Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Canada NASA News Politics Science

NASA's Hansen Calls Out Obama On Climate Change 461

Posted by timothy
from the there-are-no-deniers dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Dr James Hansen, director of the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, writes in the NY Times that he was troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves 'regardless of what we do.' According to Hansen 'Canada's tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now.' Hansen says that instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay their true costs, leveling the energy playing field, the world's governments are forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels with hundreds of billions of dollars per year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA's Hansen Calls Out Obama On Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • by Dachannien (617929) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @08:24AM (#39977975)

    The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies. In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.

    We can achieve the same goal of reducing carbon output by instead investing that money into first-world research and development of alternative fuels. Full implementation then eliminates carbon emissions altogether, a goal which can't be achieved by market-based carbon neutrality alone.

    • by jpapon (1877296) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @08:58AM (#39978133) Journal

      The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies.

      Actually, I think the idea is to put a monetary cost on things which currently have no cost, namely, emission of gasses which may have a negative effect on climate. I think thinking that there is some conspiracy here is kind of ridiculous. One side wants to implement government regulations to reduce carbon emissions. The other side believes the market will solve these problems. So we arrive at a compromise where we attempt to achieve our goal (reducing emissions) by using the market (make it have a cost). This seems entirely reasonable. Why shouldn't we attach a cost to pollution?

      • by Entropius (188861) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @09:10AM (#39978219)

        It really is the only sensible way to go about it: as you say, fossil fuels' cost doesn't represent their true cost, because they cause unreimbursed damage to ... everyone.

        Use a carbon tax to make these fuels' cost represent their real cost, cut taxes somewhere else if you want to or dole the money out to the public, and let the market sort it out.

        • by CodeBuster (516420) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @11:59AM (#39979253)

          Use a carbon tax to make these fuels' cost represent their real cost

          Which would be largely meaningless for several reasons. First, the world is currently using almost as much oil as can be pumped out of the ground at maximum rates. There is no longer any significant slack in the world's oil supplies while at the same time there are billions of aspiring consumers in both India and China who are right now in the process of acquiring all of the habits of a western style consumerist lifestyle. This means that any slack in the oil market generated by American or European cutbacks, due to carbon pricing or whatever, will be almost immediately taken up by consumers and industry in China and India. What will be the result of this policy? American and European economies are crippled by higher energy taxes while at the same time no less carbon is emitted because India and China are now burning whatever oil we don't. In fact, it would probably lead to overall worse emissions because vehicles in China in India tend to be older and less efficient designs which belch huge clouds of greasy black smoke from their tailpipes and produce large quantities of photochemical smog. Second, selling energy taxes is like selling austerity and we've all seen how well austerity sells to the public in Europe as a result of the financial meltdown. People really hate being asked to make do with less, especially when government policy forces it upon them. So asking people to cut back and make sacrifices for the climate is basically a non-starter on any meaningful scale. Any workable solution to climate change will have to be almost a drop in replacement for our current energy use or it has basically no chance of being used.

      • Actually, I think the idea is to put a monetary cost on things which currently have no cost, namely, emission of gasses which may have a negative effect on climate.

        Great principle. What about charging for the environmental destruction many third world nations are guilty of? What about charging for the enormous population growth that Asia and Africa are imposing on the world? What about charging for the stupendous costs environmental destruction in Europe over the last 5000 years has imposed on the rest

        • by chrb (1083577) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @12:11PM (#39979315)

          Depending on how you account for these factors, you reach very different answers about who should pay for carbon emissions.

          The obvious answer to the question "who should pay for emissions?" is "the people who did it". You are, for some reason, attempting to lump in lots of other environmental issues to the one of CO2 emissions. When we regulated SO2 emissions, we just did it - we didn't wait until we had figured out how to handle deforestation or population growth in Africa, or how to somehow "correct" the effects of colonialism or emigration in Europe thousands of years ago.

          If you don't think that the emitter should pay, then who should? The rich? The poor? Everyone pay an equal share? If so, how do you account for different salary rates in different nations - should everyone pay an equal proportion of their income? It is ridiculous to suggest that, say, Africans with their average income of $315 a year should have the same responsibility towards paying this cost as Westerners who earn many times more, especially when it was the Western nations who contributed most to the increase in co2 levels:

          The major countries with the biggest per-capita emissions are Australia, the USA, and Canada. European countries, Japan, and South Africa are notable runners up. Among European countries, the United Kingdom is resolutely average. What about China, that naughty “out of control” country? Yes, the area of China’s rectangle is about the same as the USA’s, but the fact is that their per-capita emissions are below the world average. India’s per-capita emissions are less than half the world average. Moreover, it’s worth bearing in mind that much of the industrial emissions of China and India are associated with the manufacture of stuff for rich countries.

          So, assuming that “something needs to be done” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, who has a special responsibility to do something? As I said, that’s an ethical question. But I find it hard to imagine any system of ethics that denies that the responsibility falls especially on the countries to the left hand side of this diagram – the countries whose emissions are two, three, or four times the world average. Countries that are most able to pay. Countries like Britain and the USA, for example.

          Historical responsibility for climate impact [cam.ac.uk]

          If we assume that the climate has been damaged by human activity, and that someone needs to x it, who should pay? Some people say “the polluter should pay.” The preceding pictures showed who’s doing the polluting today. But it isn’t the rate of CO2 pollution that matters, it’s the cumulative total emissions; much of the emitted carbon dioxide (about one third of it) will hang around in the atmosphere for at least 50 or 100 years. If we accept the ethical idea that “the polluter should pay” then we should ask how big is each country’s historical footprint. The next picture shows each country’s cumulative emissions of CO2, expressed as an average emission rate over the period 1880–2004. Average pollution rate

          Congratulations, Britain! The UK has made it onto the winners’ podium. We may be only an average European country today, but in the table of historical emitters, per capita, we are second only to the USA.

          • by khipu (2511498)

            If we accept the ethical idea that âoethe polluter should payâ then we should ask how big is each countryâ(TM)s historical footprint. Congratulations, Britain! The UK has made it onto the winnersâ(TM) podium. We may be only an average European country today, but in the table of historical emitters, per capita, we are second only to the USA.

            You have the right idea, but you are not doing the accounting right. The state atmosphere doesn't depend on per capita emissions or how much people e

      • Why shouldn't we attach a cost to pollution?

        We should attach a cost to pollution, and a hefty one. The problem is, cap and trade as currently implemented is very easy to scam, with built-in incentives to do so [elawreview.org]. With no adequate policing or enforcement, current carbon trading schemes are worse than useless - they can actually allow a company or industry to emit MORE greenhouse emissions than they would otherwise have gotten away with, under the pretense that some other body somewhere else in the world is offseting those emissions.

        The carbon market is

      • Attaching a cost to pollution is meaningless. You either reduce (in absolute terms) by a certain fixed amount or you don't. Nature doesn't care about your greenbacks.

        The only thing an economic system of carbon emissions trading does is grow the economy by introducing a new ficticious form of wealth that can be used as leverage for investment games. It's literally creating wealth out of thin air (and I won't go into how useful that really is).

        • by Ambitwistor (1041236) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @10:47AM (#39978743)

          Attaching a cost to pollution is meaningless. You either reduce (in absolute terms) by a certain fixed amount or you don't. Nature doesn't care about your greenbacks.

          Nature doesn't, but humans, who are the ones who have to actually do the reducing, do. An arguably effective way for them to do that is for it to be in their financial best interest to do so.

          The only thing an economic system of carbon emissions trading does

          Who said anything about emissions trading? That's not the only way to make emissions have a cost. Hansen himself favors a tax-and-dividend plan [slideshare.net].

    • by santax (1541065)
      This isn't true. The emission-rights are being sold on the world markets and it isn't the third world that is making billions and billions of them...
    • There is nothing wrong with being carbon neutral in theory. If every country were carbon neutral the economic benefits would go to those who do it most efficiency without simply resetting your economy to pre-Industrial.

      One of the problems is how to implement it. It is almost like arguing over flat, progressive, or recessive taxes*. Make it perfectly neutral between all countries and you hinder the development of... well... developing countries. The developed have a huge advantage and they can keep it.

    • by Ichijo (607641)

      The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham...In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels.

      In order to prove the above is correct, you also need to prove that demand for petroleum is perfectly inelastic. Good luck with that!

    • "The level playing field for carbon neutrality is a sham designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth from first-world economies to third-world economies. In the process, all you really do is set a soft cap on carbon emissions without reducing actual dependence upon fossil fuels."

      So? Where do you think the material basis for the wealth of the first world came from?

      From coltan to copper, from rubber to rice, from bananas to coffee to mahogany to tea to gold and diamonds and silver - it comes from th

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 12, 2012 @08:25AM (#39977981)

    Blame Canada!

  • Overpopulation.

    If you want less carbon emitted, reduce our population.

    We are not going to achieve zero carbon emissions, but we need more (a) natural land and forests to absorb that and (b) fewer producing sources.

    All people produce some carbon. Having seven and then nine billion people guarantees we will be unable to stop the increase even if we all live in mud huts, eat vegetables and bury our poop.

    • by oiron (697563)

      Whenever somebody comes up with this argument, the question that comes to mind is: "What do you intend to do though? Nuke China? Kill every child in the developing world?"

      Don't forget, the third most populous country is the United States.

      Like every other problem, it needs to be addressed correctly - family planning, birth control...

      Anyway, both India and China have made quite a bit of progress in terms of birth rate: it's now down to about 2%, and the fertility rate is about 2-3 per woman, which is not too

      • by Rockoon (1252108) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @09:27AM (#39978333)

        Don't forget, the third most populous country is the United States.

        Its China and India with their 36.47% of the worlds population, and then the United States with its 4.47%.

        Your statement, while correct, is disingenuous in intent. You are using the truth to be dishonest.

        This graph spells it out nicely. [wikipedia.org] The United States is on the same line as all less populous countries, while China and India are playing on a completely different field.

        The fact that every other country falls on that line says something important about the line, and also says something important about the only two outliers.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Hentes (2461350)

      Are you worried about carbon emissions through breathing? Because animals do a lot more of that than humanity, so by this logic we should start by killing all animals in order to save the environment.

    • by Entropius (188861)

      This, pretty much.

      Out-of-control population growth is going to keep happening while religion gets to dictate the position of women in our world, though.

      • by webnut77 (1326189)

        Out-of-control population growth is going to keep happening while religion gets to dictate the position of women in our world, though.

        This is not true. While the missionary position is great, some religious men actually like it better if the women are on top.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Velex (120469)

        Oh, good grief. Really?

        News flash. Women want to have children, and we've designed all kinds of things like child support and welfare to encourage them to be able to exercise exactly zero forethought before going to a party, doing a bunch of drugs, getting knocked up, then calling date rape once their pregnancy test comes back positive.

        If anybody cared about gender equality, a woman who had children with no way to support them would be shunned the exact same way as a deadbeat dad, and instead we'd ha

    • Demographers expect the world population to stabilize by approximately mid-century. Sure, population growth until then will increase CO2 emissions. But it won't increase them nearly as much as previously poor populations industrializing and dramatically ramping up their energy consumption. Rising energy demand in currently developing nations, not rising population, is the real problem.

  • Again. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @08:27AM (#39977993)
    Every political debate about climate change countermeasures comes down to the same fundamental conflict:

    Politician: "My advisers inform me that if we do not take action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, there will be serious global climate repercussions."
    Public: "Well, reduce emissions then."
    Politician: "This does mean some unavoidable increase in gas prices, but -"
    Public: "FUCK THE CLIMATE! Give us cheap gas!"
    People are happy to do something to help reduce emissions, providing this something doesn't involve any expense or inconvenience for them personally. Politicians know this. There is a big public demand to exploit every drop of oil that can be found in order to keep gas prices down, and it's very difficult for anyone hoping to get elected again to go against that.
  • The reality is that global warming probably sounds kind of good to most Canadians, and billions of dollars in oil revenues probably sound even better. (Whether it should is, of course, a different question.)

    The ONLY way to prevent future global warming due to Carbon Monoxide emissions is to develop a credible alternative to petroleum for cars. I suggest a small "carbon tax" that is, by statute, 100% dedicated to alternative fuels research. The Chinese are actively pursuing this. Do we (as Americans -- s

    • by Fished (574624)

      Errr... that should have been "Carbon dioxide emissions." I'm smoking a cigarette, so I guess I have carbon monoxide on my brain.

    • by JWW (79176)

      Sure, that'll do it.

      Because once we switch to electric cars charged by coal plants, we'll be fine.

      We need to switch to nuclear power to but the greenies always miss that step.

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        We need to switch to nuclear power to but the greenies always miss that step.

        We need nuclear power to plan for the future (reprocessing fuel) and to be operated safely (not controlled by corporatists) but the nuclear playboys always miss those steps.

        • by oiron (697563)

          Don't forget the mining... The playboys always forget the mining...

        • by Entropius (188861)

          It should be controlled by private industry because private industry, in most conditions, is overwhelmingly more efficient than the government. Should I point out that the worst nuclear accident in history was at a government-controlled plant?

          But that private industry needs to be liable for anything it breaks -- in the context of that liability, they actually have an incentive not to cause an incident. Modern nuclear power is far safer than coal any way you measure it, though.

      • by oiron (697563)

        Actually, switching to less tail-pipe emissions really would help...

        As far as nuclear power's concerned, we can't afford to build the old designs (I mean 1st to 3rd generation stuff like Fukushima) anymore. We would need to use modern designs, which are often either experimental (molten salt, pebble bed,...) or expensive (Gen 3+ or Gen 4 PWRs). They also take years to build correctly! Can we really afford to wait?

        My problem with nuclear power in India (yeah, I've got to come back to my country, after all) i

    • by Bieeanda (961632)
      Sorry, but that global warming crack is about as ignorant as ones about the value of the loonie (which has actually gone above par with the greenback more than once in the last few years). Geographically, most of us are clustered along the border in the temperate zone we share with the northern states.

      On the other hand, Alberta is a financial powerhouse thanks to those oil reserves and the tar sands, and it spends a lot on balancing payments to help keep some of the poorer provinces running. Our current Pri

  • Jonathan Adler agrees [volokh.com], and thinks Hansen's proposal is a viable market-based approach, and better than the cap-and-trade approaches that have been getting more press.

  • by CajunArson (465943) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @08:36AM (#39978047) Journal

    So on this website whenever Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, etc. do anything that America doesn't like it's universally applauded as "standing up against evil imperialist right-wing Chrisitan America" No matter how bad or destructive the action, it's OK because it's "speaking truth to power" or some nonsense.

    Now we have Canada basically saying that it's going to use its own oil, and the exact same people are going apoplectic. International intervention suddenly become

      Note that these same people are strangely silent when Brazil or Venezuela develop new oil resources, and I haven't heard any huge outrage over the fact that drilling off the coast of Cuba will put oil rigs just a few miles from the Florida Keys. The same people who complain that America == Somalia (you've seen those posts) because we don't have the federal government in control of all economic activity never complain when foreign corporations drill for oil righ in the middle of sensitive areas.. as long as the money will be going to a government they approve of.

    I've come to realize that environmental movement doesn't really care about what is done to the planet, only on who is doing it. Put up a windmill in America that a bird might run into? Destroying the world! Use nuclear power in Japan? CHINA SYNDROME! Setup nuclear plants in Iran that are known to be using unsafe designs that are intended to produce weapons-grade plutonium instead of producing electricity? No problem. Put an oil pipeline directly through the rainforest in Venezuela to prop up Hugo Chavez? That's a wonder of the world showing how great socialism is!

    I've seen it all before and this is just a thin coating of green paint on a corrupt and broken set of ideas.

    • So on this website whenever Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, etc. do anything that America doesn't like it's universally applauded as "standing up against evil imperialist right-wing Chrisitan America" No matter how bad or destructive the action, it's OK because it's "speaking truth to power" or some nonsense.

      Well, that's what happens when "you"'re evil as fuck. Well-meaning people sometimes overreach and get confused, and less well-meaning people happily mingle with them.

      Stopping to be evil as fuck doesn'

  • It's just nuts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Johann Lau (1040920) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @08:38AM (#39978061) Homepage Journal

    Consider the vast amount of energy the sun is pumping into earth (not to mention all the stuff that doesn't hit earth....). We need to get to that, instead of plundering resources that could be used for other things other than just burning them, or in some cases even are best just left there. If worst comes to worst, we let "elites" and private, short-sighted interests run amok with this, and when they're done with it let it serve as an excuse for even more control and subsidies (for more stuff that does more harm than good, ofc). Instead of, you know, being gentle(wo)men and trying to get free energy, shelter and food for everybody. How can we even look in the mirror.. Oh wait, we can't, that solves that.

    I know this is a rather random rant off-topic; I have no clue about the details about any of this, anyway... but "the big picture" gets me every time. It's just nuts! No convincing me otherwise.. we have a veritable Garden of Eden on one hand, and New York and Calcutta is what we turn it into. WTF.

  • What Hansen doesn't say about the Pliocene is that back then, North America and South America were divided continents.

    What we call the Gulf Stream today (and some people seem to be quite impressed by it) would have been the Pacific Stream back then. It transported a much larger amount of heat to Europe and beyond than it currently receives from that puny bathtub called the Gulf of Mexico. Of course that had a large influence on the amount of ice in and around the arctic sea and the global sea level.

    There i

  • But it's important to understand that Canada is going to be moving forward with tar sands, regardless of what we do. That's their national policy, they're pursuing it. With respect to Keystone, my goal has been to have an honest process, and I have adamantly objected to Congress trying to circumvent a process that was well-established not just under Democratic administrations, but also under Republican administrations.

    From http://stoptarsands.wordpress.com/:

    70% of the crude oil being extracted from the ta

  • As a lay person, I have honestly tried to follow all the arguments and counter-arguments about catastrophic AGW, the only kind of climate change that matters -- and that we could do anything about. One thing is clear to me: claims of imminent catastrophic changes such as 50-foot elevations in sea level are all highly exaggerated. Yes, the climate is changing -- as it ever has -- but it is doing so much more slowly than predicted: my layman's sense of it is that for each foot of claimed rise there's been

  • ...nuclear energy is bad, nuclear energy is bad, la la la I can't hear you nuclear energy is bad.

  • Hansen says that tar sands contain a lot of carbon. Duh.

    Obama realizes that Canada is going to exploit this resource no matter what we do, which also sounds correct to me.

    Hansen seems to be shooting the messenger, but that doesn't alter the fact that the message is correct.

  • In context (Score:4, Informative)

    by J'raxis (248192) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @09:31AM (#39978355) Homepage

    If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now.

    Let's put this alarmist prediction into context [slashdot.org]:

    James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books -- mine included -- because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace.

  • by lexsird (1208192) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @09:34AM (#39978367)

    We aren't going to stop using whatever kind of oil we find, obviously. So we need to clean up this carbon out of the air. Classically, nature does this for us but we seem to have overloaded that mechanism. Trees have been the acme of biological agents for scrubbing the air, but we need a new one.

    We need a plant that grows fast, and by growing and producing it's seeds/fruit it consumes a lot of carbon. We have just such a perfect candidate, but leave it to politics to forbid it. I am talking about hemp. Hemp has the bulk and the seed production that will yank carbon out of the air by the scruff of it's neck. It grows small tree tall in a single season and it sucks so much carbon that the seeds are teaming with a hydrocarbon.

    Historically, it's a weed that farmers hate because it leaches soil quickly of nutrients. To me this isn't a problem with modern hydroponics. We have plenty of recyclable products and our own sewer to feed a hydroponic system that would feed these hemp plants. It would process waste and carbon into a plant that has more uses than I can count.

    With hydroponics, lots of real estate that is worthless to build on can be used for hemp patches, piping a rich slurry to feed them, processing our own waste. We don't need to cut into crop lands, hence the "leaching" effect can be controlled.

    Of course there are roadblocks to this solution. The cotton industry has been an enemy of hemp, mostly out of fear that it will replace them. Of course we have the anti-drug crowd that will insist that hippies are going to smoke it. Counters to that are that is creates new industry and innovations from a very "green" resource that is not only renewable, but it helps scrub the air. Everyone wins. Except for the hippies who tried to smoke it, who are wreathing in agony from a "ditch weed" headache.

    • by Immerman (2627577) on Saturday May 12, 2012 @01:21PM (#39979857)

      Actually, while trees and other land-dwelling plants certainly help, just like with oxygen production most of the heavy lifting is done by the oceans - atmospheric CO2 dissolves in the water and gets used by diatoms, algae, and plankton, which then die and carry their sequestered carbon to the ocean floor.

      And when it comes to hemp roadblocks, don't forget the lumber industry which wouldn't be very profitable if hemp replaced wood waste for paper making and other uses, and the pharmaceutical industry which is none too pleased about the panacea of useful compounds found in hemp. I hadn't heard of the nutrient-leaching problem, but I doubt it's much worse than with cotton or other soil-destroying crops and could probably be handled similarly, with fertilizers or intelligent crop rotation. Talk to the folks currently farming it in other countries, I'm sure they've got it all worked out.

    • by rrohbeck (944847)

      The biosphere is mostly carbon neutral. Carbon that gets scrubbed out by plants is released back into the atmosphere by burning or rotting except for the small fraction that is buried (and forms fossil fuel in the long term.)
      Growing trees does not make a difference. Actively burying carbon would (biochar for example) but that takes more energy than you want to think of, so it's more efficient to not burn the carbon in the first place.

  • I hate to say Obama's right, but he's right that the Canadian shale oil will be mined and used regardless of what we do (unless we intervene militarily, of course). From an environmental perspective, it is better that the oil be refined in the US where we can have stricter rules on the refining process to limit pollution. From a strategic perspective we should want that oil coming our direction so we don't need to import so much from unfriendly countries and so that we have a secure supply (and one less sup
    • I have to say that the pro-warming side lost a lot of credibility with me when they started trying to slander their opponents with the word "denier'

      Those on the side of evolution apply the same term to creationists. Do you therefore disbelieve evolution too? Or are you willing to accept, maybe, that labels people use have nothing to do with scientific credibility? Accusations of tribalism aside, is it really a secret even to someone "not heavily immersed in the science" that the scientific literature overwhelmingly supports anthropogenic global warming?

What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying. -- Nikita Khruschev

Working...