MSNBC: The Truth About Denial (GW related)

[portisizzle]

I'll discuss whatever you want whenever you want, BUT don't post links full of garbage. Find a link that makes a particular point based on the comments of the person that ACTUALLY DID THE RESEARCH OR (where possible this is perferrible) a link to the actual study. Not some link where somebody that didn't even do the research came along later edited, took out of context, reinterperted, or is referencing a study that was done 20 years ago that has been completely refuted. From there, don't post just the link. Give me at least a summary of the relevant information in the link or even better a relevant quote from the link that makes your point.

It is your responsibility to refute my two links that, in my unqualified opinion, provide ample support to the concept that "Global Warming caused by humans" is a politcal farce. If you are suggesting, as I think you are, that these direct links are false, then you will need to be more specific.

Taking a general cheap shot at me like this does little to further this discussion beyond the typical I am right and you are wrong.

[Duncan]

Is it possible? yes, but I can point to several studies that show that increased solar output doesn't solely explain global warming so it is at best very unlikely.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

Let me make this clear. A constant atmosphere (given other constants including solar output, which we know has been pretty constant w/ in its cycle (and not enough to cause all of the warming we see) will result in a constant temp.

This guy can’t even state his opinion without contradicting himself. He says solar output has been “pretty constant” and then in the next breath says it’s not enough to cause ALL of the warming. Is he admitting it’s causing SOME of the warming? If so how much and how do you quantify it.

Methane, which has been increasing in the atmosphere since the 1950s, could be contributing to the water vapor increase. Chemical conversion of methane to water vapor occurs in the stratosphere but can only account for at most half of the water vapor increase.”

So methane COULD be contributing to water vapor increase and then it contributes “at most half”. The rest, they say, is a mystery. This is the sort of conjecture that frames these debates but the advocates state these opinions as gospel.

No, ice cores would be local (e.g. what was in the area when the ice formed). For example, somebody brought the dust bowl. Surely there were changes in the atmosphere at the time, but they were local and related to the dust bowl. We are talking global here.

So it’s your position that the atmosphere of the Earth has been constant since its formation. You think that is a credible statement?

There are lot of variables. It is difficult to sort them out.

This sounds like a pretty good idea to me…

“Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research - or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.”

[PeterMP]

It is your responsibility to refute my two links that, in my unqualified opinion, provide ample support to the concept that "Global Warming caused by humans" is a politcal farce. If you are suggesting, as I think you are, that these direct links are false, then you will need to be more specific.

Taking a general cheap shot at me like this does little to further this discussion beyond the typical I am right and you are wrong.

Well, except for if you looked at any of my post you'd see, I have in fact have given you quotes and links from the people that did the research that showed at least some of the information in your links and large block quotes isn't accurate. Based on that large block quote the claim appears to be that, global warming is real, but that carbon containing (CO2, methane, etc) green house gasses aren't to blame, but water vapor is (is that your opinion). Specifically, the large block quote was by a guy that was talking about somebody else's research, and the person you quoted (not the person who did the research) was using it to discount human's role in global warming. Unfortunately, the guy that does the research, Wallace Broecker, doesn't necessarily see it that way (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/8.6.98/Broecker.html) (which is why I asked you to give quotes by the person that did the work):

"We're poking the climate system by adding greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide, the Columbia University scientist said in a July 22 Summer Sessions lecture. "Will poking this angry beast cause it to lash out?" he asked the large Call Auditorium audience in Kennedy Hall, displaying a homemade drawing of the metaphorical "beast" incarnate.

Anyway, in that post you included this pearl of knowledge:

"The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible."

I then posted a series of articles about original research pieces that showed that view wasn't accurate.

[portisizzle]

This sounds like a pretty good idea to me…

“Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research - or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.”

Only one problem. This solution is not politically expedient for the Marxist left.

[alexey]

Perspective.

I can imagine a hypothetical situation where the worst case becomes reality and that less than 100% of the people actually think humans could actually have made any difference at all.

This is the problem as I see it. Let us all internalize the fact that the Earth will at some point in our future become the true water planet again. When this happens there will not be enough land to allow humans to carry the current population trends that exist.

What shall we do in this case? This is not about global warming. It is about human survival. Humans have bigger fish to fry than trying to beat Mother Nature at her own game.

If we as a species intend to exist on this planet for very long time we will need to solve many more pressing problems (like overpopulation for example) But we will be crippled by people who think we can beat the sun at her own game.

It is funny when you think about this. to me the sheeple are the one being lead by the nose with the likes of Algore who will spin a tale for political points and scientists (and posters who think they got the global warming debate down pat) who think they are GOD. Both omnipotent and never wrong.

Our capacity to extract resources from the environment grew much quicker than our sense of responsibility for long-term sustainability of our actions. Mother Nature cannot beat us at our game anymore, not the other way around. Put that in your perspective, mister.

[PeterMP]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

He also said:

"That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

This study has also been replaced by a more recent one:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aLq__5sibbvo&refer=europe

Remember 2006 solar min, but record temps. You cited a study from 2003 before the solar min.

This guy can’t even state his opinion without contradicting himself. He says solar output has been “pretty constant” and then in the next breath says it’s not enough to cause ALL of the warming. Is he admitting it’s causing SOME of the warming? If so how much and how do you quantify it.

It is possibly the cause of SOME (not all) warming especially as we were in a period of high solar output. Why do I need to quantitate it?

So methane COULD be contributing to water vapor increase and then it contributes “at most half”. The rest, they say, is a mystery. This is the sort of conjecture that frames these debates but the advocates state these opinions as gospel.

Of course, you ignored the whole second part, and there is no doubt that some methane is converted into water vapor. How much and how fast are questions we are still working on.

So it’s your position that the atmosphere of the Earth has been constant since its formation. You think that is a credible statement?

No. The Earth's atmosphere was once poor in O2, but plants started producing O2. See how that works. There is a change in the atmosphere, but I can explain it. Okay, so what caused the change in the water vapor level (of course, you've posted a study by an author who stated that pollution might be a major compenent, I've posted a study that says that solar radiation isn't a major component, I've posted another study that says water vapor levels where low when the recen global warming trend started, but CO2 levels were increasing, I've posted a study that says increase CO2 mean increased temps (and of course this all ignores the methane angle). Do I need to connect the dots for you?

[portisizzle]

Peter I found this quote from the link you provided revealing..

In what may be geochemist Wallace S. Broecker's favorite metaphor, Earth's climate system is a fearsome, untamed animal that mankind had better be careful about messing with.

"We're poking the climate system by adding greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide, the Columbia University scientist said in a July 22 Summer Sessions lecture. "Will poking this angry beast cause it to lash out?" he asked the large Call Auditorium audience in Kennedy Hall, displaying a homemade drawing of the metaphorical "beast" incarnate.

Broecker doesn't know the answer to his question,

//////////

So if we do not know the answers to the question what use is it trumpeting it as a legitimate refute to the original link?

[Predicto]

Only one problem. This solution is not politically expedient for the Marxist left.

Yeah, I hate those thousands of Marxist scientists too. Always blatantly lying to us to appease their Clintonesque masters.

[portisizzle]

Our capacity to extract resources from the environment grew much quicker than our sense of responsibility for long-term sustainability of our actions. Mother Nature cannot beat us at our game anymore, not the other way around. Put that in your perspective, mister.

Our capacity to extract resources from the environment is matched by the demand that humans placed on the system. There is no "sense of responsibility" when it comes to sustaining our existence on this planet. Humans will do what they must to exist.

And if you are suggesting that Earth has lost its ability to survive with modern human activity expanding at its current rate then I have some real perspective for you. It is the population on this Earth that needs to be reduced 10 fold....not the amount of methane.

[portisizzle]

Yeah, I hate those thousands of Marxist scientists too. Always blatantly lying to us to appease their Clintonesque masters.

Klintonesque.

[PeterMP]

Peter I found this quote from the link you provided revealing..

In what may be geochemist Wallace S. Broecker's favorite metaphor, Earth's climate system is a fearsome, untamed animal that mankind had better be careful about messing with.

"We're poking the climate system by adding greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide, the Columbia University scientist said in a July 22 Summer Sessions lecture. "Will poking this angry beast cause it to lash out?" he asked the large Call Auditorium audience in Kennedy Hall, displaying a homemade drawing of the metaphorical "beast" incarnate.

Broecker doesn't know the answer to his question,

//////////

So if we do not know the answers to the question what use is it trumpeting it as a legitimate refute to the original link?

Broecker is pro-global warming. He will quickly admit that we don't know everything, but his general attitude is 'do we really want to find out?'. I can't believe you didn't get that by reading the link I gave. In general, his research indicates that large temp changes sometimes occur suddenly, and if anything, he believes the consequences might get serious to quickly for us to do anything about them (which is what makes it really funny to see an anti-global warming person cite is work)

He was one of the early warners about global warming (of course if you ignore Arrehnius). I can't get the pdf, but if you can go to a library w/ back issues of Science look at, W. S. Broecker, Science 189, 460 (1975).

Here's a quote from a book he wrote:

"The bottom line is that, as our climate has proven itself to be an angry

beast, it would be highly imprudent to poke it with tripled CO2."

Here is another relevant quote:

"Were the water vapor content of the atmosphere to remain unchanged, then a tripling of CO2 would produce an average warming of close to 2ｰC. However, when simulated in global models, the warming turns out to be more like 5ｰC (see Figure 9). The reason is that water vapor serves as an amplifier (i.e., a positive feedback). As the Earth warms, the vapor pressure of water rises allowing the atmosphere to hold more water vapor. Keeping in mind that water vapor is the Earth’s dominant greenhouse gas, the more water vapor in the atmosphere, the warmer the Earth."

http://www.cfellows.org/wally/FossilFuelCO2-sm.pdf

Here is Broecker writing about CO2 output:

Science 9 March 2007:

Vol. 315. no. 5817, p. 1371

"If we are ever to succeed in capping the buildup of the atmosphere's CO2 content, we must make a first-order change in the way we view the problem. Most policies that have been discussed, including cap-and-trade systems and the Kyoto treaty, have treated the problem exclusively in terms of incremental reductions in CO2 emissions. These, however, will not stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels; they only slow the rate of increase. Instead, to actually stop the increase, we must develop the concept of what might be called a "carbon pie." Currently, for each 4 gigatons (Gt) of fossil carbon burned, the atmosphere's CO2 content rises about 1 ppm; including deforestation, we now emit about 8 Gt of carbon per year. Further, this four-to-one ratio will only change slowly in the coming decades. Hence, if we set a desirable upper limit on the extent to which we allow the CO2 content of the atmosphere to increase, then this fixes the size of the carbon pie. If, for example, this limit were to be double the preindustrial CO2 amount (i.e., 560 ppm), then the size of the pie would be 720 Gt of carbon [i.e., 4 (560 - 380)]. Were the limit to be set at 450 ppm, the size of the pie would be only 280 Gt.

Once the size of pie has been established, each of the world's nations would be allocated a slice. In an ideal world, the size of these slices would be based on population. In this case, the world's rich countries would get only about 20% of the pie. If the limit agreed upon were 560 ppm, then the rich nations' share would be about 150 Gt. As these countries together currently consume about 6 Gt of fossil carbon per year, if they continued at this pace, their allotment would be consumed in just 25 years. Faced with this limit, each of these rich nations would be forced to rapidly reduce its emissions (see figure). Poor nations would be able to sell portions of their pie slice to the rich countries and still have enough left to permit them to industrialize."

[alexey]

Our capacity to extract resources from the environment is matched by the demand that humans placed on the system. There is no "sense of responsibility" when it comes to sustaining our existence on this planet. Humans will do what they must to exist.

We can eat all the seeds now and die of hunger next year... or we can act responsibly and eat only half of those seeds to plant the other half.

We are talking about extracting resources from the environment in a responsible, sustainable way. It seems "sense of responsibility" is directly related to sustaining our existence on this planet.

And if you are suggesting that Earth has lost its ability to survive with modern human activity expanding at its current rate then I have some real perspective for you. It is the population on this Earth that needs to be reduced 10 fold....not the amount of methane.

You are going 60mph. Is there a difference between stopping gently using the brakes, or stopping abruptly using a wall?

[portisizzle]

We can eat all the seeds now and die of hunger next year... or we can act responsibly and eat only half of those seeds to plant the other half.

We are talking about extracting resources from the environment in a responsible, sustainable way. It seems "sense of responsibility" is directly related to sustaining our existence on this planet.

You are going 60mph. Is there a difference between stopping gently using the brakes, or stopping abruptly using a wall?

I would make a different analogy.

Why give me a warm towel over my head when I have the fever when what I really need is Penicillin?

And you are assuming we have brakes.

[PeterMP]

I would make a different analogy.

Why give me a warm towel over my head when I have the fever when what I really need is Penicillin?

And you are assuming we have brakes.

At this point in time, we might not, but it isn't worthwhile to find out. I will also point out that we undoubtedly did in the mid to late-90's, but we wated our time because some people were to busy out there trying to refute what most scientist already to be true beyond all reasonable doubt.

[portisizzle]

I will also point out that we undoubtedly did in the mid to late-90's,

Did what?

[alexey]

And you are assuming we have brakes.

Actually, I'm just looking around for something other than a wall

[portisizzle]

Actually, I'm just looking around for something other than a wall

That wall you see?

It is a mirage created by the hot air as you peer over long distances.

Don't believe the hype.

[Larry]

That wall you see?

It is a mirage created by the hot air as you peer over long distances.

Don't believe the hype.

As much as I'd really enjoy the image of portissizzle yelling "that wall is just a mirage! I know it!", right up to the cartoonish ending, the problem is that I'm really not willing to let you drive the bus holding the entire human race. (Or at least, modern civilization.)

(And it's really not funny if there's nobody around to laugh at you.)

Especially when there are simple and relatively obvious ways of simply not running that experiment.

Again: Your position is "We should keep right on dumping half a billion tons a year into our atmosphere! In fact, we should keep increasing the rate we're doing it at! All those folks who say it's bad are wrong."

My position is "I can get you the same product you're now buying, without the pollution, from a more reliable source, for less money, in 20 years."

[Duncan]

Yeah, I hate those thousands of Marxist scientists too. Always blatantly lying to us to appease their Clintonesque masters.

So I guess your naive position is that scientists are immune from politics and funding concerns and never have an agenda.

I'll remember that next time the lemming are quick to criticize a study from a scientist backed by "big oil".

Do you have a problem with the idea proposed in the quote?

[Duncan]

My position is "I can get you the same product you're now buying, without the pollution, from a more reliable source, for less money, in 20 years."

You are going to be a very rich man Larry

[PeterMP]

Did what?

Have the time to do something about global warming.

[Duncan]

The articles you posted are hardly definitive Peter. Look, you can post "studies" all day but until you take politics out of the equation you are spinning your wheels.

You are quick to follow the funding when it disagrees with your position and then turn around and support the UN's conclusions (and scientists aligned with the UN). The UN is the most political organization in the world. It makes the US congress look like boy scouts.

So you claim Mike Lockwood's study is more valid than a three-year-old NASA study. Who is Mike Lockwood and where does he get his funding and what are his political positions, etc.

Again, why are global warming alarmists so afraid of putting the science through rigorous analysis? How could anyone disagree with taking politics out of this important debate?

Are you opposed to the following?

“Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research - or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.”

[Teller]

But how does all of this relate to Gregg Williams?

(GW related)

:whoknows:

[Predicto]

So I guess your naive position is that scientists are immune from politics and funding concerns and never have an agenda.

Not at all. But when the overwhelming majority of scientists in a field speak with a relatively unified voice, it is time to start listening. Ignoring all of them, asserting that they are all lying just to protect their funding, is childish thinking.

This subject has become a matter of political identity. Since the evil liberals believe in global climate change, it must be a hoax.

I'll remember that next time the lemming are quick to criticize a study from a scientist backed by "big oil".

That is the difference between one study and scores of studies. Like the "study" that showed that the Hummers is more enviornmentally friendly than Prius. It was bullcrap and quickly exposed as such. However, there is a chorus of studies out there and virtually all indicate that our human activities are accellerating the pace of climate change.

Do you have a problem with the idea proposed in the quote?

Not at all, unless it is being proposed as a simple delaying tactic. Do both.

Again, why are global warming alarmists so afraid of putting the science through rigorous analysis? How could anyone disagree with taking politics out of this important debate?

This is a nonsense statement, unless by by "rigorous analysis" you mean "analysis that reaches the conclusions that I want." Like any area of serious scientific study, there is rigorous criticism going on all the time within the field. Mistakes will be made in individual studies and exposed in others. That is inevitable. However, we can still look at the concensus of the work that is going on and draw some information from it. To refuse to act until the absolute last bit of doubt in the mind of the last doubter has been erased is foolish.

[PeterMP]

The articles you posted are hardly definitive Peter. Look, you can post "studies" all day but until you take politics out of the equation you are spinning your wheels.

You are quick to follow the funding when it disagrees with your position and then turn around and support the UN's conclusions (and scientists aligned with the UN). The UN is the most political organization in the world. It makes the US congress look like boy scouts.

So you claim Mike Lockwood's study is more valid than a three-year-old NASA study. Who is Mike Lockwood and where does he get his funding and what are his political positions, etc.

Again, why are global warming alarmists so afraid of putting the science through rigorous analysis? How could anyone disagree with taking politics out of this important debate?

1. I think you over state the NASA study. Their conclusion was IF the trend they observed was much longer than the data they had to study solar irradiance might possibly CONTRIBUTE to global warming.

2. The newer study is more valid because it contains more data. Nothing shocking there.

3. How do you get off saying they are afraid to put their studies through rigorous analysis? Do you have link to support that?

Are you opposed to the following?

“Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well. Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them. The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepreneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research - or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.

Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.”

I won't disagree that it would be a good idea, but if you say that we should ignore the exsisting data, you are essentially participating in character assination of hundreds of people across the globe, including Exxon:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902081.html

"Cohen said that the world's largest publicly traded oil company, long the leading corporate symbol of skepticism about global warming, has never denied the existence of climate change. He added that "the global ecosystem is showing signs of warming, particularly in polar areas" and "the appropriate debate isn't on whether the climate is changing but rather should be on what we should be doing about it.""

"Asked whether the company would favor a cap-and-trade method of limiting greenhouse gases, Cohen said, "The devil's in the details. That's neither a yes nor a no. It's a definite maybe.""

In addition, this arguement generally seems to misunderstand how science is funded. Grants by the goverment are normally 3 years (I've never seen one for more than 5). To reup your grant, you have to show you were successful in the three years that you had your grant. I can post studies from the early to mid-90's where people were arguing that global warming was real, but that temps were reaching a pleteau. Others disagreed. We know now that temps continued to increase throught the 90's and into the mid 00's (2005 and 2006 were record years). Given a limited number of resources, who's research would you fund? Obviously the people that were right are going to continue to get money, while the people that were wrong are strugglling to get money. That's the way it should be (as long as resources are limited). In general, the current system encourages scientist to be conservative and to hedge their bets, and not come out w/ fantastic claims that later can be found to be wrong because being wrong is the fastest way to lose your funding so scientist that came out early were taking a huge risk. The flip side of that is they are now "famous", and for the scientific community are "set for life" (e.g. never really have to worry about getting funding or finding a job). I should point out, the current system has worked well. Global warming isn't the first time this type of debate has gone on:

1. Dumping of industrial waste in rivers. Industry insisted it wasn't a big deal, until a river in Cleveland caught on fire.

2. Acid rain- industry insisted it wasn't really an issue. Of course, then forest started dying. Then they said it would cost to much to prevent. When they were finally forced to, there was no massive jump in electric prices.

3. Ozone depletion- first industry insisted that it wasn't real. Then the ozone hole appeared.

There is a long history of scientist in acedemia being right and industry being wrong.