Climate Change Debate (Cartoon)

Cardow, The Ottawa Citizen

This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

13 Responses to “Climate Change Debate (Cartoon)”

1. RP says:

   May 28, 2011 at 10:49 am

   One does not have to be left or right to accept the idea that the climate is changing. The debate does not have to be if it is happening or not.

   But the debate should be on the cause and that includes all causes, not just the “bad Americans” using energy.
   1. Greenland was partially green in the 1400′s when the Vikings settled that country. Then there was a mini ice adg that drove them out. Now it is becoming green again. Why the different changes?
   2. What impact does China and India play in the climate change?
   3. Tons of pollutants are removed by trees. What impact has the removal of millions of acres of forest, rain forest and other woodlands had on the climate?
   4. Looking at the earths history, this is not the warmest period of time in history. Millions of years ago before man walked the earth the temperature was much warmer. Why?

   Politics has gotten in the way of a debate, much the same as politics gets in the way of many thoughts and ideas. A non-political debate needs to take place, away from Gore, Democrats,Republian non-believers, Greenee’s and all the other agenda driven individuals so the “bad Americans” can understand why it is happening.
2. DaGoat says:

   May 28, 2011 at 11:08 am

   Agree 100% RP. What should be a scientific debate has become a political and ideological one. so deeply that I’m afraid the type of debate you’re proposing can’t happen.
3. casualobserver says:

   May 28, 2011 at 11:39 am

   Look no further than Al Gore becoming the self-anointed spokesperson. Might as well put Shaun Mullen in charge of the improve bipartisanship committee.
4. SteveK says:

   May 28, 2011 at 11:56 am

   The comment by C.O. is a perfect example of how one not wanting to actually talk about climate responds.

   They HAVE to keep the discussion political because once it becomes a scientific discussion… His arguments become impossible to defend.

   Yeah, Let’s talk about Al Gore and Shaun Mullen instead. Too _____!
5. casualobserver says:

   May 28, 2011 at 1:36 pm

   Well, SK, answer this question….do you ultimately require the participation and support from people of my disposition to resolve this issue or not? If your answer is no, you have what is called “the position of power” and you may blissfully disregard anything I have to say. If the answer is yes, then let me just say admonishment is not going to be a productive path for you to follow.
6. SteveK says:

   May 28, 2011 at 2:03 pm

   NO! “people of [your] disposition” are not important.
   Your “side” act and sound like those who opposed fluoridation of water and they were little more than a frightened mob doing everything in their power to ignore the facts of the matter.

   Eventually the truth forced the “anti-fluoriders’ out of the way. The only thing they accomplished [sic] was to force a generation of children to have more cavities than they would have had the water been fluoridated …

   Unfortunately Global Warming deniers might cause much more catastrophic damage but they (you?), too, will end up being but an negative footnote in history.
7. DLS says:

   May 28, 2011 at 8:55 pm

   The Retreat from Reason is what the Left has been pushing for several years (it aids in making Al Gore a celebrity superstar).

   Exploiting tornadoes (or when they return, hurricanes) is an example of this behavior.
8. SteveK says:

   May 28, 2011 at 9:41 pm

   DLS, Your irrelevant “Retreat from Reason” was both late in coming… and expected.

   Have you anything other than your usual “lefties are evil” diatribe to add?
9. DLS says:

   May 29, 2011 at 1:45 am

   Steve K.: Time after time I have posted links to the best sources related to the phenomenon of carbon dioxide production and its release into the atmosphere (the graph of carbon dioxide levels for the past multiple decades), and the worst-case scenario for global warming (by Flohn), as well as the best contemporary treatment of the subject as a matter of popular scientific interest (by Muller), as well as the best slaying of leftist myths about the subject and about mitigation (by Lawson).

   I continue to wonder why you ignore fact after fact regarding the links I provide, as I doubt it’s due to illiteracy (and to innumeracy).
10. JSpencer says:

    May 29, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Re: the old Greenland once being green canard:
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.php

    Steve K’s point is well taken. Too many people come down on climate change based on their level of Gore Derangement Syndrome rather than on science. To me that is a voluntary dismissal of knowledge and as such should be dismissed in turn.

    There is no real debate among most scientists anymore about the existence of climate change or global warming, or even the fact that warming is caused to some relevant degree by human activity. Of course non-scientists will continue to “debate” AGW, just as non-scientists continue to “debate” whether or not the earth was formed 7K years ago, or whether or not vaccines have done more harm than good, etc.
11. Dave Hemmann says:

    May 30, 2011 at 7:28 am

    SteveK

    you really need to learn the basis of scientific experimentation before you condescend to instruct the people you assume so much about.

    The earth is warming, and been doi9ng so since the little ice age. hello. the trend in that rise has been statistically consistent.

    The AGW theory has yet top produce a single experiment demonstrating the supposition that the forcings of these collective gasses has actually increased warming as the computer models consistently predict. All such models, in order to account for both historic temp data and today’s data have had to restrict the effects of certain forcings so the the AGW appears predominate.

    Current ground temp station data from the turn of the century onward have been consistently “modified” lower in the past and higher toward the present by mann et al.

    I’m sure arguing from your heart certainly feels right, but sir, science is about proof and reproducible results./

    DaH
12. SteveK says:

    May 30, 2011 at 8:58 am

    DaH,

    I imagine that if I worked for a major oil industry supply company I’d ignore reality and twist the facts like you do, too.

    Thanks for the rehash of your industries talking points…
13. SteveK says:

    May 30, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Scientific opinion on climate change

    National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

    An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

    No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

    Global warming controversy

    The global warming controversy is a variety of disputes regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

    The controversy is significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organisations hold non-committal positions.