New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

[Oiler]

The crap being spewed by the liberal media about climate change is pure BS. Anyone that believes a word of it needs to pull his head out of his LSU.

[Ragin4U]

Right on time with the "liberal media" comment. Surprised it took that long.

Of course "climatologists" existed before the idea of anthropomorphic climate change surfaced. "Climate scientists" or atmospheric scientists include the obvious like meteorologists and oceanographers, but also geologists, physicists, biologists, and pretty much every other -ist there is.
I stated earlier that Earth systems are so complex, dynamic and independent that there is rarely a simple THIS causes THAT relationship. If were that simple, hurricane prediction could be done by your 5 year old. The fields of study that link climate science is NOT disparate but rather they fold in rather nicely, something many engineers can appreciate.
If you find a scientist that agrees with your a or b, run. Thats just incorrect. C is a maybe and probably the biggest unknown. D is true and thats the worry. The idea that the Earth will "balance things out" is ludicrous and that way of thinking is disastrous. If there is an equilibrium it will not be reached nor maintained in multiple human lifespans. The Earth will (and is) balance the excess heat in the atmosphere by the melting of ice packs and glaciers, increasing temps in the lower atmosphere and ocean and increasing acidification of the oceans. Humans are fragile. Our range of habitable conditions are small and the changes in climate that are being documented worldwide will confine our species ever more until the population is unsustainable.
I also find it disturbing when ignorant people take jabs at qualified people when what those qualified people are saying threatens their worldview or comes from someone who identifies with one political party or another.
I agree that all science (climate, stem cell, mental health, etc) has become politicized but it cuts both ways.
Your comment on Japan is a bit misleading. A large percentage of their energy comes from hydroelectric and nuclear. Two sources that produce little greenhouse gasses. Other countries, Scandinavian, in particular, are moving to majority renewable. 100% renewable is impossible right now, but we should be moving towards that. Not just for the sake of the planet but for our own national security.
In regards to how science works, it is the opposite of what you state. Things can be hypothesized and speculated on but data is king. Even then it takes multiple trials and independent correlation to publish. If you have seen or heard ANY scientist positing that Planet 10 unequivocally exists, you should remove them from your reading list.
I hope that the current research is flawed, inflated, just plain wrong but I really dont think it is. I lean more towards the middle of most things and do on climate science as well. I think we are adding to global warming but I'm not convinced it will be the end of the human race as some think.
For those who want to throw around your "liberal media" jabs, please see J1M's post above on how to have a rational, well-thought out discussion.
Thank you sir.

[Ragin4U]

You seem to imply here that no one is stating that man made global warming is a fact. On the contrary. Run a search on the topic and see how many results show up stating all such science as "fact".

I think you mean it is a conclusion. And yes, it is the conclusion of many that man made global warming is consistent with observations.

[CajunRed]

I think you mean it is a conclusion. And yes, it is the conclusion of many that man made global warming is consistent with observations.

But they state it as "fact" and use that word to state the case that the theorizing is over...that facts are now set...and all must agree.

Edit... and why should we move away from fossil fuels? I don't agree with that. Do we not have over 100 years of known reserves at current usage rates? I don't want a solar car.

[Ragin4U]

I'm not sure who "they" are.
Facts include 2015 was warmest ever recorded. By a lot. Like 1.5 degrees C. Also over the past 20 years or so we have recorded 15 of the hottest years ever. Another fact is that Arctic sea ice levels are at historical minimums for the second straight year. Another fact is that new record lows for sea ice have happened consecutively over the past decade. Permafrost is melting at record rates in the Arctic. Sea levels have risen over 3 mm every year for the past 30 years. Atmospheric CO2 levels have steadily risen and correlate very well with these events.
Those are facts. The conclusion is that human activity is playing some role in these events.
Also thank you Red for the civil and thoughtful discussion

[Just1More]

My comment regarding Japan didn't pertain to power generation. I'm referring to motor fuels used for transportation. Japan has done much to offset their lack of fossil energy. But you realize that there are greater opponents of nuclear in some quarters than fossil energy - as for the welfare of our planet. But my point is that if solar technology and battery technology, requiring material science advancements, were on the brink of discovery... if only the Solyndras were splashed with more government money... Japan (and others) would have sprung that discovery into their own independence long before now. The U.S. would have done so as well... and it would not require government "research and manufacturing" assistance.

You are far too quick to answer the questions I've asked unscientifically. And you cannot say what Earth and our atmosphere... or man in the future... can and cannot do. On much smaller scales, the Alaskan coast line could never survive the Valdez, the gulf coast would take decades to recover from the BP disaster, and so on and so on. "Scientists" told us so. Anyone that disputed them was a nimrod. The gulf coast ecosystem models were highly scientific from marine biologists. They were so wrong it wasn't even close. If the politics aligns with them, the mass public will march with them. And most times, it's inconsequential... government and big industry money gets tossed around... and the issue goes away. Getting climate change correct is not inconsequential in either direction. But do you know how many research "ists" are big fans of fossil fuel to begin with? Very, very few. They could care less if fossil fuels go away or not. They think there's a "Facebook for fuel" right around the corner... just as soon as the next Zuckerberg of green energy comes along. It's stupidity. There are consequences for not being exact.

My point is that science puts out what they think as if it is fact. Saying that facts and data are king is real easy. No politician is using facts. They are using the hypothetical outcomes. These are not risk free decisions. They empower horrible politics. They need to act more responsibly... and absolutely prove the science. Tree rings, ice core samples, and cool thermal imagery of the upper atmosphere are really really cool stuff... but I listened to a paleontologist take scat from a neanderthal cave and try to tell the world what neanderthals language skills were. Who is qualified to argue with him? He's right unless someone else knows better.

And no... the politics do not cut both ways in climate science. The politicians have emboldened the "ists" and they are loving it. And a geologist and a biologist are as disparate as a dry cleaner and a balloon artist. They're equally amazed at each other's contributions to "climate science"... but it does not mesh into a complete analysis. One of the most truthful "ists" said that what they know currently with global climate science cause and effect is equivalent to finding a lug nut and then telling you how an automobile is made. If others are so certain of their conclusions... I find it very interesting that enormous funding is being requested to further study it. I have no problem with studying the wizz out of climate science... but it's very hypocritical to be so conclusive... not have a single solution other than the mass stoppage of carbon emissions... and yet continue to develop expensive equipment, assemble the world's massive scientific cache and continue "studying it". I absolutely demand they study it... but they need to Please until they prove it conclusively. To hear them say "reducing carbon emissions... even if it isn't exactly as we theorize... has no consequences... and it will clean up our atmosphere... this much carbon cannot be good... and it is time to stop the global crude oil energy issues." That's just not scientific or correct.

And further... would you not expect the questions to be coming from people employed by the fossil fuel industry? Why are we demonized? The decisions massively affect our lives. I'm not capable of stopping the mass flow of ignorance. But what is wrong with the questioning? If you see who answers the questions... it's not a scientist... it's a politician, a music mogul, an actor, a TV host or a media star... all of which couldn't explain anything about the "ists"... except "they're really smart people".

[Ragin4U]

Use of renewables is increasing globally so I'm unclear on your point. Will they take a while to become feasible? Of course, just any new tech.
I also dont get you point about the Valdez. You can still find crude in areas around PWS and the genes of the affected wildlife still carry indicators of exposure to oil.
I realize BP says the Gulf is back to normal and if you believe that, I've got some tar balls to sell you, because we are still finding tar balls and every so often see some oil sheen in the marsh. You cant dump 3 million barrels of oil and not expect consequences. That's like saying go ahead smoke and eat cracklins 24/7 and when you stop your body will be fine.
Science welcomes questions. Thats what science is. And geology and biology are not separated by the chasm you seem to suggest. Many geophysical process interact will biologic ones and vice versa. One thing that natural processes is not is isolated. Everything is interconnected.
Can I ask you a few questions?
1.Do you think the Earth's climate is warming, cooling, or stable?
2. Do you think human activities are causing any degree of change, if it is changing?
3. When you mentioned something about the science of greenhouse gasses, are you saying that CO2, water vapor, methane, etc do not trap solar energy?
4. What is your take on the news articles claiming that Exxon hid data about climate change for years?
5. Why did oil and gas companies invest in renewables and then back off?
I may have others but I'm moving on for now.
Thanks for the discourse.

[VObserver]

Use of renewables is increasing globally so I'm unclear on your point. Will they take a while to become feasible? Of course, just any new tech.
I also dont get you point about the Valdez. You can still find crude in areas around PWS and the genes of the affected wildlife still carry indicators of exposure to oil.
I realize BP says the Gulf is back to normal and if you believe that, I've got some tar balls to sell you, because we are still finding tar balls and every so often see some oil sheen in the marsh. You cant dump 3 million barrels of oil and not expect consequences. That's like saying go ahead smoke and eat cracklins 24/7 and when you stop your body will be fine.
Science welcomes questions. Thats what science is. And geology and biology are not separated by the chasm you seem to suggest. Many geophysical process interact will biologic ones and vice versa. One thing that natural processes is not is isolated. Everything is interconnected.
Can I ask you a few questions?
1.Do you think the Earth's climate is warming, cooling, or stable?
2. Do you think human activities are causing any degree of change, if it is changing?
3. When you mentioned something about the science of greenhouse gasses, are you saying that CO2, water vapor, methane, etc do not trap solar energy?
4. What is your take on the news articles claiming that Exxon hid data about climate change for years?
5. Why did oil and gas companies invest in renewables and then back off?
I may have others but I'm moving on for now.
Thanks for the discourse.

1. It is warming. Climate is never stable.
2. Possibly some minor influence, but the warming is largely part of the normal and repeated cycle of global climate change.
3. If they did not trap solar energy, there would be no life on earth.
4. I have seen no such articles, and if I had seen them, I would discount them as opinion pieces until proven otherwise. Very little of what is called news is news. Much of it on both sides is editorial opinion.
5. Simple. They invested in renewables until they determined that most were economically not viable at this time. The renewables that are economically viable are still being backed by big energy. Somebody needs to tell T Boone that he's is not in the oil business any more.

On your first statement... of course the use of renewables is rising. It is being massively subsidized by government. And let us not be disingenuous; you don't mean "renewables", you mean "politically acceptable renewables". Wood, grasses and cow chips are renewable fuels, but the Al Gores aren't pushing wood stoves or cow chip fueled power plants.

[CajunRed]

So...since we have between 100 and 200 years of known oil reserves left, my vote is to get that down to 50...THEN go all out for battery cars and solar houses.

[Ragin4U]

1. It is warming. Climate is never stable.
2. Possibly some minor influence, but the warming is largely part of the normal and repeated cycle of global climate change.
3. If they did not trap solar energy, there would be no life on earth.
4. I have seen no such articles, and if I had seen them, I would discount them as opinion pieces until proven otherwise. Very little of what is called news is news. Much of it on both sides is editorial opinion.
5. Simple. They invested in renewables until they determined that most were economically not viable at this time. The renewables that are economically viable are still being backed by big energy. Somebody needs to tell T Boone that he's is not in the oil business any more.

On your first statement... of course the use of renewables is rising. It is being massively subsidized by government. And let us not be disingenuous; you don't mean "renewables", you mean "politically acceptable renewables". Wood, grasses and cow chips are renewable fuels, but the Al Gores aren't pushing wood stoves or cow chip fueled power plants.

1. Agreed
2. Even if data shows that the climate is warming faster and more dramatically than average which coincides with increased levels of atmospheric CO2? Why do you think its part of the normal cycle?
3. Absolutely. Doesnt it follow that increased levels trap more heat?
4. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-40-years-ago/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/16/exxon-climate-change/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/exxon...ange-research/
5. Agreed.It just seems odd that they would pump billions of dollars into solar, wind, etc and then figure out they wouldnt make moey.

And your last statement is disingenuous. Cow chips and wood arent used because they are not feasible not because people are trying to protect cow crap. Maybe governments are subsidizing renewables to keep ahead of the curb. From an economic standpoint it makes sense to diversify. Have you taken a look around Lafayette and Houston lately? Remember the '80s?

[alum81]

On one side you have the overboard environmentalists and on the other side the, pollute all you want crowd. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

[Ragin4U]

On one side you have the overboard environmentalists and on the other side the, pollute all you want crowd. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Agreed. As a society we seemed to have moved towards an "all or nothing", "us against them", way of thinking. Our mutual interests are usually aligned but human nature tends to intervene. See Tragedy of the Commons