Global warming is real – climatologists

Currently, there is a lot of political controversy about how we handle climate change (see NZ Herald: Lack of climate consensus produces cop-out). Some people even argue that there is a scientific controversy about it. That there are different scientific camps on the reality of human induced climate cahnge.

So I found a recent paper on scientists attitudes interesting. It is the best estimate I have seen of how scientist actually do line up on this question. Examining the scientific Consensus on Climate Change by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman surveyed (mainly US) earth scientists with two questions:

1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The authors analysed results by sub-groups and found climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming. 96% answering “risen” to question 1 and 97% answering “yes” to question 2. Only 47% of economic geologists answered “yes” to question 2 n(pretty obvious why!).

The figure provides details of responses to question 2.

doran-and-kendall-zimmerman-2009-figure-1Permalink

See also:

Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real.

Similar articles

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

50 responses to “Global warming is real – climatologists

  1. So–are these published climatologists calling for more nuclear power?

    Like

  2. Scott, is that your refutation of the observation of climate change?

    Like

  3. So–are these published climatologists calling for more nuclear power?

    ???

    Focus on the science, Scott.
    Focus on the science.

    Like

  4. While I agree AGW is real, I agree with Scott’s sentiments that the “lets cut emissions 30% now” crowd are unrealistic if they aren’t willing to address what it actually takes to make such changes, this civilisation is dependent on its use of huge amounts of energy, fossil fuels supply much of that energy, take away that energy source without replacing it with an equivalent energy source and this civilisation falls over.

    Like

  5. Global warming and global cooling are both real. But neither have significant or measurable anthropogenic components. See a 2000 year temperature series using 18 proxies published by Loehle: http://bit.ly/Z2veL

    Like

  6. Scott – read the paper. There was no question on nuclear power mentioned (although there may be something in Kendall Zimmerman’s thesis). My post was simply to counter the denier’s argument that there is a controversy amongst climate scientists.

    Ross – you are desperately cherry picking. I guess the 97% of climatologists don’t stoop that low (even though some known deniers were in the sample).

    Like

  7. Global warming and global cooling are both real. But neither have significant or measurable anthropogenic components.

    Ross, you need to get an education.
    What is so hard about getting your science from science sources?
    There’s NASA, the NAS, the Royal Meterological Society etc.
    There’s plenty out there.
    They are all good.

    The scientific communiy is not involved in a global conspiracy to lie to you about global warming.
    Honest.
    🙂

    You are using a misleading argument.
    As a matter of fact, the Royal Society demolishes this argument at the top of it’s list of misleading arguments:

    Misleading argument 1: Climate change is nothing to do with humans
    The Earth’s climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans. Even before the industrial revolution, when humans began pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere on a large scale, the earth experienced warm periods such as the medieval warm period.
    What does the science say?

    It is true that the world has experienced warmer or colder periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are well-known examples of global changes to the climate. There have also been regional changes such as periods known as the ‘Medieval Warm Period’, when grapes were grown extensively in England, and the ‘Little Ice Age’, when the River Thames sometimes froze over. However…

    Read the rest. It’s not hard to follow.
    However, if your short of time, there’s a rather good video available on the subject.

    Like

  8. “Focus on the science.” I’m focused. How about this for a truly scientific focus on this issue:

    http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/09/01/japan-plans-21-billion-solar-space-post-to-power-294000-homes/

    Believe it or not, the first comment on the above item goes more or less like this: “Oh no! We must not import more heat from space! What about GLOBAL WARMING!?” This is the kind of anti-scientific nonsense that makes my knee jerk every time I hear the phrase “climate change.”

    New Zealand has almost NO meaningful ability to save the world from global warming by changing its own energy consumption–no matter what New Zealand does internally, Haiti can probably dump more carbon in the air in one month by burning what’s left of their ecosystem to cook what’s left of their food. BUT (and this is a really big but) New Zealand COULD save the world from global warming by devoting its public resources to creating a research environment where technology builds a carbon-free mousetrap.

    To paraphrase the Beatles, what the world needs now is a LOT of cheap, clean energy. Nukes were supposed to give us that, but (at least here in the States) the environmental movement has made it all-but-impossible to generate energy from fissionable materials. Now the same movement has latched onto a scientific theory to promote what are clearly political ends.

    Is there any country anywhere with the intellectual infrastructure and political will to generate cheap, clean energy?

    (Hello, New Zealand?)

    Like

  9. Believe it or not, the first comment on the above item…

    You’re focusing on the comments section?
    (sigh)
    No, that’s not what I meant by “focusing”.

    Any dill can make an unqualified comment in the comment section.

    Focus on the science (as in the scientific community).
    Contact any scientific community that does active research on climate change.
    They will all tell you the same thing.

    1)Global warming is happening.
    2)We are responsible for it.
    3)Bad things are going to happen because of it.
    4)We have a dangerously narrow time-frame to somehow limit the amount of damage.

    Like

  10. Well, Cedric, I’m a lawyer by trade, so it’s hard to resist the urge to actually DO something about the problems the scientists identify. So far, I’ve been less than impressed with the plan the global warming community has come up with so far–let’s have all the industrialized countries reduce their carbon emissions while the teeming billions in the less-developed world burn anything that isn’t nailed down (and some of the stuff that is). That sounds like something a Gaia-worshipping socialist would come up with, not what a scientist would suggest.

    I’m eager to engage in a whole lot of political action that would reduce the use of fossil fuels, plus a crash program that would harness a lot of good biologists to convert fast-growing vegetation into NON-biodegradable plastics. If the good people who have been working on stem cell research could take a little time off to whip up a bacterium that can eat grass clippings and turn out long-chain carbon molecules, we could start mass-producing plastic building materials that will suck CO2 out of the air and lock it up for eons.

    And here’s the fun part–we don’t need the UN to vote to get it done. Build a better mousetrap (clean, cheap energy) or carbon-trap (plant to plastic conversion) and we can save the planet AND make money off the deal!

    But here’s the not-so-fun part. I used to work at General Electric, in their Power Division, and found out that government regulations mean that it now takes 20 years to build a power plant. That’s for “good old fashioned fossil fuel burning” power plants. ANY new technology that could wean this planet off carbon is going to create new risks, so what are the odds the environmentalists will let us build it in the US? (Answer: don’t even try. No prudent lawyer or accountant in America would advise it.)

    So we’re left with politics, science, and a carbon count that goes up each year. And I don’t think anything is going to change until the people who claim to be CONVINCED that the crisis is real and the time is short start acting like they mean it.

    Which leads me back to my original question. Where are the nuclear power plants?

    Like

  11. Nuclear power plants don’t suit every country, and not just for political reasons. Trying to suggest a one-size-fits-all solution usually runs into that sort of thing 😉 I suspect you haven’t checked what we use for power: in NZ, we use hydro-dams considerably more than most countries, which would have to be one of the cleanest sources of power around, along with increased investment in “wind farms”.

    Ending your earlier post with “Hello New Zealand?” is pretty stupid. Aside from trying to imply we’re stupid (what a pathetic piece of trolling…), look at your own country first, eh? It’s hardly a shining light and has considerably more resources in science to do some of the things you ask for… So… “Hello USA?”

    Like

  12. As New Zealand’s population and power demand has increased the proportion of electric power that is generated from renewable energy sources has declined, and the proportion generated from coal has increased.

    Like

  13. Here’s a graph showing the trend:

    Like

  14. So? It doesn’t affect the points I was making.

    And you must know that the transmission lines from the South Island are a key factor; the issue of use of the coal plants is secondary to this. Leaving out the geographical/transmission issue has the effect of not including a problem unrelated to the source of the power that is affecting the outcome.

    Besides, you wouldn’t be directly linking to the graphic to avoid the main pages, would you? 😉 (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand)

    Like

  15. Is there some piece of information of vital importance on the main page that I’ve overlooked?

    “Nuclear power plants don’t suit every country”
    “the transmission lines from the South Island are a key factor”

    Are you suggesting that building a nuclear power plant in the north of the North Island would reduce the transmission problems we have, and as a bonus, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?
    If so, I think you’re absolutely right. Well done!

    Like

  16. Scott – what the hell is the “global warming community”?

    Surely you mean our governments and politicians? After all, they are the ones (with the involvement of people in general) who have got to find and put into place solutions.

    Why get into childish sneering (eg. Gaia worshiping socialists)?

    Why sneer at those scientists working in stem cell research – a very promising and humane area?

    Why ignore the fact that a lot of research is going on. Are you not aware of Craig Venter’s ideas and work? Are you not aware of the possibilities offered by synthetic biology?

    And why reduce everything to nuclear power?

    Humanity is using a multi-pronged approach to these sort of problems. Don’t stand back and sneer at the people doing the work – scientific and political.

    Get in behind them.

    Like

  17. Andrew, stop trolling. You’re now quote-mining and joining unrelated bits of what I’ve written to “make” them say something I never did.

    I said nothing at all about suggesting that nuclear power plant be installed in the North Island. In fact I pointed out that nuclear power plants don’t suit some countries, ENTIRE countries.

    But, then, again, this is what I’d expect of a troll.

    Like

  18. If there’s ANY country where nukes should raise eyebrows, it’s Japan… but they have 55 nuclear power plants now, despite earthquakes as a way of life. The US provides 20% of its electricity from its existing nuclear power plants… but I’m not aware of any new US nuclear power plants in 30 years or more.

    ANY country that can muster the technical know-how and the political will-power to generate cheap, clean energy can start to solve the CO2 problem, whether that country emits 50% of the world’s greenhouse gases or 0.001%.

    Like

  19. FWIW, there is research in NZ in the general area of using bacteria/algae to generate products. I forget the details and I haven’t time to look them up.

    Like

  20. So Scott – are you a spokesperson for the nuclear power indiustry??

    Get off your high horse. Nuclear power obviously has its place (and has had its place). But humanity should not go putting all its eggs in one basket and nuclear power is obviously not going to be suitable everywhere, either. (NZ did look at it in the past and decided against it – before we became anti-nuclear. The latter was basically a stand against nuclear arms).

    Many environmentalists to argue for nuclear power in some countries. So please leave that alone. It’s not an issue.

    Personally, I think it is encouraging the humanity is looking at all sorts of areas. It’s not just energy, or CO2. Its also problems of waste and resource limits.

    I think there are a whole host of exciting scientific ideas out there. Personally I feel optimistic.

    The main problems are political. And those who sneer at the scientific efforts are, in my mind, one of the biggest problems humanity has.

    Like

  21. ,i>…it’s hard to resist the urge to actually DO something about the problems the scientists identify.

    Do you agree that the scientists have identified that global warming is happening?
    Do you agree that the scientists have identified that we are responisble for it?
    Do you agree that the scientists have identified that there will be serious consequences because of this?
    Do you agree that the scientists have identified that we only have a limited window of opportunity to somehow limit the damage?

    Or is all this talk of nuclear power and sneering at scientists just a way to cast doubt, throw up smokescreens and promote indecision?

    Like

  22. Hmm.
    Stuffed up the html code for Scott’s quote.
    Oops.
    😦

    Like

  23. To me the enthusiasm for biofuels makes little sense, the operation involves taking solar energy, to grow plants (plants are actually very inefficient utilisers of sunlight) that are then harvested, then processed to extract a small proportion of the energy that’s actually in the plant, to produce a high energy liquid that can be burnt.
    Each step in the chain takes a lot of energy. Compare this all to PV which looks like it could be better than 20% efficient (Ok, that’s not including manufacturing the cells), or to just growing trees and then burning them in a thermal station, then using some form of electric cars.
    Biofuels just seems to me to be people not being able to think outside the square, we use liquid fuels now, that’s what we’re familiar with so how can we continue using liquid fuels?

    Heraclides, I thought it was you who was the troll!
    (What, no sense of humour?)

    Like

  24. Cheap cop-out 😉

    Your post did quote-mine me, and I pointed out it’s what I’d expect from a troll, which is perfectly fair. There is nothing in your post to suggest humour, not even a wink, as I did to you earlier. At best the final portion your post comes across as sarcastic trolling.

    Like

  25. 😉

    I decided to actually look up sunlight-to-biomass efficiency of plants, it’s typically 1-2% for most crop plants, sugar cane gets a remarkable 8% efficiency.

    Like

  26. The argument for biofuels surely has nothing to do with efficiency of conversion of solar radiation. If that was relevant we wouldn’t be using coal and oil.

    No – the logic is to avoid the introduction of fossil C into the atmosphere.

    Like

  27. “The argument for biofuels surely has nothing to do with efficiency of conversion of solar radiation.”

    Given that Man utilises around 40% of the planets current photosynthetic yield already, we don’t have a lot of room for using much more, especially with increasing population and the threat of AGW adversely affecting current yields.

    “If that was relevant we wouldn’t be using coal and oil.”

    What? Fossil fuels have accumulation over hundreds of millions of years, we’re using up this “money in the bank” over a couple of centuries.

    “No – the logic is to avoid the introduction of fossil C into the atmosphere.”

    No, the logic is to look after the planet and it’s human population. I think being able to feed the planets agricultural production to people, rather than to cars, would be a good start.

    Like

  28. Andrew – can’t quite see where you are coming form.

    We are using oil and coal because they are there and effective. Nothing to do with the (low) energy of conversion of solar radiation by the plants which they are formed from.

    Depletion of resources is a big problem – I agree. (Mind you I think part of this problem is the inefficient use of those resources. I am keen on the Waste Mining concept – have done a bit of work in that area).

    Part of looking after our species is to lower the introduction of fossil C into the biosphere.

    I think you are hinting that the first go at biofuels was problematic because it diverted food to fuel. I think most people acknowledge that. There are current possibilities which don’t have that problem.

    Part of the problem is that despite the best ideas of humanity our society system tends to be directed by the cold, dead hand of capital. This often doesn’t work in in our interests.

    Like

  29. You’ve got me scratching my head about your meaning too Ken. I still don’t see how you’re connecting the first two sentences of your 10:15 comment.

    I don’t see biofuels options on the table that are a realistic and significant substitute to fossil fuels. If you’re talking about algae farming you still need huge areas to collect sunlight, building giant ponds in the desert won’t be any cheaper than massive irrigation for agriculture, natural waterways aren’t an option without destroying their present ecologies. So where are these huge areas for growing biofuels?

    I’ll be happy to discuss the shortcomings of socialism with you at length sometime, for now I’ll just say it doesn’t matter if a monopoly is state owned or privately owned, in both instances the result is that monopolies always exploit those who’re forced to use them through lack of choice.

    Like

  30. I thought it was obvious. If we refused to use fuels which resulted from low conversion rates we wouldn’t use coal or oil. I was pointing out that your use of that criteria was beside the point.

    I suspect you are trying to find something to differ on – bit pointless here unless you object to my article.

    Why not, instead, respond to my analysis of Boscaren’s bill.? After all you asked me to comment on it.

    Like

  31. It’s not a question of “refusing” Ken, it’s a question of economic viability.

    And I’m not sure what you’re basing your claim of low conversion rates for fossil fuels on, efficiencies in coal thermal power stations approach 40%, even the ICE runs (from memory) around 30% efficiency.
    And of course a more useful measure of efficiency for economic value is the energy usefully generated by using the fuel(energy return)/the energy expended in obtaining the use of that fuel (energy invested). For the oil industry this ratio is around 10:1, with biofuels I understand it’s not even 2:1, and this is on top of the problems I’ve already mentioned. Civilisation survives on high EROEI, it would starve on low EROEI fuel sources, like humans would starve if they had to eat straw.

    If I was just looking for something to disagree on I’d have expanded my reply on your criticisms of capitalism.

    I’ll have another look at the Boscawen thread later.

    Like

  32. My basic assumption about CO2 is that human beings will burn all the fossil fuels they can find unless somebody bombs us all back to the Stone Age. I base this on my study of human beings–every human experiment in Prohibition that I am aware of has resulted in bootlegging, black markets, and other end runs around the law.

    Given that assumption, I would respond to the CO2 problem by (1) finding a cheaper alternative for energy and (2) finding a renewable replacement for plastics. I think both of these are not that far beyond the reach of modern science. Building a better mousetrap will enable us to reduce the use of fossil fuels and may enable us to pull CO2 out of the environment to lock it up in a long-term, non-biodegradable form.

    I have no objection to New Zealand’s stand on nuclear weapons (any chance you can get Iran to go along with that?), but I’m troubled by the thought that anti-war politics would keep the country from adopting a safe, clean, non-fossil energy source.

    Is New Zealand’s government open to building new nuclear power plants? If not, why not? Politics? Or science?

    Like

  33. Scott,

    Previously you said…

    …it’s hard to resist the urge to actually DO something about the problems the scientists identify.

    Do you agree that the scientists have identified that global warming is happening?
    Do you agree that the scientists have identified that we are responsible for it?
    Do you agree that the scientists have identified that there will be serious consequences because of this?
    Do you agree that the scientists have identified that we only have a limited window of opportunity to somehow limit the damage?

    Like

  34. Andrew – what part of “efficiency of conversion of solar radiation.” do you not understand? After all, you introduced the concept. Just because coal and oil have been underground for a long time doesn’t mean that it is independent of that concept.

    And what’s the “criticism of capitalism?”

    I am afraid you read things into what other say and end up whipping your own hobby horse.

    Like

  35. Scott – nuclear power was decided against here some time ago as being inappropriate. There have been a few isolated voices wanting to make another appraisal – basically without any support. Even through future small nuclear power station devices may overcome some of the objections.

    Of course one problem concerning many about nuclear power is the security issue. This has determined what type of devices have been manufactured and is the reason why more efficient power stations have been avoided. That issue would be significantly reduced if the major powers were serious about their part of the bargain on non-proliferation.

    Really that comes down to convincing countries like the USA to get rid of their nuclear weapons. If we could get the USA to go along with our stance this would be more useful than getting Iran to – especially as they don’t actually have nuclear weapons.

    No our anti-nuclear policy doesn’t interfere with our adoption of safe, clean non-fossil energy sources. We have already (and for a long time) had such sources and do our best to introduce them now.

    Like

  36. Ken, I’m starting to wonder if you’re trying to wind me up.
    “our society system tends to be directed by the cold, dead hand of capital” I read perhaps incorrectly, as a criticism of markets.
    But the fact that it’s taken millions of years for fossil fuels to accumulate does make the “efficiency of conversion of solar radiation” irrelevant to their utilisation today.

    Like

  37. Scott writes: I’m troubled by the thought that anti-war politics would keep the country from adopting a safe, clean, non-fossil energy source.

    … completely ignoring that we have safe, clean alternatives as I pointed out to you earlier. I also tried to hint that nuclear power isn’t suitable here. It isn’t for many small countries, especially if they have the infrastructure and expertise in other (clean) power sources.

    In additional to what Ken mentioned another issue is that we already have the expertise and experience with hydro dams, for example, (wind generators are another, but newer, example). For nuclear power, we’d have to generate another entire industry to set up a nuclear power plant. It’d makes far more sense to use what you already have. The cost of building that up is far more easily repaid in a country that can go on to build several of the same kind of power plants. Given other clean sources of power have lower initial costs, they’re much more practical I would think.

    “One size fits all” isn’t a good way of thinking, because it rarely is true.

    Like

  38. No matter how clean and green NZ is, you cannot possibly change the global problem without coming up with a solution that can be exported. Nuclear power is one such solution, but it’s not the only one.

    NZ has an unusual opportunity to assemble the intellectual infrastructure to do SOMETHING about CO2 levels. I don’t particularly care what you do–but I think you have a rare opportunity to do something.

    Somebody needs to engineer an algae or bacterium that creates long-chain hydrocarbons that can be converted into building materials.

    How does NZ feel about bioengineering? Has that been so politicized that nobody wants to touch it? Are gene splicers “evil” down under?

    Like

  39. Scott – have you not heard of Rutherford (one of NZ’s contributions) or Craig Venter (who is creating synthetic organisms aimed at producing fuels?

    Come on – stop bashing NZ. We have made some quite good contributions to science. But the world surely doesn’t depend on us.

    Look in your own backyard. Support your own scientists.

    Like

  40. I get the impression that all Scott is doing is ignoring what others write and just “bashes” people or NZ.

    I already pointed out that NZ doesn’t have research into the general area of sustainable products. I also pointed out that we have limited resources. I pointed out that the USA has much more resources. So why is Scott busy ignoring these points and bashing NZ?

    PS: Regards “Are gene splicers “evil” down under?”, I would think that George Bush (Jnr) did far more negative actions against this than anything done here.

    So….

    No matter how clean and green USA is [is it, really?], you cannot possibly change the global problem without coming up with a solution that can be exported. Nuclear power is one such solution, but it’s not the only one.

    The USA has an unusual opportunity to assemble the intellectual infrastructure to do SOMETHING about CO2 levels. I don’t particularly care what you do–but I think the USA has a rare opportunity to do something.

    Somebody needs to engineer an algae or bacterium that creates long-chain hydrocarbons that can be converted into building materials.

    How does the USA feel about bioengineering? Has that been so politicized that nobody wants to touch it? Are gene splicers “evil” in the USA?

    Look in your own backyard before accusing others.

    Like

  41. Scott as far as organically produced building materials go, wood is probably about as good as it gets, I suspect pretty much any carbon based material that life can produce, life can consume.

    Outside of nuclear (and perhaps preferable to nuclear) the best high capacity energy generation suitable for significantly increasing NZ’s energy production is probably geothermal.
    I doubt wind will make much of a dent in the use of fossil fuels, and the best hydro sites have already been developed, suggestions of developing remaining possible hydro sites usually meet strong environmental opposition.

    If NZ were to go down the nuclear path (very unlikely without revolutionary changes in attitude across the electorate) Switzerland would be the model to copy, they also rely heavily on hydro with nuclear, instead of coal and gas, providing almost all of the rest of electric power generation.
    “Are gene splicers “evil” down under?”
    Pretty much.

    “NZ has an unusual opportunity to assemble the intellectual infrastructure to do SOMETHING about CO2 levels.”
    I don’t see how.

    I don’t think that Scott can be fairly accused of “New Zealand bashing”, Scott asked questions and made suggestions, why are you being so sensitive? I think you two can be accused of playing the man not the ball, perhaps to avoid addressing his points.

    Like

  42. I don’t think that Scott can be fairly accused of “New Zealand bashing”, Scott asked questions and made suggestions, why are you being so sensitive? I think you two can be accused of playing the man not the ball, perhaps to avoid addressing his points.

    I am asking if he, not us, is “playing the man”, it certainly can be read that way. Trying to turn it around on me like that doesn’t work: I haven’t attacked him, but what he said. I flipped to from NZ to USA simply to get him to see how his words could be read. I could accuse you of playing me, and not what I said, though 😉

    Like

  43. Andrew – I just wish Scott would speak for himself. And participate in proper discussion instead of diverting off into irrelevant issues.

    He does seem to be putting all the responsibility for solving the world’s problems on NZ – inappropriately so.

    Maybe he doesn’t see it as NZ bashing – but it is frustrating for someone who wants to pursue and honest discussion. And quite irrelevant to my article, by the way, which he was meant to be commenting on.

    Like

  44. I haven’t been back to this thread for a bit… sorry to let the side down. I did NOT intend to engage in “New Zealand bashing,” and I am VERY sorry for wording things in such an arrogant and demeaning way.

    My point with respect to New Zealand was NOT that it’s New Zealand’s fault that the CO2 levels are going up. But my observations and convictions about human nature lead me to believe that the other 98% of the world is not going to solve the problem in time. New Zealand has an unusual opportunity: you’ve got the intellectual and political infrastructure to bring the resources of an advanced industrial democracy to bear on a problem that CAN BE SOLVED by advanced technology.

    Meanwhile… the reason I dropped in here was to beat up on the anti-science wing of the environmentalist crowd. Britain now has a case in which environmentalists are seeking religious liberty protections:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/06/employment-tribunal-dismissal-climate-change

    A pro-carbon company tried to fire a climate-change believer on the grounds that his political and/or scientific beliefs interfered with their profits. There is no law that prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of science and/or policy beliefs, so the employee has claimed it is a “philosophical belief” that merits the same high level of protection as a more-traditional religious belief would.

    (The US went through all this back in the Vietnam War days. The Supreme Court eventually granted First Amendment “free exercise” protection to people who held a non-theistic belief as a “matter of ultimate concern.”)

    I would expect the environmentalist has a decent chance of winning this lawsuit.

    Like

  45. Pingback: Examining the scientific consensus on climate change at The Standard

  46. Guys….Shut up.
    Your arguing about science?
    Get some sort of life.
    And remember, winning an internet fight is like winning the special olympics, even if you win, your still a retard.

    Like

  47. OK, let’s not argue about science. Let’s argue about spelling, punctuation and imbibing alcohol before commenting instead. 😉

    Like

  48. Yeah Carly, get off the turps!
    Even in that funny picture of you it looks like you’re (Note it’s “you’re, not “your”) about to throw up.
    You realise this threads been put to sleep for over a week now and it’s your (Note it’s “your”, not “you’re”) fault that it’s up again!

    Like

  49. robertareyou1

    Brief Summary:CO2/DOSE NOT = GLOBAL WARNING
    OR ENCOMPASS THE PROBLEM
    The Bright Morning Stars will restore
    the Bio-Electrode Magnesium Levels in our Atmosphere will restore by
    producing Molly Cellulite
    That life will rebuilt itself and we can maintain our planet with
    light, care, and reduce the energy required .With Seven Satellite it
    will require and the cooperation of all cities and every nations
    within range not use Public Lighting unless need.
    The start up cost is enormous, but the cost is low to preserve the
    only earth we have and THE MEMBRANE ARE WORLD REQUIRES AND REPAIR
    give all children what is their better
    AND LET THEM LIVE

    look at the moon it.s quit a thing to view eclipse,s DAILY.;
    as well the carbohydrate,s In random species GLOBAL
    Robert Steneck

    1995the norther hemisphere is risen temp do to ring of fire and
    activity and more SNOW MELTS FROM BELOW.
    i told them it would require FIFTEEN YEAR,S TO PREVENT WEN REPOSED
    WE HAVE A GRATER ISSUES WE CAN ESTIMATE IN DUR ONLY 22% SERVILE RATE I THY WANT TO DANCE THAT PEOPLE
    THANCK YOU

    Like

  50. And so, in the streets they gathered.
    The voices of a million-fold strong.
    Marching together, demanding that the right thing be done.

    I can here the rallying call now….

    Produce more Molly Cellulite! Produce more Molly Cellulite!

    🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s