Climate science controversy is related to U.S. anti-science propaganda
There is no controversy about climate science in other industrial democracies, but there is widespread anti-science propaganda in the U.S. I grew up partly on a North Dakota farm/ranch that my father homesteaded in 1905. I've worked for decades i...
There is no controversy about climate science in other industrial democracies, but there is widespread anti-science propaganda in the U.S.
I grew up partly on a North Dakota farm/ranch that my father homesteaded in 1905. I've worked for decades in energy and utility regulation with concern about global climate change.
I get climate science from peer-reviewed science, not from scientists employed by fossil fuel industries.
During the 4.5 billion years of Earth's existence, the Earth has moved between warm and glacial periods primarily because the Earth's tilt has varied between about 21 and 24 degrees, and the Earth's orbit has varied from elliptical to more circular on precise tens-of-thousand year cycles, called the Milankovitch Cycles.
In the 1800s, Irish physicist John Tyndall "discovered" that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas, and Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius calculated that the world average temperature would increase 4-5 degrees C (7 - 9 degrees F) if carbon dioxide doubled from its rate then of approximately 280 parts per million. He thought that would take thousands of years based on the consumption of fossil fuels then. But a doubling of carbon dioxide levels now looks likely by 2080.
Carbon dioxide doubled during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago; Earth's atmosphere warmed 9 degrees F in 13 years and sea levels rose 220 feet.
The latest science projects a worldwide average temperature increase of 7 to 12 degrees F above the 1900 baseline by the late 2000s. Civilization, and human life itself, is problematic at those temperatures.
Nature bats last, and God will not save humankind from its own stupidity.