Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now

by

A thundering open letter from the Australian scientific community has been published on “The Conversation”, as the start of a two-week series on climate science and “skeptics”:

The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.

Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.

Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity. The magnitude of the problem was given a chilling focus in the most recent report of the International Energy Agency, which their chief economist characterised as the “worst news on emissions.”

Limiting global warming to 2°C is now beginning to look like a nearly insurmountable challenge.

Like all great challenges, climate change has brought out the best and the worst in people.

A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businessmen are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.

At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes.

Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.

Australians have been exposed to a phony public debate which is not remotely reflected in the scientific literature and community of experts.

Beginning today, The Conversation will bring much-needed and long-overdue accountability to the climate “sceptics.”

For the next two weeks, our series of daily analyses will show how they can side-step the scientific literature and how they subvert normal peer review. They invariably ignore clear refutations of their arguments and continue to promote demonstrably false critiques.

We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.

The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence.

And don’t miss this excellent article by Karl Braganza who describes in as few words as realistically possible how we know that we are warming up the earth:

fundamental understanding of the physics of radiation, combined with our understanding of climate change from the geological record, clearly demonstrates that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will inevitably drive global warming. (…)

It’s now practically certain that increasing greenhouse gases have already warmed the climate system.

That continued rapid increases in greenhouse gases will cause rapid future warming is irrefutable.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , ,

55 Responses to “Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now”

  1. Jeff Id Says:

    I don’t think you want my comments on this one.

  2. Øystein Says:

    Jeff,

    I think Bart would love your comments, provided they argued the points rather than postulate that they were wrong, and that you are right.

    Simples!

  3. dana1981 Says:

    Good letter. Harsh, but true. Glad to see the scientists aren’t pulling any punches.

  4. Tom Fuller Says:

    Well, while Jeff musters up his energy for yet another battle, I’ll jump in.

    I agree with the first paragraph completely. I agree with the second paragraph completely.

    Kinda goes downhill from there, though.

    The letter would be immeasurably improved if the succeeding paragraph had disclaimers that actually reflected the state of scientific knowledge. Such as…

    If atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 concentrations are as high as some predict…

    It would also have been better if it had had qualifying language differentiating between groups who have questioned the consensus. No doubt that CEI and others have posed a united and financed front against the consensus. But those dinosaurs didn’t have much to do with the state of play today.

    Imagine if they had said that there were many who were honestly questioning areas of the science that actually need both further work and the honest questioning.

    They’re just going to start another firefight and it will feed another week of blogospheric frenzy that won’t change anyone’s mind or advance the state of human knowledge or public opinion.

    Ah, well.

  5. dana1981 Says:

    Tom F – the problem with emphasizing uncertainties (i.e. “we don’t know how much of a cooling effect aerosols have or the exact role of clouds as a feedback, but…”) is that those seeking to delay action will latch onto the uncertainties and ignore the rest (i.e. “Aha! They don’t understand aerosols! We can’t waste taxpayer money on a carbon tax until they figure that out”).

    At this point, if we continue to delay serious GHG emissions cuts, we’re treading on extremely dangerous ground. Climate scientists (with a very few exceptions) realize this, and it’s good to see them communicating what we do know instead of emphasizing what we don’t know, because failing to act on what we do know at this point is really, really stupid.

  6. Tom Fuller Says:

    Hi Dana,

    Well, climate scientists haven’t been saying that (enough, clearly enough, often enough, in the right forums, to the right people), and yet we still are at an impasse.

    The smartest and most successful people I know make a habit of shining a light on their problems for all to see, saying this is what I don’t know and need to know.

    Might give it a try.

  7. dorlomin Says:

    2C is gone as a target, so we are liable to get warmer than the Eemian interglacial.

  8. dana1981 Says:

    Tom F – climate scientists are very up front about what they don’t know. The IPCC report is very detailed about uncertainties.

  9. Chris Colose Says:

    This sort of article is really only attractive to people who already accept the underlying premise, and naturally unattractive to those that don’t, so any discussion of it is probably just going to end up being a discussion of other thing we’ve heard a million times. I am interested to see how the Australian scientists will educate the public in spotting disinformation.

    The analysis of “skeptics” is spot on. Unfortunately, a couple weeks of news articles is not enough time to catch everyone up to speed on the science and a detailed rebuttal to the standard denial laundry list of fallacies. I think a considerable amount of time should be dedicated to teaching about standards in science, what science does and does not answer, and tutorials in basic logic and how to spot straw man attacks, irrelevancies, and cherry picking, which will arm the public with enough to knock down 3/4 of all skeptical arguments right there, but can be generalized to any form of argument (creationists employ the very same tactics).

  10. allenmcmahon Says:

    @ Chris Colose
    ‘I am interested to see how the Australian scientists will educate the public in spotting disinformation.’
    This is not about education it is about trying to convince the Australian public of the merits of a “carbon tax” being introduced in July 2012. The government has allocated $30 + million for this task.
    The method employed is to hype the fear factor. Re-release a 2009 report of a possible 1.1 meter sea level rise by 2100 with lovely maps showing how much of the coastline will be inundated, the loss of the barrier reef by 2040and a shiny new report that says we have one decade to act or else Armageddon. I assume we will be subjected to even worse scenarios in the coming months.
    Judging from recent polls this message is not a winner , neither the government nor the tax are held in high regard.

  11. Bart Says:

    Some great comments, thanks!

    I wholeheartedly agree with Chris’ suggestion that

    a considerable amount of time should be dedicated to teaching about standards in science, what science does and does not answer, and tutorials in basic logic and how to spot straw man attacks, irrelevancies, and cherry picking, which will arm the public with enough to knock down 3/4 of all skeptical arguments right there, but can be generalized to any form of argument

    It resonates strongly with my post on who to believe in science discussions.

    He’s also right in that this article is kinda antagonistic in its language and premise, a point underscored by Tom. Tom is right that there is a spectrum of opinions, which is not reflected in the dualistic way the open letter is phrased. In their defense though, it does say “At the other extreme”, meaning that not every critic is represented by the description that follows. In a short and punchy letter the ifs and buts and subtleties are often left out, because a choice is made to deliver a simplified message: The core message that got out of sight in recent years. I think that is a worthwhile effort, though the drawbacks are noted. If I were to write such a letter, I would chose not to paint the picture of skeptics as a united front of ideologues and vested interests, since I think that is not the main dynamic (anymore). However, a more complete description of skeptics along these lines would totally take away from the conciseness and the main message. It’s the old catch-22 of both being effective and accurate.

  12. Jeff Id Says:

    “kinda antagonistic ”

    Antagonistic, belittling, shows little understanding of the discrepancies, and no understanding of what is being asked economically in return. IOW, heavy political left wing bias, low technical skill and factually inaccurate on solutions.

    It will read very well to those who have little sense of industry and are terrified of all the doom scenario’s. It reads very poorly for those with a history in industry, understand the consequences of draconian governmental measures, and recognize that the doom has been systematically exaggerated by a governmentally funded group of individuals who do stand to gain power and money from their preferred result.

  13. Bart Says:

    Jeff,

    Chris said the same as you, but then more eloquent and more accurate:

    “This sort of article is really only attractive to people who already accept the underlying premise, and naturally unattractive to those that don’t”

  14. Dana Says:

    Oh Jeff.

    “no understanding of what is being asked economically in return.”

    It’s not a climate scientist’s job to argue about economics. It’s a climate scientist’s job to determine how the climate is going to change and advise what we should do about it, which is exactly what they did in this letter. But for the record, the economic impacts of carbon pricing are minimal, and in fact economically beneficial compared to business as usual.

    “heavy political left wing bias”

    I’d be fascinated to see your defense of this claim. It seems to me like you’re replacing the words “climate sceptics” with “political conservatives”, because I don’t see anything about politics in the letter.

    “low technical skill and factually inaccurate on solutions.

    Sorry Jeff, you’re entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

  15. Jeff Id Says:

    Bart,

    I read Chris’s article, but prefer my accuracy and wording.

  16. Chris Colose Says:

    There are certain people who equate the most conspiracy theories with the most eloquent and factual, but it is certainly not reasonable people with exposure to the goings-on in the physical science community. In fact very few scientists in climate have anything to benefit from economic suggestions or climate change action. We’d have most to gain by just saying everything was uncertain so we can get more funding from NSF.

    The problem with Jeff is that he has not acquainted himself with the physics of climate, likes to be argumentative for little more than the sake of arguing (which ultimately explains the title and subtitle of his blog, as well as wing nut views on topics concerning climate science ethics or climategate).

  17. Jeff Id Says:

    Chris,

    Your accusations are baseless again. I’m sorry if you don’t like my critique of your Venus comparisons to Earth. It is an exaggeration and scare tactic that had zero to do with Happer’s article or points. I’m also sorry that you don’t understand my agreement with Happer, but I assure you that I only argue from a position of my own understanding – and I can usually back that up.

    “The problem with Jeff is that he has not acquainted himself with the physics of climate”

    There is a lot I don’t know but I wonder which aspect of the ‘physics of climate’ I am missing. Perhaps that will help me when I publish in climate next.

    Also, calling my views of climategate ‘wingnut’ calls into question your own honesty in my opinion. Perhaps you haven’t read my views and are simply angry about my critique. I wonder just which view you disagree with specifically.

    Perhaps, if Bart doesn’t want this to become another Id thread, he should just snip the last two comments.

  18. Chris Colose Says:

    Jeff–

    Virtually nothing in the Happer article was both accurate and relevant. That you cannot see this is self-evident proof of my assertions. I’ll leave it at that.

  19. dana1981 Says:

    I thought we covered the fact that Chris’ mentioning of Venus was in no way a “scare tactic”. Maybe Jeff missed the memo on that one.

    Chris’ description of Happer’s article is also accurate. That harkens back to my comment that Jeff literally made my jaw drop when he said he agreed with most of the article.

  20. RB Says:

    FWIW, I didn’t find Chris’ reference to Venus to be a scare tactic and I don’t believe anybody on his blog supported that assertion either. I was waiting for Jeff to substantiate that the high temperatures on Venus are exclusively due to the high pressure. But after publius’ comments bringing up a relevant PhD thesis, the blog seemed to morph into a ‘scare tactic’ argument. My impression of course …

  21. Jeff Id Says:

    Chris,

    Your own blinders are exposed by your comment.

  22. Jeff Id Says:

    RB,

    At no time in my life did I ever suspect that high pressures caused venus’s temp. My comment was and is related to the massive amount of gas present and how it is a non-sequitur for Earth and a scare tactic for those who don’t understand the difference.

  23. Chris Colose Says:

    Apparently, no one else was scared. Guess I failed…

  24. dana1981 Says:

    Next time you should actually make the effort to scare people, Chris. Then Jeff might actually have something of substance to criticize for once.

  25. dhogaza Says:

    At no time in my life did I ever suspect that high pressures caused venus’s temp. My comment was and is related to the massive amount of gas present and how it is a non-sequitur for Earth and a scare tactic for those who don’t understand the difference.

    So the great Jeff ID doesn’t understand the contradiction posed by the above ‘graph.

    Interesting.

  26. Quiet Waters Says:

    “There is a lot I don’t know but I wonder which aspect of the ‘physics of climate’ I am missing. Perhaps that will help me when I publish in climate next.”

    This made me giggle.

  27. Jeff Id Says:

    Which graph Dhog?

  28. Sou Says:

    The letter is good although I tend to agree it resonates with people who support climate action rather than those who oppose it.

    The letter was the first in a two week series of articles on climate – there are three out now and another tomorrow presumably (follow the link in Bart’s article for the rest of them).

    The subsequent articles are really good IMO. Very succinct with details that are interesting and probably surprising to some readers.

    The Conversation is a new site still in beta. I think it’s a great idea all up.

  29. MapleLeaf Says:

    You are not joining the dots Jeff (slow day?), dhogaza was, of course, referring to “the above paragraph”, you know the text that you wrote that he quoted.

    As for your “I’m sorry if you don’t like my critique of your Venus comparisons to Earth. It is an exaggeration and scare tactic that had zero to do with Happer’s article or points”

    Some, not I, might argue that you are claiming that your critique of the Venus comparison is an exaggeration and a scare tactic that had zero to do with Happer’s points :)

    But it is far more likely you are making another strawman argument, because I and others here didn’t find Colose’s reference to Venus an attempt to scare at all…. do you see dead people Jeff?

  30. Jeff Id Says:

    MapleLeaf,

    Can you name one single AGW disaster scenario which you did feel was an exaggeration?

  31. Steve Bloom Says:

    I noticed the following amazing statement from Mosher responding to Raypierre over at Kloor’s, and this thread seemed like a good place to highlight it:

    And ray, the rise in sea level isnt the only impact we [libertarians] recognize. However, I do kinda recall that the most devastating effects are from that particular damage mechanism. If I have to compare the accuracy of crop forecasting models to sea level models, I think I’d be on pretty good ground saying that the sea level predictions stand on a more solid foundation than agriculture damage models. However, I’m open minded if you care to point me to studies that compare the skill of those respective models.

    This would have been perfectly reasonable coming from lots of other people, but I know from personal experience that Mosher has been exposed to the rather basic climate science information that refutes the quoted passage. (Briefly for those who don’t already know, what’s going to get the crops is the poleward expansion of the dry subtropics combined with the acceleration of the hydrological cycle, a combined effect that’s certainly as bad if not worse than SLR — see Dai (2010). Other impacts in the same league include ocean acidification, mass extinctions and reduced habitability of the tropics. Probably a few others could go on the list.)

    IOW, denial takes many forms.

  32. Bart Says:

    Steve,

    Aren’t you overly harsh here? I didn’t find Mosher’s comment objectionable at all. Granted, I don’t know very much about climate effects on crop yields, but the impression I have is that such effects are highly varied for different locations, for different crops, and for different degrees of warming. For some locations and some crops the effects may be positive (more so for moderate warming than for strong warming). Most likely this is more than cancelled out by negative effects elsewhere and for different crops (agan, delta_T dependent) , but still, the picture is far more varied than for sea level rise, which is really going in only one direction (the global average at least: Up. Saying that is not denial nor is it downplaying anything. That is just being argumentative for the sake of it.

  33. Sou Says:

    I don’t know how solid models are in regard to agriculture but I hope they are reasonable and getting more refined.

    I do know that most agricultural industries here in Australia are doing research and extension, plant breeding etc activities in regard to which pasture species, crops and crop varieties, farm management techniques will suit particular localities as the climate changes – most looking ahead at least till around 2050. Nothing much will help re fires, floods, very long drought and unseasonal weather like we have been getting. But it should help in years when there are not too many extreme events.

    Most agric industries here employ ‘climate champions’, talk about climate change at field days, farmer seminars etc. There’s also a lot happening re water security.

    Not sure about disease resistance and pests, which are already causing problems – eg during the unseasonally wet/humid summer we had in this part and fungal diseases, locust plagues, mouse plagues etc. The latter two we get from time to time anyway. Summer wet we don’t usually get.

  34. Eli Rabett Says:

    The issue with location is that over time farmers optimize their crop choice to the climate, soil and market. Sudden change in such a situation is not very useful

  35. Sou Says:

    Coincidentally to the last few posts, I see this morning that the Crop Science Society of America has just published a guide on how to prepare for climate change, which is aimed at scientists, policy makers and funding bodies.

  36. Steve Bloom Says:

    Folks should read Dai (2010), Bart in particular. Richard Seager’s comment in the NCAR press release sums things up nicely:

    “As Dai emphasizes here, vast swaths of the subtropics and the midlatitude continents face a future with drier soils and less surface water as a result of reducing rainfall and increasing evaporation driven by a warming atmosphere. The term ‘global warming’ does not do justice to the climatic changes the world will experience in coming decades. Some of the worst disruptions we face will involve water, not just temperature.”

    Significantly, the effect is uneven:

    “The increased wetness over the northern, sparsely populated high latitudes can’t match the drying over the more densely populated temperate and tropical areas,” Dai says.

    The worst of it is that very few major grain-producing regions will be left unscathed. It seems likely that the limits of adaptation will be exceeded in many such places.

    So no, I don’t think I was too harsh with Mosher. The only reason he’s willing (well, pretends, probably) to accept the science on SLR is because he can imagaine that 1.5 meters or so by 2100 won’t be that big of a problem. If it were really going to be that low (increasingly doubtful) and if it were the only major consequence (not at all the case), he might even be right.

  37. Steve Bloom Says:

    Thanks, Sou. They say up front:

    Throughout history, farmers have adopted new crop varieties and adjusted their practices in accordance with changes in the environment. But as global temperatures continue to rise, the pace of environmental change will likely be unprecedented. More frequent and intense precipitation events, elevated temperatures, drought, and other types of damaging weather are all expected to take tolls on crop yield and quality, making the challenge of feeding an estimated 9 billion people by 2050 exceedingly difficult.

    Not defeatist, but not exactly optimistic either.

  38. Sou Says:

    Steve, it’s the unexpected that is the killer. If farmers know they are in the middle of a drought they adjust accordingly – that means less food produced per hectare, saving the money for a ‘good’ year. Farmers who live with periods of drought all the time plan and store silage and hay, for example, and during a drought they don’t plant crops that need irrigation but put in dryland crops if they put in any at all. But the unexpected throws you and can destroy your livelihood.

    If you know the long drought has ended and spend up big to plant, then have the crop destroyed by unseasonal floods or torrential rain just before harvest you could well go bankrupt (as happened in my home state).

    So it’s not just the effect of unseasonal and wild weather, it’s the flow on effect on the viability of the businesses themselves. We could see vast tracts of farmland go to waste because no-one can afford the much higher risk premium, even if there are intermittent ‘good years’. The cost of inputs is high for most viable productive farms so if you miss a year or two or three because of unexpected weather it can send you broke.

    Then food prices go up and other people might be willing to take the risk. But that doesn’t necessarily mean more food. Until weather becomes more predictable and preferably more stable, then agriculture and food prices will suffer a lot. (‘Stable’ can include dry years interspersed with years of wet.)

    We might even need to develop completely new models for agriculture this century and shift right away from the modern farm as we know it today.

  39. Bart Says:

    I’m not downplayign potential effects from global warming on agriculture. I’m saying that AFAIK, these effects are less certain and less clearcut than the effects on e.g. the sea level.

    This is confirmed by a quick check of AR4, wgII, TS:

    “In mid- to high-latitude regions, moderate warming benefits
    cereal crop and pasture yields, but even slight warming
    decreases yields in seasonally dry and tropical regions
    (medium confidence).”

    “Coasts are very likely to be exposed to increasing risks in
    future decades due to many compounding climate-change
    factors (very high confidence).”

    Note the difference in level of confidence. I don’t think this picture changed dramataically since than, Dai notwithstanding. Also compare a figure such as Fig TS.7 (Sensitivity of cereal yield to climate change for maize and wheat) with figures of projected SLR.

    I read Mosher’s comment as basically saying the same. Reflexively dismissing whatever someone says who you deem to be on the other side does not make you wiser.

  40. Tom Says:

    There is one word that renders everything my co-author said wrong, vile and despicable and makes everything he says subject to attack and everything he is subject to calumny and vitriol.

    That word is Mosher.

    I have a similar word that is a handy guide for reactions to what I write.

    It must be great not needing to think.

  41. Steve Bloom Says:

    Ah, yes, the moshpit *is* fuller, but what is it fuller of?

    Actually, Tommy, I would think you’d be thrilled at the demonstration that plenty of people on “my side” don’t want to believe just how bad things are. We’ll see how I do with my efforts to rub their noses in the depressing reality. Not all that well, I expect.

  42. dhogaza Says:

    That word is Mosher.

    Or, perhaps, it could be due to Mosher saying that Michael Mann is an outright fraud like the guy who planted “Piltdown Man”.

    Do you agree with him?

    Personally, I assume it is something you agree with, otherwise, why would you be a co-author? (unless it were for monetary gain, not likely to gain you respect).≠≠

    Is Michael Mann’s “research” an outright fraud like Pilltdown Man?

    All of it?

    Note that the Piltdown Man fraud wasn’t due to possible errors of interpretation (pretty much the norm in science, after all, if it weren’t, three or four scientists might be all we need in the world).

    Rather “Piltdown Man” was an intentional fraud.

    Do you agree with Mosher that Mann’s hockey stick is an intentional fraud?

    And that all the subsequent research that supports it is equally fraudulent?

  43. luminous beauty Says:

    If atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 concentrations are as high within the normally distributed middle range of values (ignoring that the distribution is actually long-tailed in the warm direction) as some predict as the preponderance of evidence would indicate…

    Fixed that for ya, Tommy Boy.

  44. luminous beauty Says:

    It reads very poorly for those with a history in industry, understand the consequences of draconian governmental measures, and recognize that the doom has been systematically exaggerated by a governmentally funded group of individuals who do stand to gain power and money from their preferred result.

    Ooh! Scary,scary gummint. With both hands waving.

  45. Nothing to Gain! Hansengate takes off. « the Air Vent Says:

    [...] A quote from Chris Colose, budding cliatoknowledgist left at Bart Verheggens blog alleging again that I am some kind of conpiracy theorist for even suggesting such a thing as a payoff might exist – silly me: Chris Colose Says: June 15, 2011 at 17:43 [...]

  46. Marco Says:

    I note that Jeff Id has ‘evidence’ that shows Chris Colose wrong: in response to Chris’ claim that “In fact very few scientists in climate have anything to benefit from economic suggestions or climate change action.”, Jeff comes with supposed financial benefits James Hansen received.

    Of course, in the real world, this completely fails to rebut Chris’ point (note to Jeff the mathematician, “very few” is not “zero”, and hence not rebutted with one example, assuming it is true at all).

  47. dana1981 Says:

    Is it just me, or is Jeff Id trying to prove that he’s not a conspiracy theorist by repeating a conspiracy theory (i.e. that Hansen received a bunch of money and/or legal advise from Soros)? For the record, one of Soros’ foundations gave $720,000 TOTAL to fight the politicization of science in 2006. $620,000 of that went to UCS and the American Society for Cell Biology. The other $100k went to the Government Accountability Project (GAP), which had a budget of $2 million, and which gave Hansen some legal advice.

    So somehow Jeff Id turns a $100k Soros oranization donation to GAP, which was 5% of their budget, into a claim that Hansen received ” $720,000 in legal advice and media consulting services provided by The George Soros Open Society Institute.”

    That’s his evidence that he’s not a conspiracy theorist? Well, that combined with suggesting that Hansen has only done 40 years of climate research in order to receive a few science prizes for his work. Now that’s a convincing conspiracy theory!

  48. SamT Says:

    Re: Dana

    Its just you.

    Jeff Id is reporting on a lawsuit, he isn’t saying the lawsuit is correct. In fact he explicitly states “The suit alleges:” and then quotes what the suit alleges, in a little box, so you can see it is the suit’s allegations and not Jeff Id’s.

  49. Marco Says:

    Ah, but SamT, he presents it as evidence that James Hansen gets money because of his opinion on climate change.

  50. Bart Says:

    If Jeff finds the quoted salary for the world’s most eminent climate scientist outrageous, I wonder what he would think of some banker’s salary. Is he perhaps a socialist in disguise I wonder?

  51. dana1981 Says:

    Fine, the lawsuit which Jeff is using as evidence that he’s not a conspiracy theorist contains conspiracy theories (and lies). As far as I can tell, the only evidence Jeff is providing that he’s not a conspiracy theorist is that he’s not the only one who believes the conspiracy theory.

    I don’t find that particularly convincing, personally.

  52. dana1981 Says:

    Actually it reminds me of a couple of years ago, back when John Coleman said he was going to get thousands of people together to sue Al Gore. Somehow, despite how sue-happy the US has become, people seem to think the mere threat of a lawsuit is evidence that the person being sued has done something wrong. To this day I still see some denialists talking about how 31,000 scientists sued Al Gore (the lawsuit never happened, of course, and they’re confusing the Oregon Petition with Coleman’s empty threat).

    Same thing here. Who cares if somebody is suing or threatening to sue Hansen? If they win the lawsuit, then talk about how your conspiracy theories are vindicated. Of course given the fact that the lawsuit contains blatantly false accusations, somehow I doubt anything will come out of it, so maybe the mere threat is Jeff’s only opportunity to “prove” he’s not a conspiracy theorist for believing these conspiracy theories.

  53. Eli Rabett Says:

    That Jeff Id can find some twisted interpretation of what he wrote that makes him only a deceiver rather than an outright stone liar is not very important.

    So everyone wastes time whacking already whacked moles and maybe a few don’t get it which is what he wanted. End of discussion

  54. Sharon Gallegos Says:

    G’Day! Ourchangingclimate,
    I know what you mean, what happens if we suck out water out of our body? Thats similar with the earth. We taking out too much oil that helps to moisture the earth, so the earth is like ‘what? I feel so dehydrated..’ so it gets hot…the hot temperature then vibrates causing tectanic plates of the earth to shift, moving the water further up the lands that need more moisture which we call tsunami. Or is it just climate change? Yeah right ppl.
    Wishes

  55. Lamar Says:

    Nice example Sharon! Totally agree!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 127 other followers

%d bloggers like this: