Part 2: Denying Climate Change….

Coast Guard Cutter
Coast Guard Cutter breaking ice on the Hudson river. Photo credit: US Coast Guard District 1, PA3 BILL BARRY / Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Reading Time: 7 minutes

In the first of our three-part climate investigation, we showed why you don’t need to go far north to see evidence of climate change—it’s happening even in Florida. But if you do go north, you may soon rub elbows with oil companies.

For years, climate change skeptics in Congress and energy lobbyists like the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Coal Council (ACC) have been successfully blocking significant action in the US on reducing this country’s emissions of carbon into the air. But as the ice melts up north, some of these same industry skeptics are moving to profit from it.

Certainly the Pentagon knows the earth is getting hotter. Here’s what US Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Robert J. Papp wrote in the February 2012 issue of Proceedings, the magazine of the US Naval Institute:

“The world may seem to be growing smaller, but its seas are growing bigger—particularly in the great North, where a widening water-highway beckons both with resources and challenges.”

The Admiral, while ignoring issues of causality, continued:

“The Arctic Ocean, in the northern region of the Arctic Circle, is changing from a solid expanse of inaccessible ice fields into a growing navigable sea, attracting increased human activity and unlocking access to vast economic potential and energy resources. In the 35 years since I first saw Kotzebue, Alaska, on the Chukchi Sea as a junior officer, the sea ice has receded from the coast so much that when I returned last year the coastal area was ice-free. ”

Recognizing the truth of Admiral Papp’s statement, the Navy is gearing up for an ice-free Arctic Ocean in the summer months as soon as 2016—84 years ahead of conventional model projections.

This estimate is the result of an ongoing US Department of Energy-backed research project led by a US Navy scientist at the US Naval Postgraduate School‘s Department of Oceanography, Professor Wieslaw Maslowsky.

Republicans Cool Down Navy Statistics

The Republican House-led Armed Services Committee relied on the Navy’s research, too, but used older data that put the date several years further off. Still, even with outdated estimates, the Committee’s comments on the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) refer to a future ice-free Arctic Ocean that will occur alarmingly soon:

“The committee continues to be concerned about the Department of Defense’s resources and preparedness for accessing, operating in, and protecting national interests in the Arctic. The Navy currently estimates that between 2020 and 2030 the Arctic could be ice free for one month during the summer which may lead to an increase in trans-Arctic passage for vessels seeking to reduce transit distance by utilizing the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage. The Navy’s Strategic Objectives for the Arctic …include ensuring Navy forces are capable and ready, contributing to the safety, stability and security in the region, safeguarding U.S. maritime interests, protecting critical infrastructure and key resources in the Arctic, and strengthening and fostering new cooperative relationships in the region. As a global Nation, the United States needs to ensure that the Navy is adequately prepared to preserve U.S. national security interests and collaborate with other Arctic nations if and when the region will be open for passage with increased traffic.”

 Even with the later predicted ice-free date, this is pretty unambiguous stuff, and yet, incredibly, the Republican majority on the House Armed Services Committee is stacked with people who are climate change deniers. That includes the committee chair, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), who scored a 3 out of 100 on the League of Conservation Voters Environmental Scorecard (his lifetime record is 8).

In 2011, even as the nation’s midsection and its “salad bowl” in Central California were beginning to suffer an epic drought that scientists link to climate change, McKeon introduced an amendment to bar the Agriculture Department from implementing a climate change adaptation plan. McKeon also voted against a bill that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce limits on greenhouse gasses by utilities. WhoWhatWhy’s efforts to speak with McKeon or one of his staffers on the Armed Services Committee have been ignored.

But McKeon is hardly alone. It has been 24 years now, almost a quarter century, since the first International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its report warning that human activity, and in particular the burning of fossil fuels, was dangerously heating up the planet. Since that time, the US government has done little to slow the growth of the nation’s carbon emissions, and has consistently played an active role in blocking international agreement on measures to slow global warming.

President Obama, who promised shortly after winning election in 2008 to begin a “new chapter” on climate change, has done little, even early in his first term, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

***

Behind Washington’s appalling record of inaction lies the politically powerful fossil fuel industry, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying over the last two decades in an effort to block any limits on carbon emissions. In the 2012 election cycle alone the industry spent over $153 million on TV ads promoting less regulation, and more oil, gas and coal production.

Not surprisingly, the president and Congress have done little over this time to limit fossil fuel use in the US, and the results have been predictable: between 1990 and 2011, US carbon emissions were up 8 percent (the number would have been higher but for the prolonged and ongoing economic slump, which has reduced economic activity, driving miles and air miles flown and electricity use and thus carbon emissions.

Oil Companies Want it Both Ways

Still, the US remains far and away the largest producer of greenhouse gasses after China, and the largest producer by far on a per capita basis: 16.4 tons per person for the US in 2012 compared to 7.1 tons for China, 12.4 tons for Russia, 10.4 tons for Japan, and 9.7 tons for Germany. The global average that year was just 4.9 tons, and the only country exceeding the US in carbon use per capita was Australia at 18.0 tons per person.

Meanwhile, as the Navy plans for an expanded role in an ice-free far north, oil companies, including ExxonMobil, ARCO, Chevron, BP, Norway’s Statoil, Russia’s Gazprom, and Shell, are gearing up to begin drilling for oil and gas in parts of the Arctic Ocean that are already becoming free of ice in summer months. These major players know that even in winter, the returned ice sheet will be manageably thin in coming years. They are also even covetously looking to drill in the soon to be ice-free parts of Greenland.

Floating rig drilling in Russian Arctic Ocean waters (partly owned by Exxon/Mobil)

Floating rig drilling in Russian Arctic Ocean waters (partly owned by Exxon/Mobil)

In other words, oil company scientists are on one hand assuring them there’s big money to be made tapping the vast oil and gas reserves known to lie beneath the shallow Arctic waters now being relieved of their ice cover for the first time in millions of years. On the other hand, these same companies are simultaneously lobbying Congress to sow doubts among the public about the true impact of climate-change situation.

As for the public sector, how can Congress and the Obama administration, who know that the Navy is gearing up to patrol and defend a whole new coastline and vast new stretches of heretofore inaccessible territorial waters north of Alaska, keep failing to adopt even minimal efforts to slow climate change by working to limit the burning of fossil fuels in the US?

It’s not as if this kind of double-dealing has no costs. A consortium of 18 environmental organizations, which includes groups like the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the League of Conservation Voters, wrote in a Jan. 16 letter to President Obama that his administration’s “all of the above” approach to boosting domestic, including Arctic, exploration for more oil, more gas and increased coal for export, was unacceptable in view of the growing climate change crisis:

“An ‘all of the above’ strategy is a compromise that future generations can’t afford. It fails to prioritize clean energy and solutions that have already begun to replace fossil fuels, revitalize American industry, and save Americans money. It increases environmental injustice while it locks in the extraction of fossil fuels that will inevitably lead to a catastrophic climate future.”

Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute announced that same day that it was launching an ad and lobbying campaign to promote increased gas and oil exploration in the US. A report by the API, called “The State of America’s Energy: America’s Energy, America’s Choice,” pointedly notes that Alaska’s outer continental shelf–increasingly ice free and presumably accessible to drilling–contains an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil, but that at this point most of it is not being made available to energy companies for drilling.

I called API to ask how oil industry executives could be hearing from their own scientists that the Arctic ice cap is vanishing while continuing to lobby against any efforts to limit carbon emissions: “Are they simply ignoring the evidence, or is it a case of a thirst for near-term profits overriding any concern about the survivability of life on the planet for their own offspring?”

The media relations executive, Brian Straessle, while saying he would try to get me someone to talk to from API (so far nothing on that front), offered as a justification for this seemingly oxymoronic behavior, the claim that US carbon emissions in 2012 had fallen to an 20-year (sic — it’s 18) low “because of a shift to burning natural gas.”

When I replied, “Well, I think it was mostly because of reduced economic activity from the long recession, right?” I was met with silence.

It is true that temporarily cheap natural gas has led to some shifting by utilities away from coal, a much worse producer of carbon dioxide, and that this switch to gas did cut US production of CO2. But the bulk of the estimated 3.8 percent decline in carbon emissions in the US in 2012 was the result of continued lower economic activity, and to cutbacks in energy use by financially strapped Americans.  Moreover, there are warnings that once natural gas prices rise again, as they inevitably will with any global economy rebound, utilities will shift back to more coal burning. This would make the downturn in US carbon emissions a short-lived phenomenon. (Also, there’s the unmentioned impact of leaked methane in the mining and use of gas and oil, which releases into the atmosphere a chemical that is 23 times as potent a global warming agent as CO2.)

The reality, as the Pentagon and oil industry executives know, is that climate change is progressing with frightening rapidity—and if the Arctic ice sheet vanishes in summer, with that vast reflective whiteness replaced by dark, solar energy-absorbing water, that pace will increase dramatically. The reality, too, is that sea levels along parts of the Atlantic seaboard have risen significantly since the 1930s, forcing places like Miami Beach to engage in costly major projects to stave off their inevitable future as new Atlantises. According to one expert at the University of Florida, Prof. Harold Wanless, increasingly rapid ice melting on Greenland’s two-mile-thick ice sheet, and evidence that the much larger West Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to melt, could mean a devastating 15-foot global sea rise by as early as 2100, instead of the 3-6 foot predictions that are more commonly cited (bad as those would be).

This may all be perceived as great news for a water-enamored Navy, but for the rest of us, especially the hundreds of millions who live near coastlines, it’s nothing less than catastrophic.

Coming soon in our series: Washington’s weird way of sidestepping the causes of climate change.

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

23 responses to “Part 2: Denying Climate Change….”

  1. Title

    […]check beneath, are some completely unrelated sites to ours, on the other hand, they’re most trustworthy sources that we use[…]

  2. Kuldebar Valiturus says:

    I’m not convinced there are people denying “climate change” but there are plenty who take issue with anthropogenic global warming; and rightfully so.

  3. aryaba says:

    When the “solution” offered to “climate change” is nothing more than a modern indulgence, I have trouble taking the “problem” seriously.

  4. Gucci says:

    The primary point of the article presumes the global warming/climate change thesis – that human activity is driving the climate of the planet in a direction that can only lead to future human catastrophe (which is taken to be self evident) – and that by “denying” this thesis, the taking of any opportunity that arises as a result of natural climate change, somehow the picture of hipocrisy. I cannot get too worked up over climate change alarmism when many of the worlds best earth scientists articulate serious flaws with the alarmist climate change thesis – richard lindzen foremost among them. My libertarian instincts also make me immediately suspicious of the statist remedies for which the alarmists seem to be “spring loaded”, especially given that the vast majority of them are funded by the state. I hope that the climate change reporting you do will also include investigations into the funding decisison mechanisms used to drive what many scientists say is psuedo-science. Maybe even some research associated with the relative amounts of money that are spent on studies intended to support the CC theisis versus those that may controvert this thesis.
    but taking advantage of recently

  5. stevor says:

    “climate change” and “global warming” are NOT the same. Yes, many deny Global Warming. That was shown FAKE as evidence by those who were claiming “global warming” changing their tune to “climate change”.
    Manmade climate change would be silly to dispute. For DECADES we’ve had Cloud Seeding, which has the purpose of changing the climate. If that weren’t successful, it would have been abandoned decades ago!
    Unfortunately, “progress” has enabled governments to go further with Climate Change. Some years ago, the military said they wanted to be able to use climate change against other countries in lieu of war (and that’s what they’re doing now).
    Look up “geoengineering” (chem trails). Many deny it vehemently but it’s been described in articles to tell how it’s done. On top of that is HAARP in conjunction with geoengineering. Some say it’s just a “conspiracy theory” but I saw a video where somebody who worked at a HAARP station telling how it can raise the upper layers of the atmosphere. So, why would that be done? Climate change? Have storms such as Hurricane Sandy done new strange things?
    So, YES climate change is being exploited. Why would someone do it if they couldn’t take advantage of it? The problem is what is being done and whether it’s a good thing FOR THE PEOPLE!

    • Dave Lindorff says:

      You’re confusing climate change with weather change. For decades, scientists have known that if you seed certain clouds with certain chemicals, you can get them to release their moisture as rain. That is a weather change — getting certain clouds to do something sooner that they were going to do at some point later on. But that is far from climate change. Climate change would be altering the whole cycle of weather over a large area on a more or less permanent basis. It has been done accidentally. For example, by puming out the water from an ancient aquifer in Xi’an and surrounding areas in central China, the Chinese ran the water table down to below where tree roots could reach it, and vastly extended the western desert, which is now causing huge annual dust storms to sweep through northern China to Beijing and further east. that is climate change. It is man-made, and it is irreversible.

      As of today, scientists and nations do NOT know how to deliberately manipulate the global climate except in the imagination of conspiracy theorists who have only a tentative grasp of science and scientific thinking.

      Ditto global warming.
      Dave Lindorff

  6. 0ivae says:

    “If your comment posting has been deleted, it is likely because you are ignoring our stated terms above….” – Russ Baker. It is also possible however that even if you adhere to the stated terms, your comments will still be deleted because they contradict the “narrow ideological line” of the editor.

  7. sgtdoom says:

    Well, we’re certainly not getting help from what’s-his-name:

    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/30-1

    http://www.information.dk/486360

    And speaking of environmental threats, please view American Anthrax (and read the not connected book — but on the same exact subject — Bob Coen’s Dead Silence.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zT7ATynE8_0

    Quite a few people sing the praises of Gore and his Inconvenient Truth, but after that film, Gore founds, with two of his Goldman Sachs buddies, a carbon permit trading fund, plus carbon derivatives, basically another hedge fund scam on the shadow banking side, doing nothing to negate climate change, simply financial fraud in sending more money to the hedge funds, banks and oil companies.

  8. 0ivae says:

    Apparently the comment I left – which in no way violated the stated terms – caused too much cognitive dissonance for editor Russ Baker to digest, even though the author deemed it worthy of a response. We see how you are Russ.

  9. William Shanley says:

    Watch out for the old-Malthusian eyeglasses that see scarcity in a universe and planet of infinite abundance and harmony. The physicists I know and have worked with (Alice and the Quantum Cat, Pari Publishing, 2011 and Lewis Carroll’s Lost Quantum Diaries, DVA, 1999) and don’t buy into the theory that global warming is caused by man. The fluid dynamic models used by establishment scientists don’t include molecular transformations in the biosphere which are far too complex to paint such a simple portrait. And while there may be global warming, we must remember that it was warmer in the 1600’s, and global warming causes changes at high altitudes but much less so at sea level. Actually, we’re over due for a new ice age. Read scientist and skeptic Freeman Dyson on this. He suggests that if we’re concerned about global warming, we can find simple solutions that won’t mean implementation of a tax on all human activity, like planting grasses and trees. We know the Goldman vampires of the world would love to see a carbon market they can profit from and manipulate. The last time I checked, the population density of the planet was 154 persons per square mile of land and we don’t even live in the oceans which constitute 71% of the earth’s surface area. Beware of mass illusions like Y2K, fossil fuels (oil is made of carbon and other abundant elements. Just ask the spirit of Hitler. Standard Oil licensed to the Nazi war machine the patent for turning soft coal into oil as Germany only possessed 10% of the fuel it needed to mount the war) and global warming. Consensus reality is frequently wrong. Remember the missile gap? Always examine the data and don’t buy into mass propaganda without doing proper research. Until I see it, I’ll ignore the voices of scientists who receive funding for research that supports anthropogenic global warming claim. Oligarchy has always been terrified of over population; the Venetians wouldn’t let many of their men marry because they believe the carrying capacity of the planet was in the 5 million person range. These people would rather she sheep than human beings on land, unless it’s there own white children, and eugenics and abortion movements have been promoted by none other than the likes of the Harrimans and Rockefellers. Greedy, selfish bastards who only see lack in the face of abundance. But now I’m getting into the psychopathologies of the id enabled by the untrained ego of which Dante and Freud alerted us so long ago.

  10. russbaker says:

    If your comment posting has been deleted, it is likely because you are ignoring our stated terms above. Please keep your posts short, don’t be aggressive or keep posting to the same article, don’t embed videos, don’t use ALL-CAPS, do label as speculation what is in fact speculation, try to be gentle and elegant, no climate denial sock puppets please. Thanks.

  11. stevor says:

    Sure, there’s climate change. Here’s a video where a SCIENTIST and co-scientists were KILLED because they gave DATA about how chem trails were causing it.

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

    Don’t believe in chem trails (geoengineering)? Then why were they ASSASSINATED?

  12. jcbrook says:

    “Chemtrails” blown wide open by former Air Force bio-environmental engineer Kristen Meghan, who saw the requisition orders for tons of aluminum, barium, and strontium, in the form of oxides and sulphates. When she asked questions about it, she was threatened with the Susan Lindauer treatment (i.e., do you want to be locked up in the loony bin?).

    http://www.veterans-today.com/2014/01/30/ex-military-chemtrails-whistleblower/

    (video)

    Russ, how come you only ever go halfway?

  13. 0ivae says:

    You would be a climate change denier to not acknowledge the other deliberate factors influencing climate. Have you looked up lately..? http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ Of course the argument is made that we have to geo-engineer in secrecy because our democracies are ineffectual in addressing the problem; yet the concentration of warming in the arctic regions would seem to confirm Matt Anderson’s contention that this is being done not in order to counter global warming, but to open up new resources in previously inaccessible regions. Indeed, as an aerospace engineer (not a climate scientist), he would be in a position to know this is going on. Furthermore, that the Navy is anticipating an acceleration of arctic ice melt far ahead of the predictions of climate scientists suggests that they know something the latter do not – as they are not mere passive observers of climate systems, but active manipulators thereof. I should note here that the Navy, Air Force and DARPA are joint funders of HAARP (along with outside contract work of BAE Systems). There is a case to be made that not just HAARP, but other ionospheric heaters operated by Russia and the Scandinavian nations are together deliberately warming the arctic regions… http://wxxxnews.blogspot.com/2010/09/warm-dent-in-arctic.html – it may indeed be a consensual conspiracy of each economic rival to warm their respective arctic “turf”.

    • Dave Lindorff says:

      The problem with your theory is that there is actually bitter disagreement about who owns the “turf” under the Arctic. If they had a neat map, and all agreed, okay maybe, but you have wildly competing claims — which is why the Navy wants urgently to get a fleet up there. There is no cooperation in exploiting those resources. In fact, it is quite possible that there could be military conflicts up there between competing economic interests — the Russians, the US, Canada, and even Denmark, which at least for now owns Greenland, but which would have the backing of the whole of Europe.

      Dave Lindorff

    • 0ivae says:

      The continental shelves adjacent to the coastlines of each nation are not in dispute. It is closer to the North Pole that the territorial claims become dicier. This is an issue marginal to the other points I raised, however, which regrettably Mr. Baker has seen fit to suppress. I will attempt to repeat those that directly address the article…

      Fact: as your article notes, the Navy is predicting an accelerated polar ice melt, far beyond what conventional models predict. What might account for this? Your article does not offer an explanation since, as you note, Admiral Papp ignored the question of causation in the report. Another fact that I mentioned could explain the accelerated prediction; namely that the U.S. Navy (along with Air Force and DARPA) funds HAARP, an ionospheric heater in Alaska that conceivably could alter weather patterns so as to warm the North coast of Alaska and the Arctic Ocean regions adjacent to it, thus opening up oil fields previously inaccessible (just as Russia and the Scandinavian countries have similar ionospheric heaters and could be doing the same,). This is admittedly speculative, but it is speculation based upon facts, one of which is highlighted in your article.

  14. Dave Lindorff says:

    Furthermore, the Matt Andersson whose letter to the Guardian you mention, is described on linkedin as a former aerospace engineer, not as any kind of climate scientist, and the letter in question, which can be found at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/09/at-war-over-geoengineering
    offers no evidence for its wild assertion.
    Just calling someone a “whistleblower” doesn’t make their claims any more credible, or the requirement for them to prove what they are claiming any less demanding.
    Dave Lindorff

    • jcbrook says:

      He works for a premier military-industrial complex company and there are pages and pages of his letters at The Economist website, which indicate to me that he’s got inside information on a variety of subjects.

    • Dave Lindorff says:

      Hardly. It indicates he writes a lot of letters. The rest is speculation. The fact that he works for a “military-industrial complex company” does not mean that he has any knowledge at all about climate change. And unless, like Ed Snowden, he explained the reason he had inside information, it has to be discounted.
      Dave Lindorff

    • jcbrook says:

      One of Andersson’s letters that can be found on the internet is about Wellsbach seeding of the atmosphere and the many years that the US has been doing it. Given the video revelation by former Air Force bio-environmental engineer Kristen Meghan that I posted above, I would think that an aerospace engineer might also know all about the Air Force dumping tons of aluminum and barium and strontium on us.

      Dave, are you a troll? I will remember your name.

  15. jcbrook says:

    Russ, please find and interview the other Booz Allen whistleblower, Matt Andersson, author of the letter to the Guardian, “At War over Geoengineering,” and a letter at another site about the U.S.’s many years of Wellsbach seeding and weather manipulation. Andersson claims that the Arctic is being melted deliberately by many interests working together. Although, that’s hard to figure, this winter! I think, after this winter, a lot of people will be praying for global warming.

    • dave Lindorff says:

      That would be one hell of a conspiracy to keep secret! It would require a number of democracies — Canada, Denmark, Norway, Britain, Finland, Iceland (!) and a number of countries with profoundly opposed interests like Russia and the US, to work together and have no leaks themselves, AND it would require the entire community of scientists, whom I would assume Andersson is not including in this massive plot, to ignore and fail to publish any data that would suggest a deliberate effort to melt such a vast region.
      As for your comment about this winter, you’re missing the clear point that the driver of winter storms — the jet stream — is being weakened and is wobbling in its course, often drifting South — because the temperature gradient that makes it work in the first place, namely a cold north and a warm south — is being narrowed significantly. That’s why we are seeing the Arctic Vortex pushed south intermittently during the winter. There’s no contradiction there at all.
      Dave Lindorff

    • Janus Boesen Agerbo says:

      The cold winters are some of the results of the climate change. So it’s not hard to figure out (if one takes but a brief moment to get informed) and it shouldn’t be anything people pray for (albiet people who pray are likely to not understand GCC)

  16. kapnlogos says:

    I guess there won’t be any criticism of the accepted dogma on this site. Typical though.

    • russbaker says:

      Read our guidelines, above. No news site will allow anonymous people promoting dark-ages agendas to dominate, and they routinely remove such things. The vast majority of readers do not post comments–but they do object to this kind of thing, and they complain. Sorry. If you are a real person, not an industry sock puppet, please find a place more consistent with your worldview.

    • kapnlogos says:

      Well Russ, I’m a real person, and an individual. My opinion is my own, not bought and paid for by an industry or anyone else. I would posit that accepting a theory that hasn’t been proved, and silencing all criticism is more dark ages and totalitarian than a few thoughtful comments posted in a polite comment. It’s your site, run it as you see fit. I always notice if a site allows or has comments. Science can endure criticism, but dogma can’t.

    • russbaker says:

      Well, if you stand behind your beliefs, have the courage to fully identify yourself, and to state your credentials.

    • kapnlogos says:

      You deleted my posts, and now you want me to ‘fully identify myself and state my credentials’?

    • russbaker says:

      Exactly. Once you make plain how you are qualified to know that science is lying to us, we’ll make a decision. This is not, repeat not, a bulletin board for any random, anonymous person to say whatever they want, especially where we see signs of a concerted campaign by a small number of individuals–and a massive pr campaign by fossil fuel industries–to try and overwhelm the science on this matter of life and death. If you disagree with this policy, you’re welcome to go to any of the many bulletin boards for folks who like to argue endlessly with each other. If you have specific, documented new information, give us your full name, your professional qualifications, and so on.

    • TS13 says:

      Science welcomes criticism, but it doesn’t tolerate willful ignorance.

    • Dave Lindorff says:

      The problem with the comment is that it is not really a comment at all. It is simply a fact free rant.
      I find it fascinating how people with an ideological position like “climate change is a conspiracy” will criticize any article on the subject without addressing the issues in the article. This one, for example, is make some factual points, specifically that:
      1. The Navy’s scientists–hardly a bunch of granola-munching radicals and terrorists — have concluded based upon massive evidence that the ice cap that for millions of years has covered the entire Arctic Ocean, is vanishing and will be gone in summer in a few more years, and that

      2. The oil industry, which has been massively lobbying, running TV and print ads, and buying Congresspeople to prevent any serious regulation of carbon emissions and to gain and protect federal subsidies for oil drilling, has been told by its own scientists that the Arctic Ocean will soon be open for drilling because the ice cap is vanishing.

      These are facts, not opinions, and they are facts that the politicians are ignoring.

      If you want to maintain a belief that scientists are in a massive global, trans-national, trans-political, trans-racial conspiracy to hoodwink the world into believing that the earth is heating up because of human activity (burning of fossil fuels, destruction of jungles, industrial cattle raising, etc.), you need to explain why these two groups of scientists — those hired by the US Navy, and those hired by the oil industry — are saying the same thing.

      Just saying an article is wrong, stupid or part of a conspiracy is not a comment, and not worth reading. It’s just a rant.

      Neither, frankly, is it worth posting crank pseudo-scientific “studies” that suggest that the warming of the globe is the result of a hotter (sic) sun or of some kind of long orbital cycle. At no time in geological history has climate changed so fast except when there has been some kind of catastrophic event–a comet, a global mass eruption of volcanic activity or the like — and the only catastrophic event we’ve had in the last few hundred years has been the mass industrialization of humanity, based upon the use of fossil fuels.

      Dave Lindorff

  17. kapnlogos says:

    Why is global warming bad? I’m not convinced the theory is true, but even if it is, is it a bad thing? Global cooling is surely more dangerous and would lead to starvation and less arable land. That question asked, how can our weather prognosticators, and computer modeling ‘experts’ even dare predict weather long term when they can’t even predict what will happen next year. Did any of them predict this year’s truncated hurricane season? The only thing predictable here is the greed of many in government for more tax money to fight the imagined evil. “We need more gold and virgins to sacrifice to pacify Gaia”.

  18. Chuck (Smithfix) Smith says:

    WTF, Global Warming is a hoax so now it is “Climate Change”. This whole article is Bull!