90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
What’s Up With The Wild Weather?

Unseasonably warm temps across the country, tornadoes in the Great Plains, great hail in Texas. What’s going on?

A tornado forms and touches down north of Soloman, Kan., Saturday, April 14, 2012. (AP)

A tornado forms and touches down north of Soloman, Kan., Saturday, April 14, 2012. (AP)

A hundred-plus tornadoes last weekend in the Plains states.  No biggie.  No big deal.  We’re getting used to crazy weather.  We had a winter that in many states felt like spring.  A spring that in much of the country’s been racking up temps like summer.

Record highs all over.  Confused animals.  Crops out of order.  The latest polling says a large majority of Americans now believe the wild weather is being made worse by climate change.  Is it?  Is this it?

This hour, On Point:  does the wild weather mean climate change is moving in?  And we talk with two new Pulitzer prize winners who chased the weather.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Anthony Leiserowitz,  director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and a Research Scientist at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University. You can read about a new poll on American attitudes towards climate change here.

Heidi Cullen, research correspondent and scientist for Climate Central. She’s the author of “The Weather of the Future: Heat Waves, Extreme Storms, and Other Scenes from a Climate-Changed Planet.”

Harold Brooks, research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Severe Storms Laboratory.

May Boeve, executive director and co-founder of the environmental group 350.org. Their new awareness campagin about climate change, “Connect the Dots” launches on May 5.

C-Segment: Prize-Winning Weather Coverage

Dusty Compton, a photographer with the Tuscaloosa News, he was part of the staff awarded the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for their breaking news coverage of a deadly tornado that struck the city on April 27, 2011. You can find some of his photos here.

Wayne Grayson, reporter for the Tuscaloosa News, he was part of the staff awarded the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for their breaking news coverage of a deadly tornado  that struck the city on April 27, 2011. You can read some of that reporting here.

From Tom’s Reading List

Time “It could have been so much worse. Over 100 tornadoes ripped through several Plains states in just 24 hours over the weekend. Cars were tossed through the air and houses were pulverized. Hail the size of baseballs fell from the sky, crushing anything left in the open. More than what is ordinarily a month’s worth of cyclones struck in a single day, yet miraculously, only one, in the Oklahoma town of Westwood, proved fatal, killing six victims who lived in and around a mobile-trailer park.”

Boston Globe “More than 2,100 runners were treated Monday at medical tents along the 26.2-mile Boston Marathon course for dehydration, heat exhaustion, and other ailments as temperatures blasted into the upper 80s, shattering records.”

The State “The shrimping season opens for commercial boats today – and fresh local shrimp in April is practically unheard of. Dolphin fish turned up offshore in March in numbers not usually seen until May.”

Tuscaloosa News “The prize for breaking news coverage focuses on organizations that capture events accurately as they occur, as quickly as possible, and over time, illuminate, provide context and expand upon the initial coverage.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • U.S. Vet.

    ‘Man Made’ global warming is a fairy tale myth that has been completely repudiated by science.

    But that isn’t going to stop the radical left from trying to convince you that in order to save the planet, you must pay carbon emission taxes, otherwise you are a horrible person who doesn’t care about the enviorment.

    P.S.  Goldman Sachs and Al Gore have secured the rights to buy, sell and trade carbon emission credits in the U.S., so that alone should tell you that the ‘man made’ global warming myth is a scam designed to fleece more money from the working poor and middle class and deliver it to the super wealthy who have bought off our goverment and corrupted the entire system.

    • http://twitter.com/TweeterSmart b smart

      “repudiated by science” would indicate that the majority of experts in the field have found contrary evidence, which i don’t believe is the case.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      You are correct that it is profits driving the situation.

      The myth that global warming is a conspiracy, is driven by the oil companies — who are making the highest profits in history.

      The science shows that we humans are causing the climate to change much more rapidly than it ever has in the past.

      Our descendants will curse us — unless we do everything we can to minimize the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

      Neil

    • ana

      Global warming is at the very least a cause for concern and hardly “a fairy tale myth that has been completley repudiated by science”.   Sources please.

      “Be impeccable with your word”  (The Four Agreements)

    • Anonymous

      The idiocy is flying now.

      “‘Man Made’ global warming is a fairy tale myth that has been completely repudiated by science.”

      Show us.

    • Sam Walworth

       Even if we think Global Warming is man made, I simply dont understand what’s wrong if go ahead with the new technology which will help us reduce the energy spending (less $$$ spent over all and less shock and cry whenever the oil takes an upswing).

      We dont have to reinvent a new wheel for this, things like better road designs (traffic light that adjusts automatically based on the traffic), diesel / cng engines, better and efficient public transport system (apart from planes) etc. etc.

      The strange part is, while we in the US deny all this, other nations are marching ahead, e.g. India has forced almost all of its taxi fleets and bus fleets into CNG (hence they got barely affected by the high oil prices, infact they benefited from the low CNG/Natural Gas prices) and has pursuing electrification of its railways

      Elsewhere they are developing better public transportation system that in turn helps in congestion avoidance and long term less money spent on energy.
       

    • Robert Riversong

      “‘Man Made’ global warming is a fairy tale myth that has been completely repudiated by science.”

      You’re unable to disambiguate the science from the politics. Anthropogenic global warming constitutes the largest scientific consensus in the history of science. 

      The politics of global warming, on the other hand, are far less about Al Gore than about the oil industry waging a disinformation campaign to confuse poor souls like you, with the same “scientists” that defended tobacco as a safe and healthy product.

  • http://twitter.com/TweeterSmart b smart

    i predict a climate change argument will ensue: everyone please read this definition first,

    Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elemental measurements in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these elements and their variations over shorter periods. 

    also global warming and climate change are not synonymous terms, please refrain from using them interchangeably. 

  • http://twitter.com/TweeterSmart b smart

    “repudiated by science” would indicate that the majority of experts in the field have found contrary evidence, which i don’t believe is the case.

  • JustSayin

    What’s Up With The Wild Weather?

    Large temperature differentials and a wildly fluctuating jet stream. As to why it seems worse — More people are in the way.

    The tornado that destroys a few acres of forest is not news. The one that destroys human creations is labeled “extreme”, and sometimes evil or vicious. Such anthropomorphism, should never make it past the editors desk.

    • Gregg

       Doom and gloom sell every time.

      • Anonymous

        As you and the Republican Party well know: you use it every day for basically disinformative purpose.

        • Gregg

          Thank you for distinguishing me from the Republican Party but I deny the charge.

          • Anonymous

            Most criminals do.

          • Gregg

            So now I’m a criminal, that’s rich.

    • Anonymous

      I certainly hope you don’t hold any sort of position where people are dependent on your critical thinking or knowledge of science.

      • JustSayin

         You need to try some decafe… What is wrong with what I wrote? I really need to have you explain my lack of critical thinking and lack of knowledge here.

        Dazzle us with your acumen.

        • Anonymous

          No thanks, i prefer to just dismiss it out of hand as ridiculous. No evidence needed, since you provided none.

          Give us some data that show that human population increased in proportion to the damage in areas targeted by storms in recent decades. Otherwise your just pulling stuff from your butt.

          • Anonymous

            Actually he needs to respond to the insurance companies reports as they take all these factors into account and still say that Climate Change is making things worse; i.e., more expensive.

            Munich Re, one of the biggest reinsurers (they sell insurance to insurance companies) in the world has many publications on this. And Lloyds of London just said that drilling in the Arctic (which Shell Oil is about to do) is barely short of insane because of the intractable problems of cleaning up from a spill.

          • JustSayin

             LOL!  Jumping to conclusions because you know me so well.

            After reading your ill conceived psychic assumptions, I pledge to burn more oil in honor of the both of you.

            If that hastens the ending for hysterical gals like you — then it’s a good thing.

    • Anonymous

      The “wild weather” is like Bobby Bonds on steroids: when he hit home run 600, it cannot be attributed to a particular shot of steroids, but the cumulative shots made his hitting that home run MORE LIKELY!

      Putting more CO2 in the atmosphere causes it to retain more heat, which allows it to retain more water vapor (an average 4% more since 1970), thus carrying more energy which enhances storms when they occur. And the hotter atmosphere means that it can dry out the ground beneath it more easily as the evaporating water can be held more easily.

      A good review of how all this is based in REAL science can be found in this post at Skeptical Science:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-in-a-Nutshell.html

      • JustSayin

        Individuals who are so deeply steeped in a singular simplistic viewpoint cannot think logically, but argue politically.  The story is about Weather, not climate. Although related, they are different subjects. Aw hell, whats the point… Read B smart’s comment below for clarification. He is one of the few rational posters who understands the difference.

        • Anonymous

          Did you read the introduction beyond the title?

          What about the second paragraph? And in the third paragraph: “On Point: does the wild weather mean climate change is moving in?”

          I think the readers here can now understand where YOU come from: a group that is “so deeply steeped in a singular simplistic viewpoint [that it] cannot think logically, but argue[s] politically.”

          Whether you are a paid troll or just an ideologically driven one is irrelevant. But when you do think, it is only to try to figure out how to “cherry pick” the data to confuse the issue for others and to pick from the list of absolute falsehoods that others have generated.

          It is too bad that the Constitution does not allow retroactive laws in cases like this, because in ten to twenty years, the vast majority of this country will be demanding and getting laws that raise taxes big time and increase regulation big time, just because of the huge environmental effects of the delays in modest mitigation of CO2 emissions promoted by people like you. If life really were fair, you and yours would bear the brunt of those laws.

          Remember that until WWII, Republicans were generally isolationists and from that ideology opposed Roosevelt’s attempts support England and its allies in their war with Germany and to prepare this country for a war if it could not be prevented. While this is not the same kind of “war” (which, if it was, the Republicans now would be willing to spend any amount of money), it is a war against human greed and human adoption of an ideology for which everything else must be sacrificed, even when it means there will be no one left to enjoy the ideology.

          • JustSayin

             LOL!

            I can feel the rabid spittle from here.

          • Anonymous

            If you get infected, it just might bring you a conversion like Saul experienced on the road to Damascus. Everyone should pray that it happens.

          • JustSayin

             What’s interesting here is — I have never been a climate change denier. But given this all too often opportunity to experience the rabid clairvoyance of my stance from you, I indulged.

            My energy footprint is probably in the bottom 5%, or just above being dead — can you say the same, or do you just attack others on ego driven assumptions?

            In this case I am Trevon Martin, and you are Zimmerman.   You judged using your own fear based lens and inability to discern  a media statement from a climate discussion and started shooting. I’m no real gun was involved.Your religious fervor on this issue is not helping the issue.  And yes, I will once again be out on Earth Day hiking deep into the nearby reservoir system to pick up the trash that fishermen leave behind. But, now in honor of both you and nj_v2, I am thinking of dropping that task for good. Frankly, with each interaction with the rabid left, I lose my zeal to preserve the earth for folks like you….

    • Terry Tree Tree

      ARE there MORE people in the way of these storms?  Didn’t they announce a MONTH’S worth of TORNADOS, in a DAY?
         Granted, storms that ONLY affect un-populated areas RARELY get much attention.

  • Still Here

    It’s warm today, must be global warming.
    It’s cold today, must be global cooling.
    Where is the context?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Do you think that you figured it out, and all the scientists who are working on this have it wrong?

      Neil

      • Anonymous

        It’s the anti-science brigade and they are here to tell us global warming is a hoax and that intelligent design is science. It’s motivated by politics and religion, and in that lies the rub.

        There are times in history when societies had huge shifts in their knowledge base due to religious zealotry and in this case one could add political zealotry into the mix. Knowledge and growth just stopped, atrophied. There are 13 states, which is kind of ironic, that have laws and rulings on the teaching of creationism and that global warming is a hoax.  This kind of mentality, one that pits religion and ideology over science does not bode well for our future as a nation that once lead the world in physics. Neil deGrasse Tyson calls it naming rights.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w&feature=related

        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737

        • Anonymous

          But the root of it is the increasing wealth of the fossil fuel industry, which is seeding the ideology and politics that does not care if this country and the whole earth are destroyed in their drive to become ever wealthier.

          Without money, the Republican Party, desperate to be able to win political power, would not have sold out to plutocrats (and racists in the South).

    • Gregg

      Godzilla demolishes cities, must be global warming.

    • Anonymous

      It’s still early, but this could stand as one of the stupidest posts of the day.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081227214927.htm

      The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth’s tropics — the type associated with severe storms and rainfall — is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/extreme-weather-link-can-no-longer-be-ignored-2305181.html

      Scientists are to end their 20-year reluctance to link climate change with extreme weather – the heavy storms, floods and droughts which often fill news bulletins – as part of a radical departure from a previous equivocal position that many now see as increasingly untenable.

      They believe that it is no longer plausible merely to claim that extreme weather is “consistent” with climate change. Instead, they intend to assess each unusual event in terms of the probability that it has been exacerbated or even caused by the global temperature increase seen over the past century.http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00024&segmentID=1Wildfires are becoming more frequent and intense, lasting on average 78 days longer than they did just two decades ago. Northern Arizona University Biology Professor Bruce Hungate tells host Bruce Gellerman about research that shows a relationship between fire and the release of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/10/28/206947/global-warming-extreme-wet-dry-summer-weather-in-southeast-droughts-and-deluges/?mobile=ncA new study by a Duke University-led team of climate scientists suggests that global warming is the main cause of a significant intensification in the North Atlantic Subtropical High (NASH) that in recent decades has more than doubled the frequency of abnormally wet or dry summer weather in the southeastern United States.http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0205-harder_rain_more_snow.htm While raising average global temperatures, climate change could also bring more snow, harder rain, or heat waves, meteorologists say. Computer models based on climate data from nine countries indicate every place on the planet will be hit with extreme weather events, including coastal storms and floods.

      • Gregg

        Your arguments omit the “A” from “AGW”.

        • Anonymous

          Greggg is being especially infantile today.

          The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:

          American Association for the Advancement of Science
          American Astronomical Society
          American Chemical Society
          American Geophysical Union
          American Institute of Physics
          American Meteorological Society
          American Physical Society
          Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
          Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
          British Antarctic Survey
          Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
          Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
          Environmental Protection Agency
          European Federation of Geologists
          European Geosciences Union
          European Physical Society
          Federation of American Scientists
          Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
          Geological Society of America
          Geological Society of Australia
          International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
          International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
          National Center for Atmospheric Research
          National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          Royal Meteorological Society
          Royal Society of the UK

          The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

          Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)Royal Society of CanadaChinese Academy of SciencesAcademie des Sciences (France)Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)Indian National Science AcademyAccademia dei Lincei (Italy)Science Council of JapanRussian Academy of SciencesRoyal Society (United Kingdom)National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

          A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

          “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”

          The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
          African Academy of SciencesCameroon Academy of SciencesGhana Academy of Arts and SciencesKenya National Academy of SciencesMadagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and SciencesNigerian Academy of Sciencesl’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du SénégalUganda National Academy of SciencesAcademy of Science of South AfricaTanzania Academy of SciencesZimbabwe Academy of SciencesZambia Academy of SciencesSudan Academy of Sciences
          Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

          Royal Society of New Zealand
          Polish Academy of Sciences

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    I will have to listen to this this evening.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMNMvaBC4_U

    Connect the dots.

    Neil

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1816544 Dan Trindade

    Whether the world is getting hotter and more hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, cold snaps, and cyclones are happening or the world is getting colder and more hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, cold snaps, and cyclones are happening what difference does it make? The fact remains that the past few decades have seen an increase in inclement weather across the globe and it doesn’t look like its going to slow down any time soon. Putting the debate over what’s causing it [humans, sun spots, axial tilt, higher powers whatever] aside, shouldn’t we at least start preparing for it instead of burying our heads in the sand? Argueing about it and just letting it happen gets us no where.

    • Anonymous

      Why set up a phony panoply of options for what’s happening? The world is not getting colder, and we damn well know what’s causing climate change, and it’s not sun spots, axial tilt, or higher powers.

      How is coddling anti-science, flat-earthers and denying the overwhelming scientific consensus useful?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1816544 Dan Trindade

        Because they are really loud and there are a lot of them with money and media presence. Yelling at them hasn’t seem to work so maybe trying to take the high road of “look we’re all on this planet and we’ve only got one, lets do our best not to screw it up” is our next best option. Some would say these people can’t be reasoned with, they are set in their ways and no amount of scientific evidence will get them to change. Well what do we do then? Bicker our way to extinction? If people don’t come to the table and talk about this like adults instead of turning it into just another poltical pissing contest than we all might as well get used to the heat.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Agriculture, HAVE the money to spread the lies, AND the money to let THEM survive!  THEY will THRIVE on the misery of others!  ALL weather-related problems PROFIT the energy industries!  Even material to re-build, requires energy to haul it!  Relief supplies have to be transported!   So does almost everything else!

      • Gregg

        Actually it has been cooling since 1998. 1100BC was way way way hotter than now. So was 250 and 1300.

        • Gregg

          There have been at least 75 big time major temperature swings in the last 4500 years.

          • Anonymous

            Hoping to be taken seriously, Greggg continues to belch out random, unreferenced fact-y looking statements about which he is clueless.

          • Gregg

             http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

          • Anonymous

            Are you deliberately trying to look foolish?

            It’s no longer necessary to refute Greggg’s posts. He has moved into self parody.

        • Anonymous

          We can expect every idiotic denier argument to be posted by the flat-earth people today. Greggg, especially, wouldn’t know science if he tripped over it.

          http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/medieval.html

    • Anonymous

      The HUGE reason to know WHY is that then money can be spent more PRODUCTIVELY. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has reported that for EVERY $1 NOT SPENT to mitigate the emission of CO2 between now and 2020 will REQUIRE spending $4.30 between 2020 and 2030 to accomplish the same mitigation. And the cost of not mitigating the emission of CO2 will be an order of magnitude MORE than trying to live with the consequences.

      The cost of all the weather events in a year used to be under $10 billion. Last year it was $52 billion and this year is on track to equal it, though whether it falls short or exceeds that amount is yet to be determined. What is clear is that if not this year, it will be exceeded several times in the next ten years. And the costs of drought can be huge:Texas lost some $7 billion in crop decline just last year and $4 billion the year before.

      It is not just the damage in floods and hurricanes, droughts, etc.; it is the cost in lives and the psychological health of the residents of an area. When every few years everything has to be rebuilt, it means a lot of a country’s GDP (yes, the money spent rebuilding counts toward GDP) will be spent in “unnecessary” (except for the catastrophic weather events. What will be the cost of the huge human migrations that will occur as regions become uninhabitable (under water, desert, etc.)? This country has an immigration “problem” now; consider the reaction to, say a few tens of millions a year coming?

      Humans can spend less than 2% of GDP and stop the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 2050 or so. Not doing that will cost so much more.

      The old saw about an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure applies to climate change with a real vengeance. But that ounce of prevention CANNOT be applied without knowing the cause!

      And the CAUSE IS KNOWN! It is just the fossil fuel industry sees its existence ended and has the money to fight, by the same means (even the same people) that the cigarette industry used: develop LIES that it can sell to the scientifically challenged citizens of this country.

      • ana

        Good and enlightening comment.  Thankls.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1816544 Dan Trindade

        Man I don’t disagree with you. Not even a bit. But what good is the writing on the wall if half the country won’t read it? Heck, if half the country can’t even understand it? The science is in my opinion irrefutable, concrete. But the public perception and poltics wrapped up in all this are far from that. Environmental interest groups and grass roots movements haven’t done the job, at least not yet. How do we take all this and actually affect change with it?

        • Anonymous

          Actually, polls show that a good majority of the country DO believe that climate change is real. But over the last couple of years MEDIA reporting has almost dropped off the planet. And in spite of that and the big push by the fossil fuel industry to gloss over the issue, they do understand it but do not yet understand how near the real tipping points are.

          That is what needs to be conveyed NOW.

  • Gregg

    Another kook board. Will there be a show on “Fast and Furious”, the Secret Service scandal, The GSA debacle or maybe voter ID and the ease with which James O’Keefe was able to use Eric Holders ballot? I doubt it.

    • Anonymous

      I’d like to see a show about the AG’s backing Amazon’s monopoly of e-books.  I think everyone involved in the GSA scandal has been fired and the GOP will probably waste more money than they did with hearings. 

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Hopefully it will slow down, can we hope STOP, such scandallous behavior by ‘public servants’?

    • Anonymous

      How about lies that got us into the war with Iraq.  Banking meltdown.  Torture memos.  Who shot Vince Foster.  The list could go on.  We all have our axes to grind about government malfeasance.  

      BTW.  What about O’Keefe breaking the law in NH by trying to vote illegally?  Frankly, he seems to be the only know incident of someone trying to vote illegally.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        The ONLY known incident of attempted voter fraud was perpetrated by a ‘right’-wing FRAUDSTER?

    • Anonymous

      And O’Keefe could well (and should) be a great example of why there is SO LITTLE voter fraud: he is likely to be prosecuted and was so easily PREVENTED from actually getting his “vote” counted!

      • Worried for the country(MA)

         Prosecuted for what?

        What is wrong with the integrity of the ballot box?  There should be bipartisan support for such simple measures such as photo id.

        • Gregg

          The outrage is many are saying voter ID is racist. That’s stupid.

          • Anonymous

            No, it is obvious in that, because for good reason most Blacks vote for Democratic Party candidates, Republicans want to prevent that instead of having to develop policies that would help all Americans live a better life. But it is not just racist; it is against the poor of any “race” and against the young who see the policies that are driving up the costs of college and the loans they have to use to pay for it.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        O’Keefe SHOULD be charged, and tried for public FRAUD, for his VERY specifically edited ‘exposes’, AS should ANYONE doing the same type of FRAUD.
           I spoke out against the sound bite of Romney ‘likes to fire people’, FASTER than the ‘right’ spoke out against O’Keefe’s FRAUDS!

      • Gregg

        Despite the efforts of the poll worker he did not cast the vote.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       O’Keefe was offered Eric Holder’s ballot in DC because they don’t require ID.  However, entry to the Justice Department building requires photo ID.

  • Pingback: Latest Weather Science News | Weather Happens

  • Brett

    The question is: do anthropogenic factors affect our environment adversely?
    Answer: yes.

    • Gregg

       I’ll buy that.

      • Brett

        Then two other questions come to mind:
        1) Do we have any clear, irrefutable examples?
        2) Can we as humans do anything about it? 

        Answers:
        1) Yes
        2) Yes

        • Gregg

          Don’t you think “anthropogenic factors” and “adversely” are a little too vague to answer those questions? I could easily say “anthropogenic factors” affect the environment positively. And “humans” includes India, China and the rest of the world so saying we can do something about it (assuming it’s possible) implies we can control the actions of the population of the world. Maybe we could threaten them with nukes to comply.

          • Brett

            Humans can affect the environment positively; they have and can in the future. Humans have also affected the environment in undesirable ways. 

            I agree about difficulties in asserting some control over environments beyond our jurisdictions, so to speak. However, in those circumstances we can probably come up with something a tad more creative than “threaten[ing] them with nukes to comply.”

          • Gregg

            Maybe mass hypnosis?

          • Brett

            Not that we need to have all the answers before we seek solutions (I know I don’t have all the answers), but one would hope we could dismiss such cheeky thought processes as you propose.  

          • Gregg

            Even if I were to say man is dramatically and  catastrophically affecting temperature my cheeky thought process would have to be dealt with. You say you don’t have all the answers but that’s a cop out. How about one? And it doesn’t have to be an answer, just a suggestion. The problem you will face is anything you say will sound as silly as mass hypnosis. I would point to Victor Vito’s comment as an example that is honest but ridiculous, cool. He’s not the only one.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            The U.S. uses MORE energy than ANY other country!  IF we SAVE more energy, we help the environment AND help U.S. National Energy Security?
               IF we use MORE Wind, Solar, and Renewables, we help our National Energy Security?  Less dependence on foreign oil, equals MORE National Energy Security?
               Wind-Turbines use the force of the wind, which we are getting an over-abundance of in many places?
               Wind-Turbines will SLOW the wind, while producing useable energy?

        • Brett

          Then, of course, three more questions:

          1) Can the government do anything to help ameliorate the problem?

          2) Has the government ever done anything to help ameliorate the problem?

          3) Would industry, of its own volition, do anything to help ameliorate the problem (either through proactive prevention or through responding to an existing problem)? 

          • Brett

            Care to answer the above three questions, Gregg? Anybody?

          • Gregg

            Gee wiz, just because you ask silly questions doesn’t mean a lack of a reply makes your point. But if you insist:

            1) Not the American government alone and it’s sketchy at best that even a mass hypnotized world could either.

            2) Certainly the “Green” initiative effort has been a costly and futile effort. Government usually makes things worse.

            3) Yes, it happens everyday, especially if there is a profit to be made.

  • Gregg

    Despite it predating climategate this is a very good rational piece. I’ve posted it before but the science deniers never comment.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOvCCTEfypk

    • Anonymous

      Stossel is a corporate lackey. 

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0205-harder_rain_more_snow.htm

      Polar bears aren’t doing “all right.”

      Most polar bear populations are in decline or threat of decline.

      The rest of the piece is similarly riddled with misrepresentation and distortion.

      • Gregg

        Well, I was kind of thinking you could comment on Algore’s hideous implication that C02 levels rose before temperatures. Or the fact that the IPCC includes bureaucrats and activist. Or the Nobel laureates comments. Or the sea level thing. Oh well, at least you shot the messenger, made unspecified blanket accusations and provided a link to a page that can’t be found. That’s a start.

        http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/20110802/polar-bear-global-warming-extinction-climate-change-research-world-wide-fund-wwf-geological-survey-s.htm

        • Anonymous

          Of course you would NOT bring up the recent publication (Shakun et al.) that demonstrates that CO2 levels DID rise BEFORE temperature (after an orbital change that gave a small temperature rise that kicked off a CO2 release feedback cycle where CO2 rise further pushed more temperature rise a hundred or more years later. See 

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

          for a longer, more detailed explanation.

          I realize that will be wasted on you Gregg, but there are people out there who are genuinely interested in the science.

          • Anonymous

            Greggg is clueless about this stuff. If his reactionary, right-wing, political sites don’t talk about something, it doesn’t exist.

    • Chris B

      John Stossel??  You CAN’T be serious!

  • Victor Vito

    Even if global warming/climate change could be undeniably and unquestionably proven even to the satisfaction of the troglodyte wing of the right, I don’t think we are capable of the effort and self sacrifice to do anything about it.

    I’m liberal, and I’m not sure how much self sacrifice I’m down for.  It might just be pointless/hopeless until we are knee deep in water and things are randomly bursting into flame.

    • Gregg

       That’s honest despite being a bit alarmist.

    • Anonymous

      That is probably because of the false meme on the costs of CO2 mitigation. It will actually cost less than 2% of GDP.

    • TFRX

      Don’t buy into the right wing’s “sacrifice” meme.

      I don’t know how much the average suburban American misses coal furnaces in their house or leaded gas in their auto.

    • Anonymous

      It is true that the hard-line deniers (troglodytes) would be unable to accept anything we called proof. But also consider what that kind of “proof” would mean for something all people accept: how would you “prove” that everyone will die? There is no mathematical proof available to my knowledge. Everyone accepts its truth because no one knows of any human living beyond, say, 130 or 150 years (excepting people of the Bible who its grants a lifespan over nine hundred years). But that is a finite induction, not the infinite induction required by mathematics.

      What I am trying to call attention to is the difficulty of providing proof for ANYTHING. And then I want to show that humans have gone a long way without needing absolute proof; the species is well acquainted with acting on imperfect knowledge when enough evidence is available because for most decisions that is all there is.

      I submit that when there are people demanding more proof for action, look closely at their motivation(s). In the case of climate change, the top scientists could succeed in any number of scientific areas; they do NOT need to get additional grants in this area. In fact if ANY scientist could do the work to disprove climate change, they would be prime candidates for Nobel and other prizes.

      But the opponents of climate science, the deniers/delayers, have huge money interests at stake. They estimate as much as a trillion dollars can be made extracting fossil fuels from the ground. And they do not care if civilization will last long enough to allow them to even complete the extraction. I say this because the elites from the society in London prior to the early 1800s had refused to spend the money for sanitary systems until the cholera epidemic was traced to sewerage pits that were contaminating the well water and spreading the disease. Even the vile sewer smells had not prevailed until then. See:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCCMpolitical.html

      It would appear that this is an even more dramatic example of how Republicans are following the definition of Social Darwinism, in an even more unthinking way than in pure economic terms as Jonathan Chait put it in the New York Magazine:

      “I happen to think “social Darwinist” captures the prevailing Republican philosophy pretty well. The point of the label, created by historian Richard Hoftsadter, is that a species of laissez-faire economics treated the market the way Darwinians treat natural selection — as the sole natural and correct mechanism for distributing rewards.”

      And they profess to be religious, Christians even! Reading the protest of Paul Ryan’s budget by the Catholic Bishops and the willingness of the fundamentalist evangelicals to twist Jesus’s words, “Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me” their real religiosity might be questioned. No wonder that some evangelical churches are growing so fast when they cater to base instincts, justifying the inner selfishness people want to act on.

      Maybe Ayn Rand’s atheism is at the root of the Republican war on the future.

  • Anonymous

    There is going to have to be a technological solution to this as we are unable and unwilling to solve it politically. 

    • Terry Tree Tree

      GREEDY rich folks HAVE to get RICHER, with techno-fixes to things that could be corrected SOONER, FASTER, SMARTER?

      • Worried for the country(MA)

         Like Al Gore?  He is filthy rich now.

        • Gregg

          He stands to make a mint off of carbon credits as he flies around in his private jet.

          • Anonymous

            He donates ALL that income to efforts to mitigate CO2 emissions.

          • Gregg

            His 10,000 sq. ft. mansion consumes ultramegawatts.

          • Anonymous

            False again! After the first year or so he had the buildings insulated which greatly reduced his fuel usage.

            But the total energy used included that for the building his Secret Service detail uses.

            Just add in the costs to heat and cool the part of the office building you use in your work and see what that does to your usage.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Filthy RICHER than the Koch Brothers?  CEOs of oil, coal, gas corporations?

    • AC

      several studies and ideas already in the works!!

      • Gregg

         I’m all for it.

    • Anonymous

      There ALREADY is ALL the technological knowledge to prevent this; we just need the political will to change the incentives so people will have a monetary gain in doing the right thing.

      HALF (HALF!) of the emissions mitigation can be achieved by making our energy use more efficient. That means insulating our buildings, replacing old inefficient boilers and furnaces, painting our roofs white (there are reflective coatings in other colors, too), etc. There are other things like earthen roofs in the city (see Chicago and NYC efforts). And doing these things returns money to the investor! Imagine how your lifestyle would be improved if you cut your heating and cooling and electrical bill in half!

      But notice that the Republicans are as adamant against encouraging efficiency as they are against taking away tax breaks for the oil companies. They want to keep the demand for fossil fuels high so they can cover the increasing costs of fuel extraction as it gets harder to find and recover.

      • Anonymous

        And actually implementing these solutions will lead to better procedures for the implementation and further improvements in the technology.

  • Ryan_hennings

    This better NOT be about global warming.  The earth goes through shifts in weather year to year.  One slight change in temperature one year out of millions of years is not enough to prove global warming.  

    Why doesn’t this show focus on the things that matter (economy, politics, exposing corruption) instead feeding the flames of this silly subject?

    • http://twitter.com/TweeterSmart b smart

      weather may matter to those who are negatively effected by it, no? 

    • Anonymous

      They’re crawling out of the woodwork.

    • Chris B

      If you think the weather doesn’t matter to the economy maybe you should try talking to a few farmers in America’s Heartland about it.

    • Anonymous

      Look at insurance companies. Politics don’t enter into their calculations. Liability and $’s do and are a good indicator that odds are very good that climate change is real.

    • Anonymous

      But this “shift” is coming at a time and velocity that no known natural cause can create. Scientist have repeatedly modeled how the natural laws of physics can create a warming earth and the resultant climate change experienced by its inhabitants. The ONLY change that works is that created by the extra CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels.

      For the last 15,000 years the earth’s atmosphere has had a CO2 content of 280 parts per million plus or minus less than 10 parts per million. The burning of fossil fuels has now raised the CO2 content to just under 400 parts per million, and that is known from measurement of the ratios of the different isotopes of carbon. The carbon in fossil fuels has had its original carbon 14 content decay and so, just as fossils are dated by their carbon 14 content, the atmospheric carbon can be sourced by the change in the ratios.

      Do you think the discussion on Iran’s nuclear ambitions is silly? Well this subject is orders of magnitude MORE important. If an enemy had the ability to put half the countries of the world at war, it would be less serious than the threat of the climate change disaster that is brewing.

  • Chris B

    It never ceases to amaze me how the right wingers, so often angst ridden and teary eyed over the fate of, “The Family” and, “The Children”, seem absolutely oblivious to the bleak state of the environment they’re evidently bound and determined to leave them as a legacy.

    BTW, does anyone else think that Heidi Cullen looks like she could be Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s older sister?

  • Michiganjf

    Not just any hail… unheard of, four feet deep hail in Texas a week ago.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0413/4-feet-of-hail-Massive-hail-storm-hits-Texas-panhandle

    Conservatives won’t admit to Global Climate Change until only a few of them remain who haven’t yet been carried off by whirlwinds.

  • Jim

    the expense that must be paid… due to drill, drill and drill

  • Worried for the country(MA)

    “New Evidence Our Record Warm March was Not from Global Warming” by Dr. Roy Spenser

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/new-evidence-our-record-warm-march-was-not-from-global-warming/

    • Chris B

      From Wikipedia:
      Spencer is an advisor to and serves on the board of the Cornwall alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is a signatory to Cornwall’s, An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”. 
      The declaration states:

      “We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent
      design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are
      robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably
      suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate
      system is no exception.”Enough said on Dr. Spenser, I think.

      • Worried for the country(MA)

         Classic deflection.

        No comment on the data Dr. Spenser presented?

        • Chris B

          It’s consistent with his beliefs.

        • TomK in Boston

          Mouthpieces for the oil and gas industry and the anti-science time machine do not deserve serious consideration.

          Look, this is very simple. It’s perfectly clear to scientists that we’re pumping enough CO2 to change the climate. It’s obvious. This has the O&G industry in a tizzy and they fund every bozo who will blog a contrary view, even if he flunked out of redstate community college. Follow the money.

          It’s easier because the far right is anti-science. Climate change denial is the intellectual equivalent of Darwin denial. And of course they think there’s some gvt conspiracy to take their SUVs away. Of course they ignore the real gvt conspiracy, which is driving them into poverty by steering all the wealth to the top 1%.

          So fine, they can deny reality all they want, but reality bites eventually.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             Follow the money?

            To Al Gore and Goldman Sachs?

          • Anonymous

            Seek help. GDS* is a treatable condition.

            (*Gore Derangement Syndrome)

          • Gregg

            Temperatures rise BEFORE C02 levels rise, not after.

          • Anonymous

            Greggg seems determined to regurgitate every lame, refuted, denialist talking point all by himself. Not knowing squat about the science involved, there’s no impediment to just repeating whatever the Faux News crowd party line is.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

            CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.

            When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.  Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

            This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming?

            The answer is no.

            The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

            [clipped]

        • Lee E
      • Michiganjf

        Nice, quick exposure of fundamentalist stupidity Chris.

        Well done.

      • ana

        So God mistakenly gave humans brains? 
         Like the instructional  story of a woman  who, stranded in a flood, refused all human help declaring God would save her.  Confronting God upon her death he reminded her that he had sent her two boats and a plane.
        God, perhaps, did not plan on the plundering of the earth by human arrogance.

        • ana

          Meant in response to Worried for The Country

    • Anonymous

      Kind of a red herring. One particular event or phenomenon cannot said to be caused by anthropogenic climate disruption, but there’s clear evidence that it is increasing the conditions which create certain severe weather events.

  • AC

    It’s been a crazy past few years - lots $$$ of property loss and damage, unfortunately even some loss of life, in our ‘lessons learned’ .
    Currently we are in a cycle of rising temp & increased hydrological activity – regardless of whether or not you believe this is a man-made change or one of nature, it IS occurring. To bury your head in the sand about it is foolish.
    Most of the US infrastructure was not designed to deal with the 100+yr storm variable so thankfully, scientists & professionals are planning how to handle the fall-out in the most cost efficient and safe manner.
    even if you find this a ‘silly subject’, you may report your data – or ‘non-report’ your opinion here:
    http://www.usgs.gov/start_with_science/

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    El Nina.

  • Worried for the country(MA)

    Are Dolphin fish good eating?

    Maybe the price will come down.

    • Gregg

       I love Mahi Mahi!

  • Terry Tree Tree

    Which types of buildings and structures survived best?  Domes and silos, SHOULD have survived BETTER than square-walled structures.
       If you choose to live in an area that likely has certain weather problems, WHY do you NOT build to deal with that weather?
       Granted, some people cannot afford to, but those that CAN, usually DON’T!  WHY NOT?

  • T im Brown

    I want to take full credit for the phenomenally mild and no-snow winter in upstate New York — Last November I finally bought a set of snow tires!!

    Tim Brown

    • BHA in Vermont

       If you want to make it permanent, buy a snow blower as well :)

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Take up a collection for a snow-blower, from those that want the weather to stay that way?

  • Worried for the country(MA)
    • Anonymous

      Well, that convinces me! Global warming is clearly a communist hoax!

  • Mjbjr

    it’s frightful to reflect on the past few years.  Season after season there has been a reason (or several) to say “I’ve never seen a (insert season) like this…” droughts in the south and Texas, huge floods in the north east, huge snow falls in the north east then no snow and super warm winter, then spring drought in N.E.

  • Mary

    Here in Mid Michigan, my Magnolia is done bluming, the tulips and daffodils are almost gone (done blooming), the bass are biting, and I’m almost ready to open the pool (OK, not QUITE yet). But this warm weather is just CRAZY!!!

    • Gregg

      China just had it’s coldest winter on record. It’s a big world.

      • Anonymous

        Greggg is in full disinformation mode today. The less he knows about something, the more he seems to feel compelled to fabricate.

        http://www.ecns.cn/2012/03-13/10063.shtml

        China experiences coldest winter in 27 yearsThe average temperature in China this winter plunged to its lowest in 27 years, the People’s Daily reports.Between December 1, 2011, and February 29, 2012, the average temperature in the country was 4.8 degrees below zero degrees Celsius, one degree less than that of the same period during the previous years, said Chen Zhenlin, a spokesman for China Meteorological Administration, Monday at a news conference in Beijing.

        • Gregg

          My bad it was the coldest temperature (not average temperature) on record but the more I checked the more unclear it was. It may have only been the coldest temperature in 40 years. And the coldest winter in 27 as you helpfully point out. So I guess a couple of warm weeks in Boston trumps all that.

  • John in Amherst

    Weird weather is the result of more energy in the atmosphere, energy trapped by pollution from the increased use of fossil fuels and chemicals like freon.  This belief is held by the vast majority of scientists who have looked at the data.  The few who hold contrarian views get a lot of press, but that doesn’t validate their opinions, it only sells advertising on FOX and the other media sources that thrive on catering to the current wave of anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment.
    Disbelief in climate change and it’s source – man’s activities -  has become yet another litmus test for GOP pols.  (Oh, wait, isn’t litmus paper a scientific tool?)  Science seems only to have usefulness or validity for the GOP if it is used to develop new weapons or commodities for commerce.  Beyond these functions, science is regarded by the GOP faithful as a liberal conspiracy that challenges the notion that prayer and the free market will solve all our problems.  This mindset, apart from being a testament to our failing educational system, is almost as depressing as the fact that we have irreparably damaged the planet.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      A LOT like the ‘religious zealots’, that claim to be ‘fundamental Muslims’, that want and use modern weapons, and trade, to try to subdue THEIR countrymen, and especially WOMEN, into regressive societies?

      • John in Amherst

         The problem isn’t the “brand” of religion, it is Fundamentalism, in which religious dogma trumps reason 24/7

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Why are you quoting surveys of average Americans?  Are they all meteorologists or climate scientists?  Cite actual experts who know what they’re talking about.

  • Worried for the country(MA)

    OMG!!!

    Is this show about public opinion and propaganda OR science?
     

    • Anonymous

      Says the guy who just posted a public opinion poll.

  • Michiganjf

    Tom,

       This increase in extreme weather events is PRECISELY what man-made climate change models have predicted for years!

    For centuries, scientists have had a name for realitywhich comes to match predictive models: PROOF!

  • Anonymous

    I’ve really enjoyed this warm winter in Boston.  I’d be tempted to start voting Republican to keep it coming but then I remember that Obama hasn’t done much to stop it either. 

    • Gregg

      No he hasn’t but he’s wasted a potload of money trying.

      • ana

        Just like all the money that was wasted getting the railroads up and running.

        • Gregg

          Heck no, we got plenty for our money with railroads.

          • ana

            only  time will tell.

    • CAWill

      there has been more support for energy efficiency, green schools, green architecture, and renewables under this administration than under the Bush administration. and less denial that there is a problem. Romney may be a better smarter and a better liar, but he’s still a liar and a Deceptacon. that’s the bigger question. Do you really want to go back to Bush (Romney)? 

      • CAWill

        sorry that was a “bit smarter” and “What’s the bigger question?” …typing on the phone

  • Chris

    Scientists are saying it’s the change of the jet stream due to the melting arctic sea ice.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HTAZue6ylZ8

  • BHA in Vermont

    Did they compile a percentage of “believers” vs “disbelievers” by political affiliation?

  • Jamison

    This is the time to scare the doubter in to changing there  minds that we ALL need to cut back and think greener. 
    But it seems as actives are not doing that=(

  • Worried for the country(MA)

    New Gallup poll has a -10% decline in worry about global warming.

    Complete opposite of Yale dude.  Perhaps it matters how you spin the question.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/17/gallup-poll-global-warming-dead-last-again/#more-61524

    • Anonymous

      Yet even according to the data in wattsuphisass, 55% are a great deal or fairly concerned compared to 46% for only a little and not at all.

  • Emptyideas

    Last year’s weather was fairly normal, did I miss your show about the end of global warming?  Agreed, this year is an anomaly but are we now diagnosing global weather trends with a yearly sample?  Why not minute-to-minute?  

    In ’05 we were told that global warming would bring more Katrina’s.  Then we were told that all winters would be “snowmageddons”.   At what point are global warming people forced to traffic in something other than projections of fear?

    Global warming causes everything and everything causes global warming–the best fund-raising motto in history.  Sound like Y2K without an expiration date.

    • PaulCJr

      Ya tell that to people having to move their houses back from the shore in places like Florida. Just because you don’t understand the science doesn’t mean it’s not happening. 

      • Emptyideas

        There weren’t people displaced by tornados before we invented global warming?  Deal in facts not fear.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      HOW MANY important computers were VULNERABLE to Y2K? 
         Conservation and Renewable Energy would do a LOT to cut anthropogenic effects on climate and weather!
         WHY NOT?

      • Emptyideas

        Fine.  Present it as progress not as fear to be used as a political wedge.

    • TFRX

      If you mean Y2K, as in the one big risk that was averted because everyone was talking about it*, you may be right.

      *Well, that and millions of worker-hours of coding and patching.

      • Emptyideas

        That’s not at all what I meant.  I meant it was a problem that the media blew up into a major point of panic amongst people who allow others to do their thinking for them.

        Global warming is a problem, just not so much so that the people going to conferences about it should be forced to share a plane.  

        Any time I hear a story about a projected pandemic on the news (swine flu, bird flu, Iraq, etc), I just substitute Y2K for the word and see how worried I am.

        • TFRX

          I know. I was being sarcastic. The old saw about the weather (everybody talks about it but nobody does anything about it) was stood on its head by Y2K.

          It was the one big risk that was averted because everyone was talking about it.

    • Anonymous

      Y2K was a real problem that was averted because timely action was taken to fix it.

      There’s not a lot of evidence we’re going to fix what we’re doing to the biosphere.

  • robbie

    this discussion is going to bring the knuckle dragging science haters out of the woodwork. 

    • PaulCJr

      Of course it will. They don’t understand Science, so they believe it not to be real or truth.

      • Emptyideas

        Projections aren’t science.  Also, you don’t have to capitalize “Science”.

  • Chris

    The atmosphere has 4% more moisture in it then it did 30 years ago. 

  • Terry Tree Tree

    OPEN MINDED?  Go to ANY rural highway that goes through a wooded area.  Measure the temperature 50 foot into the woods, a foot off the ground.  Go toward the center of the road, measuring the temperature a foot off the ground every ten foot, until you measure the temperature in the center of the highway.
        Do the SAME testing, starting 20 miles from ANY city, and measure temperatures every 5 miles, until you measure in the center of the city.
       SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR A FIVE-YEAR-OLD!

  • Michael Greer

    Tornados and floods get all the press of course because they’re dramatic…But the biggest worry with global warming is WEATHER UNPREDICTABILITY. Our nation, and the world, depends on farmers, who depend on predictable weather to carry on their already marginal craft.

  • Markwmeunier

    when I heard the Pentagon was very interested in what the climate is doing , it made me think

  • Jim

    was this something that neo-cons strongly believe is a liberal conspiracy? ie. global warming has nothing to do with anything man-made. i heard this from a conservative colleague of mine in 2005 and i continue hear this today.

    so, i don’t get it. what cause the sentiment to change all of the sudden.

  • Terry Tree Tree

    ANYONE WITH THE MONEY, I could provide a more accurate way to determine the actual number of tornados, WITH better advanced warning, AND more information about the tornados and other weather conditions.

    • imjust Sayin

       Climate change deniers, in effect, work with China and India to hide the coal dust pollution.  This handicaps the efforts of meteorologists who want to study the output and how it influences weather.

  • Chris

    Climate stability is what has allowed agricultural civilizations to flourish for the past 10,000 years.

    In Texas’ worst drought on record, trees dying by the millions
    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/07/10038669-in-texas-worst-drought-on-record-trees-dying-by-the-millions

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wes-Nickerson/100001436729213 Wes Nickerson

    Al Gore is not serious about climate change. If Al Gore were serious about addressing climate change, he would be supporting the Green Party, which has an agenda of stopping climate change in its tracks, by shifting to a carbon neutral energy system with the Green New Deal, and providing full employment.

    Al Gore continues to support the Democratic Party. Right now the Democrats are supporting Obama’s “all of the above” energy policy, in which it is full steam ahead for destroying the climate through massive exploitation of oil and natural gas, accelerating the speed of rising worldwide temperature and resulting the devastating consequences we are already experiencing. This is an emergency! We need to turn this around! We have the power and the technology in our hands to do it. All we need is the will to fix it and the courage of our convictions!

    • Anonymous

      All you lack are votes (which are kind of important in winning elections).  The flawed and spineless Democrats are better than Republicans.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wes-Nickerson/100001436729213 Wes Nickerson

        “Better” is not going to save us. The Dems are still supporting the forces of destruction.

      • Anonymous

        [[ The flawed and spineless Democrats are better than Republicans. ]]

        The tyranny of low expectations.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joseph-Hoydilla/100003145290431 Joseph Hoydilla

    I hope we can take the politics out of this issue and view the science as it stands.  Patriotism and science are compatible!

    • PaulCJr

      Ya I agree with that statement. It’s very American to tackle this issue, for one it will benefit the nation and our countrymen to do so, and it’s America’s position to lead in such a situation. Our nation should be leading the charge and solving this issue for the world. 

  • Anonymous

    I’m surprised that people are surprised by all this.  I suppose we don’t read enough?  Ice core samples have shown that drasting global weather patterns can change within one generation, so that means within our lifetime, the effects of global warming will be quite tangible.

    The current zeitgeist in the scientific community is not how to stop global warming, (which is still important), but how to deal with the inevitable consequence.  

    Let’s face it, we cannot politically or economically stop global warming,  We need to start thinking about how to deal with it.
    If global warming floods coastal cities, I can see that slowing down the warming trend.

  • Michiganjf

    By the first week of March, Austin, Texas already had two days in the 90s… that’s worse than last spring, and last Summer gave us OVER 100 days of OVER 100 degree weather to accompany record drought!!!!

    … this year looks like it will bring even MORE harsh heat!

    • notafeminista

      You can always hope.

  • Dt03044

    Tom, another caller mentioned animals.  Last year we had so many chipmunks in our yard.  I could often count 4 or 5 at a time.  But this Spring, there are none, zero.  I don’t know what to make of it.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       Any hawks or owls around?  Coyotes?

      • notafeminista

        Or a neighbor with a new cat?

    • Anonymous

      Wildlife population dynamics are complex. It’s tied to food sources, predators, populations of competitors… 

      Some rodent populations sometimes rise sharply the year following a masting year of a food source (such as acorns), then declines sharply later, since the higher population is not sustainable.

      • notafeminista

        Or if the folks 2 blocks over forgot to spay their cat.

        • Anonymous

          These denialists are hilarious.

          With global climate change, there’s no way human activity can possible have any effect on natural ecosystems.

          With wildlife populations, the first go-to is pets.

          Can’t make this stuff up!

          • notafeminista

            Actually, in this conversation the first go-to was the leftist knee jerk reaction that the chipmunk to acorn ratio was too high.   Sounds kind of like too many people on the planet.

            Good thing you’re cute. 

          • Anonymous

            Population dynamics are the result of well-studied, long-understood factors, unavoidable for any organism. Of course, most scientists are leftists, so the science must be questionable.

          • notafeminista

            Then why was Ehrlich wrong?

  • Wackerdr

    What do you mean, “Is this climate change?” Climate is ALWAYS changing! Climate is never static — it is the “average” of weather over the long term. Of course, climate is changing. But can we seriously think that we can control it? A change here (or there) will have an effect somewhere else. Let’s do what we can to stop the destruction of the earth by our doing, but let’s stop thinking that we can actually change it to OUR liking. Besides, who says the climate we have now is in the best interest of everyone on this planet? Wouldn’t it be great if the sub-Saharan region of Africa could experience relief from its endless droughts?

  • Anonymous

    Growing-degree-day accumulation here (eastern Mass.) was (at one point in March) a full five weeks ahead of last year.

  • Markus

    I’m a bit lost on this issue. I tend to be conservative, but am disgusted by replublican’s refusal to acknowledge the possibility of man-made climate change or consider conservation. Hwever, I also understand the herd mentality and ideology of scientists – climate change and conservation has become somewhat of a religion. So, I believe we are changing the climate, but doubt these near term events are evidence. Analysis by self-reported anecdotes is pretty weak and subject to confirmation bias.

    Finally, I’m with the liberal who feels it’s somewhat pointless/hopeless. Doesen’t mean I don’t recycle, drive a hybrid, do a lot of marginally good things. Just seems like anything we do is dwarfed by changes in India, China, other places.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       I appreciate your post.

      People that deny some level of a global warming trend are  just plain wrong. 

      However, that doesn’t constitute scientific proof that man is causing the trend.

      Also, most conservatives recognize that CO2 cap and trade is a scam.
       

      • John in Amherst

        So it is just coincidence that the current rise in CO2 parallels almost exactly the increased use of fossil fuels?

    • CAWill

      Markus, I appreciate your honesty. But, what I like to remind people related to ANYTHING environmental or even things related to social issues is…solutions at the local level do matter. 

      If we just say it seems overwhelming, we would never manage any of our problems. One of the reasons that China and India are resisting change is due to US policy and our resistance to change. A double edged sword. It’s sort of like when you are in an argument with your spouse or a friend or a parent, the argument goes in circles when one person refuses to recognize their role in the problem. And do something about their own behavior.We have, in the US, the capacity and the knowledge to change our own behavior. If our government isn’t going to do it, we need to make them AND we need to address issues in our own life at the community level. A good example of this would be things that people do in relation to river restoration and water quality. People organize stream teams, do monitoring, etc. and they are all lay-members of society…or citizen scientists if you are thinking of people doing bird conservation data collection. They are all making a difference at the local level. It’s about working together and spreading accurate information. Making connections.One individual can do a lot and if people are motivated enough, they can organize initiatives in their home town. Writing legislators, supporting energy efficiency bills, organizing around Green Ribbon Schools, writing for the local paper, volunteering in a neighborhood development group that helps educate people on energy efficiency or neighborhood development, converting your own house to be more efficient or buying more energy efficient car, and just finding accurate information and talking about it with friends and neighbors. These may seem like small things, but if millions of Americans are doing them…things happen. 

      If the US government and it’s citizens can completely redesign their manufacturing strategy in a 5 year period during WWII, we can do it again. We just have to have the will…the intent…and the forethought to do it! But, at this point, we may have to do it ourselves and not rely on the federal government to make it happen. 

      Look at Massachusetts. They are now #1 for energy efficiency measures due to several measures including the Green Communities Act and a Smart Growth Policy and the RGGI…they did it in spite of federal regulations. Influence your region, state and city. Connect with like-minded people and make it happen.

  • Gregg

    The weather here in NC is crappy today. I think I’ll spend a glorious day in my studio. It’s a good thing.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       What part of North Carolina?  I’m from a bit south of Asheville.

      • Gregg

        We’re close, I’m in Alexander County.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          Alas, I’ve moved away, but western NC is my homeland. Good to see a fellow Tar Heel, though.

          • Gregg

            It’s beautiful country.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Glad to see you two agreeing on something!  Enjoy the things you share, then go back to argueing?

          • Gregg

            We often agree, not always like the number of g’s.

          • Brett

            Western North Carolina is heavenly. I lived in Weaverville for a while. Practically every yard has a stream running either through or past it. 

            Ever hear anything about some of the folklore surrounding a creature some call “the leopard woman”? 

            The accents are cool, too. There’s the fast talking and the slow talking; I love them both…at least they don’t grate on the ear like the coastal South Carolina accents, which sound like grunting to me, especially when two consonants are next to each other. (Think of the word “doctor,” then grunt as you pronounce the ct part.) 

  • Nancy

    Tom,  Harold Brooks is a meteorologist.  What does he think about TV ‘meteorologists’ who consistently deny climate change and basically refuse to comment on the changing climate?  

    There is one particular Boston TV weatherman (Tim Kelly) that I know of who is an outright climate change denier.  And many others act like complete idiots when they describe the recent warm weather as “delightful” without mentioning that the natural world should not be warming to summer-like temperatures in March.

    Thanks.

  • Patrik

    I think everyone can agree that our industrial progess has affected the climate change that is taking place by causing the increase of frequency and intensity of acitivity that would occur in the cycle. 

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    We have records going back hundreds of thousands of years from ice core samples, tree rings, coral reef layers, and so forth.

    • John in Amherst

       and they show that the rise in CO2 is real, and is rising more rapidly than at any other period in millions of years.  Among recent studies: the oceans are acidifying (from the addition of CO2) more rapidly than at ANY time in history, extending back 300 million years.  The last time this happened (250M years ago), 95% of all ocean life perished.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         Exactly so.

      • Anonymous

        You’re talking about the Permian extinction, but no one really knows what happened to cause that mass extinction.  Three main competing theories all with their merits: comet, massive volcanic activitiy, bubbling from the ocean.  There also is minor theories too like the formation of pangea and the implications of that.

        I wouldn’t make an analogy between current global warming and the Permian event.  That’s just not a very good analogy.  And by the way, I do accept the global warming facts.

        • John in Amherst

          the geologic record shows a rapid large rise in ocean CO2 at that time, probably from a cataclysmic geologic event.  Today’s rise is from another cataclysmic event: the vast overpopulation of the planet by a specie that figured out how to burn carbon based fuels.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not calling into question CO2 levels. This isn’t in doubt. What is in doubt is whether it caused the Permian extinction as you imply in your post. And this is not certain and hotly contested by many scientists. Just read wikipedia, and you will see at least 5 theories.

            I don’t doubt that global warming is happening and that humans are the cause, but supporting this argument with unsubstantiated claims is not going to help the cause and let the doubts linger.

  • Ptwood2

    Here’s my prediction:  next year things will be a tad cooler and calmer, and immediately the gas/oil/coal industrial complex will ramp up its PR campaign to discount the possibility that millions of tons greenhouse gas generated by burning fossil fuels are contributing to the planet’s overall warming.

    • TFRX

      There’s never a time to stop image advertising.

      Your prediction is savvy, but also contingent on the idea that the extractive industries have stopped their “outreach programs” now.

  • Scott B, NY

    The Koch Bros hired a phsyicist Richard Muller(also anti-global warming) to support their belief that global warming is a myth and 2 years later he came back and said global warming is real and that humans, while not totally responsible, are a factor in it.

    The best proof is in nature. Not wild the wild weather, which people can easily discount as coincidence, or a fluke, or even just better weather reporting that didn’t happen in the past, but with the migration of animals.  Species that couldn’t withstand colder temps are migrating and decimating the indigenous species, such as lion fish. Polar bears, cubs in partciular, are dying because they don’t have the ice floes and are having to swim days to find food,that is if they can find food.  Invasive plants, incests are doing the same things and negatively effecting agriculture.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       Your post is loaded with factual errors re: Richard Muller.

      • Scott B, NY

         No, it’s not. Search engines are a wonderful thing, use one not run by sites that aren’t pushing a right wing agenda sometime.   

        http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870

        Neil Degrasse Tyson, Director of the Hayden Planitarium, and a research associate in the department of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History has spoken on this many, many times. 

        • Worried for the country(MA)

          The errors still exist.

          The Kock’s didn’t hire Muller to debunk glbal warming.  One of their foundations gave support to Muller’s project.  The Koch’s also fund NOVA.

          Muller’s research does not give a position on man’s contribution to the warming as you imply. 

          Muller also believes climategate exposed the dishonest science by some of the bad actors in the climate science community.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

          • imjust Sayin

             I’ve noticed that the Koch’s donate to Nova. 

            Nova is generally recognized as solid science presentation. 

            The Koch’s also support “churches” that deny global climate change by man.

            The Koch’s are talking out of both sides of their mouths.  They are hypocrites, but it is less clear who they are hypocritical for.

          • notafeminista

            Just makes your head spin doesn’t it.

          • Scott B, NY

             That’s what happens when you’re two-faced, as the Koches seem to be.  Their financing of the global warming study reminds me of the Catholic church when they went about proving the things in the Bible. The church developed what we call  the “scientific method” in the process of proving something true or not. The problem was that the more they tried to prove the things true, the more they found they were false, or at least lacking any evidence of being true.  The church lost a lot of the priests they sent out on these missions and quickly killed the program.  Yet history repeats itself in that they have the proof, no matter how they try to spin in. Yet, still stay true to the idea that global warming isn’t happening, and that mankind isn’t influencing anything.

          • notafeminista

            Have you never heard of Galileo? HE of the scientific method?  Church didn’t like him much.  No church started the scientific method.

          • Scott B, NY

            First, it’s  “Koch”, not “Kock”, though I think there’s something Freudian about your misspelling. 

            Youtube as your source, really? Might as well stuck with Fox News.

            The Koch bros started donating more to scientific organizations and media that would seem at odds with their libertarian, “let them eat cake” and we-want-the- freedom-to-pollute-and-pay-workers-as-little-as-possible, views after they both had their issues with cancer. It was reported on NPR, on NPR’s “Fresh Air”, as well as in The New Yorker, and others that aren’t Fox News.  (now go find that the Fox).

            Personally, it sounds like they’re feeling at least a bit guilty about some things and trying for some kind of moral restitution, and/or hedging their bets and trying to buy their way into heaven.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

            You complain about youtube?

            It is presentation by Dr. Muller and how the scientists involved in climategate were involved in shoddy science.  It was so bad that he now refuses to read any of their papers.

  • Epmallory3

    I’m a scientist and I think the evidence is undeniable (as your program is now going over). I’ve hear naysayers say two things to give an alternative “scientific” explanation is that these extreme weather events. (1) They are merely a function of the El Nino – La Nina cycle, which have long been documented for a long time and connected to shifts in weather conditions, as if that was sufficient.  What they are ignoring is that El Nino – La Nina cycle is a symptom and not the cause.  (2) That the temperatures changes we are experiencing are not any greater than have occurred in the past (e.g. ice ages).  They are pointing out that that they occurred over geologic time (thousands of year), not ecological or cultural time! 
     

  • Alan in NH

    Nothing is happening. Just a cycle of some sort. Keep buying. Keep throwing away. Bring on the air factories. Who needs trees! So inefficient anyway. Get over your nostalgia for animals. So what if the oceans have dead zones – wrap those whales is polycarbons I say.

    • Terry Tree Tree

      Cute Sarcasm!!

  • notafeminista

    Great topic.  AGW is the perfect method for leftists.

    • Bruce

      “leftists” like the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration or the National Academy of Sciences or the National Center for Science Education?  

      I guess in the world of evolution and climate change deniers, AWG is symptomatic of a vast left-wing conspiracy to curb conspicuous consumption and waste. 

      • notafeminista

        The same NOAA that said 1922 was the hottest year on record?

        You tell me.

        • Anonymous

          Source? Reference?

          I know it’s hard for you guys, but at least give the appearance of credibility. Not that anyone is going to believe it.

  • Martin

    What happens when the ice pack melts and dilutes the salt water increasing the evaporation and the tempurature of the seas that increases cloud cover there by reducing the temp on the surface and causing an ice age? 

    How am I supposed to know?

    • imjust Sayin

       and the dark coal dust from China and India darken the water and the water increases heat.

  • dave

    Mike the caller IS incorrect.

    The lay argument that natural climate variability could explain current changes is tautological:  we only know about these natural variabilities BECAUSE OF SCIENCE.

    Lay skeptics who weigh in this way might as well deny the existence of the phones they’re calling on. 

  • Harrison King

    Tom, what do your guests see as far as regulations within cities and states to prevent a crippling effect on monumental taxes to repair increasing damages?

  • Elisabeth Warner

    This conversation is making my blood boil (to match the climate).  This isn’t a “debate” or about how we “feel” or what we randomly observe, although it’s hard not to notice that when I grew up in Brookline I went skating on a local frozen reservoir every year and I haven’t done that for years.  There is no debate within the scientific community, 99% of scientists agree that the change that is already taking place in our climate is due to man-made causes, specifically increased carbon emissions.  This debate also isn’t about how we “like” the weather, or whether there were more weather “events”.  It is about a tipping point that we are about to approach, when the ice sheets melt and don’t re-freeze, when vast ocean ecosystems are disrupted, when entire coastlines go underwater.  “Are we facing climate change?”  Why is this a question for debate on a call-in program?  It’s like asking the public if we are facing a diabetes epidemic based on what they know about their family and neighbors.  This isn’t journalism, this is conjecture.

    • Tncanoeguy

      Right, people debating what is happening.  Whether or not the Koch brothers want to “believe” that the climate is changing, and that human activities are probably having on impact, it’s happening.

  • Scott B, NY

    Too many people laugh off the temps might rise a degree or two, thinking “Big deal. I don’t even need to adjust my a/c unit for that.”  But one degree is huge for ice. Ice doesn’t happen at 33 degrees.  Several thousand years ago the earth’s temperature was only  TWO to THREE degrees warmer and sea level was 20 to 30 FEET (not inches, FEET) higher. That puts a good deal of the inhabited places of the earth underwater.  Florida? Gone. The Midwest. Gone. The US and most of North America is divided into east and west effectively an ocean that used to be the Mississippi. And that’s just North America.

  • Peterman

    Don’t call it “global warming” call it “Global Wierding”

  • Ean

    In my lifetime I have witnessed skating on the Charles River practically come to an end. From large numbers of skaters for weeks at a time forty years ago to now, when the river doesn’t even completely freeze over. In my grandfather’s time, people commuted to work in the city by ice skating on the Charles.

    • notafeminista

      Two reasons:
      1)Cars sucked
      2)Fewer people owned cars.

      As our good friend TRFX has been wont to say, “anec” is not a sufficient prefix for data.

  • Jerry Erickson

    Tom
    We do not seem to hear much about the Southern hemisphere in the climate change dialog.  Could your guests comment, please.

    Jerry in Cedar Rapids

    • imjust Sayin

       First, coal dust from India and China crosses the Pacifi ocean.  Some of the dark dust falls into the ocean and it gets warmer as it heads to the North Pole. (warm oceans also increase hurricane risk) Then some of the coal dust continues to North America where it changes the size of rain drops.  This increases tornado risk.

      Pollution will go south after it crosses the United States and then it increases the heat in African deserts.  And, these are some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.

  • John in Amherst

    Among the latest scientific articles on climate change,  a large, peer-reviewed study indicating that the
    oceans are acidifying (from the addition of CO2) more rapidly than at
    ANY time in history, extending back 300 million years.  The last time
    this happened (250M years ago), 95% of all ocean life perished.

  • John in Amherst

    Among recent studies on climate change, a large peer reviewed paper showing the oceans are acidifying (from the addition of CO2) more rapidly than at ANY time in history, extending back 300 million years.  The last time this happened (250M years ago), 95% of all ocean life perished.

  • Ehdoss

    Two decades ago skeptics said we could never affect the ozone hole and that the research was wrong.   We now know that we did decrease atmospheric ozone and have proven that we reversed that trend, without terrible sacrifice.

  • Oklagirl78

    There are so many variables that contribute to the weather…the way we live our lives using fossil fuels, population growth (especially in emerging countries where people are using antiquated and very polluting technologies) in addition to natural weather patterns, it’s mind boggling to think about how we might solve this and change our ways. 

    Ideally, what would need to happen to reverse this?  And would it be possible for us to work together as a planet to implement a solution?

    • John in Amherst

       Not when one of our US political parties adopts a “no compromises” approach to governance and couple it with a disbelief in science

    • Terry Tree Tree

      CONSERVATION and Renewable Energy are BIG starts.  BOTH offer short-term, AND long-term SAVINGS in money, energy, pollution, health, and other benefits, IF done in a sensible manner.
         Working construction, being a Volunteer Fire-Fighter, Volunteer Rescue Squad member, and living rural, I CANNOT switch to the limited space, range, and capabilities of present-day Electric or Hybrid Vehicles.  I AM considering CNG multi-fuel.

  • Helendanamorr

    350.org is based on the thought that 350 ppm of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is the level that will maintain the climate as we know it.  It is now 390 ppm.  Where did that Carbon Dioxide level come from?  Certainly not natural cycles.  I would guess that in the ice core records going back 1000′s of years, the carbon dioxide level has not been so high.  Obviously, it must have come from human action.

    • Gregg

      It was well over 400ppm in the early 40′s.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Durring WWII?  NO extra pollutants and particles in the air from ALL those planes, munitions expended, convoys, etc…?  Doesn’t this help PROVE anthropogenic effects?

        • imjust Sayin

           i was going to mention that also, but I wanted to stay focused on my other points.

      • imjust Sayin

         There was alot of reliance on coal in the 1940′s.

        My grandfather’s house, 40 years ago, had a coal furnace, it scared me alot when I was 5 years old.  Sometimes when I am on military deployment I smell a bit of coal burning and it take me right back to when I was small.

        Oil subsidies correctly decentralized the economy away from coal until it the oil industry could survive on its own.  Otherwise we would have burned alot more coal and wood – and even regular people would have more black lung.

        But now, oil subsidies and tax breaks resemble – more and more – Soviet Gazprom.

        The time has come to shift the tax breaks away from oil, to cleaner renewable energy.

        We need to support the troops.  We can’t provide fossil fuels for all of our important allies.  This complicates the job of those young people protecting our freedom.  And, we need to support the veterans.  If a veteran is trapped in a coal mine, it is a disaster.  But if the veteran is trapped on top of a windmill, his wait to be rescued is not as awful.

        President Obama is saying the right things about decentralizing away from fossil fuels.

      • Anonymous

        Greggg now reverts on outright lies.

        Reference for data in graph:

        Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf (2004). “Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network” in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. 

        (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev_png#References)

  • BHA in Vermont

    One year doesn’t make a trend, nor necessarily point a finger at a cause. But I look at history. Man made “warming” or not, these dates of Lake Champlain freezing over suggest the weather is warmer in the past few decades than it was in the prior 10 decades. Whereas the lake froze almost every year in the decades before 1980, it has since not closed many years since and on average, the date of closing is getting later.

    http://www.erh.noaa.gov/btv/climo/lakeclose.shtml

  • Goldbug

    Up until this year I thought “global warming” was not something to put in the forefront.  After such a mild winter and spring….upcoming drought here in New Hampshire, this is “real” issue that will have major “effects”…

  • Allan F

    On Joe Romm’s blog (www.http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/) today, see: Must-See Video: Has Global Warming Caused A Quantum Jump In Extreme Weather?
    The answer is yes.

  • Erica

    Buffalo might be a nice spot to move to if you are worried about global warming.

  • Helendanamorr

    I hope you have this climate discussion again.  It is very important.

  • imjust Sayin

    Your effort to increase international sharing of observations is the way to go, but the governments of China and India are holding back data of coal factory output.

    Black dust in the North Pole region, and larger raindrop sizes in North American tornado regions, are a frustrating reality.

    Fossil fuels have a place in the economy, but it is not fair for them to take tax deductions, and therefore make the rest of us pay for the privilege of having our homes flooded.

    Just in the same way that creationism is anti-science, and makes us stupid by listening to it. (I say this as a person who believes in God)  Climate change people are working with atheist communist factories in China to hide the coal dust carbon output of their factories.

    We need to decentralize away from slave labor and pollution in China and India (the real lesson from Genesis) and diversify into clean renewable energy to support our troops.

    If, even if, we can somehow provide all the oil we need by polluting our own water, we can’t supply oil to all of our important allies.  A world economy centralized around fossil fuels complicates the job of our troops who protect our freedom.

    And, it would be nice to have clean jobs and a clean glass of water when those troops come home.

  • Helendanamorr

    The issue with the climate warming up is that it puts more energy into the atmosphere, and evaporates more water, creating more violent storms, more flooding, more drought.  A huge snowfall does not mean there is no climate change.  In fact, with more water in the atmosphere, all it needs to be is 32 deg. or below.  That is relatively warm.  I remember here in Vermont long periods, a week or more, per winter with weather below -20 deg.  It has been a decade or more since that happened.  That means that certain pathogens, bugs, etc. no longer get wiped out during more mild winters.

    • imjust Sayin

       I noticed that here too.  Allergy season never really went away this “winter”

  • JA

    Recently I received an email from a Gardening Store that southern Connecticut’s planting zone has been reclassified as a warmer zone.  We pour 10 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year, it is lunacy to think this does not affect the climate.  Although the environment is resilient, we may find that we reach a point that consequences are more catastrophic to human populations than we ever anticipated including affecting our food supply.  

  • Stillin

    Weather from the Canadian border of Canada and N.Y…a week of summer in March of this year, winter did not really come, subzero January weather, missing…Monarch butterflies in swarms, yesterday , beautiful, but I cannot recall that ever in my 55 years…I am the kind of person who LIVES through experiences. Talk all you want, I go by living it, not reading it.

    • imjust Sayin

       Even worse, you are expected to pay the taxes that fossil fuel industry deducts from their own tax bill.

      So, if you drive a fuel efficient car, and a rich guy drives his hummer, he is taking a larger benefit of the oil subsidies.  This transfers his cost to your share of the national debt.

      And, as the diesel engines carry coal to China and India, those expenses are deducted, and those ships also drive up the price of diesel and gas for you.

      And, when an American energy company sells coal to China and India, and pay income taxes for the profit over there, then it deducted – dollar for dollar – from their tax bill.  You will pay for that instead of the rich guys.

      And, these same rich guys begrudge the smaller and more modest tax breaks to create a wind generator.  ughh…

  • Helendanamorr

    I’d like to know how our government is preparing for mass migrations of millions of people from coastal areas when and if the sea level rises 4 feet.

    • Tncanoeguy

       At first we’ll build sea walls until that no longer works. 

      • John in Amherst

        The Dutch have in place a 200 year plan to deal with climate change and sea level rise that will result.  It includes abandoning some tracts of lad entirely.

        • imjust Sayin

           Maybe the Dutch don’t have as many climate change deniers who are motivated by oil companies.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Royal Dutch Shell?

          • imjust Sayin

             but they haven’t taken advantage of the vulnerable the way British and American oil companies do.

            kudos dutch

    • JD

      Arks

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       Do you have any ‘worthless’ oceanfront property that you want to sell?

      I’m willing to pay ‘top’ dollar for worthless property.

    • imjust Sayin

      Ted Turner already has a plan to make a profit for the day they have to abandon Washington DC. He owns large tracts of land in Nebraska, and has excuses for not paying property taxes because he breeds buffaloes.

  • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

    When it comes to climate change, detecting signal (human activity) from noise or natural variability was never going to be an easy task. There may be a host of variables cumulatively at work. But I have a question to our friends on the Right whose corporate driven ideology seems desperate to blame claim change on factors OTHER than human activity.

    So say those who claim climate change is based human activity entirely wrong and climate is driven by natural factors: the sun, the precession of the earth’s axis, or cosmic rays, etc. None of the above are unreasonable explanations. Yet those who cling to the theory climate change is entirely natural seem to believe mankind is magically off the hook and we won’t have to make any tough decisions. I think they are wrong… we may have to learn how to modulate climate even if climate change is ENTIRELY natural.

    10000 years ago apparent precessional cycles of our rotational tilt and other orbital factors led to the desertification of northern Africa and the Mideast. Last I’ve heard the region has yet to repair itself. It might have been the biggest environmental disaster this side of the last ice age. But hey, look at the bright side… back then, humans could get up and move to the Nile Valley or fertile crescent of Iraq. That natural disaster might have been the impetus for birth of civilization!! But today mankind no longer has that “luxury” of packing up and just moving.

    The past 2-3,000 years humanity has built our world civilization based on the CURRENT mild climate and the CURRENT sea levels. Our investment in the current climate is immense. Even if mankind plays NO role in climate change, are we to risk the flooding of our immense coastal cities? Are we to risk losing prime agricultural land? Are we to risk even more desertification of large parts of the planet? Are we to risk more energetic and damaging weather events? Are we to risk massive dislocations of populations or famine? Are we to risk mass extinctions of plant and animal life or that insect pests won’t move to new regions where they lack natural predators?

    Since we can no longer “just move” economics may dictate we drastically reduce greenhouse gases because it may be the only variable we CAN control and the least expensive way to mitigate a global disaster.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       Let us know when you’ve convinced the Chinese of your theories, because, until then, nothing we do matters.

      • John in Amherst

         Actually, the Chinese are moving rapidly to address pollution – several of the world’s most polluted cities are Chinese, and the government there has acknowledged the need to change in response to the dual threats pollution poses to health and the climate.  The Chinese are anxiously eyeing glacial loss in the Tibetan plateau, as much of the fresh water in China (and India) originates there, and the glaciers are shrinking at an unprecedented rate

        • Worried for the country(MA)

           The Chinese are opening a new coal plant every week.

          • imjust Sayin

             And our tax dollars pay for those new coal factories by subsidizing the coal.

          • John in Amherst

             they are also outstripping us in research & production of solar cells & wind power systems.  Even as they use antiquated technology to power the present, they are looking ahead…

        • imjust Sayin

           ugh… because the Chinese can’t take advantage of Tibet as much, they want to pollute less.

          This underlies the basic unfairness of our tax code that reimburses China and India for burning our coal for a discount.

          Our tax burden is increased because the expenses of shipping the coal to China and India are deducted from their net income.

          And, the diesel to ship the coal over there, also drives up the price of diesel and gasoline for us.

          And, when the energy company pays an income tax to China and India for selling the coal to them, then those expenses are taken off of their taxes – dollar for dollar.

          Our tax code supports slavery and pollution.

          Even before the American Civil War (of Northern Agression, really?)  when a northerner purchased a cotton shirt from the South, the slave holder didn’t enjoy a tax deduction.

          Maybe we can be better people than we are.

      • imjust Sayin

         One thing we can do that will matter – decentralize the economy away from fossil fuels.

        In some ways, China is ahead of us and will gain even more power over us because they are investing in renewable energy because it is already obvious to them.

        In order to support our troops, we need to decentralize our economy away from oil.  Because the world is centralized around oil, it complicates the job of our troops who protect our freedom.

        The first order of business, eliminate fossil fuel expenses from tax deductions.

        If businesses need tax deductions for their use of gas, then those deductions should be means tested.  People on welfare are not polluting your water.  We means test them.  Why not means test the people who put your children in danger?

      • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

        Yup, the Right aways has some excuse why we should do nothing.

        • notafeminista

          While the Left always has great ways to eliminate humanity.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Manufacturing, and USING the MOST Solar Collectors, doesn’t say China isn’t convinced? 
           THEIR ‘mass-polluting-industrial-revolution, will be FAR shorter, than Great Britain’s and that of the U.S.!

      • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

        Leaving aside the matter of whether China is stepping up to the plate on climate change, one “solution” to the Chinese “problem” is to move our manufacturing back home where we DO have pollution controls. But then that interfers with a dysfunctional economic system that cuts costs by avoiding costs like pollution controls, worker safety, worker benefits, etc. That you pick on China while ignoring the role of US corporations is telling.

        Anyway, we stray from the issues I raised.

        • Worried for the country(MA)

          Our CO2 emissions are flat and China’s and the rest of the developing world’s are rising rapidly.  Even if we ‘drastically reduced’ our emissions it would have little effect.

          I take issue with your last assertion on the economics.  There is no research to back up your statement, even if  we could get the Chinese on board.

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            Seems you’re determined to miss the point of my thread. If you want to talk about China, try starting your own thread.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             Who made you the threadmaster?

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            Gee Einstein… why do even think forums/threads exist? It’s to ORGANIZE DISCUSSION around a topic, and so those interested in a sub-topic can more easily find it.

            So if YOU want to discuss China… feel free to start your own goddamn thread.  

          • Gregg

            This is his thread, his board, his blog, his rules and there is no need to even comment because he already knows what you think. So there’s that.

      • ana

        Perhaps, though, when the Chinese decide to tackle the problem, it will get done post haste while we are  still blowing in the wind.

      • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

        MY POST HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CHINA!

        It’s about how those determined to do nothing leap to the “natural causes” theory of climate change as if THAT gets humanity off the hook.

        IT DOESN’T!

        • Worried for the country(MA)

          As of 2008, China emits over 23% of all CO2 and we emit 18%.  China is increasing emissions at an enormous rate and our emissions are flat. 

          You made a claim that drastic reductions of  OUR CO2 emissions are the ‘least expensive way to mitigate a global disaster’.

          Even IF you belief there is a global disaster impending, there is no proof that further reductions of CO2 will help avoid the disaster.

          Let’s take your hypothetical.  How do you propose WE ‘drastically’ reduce our CO2 emissions? 

          Even IF you have a reasonable answer to my question, how can you ignore the CO2 growth from China and the developing world.

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            I did not say “our” as in the US but as humanity. I wrote: “economics may dictate we drastically reduce greenhouse gases because it may be the only variable we CAN control and the least expensive way to mitigate a global disaster.”

            Actually that should have read reduce EXISTING greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.

            You’re still missing the point. If you’re determined to talk about China, start your own goddamn thread.

      • Anonymous

        My mom didn’t let me get away with “but Johnny’s mom lets him do it” as an excuse for not doing the right thing.  Obviously yours didn’t.

    • Anonymous

      [[ So say those who claim climate change is based human activity entirely wrong and climate is driven by natural factors: the sun, the precession of the earth's axis, or cosmic rays, etc. None of the above are unreasonable explanations. ]]

      They are reasonable, but there’s no good evidence that anyone of them can be causing the degree of climate change we’re seeing.

      Larger point taken, though, that regardless of the cause, failure to acknowledge the change and do something, even to adapt and plan, is beyond foolish.

      • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

         
        Thanks for getting my point even as others seem determined to hijack the thread.

        Those who grudgingly acknowledge climate change, but refuse to attribute any of it to human activity refuse to think it through and seem then satisfied that there’s nothing we can do.

        • Anonymous

          The denialist diaspora is as ungrounded as it is divorced from science.

          On any given day, they’ll say:

          Warming isn’t happening at all; the whole think is and anti-capitalist, socialist/communist, anti-American hoax, designed to take advantage of the little guy who will have to pay more for energy so that the elite liberals can profit.

          Warming is happening, but it isn’t due to anything humans are doing.

          Warming may be happening, but it hasn’t happened in the last 15 years.

          Warming may or may not be happening, but why worry, since we know that climate has changed dramatically in the past (neglecting the fact that when it did, the planet was often not conducive to most higher life forms).

          Their story changes all the time, depending on the last reactionary, right-wing blowhard they were last exposed to.

  • John in Amherst

    Some climate scientists resist the phrase Global Warming in favor of Global Weirding.  Weird weather is the result of more energy in the atmosphere, energy
    trapped by pollution from the increased use of fossil fuels and
    chemicals like freon.  It will result, not in uniform temperature rises, but in very high elevations in temps at the poles (with rapid ice melt), and erratic weather patterns elsewhere, which will include some areas actually seeing an increase in snow fall.  This belief is held by the vast majority of
    scientists who have looked at the data.  In fact, most are concluding that the rates of ice melting at the poles projected just a few years ago are much too low.  Things are changing a whole lot faster than was commonly thought possible just a few years ago. The few who hold contrarian
    views get a lot of press, but that doesn’t validate their opinions, even if it sells advertising on FOX and the other media sources that thrive on
    catering to the current wave of anti-science, anti-intellectual
    sentiment.  Conservatives seek security and certainty in the face of change, and thinking about climate change is highly disconcerting for them.
    Disbelief in climate change and it’s source – man’s
    activities -  has become yet another litmus test for GOP pols.  (Oh,
    wait, isn’t litmus paper a scientific tool?)  Not one GOP senator endorses the idea of anthropogenic climate change.  Science seems only to have
    usefulness or validity for the GOP if it is used to develop new weapons
    or commodities for commerce.  Beyond these functions, science is
    regarded by the GOP faithful as a liberal conspiracy that challenges the
    notion that prayer and the free market will solve all our problems. 
    This mindset, apart from being a testament to our failing educational
    system, is almost as depressing as the fact that we have irreparably
    damaged the planet.

    • imjust Sayin

       Not everyone who denies man’s role in global warming, also denies the Jewish holocaust.  But almost all the holocaust deniers also deny man’s role in creating extreme weather.

      This coincidence gives us a clue into how far the fossil fuel industry will go to take advantage of vulnerable people to further their cause.

      • Worried for the country(MA)

         You keep repeating made up lies.

  • carl white

    Tom…you are starting to lose me some with the “fair and balanced stuff.”  Global Warming is not really a matter of opinion any longer….it has been scientifically proven that the Earth is getting warmer and that burning of fossil fuels is the reason….so don’t keep asking whether listeners agree with it.  You might want to ask a listener who challenges global science whether he or she believes in science or whether he or she opposes science and the scientific method and prefers to go with the blood letting and chants.  By allowing the issue to be posed as a matter of opinion (especially among listeners who are generally fairly ignorant about it) you are supporting the disinformation objectives of the fossil fuel industry and dumbing down of your show.  If you are not willing to accept (on your show) that global warming is a scientific fact, why not just cut to the chase and focus on whether your listeners believe in science or not and if not, on what basis they don’t believe; and if they don’t believe are the willing to “cowboy up” and refuse to use the benefits of the Boston area hospitals when they get sick.  

    • imjust Sayin

       Hmm… good point.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       Mr. White, you need a lesson on the scientific method.

      Can you please site the proof that the burning of fossil fuels has caused the warming?  Also, could you provide the percentage of contribution?  100%?

      You are not unlike the rabid cabal of climate scientists, that were exposed in Climategate I and II,  promoting censorship of any studies that refuted their theories.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        WORRIED?  Care to read, and try, my simple test?  Find my comment starting;  OPEN MINDED?

        • Worried for the country(MA)

           I replied above.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Done the test?  WHAT were your results?

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             No, but UHI is real.  What is your point?

      • imjust Sayin

        hello worried,

        You fit a profile when you say “cabal”

        Not everyone who denies global warming also denies the Jewish holocaust.  But almost everyone who denies the holocaust also denies the industrial role of climate change.

        This coincidence reveals how far the fossil fuel industry will go to take advantage of vulnerable people.

        You, worried, are a person who is vulnerable to this kind of rhetoric.

        • Worried for the country(MA)

           Gee what profile is that?

          I never said that I denied global warming.

          I also never said that humans don’t contribute to the warming. 

          I do say that the science on AGW is NOT settled.  Climate science is in its infancy.  Also, there is strong evidence that some of the science has been corrupted by activists and bad actors.

          Is it a coincidence that the UN and Wall Street want to take advantage of vulnerable people by promoting a CO2 cap and trade scam?

          btw – You just made up the relationship of holocaust deniers with AGW deniers.

          • Anonymous

            If the vast majority of scientific organizations and individuals with demonstrated expertise in the field agree that current climate change is very likely due to anthropogenic release of carbon into the atmosphere, and that the consequences to human economy and health and to ecosystem function is likely to be serious, then clearly the rational, prudent response is to do nothing, and spend many more decades gathering data before taking any action.

        • notafeminista

          Like the people who did and do say “Bush cabal”?  

      • Bruce

        “rabid cabal of climate scientists” like the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration or the National Academy of Sciences or the National Center for Science Education?
         
        I guess in the alternate reality occupied by evolution and climate change deniers, AGW is symptomatic of a vast left-wing conspiracy to curb conspicuous consumption and waste.
         
        As much as the anti-empirical Religious Right zealots would like to frame the argument over AGW as an exercise in healthy skepticism, what they are really engaged in is a narcissistic avoidance of social responsibility.  The real issue here is whether or not we accept thru our personal and political choices what has historically been an undisputed moral obligation to future generations.
         
        That obligation to our children and grandchildren involves balancing economic growth (i.e expansion of consumption and production) with the limits imposed by environmental pollution, non-renewable resource depletion and time scarcity.

        • Worried for the country(MA)

           “That obligation to our children and grandchildren”

          Do you feel the same way about our national debt of $15+T and the unfunded entitlement liabilities that exceed $100T?

          That is concrete generational theft.

          Regarding the science, I don’t believe all climate scientists are bad actors.  However, I believe science is immature.

          “undisputed moral obligation”
          Really?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            PAYING MORE AND MORE for fossil fuels, their pollution, the health damage, and other related costs, PLUS sending those children and grandchildren into harm’s way to obtain those fuels, COSTS the FUTURE!

          • Bruce

            Actually, yes I do feel the same about the effects of excessive debt on future generations whether it’s debt to finance speculation or consumption.

            The debt issue provides another example of how many conservatives are willing to jeopardize the quality of life for future generations by denying the reality that their supply-side tax-cutting policies failed to put our fiscal house in order in the ’80′s as well as the the first decade of the 2000′s.

            Their removal of revenue raising measures from any serious discussion about debt and deficit reduction is further evidence of the Delusional Right’s rejection of any realistic approach to the debt problem (i.e. an approach that would balance spending cuts, entitlement reform and tax hikes).

             

          • John in Amherst

            Our debt crisis will trouble us for perhaps a few generations.  The changes we are wreaking on the planet will take hundreds of generations to play out.  We will be reviled by humans far into the future for the way we have depleted the Earth’s ecology of habitat and species.

          • Bruce

            Good point!  If current trends are allowed to continue unmitigated, the impact of greenhouse gases and other forms of pollution on the planet’s self-regulating ecosystems could be catastrophic.
             
            While naysayers and deniers stonewall demanding more studies and data, are we as a society willing to risk irreversible damage to the biosphere from the cumulative effects of pollution? 

            Environmental steward-ship, common sense and prudence demand collective action now based on the overwhelming 
            preponderance of scientific evidence validating AGW. 

      • John in Amherst

         So it is just coincidence that the rise in CO2 precisely tracks the rise in fossil fuel consumption? 
        Climategate involved a few climate scientists.  Their willingness to distort their studies to make their point, and their snarky comments about climate change deniers were repudiated by the bulk of the scientific community, but the basic facts of climate change science were never in dispute. 
        Climategate was a red herring tossed from the right, nothing more.  It gave the FOX bloviators some headlines for a few days, and then the rest of the media picked up the story about the story, and voila, instant distraction.
        The scientific method: 1. observe a set of facts  2. propose a hypothesis to explain the facts  3. devise experiments to test the theory  4. evaluate the results for statistical validity and refine or reject the theory as necessary. 
        The method of science denial: 1. ignore the facts that don’t fit a preconceived idea  2. propose that those who don’t hold to the preconcieved idea are unpatriotic or subversive or leftists or (you supply the derogatory term)  3. repeat the original preconceived opinion through endless iterations as part of a campaign of “fair and balanced coverage” of “the debate” 4. repeat and adjust attacks on the character of opponents , dyer warnings on the impacts on commerce & jobs, etc. until enough of the public (conveniently ignorant of the scientific method) is confused or bored enough to abandon the notion of possibly knowing anything reliable about the problem or arrive at any political solutions.

        • Worried for the country(MA)

          Who is denying that burning of fossil fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

          You are completely wrong about climategate.  It damaged the climate science community. Not every climate scientist was involved in climategate.

          Skepticism is a healthy part of the scientific process.

          Here is a reality for you.  Anyone who believes that CO2 emissions is an immediate danger should be for a massive expansion of our nuclear power generation fleet.  Nuclear is the only available scalable and affordable carbon free energy source.

          • John in Amherst

             make the nuke argument to residents of Chernobyl or Northern Japan…  We have a 60 year backlog of nuke waste sitting around already.  This lack of disposal (with its attendant costs) is in effect a subsidy to the industry.  Future generations will pay, eevn if we do not.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             There are solutions to nuclear waste.  The costs are already born by rate payers.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             $12B spent on Yucca Mt. before Obama and Harry Reid killed it.  What a waste of OUR money.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Before THAT, how MUCH was spent on using Oak Ridge, Tenn., for storage? 
               $Millions were spent ‘considering’ MANY sites, and narrowing them down to three!
               THAT is actually a COST of NUCLEAR Energy!
               HOW MANY Wind-Turbines could we have built, and been getting energy from, for THAT cost?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            How MANY Solar Panels could we buy for $12 BILLION?
               How many Wind Turbines?
               They produce HOW MUCH Radioactive Waste?

          • John in Amherst

             No, actually the disposal costs are not born by rate payers.  No one in the US has begun the process, let alone assigned a cost.  It will no doubt fall to the gov’t. to bale out the nuke industry on this.  And no one in any country is even beginning to think about the costs of decommissioning reactors (ie: rendering them hermetically sealed for hundreds of millenia while the process of radioactive decay renders them inert.)

          • Terry Tree Tree

            We can DUMP it in Worried, and other proponents’ yard?

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             And we can dump all the dead birds from windmills in your yard.

            Terry, thanks for elevating the debate.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            We’ll solve the dead birds, DECADES faster than REAL solutions to nuclear waste!
               I’ll use the dead birds, to fertilize my plants.
               You’ll use the radioactive waste to WHAT?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

             Smokestacks never killed any birds?

            Neil

        • Gregg

          The problem with climategate is so much of the “Science” is based on the IPCC’s 2007 4th quarter assessment which drew heavily from the work at East Anglia.

  • Terry Tree Tree

    SIMPLE TEST!!  Read, and try my test in comment that starts;  OPEN MINDED?

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       UHI?
      What does that have to do with global warming?

      Unless you are saying the measurement system is flawed (biased upward) because of UHI effect.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Your results of these tests?

  • Gregg

    The hottest day on record (which is merely a spec in time) was 136 degrees in Libya in 1922.

    • Anonymous

      So?

    • TomK in Boston

      I hope you kept your turban on.

  • TomK in Boston

    It’s disgusting that the media, even including WBUR, take the anti-science crowd seriously. I’m really sick of the false equivalences that give credence to nonsense: “On the one hand, there’s every academy of science in the world, but on the other hand, there’s some blogger or far right think-tank or study funded by the oil industry……” GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK! We are changing the climate, more severe weather is expected, and it’s gonna happen no matter how deeply anti-science gang buries their heads in the sand.

    • imjust Sayin

       Hi Tom K,

      I agree with your basic premise.  There is a false equivalency.

      But the success of the fossil fuel industry to take advantage of vulnerable peoples’ opinions, is a consideration we have to acknowledge.

      • CAWill

        though, I do think that non-credible people should not be used as evidence of a trend or allowed to be represented as if they have equal weight. For example, there is a tendency in journalism to interview one to one, which…if not talked about in the interview…say, when the reporter says…here is a yah, and here is a nay…but then doesn’t explain that something like 99% of scientists believe human induced climate change is occurring, and this person I’m interviewing is actually an astronaut rather than a climate scientist who regularly studies this topic and has been doing it for over 20 years…this lack of context makes people think there is actually a debate going on and reinforces skepticism in general public.

        Here’s some interesting info from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which as a section on contrarians…or climate skeptics and the media.
        http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

      • TomK in Boston

        We sure do! And a lot of them are on this board.
        The irony is that the O&G industry has spent massive $ on their anti-science campaign, but a primo righty talking point is that the real scientists find that we are changing the climate just so they can get funded from the liberal funding agencies.If all I cared about was funding I’d make up a climate model that showed pumping CO2 was no problem and rake in the support from Exxon, Koch et al.

  • Anonymous

    http://www.climatecentral.org/videos/web_features/nasa-finds-2011-ninth-warmest-year-on-record/

    Watch 131 Years of Global Warming in 26 Seconds

    From our friends at NASA comes this amazing 26-second video, depicting how temperatures around the globe have warmed since 1880. That year is what scientists call the beginning of the “modern record.” You’ll note an acceleration of those temperatures in the late 1970s as greenhouse gas emissions from energy production increased worldwide and clean air laws reduced emissions of pollutants that had a cooling effect on the climate, and thus were masking some of the global warming signal. The data comes from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures. As NASA notes, “in this animation, reds indicate temperatures higher than the average during a baseline period of 1951-1980, while blues indicate lower temperatures than the baseline average.”

    • Gregg

      I was going to point out how insignificant 131 years is in the context of time but decided it was futile. But then I saw the baseline was from 29 years. I laughed ’til I cried. so I had to comment.

      • Anonymous

        I’d cry, too, if i were that clueless.

        • Gregg

          If being skeptical about the notion fluctuations against a baseline of 29 years to form an opinion about 131 years means man has trashed the planet is clueless then yea, I’m clueless.

      • Anonymous

        Just a few years earlier than the start of that timeline, the headline on the cover of Time magazine for April 1977 was “How To Survive The Coming Ice Age – 51 Things You Can Do to Make a Difference.”  I have to be skeptical of climate theorists who don’t allow any dissenting opinions and ostracize anyone who has an opposing view.  If the global warming theorists are correct now, how could they have been so wrong in 1977?

  • Dee

    Just as war cannot be left to the generals –no must climate 
    not be left to the government. And especially, this crony cap-
    italism we have today . Especially, in the GOP ranks. 

    Such law-makers are incapable of acting in the public good 
    over the corporate good it seems and must be given their 
    pink slips…

    How backward can anyone be denying the reality and science 
    today? Thus people must take the lead and force government 
    to act responsibly, see url below. (I know I try to do this in 
    my own way daily and I support others who are engaged in such efforts too.) 

    Thus, I would encourage NPR and WBUR to cover Climate change summits and conferences. We should be tuning in 
    to what other people around the world are saying around 
    the world and what they are experiencing. 

    The BBC world SERVICE RADIO usually covers this event in 
    a big way and perhaps WBUR & NPR can hook up to those 
    broadcast reports DURING THE WEEK long conferences…..

    Dee

    Who Cooked the Planet? Paul krugman , NYT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26krugman.html

    Four ways to kill a Climate Bill, NYT, op-Ed
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26wasserman.html

    Climate capitalism won at Cancuan. by Patrick Bond
    http://links.org.au/node/2041

    Nigeria and the shell oil spill, 10 yrs later..John Vidal /Guardian
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/22/nigerian-shell-oil-spill

    The hazards of fracking in Ohio,  common cause 
    http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=7868601

    Kasich, Koch Bros and the Lobbyists in Congress
    http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=5205:kasich-koch

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       Crony capitalism?
      Like Solyndra!!

      • Dee

        Right Wing Hypocrisy Re Solyndra

        Many start up companies fail or make no profitsfor years. This is what makes the Right attack 
        on Solyndra so absurd and indeed over the top, 

        And the folks who ran Bain capital the bullies on
        the block shutting out opportunities by squeezing out– up and coming companies..Dee 

        That’s the other effect of The Citizen united ruling 
        by the court….The big bullies are squeezing out the little guy and the alternatives,,,,

        Thank God the state of Vermont ruled to amend it
        http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=17260249-1BA6-45ED-A6F7-770D9DD2D557

        • Worried for the country(MA)

           I applaud solar start ups with PRIVATE funds.  No public money.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            You FAVOR BIG, long established industries, like Oil, Coal, Gas, Nuclear, to be SUBSIDIZED?  As they ARE now, and have BEEN, for decades?  WITH Tax write-offs, depletion allowances, ignoring pollution, public-funded pollution clean-up, and ALL the other public-funded CHARITY?

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             No.  I would love to see distributed power work.

            Maybe the cold fusion LENR ECATs will eventually work and we can cut the cord.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            25 years into the future?

          • TomK in Boston

            If you knew anything about startups, you’d realize that the private sector will not invest in early stage companies (just as they won’t fund basic science), and gvt funding is essential. Dee gave the reason why. The bean counters are NOT gonna put $ into something that may or may not have a product in several years. Ditto for venture capitalists, who have become increasingly risk-averse over time.
            Those are facts, Worried. Ideology won’t change them.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             Tom you are spouting pure BS. 

            Facebook just purchased Instagram for $1B.

            Instagram makes no money and only has 13 employees.

          • TomK in Boston

            Please, I know this subject very well. There are exceptions to every rule. The earth is warming, but the deniers celebrate every time there’s a cold day. It’s very hard for early stage startups to get private funding, but some do. I doubt that you have actually tried to do this. I haven’t either, but my wife works in startups and I get the stories.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            What aspect of start-ups, does she work in?  If I may ask?

          • Gregg

            And alarmist freak every time the wind blows.

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

             
            Where would the nuclear industry be if left to the market? NO ONE WOULD INSURE A REACTOR!!! The entire nuclear energy industry rests on a backdoor govt subsidy called Price Anderson. So is THAT crony capitalism?
             
             
            I await your condemnation of ALL such arrangements… but I won’t hold my breath.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             I’m willing to concede nuclear and all public utilities require special considerations.

            However, this is NOT a government subsidy.  The rate payers end up footing the bill.

          • Gregg

            And nuclear works, so there’s that.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Having worked at a couple of nuclear plants, I DOUBT it!  Since Radioactive Waste is NOT solved, except the accusations that France dumped theirs in the ocean near Somalia, killing the fishing industry, and causing havoc to the Somalis and others?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

             Who invested in the continental railroad, the highway system, the aviation navigation system, water systems,  etc.?

            Neil

      • Anonymous

        Solyndra, Solyndra, Solyndra…

        Never a peep about any of the other billions in corporate tax breaks, subsidies, bargain-basement land leases…

        • Gregg

          er… did they go predictably bankrupt?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            WHO predicted that China would dump solar panels at reduced prices?  WHY? 
               The type of Solar Collector made by Solyndra, was VERY unique, and used NEW methods, NOT off-the-shelf.  China DUMPED at just the right time to hurt Solyndra MOST.
                I CANNOT, and WILL NOT speak to Solyndra’s Business Model, or Administration.
               Rick Waggoner, former chairman of General Motors, was supposed to be an OUTSTANDING executive, yet, he bankrupt a HUGE, very established corporation!  We bailed out the company, LIKE we did the FRAUDSTER BANKSTERS, ( to the tune of over $12 TRILLION DOLLARS!! 
               How does Solyndra compare to that?

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Probably $Trillions ‘invested’ in Fusion Energy, and we have WHAT to show for THAT government money?
           Fusion Energy has been ’25 years into the future’, for the past 60 years, that we have ‘invested’ into it!  Last word I heard, it is ’25 years in the future’! 
           How MANY more $TRILLIONS of dollars, is THAT?
           THAT is PART of the cost of nuclear power!

  • Brett

    Remember the dust bowl days? If one thinks those were ONLY about a decade-long drought and nothing else then he/she is not paying attention to history and is not being honest about the solutions that were created as a result of having to deal with the problems brought on by what happened. [Gregg and others of your ilk]

    • notafeminista

      Dog whistle alert.

      • Brett

        Ah, yes, see, as you’ve said before, you DO think the dust bowl was merely created by a decade-long drought. Go read some history on the matter and then you can go back to your idiotic  comments, there Still He…er, notafeminista.  

        • notafeminista

          Good use of the ellipsis.  Gold star.

        • William

          It was more about plowing up too much grasslands than climate change.

    • Gregg

      The change in farming practices is a great example of how “antropogenic factors” have helped the planet. But who knew dust was climate?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wes-Nickerson/100001436729213 Wes Nickerson

    Tom, why are you always starting from square one? The evidence supporting climate change is well researched, conclusive, and accepted in the scientific community. It’s as if you are saying, “Is it true that the Earth is really round like a ball? Some people say that it is flat like a pancake. What do you think?” You had some excellent guests today, but I think you insult the intelligence of your audience and waste the time of your guests when you ask them, “Does climate change really exist?” You need to be asking the question, “What can we do to reverse climate change?”

    • Anonymous

      Well, not exactly round, but a few dozen miles larger in diameter through the equator than pole-to-pole. All that spinning… 

      Result is an oblate spheroid or a prolate ellipsoid. (Good names for a metal band)
      But, excellent point, overall!

      • Terry Tree Tree

        Naming a metal band around the earth?

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

         Actually, there is also an additional factor affecting the shape of the earth: there is so much ice on Antarctica that it is pressing the land under it *down* by almost 1/2 a mile!  And this increases the gravitational pull of the southern hemisphere, which raises the ocean level more south of the equator than north of it.

        So there is a mountain in Ecuador called Mount Chimborazo that is closer to outer space than Mount Everest:

        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9428163

        Is science cool, or what?

        Neil

    • William

      The problem with the scientific community it is easily corrupted by money.

  • Brett

    So, in the course of our planet’s life, there have been times when CO2 levels spiked. Some of those spikes happened long before humans walked the earth…but…wait for it…

    Those spikes were due to some cataclysmic event. Either, a series of volcanic explosions happened in concert with each other, a meteor/meteors hit the earth, the earth shifted on its axis, or something of such magnitude. There haven’t been any cataclysmic events of the aforementioned magnitude since the industrial revolution began…so what has caused the spikes CO2 in the industrial age. HMMMMM?????

    • Brett

      P.S. -Gregg, and your ilk:

      One doesn’t have to have any solutions to recognize a problem. If you can’t figure it out, do you simply ignore a problem? …Maybe you do, who knows? 

      • Gregg

        I agree completely, what makes you think I don’t? It’s like being expected to cite where exactly I’d cut spending if I say we’re spending way too much. “Anthropogenic factors” is hardly putting your finger on the problem. I am not of the mind one needs to take drastic action in America to roll back our standard of living when it’s universally agreed it makes no difference in the context of the rest of the planet, just to say we did something. If that’s what you call ignoring the problem, fine.

        • Brett

          You at least appear to agree that humans contribute to undesirable changes in our environment. I’ll agree that the debate should be about degree/extent, if anything, and reasonable solutions. My comment was from your earlier reply asking me to come up with one solution, that’s all. 

          You see, you start most of your daily comments with an almost caricature of a neocon’s view. You leave enough obliqueness to understand it will be interpreted as more extreme than honest dialogue would support. Then, when such is confronted, you settle down and, at times, sound more reasonable. It happens with such frequency that it’s obvious it’s a tactic. 

          But let me ask you, name a few things you consider drastic? 

          • Gregg

            Your comment about interpreting my comments is fair enough but please think about it and you will find my passion for honest debate to be the catalyst for my comments. I catch hell for that claim but its true. That’s why my very first reply in this conversation was to agree with you. But then you started making assumptions.

            I also get in trouble by not making clear enough my point although just as often my point is interpolated beyond my intent. I did not mean to demand a solution (or “suggestion”) from you. I was defending myself against your claim I had a cheeky thought process. By asking for a solution I was attempting to show that ANY answer would sound as incredible as my admittedly unserious suggestions. I believe that is true. I would suggest that is why I have seen more accusations of not caring for our planet, or humanity, or science than I have actual policy suggestions. I don’t think that’s honest debate.

            So unless you actually think I was serious about mass hypnosis, I don’t think you will find the crux of any of my comments to be unreasonable at all.

            Kyoto was drastic. A carbon tax is drastic. Abandoning fossil fuels and dumping millions of taxpayer dollars into the “green jobs” thing which has failed miserably while gas approaches $5/gal. is drastic. Obama’s promise to put the coal industry out of business is drastic. And the President of the United States tell me I am for dirty air and water is a dishonest drastic tactic.

    • ana

      There is a wealth of informed and intelligent  comment on this site for those whose interests lie in a better world by heeding what is becoming common knowledge. Same for 21st century research into what constitutes optimal health through nutrition, yet is refuted by those who feel their freedom is threatened by dietary guidlines.  I, for one am greatful to those who share their research.
      I am confounded by those who go out of their way to try and disprove  overwhelming data.   To what end?  

      • notafeminista

        I know right?  How dare people think?  For shame!

        • Gregg

          Especially all those people who don’t want a “better world”.

          • ana

            No implication that YOU do not want a “better world”, but your comments suggest that those who seek out new and valid research are somehow misguided in wanting to do so. 

          • notafeminista

            Isn’t that the definition of disproving overwhelming data?

            Geez.

          • Gregg

            Not at all.

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            Gregg is all into research… as long as it confirms what he’s determined to believe in. If not… he’ll find some reason to dismiss it as he did the CBO numbers that showed Newt could NOT have been responsible for the Clinton Surplus. I believe he said something to the effect it was a stupid post and no one was interested.

          • Gregg

            If you think CBO numbers proved Newt could not have been responsible for the surplus then you worse off than I thought and I thought the worst. BTW, Newt was only one factor but you have the nuance of a jackhammer. You don’t even acknowledge spending. Taxes is it for you. You even disregard revenue. As a matter of fact the ONLY thing you look at is who was President.

        • ana

          Think and debate all you want, but do not mock  well informed commentary,

          • notafeminista

            Backatcha.

    • Gregg

      “Those spikes were due to some cataclysmic event. Either, a series of volcanic explosions happened in concert with each other, a meteor/meteors hit the earth, the earth shifted on its axis, or something of such magnitude.”

      Forgive me for not putting too much stock into that claim. I honestly don’t believe you have made those correlations for every swing in climate for the last 5000 years. I could easily ask what cause the dramatic drops in C02 during the late forties and early 50′s? 

      • Brett

        Not every swing in climate, just the big ones. While the spike during the industrial age may not be as extreme as, say, when the dinosaurs became extinct, it is a spike, one unaccounted for simply by weather changes in and of themselves…By the way, the earth is much older than 5,000 years. Try more like, what, nearly 4 billion I think.

        • Gregg

          I thought you were referring to my comment about 75 major temperature swings in the last 4500 years. That’s all. So am I to understand you have made the correlations over 4 billion years? That’s a high bar.

          • Gregg

            How many “big ones” in the last 4 billion years?

  • Dee

    addendum

    Let’s not forget to add the effects of the radical effect of strip mining and the leveling of Appalachia , Harper’s Magazine 
    http://harpers.org/archive/2005/04/0080500

    More criminal assault on the environment by corporate America
    I imagine this is some of the “freedom” to rip off the workers 
    and assault on our precious resources and the environment Mitt 
    Romney speaks about today..(He would have the air and water
    ways a dumping ground for corporate America-it seems to me.)

  • notafeminista

    How arrogant, how presumptuous of leftists to assume Man has any control of what happens with the climate or the weather.

    • O’Sullivan

      How arrogant, how presumptuous of anyone to assume that Man has no impact on what happens with the climate or the weather.

      • notafeminista

        How right you are!  In fact, I’m guessing that every blessed thing on this planet affects the weather!  Heavens to murgatroid, what shall we do?!

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/PQOCSU3NJ5J6SSQBEM5YBFCPZY Jason__A

          Are you a hollocust denier too?

          • notafeminista

            “Holocaust” and I’ve not denied anything.  I’m just not hysterical.

        • Alan in NH

          Except I don’t remember the last time a powerful group of dolphins got together to take the tops off of some mountains in West Virginia. Now the elephants…that’s another story. Damn their factories!

        • O’Sullivan

          Yeah dude. imagine how the world would look if mankind hadn’t bequeath the byproducts of the internal combustion engine, nuclear reactors, industrial farming (need I go on??)  ….. probably exactly the same as it does today!

        • bellavida

          Drill baby drill and more tax breaks for the oil companies….are in order.  ASAP.

    • Anonymous

      You would almost think these people consider themselves to be made in the likeness of God and uniquely able to discern His intentions for earth’s inhabitants.   What arrogance!

      • notafeminista

        I would almost think that except leftists don’t believe in God.  They believe in Government.

        • ana

          Actually, legions of leftists believe in a loving God  who would be well pleased to see the least among us cared for and their  value affirmed and  not regarded as an impediment to the accumulation of massive wealth. 

          • notafeminista

            Actually legions of Leftists (those who believe in a loving God or not) see humanity as an impediment.  Period.

          • ana

            Absurd comment.

          • notafeminista

            Absurd doesn’t make it wrong.

            Exhibit A:  Josef Stalin
            Exhibit B:  Margaret Sanger
            Exhibit C:  NARAL

          • Anonymous

            Using your (questionable) thought process, the Biblical God is unquestionably Exhibit A.  Whether a leftist or not depends on whether it’s the father, son or holy ghost.

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            Just because some use Marxist language hardly means they are on the “left”. Stalin was a classic fascist.

          • Anonymous

            Better add Jesus, too. Goddam wealt-redistributing socialist!

            Do you wear a clown suit when you post, just to get yourself in the mood?

          • Alan in NH

            Please elaborate. An impediment to what specifically?

          • Anonymous

            Just certain members of humanity.

          • Gregg

            “Actually, legions of leftists believe in a loving God…”

            Thank you for that Ana, we need to be reminded. I hear the phrase 
            “religious right” all the time but I’ve never once heard “religious left”. 

          • Terry Tree Tree

            The ‘right’ ‘CLAIMS’ the moral highground! 
               MANY examples PROVE they have WORSE morals!

          • ana

            Well, there you go.

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            Probably because there’s a different overlap of religion and politics on the so-called “left”… than how the religious right’s beliefs fit nicely with the economic beliefs of the far right.   

          • Terry Tree Tree

            You wouldn’t refer to the “T’is FAR easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven!”  ?
               NOR “As you treat the least among you, thus you treat ME!” ?

          • ana

            I suspect no objection to wealth creation in the spiritual realm, but rather the notion that  it would not fit “through the eye of a needle” implies that  you cannot take it with you and should not be hoarded but some part of it used for uplifting humanity.

        • John in Amherst

          you know what leftists think because Rush & FOX told you all about it?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/PQOCSU3NJ5J6SSQBEM5YBFCPZY Jason__A

          I believe in neither God nor government, and I speak as a progressive and independent.

        • TomK in Boston

          Recognize this?

          “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, That to secure these rights, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN….

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Catholics believe God gives priests the ‘right’ to RAPE Children, with impunity?
             Is that YOUR God?

          • notafeminista

            Where in the tenets of Catholicism can we substantiate that claim?

          • Terry Tree Tree

            The MANY priests exposed for Child-RAPE, around the world, and NOTHING substantial being DONE about it by the Catholic church, and clergy, EXCEPT HIDE the Child-RAPERS and the EVIDENCE?
               MOVE them to another parrish, where they can RAPE again, and again?
               By their ACTIONS, we can SEE their HYPOCRICY?

          • notafeminista

            Again, where in all of Catholicism do you find evidence to support your claim?

            Start differentiating between Man and God.

        • bellavida

          Leftists don’t believe in God?  Hmm…..not this Catholic.  

    • TomK in Boston

      Us leftists have this thing called “science” that gives some idea of whether we can or cannot change the climate, and science is telling us that generating CO2 in power plants all over the world is changing the climate. From the fraction of C isotopes (sorry, science talk) in the atmospheric CO2 we can tell what fraction of the CO2 rise is due to human activity, and it’s basically all of it. So if you’re dead certain that Man’s cranking up the CO2 to levels that have historically gone with a much hotter planet cannot possibly change the climate, then I suggest you look in the mirror for arrogance and presumption.

      • notafeminista

        So.  The conclusion that man can change the climate is where and proven by what science exactly?

        Is it the same science that said surgeons shouldn’t wash their hands before surgery?  The same science that said Earth was cooling in 1975?

        Ehrlich was wrong.

        • TomK in Boston

          I understand. Because science proceeds by making mistakes and weeding them out, you give yourself a blank check to reject whatever goes against your ideology, by focusing on the mistake of your choice. Brilliant. Enjoy. 
          I gave you the short version above. The spike in CO2 is due to human activity, the current level of CO2 has always been associated with much higher temperatures. You can’t look at those two facts honestly and say hey, no problem. But the key word is “honestly”. Believe me, I know that the red state blogs and O&G industry funded think tanks have a zillion ways to ‘splain away the obvious.

          BTW, the models that predict rising temperature have been back-tested so they also reproduce historical climates. If you wanna reject that as lefty groupthink, I can’t help you, and I’m sure not gonna try. Be my guest. Darwin was a fraud too, right?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

             Check out “Conservapedia” — they deny climate change, evolution, and Einstein’s Theory of relativity, too.

            Ha ha. [/Nelson Muntz voice]

            Neil

        • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

          So according to your “logic” such as it is… we should NEVER trust science because it’s self correcting… and gets more accurate over time. But we SHOULD trust the lofty motives of those who seek more profits from fossil fuels by misleading the public?  

          • Gregg

            As he once again laughably tells people what they think.

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

             
            Gee Gregggg…. if we hear the SAME argument over and over from the Right… then it’s NOT that difficult to see it’s political SPIN.

            If science is a self-correcting tool to get to Truth, then its findings are ever evolving. So say that we should DISREGARD current science because it may, or a scientist may, have been wrong 35 years ago is beyond stupid. It’s just an excuse NOT to do anything.

            Of course this “logic” can be used in reverse. For instance to justify Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq the Right claimed Clinton “knew” Saddam had WMDs in 98, therefore that’s more important than all the next 4 years of intelligence gathering that might have indicated he did NOT have WMDs.  
             

            In the end, irrational people will find any excuse to justify whatever they’re determined to believe in.
             

          • Gregg

            So Notafeminista said in no uncertain terms science should NEVER be trusted and that is the premise you build your snark on, gotcha.

          • TomK in Boston

            nota KNOWS that cranking up the CO2 to levels that have historically coincided with a hot planet is no problem, and he KNOWS more about the climate than just about every scientist who has spent a lifetime studying climate, and he accuses others of arrogance and presumption. Thanks for the LOLZ, nota.

          • notafeminista

            You’ll have to point out where I mentioned trusting anyone.

            It is not nor ever has been a zero sum game.  You’ll do better at winning hearts and minds if you stp thinking it is.

    • John in Amherst

       As a Notasexistfacio-capitalista, I say How blind, how ignorant of the right to assume mankind can dig up and burn the carbon stored in the earth over hundreds of millions of years without altering the climate!  Another prime example of how the GOP regards science as useful only for the invention of weapons & consumer goods.

      • notafeminista

        And how the Left regard humanity as not useful at all.

        • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

          Are there any intelligent right wingers out there? Not in this thread.

        • Anonymous

          Just certain members of humanity.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/PQOCSU3NJ5J6SSQBEM5YBFCPZY Jason__A

      Yes indeed….deny science, deny facts…until you die from pollution. Makes a whole lot of sense to me….or more like NONSENSE.

    • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

       
      Have nothing better to add than to regurgitate what Rush says? Why is it presumptuous when we are releasing CO2 impounded in fossil fuels for millions of years? Betting against greenhouse gases is like denying physics… but then the Right is good at denial.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, it’s not like human activity hasn’t caused entire species to go extinct, or changed the rotational period of the planet, or anything like that.

      • Gregg

        I know we made millions of years of dinosaurs go extinct with hairspray but when did we change the earths rotation?

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

           Another straw man argument…

          Neil

          • Gregg

            It’s called illustrating absurdity with absurdity.

      • notafeminista

        So it was the combustion engine that killed the dinosaurs then?

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

           Straw man argument alert…

          Neil

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Who said anything about “control”?  We are causing most of the changes; because of our arrogance to think that we can do whatever we want and NOT have it change anything.

      Water flows downhill, right?  Carbon dioxide slows the loss of heat back into space — these are both part of the laws of physics.

      Neil

  • Grover

    While climate change is debatable, at least in the minds of some, let’s not forget the other major consequence of the defense of greed, namely, the poisoning of our air and water.

    • Gregg

      Isn’t our air and water much cleaner now than in the 70′s despite the rise in population? We need to stay at it but give a little credit where it is due. That’s an entire different conversation but you illustrate the implication. We are supposed to believe those who recognize the agendas and scandal of AGW alarmist actually don’t care for our planet. It’s shallow and unproductive and President Obama is king of this type of divisiveness. It’s disgustingly unproductive.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/17/obama_gop_wants_dirtier_air_dirtier_water_less_people_with_health_insurance.html

      • Worried for the country(MA)

         MTBE was mandated by the government for years as a gasoline additive to improve air quality.  However, MTBE is damaging in minute quantities to potable water.

        • Gregg

          It’s showing up in our ground water, it raised the price of gas, it created more bureaucracy and it did not improve air quality. The intentions were good just like with alar and banning DDT but the results were not. And in the case of banning DDT, 50 million lives were needlessly lost to malaria. Good intentions are plenty to get volunteers for ruin… if you can hype the doom enough and make people fear being accused of not caring.

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            More of your right wing corporate spin as if malaria could not be dealt with any other way but DDT. The US dealt with malaria during the construction of the Panama Canal WITHOUT the use of DDT. Its use as an insecticide wasn’t discovered until 1939.
             

          • Gregg

            Brett, if you are reading, this is exactly what I was talking about. It’s true, I mentioned DDT but that was just a device to illustrate a larger point about the unintended consequences of good intentions. So my larger point is lost and now I find myself in a malaria debate that I never intended to have. DDT has nothing to do with climate change but my larger point does.

          • Gregg
          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            You do know the difference between news and a right wing OPINION piece, that spins news, right? Didn’t think so.

            Either way, it’s off topic.  

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            After reading moer respectable sources that Gregg’s, I concede the issue SOME DDT may still be necessary but that it’s unfair for anyone to declare the lack of its use alone was responsible for 50 million deaths but the INaction to find suitable insecticides or strategies to replace it.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             Don’t worry.  TRAX loves to hijack threads.

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            I believe if you read back… you can read, can’t you? It was not I who brought up malaria.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             Chill bro.

            I was jabbing for your faux outrage against me on China.

          • Alan in NH

            I understand where you are coming from, and there are often unintended consequences when we act too quickly. But when you use an example that has a major flaw, it does undermine the larger point. Better to find a better example.

          • Gregg

            Thanks Allen but I think it is a good example. If you notice ulTRAX says I’m implying DDT was the only alternative but I didn’t. That’s the way he does. 50 million people did die after DDT was banned so in 2006 WHO reversed course. I can’t think of a better example of good intentions gone bad.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            Sometimes the wrong solution to a problem is used?   Let’s find a BETTER solution?

          • Anonymous

            Greggg has turned into quite the stunningly bold disinformation agent.

            DDT was never the subject of a broad “ban” for use in areas where it has continually been used to fight malaria transmission by mosquitoes.

            It’s even used for this in the U.S. under special permit.

            The only “ban” has been for agricultural use in many countries.

            And continued use of DDT is not guaranteed to control mosquitoes effectively.

            Good summary of the Carson smear campaign here: 

            http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/05/rehabilitatingcarson/

          • Gregg

            You guys are hopeless.

          • Gregg

            BTW NJ while you are saying I said things I didn’t say and missing the point entirely, I wonder what your motive. I’m going by the WHO and citing a broadly held view. I suppose you can find a site to refute anything but it seems like you just go looking for something, anything to hint I may be up to no good. I’m just a pinionated, poop-shoveling piano player, why do I haunt you so? It’s like I live in your head. ulTRAX’ too.

          • Anonymous

            Greggg yet again gets called out on the factually challenged crap he posts, and decides to play the “Gosh, golly, i’m just a good ol’ Rush-lovin’, poo-flingin’ country boy; who could be upset with me” schtick.

            The guy gets smarmier by the day.

          • Gregg

            Was the DDT ban good intentions gone bad or not?

        • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

          The story of MTBE is not as simple as “govenment mandated”. But I can see why that narrative is something you’d gravitate to given your politics. It first came into use in the US as a gasolene additive in ’79 when ARCO petitioned the EPA for permission to use it. After that there seem to be mistakes made by both industry and the EPA.

      • Brett

        “We need to stay at it but give a little credit where it is due.” 

        I agree with that. I remember how polluted major cities were in the ’50′s and ’60′s; and, one of your strange bedfellows, the Republican Nixon, does deserve some credit even, for example. 

        I’ll admit that it appears some aspects of the climate-change argument are political push back, on both sides, but I wonder if things like the Environmental Protection Act, or taking lead out of gasoline, would even be a possibility if they were proposed in today’s political climate, er, environment, er….  

      • Alan in NH

        Yes and no. I don’t believe we had the ocean dead zones in the 70s that we do now. Perhaps the air quality in the U.S. is somewhat better but I doubt the air quality in China, India, Brazil, Indonesia is. so maybe overall, not so much?

        • Gregg

          That’s why I said our air and water. I don’t disagree with you.

        • Terry Tree Tree

          Brazil, mostly because of Slash and Burn.  They are mostly using renewable fuels!

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/PQOCSU3NJ5J6SSQBEM5YBFCPZY Jason__A

      Climate change is only “debatable” if you think that the world is flat.

  • Gregg

    This is actually a really good debate on the subject between Algore and Rush from 1992. Rush forecasted all of this 2 decades ago.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbC-yWycHfM

    • Sam Walworth

       WOW, Rush used to be soooo much of a gem back then.

      What the hell happened to him?

      • Gregg

        I don’t think he’s changed much since then but Algore…

  • Worried for the country(MA)

     I can’t believe it.

    Not one mention of the vaunted Halliburton hurricane machine.

  • Terry Tree Tree

    Almost everybody on here is TALKING about the weather.  How many are going to DO something about it?

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       I packed an umbrella.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        I hope you didn’t need it!

  • notafeminista

    Hey OnPoint/WBUR:  It’s SolomOn, KS…not SolomAn, KS

  • Bud

    I cannot understand why anyone would deny the possibility of man-made global warming if they don’t have a financial stake in fossil fuels.

    • Worried for the country(MA)

       Who is denying the ‘possibility’ of AGW?

      However, it is not SETTLED science.

      For me, this has nothing to do with the love of fossil fuels.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        HOW are fossil fuels used, that does NOT produce, or require the production of heat?

        • Worried for the country(MA)

           Of course the burning of fossil fuel produce  waste heat but that heat is insignificant.  The concern has always been with the greenhouse affect of CO2 and the ‘unproven’ positive feedback that will accelerate warming.

          • Buckydumpster

            Yet, each day this planet releases 20 million metric tons of CO2 through the process of burning oil.  That’s a sizeable amount that wouldn’t be released naturally.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             Terry was concerned about the heat release by burning fossil fuels and nuclear and other human activities.

            CO2 release is an entirely separate matter.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            NOT separate!  COMBINED part of the same problem!

          • Terry Tree Tree

            HOW MUCH HEAT? 
               WHY insignificant?
               Is there ONLY ONE cause to every effect?
               Do things EVER happen, due to a COMBINATION of causes, that each might NOT cause?
               

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/PQOCSU3NJ5J6SSQBEM5YBFCPZY Jason__A

            It is only insignificant because someone with no knowledge of science prounces it to be so… simple rubbish.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             LOL

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             Total energy consumption in the WORLD was 5 x 10^20 Joules in 2010.

            5.5 x 10×24 Joules is the solar energy that strikes the earth’s surface each year.

          • Terry Tree Tree

            There is OVER 1000 times more solar energy striking the earth EACH year, than the TOTAL amount of energy we USE? 
               We STUPIDLY keep using fossil fuels?
               THANKS!

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             That’s 10,000.

          • Worried for the country(MA)

             Terry, check out the following and you can ease your fears.

            3.9 x 10^22 Joules is the total known fossil fuel reserves

            4 x 10^22 joules is the energy released by the 2004 Indian ocean earthquake

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/PQOCSU3NJ5J6SSQBEM5YBFCPZY Jason__A

      It is denied because of corporate money and influence….on mostly Republicans, or their hired stooges both inside and outside of government…to make money at all costs. These people are so greedy that nothing else counts…just MONEY and more of it.

  • Roy-in-Boise

    The USA has caused and denied climate change once before in our history. In the 1930′s it was called “The Dust Bowl” … good scientist warned of it’s slow creation and pioneers bankers and polititions denied it until it was undeniable. “Rain will follow the plough” was the mantra of the 1900′s.

    There’s nothing like a little greed and avarice to drive environmental and economic disaster. Does history repeat it self?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/PQOCSU3NJ5J6SSQBEM5YBFCPZY Jason__A

      There is NO proof that this was caused by the USA, or any other nation.

    • William

      Wasn’t that more about over farming than climate change? They plowed up the too much grasslands.

      • Terry Tree Tree

        You missed the part about the ten-year drought?
          Man-made BAD farming practices,  ENHANCED the damage of the drought?  Newly-mechanized farming of too much land, planting too much of the same crop, full-till farming, instead of low-till, and a PLETHORA of other Man-made ENHANCEMENTS?

    • Anonymous

      The Dust Bowl was caused by bad farming practices coupled with years of bad drought.
      The impact of the Dust Bowl was felt all over the U.S. During the same April as Black Sunday, 1935, one of FDR’s advisers, Hugh Hammond Bennett, was in Washington D.C. on his way to testify before Congress about the need for soil conservation legislation.
      A dust storm arrived in Washington all the way from the Great Plains. As a dusty gloom spread over the nation’s capital and blotted out the sun, Bennett explained, “This, gentlemen, is what I have been talking about.” Congress passed the Soil Conservation Act that same year.

      Written by Bill Ganzel of the Ganzel Group. First written and published in 2003.

      http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/water_02.html

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    iOnePoint:

    The Mayan prediction was extreme weather phenomenon before 12/21/12.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

      Remember the Mayan civilization did not predict the end of the world. The predicted a new beginning for mankind or earth and it will begin on 12/21/12.

      • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

        If they were so psychic, why could they not prevent their own demise as a great civilization?

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

          They left their cities in order to survive slaughter from other Mayan cities.

          The Mayans were very violent people.
          you can see the depiction from the Mel Gibson’s movie “Apocalypto”.

          They were not Psychic. They were Astronomers and Astrologist.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

            Don’t under estimate ancient cultures because a lot of our modern technology were invented by them.

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

             
            We’d be fools not to recognize attempts at early science as not significant. We’d also be fools to believe they had some monopoly on eternal wisdom.

          • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

            Astrologers project into the heavens whatever the system they created makes them see. Actually the 2012 issue has less to do with a primitive culture trying to be scientific, then our advanced culture trying not to be.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    Is it most unusual that the Peruvian fishermen discovered El Nina when Industrialized Nation around the world never had a clue about the Pacific ocean getting warmer.

    A small group of Fishermen in Peru without any modern instruments to monitor ocean temperature discovered El Nina.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

      Just like the Mayans they discovered stuff without any help from million of dollars of weather instruments.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    As the Mayan predicted Solar Flares will continue to manipulate earth atmospheric pressure, melt more polar ice caps that will cause floods all over the world, Tornadoes and droughts.

    • http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/ ulTRAX

       
      The Mayan predicted solar flares? Did they even have a clue the sun had flares? This reminds me of another absurd claim, that the Mayans know 12-2012 was some alignment with the centre of the galaxy. What sort of nonsense is that? We didn’t even know we were in a galaxy until the 20′s and just what would align? The sun, earth, and the galactic center. Doesn’t that happen once a year anyway?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    Remember the majorities of Dooms Day movies? the President were African-Americans.

    • Amy

      Absurd remark.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

    iOnePoint:

    The 99% is back in Boston and soon all over the world.
    The weather goes warmer the 99% group will re-unite all over the world.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joseph-Hoydilla/100003145290431 Joseph Hoydilla

    I understand and appreciate different opinions on Global Warming.   I do support the science behind global warming, but also realize there is doubt.  I am looking for open minded people to have discussions about this subject in a respectful manner.  What bothers me more than disrespecting opinions on both sides of this, is not talking about it at all

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2STBLZJK4VKQBV27DVQX3I6CU FAX68

      Wether Global Warming is true or not. We should always take care of our Planet.

      This is our only Home

      • Gregg

         Nice comments Joseph and FAX68.

        • Worried for the country(MA)

           I agree.

    • Sam Walworth

       Exactly my view too.

      Who cares Global Warming is true or not, what I will really want to do is, move ahead in the technology with respect to the energy consumption (better efficient engines, better fuels, better insulation for homes etc) , better transportation (more and efficient use of Public Transport, hybrids, diesel engines, CNGs etc) and the way we live (smarter homes, etc)

    • Terry Tree Tree

      I have maintained, since Global Warming was first announced, that REGARDLESS of whether Man is heating up the planet enough to tip the climate, the CAUSES are pollution!
         By cutting the CAUSES of pollution, we cut the possible Man-Enhanced Global Warming!
         I have commented SEVERAL times, some simple tests that ANYONE can do!  In this comment section, it starts:  OPEN MINDED?
         WHAT ACTION does Man do, that does NOT add heat to the earth, air, or water?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      The problem Joseph, is that we cannot have *opinions* about facts.  Facts are real — if your opinion ignores the facts, then you are just wrong.

      You are free to have any opinion that you want — but you cannot ignore the facts and be taken seriously.

      The facts are: adding carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide and methane (and other greenhouse gases) will slow down the heat loss back into space.  This is like water flowing to the lowest point possible — it is a law of physics.

      Another fact is change that is orders of magnitude quicker than ever before will have wide spread devastating effects.  Think of adding a little more oxygen to the air — this would be helpful.  But, if you add a lot more oxygen to the air — we would die.

      We have already added at least 45% more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that the constant 270ppm we had through our evolution.  If we added that much more oxygen, we would close to the threshold of having spontaneous combustion.

      We also know from the isotopes of carbon — the level of carbon 13 in the air is direct chemical proof that the carbon came from fossil fuel.

      Neil

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

    Thanks, Tom, for looking into the wild weather patterns. Earthquakes & volcanic eruptions are also on the uptick right now & solar activity (along w/ celestial events) have much to do with “Earth Weather”. We are tying the ends together, best we can, even as US media trivializes & capitalizes on our very personal disasters.

  • http://hammernews.com/ Hammerschlag

    Sorry Joe, there is no other side- warming is deathly real, and you will see a 40% collapse of food crops + I believe 1-2 billion starve within 10 years!!!   There are simply too many people and mother nature is going to do a massive housecleaning. I’m not happy about this- it will cause complete collapse of civilization. I’ve written about GW since 1979- here’s my big unpublished 5 month over 5 year piece on GW- the 8 feedback loops will cause incredible changes and the Antarctic ice core shows violent changes can occur in only 1-3 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Ironically the survivalist nuts will inherit the earth.
         hammernews.com/warmingworse-m.htm

    • Mike Czerwinski

      Yes you are entirely correct see my post above

  • Buckydumpster

    How many barrels of oil does the planet use each day?  Natural warming and cooling cycles aside, we are putting (just with oil, not counting coal or other fossil fuels) about 20 million metric tons per day of extra CO2.  That’s about 435 Titanic’s.  Each day.  Every day.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       Another comparison is this:  volcanoes are the main cause of increase in the atmosphere before we humans came along; and at most they increased the carbon dioxide by 100ppm per MILLION years.

      We humans have increased it by over 125ppm in about 150 years, and about 2/3 of that in the last 50 years.

      Neil

  • Tod

    Hello!

    The sun!…..sun cycles…it would be great if you could have coordinated both environmentalists and astrophysics who have amassed a lot of tools and data about how the earth interacts with the rest of the solar system….

  • Zaks

    The coming change in the magnetic polarity of the planet is one cause everyone misses.  The earth has been shown to have, at nearly regular intervals, changed the north/south polarity.  The change occurs with sporadic and localized fluctuations in the field and a general weakening of the field around the planet.  Since the planet’s magnetic field protects the planet from too much solar radiation, any loss in the strength of the field will give rise to the “global warming”.

  • Mike Czerwinski (sir win ski)

    Tom
    Mike Czerwinski
    I’m a geologist and wildlife biologist in Florida. I have been monitoring what appears to be a long term drought in about it’s 20 th year. Due principally to a lack of tropical cyclone activity ( hurricanes)
    Also wildlife biologists have documented wildlife changes due to climate change world wide. I would like your experts to address OCEAN SCIENCE. I believe we are on the threshold of much larger climate changes that will be much more significant than we are seeing now. The ocean, which make up 74 % of our planet has been providing us with a fantastic feedback mechanism over the past century sort of ” fixing our man made problems” by moderating temperatures and weather. But now with melting of the polar ice packs inputting cooler and fresher water into the oceans, the response is now drought in the tropical latitudes of north America; hurricanes and more violent weather and floods in the temperate latitudes due to increase in moisture in the

  • Mike Czerwinski (sir win ski)

    Tom
    To continue. More moisture in the mid latitude of north America. This is a response to the jet street and the ocean currents I referenced earlier. How often have hurricanes been documented from south carolina to Maine? Again we are on a threshold of a significant change nearing the breaking point of what the ocean can moderate. We will see Florida to Texas turn into desert and eventual lack of fresh drinking water for and water for crops and livestock. We will see flooding in Canada and northern temperate areas and more. Please have your ocean scientists respond.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002972619005 Shawn Nason

    What’s the name of the music in the “button” on the break?

  • Woodman

    What is funny is that people argue about the science and then say, maybe we cause some of it? Well if we can agree we might cause some of it, why not address reducing what we can?

  • Giovanni

    here is a book highly reccomended about the topic Whole Earth Discipline: An
    Ecopragmatist Manifesto by Stewart Brand  the book is about learning how to manage the planet’s natural infrastructure, how to obtain great improvments 
    with minimal disruption.  the book is about learning how to manage the planet’s natural infrastructure, how to obtain great improvments 
    with minimal disruption. 

  • Pingback: What’s Up With the Wild Weather?

  • Clay

    I object to one term used by one of the guests (I think Heidi Cullen): “citizen scientists”. I think that anyone who has studied science, or has a degree or advanced degree in science should be offended to think that an ordinary citizen with no background in science could be dubbing him/herself a ”citizen scientist” and believing that he/she can possibly have a handle on such a complex matter as climate change.

    We would like to be specialists in many fields, but we’re simply not. We can try to reach our own conclusions based on careful consideration of facts, but to call ourselves ”scientists” is presumptuous.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Sep 1, 2014
This Friday, Aug. 22, 2014 photo shows a mural in in the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago dedicated to the history of the Pullman railcar company and the significance for its place in revolutionizing the railroad industry and its contributions to the African-American labor movement. (AP)

On Labor Day, we’ll check in on the American labor force, with labor activist Van Jones, and more.

Sep 1, 2014
Pittsburgh Steelers outside linebacker Jarvis Jones (95) recovers a fumble by Carolina Panthers quarterback Derek Anderson (3) in the second quarter of the NFL preseason football game on Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014 in Pittsburgh. (AP)

One outspoken fan’s reluctant manifesto against football, and the big push to reform the game.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 29, 2014
Beyoncé performs at the 2014 MTV Music Video Awards on Sunday, August 24, 2014 in Inglewood, California. (Getty)

Sex, power and Beyoncé’s feminism. The message to young women.

 
Aug 29, 2014
Ukrainian forces guard a checkpoint in the town of Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014. Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko called an emergency meeting of the nation's security council and canceled a foreign trip Thursday, declaring that "Russian forces have entered Ukraine," as concerns grew about the opening of a new front in the conflict.  (AP)

War moves over Syria, Ukraine. Burger King moves to Canada. Nine-year-olds and Uzis. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: August 29, 2014
Friday, Aug 29, 2014

On hypothetical questions, Beyoncé and the unending flow of social media.

More »
Comment
 
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment
 
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment