Comments on: Casting the runes on climate change

By: Turkey1

Turkey1 — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:44:09 +0000

Like many opinions, the radical solutions offered by many create a constant point of disagreement. The main item of discussion is the CO2 levels which exceed all possible levels found by extensive research. Conclusions from from this create an enviromentt of disagreement which facts do not answer totally objectively. Some argue that a season of severe snow contradicts global warming. Most scientists agree that the oceans of the world are slowly getting warmer. James Lovelock, as I remember in his writings suggested that we have lots of specialists for every area of research, but we do not have many who specialize in interpretating all of the items of information and coming to a repeatable objective conclusion that we can all agree on. It has also been suggested that if we feed all of the data from all scientific resources into a computer, the is not one developed to handle all of the data. At our rate of progress in technology we will hopefully resolve this problem in the near of less distant future. To ignore the problem suggested is wrong, but we should not stop everything to jump on a conclusion that is not yet totally viable. Certainly industry has an effect, but we do not yet know how much. Our complex planet is infinitely more comples and interactive by all events that happen. The more we know about our planet, the more questions are created. Encourage our scientists to do their job, listen to them, and let them work out a true answer—that’s why they have different opinions at this point in their research.
Daniel Sullivan

By: KnightPC

KnightPC — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:43:47 +0000

A very American-centric view. Around the world, activists advocating that their governments to act on science and the advice of the overwhelming number of climate scientists are not considered radical and over- the-top, but are considered rational and responsible. Only in America do witty journalists consider out of line those who challenge the feel-good propaganda coming from the big oil & gas companies about how they will get around to a solution one of these days. Perhaps it is the deniers and go-slow advocates who we will be able to say in a 2-3 decades have shot us all in the foot.

- An American Abroad

By: Gordon2352

Gordon2352 — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:30:53 +0000

Thank you for telling the truth!

If the climate change political movement had used less quasi-religious fervor and been more reasonable in their approach, they might have been able to make significant strides towards their goals.

However, I agree with your analysis, as it is they seem to have “shot themselves in the foot” for a multitude of reasons.

By: greenman3610

greenman3610 — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:13:10 +0000

what’s gone wrong is that too many people like Mr Hadar prefer get their science from internet blogs that will tell him what he wants to hear, as opposed the National Academies of every country, NASA, the American Meteorological society, and every respected, relevant science body on the planet, who tell us the world is getting warmer, we are doing it, and the consequences are dire.
For people like this, there is no word quite as accurate as “denier”.

By: CaptnCrunch

CaptnCrunch — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:02:16 +0000

Thank you Mr. Hadas for a thoughtful and concise article for which I am sure you will now be promptly pilloried for.

While it is impossible to deny a current climate cycle of global warming it is entirely reasonable to question the statistical significance of human activity in the equation.

Measure twice, cut once, or our efforts turn to waste.

By: Kowaliski

Kowaliski — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:44:03 +0000

One wonders if Mr Hadas has ever opened an issue of Science or Nature and has any knowledge of what he is talking about. 2001 was 10 years ago, update, update please…

By: castlerocku

castlerocku — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:16:38 +0000

I disagree my friend, the community is divided on the findings and only the ones paid by the enviromentalist movement are with it. there is no indipendant study done. Everyone is paid by one side or the other.

By: Dan85

Dan85 — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:09:30 +0000

It is unfortunate that Mr. Hadas raises the red herring of the non-existent “climategate scandal”. It was reviewed by several different panels, all of whom concluded that the e-mails were taken out of context and did not reveal any attempt to conceal the truth. As for the claim that the “anti-carbon prescription equates to a campaign against prosperity”, the reality is quite different. The Scandinavian countries and Germany are the world’s leaders in tackling GHG emissions, and they rank among the world’s wealthest countries. The solution being put forward by Mr. Hadas is more study and delay – which is really no solution at all. It is the solution that has been put forward by the fossil fuel industry, oil countries, and right-wing ideologues who oppose government regulation.