Article Deals In Climate Myths, Not With Them

Jason: I understand your point. However, as I've pointed out the score is something like this: over 2,500 expert reviewers, over 800 contributers, and over 450 lead authors write the IPCC Fourth Assessment versus a relatively few skeptics on anthropogenic climate change (that are reasonably qualified on the subject). If it were a comparison of doctor's opinions on your health, who would you believe?

As far as being "as bad as some people make it out to be," I have to go with the IPCC as it's a relatively conservative report. It doesn't predict 20 foot sea level rises (although those have always been stated as the worst case scenario) but it does give some pretty dramatic predictions. I urge everyone to read what the real threat is and not just what either "skeptics" or "alarmists" claim about one another. The IPCC Fourth Assessment SPM [.pdf] is a great start and a fairly short and easy to digest read on the issue.

Now, that being said, we have the tools and the ability to help curb the problem (there's really no chance of us actually "cooling" the planet at this point). It's a matter of will. I hope you might consider reading my article on things we can do right now to help both save money and cut greenhouse gases.

In addition to many of your suggestions being environmentally friendly, they are budget friendly as well.

Less energy use = less energy costs. Nothing less political or more straight forward than that.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. To be honest, I'm not sure why this is even considered a political issue. Regulations, treaties, and carbon trading? Sure, that's policy. Saving money by using less gas or reducing your electric bill? That's just common sense!

Territan: I was referring to the article which I had referenced Jason Ford to, one regarding what consumers can do on a daily basis to reduce their energy needs (both for saving money and reducing greenhouse gas emissions on their part). I very much steered clear of policy in that article.

However, that does bring me to what I consider an important issue. The clear division between science and policy. It is one thing for the argument against climate change policy due to economic (or other considerations), no matter how I may feel those concerns are overstated and unfounded. However, for politicians to deny that a mature and well understood science requires action at all is simply inexcusable. Hoping to undermine the science itself in hopes of avoiding policy action is dishonest and harms everyone. It's not new and it's not limited to climate science. We must do what we can to ensure that the facts about the science are available and clear. Then we can demand that our policy makers discuss and respond accordingly based on those facts, not just what they choose to listen to or they invent themselves.

I did not assume you were the author/editor of the article in question as it would be COH violation to seed your own writing here. As for petty arguments between Newsvine users (or whatever you were alluding to when you sent readers to Mykola's unrelated article), I couldn't possibly care less. The author (a Christopher Horner, whoever that is) did say exactly that, however.

Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed, as they always will.

Those two terms simply cannot be interchanged as they mean two very different (albeit related) things.

I wonder (and I'm honestly wondering, not saying sarcastically) what the temperature changes are recently. After all, it could also just be this particular year. Not because of global warming. Then again, it could be.

Where, and why would just one year matter in a 50-100 year global trend? However, there is a great deal of data in the SPM if you wish to read it. However, by just asking about what is happening in the past year, you seem to be falling in the same trap as the author: confusing weather with climate.

Another thing I'd like to know is what a scientist in the Arctic would say. After all, they're the guys who live with polar bears. I'd think they'd know. Problem is, I don't know any. The reason I say this is that a conservative talk show host (who I can't remember the name of) claimed that scientists at the Arctic say that the ice isn't receding. Don't know if it's true or not.

Not personally knowing any artic climate scientists is a poor reason to trust the opinion of some radio opinion spinner (be it Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken). I'm not sure that anyone lives with the polar bears, but there is also references to the Arctic ice in the IPCC which clearly show the author of this piece to be wrong. From the IPCC SPM:

Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years.
…Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade.

You said:

Yeah, an editor without a scientific background isn't the best source. I'd consider the UN a good source though.

Than you should consider reading the IPCC document in question (and not listening to political spin on talk radio when it comes to science):

Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003, about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century.

It doesn't sound like they're saying that's insignificant to me.

You said:

So why couldn't the reverse happen?

It can and it does, as the Earth's climate cycles in and out of cool periods. However, the rapid warming observed now cannot be explained by these natural cycles of natural forcing. That's the entire question that climatologists have been studying. The IPCC report represents the state of the art in that field and reading their SPM goes a long way to answering that question for you.

Just because the majority of scientists believe in this doesn't mean it is accurate. The majority of scientists once believed the earth was flat.

That's a strawman for the simple fact that the people who once thought the Earth was flat weren't scientists, as Vas points out. It was the scientists who began to make observations to the contrary (along with many sea-faring peoples).

Another thing I'd like to know is what a scientist in the Arctic would say.

From a seed today by Benno Hansen titled "Polar Scientists Welcome 'Strong And Definitive Statement' On Climate Change:"

Dr David Carlson, Director of the IPY International Programme Office says: "IPCC has made a strong and definitive statement about global climate change, a change which hits first and hardest at the poles."

Recent observations of the polar regions in 2006 have prompted alarm from experts that ice melting rates could be exceeding even IPCC projections.

…

Dr Carlson added: "These and other changes in physical and ecological systems of polar regions, all observed over the past two years indicate a region undergoing rapid change and in need of comprehensive attention."

I couldn't agree more. I do wish that I worked in an environment myself that allowed that (it's difficult to telecommute to construction sites; although it is hard to overstate what digital photography has done in this industry to reduce travel). There are certainly many jobs that lend themselves to telecommuting, even if only one or two days a week. It also has so many benefits beyond the reduction in energy, which you pointed out. Thanks.

True, there are some jobs that can be done entirely by correspondence and are likely candidates for overseas outsourcing. However, there are many more jobs in which a worker can stay home two out of five days a week, coming in 'the office' or doing 'field work' the others. This allows companies to reduce overhead by rotating out days workers are 'in' with them sharing workspaces. It's becoming fairly common in many larger corporate environments where cutting down on 20% of your leasing space saves large amounts of money (both in lease costs as well as energy needs). I believe this arrangement still allows the worker to receive tax benefits for some of their living expenses as job related.

the other side (the anti-global warming)

Huh? I'm anti-global warming! The "other side" are the one's who apparently do not care that it is happening. Of course you'll have to decide for yourself, but I recommend getting the science from actual scientists instead pundits who know nothing of what they're talking about.