Weird Winter Weather Puzzles Scientists

[Mitch f]

I think I've said this before, but industries give money to politicians for two reasons. One is that they give money to those who are on their side already to help those politicians get elected. But they also hedge their bets and give money to politicians on the other side, on the assumption that the money will buy them access and an ear. President Obama might not be BP's greatest friend, but BP's millions might just dispose him to at least listen to what their viewpoint is. Following the money, when it comes to politicians, is not nearly as cut and dried as it usually is when we're talking about people like authors and scientists.

I agree with you, follow the money

[jdmidwest]

You have the choice to believe modern science or Rush Limbaugh.

It's up to you to think for yourself.

I can't do it for you.

Although Rush will tell you what to think so you don't hurt yourself.

Sorry, I don't believe Rush Limbaugh is a scientist or a an expert on the climate, and I don't think I have ever quoted him as a source of scientific information.

But there are many scientific studies and data to support my ideas on the matter, the most important is the fossil records buried under the ground we live on.

If you can't think for yourself and let others think for you, don't propagate your opinions. Most spend more time trying to blame someone than trying to figure out the real workings of the issue.

[jdmidwest]

If The President had received millions from energy companies and at the same time was telling me not to worry about greenhouse emissions, yes, I'd be suspicious.

But Al Gore was making millions off the idea and you are not suspicious of his thoughts on the matter?

The common equation here is no matter what the science was in this case, people were making millions off the controversy.

[gotmuddy]

But Al Gore was making millions off the idea and you are not suspicious of his thoughts on the matter?

The common equation here is no matter what the science was in this case, people were making millions off the controversy.

Bingo. That is the end of the debate. As with every enviromental problem, it is always about the MONEY, not the cause.

[Justin Spencer]

"Hey, we're a capitalist society and we can make a crap ton of money off of converting wind/solar/geothermal/cow poop energy and we could increase jobs at the same time

Good thinking. Some are already doing this and making money, but I think some of the only ones with enough money to really research some of these sources are big oil, and they won't use what they have found to compete with themselves, so oil has to get super high for them to start the shift. There really has to be an effort across the board to switch to greener energy, if there was a ton of money in it I believe individual companies would have already been reaping the benefits, which doesn't seem to be the case. It will have to be (sorry far right) government regulations that push us toward green energy, I just don't see it happening otherwise.

[eric1978]

The common equation here is no matter what the science was in this case, people were making millions off the controversy.

Absolutely true, but that doesn't mean one side isn't right, and one side isn't wrong.

And I know I said I'd stay out of the trainwreck this time, but I'll break that promise once again out of sheer boredom...

Here's an analogy concerning the few dissenting scientists the energy companies have culled out to support their claims:

You find a lump somewhere on your body, and you go to 100 different doctors for examination. 99 of them say, "Oh, that looks malignant and dangerous...you should have that removed immediately." But then one of them says, "Ah, don't worry about it...that'll cost too much to remove it." What would you do? Would you think to yourself, "Hmmm, all these doctors are just trying to make a profit off of my lump here. I'm sure there's no scientific basis for them to tell me this lump could kill me...they're just making stuff up in a huge conspiracy to make money." I doubt it. You'd have that thing sliced off as soon as possible.

Climate change is the lump on our planet, and scientists are the 99 doctors telling us to remove it. Big business and bought-and-sold politicians are the one doctor telling you it'll be too expensive to worry about it.

Climate change isn't really up for debate anymore. It's as close to scientific fact as you can get...we're just waiting for the rest of the humans to catch on and catch up, kind of like evolution. Look around, there are people out there who STILL think the Earth is 7,000 years old and human beings cohabitated with dinosaurs. We KNOW that simply isn't true, but they believe it anyway. Does that mean their "opinion" is as factually accurate as those who understand the Earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old? Of course not.

The climate change issue is different from many other debates currently in the forefront of modern society, in that it is one that is not dubious and in flux, subject to opinion in the way that, say, gun control or abortion or the appropriate size of government is. Those issues ARE up for debate, and there are sound and legitemate arguments on BOTH sides.

That's not the case with climate change. We know the science. We know the reality. And just because a substantial chunk of this country's population doesn't accept it as reality, doesn't change the fact that it IS, far more than likely, reality. The only reason it enters the realm of political debate is because the consequences of fixing the problem affect business and the uber-wealthy's cash flow. If there were no business, there would be no reason to deny the reality of climate change, just like if there were no religion, there would be no reason to deny the reality of evolution. But science operates independent of business, just as it operates independent of religion. It deals in data and fact.

Political debate on the matter has no impact on the REALITY of the issue, it only slows down the progress to begin moving in a more environmentally friendly direction. Yes, Al Gore has made a bundle of money on the issue as an advocate and an investor. And yes, because he is truly a legislative insider, so to speak, it does seem somewhat crooked and unfair. But that doesn't mean his position on the core issue isn't RIGHT. Innumerable people who deny the reality of climate change are also making a bundle of money, from energy companies to lobbyists to politicians to pundits...but that doesn't mean their position on the issue isn't WRONG. Just like in a criminal trial...both attorneys are being paid, but the truth lies only on one side. This is America...someone is making money on anything and everything here, and that's a big part of the problem.

So we ALL need to stop looking at this debate through the lens of politics, because politics only muddies the waters of science and reality. The science is all but settled, and if it weren't for propaganda and outright lies coming from OUTSIDE the realm of the scientific community, we would all be in agreement and could start the long and hard process of fixing the huge problems we've created for ourselves.

Americans put WAY too much stock in opinions, and don't ask themselves enough WHY they feel the way they do. Did you really reach that conclusion on your own, or did you let someone else decide for you?

[Outside Bend]

But Al Gore was making millions off the idea and you are not suspicious of his thoughts on the matter?

The common equation here is no matter what the science was in this case, people were making millions off the controversy.

Maybe it's just semantics, but to me private citizens like Gore earning money from investing in green technology has a different connotation than politicians, in a position of authority, being given money by the energy sector to support their point of view.

But I do agree with you JD, neither side holds the absolute truth. Trust the facts, not the rhetoric.

[Tim Smith]

Money? All environmental problems are about money? What does that mean??

The oil industry works on about a 9000 billion dollar budget annually (excluding some foreign interests). The entire budget in the whole world for all climate change work is about 4 billion.

9000 to 4. Yes. This debate definitely exists because of money. If the oil companies weren't out there propping up the denial side, there would be no debate at all.

TF, large scale natural systems will never, ever provide you better scientific evidence for what is happening than the kind of evidence we have for greenhouse gas effects now. There are no other logical explainations for what is happening now. The closest anyone has come to an alternative explanation is solar activity, and over the last 40 years that shows no correlation with the current increases in temperature.

JD, if you have citations you feel refute climate change, I'd be delighted to discuss them. We may be stuck with the effect of politics in this debate, but logic and math and hard data don't answer to politics. An honest person still has a chance of getting this right.

I realize no one is going to change their minds in the short term, but I'm not going to sit here and be quiet about this. People are approaching this like it's a big parlor game, but it's not. We'll all wait until the disasters mount up to the point that even the hardest hearts out there will be ashamed to play the skeptic. It grieves me to think how big those disasters will have to be to change some people's minds.

I just got an email this morning. It was from a friend living with a family who's island washed away in a tropical storm this past October. That's not an isolated trend. Every sandy beach in Belize is eroding away at rates that have caught just about everyone's attention.

There aren't nearly as many climate skeptics down here because they're already feeling the pain.

Good luck to you when it's your turn.

[troutfiend1985]

9000 to 4. Yes. This debate definitely exists because of money. If the oil companies weren't out there propping up the denial side, there would be no debate at all.

TF, large scale natural systems will never, ever provide you better scientific evidence for what is happening than the kind of evidence we have for greenhouse gas effects now. There are no other logical explainations for what is happening now. The closest anyone has come to an alternative explanation is solar activity, and over the last 40 years that shows no correlation with the current increases in temperature.

Tim, I really, really don't want to get into this debate because there really isn't enough out there to sway me to one side or the other. If what you believe is right, then the parties pushing for greener energy have really screwed up on advertising this data, especially when we have the economy that is hurting the way it is right now. A simple, "we could employ more people in America from switching energy plus aid the environment" is a heck of a lot more appealing than "we could aid the environment(plus you'll have to switch your car)." Do you see what I'm saying Tim? I'm not bashing your opinion, and there is plenty of data out there that supports this, but that political party which supports it has an agenda as well(just like the other side). Look, I'm not defending big oil, I'm just trying to tell you this is a rat race and really I don't care which rat comes in first or second. Why? Because my opinion alone is not enough to change anything, and because I can't personally change it, I'm not going to get wrapped up in it. Also, it's easy to mis-inform people, and both sides are probably guilty of this. And it really seems that electric cars are coming, and energy alternatives are starting to become more and more prevelent.

I just saw your last post, what I was saying is that money=jobs. The United States has alot of natural renewable resources, and if they would employ US citizens, then they could advertise this as being a way of creating capital for the US, and jobs for citizens.

[ness]

If anybody's interested in some information, NOAA's website here has a bunch of good stuff.