Climate Change Deniers Resurface: Who Will You Believe?

waterdog Published:

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • I guess ExxonMobil chief executive, Rex Tillerson, hasn't read the article about the tree ring study, huh? Or, is it you, as one of his lackeys, that hasn't got the memo yet about the change in strategy that now admits the existence of acknowledges anthropogenic climate change (human caused)? How are you going to adapt to the changing climate, Patriot? Are you going to move to Canada? Do you think that it is a mere coincidence that your position is the same as the energy corporations? NOT! I saw the actual video of Tillerson today and this is the actual text of that part of his speech that the article paraphrased. Here it is: "I am not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have na impact. It will have a warming impact, but how large it is is what is very hard to predict. And depneiding on how large it is then projects how dire teh consequneces are. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK, so we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around, we will adapt to that. it's an engineering problem and it has engineering solutions." My question is who is WE? Are the multinational energy conglomerate going to adapt its engineering practices, or is it going to be the rest of us? WE have already been adapting to the record droughts, heat waves, floods and unsettled weather patterns and the temp has only gone up one degree on average. What is it going to be like at 3 degrees? Who is going to tell the farmers of the midwest that they are going to have to adapt by not growing crops anymore? Where is the engineering solutions to the desertification of our grain belt? We are going to be back in Medieval Times in no time.


  • On June 27, 2012, ExxonMobil chief executive, Rex Tillerson, acknowledged during a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations that man-made global warming is quite real, but says society will adapt to climate change. In the speech Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will be able to adapt. The risks of oil and gas drilling are well understood and can be mitigated, he said. And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said. In his speech and during a question-and-answer session afterwards, he addressed three major energy issues: climate change, oil and gas drilling pollution, and energy dependence. Tillerson, in a break with predecessor Lee Raymond, acknowledged that global temperatures are rising. "Clearly there is going to be an impact," he said. But he questioned the ability of climate models to predict the magnitude of the impact. He said that people would be able to adapt to rising sea levels and changing climates that may force agricultural production to shift. "We have spent our entire existence adapting. We'll adapt," he said. "It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution." Andrew Weaver, the chairman of climate modelling and analysis at the University of Victoria in Canada, disagreed with Tillerson's characterisation of climate modelling. Weaver said modelling can give a very good sense of the type of climate changes that are likely, and that adapting to those changes will be much more difficult and disruptive than Tillerson seems to be acknowledging. Steve Coll, author of Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power, said he was surprised Exxon would already be talking about ways society could adapt to climate change when there is still time to try to avoid its worst effects. Also, he said, research suggests that adapting to climate change could be far more expensive than reducing emissions now. "Moving entire cities would be very expensive," he said. Legislation or regulation that would help slow emissions of global warming gases would likely lead to lower demand for oil and gasoline, and could reduce Exxon's profit. So, I guess Tillerson is one of those "ninnies" who just doesn't understand the science when he acknowledges anthropogenic climate change, huh?

  • Need; Again you fail to understand that science is dynamic. And as anon_1713 says GCC is based on TRENDS and not yearly fluctuations.

  • The case for Global Climate Change is based on trends, and NOT on short term, isolated conditions such as whether England is having a cooler/wetter summer than average. Indeed, sharp aberrations in weather patterns are EXACTLY what these trends indicate as proof.

  • Item 1, I did not put the timeline together. Item 2, Thew articles quoted are from respected sources quoting the scientific theory of the day. A couple of the articles are from scientific journals. Read 'em and weep.

  • Needy; The time line you put together? Exactly my point; no scientific data, mostly a series of news articles. Hardly convincing!

  • False facts and figures? Really? You obviously have not read the timeline that I put in an earlier post. It shows that the theories are constantly changing. How long before we are cooling again? FYI Tigerfish, the oil companies are heavily into gas as well.(no pun intended). As soon as solar and wind energy become cost effective,(read cheaper) they will become the energy of choice. They way to get a new technology in is to make it cheaper, not make the old technology artificially more expensive as Bar-rock Obama wishes to do. Perhaps you should look to the White house if you wish to follow the money.

  • Waterdog has touched on a key factor in this controversy. Who is behind the climate change deniers, pushing false information and funding the process? They are afraid of losing their big profits and government subsidies to the gas, solar and wind energy industries. Why do you think people like the Koch brothers and other billionaires are pouring so much money into Romney's campaign, now that he has flip-flopped on climate change? It doesn't take a mental heavyweight to figure that one out. So all of you deniers with your false facts and figures, look at who is pulling your strings.

  • Need4education;And I have over 50 years of science education and experience. A hypothesis put forth in the '70s may not necessarily be useful now. New research and cooperation among scientists have created a new paradigm about the direction of climate change. And chaz, with one breath you say that things said in the '70s are still true, and then say science is dynamic. You obviously can't make up your mind. And the "greenies" are more interested in saving human lives from long-term disaster than padding their wallets from short-term oil and coal profits. Thankfully, you and your ilk are in a rapidly shrinking minority. Maybe you will wake up before it is too late.

  • The greenies aren't interested in the lives of humans, only in their agenda -

  • The bozos in the article don't know the difference between weather and climate, let alone understand how it all ties together over MILLENIA. So why wouldn't any thinking person be a skeptic of their silliness? They want to believe in this fraud? Great, but don't insist on dragging the rest of us down with you.

  • England is enduring the coolest and wettest summer in decades, and other parts of the world have experienced similar weather. What your article cites are BELIEFS and WEATHER, not climate. Very typical - it's not science, it's religion with the climate change/global warming fanatics. They BELIEVE that these seasonal changes MIGHT be connected to global warming, when the most recent study of tree rings, for instance, shows that the Earth has COOLED in the last 2000 years. And that's just one of the studies showing that the data that the global warming kooks have either ignored data or cooked data to get the results that support their insane agenda. Not that long ago they were saying that we were going to be locked in an Ice Age by now. They were wrong THEN, they were just as convinced THEN that they were right, and they're just as wrong NOW.

  • Sorry WD, The reading may be a bit laborious as the breaks have once again been automatically removed.

  • FYI Nifty timeline I've found. 1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming? 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.” 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune 1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post 1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962 1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report 1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine 1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times 1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969 1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post 1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine 1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post 1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger 1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times Cassandras are becomingincreasingly apprehensive,for the weatheraberrations they arestudying may be theharbinger of anotherice age 1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975 1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine 1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report 1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times 1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context 1989 -”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989 1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth 1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report 1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998 2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001 2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003 2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006 Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for two years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

  • Point of order, Why are my paragraph breaks being removed? Just asking.

  • And you are one of the posters who think that if someone disagrees with you they must be stupid. The article referenced was hailed as gospel in the 70's. Obviously, you weren't there. FYI, I have a degree in EET and have worked in technical fields since 1984.

  • Needy 2 Points 1 Obviously you did not bother to read the article; HP only compiled comments from real scientists. 2 You are clearly one of the posters I mentioned before who has no knowledge of how science works.

  • From Newsweek Magazine April 28, 1975: There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.” Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. —PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports OMG We have to do something now!!!!! Same crap, different side off the thermometer. The only thing constant about climate is change.

  • Huffington post...That's an unbiased source (said with some degree of sarcasm)