Kate Sheppard has a good piece on where the "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity," an industry lobby group, is getting funding during the current Congress break:

Energy interests to fund ‘astroturfing’ efforts during congressional break

I can't speak for the others, but I haven't done anything to dismiss or demean him. He is still very obviously welcome to put his opinions, but when he starts telling people "to calm down" when they haven't said anything heated or when he doesn't directly answer questions asked to him, then people are going to get a little put off.

Turk, I'm not sure what you're suggesting.  Open inquiry, based on factual information, precludes censoring science in the classroom on the basis of a religious faith.