White House turns blind eye on Democrats who oppose climate rules

Comments (102)
stambo2001 wrote:

And people wonder why Obama can’t lead the opposition anywhere, he can’t even lead his own party. Everyone of the progressives seems to have their own personal agenda. What does it tell you about Obama’s policies when members of his own party fight against them? If the progressives themselves don’t like it, then you can be sure the Republicans would be doubly opposed. Somehow this will be spun as Republican obstruction even though it is Obama himself causing the friction, just as it is Harry Reid preventing bi-partisan bills from being tabled in the Senate. Worst administration the USA has ever witnessed.

Jun 01, 2014 8:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ExDemocrat wrote:

Brace for yet more over-regulation of the U.S. economy by President Obama and his Democrats.

Jun 01, 2014 8:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

So, should Democrats who oppose Obama within his party be accused of being FOX devotees who want to destroy the country as Republican’s are often labeled by the Obama faithful? I can’t wait to read the comments following this article.

Jun 01, 2014 9:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

Reuters is probably correct, discussing Obama’s treatment of political figures in a dispute, instead of the underlying substance of the dispute, because Obama’s record of politicizing (demonizing, really) all dissent justifies it.

The opposition in the underlying dispute holds that the scientific opinion justifying vast expenditures reorienting our economic life does not substantiate the need for such draconian socio-political action.

One of the best presentations of the opposing scientists is found at the site of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Contrary to the assertions of the demonizers, these scientist are many and they are eminently qualifier as climate scientists.

Have a look at their website. It might be a laborious task. Their work is thorough and comprehensive – not presentable in a page or two.

Jun 01, 2014 9:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
richinnc wrote:

Once again we are not addressing the core problem – our use of the electricity. Do we need highways lit so well. Are all federal computers turned off at night and weekends? The list goes on and on. Our “leaders” want to build new things and tear down the old. I say use the old wisely. We need to be conservative (note I did not say Republican – many of them are NOT conservative)

Jun 01, 2014 9:23am EDT  --  Report as abuse
nose2066 wrote:

I am curious as to just HOW they put limits on carbon emissions on one industry? Is it a fixed number of tons of carbon for the whole nation including Alaska and Hawaii?

How would they allocate tons of carbon between electric companies? Burning natural gas also produces carbon dioxide. Do companies that burn natural gas also come within the rules? In fact, natural gas transmission facilities are know to leak methane gas which is much more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

Would they look at the “net” carbon emissions for a company? So if the company planted trees as a carbon sink, would they deduct that amount?

Jun 01, 2014 11:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Good for the President, goes to show that he is a principled man and willingness to do the right thing even if it not the politically correct thing to do.

Sad that this issue is even politicized, it is crystal clear to anyone who knows the scientific method that something needs to be done about this issue, should not even be a debate about if climate change is,occurring and human activity is the main cause. The debate should be how far we are willing to go to slow it down.

Jun 01, 2014 11:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
njglea wrote:

Thank You, President Obama, for doing what is right for America and the world – again – despite the fears of politicians on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps if politicians start listening to the vast majority of Americans instead of the top 1% financial elite we would not be so far down the path to 3rd world status. Send all “conservatives”, including those posing as democrats and independents, home in the next elections and let’s restore democracy in America.

Jun 01, 2014 11:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

Religion and ignorance bedevil anybody running for office in the Midwest, the bastion of superstition and self-righteous violence against folk who think differently.

These folk are SCARED people, and are played like a cheap kazoo by those who control them with SCARY thoughts.

I really DO hope they are “exceptional” not wanting them to spread their hate and superstition to the Decent Folk.

Jun 01, 2014 11:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

@njglea- Is that you Barrack?

Jun 01, 2014 11:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
notfooled2 wrote:

At one time, 10,000 to 20,000 years ago scientist tell us that a lot of North America was covered in an ice sheet a mile thick, I think it must be warmer now than it was then, but I don’t think me driving my car caused the ice sheet to melt, for that matter I don’t think it was people that caused it to melt.
Water vapor is the largest global warming gas, I suppose B0 will want to cut back on water next.

Jun 01, 2014 11:37am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

We can and will replace Filth yFuels with remewables. It is happening right now.

When I was with the power company, we got our power from a broad spectrum of sources and technologies, giving us great flexibility, responsiveness, efficiency, efficacy, and reliability.

Our integrated system used gas peaking, supercritical gas boilers, geothermal, photovoltaic, solar thermal, fuel cells of all kinds, landfill gas, nuclear, hydro, some I forgot, and even the emergency generators of our customers dispatched directly by us.

You will all do it and soon. We can get an energy system we do not need to buy from folk who hate us, and need eleven naval carrier groups to protect.

Jun 01, 2014 11:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

There are two words in this headline that I have argued go well together for a long time. The words are “blind democrats”.

Jun 01, 2014 11:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

nose2066, all those rules were put forth by conservatives, believe it or not. They were trying to avoid using the BACT – the Best Available Control Technology.

They came up with the idea to clean up not their own mess, but the cheapest mess they could find with the same amount of pollution. Thus, Carbon Credits.

Jun 01, 2014 11:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

Will conservatives hate it when we have clean fuels?

They hated it when we ended their disgusting wars.

Jun 01, 2014 11:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

@ njglea gkam: “1% financial elites”, “conservatives”, “Religion and Ignorance” “self-righteous violence” are smoke screens.

The issues is government action based on climate science.

As informed citizens, have you read the SCIENCE presented by the scientists advocating more restrained government action than what Obama wants?

unionwv has posted a URL to one of their most comprehensive scientific presentations, supra.

Jun 01, 2014 11:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
fedupaj wrote:

It goes to show that even some dumocrats show a little common sense once in awhile. Anybody that listens to the liar in chief is as nutty as he is.

Jun 01, 2014 11:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

Why don’t conservatives READ THE SCIENCE instead of parroting the same talking points? There is no question of what we are doing to the Earth, but those with no appreciable education are ripe for emotional manipulation, like they were with “WMD!” and “Bring ‘em on!”.

Jun 01, 2014 11:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

“Why don’t conservatives READ THE SCIENCE…There is no question of what we are doing to the Earth …”

I have read the science(BOTH SIDES), gkam. Have you?

There certainly IS “a question”!

Jun 01, 2014 12:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rlm328 wrote:

To gkam:

I have read the science behind the numbers. Are talking about the cherry picked numbers indicating a surge in global warming that has not actually happened? Are we talking about the computer models that are being improperly applied? Are we talking about CO2 being a causative of global warming instead of a resultant of global warming as the Antarctic ice cores have indicated? Are we discussing how the solar flare cycles are effecting the weather? Are we discussing earth’s slowing and there fore decaying orbit around the sun?

We are in the longest warm trend between ice ages in the 800,000 years of data recovered from the ice cores. The normal warming period is 5,000 years. We are now around 10,000 years in this present warm period. How are humans to blame for the last 5,000 years?

The climate is changing as that is its nature. To state without evidence that humans are at fault for this is egoism run amuck. I will believe the data the alarmists are perpetuating as soon as they are no longer gov’t sponsored. So please try and get your information sometime other than the huffpo.

Jun 01, 2014 12:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

unionwv, I earned a Master of Science in this field, and am a former Senior Engineer for Pacific Gas & Electric, which was the largest non-govenmental power company on Earth at the time.

This is my field, and I know it. If you want to discuss it, I am eager to do so.

Jun 01, 2014 12:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

unionvw, Let’s discuss the consequences of Climate Change from which we already suffer: What is your take on the acidification of the oceans, and the implications of the loss of shells of the copepods for the Marine Food Chain?

Jun 01, 2014 12:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

rlm328, as I said before I EARNED a Master of Science in Energy and the Environment, and worked in the energy field.

Want to debate the specifics?

Jun 01, 2014 12:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

rlm328, as I said before I EARNED a Master of Science in Energy and the Environment, and worked in the energy field.

Want to debate the specifics?

Jun 01, 2014 12:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rlm328 wrote:

Please lets discuss it, what part of the information quoted do you disagree with?
1) The cherry picked numbers?
2) Computer models that have not even come close to determining what future temps are?
3) CO2 as a causative versus a resultant of global warming?
4) The solar flare cycle?
5) Earth’s decaying orbit?
6) The length of the present global warming trend?

As an engineer you should be able to analyze raw data without having to have it interpreted for you.

Jun 01, 2014 12:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

We simply do not have to use Filthy Fuels any longer, but can transition over to renewables now.

Want to know how?

Ask me how we already proved the technologies and integrated a modern distributed and diversified system decades ago in California, . . . in the 1980′s.

Jun 01, 2014 12:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

I would like to suggest where interested folk can get real information, from the studies the4mselves, with NO politics at all.

The best sources are the science journals, but they are so technical they are hard to follow if not in the field. Go to sites for science in the public interest, where they give synopses of the technical studies and references to the studies themselves, so you can make up your OWN mind. Stop taking what somebody tells you, including my own position, and go read it for yourself.

You will not find an article on it, but hundreds of articles in all the sciences, all pointing to the same conclusion. But you have to get it from reading the studies for yourself.

I suggest sciencedaily.Com, or sciencenews.Org to start.

Good luck.

Jun 01, 2014 12:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
goldminor wrote:

Here is one reason why some Democrat politicians may want to distance themselves from the false claim of catastrophic Global Warming. The other day a Dr Botkin gave testimony before Congress regarding his thoughts on climate change. They are an eye opener for the warmists who believe that co2 is a pollutant.

Hers is a short bio on the man, ““Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment,”". There is a post at WUWT that tells the entire story…http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/31/in-house-testimony-botkin-dismantles-the-ipcc-2014-report/

Jun 01, 2014 12:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

rlm328, the fact you parroted those talking points means you have not read the studies for yourself.

Jun 01, 2014 12:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

Questions answered”
1) The cherry picked numbers? – Look up the ten hottest years in history and get back to us.

2) Computer models that have not even come close to determining what future temps are? How do you know, since it has not happened yet?

3) CO2 as a causative versus a resultant of global warming? Look up the findings of gas diffusion.

4) The solar flare cycle? – WHAT?

5) Earth’s decaying orbit? Double-WHAT??

6) The length of the present global warming trend? – What does that supposedly imply?

I have been watching all this stuff occur since my coursework in 1980, and my MS in 1982. It is now being accelerated because it has been politicized by the purveyors of Filthy Fuels, who see their dirty empires crumbling in face of us making our OWN power and fuels.

Jun 01, 2014 1:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

I want the deniers to tell us about the acidification of the seas, the ten hottest years in history, and why the sea levels are rising, despite a law against it in North Carolina.

Jun 01, 2014 1:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fedupaj wrote:

@gkam What makes you think that the scientific journals don’t politically slant what they report. How many of these so called scientists are paid by the government and are in self-preservation mode. They will say and do anything to keep their overpaid jobs. Government paid workers also run the Veterans Administration and look at the lies they told to enrich themselves. By the way, there is no shortage of employees at P G & E that have the same self preservation attitude as the government workers.

Jun 01, 2014 1:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
goldminor wrote:

There is more to add to my last comment. Point #2 for abandoning the co2 is a pollutant conjecture. The Honorable Prof Bengtsson had decided to take up an offer by a sceptic organization which is funded by oil interests as well as other business groups to sit on their board. His reasoning was that it was better for science to sit and discuss issues vs arguing ‘over the fence’ with each other. In response, many of his warmist believing comrades caused an uproar, which forced Prof Bengtsson to resign the position. The reason for the uproar was that Bengtsson came out and said that climate models have overstated the sensitivity of the climate to co2 forcing. That is why they are unable to properly follow the observed behaviour of the climate systems of the earth.

The main point to this is that Bengtsson is one of the top climate scientists in the world. So with Botkin now giving voice to why the global warming story has gone so far off into the realm of science fiction, some scientists and politicians are starting to see that they are going to look like complete fools when the global warming story collapses due to nature proving it to be wrong. I can well imagine how some of these scientists must feel when they realize that their support for the global warming bandwagon will forever be part of their future legacy in the halls of science. They do not want to be remembered for advocating false science.

Jun 01, 2014 1:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

Perhaps the report from a Koch-funded climate change skeptic will help you:

http://www.usnews.Com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/07/30/have-the-koch-brothers-changed-their-mind-about-climate-change

http://www.nytimes.Com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Jun 01, 2014 1:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
greentheway wrote:

It is NO surprise that self serving Democrats oppose the Administrations tightening of environmental rules on coal and oil. These Democrats seek only what’s good for them personally and the party
as a whole will be better off without them. Jobs will be useless when the water is all polluted and the air is no longer breathable.
The true progressives back the President on the strengthening environmental regulations, we will adjust as those without defined positions of support fall by the way. There is growing support for cleaner energy and the jobs this new technology will provide. Progress will always be opposed by those who want to remain in the fleeting comfort of the past.

Jun 01, 2014 1:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

Folk who work in fields we invented, such as business, finance, law, religion, work under rules we made up and change at will when convenient. Fudging is a large part of it.

In science, fudging is death. When you write up a report, there are hundreds of others waiting to challenge you.

Stop projecting the ethics of your own professions onto science. No reputable scientist would sell out his own field.

Jun 01, 2014 1:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dd606 wrote:

“At home, the White House is selling them by emphasizing the health benefits of cleaning carbon out of the atmosphere.”

==========

Yes, let’s make more of an effort to cleanse the planet of a gas that was 10 times the amount it is now, before people even existed. Makes perfect sense. Let’s also try and blow up the sun while we’re at it… All that pesky sunlight is really bad for us.

Jun 01, 2014 1:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

This is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of measurement.

It was politicized by the purveyors of Filthy Fuels because they are facing reality of the end of their nasty stuff.

Those of you who are deniers are not educated in the field, but readily accept what is convenient to believe from sources in politics.

I gave you all references to non-political sources for the real studies, so you could make up your own minds, so go do it.

Jun 01, 2014 1:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
goldminor wrote:

@ gkam…here are some of the points that Dr Botkin makes in his testimony…
“”1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.

2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.

4. IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.

5. ARE GREENHOUSE GASES INCREASING? Yes, CO2 rapidly.

6. IS THERE GOOD SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE? Yes, a great deal of it.”"
There are 22 points that he makes in the first portion, and then he adds to that with other arguments. So this is very much a matter of debate. Bengtsson and Botkin are two of the world,s top scientists in climate and the environment. Bengtsson has worked with the IPCC and European inner circle of climate scientists.

Jun 01, 2014 2:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

All I ask now is that the Deniers admit as such to their children, that they are the reason we did not save the Earth when we knew better.

Those folk have their position from political prejudice, yet assume their own ideas have equal weight with those of us with degrees in the field.

But I doubt they will, . . these are the Bush Voters who changed their names to Tea Folk.

Jun 01, 2014 2:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

Will Doctor Botkin tell us about the acidification of the seas, the ten hottest years in history, and why the sea levels are rising, despite a law against it in North Carolina?

Jun 01, 2014 2:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

dd606 says:Yes, let’s make more of an effort to cleanse the planet of a gas that was 10 times the amount it is now, before people even existed. Makes perfect sense. Let’s also try and blow up the sun while we’re at it…

I guess he did not wonder why we did not exist until it dropped, and how we will fare when it goes back up?

Jun 01, 2014 2:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rlm328 wrote:

To gkam:
Questions answered”
1) The cherry picked numbers? – Look up the ten hottest years in history and get back to us.

Earth temps have not increased statistically in the last 15 years.

2) Computer models that have not even come close to determining what future temps are? How do you know, since it has not happened yet?

The computer models 15 years ago predicted a global warming of 1.5 degrees by now, hasn’t happened.

3) CO2 as a causative versus a resultant of global warming? Look up the findings of gas diffusion.

Review the analysis of either the Vostok or Dome 2 ice cores. CO2 trailed global warming. The hypothesis is that there was more animal life resulting in higher levels of CO2.

4) The solar flare cycle? – WHAT?

Really, you are only earth centric, nothing from outside effects the earths climate. Solar flares have a natural cycle of 11 years go do some research on the different effects on the climate.

5) Earth’s decaying orbit? Double-WHAT??

And you call yourself an engineer

6) The length of the present global warming trend? – What does that supposedly imply?

We are presently in a period that has lasted 10,000 years vs. the normal 5,000 years. Do some independent research.

I have been watching all this stuff occur since my coursework in 1980, and my MS in 1982. It is now being accelerated because it has been politicized by the purveyors of Filthy Fuels, who see their dirty empires crumbling in face of us making our OWN power and fuels.

Jun 01, 2014 2:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

“Bengtsson and Botkin are two of the world,s top scientists in climate and the environment.”

Yes, they are part of the 3%.

Jun 01, 2014 3:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

goldminor, would you like a point-by-point discussion of your post?

If not,I will not bother. If so, let me respond.

Jun 01, 2014 3:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
goldminor wrote:

Look up their bio,s. Your words show how little you understand about true science. Bengtsson has worked with the IPCC for decades. He is a highly respected member of that group, or at least he was until he had the temerity to speak the truth. Botkins is considered one of the ‘fathers’ of the environmental movement, yet all you can do is spout gorebot cliches. That says everything about your climate knowledge.

Jun 01, 2014 3:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

I am not going to continue to argue with those who get their science from political prejudice. This issue is not one of debate, not a matter of whines from the 3%.

Look up the ten hottest years in history. Then look up the extremes of temperature, and see that heat is the driver of weather, and this heat engine produces more severe weather, not more balmy days.

Go look at the data itself, and stop reading about it!!

Jun 01, 2014 3:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

I am not going to continue to argue with those who get their science from political prejudice. This issue is not one of debate, not a matter of whines from the 3%.

Look up the ten hottest years in history. Then look up the extremes of temperature, and see that heat is the driver of weather, and this heat engine produces more severe weather, not more balmy days.

Go look at the data itself, and stop reading about it!!

Jun 01, 2014 3:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
nickir wrote:

Why is it surprising that people who live in backward failing states want to preserve what pathetically little they’ve got? However much damage that does to everyone else.

Jun 01, 2014 3:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
nickir wrote:

Why is it surprising that people who live in backward failing states want to preserve what pathetically little they’ve got? However much damage that does to everyone else.

Jun 01, 2014 3:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

What, no claims of racism? I thought if you opposed the President you are automatically a racist.

Jun 01, 2014 3:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bryanric wrote:

goldminor wrote:
“Here is one reason why some Democrat politicians may want to distance themselves from the false claim of catastrophic Global Warming.”

These climate change deniers are just plain selfish. They don’t care about their children, their grandchildren or anyone else down the line. Just themselves and their money. All this attack on what is happening to our climate and who is causing it are coming from the oil and coal companies, who will have to pay for this destruction. All of it is fueled by the Fox News and other right-wing nuts. I’m glad our President made the correct changes that were needed. Ignore those ignorant deniers.

Jun 01, 2014 3:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@USAPragmatist2

“Sad that this issue is even politicized, it is crystal clear to anyone who knows the scientific method that something needs to be done about this issue, should not even be a debate about if climate change is,occurring and human activity is the main cause. The debate should be how far we are willing to go to slow it down.”

Where did climate change come from before humans? You know it existed for about 4 billion years prior to mankind. There is no such thing as climate stasis. So no there should be no debate if human activitiy is the main cause, because we know throughout history it has existed well before the time man roamed the earth. Perhaps you should go back and learn the scientific method again. It is obvious that your theory that man kind is the cause of climate change is a fallacy.

Jun 01, 2014 3:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
c300man wrote:

Hi gkam,
I have a few questions for you:
1)What do you attribute the many cycles of greenhouse periods and icehouse periods our planet has gone through?
2)Do you believe that many times our planet has had sea levels as much as 50 feet higher than current level?
3)Do you believe manmade CO2 is on the order of 1% of all greenhouse gases?
c300man – common sense engineer

Jun 01, 2014 4:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@TheNewWorld

It’s also painfully obvious that when people refer to climate change caused by humans, they’re not referring to the entire history of climate change.

Jun 01, 2014 4:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

“Why is it surprising that people who live in backward failing states want to preserve what pathetically little they’ve got? However much damage that does to everyone else.”

You know they export that electricity to other states where such forward thinking individuals such as yourself use to the electricity to power your home. Log off the computer now and stop using electricity if you are so concerned about the planet.

Jun 01, 2014 4:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@c300man

Absolute levels are not the issue. The issue is rates of increase.

Think of it this way. If I told you the percentage of oxygen in the air you’re breathing were 20.8%, you’d probably think that were within an acceptable deviation from the nominal 20.95%. If I then told you that the oxygen levels were decreasing at a rate of 1 percent per decade, I hope you’d start to be concerned.

Jun 01, 2014 4:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

No, I am not a scientist. However, I believe this whole issue is politicized to such extent that it confuses the average person such as myself. For example, we had big movement behind “Global Warming” upon which Mr. Al Gore and others, mostly lawyers-’activists’ setting plethora of “non-for-profit” organizations, made millions and effectively started to pollute the air while flying his/their private jet(s) instead of riding bikes! The exorbitant electricity consumption in Mr. Gore’s “residence”, notwithstanding.

Since the premise of the “warming” lost tracks, new term was adopted – - “Climate Change”. And, the same people behind the “warming” movement switched and make money on “change” . . . Yet, NO conclusive SCIENTIFIC evidence has been presented, to date, as to the percentage of ‘human cause’ to this “warming” and/or “change”.

Just like everybody else, I like to BREATHE clean air, like to SEE in to distance without layers of SMOG preventing me to do so. I would also like to be able to drink ‘tap water’ without having to buy drinking water at a price higher than gasoline . . . etc. ONLY for these reasons, and not for all of the politically-motivated ‘apocalyptic’ rhetoric, would I like to see some pressure applied on all these ignorant pollution-causing entities and to force them to invest more of their own resources to curb it.

I don’t care about the political debate, the people that personally benefit from it, etc., however, I can’t see one reason WHY we shouldn’t explore and develop MORE technology to allow us to use more of pollution-clean alternative energy – REGARDLESS of the wild and mostly profit-oriented assertions (e.g. Mr. Gore) as to the human causes of the global “warming” and/or climate “change” !!

Jun 01, 2014 4:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
goldminor wrote:

@ Paul Bradley…if you would like to read a great summation of what is wrong with the global warming story take a look at Dr Botkin,s testimony. He makes clear concise points that most laymen should be able to understand.

Note that gkam once again claims that I am referring to scientists in the “3%’. That is a false statement. Both of the two names I mentioned are scientists who have been part and parcel with the supposed 97%. The 97% is another flim flam manuever. Yet both of these men have finally found the need to proclaim “wait a minute, there is something wrong with our conclusions”. Bengtsson pointed out that proper science always need all sides of the argument to be heard. He has specifically stated this. He has also gone on record repudiating those who besmirched his good name. Bodkin reiterates those thoughts and adds much more. Read his thoughts and you will learn the real basis for understanding what is wrong with Catastrophic Global Warming.

Jun 01, 2014 5:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
goldminor wrote:

By the way, I thought that Bengtsson had been directly involved in working for the IPCC. That is not correct here is some detail from Wike on him…”"Lennart Bengtsson (born 5 July 1935, Trollhättan), is a Swedish meteorologist. His research interests include climate sensitivity, extreme events, climate variability and climate predictability. [1]

He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.
In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research[2] together with Prof. Ola M. Johannessen and Dr. Leonid Bobylev from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway and Russia for the Climate and Environmental Change in the Arctic project.”" from Wiki. He has collaborated with the IPCC, the PIK, UKMO and other European climate agencies as an equal.

Jun 01, 2014 5:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

O and a side note to those saying Earth has always gone through changes, the Earth once once was more or less completely molten at one point in time too, in other words it is irrelevant if Earth has had climate shifts in the past, they where not the cause of human activity, that is the difference with our current climate change situation.

Jun 01, 2014 5:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever the term du jour is, is a global event that is the fault of Bush/Cheney.

End of story. No debate. Everyone agrees. The truth has been spoken.

Reuters: You may now close the comments.

P.S.
Is anyone doing anything about China and India with their massive, unregulated, runaway amounts of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions or is the USA the only one that can stop this environmental catastrophe?

Jun 01, 2014 5:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

@goldminor

I not only “looked” at Dr. Botkin,s testimony, I have perused it in its entirety and came to conclusion that this man has UNBIASED and RATIONAL view that should NOT be taken lightly by ANYONE.

Jun 01, 2014 5:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Wow. Here’s my problem with this:

If the Democratic Party is okay with this, they are taking one of two positions. Either they are compromising this bulwark of their party platform as regards clean energy and environmentalism, or they are simply paying lip service to it.

If the former is true then they’re reversing themselves on an issue that they have invested years of political wrangling in. Which is fine really. That does happen.

If the latter is true then they are attempting to win office under fraudulent pretenses as they say one thing only to get elected and then push the opposite issue, which I actually expect. But this is much more brazen than the way it usually goes.

I’m very concerned about the latter.

Jun 01, 2014 7:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Wow. Here’s my problem with this:

If the Democratic Party is okay with this, they are taking one of two positions. Either they are compromising this bulwark of their party platform as regards clean energy and environmentalism, or they are simply paying lip service to it.

If the former is true then they’re reversing themselves on an issue that they have invested years of political wrangling in. Which is fine really. That does happen.

If the latter is true then they are attempting to win office under fraudulent pretenses as they say one thing only to get elected and then push the opposite issue, which I actually expect. But this is much more brazen than the way it usually goes.

I’m very concerned about the latter.

Jun 01, 2014 7:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

I second TheNewWorld… if you are so concerned about the environment then turn off your computers, tv’s, lights, and walk to work. Stop using all the products on the store shelves because they all used energy to manufacture them and plenty of petrochemicals to produce the packaging and a lot of what is inside the bottles. Anything with plastic, including that computer needs to be trashed and don’t buy another. What’s that, oh I see, you are hypocrit and do not really practice what you preach. Most so called environmentalist are.

Jun 01, 2014 7:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

Obama knows he’s facing an uphill battle, but it’s not because he’s wrong. He’s on the side of science and being right. But he’s an American President and in the United States politicians and policy are driven by the quest for profits. On this particular issue those siding with science, like Obama, are being opposed by the most profitable companies in the world. Obama knows what that means because he ran into the same wall of money when he set out to reform healthcare in the US.

This takes us to the biggest problem facing the United States: money in politics. Until we make sweeping changes to the way we finance our elections, we’re going to continue to live in a country that practices democracy in name only. The people of the United States are no longer being represented by their government. The fossil fuel companies determine our energy policies. The healthcare providers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies determine our healthcare system. The military-industrial complex determines our foreign policy. This is the sort of “development” that our Founders took up arms to prevent, yet we do absolutely nothing.

Jun 01, 2014 7:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dd606 wrote:

Bottom line… It doesn’t matter how much you try and explain how ridiculous it is for a civilization to try and completely remove an essential element from the planet’s atmosphere… It doesn’t matter how many common sense issues you point out… You could write a paper 50 pages long, explaining all the holes in the concept of completely removing C02 from the air… It doesn’t matter what you do or say, period… The best argument 99% of people that believe this crap can come up with… is to call somebody a “denier”. That pretty much says it all.

Jun 01, 2014 8:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

candiduscorvus: “If the latter is true then they are attempting to win office under fraudulent pretenses as they say one thing only to get elected and then push the opposite issue”

You sound as if you’re surprised to see American politicians doing this. No offense, but isn’t that just a little bit naive? Why be very concerned now with it happening on this one particular issue? Isn’t that the very definition of selective outrage?

It’s not difficult to understand. In the US you need money to run for office and to hang on to your seat. Where’s the money? It’s with the people who own our most profitable businesses, and they use that money to get legislation passed that will protect and grow their profits. So, for example, a Democrat running in a state that has a big coal industry has to break with their party platform if they want to win.

I’d even say that you’ll see more of this on the issues with Democrats than with Republicans, but it’s not because Republicans are more honest or noble. It’s actually because Republicans have found that they can convince their constituents of just about anything. All they have to do is hate Obama and spout extreme conservative rhetoric. So the Republican politician simply takes their orders from the most profitable industries, then turns around and tells their constituents what the industry leaders want them to believe: There is no global warming; tobacco doesn’t cause cancer; the US has the best healthcare system in the world; more guns make us safer; war is good and you can never spend too much on defense; trickle down economics works; we should be investing our social security money in the stock market; the country is better off when the rich pay little or nothing in taxes; etc., etc., etc.

The Democrats’ job is harder. Their constituents tend to be better educated and more open-minded. And they embrace science. So when industry tycoons come calling on a Democratic pol, the Democrat is often torn between what their constituents want and what those with money want. And money is the key to winning elections. Elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money 92% of the time.

Jun 01, 2014 8:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

4825: That won’t help. If a person is concerned about the environment then they have to do things that work. Turning off your lights is a stupid response to a serious problem. That’s like being in the middle of a gun battle that’s gotten out of hand and deciding to resolve it by putting down your gun. Won’t work.

For us to make a difference we need policies that lower harmful greenhouse gasses and invest in alternative forms of energy. We have to start somewhere and what Obama is proposing is reasonable. Why are you so critical of our President who is taking a reasonable step toward something that has 97% of scientists in agreement? Why is that so outrageous?

Jun 01, 2014 8:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

dd606: “The best argument 99% of people that believe this crap can come up with… is to call somebody a “denier”.”

But that’s NOT the best argument 99% of us have. Our argument is that 97% of scientists agree that man is contributing to climate change and that we can take steps to mitigate the problem. And he science is there. 97% of climate scientists believe that man is contributing to climate change because they are studying the science. That’s a lot different than simply calling somebody a denier. We’re calling you a denier because you’re refusing to acknowledge what the entire scientific community is saying is fact. Back in the 16th century there were deniers who refused to believe the world was round, despite all the world’s scientists claiming otherwise. Those deniers were wrong too.

Jun 01, 2014 8:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Art16 wrote:

Any Tin God in politics behaves this way. Junior High Obama and his Pinhead Flotilla are uniquely unqualified to make any decision which needs to be science based and not based on hysteria, disinformation, or bait foe voting blocks

Jun 01, 2014 8:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Cuts to carbon pollution will reduce asthma attacks by 100,000 and heart attacks by 2,100 just in the first year.

Jun 01, 2014 9:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

Like negotiating with terrorists to get his little deserter back and release five of his Jihadist buddies back to the battlefield, Obama knows that with that lunatic Harry Reid controlling the Senate (for now) he doesn’t have to worry about being convicted if the House impeaches him. Expect a autocratic reign unlike anything yet seen in the United States from here to the mid-term elections.

Jun 01, 2014 9:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
c300man wrote:

OSU A E,
I hope you are not assuming we know much of anything about rates of change of the climate in previous green house periods.
Our planet has gone through 4.3 billion years of climate change and with our infinitesimal 100 years or so of data many folks proclaim this is far worst than any previous change. Obviously they do not know. However, we do know the worst predictions currently being made (sea level, temperature, CO2) are much less that previous historic levels.

Jun 01, 2014 10:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
goldminor wrote:

@ Paul Bradley…that is what a scientific mind is supposed to do. If as a scientist you stop questioning your thoughts vs observed reality not coinciding with your thoughts, then you are out of bounds of good science. At the end of the day, Nature is always right. That of course has been the elephant in the living room for those who forecast Catastrophic Global Warming. Nature has yawned!

Jun 01, 2014 10:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

where do you begin?…yes, we do not need to pollute the environment. no, humans are not the main source of climate change. yes, demo’s want a crystal clear environment and use scare tactics to push their objectives…

fyi, I have made my living due to the environmental, pollution control initiatives over the last two decades and have enjoyed a fruitful living due to the environmental laws.

Lobbiest of mfgs that sell pollution control equipment convince law makers more needs to be done so they can sell their product. many of these technologies are not proven.

We want utilities to stop using fuels to supply us energy, yet we demand our energy.

additional cuts in carbon will cause many to loose their jobs.

not everything you hear from environmentalist is correct. they have lied plenty of times (and many of these organizations get their funding from other “energy” sources) to try to reduce the dependence on coal.

its amazing that many can accept that one person (POTUS) be accurate on everything he discusses.

Yes scientist misrepresent facts – it depends on who is funding their research…that greatly influences their findings and recommendations.

Some accept predictions on improvements of health (heart attacks and asthma) as the gospel. I wonder how that can be proved or disproved, but it sure is appealing to those who don’t think for themselves.

anyone who thinks democrats are more educated is nuts…that is putting it mildly. how do they explain all of the engineers, scientist, consultants, doctors I know who are not democrats. the democrats and lobbies think highly of themselves. sorta narcissistic. and to use a statement like 97% of scientist believe humans are contributing climate change is ridiculous. I am surprised it is not 100%. of course humans are contributing to greenhouse gases, but so are cows. the real question is how much are we contributing and is it significant (i.e., significant enough to make a difference and thus, how much) and if it is, if we cut back, will it change anything?

if a person disagrees with a demo or libby, they are a denier. yes there are many who disagreed with Carter and all the others since then that we are running out of fuel. if you disagree with them you get called a name. was the person who claimed the world was round a democrat…if not the argument is pointless.

its the demo’s that have convinced their “constituents” to believe anything their leaders say, health care will be affordable, no one will loose their present plans or doctors, the attack was caused by a film, everything will be ok if we tax the rich, guns not humans kill, the rich are greedy.

well I know people who have lost their insurance policies, pay higher cost for insurance, the attack was not motivated by film, knives kill also, the ones wanting to tax the rich are the greedy and envious., they are wanting what others have. I have seen doctors offices putting up signs saying they are stopping receiving patients with covered under government “insurance” policies.

Jun 01, 2014 11:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
YesNoMaybeSo wrote:

Left unchecked, coal will kill us all and China will be leading the pack of polluters. We have the technology to bury the byproducts of coal fired plants, it’s just a matter of getting the companies to step up and be responsible. All about the almighty dollar.

Jun 01, 2014 11:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

yes, the dollar is what buys my next meal. and if you have more than one dollar, someone else wants it.

Jun 01, 2014 12:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

Some of the polluted water comments are quite interesting.
Do you know where your water has been?
Many do not know that the same water has pretty much been circulating since it landed (or whatever theory you support) on our planet less than four billion years ago. It thus seems as if every bit of water I have drunk throughout my life has been defecated or urinated by a plethora of animals before I got to call it pure and unpolluted.
Food (or a drink) for thought.

Jun 02, 2014 2:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JustProduce wrote:

@carnivalchaos
Did you really mean to write this?

“The Democrats’ job is harder. Their constituents tend to be better educated and more open-minded. And they embrace science…”

Let’s see, I have two post graduates (one from arguably the best scientific school in the world), have tested over 146 in IQ and am a patented inventor a few times over. I too am friends with many people who would put me to shame. By the way, to invent stuff an open mind is usually handy.
Well, (here is where the bubble bursting takes place) my buds or I do not believe one thing our POTUS preaches.
So let’s now do the scientific thing and test the inverse. How many people do we know with similar characteristics but who adore the White House’s resident in chief? Zip!
Does this mean that our finds are conclusive? No, of course not. But does it disprove your suggestion that a normal distribution of educated, open minded, science embracing people are democrats? Yes, it does disprove it… at less you meant movie-smarts and open mind. You know, like doctors who are not doctors but play one on TV.
Then again, maybe I misunderstood your post.

Jun 02, 2014 3:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
richinnc wrote:

And the sad thing is that we have the best politicians that money can buy, and that works for both parties. We have the same issues with gasoline as we did in the 70′s when we had the oil embargo. And both parties have had the chance to show some “leadership” on that issue. We need to think about all the money that is spent to get our “leaders” elected – or bought?

Jun 02, 2014 4:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Larrym14169 wrote:

With this fool at the helm how long is it before we start crossing into Mexico?

Jun 02, 2014 8:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BillKlein wrote:

A doofus wrote: “Sad that this issue is even politicized, it is crystal clear to anyone who knows the scientific method that something needs to be done about this issue, should not even be a debate about if climate change is occurring and human activity is the main cause. The debate should be how far we are willing to go to slow it down.”

Note the “non-politicized,” so-called “scientific” method that includes begging the question, ad hominem against those who disagree, and the attempt to shut down debate by declaring the discussion closed.

The only funny thing about it is that these twerps actually believe their own pap about our intelligence, as if we’ve never read Alinsky, too.

Jun 02, 2014 8:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BillKlein wrote:

A doofus wrote: “Sad that this issue is even politicized, it is crystal clear to anyone who knows the scientific method that something needs to be done about this issue, should not even be a debate about if climate change is occurring and human activity is the main cause. The debate should be how far we are willing to go to slow it down.”

Note the “non-politicized,” so-called “scientific” method that includes begging the question, ad hominem against those who disagree, and the attempt to shut down debate by declaring the discussion closed.

The only funny thing about it is that these twerps actually believe their own pap about our intelligence, as if we’ve never read Alinsky, too.

Jun 02, 2014 8:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
wrote:

“Obama…. visited children suffering from asthma at a medical center on Friday and taped his weekly radio address – on climate change – while there.

CO2 levels do not hurt asthmatics… pollution does.

Jun 02, 2014 8:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
paintcan wrote:

When democracies reach an impasse on issues that threaten to impose too much pain on a segment or segments of a society they tend to collapse and fall into the hands of the military. I can think of several examples, from the rise of Napoleon, the rise of the fascists during the depression in Germany, and many countries in Latin America and the ME during the 20th century.

But this situation is worse, because if the planet’s environment is seriously changing and can threaten human settlements or most aspects of its way of life, orderly and rational government will be the first victim and no solutions will be possible at a large enough scale.

If the “truth” of global warming or climate change is mostly a matter of expert opinion, than democracy is already dead. Most voters are never expert at anything and most voters vote their own self interest and that is assumed to be a good thing and something democracy is meant to do. Being representative of the broadest range of self interest, so to speak, is what a democratic government is supposed to be good at.

So the patient will get sicker and die while the doctors squabble over not only the cure, but if he is really sick at all? And to make matters worse the “doctors” all have special financial interest in just about every aspect of the patients life. The president and Congress can have investments in alternative energy solutions and all their advisers can too.

My hunch is there won’t be any solutions nationwide let alone world wide, the poor bastard’s a goner and he will be writhing in agony, paying a succession of doctors and even quacks for dubious cures, while the hospital erupts into open warfare, and he will be screaming till his last breath.

Jun 02, 2014 9:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse
emanravenfan wrote:

Steyer spends millions and claims it’s all in support for being “green”. Yet he will not go after democrats who oppose more rules. What a hypocrite.

Jun 02, 2014 9:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
tkboxer wrote:

Look at your electric bill now and then look at it a year from now.
Sticker shock is coming. You won’t leave that safety light on any more. On a fixed income? Too bad, suck it up.
One can only hope the next administration can rein in the over-regulation that is happening to our country.

Jun 02, 2014 9:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
michaelryan wrote:

Leadership at it’s best.. Someone willing to take a stand on a tough issue. Tough due to all the propaganda from the far right rings a bell for “American Freedoms”. Tough as some people in this world don’t give a dam about carbon pollution. The day will come when finally the world will see that carbon pollution is as bad as lead that was when it was finally outlawed in the 70′s.

Jun 02, 2014 9:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

Ana after the future envisioned by paintcan come to pass, things will get worse …

Jun 02, 2014 9:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@carnivalchaos

92% of Americans believe in a deity. I guess that settles it then. God exists based on consensus. That is obviously enough proof you need, a consensus.

Jun 02, 2014 10:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse

unionwv:

climatechangereconsidered.org is nothing but a compilation of oil-industry funded pseudo-science. The website itself is paid for by the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation. Zero credibility, zero reliability. You may as well have just linked to the GOP’s facebook page that makes the same claims.

Jun 02, 2014 11:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse

TheNewWorld wrote:
“92% of Americans believe in a deity. I guess that settles it then. God exists based on consensus. That is obviously enough proof you need, a consensus.”

That is textbook example of false equivalence.

It’s the latest from radical right’s playbook of anti-intellectualism:

Overwhelming scientific evidence has proven them wrong, so instead of re-evaluating their own position, they try to degrade the meaning of ‘science’ to make it equivalent with ‘belief/opinion’.

IT IS NOT. You don’t need ANY proof to hold an opinion about something; all you need to do is BELIEVE it. Science, however, DOES require proof. You need an abundance of scientific evidence for a theory to be accepted, it needs to stand up to scrutiny from PEERS (aka other scientists, not politicians).

Climate change is REAL – is has been studied, measured, analyzed, criticized. It has been PROVEN with numbers and statistics. Belief in a deity has none of that.

It is so sad to see an otherwise informed person such as yourself fall prey to this nonsense. Remember this quote from Isaac Asimov:

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Jun 02, 2014 11:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@USofRationality

Applause, my friend. My personal favorite line:

“Scientific conclusions don’t care whether you believe them or not. They just are, until proven otherwise by science.”

Jun 02, 2014 12:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jnffarrell wrote:

If you act like a “Know Nothing” then nothin’s what you’ll get from me.

Seems like I’ve heard that phrase sung. Oklahoma perhaps.

Jun 02, 2014 1:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Crash0866 wrote:

USAPragmatist2 wrote:

Good for the President, goes to show that he is a principled man and willingness to do the right thing even if it not the politically correct thing to do.

Sad that this issue is even politicized, it is crystal clear to anyone who knows the scientific method that something needs to be done about this issue, should not even be a debate about if climate change is, occurring and human activity is the main cause. The debate should be how far we are willing to go to slow it down.

USAPragmatist wrote:

O and a side note to those saying Earth has always gone through changes, the Earth once once was more or less completely molten at one point in time too, in other words it is irrelevant if Earth has had climate shifts in the past, they where not the cause of human activity, that is the difference with our current climate change situation.

Really? So the weather is controlled by human activity? Couldn’t we just control it and make it do what we want then? Yeah I thought so. Kind of debunks your theory that HUMAN ACTIVITY is the central single thing that is causing the climate to change. Obama a principled man….see the red line…

Jun 02, 2014 3:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Note to voters: It does not matter what a candidate says. It matters what a candidate does. Endangered Dems may talk tough about standing up to the President, but what do their voting records say? Did they fall in line when Nancy and Harry threatened their precious committee assignments? You betcha. The best way to block executive overreach is by making sure at least one house of Congress has a majority leader from the opposition.

Jun 02, 2014 3:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

Obama, is being, just as extreme ,as many thought he was , before he got elected…the press and smart PR people, created an image of Obama,of moderation, just to get him elected..too many, are fooled by the boob tube…they never saw the pied piper…now we all suffer for it..worse…there is more to come..think green, as it will be leaving your wallets and bank accounts….

Jun 02, 2014 5:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@sabrefencer

Your inability to form coherent sentences leads me to doubt the veracity of your prognostic capabilities.

Jun 02, 2014 7:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ready2013 wrote:

USofRationality & OSU_Aero_Eng , you put a lot of thought and emotion to figure this out? climate change is obvious, it’s cause is not. there is not scientific evidence, only coincidental evidence of its cause…just like my golf game is better this year because I bought a new hat. even when scientist and engineers have recognized and developed new technologies, 99% percent of the population accept it as sound (i.e., trust, believe, have faith that it is accurate and applied correctly). for example, how many thousands fly in jets, trusting (believing as in faith) that it will be safe. unless they have designed it themselves, watched every bit of it fabricated, manufactured and assembled, they are acting on faith.

don’t confuse that because something cannot be proved, doesn’t mean it cannot exist. gravity, laws of thermodynamics, etc. existed long before humans could comprehend it.

Jun 02, 2014 8:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@ready2013

“how many thousands fly in jets, trusting (believing as in faith) that it will be safe. unless they have designed it themselves, watched every bit of it fabricated, manufactured and assembled, they are acting on faith.”

————

NO. I cannot emphasize that enough. NO. Faith is belief without evidence. People trust science because it has demonstrated again and again that it is the best way to determine what is true.

Your aircraft argument is flawed. If people aren’t trained in aeronautics, structural mechanics, electrical engineering, computer science, etc., they have no basis for saying it will be safe. We defer to those who are experts in their field to tell us things about that field because (big surprise) they know the most about it. And even then, their work is criticized by the other experts in their field. That’s why science works.

Jun 03, 2014 8:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.