Letter: Most scientists agree about climate change | May 22, 2013 | Almanac | Almanac Online |



Viewpoint - May 22, 2013

Letter: Most scientists agree about climate change

A review of 12,000 papers on climate change, in the May 15 issue of the "Environmental Research Letters," found that 97 percent of scientists attribute climate change to human activities. Although we're unlikely to reverse climate change, we can mitigate its effects by reducing our driving, energy use, and meat consumption.

Yes, meat consumption. A 2006 U.N. report estimated that meat consumption accounts for 18 percent of man-made greenhouse gases. A 2009 article in the respected World Watch magazine suggested that it may be closer to 50 percent.

Carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, is generated by burning forests to create animal pastures and by combustion of fossil fuels to confine, feed, transport, and slaughter animals. The much more damaging methane and nitrous oxide are discharged from digestive tracts of cattle and from animal waste cesspools, respectively.

Each of us has the power to reduce the devastating effects of climate change every time we eat. Our local supermarket offers a rich variety of soy-based lunch meats, hotdogs, veggie burgers and soy and nut-based dairy products, as well as an ample selection of vegetables, fruits, grains, and nuts.

Miles Barney, Sharon Park Drive, Menlo Park


Like this comment
Posted by DoTheMath
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on May 22, 2013 at 9:02 pm

First, the theory of anthropogenic global warming is supported by the 2,000 members of the UN’s IPCC, one-third of whom are not scientists at all, leaving only some 1300 scientists who’ve signed on to global warming. In addition, the Climategate emails showed beyond any doubt that these same scientists were manipulating data to make the theory look correct. Perhaps because their grants and funding depended on their conclusions.
Second, over 30,000 totally independent scientists are now on record opposing the global warming/climate change theories. In addition, many scientists and meteorologists have written books debunking global warming, including The Cold Sun, Climategate, and Climate: The Counter-Consensus, among others.
Third: the following are excerpts from an article by Brian Sussman, a meteorologist:
“CO2 accounts for less than 4/10000ths* of our planet's atmosphere (.00036%).”
“…what percentage of the miniscule amount of CO2 is produced by human activity, including the utilization of fossil fuels? According to a thorough analysis by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center -- a research wing of the U.S. Department of Energy -- only 3.207% . Carbon dioxide comprises less than 4/10000ths of the earth atmosphere and of that amount, a mere 3% is generated by mankind.”
“…Water vapor is earth's most effective and abundant greenhouse gas, accounting for 95% of the greenhouse effect. After water vapor, the remaining five percent of the greenhouse gases are, in order of concentration: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and a variety of other minor gases, including ozone, carbon monoxide, and chlorofluorocarbons. However--it must be noted that methane is 21 times more potent than CO2 when it comes to retaining the sun's heat, and nitrous oxide is 310 times more effective than CO2. Carbon dioxide is actually a puny player in the greenhouse game.”
“…when we reconsider water vapor into the math, humankind's carbon-dioxide footprint is reduced to .117% of the greenhouse effect (that reads one hundred seventeen thousandths of a percent). …There is no planetary emergency caused by an abundance of carbon dioxide…”
Fourth: we can have that steak after all. The sky is not falling…

Like this comment
Posted by Reality sets in
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 22, 2013 at 10:16 pm

@DoTheMath - "over 30,000 totally independent scientists" Let's see the list.

"Brian Sussman" The TV weatherman on KPIX during the 90's?

Really? That's your guy - a local TV weatherman? You're really grasping at straws. Caomparing water vapor to greenhouse gases. Wow.

97% of scientists, almost all the peer reviewed papers support climate change. Keep fighting it, you're looking more like the extreme fringe every year.

Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of another community
on May 23, 2013 at 12:59 am

Sure, have that steak. Make it organic, please, raised in as sustainable a manner as possible - you know it tastes better. Maybe DoTheMath & Mr. Sussman can have dinner together? Seriously, we all should eat less meat for our health, not just for the health of the planet. Wait, our health is integrally tied into the health of the planet, although the planet would be healthier without us, most likely.

And 30,000 independent scientists - what does this mean? Are they independently wealthy? Weren't overly attached to their parents growing up, thus showing an independent streak? Are they loners? Or they work independently - & what does THAT mean? How are they funded, where are their labs, who pays them, for what, exactly, & what types of scientists are included in these 30,000. Just kidding. I know what an independent scientist is. DoTheMath, seriously, who funds that many scientists to debunk climate change - now, not 30 years ago? And WHERE are they on record? I'd really like to see this!

Wait, I think I know the document to which you refer that includes 30k "scientists" (the majority are engineers, which are often confused w/real scientists)...This list is a petition from both the 1990s & 2007, which did little to vet the list. To whit:

George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences...describing the petition as a "farce" in part because "the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials."[19] Myanna Lahsen said, "Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few." The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics "added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved".[20] Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[21] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."[23] According to the Petition Project website, the issue of duplication has been resolved.[24] Kevin Grandia offered similar criticism, saying although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of "areas of expertise", it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. "This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant".

The above is from Wikipedia, which isn't normally my go-to source for verification, but I found it apt in this case! Even if they were verified as accurate, more than half, by my estimation, are involved in industries that would suffer from environmental laws that support preventing more global warming.

Enjoy your steak, DoTheMath.

Like this comment
Posted by Sussman fraud
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on May 23, 2013 at 10:44 am

Sussman was a local radio weather guy, iirc, not even making it to the tube. But we do know a few things about the reinvented climate fraud, Brian Sussman, thanks to the intertoobs:
- Sussman's a birther, who doesn't believe Obama is an American: "Show us the birth certificate, man. Show us the money. It's sealed up in Hawaii? Show it to us. ... Show us the birth certificate..." 12/15/08
- July 28, 2008: Sussman, referring to Obama's July 24 Berlin speech: "As I was watching, I could have sworn he was running for Antichrist." and later attacked Obama's faith: "If Barack Obama were on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence for a jury of his peers to pronounce him guilty? I doubt it. I think Obama would walk."
- apparently, Sussman is all knowing, allowed to pass judgemnet on your faith if your faith is is not the same as his: "Islam is phony faith created by a charlatan named Mohammed. Mohammed was a slick politician who used a popular moon god to rally his pagan Arab brothers into a single religion that marginally mimicked the monotheistic faith of their cousins the Jews."

- Sussman said that Obama thinks 9/11 was an inside job - on Sept 11, 2008, Sussman, while discussing the 9/11 terrorist attacks: "I bet you a buck, man to man, that Obama believes this was an inside job."

Google Sussman, and you will find the quotes, along with homophobia (called Barney Frank a "queen", and more filth.

Why on God's green earth would anyone believe this charlatan about science?

He has numerous data errors in his books and misrepresents facts (ie.. lies) on Fox all the time.

Sussman: "...and the hottest decade in history was the 1930s not these last 10 years, so there is no global warming." (1/31/11 - Fox Business' Follow the Money)

Sussman's error? He used national data, just the US, not global data. You can NOT trust this bozo with numbers.

Fact: NOAA: "The 2000-2009 Decade Is The Warmest On Record." NOAA's National Climate Data Center reported in December 2009: "The 2000s decade (2000-2009) is the warmest on record for the globe, with a surface global temperature of 0.54°C (0.96°F) above the long-term (20th century) average. This shattered the 1990s value of 0.36°C (0.65°F). See the global time series." [NOAA, December 2009] Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by Bad Science
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on May 23, 2013 at 11:19 am

Using facts, and actual quotes, sure deflates the Deniers claims.

Couldn't get the argument that there's more vapor than carbon dioxide. Duh! 3/4 of the earth is covered with water (the rest, as we know, is covered by Patrick Willis.)

At least Susman doesn't make any false claims about his education (or lack thereof) on his website. Missouri - the home of budding climatologists!

Except Brian doesn't even list his undergrad major. It was broadcasting, right?

Like this comment
Posted by for shame
a resident of Portola Valley: Ladera
on May 24, 2013 at 9:14 am

wow, there's a punctured balloon! thanks for playing along!

Perhaps another of the THIRTY THOUSAND totally independent SCIENTISTS, rather than pinning your hopes on a factually challenged tv weather model as your 'expert'?

Like this comment
Posted by Global Warming myth
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 27, 2013 at 9:45 am

1. The hottest decade in the United States was the 1930s
2. Greenland was once green
3. The University of East Anglia fraudulently manipulated global warming data
4. The Earth has been cooling since 1997
5. Mount Mansfield, in Stowe, Vt., had 13.2 inches of snow yesterday breaking the all time record for more than one foot of snow this late in the season.

6. The was a huge Memorial Day snow storm in New York State today

Web Link

You can trust liberal environmentalists or your lying eyes

Like this comment
Posted by Burl Farms
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on May 27, 2013 at 11:04 am


Recycling old blather from the deniers.

> 1. The hottest decade in the United States was the 1930s

Whoop-de-doo... That's the same asinine argument (though mistakenly phrased, by the tv weather mannequin Sussman, above) we hear: who cares, when discussing GLOBAL climate change, what the temp is in Jackass Flats, NV alone? It's called GLOBAL Climate Change, not Climate Change in Jackass Flats NV, nor is it called US Climate Change.

As posted above, NOAA: "The 2000-2009 Decade Is The Warmest On Record."

Your 1997 is demonstrably false.

As far as individual weather incidents, such as snow in May, that's also patently absurd logic when discussing Global Climate Disruption. Like someone using Moore OK being leveled twice in 15 years, as proof of Climate Disruption.

> You can trust liberal environmentalists or your lying eyes

Here - LMFTFY:

You can trust 97% of Scientists or your Local Anonymous Lying Blog Poster.

The lying anonymous poster who strangely feels that 97% of scientists are operating against him in a vast secret conspiracy that only the Brian Sussman's, Rush Limpbaugh's and Glenn Beck's can ferret out.

Yup. Close call.

Like this comment
Posted by Global Warming myth
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on May 27, 2013 at 12:05 pm

The Seventh International Climate Change Conference, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, was held in Chicago last Monday through Wednesday.

"This year’s theme was “Real Science, Real Choices.” Scientists, doctors, and economists from Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Norway, and the U.S. addressed everything from the latest research on solar cycles and cosmic rays to paleoclimatology, extreme weather events, renewable fuels, and contemporary temperature records".

Among it's conclusions were that global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

Only strident environmentalists, a few Kool Aid drinking former Menlo Park and Palo Alto mayors, and some very liberal (in terms of ideology but definitely not in terms of tolerance) newspaper editors are buying into the anthropogenic global warming catastrophe panic.

Like this comment
Posted by Dora the google explorer
a resident of Atherton: West of Alameda
on May 27, 2013 at 3:00 pm

"science" (oh-boy!) "sponsored by the Heartland Institute" (yippee!)

THAT'S AWESOME!!!! Well, if you are into frauds, I suppose it's great!

And just who sponsors Heartland?

Big oil, of course. With a little help (well, lots of help, actually) from Big Coal.

Who sponsored recent conferences (before Heartland closed their books? We may never know that they have become so secretive.

A quick google: Heartland Institute's 2009 Climate Conference in New York: funding history of the sponsors

ExxonMobil (1998-2006): $6,199,000
Koch Foundations (1986-2006): $4,438,920
Scaife Foundations (1985-2006): $36,868,640 ("With $1.2 billion, Scaife, a principal heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune, is No. 283 on the 2005 Forbes 400.)

Grand Total: $47,506,560

Create an 'institute' and then hire 'scientists' to create science that's friendly for your business. Closely related to 'biostitutes'. Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 27, 2013 at 3:12 pm

I'm hardly a "denier" but I would like to hear a legitimate response to the question: Have global temperatures been declining for more than 10 years?

There should be a fact-based answer.

I'm asking because I don't know.

Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 27, 2013 at 3:15 pm

I may be answering my own question because I found this chart:

Web Link

It may be cooling (looks pretty level to my old eyes) but it's also pretty clear that it's been pretty darn warm over the past thirty years or so!

Like this comment
Posted by gosh it sprinkled today so NO WARMING
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 27, 2013 at 3:37 pm

The reason it's warming is carbon, and we've recently passed some rather stunning levels.

Web Link

re: the above post... are deniers still using Heartland (Exxon) data? Sheesh! I sure hope the denier gwmyth, is on someone's payroll and getting paid for her complicity. Be kinda dumb to echo that noise for free when Exxon is shoveling and dumping wheelbarrows of cash on other deniers.