<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Global Warming Skepticism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/</link>
	<description>Science Fiction Novelist, Blogger, Web Programmer</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:51:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Geoffrey Allan Plauche</title>
		<link>http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/#comment-765</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoffrey Allan Plauche</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:04:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/?p=200#comment-765</guid>
		<description>Hi Dave. Good to see another person who feels similarly on this issue, although I'm perhaps a bit more skeptical on (a).

RealClimate isn't the only climate science blog online. You may or may not have heard of these:

&lt;a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/" rel="nofollow"&gt;Climate Audit&lt;/a&gt; (Steve McIntyre)

&lt;a href="http://climatesci.org/" rel="nofollow"&gt;Climate Science&lt;/a&gt; (Roger Pielke, Sr.)

&lt;a href="http://www.worldclimatereport.com/" rel="nofollow"&gt;World Climate Report&lt;/a&gt; (Patrick Micheals of Cato, and others)

&lt;a href="http://www.environmentnc.com/" rel="nofollow"&gt;EnvironmentNC&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href="http://www.icecap.us/" rel="nofollow"&gt;ICECAP&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href="http://www.co2science.org/" rel="nofollow"&gt;CO2 Science&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Dave. Good to see another person who feels similarly on this issue, although I&#8217;m perhaps a bit more skeptical on (a).</p>
<p>RealClimate isn&#8217;t the only climate science blog online. You may or may not have heard of these:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/" rel="nofollow">Climate Audit</a> (Steve McIntyre)</p>
<p><a href="http://climatesci.org/" rel="nofollow">Climate Science</a> (Roger Pielke, Sr.)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.worldclimatereport.com/" rel="nofollow">World Climate Report</a> (Patrick Micheals of Cato, and others)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.environmentnc.com/" rel="nofollow">EnvironmentNC</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.icecap.us/" rel="nofollow">ICECAP</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.co2science.org/" rel="nofollow">CO2 Science</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karl Helper</title>
		<link>http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/#comment-764</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl Helper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 07:03:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/?p=200#comment-764</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I wonder why Greenland was called Greenland. If, and when the Ice is gone again, will it be green?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder why Greenland was called Greenland. If, and when the Ice is gone again, will it be green?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Wray</title>
		<link>http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/#comment-760</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Wray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:47:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/?p=200#comment-760</guid>
		<description>Why is there global warming on planets that have no humans.  In the 70's it was global cooling.  I am a pilot and know that jets consume gallons of fuel.  Ok Gore back up all your garbage and fly like we p-ons.  Plus park all the SUV's on  your police escorts.  I am tired with it always being Americas fault.  When I was kid in Europe you could not see across the street because the smog was so thick plus you could taste it.

Any way we have a better chance to get hit by a big rock than being destroyed by Green House Gases.  Why do you think the Lord put a hole in the top so they could escape...I get tired of Hollywood and politicans running my life..thank you gary</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is there global warming on planets that have no humans.  In the 70&#8217;s it was global cooling.  I am a pilot and know that jets consume gallons of fuel.  Ok Gore back up all your garbage and fly like we p-ons.  Plus park all the SUV&#8217;s on  your police escorts.  I am tired with it always being Americas fault.  When I was kid in Europe you could not see across the street because the smog was so thick plus you could taste it.</p>
<p>Any way we have a better chance to get hit by a big rock than being destroyed by Green House Gases.  Why do you think the Lord put a hole in the top so they could escape&#8230;I get tired of Hollywood and politicans running my life..thank you gary</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joel Shepherd</title>
		<link>http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/#comment-759</link>
		<dc:creator>Joel Shepherd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 05:11:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/?p=200#comment-759</guid>
		<description>Hi Dave

Glad to see I'm not alone.   BTW, to Alexey, on whether scientists were predicting an ice age back in the 70s, I've updated my original post to include an article written in 2001 by a member of the British Antactic Survey that addresses that specifically, and she says differently (I have to go on what I read, I was born in the 70s and don't remember anything much except Abba).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Dave</p>
<p>Glad to see I&#8217;m not alone.   BTW, to Alexey, on whether scientists were predicting an ice age back in the 70s, I&#8217;ve updated my original post to include an article written in 2001 by a member of the British Antactic Survey that addresses that specifically, and she says differently (I have to go on what I read, I was born in the 70s and don&#8217;t remember anything much except Abba).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kendall</title>
		<link>http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/#comment-758</link>
		<dc:creator>kendall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:11:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/?p=200#comment-758</guid>
		<description>David, I'm about the opposite of you with regard to the Earth. I care a lot more about the continuation of the Earth as an ecosystem than I do about my particular species. Global climate change will not destroy the Earth's ecosystem. Carbon dioxide is not a form of pollution, the plants in fact love it. Compare that with plutonium, something that does not occur in nature and can do a huge amount of damage to the ecosystem.

Human beings are incredible and awesome, but we are a product of our ecosystem. We will eventually go the way of Erectus and our other extinct ancestors, but something else will come along. That's the beauty of the Earth's ecosystem and why it's far more important than humanity. And our technology will influence our evolution, probably even direct it going forward. I also agree that we need to get off of the Earth and find ways to populate other moons and planets with life -- not just human life.

Is global warming real, is it caused by human activity? For a long time I was very skeptical, the evidence was not strong enough for me. But these days the facts are clear enough (for me). What's the big deal? Really, I see the biggest impact to be the melting of the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. In the very short term, flooded coastal cities will create a lot of suffering and economic upheaval. But humans will get over it, and the Earth's ecosystem will hardly even notice.

The answer, whatever it is, should most definitely NOT involve the production of plutonium.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, I&#8217;m about the opposite of you with regard to the Earth. I care a lot more about the continuation of the Earth as an ecosystem than I do about my particular species. Global climate change will not destroy the Earth&#8217;s ecosystem. Carbon dioxide is not a form of pollution, the plants in fact love it. Compare that with plutonium, something that does not occur in nature and can do a huge amount of damage to the ecosystem.</p>
<p>Human beings are incredible and awesome, but we are a product of our ecosystem. We will eventually go the way of Erectus and our other extinct ancestors, but something else will come along. That&#8217;s the beauty of the Earth&#8217;s ecosystem and why it&#8217;s far more important than humanity. And our technology will influence our evolution, probably even direct it going forward. I also agree that we need to get off of the Earth and find ways to populate other moons and planets with life &#8212; not just human life.</p>
<p>Is global warming real, is it caused by human activity? For a long time I was very skeptical, the evidence was not strong enough for me. But these days the facts are clear enough (for me). What&#8217;s the big deal? Really, I see the biggest impact to be the melting of the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. In the very short term, flooded coastal cities will create a lot of suffering and economic upheaval. But humans will get over it, and the Earth&#8217;s ecosystem will hardly even notice.</p>
<p>The answer, whatever it is, should most definitely NOT involve the production of plutonium.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: &#187; Links for 01-03-2007 &#187; Velcro City Tourist Board &#187; Blog Archive</title>
		<link>http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/#comment-756</link>
		<dc:creator>&#187; Links for 01-03-2007 &#187; Velcro City Tourist Board &#187; Blog Archive</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:27:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/?p=200#comment-756</guid>
		<description>[...] - David Louis Edelman&#8217;s Global Warming Skepticism &#8220;Here’s something else that’s going to sound incredibly caustic but I need to get off my [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] - David Louis Edelman&#8217;s Global Warming Skepticism &#8220;Here’s something else that’s going to sound incredibly caustic but I need to get off my [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Louis Edelman</title>
		<link>http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/#comment-755</link>
		<dc:creator>David Louis Edelman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/?p=200#comment-755</guid>
		<description>Cephyn: Thanks for the link to the &lt;a href="http://www.realclimate.org/" rel="nofollow"&gt;RealClimate&lt;/a&gt; site. There's some real good stuff on there, and it's refreshing to know that the actual climate scientists are getting out there and getting their voices heard.

I think that the problem is not that we don't trust or believe the scientists, but that it's so much more often the politicians and the journalists who report on what the scientists are saying. I'm astounded at the idiocy that you find in the most basic science and health journalism. I mean, if they can't even come up with a consistent take on the Atkins Diet, what hope do we have that they can understand and interpret global climate?

(Oh, and thanks for the &lt;a href="http://cephyn.com/library/david-louis-edelman/infoquake-the-jump-225-trilogy/" rel="nofollow"&gt;&lt;em&gt;Infoquake&lt;/em&gt; review&lt;/a&gt;, too.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cephyn: Thanks for the link to the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/" rel="nofollow">RealClimate</a> site. There&#8217;s some real good stuff on there, and it&#8217;s refreshing to know that the actual climate scientists are getting out there and getting their voices heard.</p>
<p>I think that the problem is not that we don&#8217;t trust or believe the scientists, but that it&#8217;s so much more often the politicians and the journalists who report on what the scientists are saying. I&#8217;m astounded at the idiocy that you find in the most basic science and health journalism. I mean, if they can&#8217;t even come up with a consistent take on the Atkins Diet, what hope do we have that they can understand and interpret global climate?</p>
<p>(Oh, and thanks for the <a href="http://cephyn.com/library/david-louis-edelman/infoquake-the-jump-225-trilogy/" rel="nofollow"><em>Infoquake</em> review</a>, too.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Raven</title>
		<link>http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/#comment-757</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Raven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:34:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/?p=200#comment-757</guid>
		<description>I'd like to see the Earth stay pretty and full of life, but I've been a 'get us into space where we can get the hell on with doing the really awesome sh*t' advocate since ... well, getting into science fiction, I guess.

That said, I think that sorting out our rampant over-consumption of resources is still a worthy pursuit, if only for the fact that we'll have to learn how to be damn frugal once we get off planet, and we might as well learn the basics while we have somewhere reasonably conducive to our existence to practice on.

Interesting and provocative post, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d like to see the Earth stay pretty and full of life, but I&#8217;ve been a &#8216;get us into space where we can get the hell on with doing the really awesome sh*t&#8217; advocate since &#8230; well, getting into science fiction, I guess.</p>
<p>That said, I think that sorting out our rampant over-consumption of resources is still a worthy pursuit, if only for the fact that we&#8217;ll have to learn how to be damn frugal once we get off planet, and we might as well learn the basics while we have somewhere reasonably conducive to our existence to practice on.</p>
<p>Interesting and provocative post, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: christopher</title>
		<link>http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/#comment-754</link>
		<dc:creator>christopher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/?p=200#comment-754</guid>
		<description>although i consider myself an environmentalist, i agree with a lot of what you said.  like any other political and financially-impacting issue, there's a lot of hype and lack of facts being tossed around.  although i enjoyed it, i was even bothered by the lack of strict focus on the facts in 'an inconvenient truth.'

but what struck me the most is something i've often said but have yet until now to hear anyone else say: that i don't care about the earth, i care about me on it.

i wouldn't say i want to live in domes - this habitat we already have is fantastic and should be preserved as much as possible.  but to put the earth itself on a pedestal above human beings?  sorry, no.  this is a vessel. maybe eventually we'll completely use it up and move on to another one.  if that's the case i  (though probably not still existing at that point), won't shed a tear for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>although i consider myself an environmentalist, i agree with a lot of what you said.  like any other political and financially-impacting issue, there&#8217;s a lot of hype and lack of facts being tossed around.  although i enjoyed it, i was even bothered by the lack of strict focus on the facts in &#8216;an inconvenient truth.&#8217;</p>
<p>but what struck me the most is something i&#8217;ve often said but have yet until now to hear anyone else say: that i don&#8217;t care about the earth, i care about me on it.</p>
<p>i wouldn&#8217;t say i want to live in domes - this habitat we already have is fantastic and should be preserved as much as possible.  but to put the earth itself on a pedestal above human beings?  sorry, no.  this is a vessel. maybe eventually we&#8217;ll completely use it up and move on to another one.  if that&#8217;s the case i  (though probably not still existing at that point), won&#8217;t shed a tear for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cephyn</title>
		<link>http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/current-events/global-warming-skepticism/#comment-763</link>
		<dc:creator>cephyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:09:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/?p=200#comment-763</guid>
		<description>RealClimate.org has a ton of info on this - real science - that strongly suggests human factors are the #1 contributor to global warming. So here's my question:

Why is it that there are so many generally reasonable, intelligent people out there, who normally respect scientists and specialists, that completely discount what professional climatologists are finding?

I just don't get it. It's like many of the global warming agnostics and disbelievers will trust any scientist but a climatologist - do you think they use voodoo dolls or something? That they warn about catastrophic climate change because they think it's funny to watch people worry?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

Just read it. Check out any theme you want. Then if you still think its bad science or that climatologists are the stupidest of all scientists, OK. But just know that's ridiculous.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RealClimate.org has a ton of info on this - real science - that strongly suggests human factors are the #1 contributor to global warming. So here&#8217;s my question:</p>
<p>Why is it that there are so many generally reasonable, intelligent people out there, who normally respect scientists and specialists, that completely discount what professional climatologists are finding?</p>
<p>I just don&#8217;t get it. It&#8217;s like many of the global warming agnostics and disbelievers will trust any scientist but a climatologist - do you think they use voodoo dolls or something? That they warn about catastrophic climate change because they think it&#8217;s funny to watch people worry?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/</a></p>
<p>Just read it. Check out any theme you want. Then if you still think its bad science or that climatologists are the stupidest of all scientists, OK. But just know that&#8217;s ridiculous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
