My View From The Country

Global Warming – Science Is Just An Afterthought

Climate change isn’t about climate change; it’s about how we distribute the world’s wealth.

The media has been reporting that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is about to release a new report on global warning that will ratchet up the pressure on the whole global warming debate. I have to admit that the more I read, the more confused I become when it comes to global warming.

Well, actually the correct term is now “climate change.” It was changed when the data showed there had been no warming in the past 15 years. Oops.

What is obvious is that the issue has very little to do with the science. The shift to the phrase “climate change” was a game changer, in that whatever weather event occurs can be attributed to climate change.  Which when you think about it, is right. 

Skeptics of climate change don’t question whether climate change is occurring; it always has. They question man and society’s role in that climate change.

The data are clear the climate has been changing for thousands of years and will continue to change. The tough thing about the data is that history indicates there are cyclical changes coupled with dramatic changes. Scientists have yet to develop climate models that can explain the changes, let alone predict the timing or scale of them. In fact, recent models have been almost universally discredited.

Even the impact of CO2 isn’t understood. The historical data would say that temperature changes have preceded changes in CO2 rather than the inverse. But skeptics are making a big mistake if they rely on the lack of warming that’s occurred in recent times. The earth has been warming since the little ice age, and is expected to continue to rise for at least a couple more centuries, so there will be warming.

The other thing we can be certain of is that CO2 levels will also rise. Today, 97% of CO² levels are from natural sources, and even then CO2 is a minuscule part in that it only represents about 400 parts per million.

But it’s all irrelevant because climate change has moved beyond global politics. Even the billions of dollars being raised and spent on its behalf are minor. It’s a global movement that’s absorbed a myriad of ideologies – everything from science vs. religion, to anti-capitalism.  

This new UN report is expected to state that the risk and certainty of the cause has increased. As Forbes reports, “When the UN Environment Programme’s spokesman, Tim Higham, was asked by New Scientist about the scientific background for this change, his answer was honest: ‘There was no new science, but the scientists wanted to present a clear and strong message to policymakers.’”

So critics are wrong if they believe highly touted predictions that prove inaccurate will undermine support for their opposition. In its 2007 report, the IPCC said the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. It was discovered that there was no science behind this claim, but there will be other claims that will prove to be incorrect as well. The IPCC has already been shown to be far more of a political organization than a scientific one, but that won’t change the media coverage that their latest or subsequent reports will generate.

Anyone who bases their response to climate change on science or weather occurrences is missing the point. Climate change isn’t about climate change; it’s about how we distribute the world’s wealth. One needs to go further than the rising sea level statements. The models are all predicting it, but the data since 1950 shows no evidence of it; perhaps the oceans haven’t seen the models. 

If you publicly doubt the impact of manmade CO2 on global warming, you will be labeled as anti-science, uneducated, greedy or uncaring. While the science may be inconclusive, the moral high ground has already been won. Climate change has morphed into a moral imperative, and it’s now no different than fighting racism or some other injustice.

The only thing way to deal with climate change is to appeal to the same moral high ground. Science is used for added credibility, but it’s not the basis of the argument.

 

You might also like:

Global Warming, A Red, Hot Lie?

7 Ranching Operations Personify Environmental Stewardship

Solving Pregnancy Loss In Cattle

70+ Photos Honor The Hardworking Cowboys On The Ranch

More Foreign Money Entering U.S. Meatpacking Sector

6 Tips For Proper Electric Fence Grounding

Discuss this Blog Entry 33

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

CO2 has gone from 350 to 400 ppm, which means that 1 in 20,000 parts of the atmosphere has changed from "something" to CO2. All the while the atmosphere has about 100 to 200 parts per million of water vapor. El Nino predominated during the temp rise from 1975 to 1998, since then the ocean cycles have been neutral - and the temp has not changed. The oceans control our temperature in the short term, with the sun and planetary orbits changing the climate over centuries.

on Aug 30, 2013

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l11_p2.html

The temperature on Earth is influenced by the Greenhouse Effect (this name comes from an analogy that isn't perfect, but is close enough for our purposes). This works as follows:
•The Earth absorbs visible light from the Sun.
•The Earth's surface heats up and radiates light in the infrared part of the spectrum.
•Water vapor and carbon dioxide (primarily) in the atmosphere absorb the infrared light from the surface, heating up the atmosphere.
•The atmosphere radiates infrared radiation at the surface of the Earth, also heating it up.

When this process is in equilibrium, the temperature of the Earth varies around a mean temperature from year to year. The discussion about global warming arises from the observation that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (mostly due to humans burning fossil fuels) correlates with the steady increase in the mean temperature of the Earth because of an increase in the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

"
with the summer drawing toward a close, so far this summer in the US has experienced the fewest 100+ degree readings at temperature stations in 100 years."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/another-climate-embarrassm...

on Aug 31, 2013

in response to

"
with the summer drawing toward a close, so far this summer in the US has experienced the fewest 100+ degree readings at temperature stations in 100 years."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/another-climate-embarrassm...
###################################

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

Of the last 15 years on record, all but one are in the 2000's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_dec...

Of the last 30 years each decade is warmer than the decade before it.

Global warming is about the long term trend. This last summer in the United States does not make a world wide trend.

Brian H (not verified)
on Sep 10, 2013

Yes, it stopped rising and plateaued about then; of course its at or near the recent high! If you want cooling for disproof, that's next. Unfortunately.

Warming and CO2 increase are both powerfully beneficial. You are evil for wishing to stop them. Report to the gulag, immediately.

robert landbeck (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

"the basis of the argument" is that as a species, our moral and ethical perception must have both a limitation and corruption for us to arrive at this point in history in the first place. If there was any moral high ground, there would be no problem. It is that our high ground is not nearly high enough!
http://www.energon.org.uk

http://www.energon.org.uk

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

I don't think we can say we are causing global warming. 40 years ago we were supposedly causing global cooling with pollution. Therefore I am skeptical of anything, except the thought that there is money to be made by crying the sky is falling.

I am concerned about skin cancers and feeling I sunburn easier, but maybe that is age. I have also noticed that the berries along side the road seem lusher than other berries. But pavement holds heat, and probably some extra moisture, which may be the cause instead of the air.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

Y2Kyoto; the poem for the lazy copy and paste "climate blame" news editor:

AL GORE is my shepherd; I shall not think.

He maketh me lie down in Greenzi pastures:

He leadeth me beside the still-freezing waters.

He selleth my soul for CO2:

He leadeth me in the paths of self-righteousness for his own sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of reason,

I will fear all logic: for thou art with me and thinking for me;

Thy Gore’s family oil fortune and thy 10,000 square Gorey foot mansion, they comfort me.

Thou preparest a movie in the presence of contradictory evidence:

Thou anointest mine head with nonsense; my mindless conformity runneth over.

Surely blind faith and hysteria shall follow me all the days of my life:and I will dwell in the house of ALGORE forever.

Not once did media point out the fact that the consensus was "maybe" and "could be" not "will be" or "eventual". Nobody ever agreed it would be a crisis.
So why won't science finally agree it is inevitable instead of just possible and end this costly debate that is taking us closer the point of no return from unstoppable warming?

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

Carbon dioxide has increased about 40 percent in the atmosphere since the 1750s, due to pollution from dirty energy like coal, oil, and gas. The result is a warming climate. http://clmtr.lt/cb/wM70eV

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

"Global warming hysteria is ramping up in anticipation of the UN releasing its latest work of fiction, AR5."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/satellite-temperature-data...

on Aug 31, 2013

It is difficult to show due to the narrow format we are in. 14 years shows detection of warming and 19 years shows higher confidence of warming. I would say we are going to keep on warming with more co2 going into the atmosphere. This is just data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
…………………………….1998t…to.2012…………………… 1993 to 2012
giss Trend: 0.95 ±1.61 °C/century (2σ)……..….Trend:1.88 ±1.07 °C/century (2σ)
NOAA Trend: 0.43 ±1.49 °C/century (2σ)………Trend:1.45 ±1.02 °C/century (2σ)
hadcrut v3 Trend: -0.05 ±1.55 °C/century (2σ)Trend:1.32 ±1.14 °C/century (2σ)
hadcrut v4 Trend: 0.83 ±1.72 °C/century (2σ)..Trend:1.78 ±1.11 °C/century (2σ
Best land Trend: 1.59 ±3.84 °C/century (2σ)….Trend:3.24 ±2.26 °C/century (2σ)
NOAA Land Trend: 1.24 ±2.52 °C/century (2σ).Trend:2.86 ±1.60 °C/century (2σ)
rss Trend: -0.41 ±2.73 °C/century (2σ)…………..Trend:1.22 ±1.76 °C/century (2σ)
UAH Trend: 0.54 ±2.89 °C/century (2σ)………….Trend:1.83 ±1.79 °C/century (2σ)

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 11, 2013

And 11 years and 16 years so cooling.

It has been pretty flat. Everyone agrees with that.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

Climate change has been known to science since the 1800's, and wasn't really a political issue until the 1980's - when it became clear to scientists that we were finally entering the period when it would cause problems.

Only when oil and coal companies began paying PR firms to create bogus science denying the reality of the change did it become a moral issue.

Now that we know what we're doing to future generations, lying to ourselves so we can feel good about letting them shoulder the problems we're creating, it is a moral issue.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

Ask any climate scientist: Carbon pollution from dirty energy is the main cause of global warming. http://clmtr.lt/cb/wM70coJ

There is overwhelming evidence that our climate is warming due to pollution from human activities. That's the conclusion reached by 97 percent of top climate scientists and every major National Academy of Science in the world. When we burn dirty fossil fuels like oil and coal, and when we cut down forests that store carbon, we pollute our atmosphere and warm our planet. This is not controversial: It's a reality we've understood for decades. And we’re starting to feel the effects now. Nine of the ten hottest years on record have occurred since the year 2000. Extreme weather events like heat waves, heavy rains and drought are becoming more common and more severe. Coastal communities all over the world are preparing for the impacts of sea level rise. The debate over the basic science of climate change is over. So let's move on to a much more productive discussion on what we can do about it.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

"Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/most-geoscientists-reject-...

on Aug 31, 2013

James Taylor works for Heartland Institute, which takes money from the fossil fuel companies for his PR work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png

Above shows several studies on scientific opinion on climate change. The numbers of doubters are extremely low.

Wishing for no action on climate doesn't make it so. Facts are facts.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

"It should also be noted that the fact that I believe at least some of recent warming is human-caused places me in the 97% of researchers recently claimed to support the global warming consensus (actually, it’s 97% of the published papers, Cook et al., 2013). The 97% statement is therefore rather innocuous, since it probably includes all of the global warming “skeptics” I know of who are actively working in the field. Skeptics generally
are skeptical of the view that recent warming is all human-caused, and/or that it is of a sufficient magnitude to warrant immediate action given the cost of energy policies to the
poor. They do not claim humans have no impact on climate whatsoever."

Roy Spencer PhD testimony to Senate -- http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileSto...

on Aug 31, 2013

Spencer does not really write for science anymore, but to appeal and confuse the fox news avid listeners. If you just can't accept global warming as a reality, Roy is your guy. Good luck with that.

http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

In Andrew Dessler's view, "[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants." [8]

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 31, 2013

Yeah, the words and opinions of skeptics to manmade global warming aren't valid because they are only "in it for the money." But we all know that there is no money to be had by those pushing the global warming agenda. No money there to be had by scientists clamoring for billions in grant money, the green energy charlatans pushing failed tecvhnologies, regulators and government politicians who want to control free choice of the masses. Not a cent to be had by the disciples of that multi-billion dollar endeavor. No.

on Aug 31, 2013

A scientists purpose is to right about the science. If they act like Roy Spencer, they are pretty much lost the game on being right any more. Roy Spencer didn't write to be right about the science.

James Hansen has received awards for being right about the science.

Here are several other people who are right about the science based in facts and data.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 1, 2013

NASA's James Hansen. Yuk. Yuk. Yuk. No money in it for him is there?
http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/#!/p/hansen-investigation.html

And I wonder what his NASA colleagues think about his "science?"
http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/#!/p/nasa-astronauts-letter.html

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 1, 2013

Here's a report on how "clean" Hansen is;

Hansen Investigation

Dr. James Hansen is now under US Dept. of Justice investigation over financial improprieties.

NASA records reveal Dr. James E. Hansen received $1.6 million in outside income over five years as a global warming activist. This does not include his six-figure income or travel expenses from outside interests. Dr. Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars he got for travel to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia often including his wife, for his activism.

Ethics laws require such payments be reported on an SF278 public financial disclosure form. Dr.Hansen regularly refused to report this income.

Also, he has inappropriately taken between $10,000 and $26,000 for speeches promoting him as a NASA employee. NASA ordered him to return at least some of the money and he appears not to have complied. There is a general prohibition on not privately benefitting from public service, including a criminal code prohibition against profiting on work paid for by public money.

The following summarizes records produced by the Department of Justice to resolve litigation against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for refusing to comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request regarding the required financial disclosures Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Hansen’s activities began with a strident “60 Minutes” interview in early 2006, alleging political interference by the Bush administration in climate science. He admitted he was offered $10,000 by an activist group, but turned it down, “…because of the nominating process,” whatever that means.

Given that Hansen makes no bones about his activism, regardless his NASA position, he would appear to be in violation of US Criminal Code 18 USC 209. As the offers became larger Hansen changed his mind. Records show that in the year he claimed censorship by the Bush Administration he had 7,000 media contacts. How did he have time for anything else? NASA officials are on record as having warned Dr. Hansen, but he continued apace.

Interestingly, when Hansen became more prominent the NASA officials relented and finally stopped warning him altogether. He had apparently outgrown his superiors and received NASA approval for his speaking activities, remunerations notwithstanding.

Hansen’s 2009 speech at Dartmouth University for a $5,000 honorarium and up to $1,000 in expenses came in violation of the clear rule against promoting his appearances as, or emphasizing his job with, NASA. It had not been approved. NASA’s Deputy Chief Counsel Laura Giza who demanded he return the money, but in spite of admonishments there is no record of such a return. Nor was there any attempt on the part of NASA to enforce what Hansen had been ordered to do.

Subsequent disclosure forms show Hansen accepting more money, between $5,001 and $15,000, for a 2008 speech at Illinois Wesleyan University with no request on record for permission to engage in this outside employment as required by NASA regulation.

Dr. Hansen has received:
•Blue Planet Prize ($500,000), travel for Hansen and his wife to Tokyo, Japan, 2010
•Dan David Prize ($500,000), travel to Paris, 2007
•Sophie Prize ($100,000), Oslo Norway, travel for Hansen and his wife, 2010
•WWF Duke of Edinburgh Award, Travel for Hansen and his wife, London, 2006
•Alpbach, Austria (alpine resort)(“business class”, with wife), 2007
•Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009
•FORO Cluster de Energia, travel for Hansen and wife (“business class”), Bilbao, Spain, 2008
•ACT Coalition, travel for Hansen and wife to London, 2007
•Progressive Forum ($10,000)(“first class”), to Houston, 2006
•Progressive Forum ($10,000), to Houston, 2009
•UCSB ($10,000), to Santa Barbara, CA
•Nierenberg Prize ($25,000), to San Diego, 2008
•Nevada Medal ($20,000), to Las Vegas, Reno, 2008
•EarthWorks Expos, to Denver, 2006
•California Academy of Science ($1,500), to San Francisco, 2009
•CalTech ($2,000), travel to Pasadena, CA for Hansen and his wife, 2007
The following is an incomplete list of other travel apparently accepted to make paid speeches and/or receive cash awards but not reported on SF278 financial disclosures:

Boston, Washington, DC (twice); Columbus, OH; Omaha, NE; Wilmington, DE; Ithaca, NY (business class); Chapel Hill, NC; Deerfield, IL (Sierra Club “No Coal” campaign); Dartmouth, NH; Alberta, Canada (as consultant to a law firm helping run an anti-oil sands campaign), Stanford; Minneapolis; Missoula, MT
Other travel apparently accepted but not reported, to provide expert testimony including on cases involving federal policy:
California (Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon), Vermont (Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth etc v. Torti)

Failing to Report Gifts

World Wildlife Fund gave Hansen an engraved Montres Rolex watch, valued at $8,000 and up (2006) and not reported by Hansen per law if worth more than $260.

Failure to Report Receipt of Free Legal Services

On his website Hansen said he began accepting free legal services in 2006. These are not reported on his financial disclosures, as they should be.

Also, NASA’s document production shows him attesting to receiving more, separate free legal services in the form of an amicus brief drafted for him and a few others to intervene before the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA and not reported on a SF278 form, as required by law.

on Sep 3, 2013

http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/#!/p/hansen-investigation.html

A conservative blog is your truth? I'm not able to find what you are referring to on that site.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 1, 2013

Some of James Hansen's coworkers who think he isn't such a great "scientist."

NASA Astronaut's Letter March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
· Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
· Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
· Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
· Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
· Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
· Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
· Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
· Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
· Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
· Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
· Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
· Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
· Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
· Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
· Anita Gale
· Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
· Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
· Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
· Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
· Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
· Thomas J. Harmon
· David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
· Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
· James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
· Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
· Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
· Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
· Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
· Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
· Alex (Skip) Larsen
· Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
· Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
· Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
· Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
· Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
· Tom Ohesorge
· James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
· Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
· Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
· Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
· Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
· Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
· Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
· Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
· Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
· Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
· George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
· Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
· Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 2, 2013

Consensus? What consensus?
In recent weeks US President Obama and the UK’s Energy and Climate Secretary Ed Davey have both cited a survey of climate science abstracts that alleges an overwhelming consensus on the subject of global warming.

In a new briefing note published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation today, Andrew Montford reviews the methodology used in the survey and concludes that the consensus revealed by the paper by Cook et al. is so broad that it incorporates the views of most prominent climate sceptics.

“The consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent,” Andrew Montford says.

http://www.thegwpf.org/consensus-consensus/

on Sep 3, 2013

How truthful do you think GWPF is? Secretive and yet makes everybody else expose themselves. If they are honest then they will take the high road on their organization to show they have nothing to hide.

global warming policy foundation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4]

"These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by ... the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves...The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders." [12]

on Aug 30, 2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.

########################

The Holocene started after the ice ages. Part of what defines the Holocene climate is the level of ghg's in the atmosphere. Just because we are rural, does not mean that we have to reject the science. There are rural folks who readily accept the science and yet are polite enough to know it upsets the skeptical ones.

One of the most important thing the agricultural industry can do is adjust to the changing climate. One of those adjustments will be much lower corn yields if we don't put our heads together on this.

Frank Schlichting (not verified)
on Aug 30, 2013

The issue is far more complicated than most people realize. The amount of energy the sun produces is also highly variable as well as many other factors creating weather.

Just like your article on middle east beef consumption!

on Aug 31, 2013

in response to:

The amount of energy the sun produces is also highly variable as well as many other factors creating weather

#######################

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

John M (not verified)
on Aug 31, 2013

It is now known as Climate Change due to the fact that Global Warming has far more effects on the climate then just warming it. Like any good scietific theory or study, new data can lead to better understanding and more accurate descriptions. Scientific Method 101.

Those of us who know Climate Change is real have been studying the data and understand the science. It is far from an after thought. The real issue is getting people to understand what science is real and what science is just made up so people like you can write an article that misleads and confuses.
Carbon dioxide has increased about 40 percent in the atmosphere since the 1750s, due to pollution from dirty energy like coal, oil, and gas. The result is a warming climate. http://clmtr.lt/cb/wM70bJd

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 3, 2013

Carbon dioxide has increased about 40 percent in the atmosphere since the 1750s, due to pollution from dirty energy like coal, oil, and gas. The result is a warming climate. http://clmtr.lt/cb/wM70bbA

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 5, 2013

I found this documentary interesting http://www.chasingice.com/

nike shox pas cher avis (not verified)
on Dec 8, 2014

Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point. You definitely know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your weblog when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?

Post new comment
or to use your BEEF Magazine ID
What's My View From The Country?

As a fulltime rancher, opinion contributor Troy Marshall brings a unique perspective on how consumer and political trends affect livestock production.

Contributors

Troy Marshall

Troy Marshall is a multi-generational rancher who grew up in Wheatland, WY, and obtained an Equine Science/Animal Science degree from Colorado State University where he competed on both the livestock...

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×