The Explorer has been one of our favorite publications for a long time. One thing we’ve always appreciated was its sensible approach to controversial issues.
With that in mind, I wrote the editor and asked why the Explorer was doing a very one-sided series on the possible impact of anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (AGW). He responded that the Explorer is covering what scientists are researching and what they are concluding.
If that is your rationale, then I would expect a series that reports on over 1,300 peer-reviewed studies that question so-called “climate change” (see, for example, http://www.tinyurl.com/y9jrjaf).
The editor cited NASA as saying there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real. That sounds nice, but the reality is that NASA is a government organization whose positions are based on whatever is currently politically expedient. Still, there is considerable dispute within NASA on this matter (http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4).
Some say we should defer to what “97 percent of scientists” say. To use a scientific term, that is malarkey, as there is no survey of scientists regarding the scientific validity of the AGW hypothesis. Even if there were, science is never based on consensus.
In my opinion, the Explorer is a well-intentioned publication that is being duped into supporting an anti-American agenda, as that is what is really going on. Watch the trailer for Agenda: Grinding America Down to get an eye-opening perspective.
I’d respectfully recommend that any reporting on this topic make it abundantly clear that AGW is a hypothesis — an unproven theory. That is the most important factual scientific statement that can be said about AGW.
John Droz, Jr., Brantingham Lake, NY
I really find John’s argument flawed in that facts are dismissed based on his personal opinions. Rather than post a link to let the reader try to find support for his ideas, why not share information that supports his view.
If he wants to dismiss NASA because it can only do work that is politically expedient ( no evidence for that, by the way), why not discuss the IPCCs reports, or are they doing work to be politically expedient for all countries on earth?
The data that global warming is caused by human activity is now supported by 97% of all client scientists, and being discredited by many in the oil and gas industry as well as organizations that benefit in keeping the old ways of doing business alive.
Climate change opponents are part of the older population, and will soon be replaced by more reasonable and open minded individuals. Also you will find few climate change deniers in the rest of the world, especially if oil,gas or coal are not a source of income. The price of natural gas will put pressure on coal, and renewables will continue to eat away at oil and gas. The changes are already happening, and the world economy will force change at rates faster than in the past (almost 300,000 Tesla deposits in 3 days…. ) Car companies already see the writing on the wall and are shifting to electric driverless cars. What do you think will happen to oil in the next ten years as this unfolds….?
Money talks louder than a few people trying to hide facts and hide from the scientific facts.
Time to get real John…
97%…….?
Who are they and where is it documented?….and I dont mean a WIKIleaks page
WIth your very Ambiguous claim ………..
Maybe you should try to get out of your parents basement more and into the real world
Hi John,
Just read the IPCC reports and see the number of scientists that agree.
And now only 2.5 years later, all car companies are moving R&D to designing and manufacturing electric only cars.
I am in the real world, are you?
Car manufacturers (GM, Ford, Audi, Mercedes, VW, Porsche, Nissan and Chinese manufacturers) want to be able to continue to sell cars in the largest car markets in the world (California in the US, and China). They are moving as fast as they can to all electric cars and solar/wind energy.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html?m=1
The 97% consensus is thoroughly debunked, we haven’t had warming in 20 years and are now in cooling. The sixty-year PDO/ADO cycle explains the warming and cooling periods of the modern period, like when CO2 was low (1915-1945) and we were warming (naturally) at the same rate as the more recent period (1977-1998) with more CO2. Between those was 1945-1977 when, despite rising CO2 we were actually cooling. As mentioned, warming stopped in 1998, despite CO2 continuing to rise.
Medieval Warming Period, Roman Warming Period, Minoan Warming Period and a handful of others. They WERE global, they were warmer than now, most were warmer than the “2C” we are so frightened of, and nobody melted or went extinct. On the contrary, Civilizations thrived.
One thing in common, none of that warming was caused by fossil fuel. CO2 is only a tiny part of the greenhouse effect, water vapor is the vast majority, but you can’t ration or tax water vapor. Also notice none of Al Gore’s stupid predictions came true, we are not having worse weather and the polar bears are doing just fine