Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Climate Change: "Many, Many Smoking Guns"

Continued from page 1

By Peter Fairley

Thursday, February 01, 2007

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

The biggest challenge faced by Solomon: ruling out the effects of solar storms, which skeptics of man-made climate change have proposed might be causing global warming. Solomon and others have refuted this notion but confirmed the storms' dominance as a temperature driver in the thermosphere. "Solar-driven changes, while they're extremely large above 100 kilometers, get progressively smaller and smaller as you get lower into the atmosphere, and are extremely small once you reach the surface," says Solomon. Other scientific studies have identified human influence in everything from declining mountain glaciers and snow cover in both hemispheres, to increases in ocean salinity, to the growing frequency and range of severe droughts.

And as the science has peered into more areas, the models have gotten sharper, too. New modeling techniques pioneered by the Oxford University-based climateprediction.net program, a distributed computing effort, helped the IPCC express its predictions more precisely. The early draft of the IPCC report leaked last week predicts a far tighter range of temperature and sea-level increase over the next century than the previous IPCC report did. For example, the draft projects that sea level will gain between 28 and 43 centimeters by 2100, compared with the 9-to-88-centimeter rise forecast in 2001.

Probabilistic models are also helping the IPCC come to consensus over the most likely figure within their predicted range. In the case of temperature, the leaked draft says that if carbon dioxide concentrations stabilize at 550 parts per million, the planet will warm 2 to 4.5 °C, but it adds a "best estimate" of 3 °C, which is slightly below the mean for that range. Of course, the future trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions and consequent warming depends greatly on future energy and transportation policies and trends. Weaver estimates that uncertainty in emissions contributes about 50 percent of the uncertainty in most climate-change predictions. The rest comes from imperfect understanding of how the climate's physical and biological components interact, such as how much cloud cover will result from changes in temperature.

What is most clear is that the increasing scientific certainty around global warming has emboldened climate scientists as much as it has isolated the small band of skeptics swimming against the scientific mainstream. "There is no credible alternative hypothesis," says Mahlman. "It simply doesn't exist." Weaver predicts that the skeptics will soon fade away as funding sources increasingly pull their funding from organizations and researchers leading the anti-IPCC charge, as oil and gas giant ExxonMobil announced that it had done last month in pulling funding from the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. It was the same story with the "smoking doesn't cause cancer" crowd, says Weaver: "Once the funding breaks down, they'll break down."

Comments

  • "Once the funding breaks down, they'll break down."
    "Once the funding breaks down, they'll break down."

    A sound scientific argument. 'They have no money, so they must be wrong.' Does this gentleman understand the difference between science and politics?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    reneverheij
    02/01/2007
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re:
      Eventually, as people see daily that warmer is actually better, people will forget about the scientific consensus regarding climate change, just as they have forgotten the scientific consensus regarding eugenics. The money that will dry up is the politically driven funding for computer climate models and for headline grabbing climate "science".
      Rate this comment: 12345

      lschuber
      02/01/2007
      Posts:13
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re:
        Two serious flaws in your arguement: 1. Warmer is not better, unless you think that drought and rising sea levels are a good thing. You may find a few people in coastal cities and arid regions who disagree. 2. The scientific community is not driven by the desire to grab headlines. They simply study the evidence and report their findings. On the other hand, you will find heavy bias behind the sceptics arguments, namely big oil funding.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        tla723
        02/01/2007
        Posts:20
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • Re: Warmer is Better
          I believe the dinosaurs would argue that warmer is better. Their MUCH warmer environment supported a bio-system with sufficient food to support a wide variety of building-sized animals.

          Perhaps a few people will be inconvenienced, even killed, but we all die regardless, even if Aubrey is correct. It even seems likely many species will be inconvenienced, a few even driven to extinction, but again, we all do in the end. With a multibillion year track record, life has a 0.1% success rate so far. Why would we suppose it might improve? It is foolish to suppose it will worsen. As popularized in "Jurassic Park," life will find a way. The only certainty is change. The only hope for our posterity is technological improvement. The notion of reduction is certainly a "cure" that is worse than the purported disease.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          lschuber
          02/02/2007
          Posts:13
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          • Re: Warmer is Better
            to ischuber: you should be ashamed to participate in this conversation if you actually use 'Jurassic Park' to make a scientific point
            Rate this comment: 12345

            aeroculus
            02/02/2007
            Posts:1
          • Re: Warmer is Better
            I suppose if your perspective is on a scale that reaches millions of years and looks at overall evolutionary success and failure, I will concede to your point that warmer may be better. If OTOH your rooted in the "here and now" as most of us are, the "inconveniences" you refer to seem more like catastrophic events. The social and financial collapse of a civilization are not things I put in the "better" category. But that's just me I suppose.
            Rate this comment: 12345

            tla723
            02/02/2007
            Posts:20
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
        • Re:
          the problem with your point #2 is that it is wrong. they ARE just grabbing headlines.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          bmn
          02/22/2007
          Posts:25
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
    • Re:
      losing funding doesn't make you wrong, being wrong makes you lose funding.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      tla723
      02/01/2007
      Posts:20
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re:
        not in the UN (or in DC for that matter).
        Rate this comment: 12345

        bmn
        02/22/2007
        Posts:25
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • If we say it enough times it must be true...
    Why do "global warmers" continue to ignore the question:  Who/what warmed up the earth to cycle it out of the last ice age?  As far as I know, Exxon-Mobile wasn't refining crude oil back then, and Ford hadn't rolled the first Model A off the assembly line.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    peter81
    02/01/2007
    Posts:4
    • Re: If we say it enoug times it must be true...
      I haven't published this yet, but the answer is that as the cavemen killed the wooly mammoths the campfires they built to cook the mammoth meat caused it.  If we repeat this enough, it will become the accepted explanation.  Just like the current theory, we only have to show a correlation, no need to show any cause or entertain any other ideas.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ggeorge
      02/01/2007
      Posts:4
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
    • Re: If we say it enough times it must be true...
      A better question to ask may be, why do you choose to not believe in the face of overwhelming evidence? By that way of thinking, the only logical explanation for global warming is that a covert organization made up of tree hugging, anti-oil greenies somehow paid off 99% of the worlds top scientists to lie about their findings and promote their evil agenda of destroying the U.S. economy.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      tla723
      02/01/2007
      Posts:20
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: If we say it enough times it must be true...
        You might think your question is better, but I think is it folly to ignore something so obvious.  What has been warming the earth up since the last ice age?  It can not have been industry/automobiles; they did not exist. 
        Rate this comment: 12345

        peter81
        02/01/2007
        Posts:4
        • Re: If we say it enough times it must be true...
          The shortest answer I can make to your ice age question is that the ice ages that we can "see" occured on a fairly regular schedule. Why this is is currently under debate, some say it may be due to natural cycles of our sun or flucuations in earth's orbit. The problem is that what is happening now appears for the moment to be changes operating at rates that exceede what data we have about past "normal" climate change. 

          Well now that I think about it, there were some events in the fossil record that showed rapid global cilmate change has occured in the past without man to precipiate it.. but people don't like talk about them because to compare them to now would be fear mongering.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          Gurthang
          02/01/2007
          Posts:20
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
        • Re: If we say it enough times it must be true...
          Fair enough. The answer is, the natural cycle is responsible for the majority of this warming. Indeed, the glaciers receeded long before the automobile. In the past 100 years or so however, human causes have begun to eclipse and surpass this natural effect.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          tla723
          02/02/2007
          Posts:20
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          • Re: If we say it enough times it must be true...
            your second sentence has no basis (other than repetition). corelation is not cause. specify cause, show observable and repeatable phenomena, and then we might be getting somewhere.
            Rate this comment: 12345

            bmn
            02/22/2007
            Posts:25
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
  • Thermosphere
    Solomon finds changes in the thermosphere as predicted by the models, and cites this as an affirmative signal of man-made climate change.  However, he then admits that solar-driven changes are "extremely large above 100 kilometers."  How can he attribute the changes as man-made in light of this admission?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    axe3va
    02/01/2007
    Posts:1
    • Re: Thermosphere
      Not having read his paper I would have to assume that he has taken enough measurments over time to show a trend. So yes if e were to only take a few measurments it would be virtually impossible to see the trend through the "noise" but gather enough data from multiple sources over time and you can come to some pretty good conclusions.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Gurthang
      02/01/2007
      Posts:20
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: Thermosphere
        this doesn't make sense either. "enough measurements over enough time"? we have only KNOWN about the thermosphere for less than 100 years. how can measurements of high altitude effects vs. lower altitude effects be taken and compared over an appropriate (geologic) interval? this is more of the same - I see a short-term trend, and extrapolate to infinity. this is not science.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        bmn
        02/22/2007
        Posts:25
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • Doom for current fossil fuels industries?
    If "man-made" CO2 from the existing practice of un-earthing previously stored solar energy and sequestered CO2 in the form of coal, oil and natural gas is truly the culprit, won't those existing industries need to be shutdown, ASAP?

    Won't we need a massive, planetary shift in the energy paradigm from harvesting buried stored solar energy / sequestered CO2 to harvesting sustainable bio-fuels that close the carbon cycle, potentially in addition to nuclear, geothermal, wind, tidal, water, .... ?

    The fossil fuels industries, as we know them today, can quit worrying about / exploring / investing money looking for new buried deposits to harvest?

    Aren't they the industries that have a tremendous vested interest in triple checking that they're truly the middlemen of the problem?

    And, being put out of that business that they have so heavily invested in?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    nekote
    02/01/2007
    Posts:139
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Doom for current fossil fuels industries?
      There's a wide chasm between "triple checking" data objectively and pushing a campaign of deceit with a preconceived, self-benefitting conclusion.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      tla723
      02/01/2007
      Posts:20
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Doom for current fossil fuels industries?
        Who?

        Me?

        The standard response of being accused.
        Guilty or not.

        What if, most unexpectedly, CO2 from existing practices is, somehow, NOT the culprit / solution?

        Granted, such industries have an obvious self-preservation bias.

        OTOH, if those industries ARE the root of a serious global problem, shutting them down is a tangible consequence demonstrating the magnitude of the changes necessary.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        nekote
        02/01/2007
        Posts:139
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • The basics
    http://ceos.cnes.fr:8100/cdrom-98/ceos1/science/dg/dg1.htm

    Given that CO2 absorbs at 15.5 µm and 4.3 µm, AND that the atmosphere is 100% opaque in these (and CO2's other bands), isn't CO2 already providing all of the global warming that it can? As CO2 continues to increase, isn't the only effect simply trapping that energy closer to the ground, and doesn't weather keep that air well stirred? I'm yet to be convinced CO2 increases increase the overall energy retention. Note in the figures of the link that H2O accounts for nearly all of the energy absorbed in the atmosphere. H2O accounts for more than 95% of the total greenhouse effect. CO2 is already doing all it can.

    Further, consider: Chill a large bowl of water in a large open container. Allow sufficient time for the chilled water to equilibrate with the air. Now, simply seal the container to the atmosphere such that no gas can enter or leave the system (and turn off the chiller). What will happen as the water and container warm to ambient? The only change inside the container will be that the relative humidity will approach 100% AND the CO2 concentration in the air will increase as the solubility of CO2 in the warming water decreases. Given basic science we all learned in our sophomore classes, we know how equilibrium works. The only conclusion I can draw is that CO2 rises as a result of global warming. It is not a cause!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    lschuber
    02/01/2007
    Posts:13
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: The basics
      good lord! are you trying to discuss SCIENCE with the global warming true believers!? that's madness! they have a CONSENSUS! weren't you listening!?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      bmn
      02/22/2007
      Posts:25
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: The basics
      Wow, you really have out foxed all those do-do climatolgists!  Boy are they dumb; just a high school deploma let's you see right through the the smoke screen they have set up just to get more funding!  Thank you for revealing this to us all.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      TooMany
      11/13/2008
      Posts:47
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • World forum for Climate Change discussion
    I believe the world greatly needs a genuine forum to discuss the "facts" (pro and con).

    A forum that is open to all.
    With no pre-conceived outcome.
    That will genuinely accept all supporters and doubters.

    Without fear, disrespect, intimidation or other pointless "flaming".

    A forum that will attempt to address all of the pros and cons, one by one, to the n'th degree.

    A forum where the proponents can further investigate, report and augment their arguments and the opponents, likewise, can offer their skeptical points for the proponents to address.

    My hope would be for an eventual greater consensus, whatever it might be.

    Little point in wasting trillions of dollars and years of time on "solutions" that don't, in the end, make for a successful and timely response.

    For example, should Global Melting, for whatever reason, be unstoppable, at this point in time, and the seas are truly going to rise 20 or 200 or whatever feet, moving the world's coastal population (1/2 the Earth's population?) to higher ground, as one potential response, might be the wisest initial expenditure of time and efforts?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    nekote
    02/01/2007
    Posts:139
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: World forum for Climate Change discussion
      I believe the estimate in this article was 43 cm (17 inches) tops!  Where do the fear and doomers think all this water is coming from?  They are forgetting that when ice melts its volume is reduced.  The reduction in ice below sea level will make room for the melting ice that exists above sea level. Remember when God told Noah that he would never again destroy the earth by flood.  Relax already!   If a few in the beach condo crowd have to add a couple of feet to their existing foundation, I'm sure they can handle it.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      peter81
      02/01/2007
      Posts:4
      • Re: World forum for Climate Change discussion
        Forgive me if I am regurgitating an untruth.

        I guess exactly my point.

        Is there, somewhere, a more definitive answer to "how much" the seas might rise, if all of the ice (sequestered fresh water) that is not already supported by the seas (particularly the floating Arctic Ice Cap) were to melt?  Greenland, the Antarctic and toss in various glaciers.

        An answer that had undergone the slings and arrows of repeated review and conjecture?

        A place where the speculation can, over time, settle down to one, or maybe a few, generally agreed upon scenarios?
        Rate this comment: 12345

        nekote
        02/01/2007
        Posts:139
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
      • Re: World forum for Climate Change discussion
        The floating ice would perhaps even out. An ice cube floating in a glass of water melts but does not appreciably change the level of liquid in the glass. On the other hand, there is one hell of a lot of land ice on both Greenland and Antarctica. Scientific estimates put sea levels rising around 30 feet for each continent should they melt completely. Have you people not seen Al Gore's movie? C'mon.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        tla723
        02/01/2007
        Posts:20
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
      • 7 Meters for Greenland; 65M for Antarctica ?
        More of the problems I have with all of the "info" out there.

        A very recent Technology Review article:
        http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18102/

        claimed 7 meters (~21 feet) sea rise if all of Greenland's ice melted and 65 meters (~200 feet) if all of the fresh water sequestered (ice) on Antarctica entered the seas.

        How many years, at what "warm" temperature, will it take for "all" (or enough) of the ice to melt to make a real / measurable / discernible / demonstrable difference?
        Rate this comment: 12345

        nekote
        02/01/2007
        Posts:139
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
      • 43 cm (17 inches) - only glaciers & thermal expansion
        According to other reports, about this soon to be released report, the 43 cm / 17 inch rise in sea levels is only extrapolated from glacial melt and thermal expansion of existing ocean waters.

        No contribution from "ice sheet" melting was considered.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        nekote
        02/01/2007
        Posts:139
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
    • Re: What do we know about  cycles of solar activity?
      I wholeheartedly agree! I'm delighted to see all the attention devoted to factors affecting climate change. However, we need more
      evidence to solidify support for serious public policy changes.

      For example, one HUGE factor that gets almost no  public attention is solar activity. Are there studies providing solid evidence that a solar activity cycle is or is not a major culprit?


       
      Rate this comment: 12345

      gdwilhite
      02/01/2007
      Posts:1
  • I have a question:
    I'm not being a smart a** here.  This is a legitimate question: If there were no humans on Earth, would the climate still go through warming and cooling cyles?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    catoosaflash
    02/01/2007
    Posts:10
    Avg Rating:
    1/5
    • Re: I have a question:
      Well we've bee taught there was at least one ice age, and it occurred when there were a LOT LESS humans on earth.  Obviously the earth has been warming since the ice age.  And there were NO automobiles or industry when the siginificant warming was occuring. 
      Rate this comment: 12345

      peter81
      02/01/2007
      Posts:4
      • Re: I have a question:
        There have actually been thousands of ice ages. They are part of the natural climate cycle of the earth. Global warming, refers to a deviation beyond the range of this expected cycle.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        tla723
        02/01/2007
        Posts:20
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • Re: I have a question:
          How do we know what the cycle is if we can't agree on how many ice ages there were?  Therefore, how do we know if the warming we are seeing today is not a natural warming effect?

          I agree with the gases concept but the argument seems to lack in proof.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          texas026
          02/04/2007
          Posts:3
          • Re: I have a question:
            Actually the majority of the debate over how many ice ages the earth has had is a debate between religion and science/evolution, and the majority of the scientific community who believe in the evolution of earth and it's 4 and a half billion year history also believe that the earth has gone through a LOT of iceages, many continental joinings and partings, and the crust of the earth has even been completely cycled into the planet a few times.  So it isn't unfair to say that for the most part there is an agreement on roughly how many ice ages the earth has had, in addition to that it doesn't really matter whether the earth has had 1000 or 3 ice ages, the point is whether the rise and melting of these iceages was human caused or not.
            Rate this comment: 12345

            zgehasz
            12/08/2008
            Posts:1
  • Adaptation
    It isn't CO2 that is causing global warming, its the hot air from lawyers and politicians.  Just look at their dramatically increasing numbers and plot it against temperature rising.  My solution is that we should be adapting to global warming by building more landfills to sequester the carbon; building massive dams to capture fresh water to reduce oceans from rising; increasing GM plant production to increase CO2 absorption; building more nuclear plants; and shifting production from the more contaminating China/India producers to more efficient and environmentally efficient US companies.  But then those aren't politically correct ideas.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    RD
    02/01/2007
    Posts:114
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Adaptation
      I remember when this began one major source of cause was the expelling of gas from bovin population growth.  What ever happened to that idea?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      texas026
      02/04/2007
      Posts:3
  • And so . . .
    what? The implication is always that we have to reduce carbon emissions. Is this estimated to do any good?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    amulekii
    02/01/2007
    Posts:10
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • so what
    I understand why many people may be skeptical of the actual cause of the current trends in global warming, but isn't it kind of a pointless debate, since we are going to have to change to alternative fuel sources anyway, since we are quickly running out of oil. I don't know how much is supposedly left, but I hear that we will have to switch completely from dependence upon it in the next 50 years. my point is that we are going to have to stop using the supposed sources of carbon dioxide anyway, so why don't we put more money towards finding new and better energy sources and less towards researching if global warming is a reason we have to make the change.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    cphheymsnai
    02/01/2007
    Posts:1
    • Re: so what
      There's an abundant supply of coal for at least the next century or two. Coal produces even more CO2 per unit of energy than oil does.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ms
      02/01/2007
      Posts:130
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: so what
        Is that clean burning coal? (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4468076.stm ).
        Rate this comment: 12345

        ebresie
        02/01/2007
        Posts:2
  • Cycles or Warming
    Before I start, I do believe man has affected the environment, but I still have some doubts.

    How can we tell that man alone is responsible? 

    Man has only been on the Earth (depending upon who you ask) about 250,000 years or more in one form or another.  It has only been a few hundred years since people stopped believing the sun revolved around the Earth.

    Our technology has improved over the years allow better tracking of the environment.  But is it good to base all your hypothesis only on relatively new data? 

    How do we know that there are not 40 year or 40 thousand year (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cycle ) climate cycle.

    You can indicate that the trends are above the norms, but what are the norms and a cycle?

    When ice shelves break from Greenland, and yet growing from (see http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N44/C1.jsp ) within. 

    Who is to know?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ebresie
    02/01/2007
    Posts:2
    • Re: Cycles or Warming
      The earth heats and cools on cycles that take thousands of years. We are much better then the nature. In 50 years we did what the nature probably wouldn’t do in 500; and we will do much better in the next 50.
      Well, at least it won’t be our problem. We will not leave forever anyways…
      Everybody says that just few years ago the winters were colder and longer (a lot of people from all continents say the same) and there is still people that “$$$pretend$$$” not believe in global warming.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      edsonbila
      02/01/2007
      Posts:7
      • Re: Cycles or Warming
        thank you for your extremely scientific and enlightened viewpoint.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        bmn
        02/22/2007
        Posts:25
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
      • Re: Cycles or Warming
        We did a really good job from 1900 to 1940 too (when a majority of the 20th century warming occurred).  Oh wait!  We didn't produce much CO2 in the early 20th century.  Did we cut down CO2 emmissions between 1940 and 1970?  The temperature fell during that 30 year period while CO2 emmissions significantly.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Nomad
        04/20/2007
        Posts:2
    • Re: Cycles or Warming
      I'm not a scientist, but I've read and watched much on this issue. As you point out, the science on many issues is not perfect. But the evidence in this case is quite convincing. Many studies show a virtually identical correlation between the warming and cooling cycles and CO2 levels in the atmosphere. We know this from Ice core samples that go back 100's of thousands of years. It therefor stands to reason that the currently accellerating warming going on can be attirbuted to the also accellerating CO2 increases we've seen. And nobody is debating where the CO2 is coming from.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      tla723
      02/02/2007
      Posts:20
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: Cycles or Warming
      Well said ebresie
      Rate this comment: 12345

      texas026
      02/04/2007
      Posts:3
  • a lot of hot air
    Once again we stand on the brink of another man made disaster. After decades of ignoring scientific evidence of the effects that over fishing, clear-cut logging, and complete ecosystem destruction would have on all of us, the human race has finally decided at the 11th hour to take the problem of global warming seriously. I am sorry to inform all our fire loving Neanderthal cousins out there, that the opportunity to actually do something about it has already come and gone a long long time ago.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    phoenix
    02/03/2007
    Posts:172
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: a lot of hot air
      your subject describes you. you offer no science as basis, but make blanket statements which are just silly. you sound like one of the sky is falling eco-crybabies from the 60s who all claimed that we'd not be able to breathe the air or find water to drink by Y2K. moderate changes (which had their impact locally far more than widely/globally) to policy were more than suficient to address the trends. screaming out that we've already lost the battle when we really don't even know what the battle is as of yet is just foolish.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      bmn
      02/22/2007
      Posts:25
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: a lot of hot air
        What exactly do you offer besides a fervent belief that the majority of the world's scientific specialist in this area are probably wrong and even involved in a conspiracy to decive us?  That is indeed a lot of hot air.

        It's amazing how successful the oil industry and the commercial interests in general has been in getting people to disbelieve what a reputable majority of scientist are telling them.  The simple fact is that people whose lives revolve around profit do not care what happens when they are gone. Further the rest believe in whatever conspiracy theory they can promote or alternatively that "God" will never let something bad happen to "His" creation.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        TooMany
        11/13/2008
        Posts:47
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
  • Big Business
    You will notice that until Shell ,Exxon and BP became the big players in the alternative power game that not one major political figure would touch the global warming(sic) issue.Once again the only religion on the planet is power and money,funny how that works!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    wizardB
    05/14/2007
    Posts:18
    Avg Rating:
    3/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.