Comments on: EarthTalk: Talking To A Climate Change Skeptic. http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/04/19/earthtalk-talking-to-a-climate-change-skeptic/ Sustainability, Environment, Progressive Politics, Peak Oil, Being Green. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:38:53 -0500 hourly 1 By: I'm a Real_scientist http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/04/19/earthtalk-talking-to-a-climate-change-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-22219 I'm a Real_scientist Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:18:50 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=2357#comment-22219 Lizzie, I first heard about the effect of greenhouse gases on the temperature of planetary atmospheres after Mariner spacecraft went to Venus in 1963 and found it is hotter than an oven. At that time, a senior scientist explained to me that the earth was vulnerable to heating due to the fossil carbon dioxide being released to the atmosphere. If it wasn't for CO2, and other gases, the earth would be as cold as the moon. The current rise in the temperature of earth is consistent with calculations using the extra CO2 now in the air. We've added 38% more CO2 than there was 50 years ago. The science was established 50 years ago. It's frustrating to see everybody ignoring it when the global weather is changing worldwide. Fossil fuel companies pay for denying websites who spout mumbo jumbo that can sound scientific if you don't know the exact details. Go to NOAA, NASA, NCAR, MIT, AIP, web pages if you want to know what the real science is. Or maybe you chose to believe in science "bias" for the last 150 years, involving thousands of physicists, chemists, biologists. Some of whom look for the signals of global warming in their data; others find it accidentally when they are studying something else. In summary, the reason for my strong "views": I know the science and I have grandchildren. Lizzie,
I first heard about the effect of greenhouse gases on the temperature of planetary atmospheres after Mariner spacecraft went to Venus in 1963 and found it is hotter than an oven.
At that time, a senior scientist explained to me that the earth was vulnerable to heating due to the fossil carbon dioxide being released to the atmosphere. If it wasn’t for CO2, and other gases, the earth would be as cold as the moon.
The current rise in the temperature of earth is consistent with calculations using the extra CO2 now in the air. We’ve added 38% more CO2 than there was 50 years ago.
The science was established 50 years ago. It’s frustrating to see everybody ignoring it when the global weather is changing worldwide.
Fossil fuel companies pay for denying websites who spout mumbo jumbo that can sound scientific if you don’t know the exact details. Go to NOAA, NASA, NCAR, MIT, AIP, web pages if you want to know what the real science is.
Or maybe you chose to believe in science “bias” for the last 150 years, involving thousands of physicists, chemists, biologists. Some of whom look for the signals of global warming in their data; others find it accidentally when they are studying something else.
In summary, the reason for my strong “views”: I know the science and I have grandchildren.

]]> By: Lizzie http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/04/19/earthtalk-talking-to-a-climate-change-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-22213 Lizzie Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:34:27 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=2357#comment-22213 I’m a student currently researching a piece on bias in science in relation to global warming and the arguments for and against it. I was just wandering what has influenced your strong views on the topic? There is evidence that backs up these scientists’ views that it is not manmade. However each website, book, TV station etc. has a different slant on the topic. Plenty of scientists are against the idea of manmade climate change as well as those who believe it is our fault. Any thoughts on the topic would be helpful as you can understand it such a huge topic to look into. I’m a student currently researching a piece on bias in science in relation to global warming and the arguments for and against it. I was just wandering what has influenced your strong views on the topic? There is evidence that backs up these scientists’ views that it is not manmade. However each website, book, TV station etc. has a different slant on the topic. Plenty of scientists are against the idea of manmade climate change as well as those who believe it is our fault. Any thoughts on the topic would be helpful as you can understand it such a huge topic to look into.

]]> By: Anabel http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/04/19/earthtalk-talking-to-a-climate-change-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-19612 Anabel Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:42:32 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=2357#comment-19612 Lindzen and Singer's pronouncements at a nonscientific conference are meaningless. If there is 'observational evidence' Singer could publish what it is in a scientific journal, where it would be peer reviewed, and could be validated or refuted in later research articles. These guys are a joke, except that the warming of the globe is serious. Lindzen and Singer’s pronouncements at a nonscientific conference are meaningless. If there is ‘observational evidence’ Singer could publish what it is in a scientific journal, where it would be peer reviewed, and could be validated or refuted in later research articles.

These guys are a joke, except that the warming of the globe is serious.

]]> By: cocoanib http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/04/19/earthtalk-talking-to-a-climate-change-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-19586 cocoanib Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:35:41 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=2357#comment-19586 I always wondered what global warming skeptics based their argument on. Even if there was no global warming, water and air pollution is very real and hurting the environment and our health everyday. That alone is reason enough for me to take notice. I always wondered what global warming skeptics based their argument on.
Even if there was no global warming, water and air pollution is very real and hurting the environment and our health everyday. That alone is reason enough for me to take notice.

]]>