Another Troubling Climate Article

[berkshires]

I agree with you. However it also works the opposite way. Corporations and organizations funded by individuals hire people to debunk the science, oftentimes by obfuscating and twisting the findings in ways that would make a contortionist uncomfortable. Some of the people (pseudo-scientists) they hire know nothing about the field, but will publish all sorts of reports anyhow (not in scientific journals) simply to confuse and delay any action. The early part of my career was spent doing acid rain research. Corporations poured billions into fighting it. End result was that eventually legislation was passed, and the companies dealt with the problem and cleaned up their act. It is truly amazing how polarizing relatively simple issues can become. If the $ spent studying and fighting any action on a problem were actually spent fixing problems, there would be far fewer problems and far more solutions.

Amen.

It really is a shame this has to be such a polarizing/politicized issue. It doesn't need to be. I guess people like to have something to fight about, and there are vested interests that pour big $$ into climate denying claptrap to encourage it.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and I remember how all the scientific literature was clear (had been for decades before I was born) about cigarettes causing lung cancer. But the tobacco industry fought it tooth and nail, and had a fair amount of success... for a while. But their lies wound up biting them far harder than what it would've been if they'd just owned up to the negative effects and rolled with it. Eventually they started losing the lawsuits around their lies and coverups, and it nearly destroyed the industry. But I'm guessing they made big profits in the interim, and what do shareholders care about long-term gain versus their stock price going up today. So it goes, same today as it was then.

Gabe

[SeanD]

This graphic from NOAA (and in the article) shows that there are definite periods or extreme high and low temperature swings in any given short-term period, however the long-term trend (the blue line) indicates a significant warming trend over the last 100+ years. That's why we have to be careful of over-valuing anecdotal evidence.

Temp Trends.jpg

[psparr]

The science also said in the 70's that the next ice age was coming. Eggs were good for you, before they were bad for you, before they were good for you again. There are many examples that "facts" of science have switched.

[DrTimPerkins]

There are many examples that "facts" of science have switched.

Actually, the facts rarely change. The evidence and interpretation certainly can though.

[SeanD]

The science also said in the 70's that the next ice age was coming. Eggs were good for you, before they were bad for you, before they were good for you again. There are many examples that "facts" of science have switched.

These facts have not been switched. The graph shows average temperatures that have been recorded (and not disputed) for 120+ years. When the data is graphed, we can see a trend of rising average temperatures of 0.3 degrees F per decade. Is there something in the NOAA data or the graph that you find inaccurate?

[Scm]

..........

[SeanD]

At face value, that's a story from the Natural News about two individual US averages - July 1936 vs. July 2012. This article and the graph cover average temps from Dec-March for 120+ years. Nice try, though.

[Scm]

..........

[SeanD]

So, the banner of your first source reads: "Pentagon just gave Russia justification to bomb the USA to stop vaccine violence against children."

I'll let the readers decide for themselves if your sources are credible.

[Scm]

..........