We owe Sebastian and Jackie a big ‘thank you’ for their presentation last Thursday night. The turnout was impressive and the food was great, as usual. And it was a pleasure to meet the new members to our group: Clint and Susan, Barry and Roz, and Nate who just moved to Durango within the month! The discussion following Sebastian’s remarks was very engrossing, as members offered many different observations. As usual, members of the Skeptics and Atheists of Durango displayed a wide range of opinion!
Reflecting on the presentation, I want to offer a few observations of my own. In retrospect, I wish that we had polled the group in more detail about our personal perceptions of the extent to which human actions are the prime mover of global climate change (GCC). While no one present at the discussion believed that GCC was 100% natural or 100% the result of human action, everyone did agree on a mushy middle that a combination of human activity and natural cycles must underlie the phenomenon. I would have been interested to know who felt that the underlying cause is MOSTLY man-made…say, 90% human caused and 10% natural. I am not a scientist (ha!) but this is my belief.
In support of the above I refer you to the Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC is a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world, under the auspices of the United Nations, which concluded there’s a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet. Specifically, the industrial activities of our modern civilization have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in just the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there’s a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years.
The IPCC has concluded that the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel’s full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Supporting the IPCC report, NASA has this to say on its ‘Vital Signs of the Planet’ website http://climate.nasa.gov/ :
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that [in the past 150 years], large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)
As Clint pointed out, the graphs shown last night depicting historic wide swings of temperature are not relevant to the GCC discussion. Yes, the Earth has experienced many different climate conditions over the course of millions (billions) of years, BUT the question of GCC has to do with climate’s impact on HUMANS, NOW. That the Earth was much warmer in the distant past than it is today does not matter since the spikes in the graphs, for the most part, pre-date the existence of homo sapiens and our ancestors. As an example, the Earth was a molten hell-scape 4 billion years ago, but that that has no bearing on the climate issues we face today. There is no question that the Earth, itself, will continue to exist…the Big Question is whether human kind will survive in the long term.
I am also troubled by the graphs we saw during the presentation because the time-scale changed dramatically within single graphs. In the same graph, the scale for the modern era showed time scales in increments of decades/centuries but the time scale for earlier eras showed millions of years…the result was a graph that visually distorted the record of climate change throughout Earth’s history. The effect was to visually equate changes that occurred over tens of millions of years with the changes that have occurred over the past 150 years. Granted, had the graphs used a consistent time-scale, the graph would have cumbersome – an accurate graph would probably have wrapped around the room. I am not claiming that the intention was to deceive, but the end result was exactly that.
NASA (not a liberal, green bunch of hysterics I hope all will agree) cites the following alarming facts:
- SEA LEVEL RISE: Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century
- GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE: All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.
- WARMING OCEANS: The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
- SHRINKING ICE SHEETS: The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
- DECLINING ARTIC ICE: Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
- GLACIAL RETREAT: Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
- EXTREME EVENTS: The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.
- OCEAN ACIDIFICATION: Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
- DECREASED SNOW COVER: Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.
Natural Causes? As to the possible natural causes of the extreme temperatures that we are witnessing in the past 150 years (this is the time frame that is often referenced since we only started to keep comprehensive meteorological records), here are some facts.
Is the variability of the Sun responsible for heating up the Earth?NASA says this: It’s reasonable to assume that changes in the sun’s energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.
Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.
But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:
- Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
- If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That’s because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
- Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
Are volcanic eruptions to blame? It was mentioned that volcanic activity, such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the early 90’s, affects climate and resulted in a cooler global temperature for the year following the event. That is true. But according to the US Geological Survey (again, not a hysterical ‘green’ outlier group), the cooling was a result of energy-reflecting micro-particles and ash which were launched into the atmosphere by the eruption, not CO2 or any other greenhouse gases (GHG).
Volcanoes do release significant volumes of GHG. The USGS estimates volcanoes release CO2 in the range of 0.13 gigatons to 0.44 gigatons of GHG each year. A gigaton is equal to 1,000,0000,000 tons…that is, 1 billion tons. That seems impressive until you compare it with the amount of CO2 that is released annually from human activities: 35 gigatons of GHG per year. Read more about it here: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php and here: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
In summary, to say that human activity dwarfs natural sources of GHG is a vast understatement…the USGS notes that natural sources produce less than 1% of the volume of GHG produced by human activity.
Is there a ‘hidden agenda’ at work, driving the discussion using fear-mongering? Is the science of GCC ‘not settled’ as some members claimed at the Member Talk? An objection was raised during our discussion about the often-quoted figure of ‘97% of scientists’ who are said to agree that GCC is human caused. The objection is that the figure is inflated and/or skewed because scientists who have no standing to comment on climatological issues and theories have nonetheless weighed in on the topic.
So where, exactly, does the 97% figure come from? The website ‘Skepticalscience.com’ addressed what they call ‘the myth’ that there is no scientific consensus regarding GCC with ‘The Consensus Project’: “…A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change‘ and ‘global warming’ published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.”
I offer the following list from the Governor’s (CA) Office of Planning and Research of 197 international scientific organizations who have determined that GCC is: a) real, b) human caused, c) is a threat to human life in the near-term…
- Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
- Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
- Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
- Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
- Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
- Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
- Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
- Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
- Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
- Académie des Sciences, France
- Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
- Academy of Athens
- Academy of Science of Mozambique
- Academy of Science of South Africa
- Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy of Sciences of Moldova
- Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
- Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
- Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
- Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
- Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
- African Academy of Sciences
- Albanian Academy of Sciences
- Amazon Environmental Research Institute
- American Academy of Pediatrics
- American Anthropological Association
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
- American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
- American Astronomical Society
- American Chemical Society
- American College of Preventive Medicine
- American Fisheries Society
- American Geophysical Union
- American Institute of Biological Sciences
- American Institute of Physics
- American Meteorological Society
- American Physical Society
- American Public Health Association
- American Quaternary Association
- American Society for Microbiology
- American Society of Agronomy
- American Society of Civil Engineers
- American Society of Plant Biologists
- American Statistical Association
- Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
- Australian Academy of Science
- Australian Bureau of Meteorology
- Australian Coral Reef Society
- Australian Institute of Marine Science
- Australian Institute of Physics
- Australian Marine Sciences Association
- Australian Medical Association
- Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
- Botanical Society of America
- Brazilian Academy of Sciences
- British Antarctic Survey
- Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
- California Academy of Sciences
- Cameroon Academy of Sciences
- Canadian Association of Physicists
- Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
- Canadian Geophysical Union
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Canadian Society of Soil Science
- Canadian Society of Zoologists
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
- Center for International Forestry Research
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
- Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
- Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Crop Science Society of America
- Cuban Academy of Sciences
- Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
- Ecological Society of America
- Ecological Society of Australia
- Environmental Protection Agency
- European Academy of Sciences and Arts
- European Federation of Geologists
- European Geosciences Union
- European Physical Society
- European Science Foundation
- Federation of American Scientists
- French Academy of Sciences
- Geological Society of America
- Geological Society of Australia
- Geological Society of London
- Georgian Academy of Sciences
- German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
- Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Indian National Science Academy
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
- Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
- Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
- Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
- InterAcademy Council
- International Alliance of Research Universities
- International Arctic Science Committee
- International Association for Great Lakes Research
- International Council for Science
- International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
- International Research Institute for Climate and Society
- International Union for Quaternary Research
- International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
- International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
- Islamic World Academy of Sciences
- Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
- Kenya National Academy of Sciences
- Korean Academy of Science and Technology
- Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
- l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
- Latin American Academy of Sciences
- Latvian Academy of Sciences
- Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
- Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
- Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
- Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
- National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
- National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
- National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
- National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
- National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- National Association of Geoscience Teachers
- National Association of State Foresters
- National Center for Atmospheric Research
- National Council of Engineers Australia
- National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- National Research Council
- National Science Foundation
- Natural England
- Natural Environment Research Council, UK
- Natural Science Collections Alliance
- Network of African Science Academies
- New York Academy of Sciences
- Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
- Nigerian Academy of Sciences
- Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
- Oklahoma Climatological Survey
- Organization of Biological Field Stations
- Pakistan Academy of Sciences
- Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
- Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- Polish Academy of Sciences
- Romanian Academy
- Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
- Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
- Royal Astronomical Society, UK
- Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
- Royal Irish Academy
- Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
- Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
- Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
- Royal Society of Canada
- Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
- Royal Society of the United Kingdom
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Science and Technology, Australia
- Science Council of Japan
- Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
- Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography
- Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Slovak Academy of Sciences
- Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Society for Ecological Restoration International
- Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
- Society of American Foresters
- Society of Biology (UK)
- Society of Systematic Biologists
- Soil Science Society of America
- Sudan Academy of Sciences
- Sudanese National Academy of Science
- Tanzania Academy of Sciences
- The Wildlife Society (international)
- Turkish Academy of Sciences
- Uganda National Academy of Sciences
- Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
- United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
- World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
- World Federation of Public Health Associations
- World Forestry Congress
- World Health Organization
- World Meteorological Organization
- Zambia Academy of Sciences
- Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
In fairness, I will also present the following list of scientific and research organizations which do not believe that GCC is human-caused and believe that GCC poses little or no threat to human civilization:
- there are none that I can find.
However, there are a number of fossil fuel advocacy groups (which differ from science-based institutions which, unlike advocacy groups, presumably have no agenda beyond uncovering facts) that are in the ‘denier’ camp. See if you can spot the pattern:
- Americans for Prosperity (funded by the Koch Brothers)*
- American Enterprise Institute (funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries)*
- American Legislative Exchange Council (ExxonMobil and Koch)*
- Beacon Hill Institute (Koch funded)*
- Cato Institute (founded and funded by Koch Brothers)*
- Competitive Enterprise Institute (ExxonMobil and Koch)*
- Heartland Institute (ExxonMobil and Koch)*
- Heritage Foundation (ditto)*
- Institute for Energy Research (ditto)*
- Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (ditto)*
- Information Council on the Environment (Created by the National Coal Assn, the Western Fuels Association, and the Edison Electrical Institute. ICE collapsed following the disclosure of their PR firm’s memos directing the ICE media blitz to target “….older, less educated males (who do not actively seek information) and younger, lower income women”. Ads compared belief in human-caused climate change to Chicken Little and Flat Earthers…another ad stated “if the earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis getting colder?”
*Source:Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VeDLKflViko
If I were concerned about anyone pushing an ‘agenda’ it would be the above listed groups.
We Can’t Stop Building Fossil Fueled Energy Plants Because It Will ‘Hurt The Poor’. One interesting tactic for people and organizations that wish to minimize or deny the anthropogenic nature of climate change is to cite the damage that mitigation of GCC would inflict on ‘the poor’. This argument was raised during last night’s discussion and is a talking point frequently used by many of the above listed groups. I think we should reject this attempt to seize a moral high ground by those wishing to minimize the threat that GCC poses. Bottom line: while there will be plenty of pain for many humans as we stumble in our attempts to avoid ecological disaster, the degradation of the environment hurts all of us in ways we can’t always imagine…for one reason, because of our absurdly short life spans in contrast with the glacial (ha!) pace of nature’s forces.
Our discussion Thursday evening also touched on the fact that the term ‘poor’ is lacking a universal definition in the context of GCC. Someone who is ‘poor’ in an American context might be considered as fabulously wealthy in a third-world context as Nate pointed out. So, I propose that a better metric would be to consider ‘food security’ for the world’s population in the era of dramatic climate change. Sebastian mentioned that among the advantages of living in a globally warmer climate would be the possibility of a longer growing season, the addition of arable land in the higher latitudes (estimated to be around 160 million hectares with the biggest gains in Russia and Central Asia – see link below) and increased biomass as plants thrive in the higher concentration of CO2. While these assertions may be true, it is also true that land in the lower latitudes are expected to become less productive or non-productive (estimated loss of land 110 million hectares, the biggest loser being Africa-see link below). Also consider that many plants (cereals and forage crops), while growing bushier, show lower protein concentrations under elevated CO2 conditions – see link. This is a complex issue…more details are to be found at this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2148361/
What to do about global climate change?
As a start, how about:
- Transition from fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
- Upgrade the energy infrastructure to be able to make use of solar and wind power
- Protect forest land…stop the destruction of the world’s rain forests
- Conserve limited energy resources such as electricity and fossil fuels
- Conserve water
What about the cost/benefit of mitigating GCC? Is it ‘worth it’ to try to mitigate the impacts of human activity on the environment? Some in the discussion that followed Sebastian’s presentation suggested this as a metric to consider when weighing the pros and cons of taking ameliorative action against GCC.
Some members argued for taking no action until there is a definitive answer to whether or not GCC is real and is proven to be a threat. Others expressed the opinion that we have plenty of good reasons to limit our future use of fossil fuels even without the worry of global climate change. I confess that I am sympathetic with the latter view.
So what is the cost/benefit calculation? It’s so overwhelmingly complex that I don’t know that it is even possible to make such a calculation. But here is one educated guess made about ten years ago:
Finally a few closing quotes from institutions and organizations who do have standing to comment about global climate change:
American Association for the Advancement of Science “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)3
American Chemical Society “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)4
American Geophysical Union “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
American Medical Association “Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)6
American Meteorological Society “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)7
American Physical Society “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)
The Geological Society of America “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)
International Science Academies Joint statement:
“Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” (2005, 11 international science academies)
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
“The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES – U.S. Global Change Research Program
“The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human ‘fingerprints’ also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.” (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.
Source citations for the above quotes are available here: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
We’ve debated this issue for the last two decades and more…today, the Science appears to favor the view that global climate change is something that we urgently need to address. It’s one thing to be skeptical and it’s another thing to refuse to believe the best evidence science can provide us today.
I hope that this additional information is helpful to you when you ponder the issues surrounding global climate change.
Larry Bollinger, 8/28/2015