Climate Myths

[brianlux]

Bringing up the subject of climate change always seems redundant to me. Someone could tell me I need to find something else to think about and I would have a hard time arguing with that... except... it really is a relevant subject and the situation is not going to go away.

There is a wealth of information on the internet, in scientific journals and in books about what science has learned about climate change and what is causing it. I've often wished for one source that encapsulates this information and serves to dispel the efforts of corporately sponsored organizations who go to great lengths to try to convince people climate change is either not real, not a problem, not caused by human activity (i.e. anthropogenic), or- in some odd cases- that it is good for us.

So I was very pleased to come across a new book that does just that; Climate Myths, The Campaign Against Climate Science by John J. Berger. Berger is not a politician. Berger is a graduate from Stanford, has a masters in energy and natural resources from UC Berkeley and a Ph.D. in ecology from UC Davis. He is well respected in his field, written several books, and served as a consultant on energy and natural resource issues to government, scientific, academic and non-profit organizations as well as the U.S. Congress and National Academy of Sciences.

If you sincerely care about the subject of climate change and are in doubt that human activity is the major cause of the present rapid changes in the world's climate, I highly recommend reading this book. If you are like me and would like a good, reliable resource that compiles straightforward information that dispels the efforts of corporate sponsored climate deniers, this book serves as an excellent resource.

[Hugh Freaking Dillon]

Bringing up the subject of climate change always seems redundant to me. Someone could tell me I need to find something else to think about and I would have a hard time arguing with that... except... it really is a relevant subject and the situation is not going to go away.

There is a wealth of information on the internet, in scientific journals and in books about what science has learned about climate change and what is causing it. I've often wished for one source that encapsulates this information and serves to dispel the efforts of corporately sponsored organizations who go to great lengths to try to convince people climate change is either not real, not a problem, not caused by human activity (i.e. anthropogenic), or- in some odd cases- that it is good for us.

So I was very pleased to come across a new book that does just that; Climate Myths, The Campaign Against Climate Science by John J. Berger. Berger is not a politician. Berger is a graduate from Stanford, has a masters in energy and natural resources from UC Berkeley and a Ph.D. in ecology from UC Davis. He is well respected in his field, written several books, and served as a consultant on energy and natural resource issues to government, scientific, academic and non-profit organizations as well as the U.S. Congress and National Academy of Sciences.

If you sincerely care about the subject of climate change and are in doubt that human activity is the major cause of the present rapid changes in the world's climate, I highly recommend reading this book. If you are like me and would like a good, reliable resource that compiles straightforward information that dispels the efforts of corporate sponsored climate deniers, this book serves as an excellent resource.

I might have to read that. I'm fascinated by the subject and I'd like to learn more about it. Actually, I NEED to learn more about it. However, just because he's no politician, doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have an agenda. How do we know he's just out for truth and not pushing something?

[EdsonNascimento]

I might have to read that. I'm fascinated by the subject and I'd like to learn more about it. Actually, I NEED to learn more about it. However, just because he's no politician, doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have an agenda. How do we know he's just out for truth and not pushing something?

I recommend you google his name and see who's been signing his checks and why. You have a healthy skepticism that should be satisfied.

That doesn't necessarily negate anything he says. But, it is fair to ask the question you are asking.

[brianlux]

Bringing up the subject of climate change always seems redundant to me. Someone could tell me I need to find something else to think about and I would have a hard time arguing with that... except... it really is a relevant subject and the situation is not going to go away.

There is a wealth of information on the internet, in scientific journals and in books about what science has learned about climate change and what is causing it. I've often wished for one source that encapsulates this information and serves to dispel the efforts of corporately sponsored organizations who go to great lengths to try to convince people climate change is either not real, not a problem, not caused by human activity (i.e. anthropogenic), or- in some odd cases- that it is good for us.

So I was very pleased to come across a new book that does just that; Climate Myths, The Campaign Against Climate Science by John J. Berger. Berger is not a politician. Berger is a graduate from Stanford, has a masters in energy and natural resources from UC Berkeley and a Ph.D. in ecology from UC Davis. He is well respected in his field, written several books, and served as a consultant on energy and natural resource issues to government, scientific, academic and non-profit organizations as well as the U.S. Congress and National Academy of Sciences.

If you sincerely care about the subject of climate change and are in doubt that human activity is the major cause of the present rapid changes in the world's climate, I highly recommend reading this book. If you are like me and would like a good, reliable resource that compiles straightforward information that dispels the efforts of corporate sponsored climate deniers, this book serves as an excellent resource.

I might have to read that. I'm fascinated by the subject and I'd like to learn more about it. Actually, I NEED to learn more about it. However, just because he's no politician, doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have an agenda. How do we know he's just out for truth and not pushing something?

How do you know I'm not pushing an agenda and telling you what I have learned about climate science not because I care about it but because I like to start circular arguments? At some point, Hugh, we need to start trusting people who study these things. How many books, how many article, how much massive collected data do we need to provide before people will listen and understand? The evidence is overwhelming. It's all over the place and vast majority of publishes scientists agree with it.

[brianlux]

I might have to read that. I'm fascinated by the subject and I'd like to learn more about it. Actually, I NEED to learn more about it. However, just because he's no politician, doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have an agenda. How do we know he's just out for truth and not pushing something?

I recommend you google his name and see who's been signing his checks and why. You have a healthy skepticism that should be satisfied.

That doesn't necessarily negate anything he says. But, it is fair to ask the question you are asking.

Edson, see my response to Hugh above. If you don't like this guys credential, I can provide another scientists view, and another and another and another. The vast majority of published scientists agree with what this book says. How much information do I have to provide? The evidence is overwhelming... and I'm overwhelmed by the frustration of knowing what is coming down while we argue the fine points. The car is speeding toward the brick wall and we'll argue all the while until we hit and it's too late to even slow down.

Sorry for being so dramatic.

[EdsonNascimento]

I might have to read that. I'm fascinated by the subject and I'd like to learn more about it. Actually, I NEED to learn more about it. However, just because he's no politician, doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have an agenda. How do we know he's just out for truth and not pushing something?

I recommend you google his name and see who's been signing his checks and why. You have a healthy skepticism that should be satisfied.

That doesn't necessarily negate anything he says. But, it is fair to ask the question you are asking.

Edson, see my response to Hugh above. If you don't like this guys credential, I can provide another scientists view, and another and another and another. The vast majority of published scientists agree with what this book says. How much information do I have to provide? The evidence is overwhelming... and I'm overwhelmed by the frustration of knowing what is coming down while we argue the fine points. The car is speeding toward the brick wall and we'll argue all the while until we hit and it's too late to even slow down.

Sorry for being so dramatic.

Brian, if you noticed, I specifically said it doesn't discount anything. I respect you, and even if I didn't I still try to read and listen to as many view points as possible. But, you'd have to agree knowing where a view point is coming from is critical to accepting it. Simple acceptance to me is not real. It's simply being yet another psychophant following the crowd (so to speak).

So, all I said was - google and answer your question (you'll notice I didn't say what in it he should look for. He should decide that for himself).

Always consider the source. But, that does not necessarily mean to negate it solely on that fact (well, unless it's MSNBC). Ignoring something BECAUSE of the source is a good way to become stupid. It's just one consideration of the facts.

[Hugh Freaking Dillon]

Bringing up the subject of climate change always seems redundant to me. Someone could tell me I need to find something else to think about and I would have a hard time arguing with that... except... it really is a relevant subject and the situation is not going to go away.

There is a wealth of information on the internet, in scientific journals and in books about what science has learned about climate change and what is causing it. I've often wished for one source that encapsulates this information and serves to dispel the efforts of corporately sponsored organizations who go to great lengths to try to convince people climate change is either not real, not a problem, not caused by human activity (i.e. anthropogenic), or- in some odd cases- that it is good for us.

So I was very pleased to come across a new book that does just that; Climate Myths, The Campaign Against Climate Science by John J. Berger. Berger is not a politician. Berger is a graduate from Stanford, has a masters in energy and natural resources from UC Berkeley and a Ph.D. in ecology from UC Davis. He is well respected in his field, written several books, and served as a consultant on energy and natural resource issues to government, scientific, academic and non-profit organizations as well as the U.S. Congress and National Academy of Sciences.

If you sincerely care about the subject of climate change and are in doubt that human activity is the major cause of the present rapid changes in the world's climate, I highly recommend reading this book. If you are like me and would like a good, reliable resource that compiles straightforward information that dispels the efforts of corporate sponsored climate deniers, this book serves as an excellent resource.

I might have to read that. I'm fascinated by the subject and I'd like to learn more about it. Actually, I NEED to learn more about it. However, just because he's no politician, doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have an agenda. How do we know he's just out for truth and not pushing something?

How do you know I'm not pushing an agenda and telling you what I have learned about climate science not because I care about it but because I like to start circular arguments? At some point, Hugh, we need to start trusting people who study these things. How many books, how many article, how much massive collected data do we need to provide before people will listen and understand? The evidence is overwhelming. It's all over the place and vast majority of publishes scientists agree with it.

Brian, I know you are passionate about this topic, so I need to let you know that I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to learn about it, because I admittedly don't know that much on this topic. For the last several years I have just taken it as gospel that climate change as cause by humans is a fact. I'd like to learn more about it, to try to learn why we think it is caused by us. I mean, it recently hit me that all the data we have (that I know of) is based on the last 150 years, which in relative terms, is practically a millisecond in time if anything at all.

I'm sure the vast majority of scientists are correct. I'd just like to know what they've got. I'm a skeptic in all facets of life. I have a thirst for knowledge.

[cincybearcat]

Another post brought to you by AMT's Levar Burton and Reading Rainbow!!!

I keed, I keed.

I'm waiting for the movie though.

[cincybearcat]

At some point, Hugh, we need to start trusting people who study these things.

This is a good point. I'm guilty of being overly skeptical at times about agendas, etc. But what you say is the truth. Otherwise you do nothing and learn nothing because there is always a reason to be skeptical.

[Hugh Freaking Dillon]

At some point, Hugh, we need to start trusting people who study these things.

This is a good point. I'm guilty of being overly skeptical at times about agendas, etc. But what you say is the truth. Otherwise you do nothing and learn nothing because there is always a reason to be skeptical.

there's nothing wrong with, and I'd actually encourage people to, vet the folks who study these things. I think that's one of the main keys of being informed.

[cincybearcat]

At some point, Hugh, we need to start trusting people who study these things.

This is a good point. I'm guilty of being overly skeptical at times about agendas, etc. But what you say is the truth. Otherwise you do nothing and learn nothing because there is always a reason to be skeptical.

there's nothing wrong with, and I'd actually encourage people to, vet the folks who study these things. I think that's one of the main keys of being informed.

No I agree. But at some point you are going to have to read and trust somebody.

[Hugh Freaking Dillon]

No I agree. But at some point you are going to have to read and trust somebody.

based on all the information gathered and making an informed conclusion, yes.

[brianlux]

Brian, I know you are passionate about this topic, so I need to let you know that I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to learn about it, because I admittedly don't know that much on this topic. For the last several years I have just taken it as gospel that climate change as cause by humans is a fact. I'd like to learn more about it, to try to learn why we think it is caused by us. I mean, it recently hit me that all the data we have (that I know of) is based on the last 150 years, which in relative terms, is practically a millisecond in time if anything at all.

I'm sure the vast majority of scientists are correct. I'd just like to know what they've got. I'm a skeptic in all facets of life. I have a thirst for knowledge.

Hugh, it's true that specific climate data only goes back about 150 years but general climate trends have been measured into the millions of years using antarctic ice core samples that measure chemical changes over the eons. Scientist understand fairly clearly that the prior major climate changes in the past were caused by cataclysmic events such as the K-Pg extinction event which ended the Mesozoic Era caused by blocked sunlight due to a impact by massive meteor. This is evidenced by the 110 mile wide Chicxulub crater in Mexico.

We would be wise to react to the rapid rate at which climate is changing today the same way we would react to any cataclysmic event, the beginnings of which, indeed, are what we are living through right now.

[oceaninmyeyes]

As I posted on the All you Climate change nuts thread, there is a documentary called Chasing Ice out now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4 The man behind it is a National Geographic photographer, James Balog, who was skeptical about climate change. He put cameras on glaciers all over the globe and the cameras snapped hourly shots on a timer for three years. After several months, the cameras were down loaded and the images he collected really tell a story. You don't have to read about it and come to a conclusion -- you can see these changes happen before your eyes. Check it out

[brianlux]

As I posted on the All you Climate change nuts thread, there is a documentary called Chasing Ice out now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4 The man behind it is a National Geographic photographer, James Balog, who was skeptical about climate change. He put cameras on glaciers all over the globe and the cameras snapped hourly shots on a timer for three years. After several months, the cameras were down loaded and the images he collected really tell a story. You don't have to read about it and come to a conclusion -- you can see these changes happen before your eyes. Check it out

This looks excellent. Thanks for the heads up. Look forward to seeing it!