<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Krauthammer, Part 2:  The real reason conservatives don&#8217;t believe in climate science</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:55:04 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Raphael Canaris</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-40122</link>
		<dc:creator>Raphael Canaris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 09:21:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-40122</guid>
		<description>Richard Mercer said

&quot;Bob doesn’t even understand the basic concept that the temperature in May or any other month in any particular place is weather. Not climate. And it’s only one place, not global.&quot;
HOW CAN YOU BE MORE IGNORANT!
Weather is different from climate.
EXPLAIN WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLIMATE AND WEATHER IS PLEASE!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard Mercer said</p>
<p>&#8220;Bob doesn’t even understand the basic concept that the temperature in May or any other month in any particular place is weather. Not climate. And it’s only one place, not global.&#8221;<br />
HOW CAN YOU BE MORE IGNORANT!<br />
Weather is different from climate.<br />
EXPLAIN WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLIMATE AND WEATHER IS PLEASE!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Theodore</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-34440</link>
		<dc:creator>Theodore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-34440</guid>
		<description>The real reason many conservatives don&#039;t believe in climate science is that some of those climate history charts go back more than 6000 years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The real reason many conservatives don&#8217;t believe in climate science is that some of those climate history charts go back more than 6000 years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Mercer</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-29899</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Mercer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:07:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-29899</guid>
		<description>I recommend the new book  &quot;The Carbon Age&quot;  by Eric Roston

This is not just another global warming book.  It&#039;s a facinating book about the beginnings and development of the planet, it&#039;s atmosphere, it&#039;s lifeforms and how carbon with it&#039;s unique properties make it all possible.  Excellent description of the carbon cycle - how carbon cycles through the atmosphere, soils, oceans, life forms etc.  

 It took 60 million years for coal to develop in the earth from carbon accumulating out of the carbon cycle and being locked away in coal deposits.  Now we are releasing this 60 million year accumulation in 150-200 years, or a geological nanosecond.
I would like a skeptic to explain how this is part of a natural cycle, or is anything like any natural cycle that the earth has been through before.   I mean ones that didn&#039;t wipe out 90% of life on the planet.

 It took 100 million years to replace the biodiversity that existed before one of the great dying offs.

The excess CO2 from man is dissolving in the oceans, creating carbonic acid.  We are acidifying the ocean at a rate that is extremely alarming.  The consequences could be devastating.

Not only do coral and the shellfish we are familiar with depend on a certain pH level in seawater, so do coccolithophores, tiny plankton that are armored with calcium carbonate shells, just like the more familiar shellfish and coral.  Except these little guys are critical to a balance in the carbon cycle that has supported life as we know it for hundreds of milions of years.  And besides that, they are very bottom of the food chain that all other sea life depends on.

They cannot survive in acidic water.  And they are one of the biggest carbon sinks on earth.  Their shells eventually fall to the bottom of the deep sea, locking carbon, in the form of calcium carbonate, out of the carbon cycle, and thereby helping keep the cycle in a balance that has supported life as we know it.  

from the book

&quot;Humans have sped up the global carbon cycle at least one hundred times faster than usual, transforming the world into one that we eventually might not recognize as our own.
Manmade global warming is a geological aberration, nearly meteoric in speed.&quot;

another source says the same thing.

&quot;Basic chemistry leaves us in little doubt that our burning of fossil fuels is changing the acidity of our oceans,&#039; said John Raven, professor of biology at the University of Dundee, UK. &#039;The rate of change we are seeing to the ocean&#039;s chemistry is a hundred times faster than has happened for millions of years. We just do not know whether marine life which is already under threat from climate change can adapt to these changes.&quot;

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2005/July/01070501.asp</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recommend the new book  &#8220;The Carbon Age&#8221;  by Eric Roston</p>
<p>This is not just another global warming book.  It&#8217;s a facinating book about the beginnings and development of the planet, it&#8217;s atmosphere, it&#8217;s lifeforms and how carbon with it&#8217;s unique properties make it all possible.  Excellent description of the carbon cycle &#8211; how carbon cycles through the atmosphere, soils, oceans, life forms etc.  </p>
<p> It took 60 million years for coal to develop in the earth from carbon accumulating out of the carbon cycle and being locked away in coal deposits.  Now we are releasing this 60 million year accumulation in 150-200 years, or a geological nanosecond.<br />
I would like a skeptic to explain how this is part of a natural cycle, or is anything like any natural cycle that the earth has been through before.   I mean ones that didn&#8217;t wipe out 90% of life on the planet.</p>
<p> It took 100 million years to replace the biodiversity that existed before one of the great dying offs.</p>
<p>The excess CO2 from man is dissolving in the oceans, creating carbonic acid.  We are acidifying the ocean at a rate that is extremely alarming.  The consequences could be devastating.</p>
<p>Not only do coral and the shellfish we are familiar with depend on a certain pH level in seawater, so do coccolithophores, tiny plankton that are armored with calcium carbonate shells, just like the more familiar shellfish and coral.  Except these little guys are critical to a balance in the carbon cycle that has supported life as we know it for hundreds of milions of years.  And besides that, they are very bottom of the food chain that all other sea life depends on.</p>
<p>They cannot survive in acidic water.  And they are one of the biggest carbon sinks on earth.  Their shells eventually fall to the bottom of the deep sea, locking carbon, in the form of calcium carbonate, out of the carbon cycle, and thereby helping keep the cycle in a balance that has supported life as we know it.  </p>
<p>from the book</p>
<p>&#8220;Humans have sped up the global carbon cycle at least one hundred times faster than usual, transforming the world into one that we eventually might not recognize as our own.<br />
Manmade global warming is a geological aberration, nearly meteoric in speed.&#8221;</p>
<p>another source says the same thing.</p>
<p>&#8220;Basic chemistry leaves us in little doubt that our burning of fossil fuels is changing the acidity of our oceans,&#8217; said John Raven, professor of biology at the University of Dundee, UK. &#8216;The rate of change we are seeing to the ocean&#8217;s chemistry is a hundred times faster than has happened for millions of years. We just do not know whether marine life which is already under threat from climate change can adapt to these changes.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2005/July/01070501.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.rsc.org/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>chemistryworld/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>News/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>2005/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>July/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>01070501.asp</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: msn nickleri</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-26343</link>
		<dc:creator>msn nickleri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:47:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-26343</guid>
		<description>Bob doesn’t even understand the basic concept that the temperature in May or any other month in any particular place is weather. Not climate. And it’s only one place, not global.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob doesn’t even understand the basic concept that the temperature in May or any other month in any particular place is weather. Not climate. And it’s only one place, not global.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Mercer</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-22219</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Mercer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:49:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-22219</guid>
		<description>Bob doesn&#039;t even understand the basic concept that the temperature in May or any other month in any particular place is weather.  Not climate.  And it&#039;s only one place, not global.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob doesn&#8217;t even understand the basic concept that the temperature in May or any other month in any particular place is weather.  Not climate.  And it&#8217;s only one place, not global.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob B</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-13917</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:20:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-13917</guid>
		<description>Coldest May in the Tropics no less</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Coldest May in the Tropics no less</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob B</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-13916</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-13916</guid>
		<description>Coldest May in satellite records:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

sure likes like global warming is a big concern--NOT

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Coldest May in satellite records:</p>
<p><a href="http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2" rel="nofollow">http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2</a></p>
<p>sure likes like global warming is a big concern&#8211;NOT</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NorthCoaster</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-13912</link>
		<dc:creator>NorthCoaster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-13912</guid>
		<description>Check out Roy Spencer comments here:

http://climatesci.org/2008/05/22/a-response-to-ray-pierrehumbert%e2%80%99s-real-climate-post-of-may-21-2008-by-roy-spencer/

Climate discussions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Check out Roy Spencer comments here:</p>
<p><a href="http://climatesci.org/2008/05/22/a-response-to-ray-pierrehumbert%e2%80%99s-real-climate-post-of-may-21-2008-by-roy-spencer/" rel="nofollow">http://climatesci.org/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>2008/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>05/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>22/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>a-response-to-ray-pierrehumbert%e2%80%99s-real-climate-post-of-may-21-2008-by-roy-spencer/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span></a></p>
<p>Climate discussions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NorthCoaster</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-13911</link>
		<dc:creator>NorthCoaster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:21:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-13911</guid>
		<description>The recent Army comment on the solar link to warming is here,  

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html

Check it out---Pro-Con discussion at the Wired Blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The recent Army comment on the solar link to warming is here,  </p>
<p><a href="http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.wired.com/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>defense/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>2008/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>06/<span style="font-size: 1px;"> </span>army-vs-global.html</a></p>
<p>Check it out&#8212;Pro-Con discussion at the Wired Blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob B</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-13906</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:36:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/01/krauthammer-part-2-the-real-reason-conservatives-dont-believe-in-climate-science/#comment-13906</guid>
		<description>What I am talking about is that it is unclear. And the facts that the RC folks seem fit to bet out to 2015 shows that they believe the intent was to show cooling to 2015.

[&lt;em&gt;JR:  Again, read my post on the subject.  But I just can&#039;t deal with your continued mischaracterization of what the study said.  It NEVER said global cooling.  Try reading it.&lt;/em&gt;]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I am talking about is that it is unclear. And the facts that the RC folks seem fit to bet out to 2015 shows that they believe the intent was to show cooling to 2015.</p>
<p>[<em>JR:  Again, read my post on the subject.  But I just can't deal with your continued mischaracterization of what the study said.  It NEVER said global cooling.  Try reading it.</em>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
