quote:

---

Originally posted by pH:
Another inconvenient truth...

-pH

---

 

---

Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
 
Most of all, the president should see this movie...
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
You can argue against An Inconvenient Truth. It's silly propaganda coming from the same people who were frantically warning of an imminent ice age only 30 years ago.

They are panic mongers, that's all, and Gore in particular is basically campaigning. George Will had a great column about it this morning. The man is planning on surfing a wave of fear right into the White House.
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

They are panic mongers, that's all, and Gore in particular is basically campaigning. George Will had a great column about it this morning. The man is planning on surfing a wave of fear right into the White House.

---

quote:

---

Have you not noticed the increasingly violent weather patterns? Each year we get record storm numbers and strengths. (Katrina anyone?) And they're predicting even worse storms... and these are normal weather and storm folk, not "panic mongers". Each year areas get more weather that they rarely in the past have gotten.

---

quote:

---

quote: Have you not noticed the increasingly violent weather patterns? Each year we get record storm numbers and strengths. (Katrina anyone?) And they're predicting even worse storms... and these are normal weather and storm folk, not "panic mongers". Each year areas get more weather that they rarely in the past have gotten.

Hurricane seasons cycle in intensity. We're at a particularly intense part of the cycle. I mean, bad hurricanes are nothing new, but we also didn't track them as closely way back in the days of bloomers.

---

quote:

---

It's silly propaganda coming from the same people who were frantically warning of an imminent ice age only 30 years ago.

---

quote:

---

The man is planning on surfing a wave of fear right into the White House.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk:
It does not take a brain surgeon...

How bloody dense can any of you be?

Sheep to the slaughter are smarter than you!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:

quote:

---

They are panic mongers, that's all, and Gore in particular is basically campaigning. George Will had a great column about it this morning. The man is planning on surfing a wave of fear right into the White House.

---

*blink*

I read that column, my local paper carried it. And my first thought was: George Will you snide, blind ass. Global warming is real. Yes some of the people who are saying so come on a little strong and over the top, but their worried and can you blame em? Have you not noticed the increasingly violent weather patterns? Each year we get record storm numbers and strengths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:
(Katrina anyone?) And they're predicting even worse storms... and these are normal weather and storm folk, not "panic mongers". Each year areas get more weather that they rarely in the past have gotten.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:
No they're not spot on, and no they can't predict exactly what the ice caps melting will do. We could be looking at a situation as bad as the one in The Day After Tomorrow or something far more gradual (far more likely).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:
But we are looking at changing weather patterns and a drastic global heating trend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:
Frankly, if Gore does manage to ride a wave of fear into the White House then good. Maybe he can do something about it. And whatever he does it'll be far better then what our current fanatic in chief is doing.

---

quote:

---

It's silly propaganda coming from the same people who were frantically warning of an imminent ice age only 30 years ago.

---

quote:

---

Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor. Both are greenhouse gasses, after all

---

quote:

---

Maybe build a giant fan in the arctic to blow cold air down here.

---

quote:

---

If the climate changes in certain ways, it could be something to worry about. But claiming that humans have caused it is just silly.

quote:

---

You aren't listening to me.

First, you may stop comparing the present global warming issue to the global cooling references of ages past. The scare is commonly referenced as being analogous to the global warming issue, but it was not backed up by references in scientific journals, which give legitimacy to the present issue, and which the former incident (which is crudely juxtaposed for 'comparison') lacked.

Second: in regards to the above quote: no, it's actually not silly at all! Science is reasonably skeptical. The climatologists are mostly being careful to judge and falsify their own works, despite attempts to portray them as being heedless alarmists. The published world of climatology, from the IPCC on down, has taken decades to reach a reliably actionable interpretation of global warming events; they have been reliably methodological and self-critical. They are the foremost authority on these affairs, and the data collection and analytical studies of independent scientific bodies the world over have primarily and overwhelmingly generated the conclusion that we are faced with today.

Here's what we have in the world of viable climate consensus:

I. THE SHORT VERSION

1. Global warming is real
2. Anthropogenic global warming is real
3. Climate forcings are real
4. Regulation of industry and production can inhibit the negative effects of climate change to a degree
5. It is probably better to do something than to do nothing

II. THE LONG VERSION

[quote]On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.

---

quote:

---

American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said: There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders. [5]

---

quote:

---

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community:
The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4] The summary begins with:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (ibid.)

---

quote:

---

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [url= http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222][2][/url], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

---

quote:

---

Main article: IPCC Third Assessment Report

The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the Third Assessment Report (TAR).
The TAR consists of four reports, three of them from the Working Groups:

* Working Group I: The Scientific Basis [30]
* Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [31]
* Working Group III: Mitigation [32]
* Synthesis Report [33]

The "headlines" from the summary for policymakers [34] in The Scientific Basis were:

1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased)
2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century)
3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [35].)
4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios

---

(the fourth report of the IPCC is due in 2007)

[url= http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change[/url]
[url= http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change[/url]

Final point, on the viability of attempts to change the problem through regulation:

[url= http://"http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/hansen_timebomb.pdf"]PDF: Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb,[/url] from the pages of Scientific American.

---

quote:

---

t present, our most accurate knowledge about climate
sensitivity is based on data from the earth’s history, and
this evidence reveals that small forces, maintained long
enough, can cause large climate change.
■ Human-made forces, especially greenhouse gases, soot
and other small particles, now exceed natural forces, and
the world has begun to warm at a rate predicted by
climate models.
■ The stability of the great ice sheets on Greenland and
Antarctica and the need to preserve global coastlines set
a low limit on the global warming that will constitute
“dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate.
■ Halting global warming requires urgent, unprecedented
international cooperation, but the needed actions are
feasible and have additional benefits for human health,
agriculture and the environment.

---

quote:

---

Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor. Both are greenhouse gasses, after all.

---

quote:

---

natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.

---

quote:

---

But claiming that humans have caused it is just silly.

---

quote:

---

Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor.

---

quote:

---

If the climate changes in certain ways, it could be something to worry about. But claiming that humans have caused it is just silly.

quote:

---

You aren't listening to me.

First, you may stop comparing the present global warming issue to the global cooling references of ages past. The scare is commonly referenced as being analogous to the global warming issue, but it was not backed up by references in scientific journals, which give legitimacy to the present issue, and which the former incident (which is crudely juxtaposed for 'comparison') lacked.

Second: in regards to the above quote: no, it's actually not silly at all! Science is reasonably skeptical. The climatologists are mostly being careful to judge and falsify their own works, despite attempts to portray them as being heedless alarmists. The published world of climatology, from the IPCC on down, has taken decades to reach a reliably actionable interpretation of global warming events; they have been reliably methodological and self-critical. They are the foremost authority on these affairs, and the data collection and analytical studies of independent scientific bodies the world over have primarily and overwhelmingly generated the conclusion that we are faced with today.

Here's what we have in the world of viable climate consensus:

I. THE SHORT VERSION

1. Global warming is real
2. Anthropogenic global warming is real
3. Climate forcings are real
4. Regulation of industry and production can inhibit the negative effects of climate change to a degree
5. It is probably better to do something than to do nothing

II. THE LONG VERSION

[quote]On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.

---

quote:

---

American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said: There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders. [5]

---

quote:

---

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community:
The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4] The summary begins with:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (ibid.)

---

quote:

---

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [url= http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222][2][/url], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

---

quote:

---

Main article: IPCC Third Assessment Report

The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the Third Assessment Report (TAR).
The TAR consists of four reports, three of them from the Working Groups:

* Working Group I: The Scientific Basis [30]
* Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [31]
* Working Group III: Mitigation [32]
* Synthesis Report [33]

The "headlines" from the summary for policymakers [34] in The Scientific Basis were:

1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased)
2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century)
3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [35].)
4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios

---

(the fourth report of the IPCC is due in 2007)

[url= http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change[/url]
[url= http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change[/url]

Final point, on the viability of attempts to change the problem through regulation:

[url= http://"http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/hansen_timebomb.pdf"]PDF: Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb,[/url] from the pages of Scientific American.

---

quote:

---

t present, our most accurate knowledge about climate
sensitivity is based on data from the earth’s history, and
this evidence reveals that small forces, maintained long
enough, can cause large climate change.
■ Human-made forces, especially greenhouse gases, soot
and other small particles, now exceed natural forces, and
the world has begun to warm at a rate predicted by
climate models.
■ The stability of the great ice sheets on Greenland and
Antarctica and the need to preserve global coastlines set
a low limit on the global warming that will constitute
“dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate.
■ Halting global warming requires urgent, unprecedented
international cooperation, but the needed actions are
feasible and have additional benefits for human health,
agriculture and the environment.

---

quote:

---

Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor. Both are greenhouse gasses, after all.

---

quote:

---

natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.

---

quote:

---

If the climate changes in certain ways, it could be something to worry about. But claiming that humans have caused it is just silly.

quote:

---

You aren't listening to me.

First, you may stop comparing the present global warming issue to the global cooling references of ages past. The scare is commonly referenced as being analogous to the global warming issue, but it was not backed up by references in scientific journals, which give legitimacy to the present issue, and which the former incident (which is crudely juxtaposed for 'comparison') lacked.

Second: in regards to the above quote: no, it's actually not silly at all! Science is reasonably skeptical. The climatologists are mostly being careful to judge and falsify their own works, despite attempts to portray them as being heedless alarmists. The published world of climatology, from the IPCC on down, has taken decades to reach a reliably actionable interpretation of global warming events; they have been reliably methodological and self-critical. They are the foremost authority on these affairs, and the data collection and analytical studies of independent scientific bodies the world over have primarily and overwhelmingly generated the conclusion that we are faced with today.

Here's what we have in the world of viable climate consensus:

I. THE SHORT VERSION

1. Global warming is real
2. Anthropogenic global warming is real
3. Climate forcings are real
4. Regulation of industry and production can inhibit the negative effects of climate change to a degree
5. It is probably better to do something than to do nothing

II. THE LONG VERSION

[quote]On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.

---

quote:

---

American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said: There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders. [5]

---

quote:

---

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community:
The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4] The summary begins with:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (ibid.)

---

quote:

---

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [url= http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222][2][/url], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

---

quote:

---

Main article: IPCC Third Assessment Report

The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the Third Assessment Report (TAR).
The TAR consists of four reports, three of them from the Working Groups:

* Working Group I: The Scientific Basis [30]
* Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [31]
* Working Group III: Mitigation [32]
* Synthesis Report [33]

The "headlines" from the summary for policymakers [34] in The Scientific Basis were:

1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased)
2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century)
3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [35].)
4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios

---

(the fourth report of the IPCC is due in 2007)

[url= http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change[/url]
[url= http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change[/url]

Final point, on the viability of attempts to change the problem through regulation:

[url= http://"http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/hansen_timebomb.pdf"]PDF: Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb,[/url] from the pages of Scientific American.

---

quote:

---

t present, our most accurate knowledge about climate
sensitivity is based on data from the earth’s history, and
this evidence reveals that small forces, maintained long
enough, can cause large climate change.
■ Human-made forces, especially greenhouse gases, soot
and other small particles, now exceed natural forces, and
the world has begun to warm at a rate predicted by
climate models.
■ The stability of the great ice sheets on Greenland and
Antarctica and the need to preserve global coastlines set
a low limit on the global warming that will constitute
“dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate.
■ Halting global warming requires urgent, unprecedented
international cooperation, but the needed actions are
feasible and have additional benefits for human health,
agriculture and the environment.

---

quote:

---

Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor. Both are greenhouse gasses, after all.

---

quote:

---

natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.

---

quote:

---

If the climate changes in certain ways, it could be something to worry about. But claiming that humans have caused it is just silly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

quote:

---

Maybe build a giant fan in the arctic to blow cold air down here.

---

Which is essentially what is happening. That's why people will make stupid jokes about how cold it is in the summer and that they can "use some global warming right about now."

---

quote:

---

You're credulous and belligerent about it.

---

quote:

---

Robin, what if global warming and rising sea levels were an inevitable cost of living...

---

quote:

---

While water is running out here in Florida, it has a lot more to do with people building on it, digging retention ponds instead of letting it soak in naturally, and sucking it out with their wells.

---

quote:

---

I remember when we banned CFCs and that year a volcano erupted in the Antarctic that put out more CFCs then we would have in the next thirty years. Made our gesture pretty pointless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

You're credulous and belligerent about it.

---

Will you concede the possibility that he's informed on this issue?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by erosomniac:
What in the holy hell in a handbasket happened in this thread?

Sam, did you break our board? ^_^

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bean Counter:
I remember when we banned CFCs and that year a volcano erupted in the Antarctic that put out more CFCs then we would have in the next thirty years. Made our gesture pretty pointless.

---

quote:

---

Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical, and insensitive corporations in history. . . . Conclusion: mankind can't possibly equal the output of even one eruption from Pinatubo, much less billion years' worth, so how can we destroy ozone?"

---

quote:

---

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.

---

quote:

---

American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said: There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders. [5]

---

quote:

---

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community:
The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4] The summary begins with:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (ibid.)

---

quote:

---

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [url= http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222][2][/url], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

---

quote:

---

Main article: IPCC Third Assessment Report

The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the Third Assessment Report (TAR).
The TAR consists of four reports, three of them from the Working Groups:

* Working Group I: The Scientific Basis [30]
* Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [31]
* Working Group III: Mitigation [32]
* Synthesis Report [33]

The "headlines" from the summary for policymakers [34] in The Scientific Basis were:

1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased)
2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century)
3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [35].)
4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century
6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios

---

quote:

---

At present, our most accurate knowledge about climate
sensitivity is based on data from the earth’s history, and
this evidence reveals that small forces, maintained long
enough, can cause large climate change.
- Human-made forces, especially greenhouse gases, soot
and other small particles, now exceed natural forces, and
the world has begun to warm at a rate predicted by
climate models.
- The stability of the great ice sheets on Greenland and
Antarctica and the need to preserve global coastlines set
a low limit on the global warming that will constitute
“dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate.
- Halting global warming requires urgent, unprecedented
international cooperation, but the needed actions are
feasible and have additional benefits for human health,
agriculture and the environment.

---

quote:

---

Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor. Both are greenhouse gasses, after all.

---

quote:

---

natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luet13:

quote:

---

---

The ice ages started all by themselves, and they ended all by themselves, and I just spent a frigid day in June in Chicago in which I could have used a little global warming.

quote:

---

---

I too have spent a cool weekend in Chicago, yet somehow that doesn't make me deny the idea of global warming. It actually sort of solidifies the idea in my head.

Of course, if I was going to argue about weather patterns changing or not, I wouldn't use Chicago as an example. I've lived here my whole life and the weather has never followed any predictable pattern. Cold day in June? Heck, I remember it snowing in late April a few years back. Let's just thank God that it's not snowing in June!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:
Asphalt, as it happens, is a good way of reducing global warming, because it binds down carbon that would otherwise go into the atmosphere as CO2. So, build them parking lots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
Rush's research is not scrupulous and his conclusions are often wrong. This was the case here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bokonon:
starLisa, you are trying to make two different things equivalent. Doing localized weather forecasting is magnitudes MORE difficult than the climate change research and predicitions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bean Counter:
Really? It causes holes in everything else....

BC

---

quote:

---

Myths about ozone depletion

"Manmade chlorine is insignificant compared to natural sources"

One occasionally encounters statements such as It is generally agreed that natural sources of tropospheric chlorine (volcanoes, ocean spray, etc.) are four to five orders of magnitude larger than man-made sources. This falls into the "true but irrelevant" category as tropospheric chlorine is irrelevant; it is stratospheric chlorine that matters. The chlorine from ocean spray is in the form HCl and is soluble; it never reaches the stratosphere. CFCs, in contrast, are insoluble and long-lived and hence do reach the stratosphere. Even in the lower atmosphere there is more chlorine present in the form of CFCs and related haloalkanes than there is in HCl from salt spray, and in the stratosphere the organic source gases dominate overwhelmingly. This includes the CFCs and methyl chloride, which has both natural and man made sources (FAQ, Part II, section 4.3). Another point which must be kept in mind when evaluating the contributions of various gases to stratospheric ozone is that methyl chloride molecules only contribute a single chlorine atom, but CFC molecules contribute multiple chlorine atoms. Very large volcanic eruptions can inject HCl directly into the stratosphere, but direct measurements (FAQ, Part II, section 4.4) have shown that their contribution is small compared to chlorine from CFCs.

---

quote:

---

The chlorine from ocean spray is in the form HCl and is soluble; it never reaches the stratosphere. CFCs, in contrast, are insoluble and long-lived and hence do reach the stratosphere

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueWizard:
First of all we are between Ice Ages, and between every Ice Age is a Hot Age. That is indisputable. But Ice Ages and Hot Ages span many thousands of years. We are seeing a change in temperature that can be measured across 100 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puppy:
Robin, what if global warming and rising sea levels were an inevitable cost of living in a complex, hi-tech society in which a small fraction of the population can feed hundreds of millions, leaving a few of us free to do silly things like make movies? Would you want to undo all of that and give up what you've achieved to live as a low-impact subsistence farmer?

---

quote:

---

Petroleum =! economy. Pollution =! economy. We need energy, not necessarily fossil fuels or coal -- and we've never lacked for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BannaOj:
Argh. The lack of precise chemistry is making me rather upsed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

I agree that alternative energy sources should be developed, and that some people will make a lot of money doing so. But our economy currently is based on spending x units of energy to get y units of energy, and converting to an economy where y units of energy require 2x units of energy to make will cause major readjustment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

I agree that alternative energy sources should be developed, and that some people will make a lot of money doing so. But our economy currently is based on spending x units of energy to get y units of energy, and converting to an economy where y units of energy require 2x units of energy to make will cause major readjustment.

---

But somehow I think the coal and oil industries are worried that research will show us a way to get 10y units of energy for the price of 0.1x units of effort, thus making them obsolete. After all, if only 0.1x units of effort are required, doesn't 90% of the coal and oil industry no longer have a job? You can't convince me that our coal and oil industries are even attempting to increase efficiency if it doesn't turn out to be cost effective- why would an oil company in any way support research into a car that uses less gas? Who WILL fund that research?

---

quote:

---

On the plus side of that, having freely available energy would make all kinds of other industry easier and increase job availability... so that would be a good thing too.

---

Sure. But there won't be "freely available energy."
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
I'm not convinced that the advocates of global warming [I know that's a misnomer, but try to express that idea another way ... it's hard] have accurately predicted the future. I don't think that we understand climate sufficiently to be able to project its behavior and say what it will do over the next 10 or 100 or 1000 years. There are factors in the equation we do not understand, and I think that the climate will surprise us way more often than it does what we say.

That said, however, these folks have laid out some scenarios that, if they are accurate, could obviously have a severe impact on our society.

At the same time, we're running into a few other problems which have nothing to do with forecasting the future (and which, therefore, I find more compelling). We are definitely insufficiently prepared to respond to natural disasters. We are definitely overly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels.

Unpredictable systems like climate cannot be controlled the way you control a car. A better analogy might be surfing a wave. You don't know what the wave is going to do, so instead, you learn to be flexible, be prepared, and have excellent balance, so that you can respond to whatever happens with grace and style.

That's why I find most of the strategies for fighting global warming uncompelling. The advocate fills my head with the massive damage we've already done, and the huge disaster that is looming right around the corner ... and then recommends a minor reduction in a few countries' emissions over a decade as the solution? If this incoming disaster is truly as certain as people predict, then a minor reduction in emissions of CO2 is going to be a drop in the bucket. With the largely-unregulated Chinese and Indian industrial complexes growing as fast as they are, if anything, we'll be losing ground.

What I'm wondering is ... if this disaster really is looming like this, and if I'm right about how ineffectual our last-minute "preventative" measures are going to be in the face of it, then shouldn't we be focusing more of our efforts on survival strategies that are less about controlling the weather and more about riding the waves?

Like vastly expanding and improving our system for responding to natural disasters and other internal problems like riots?

Like vastly reducing the resource requirements of our economy, in general? This one is long-term, but it isn't focused on averting an incoming disaster, so it can be, and every little step along the way will make a difference. Right now, if everyone in the world were raised to an American standard of living, we'd exhaust our readily-available resources within a decade. If we suffer a shortage of a vital resource like oil, everything grinds to a halt. The more cheap and efficient we become, the better-able we are to roll with the punches when both natural and economic disasters occur. And in the very long term, the cheaper we make the American standard of living, the more we can extend it to other societies, and the less likely they'll be to resent us and want us gone.

In short, I'm facing some serious dissonance between what global warming advocates describe as the problem, and what they proscribe as the solution. I absolutely agree that we need to make some drastic changes, soon, in order to be better prepared for inevitable disasters. But focusing on this one scenario, with these particular solutions, just sounds like a grab for people's attention, and an attempt to use fear to manipulate me. I'm already plenty concerned about our environment, our lack of efficiency, and our lack of flexibility in the face of unpredictable events, thanks. I don't need to go through this exercise.

My concern is ... what if we pour all our half-assed efforts into the very specific task of averting this forecasted global warming, we pay all the costs for it ... and then something else happens? Some unpredictable result of global warming, or even another disaster that has nothing to do even with the weather? I think we are much better-served by developing general flexibility and efficiency in our economy, in our use of resources, and in our preparedness for disaster, rather than going through this knee-jerk response to a very specific possible future that, if it is real, is probably far too advanced to stop in the way we're trying to stop it.

The truth about the future, especially when you are working with complex systems like climate and human society, is that even when you think you know what is going to happen, you certainly don't know what else is going to happen alongside your prediction. Rather than reacting specifically to what we see in the crystal ball, I think we should be examining our vulnerability to all kinds of possible emergencies, and should be finding much more general solutions that make us a more robust, enduring society, no matter what happens.
 

---

Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
 
Al Gore is the best thing to happen to the opponents of the Global Warming myth, including me. He's the reason why we don’t have a viable CO2 control treaty (assuming we need one). He negotiated the Kyoto treaty for the Clinton Administration. During the negotiation, the Senate voted 95-0 against any treaty that would exempt the developing world from any obligation to reduce its emissions. But that didn’t stop Gore from agreeing to a treaty with this term, and that exempted China, knowing full well that it would never be ratified. For political expediency he negotiated an impractical treaty that he knew the Senate would not ratify. Gore and Kyoto essentially ended pursuits for a more realistic alternatives. Thank you, Al.

Another plus: none of the nations that signed the treaty are any where near close to meeting its targets. Good work Al.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
I would just like to make a prediction here for the record...

When we reduce automobile emmissions to 0 or near 0, many of the people who are up in arms over their environmental impact will switch to bemoaning the Highway Fatality Epidemic.

Cuz you know, whatever we do, it's not enough. And they'll have to make a living off some other panic when the environmental one is gone.

Pix
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Nah Pix, the environment will always be here.
[tongue in cheek]
Probably even before men paid tribute to priest classes for rain on their crops, people were trying to control and predict the weather. Now the priest class just asks for research grants to do the same job
[/tongue in cheek]
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
The more I hear agruements from both sides the more I have to agree with Michael Crichton that we just don't know enough about how complex systems work to really manage the environment.

I think that the development of alternative fuel sources is a very good idea, and I also think its an inevitability that we will start using them eventually. From what I understand of history the human race does not have a long track record of not using new technology in favor of remaining with "The old". Unless you are an eccentric collector type. We have been using oil for not quite a century. Its true that there is initial resistance to new technology (railroad companies were not too happy about the automobile). But I think the current is still in favor of "The New."
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

But I think the current is still in favor of "The New."

---

quote:

---

The media tends to provide 50/50 coverage.

---

Where have you seen 50/50 coverage of this debate?

And I'd like to see the data on the replenishing of the ozone layer. Just because no one has even talked about it for over a decade, and this is the first I've heard of it.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
By the way, Bok, here's an interesting possible future that your post made me think of:

1. Global Warming advocates get us to make token reductions in our emissions.

2. The major disasters never come, because they were never going to. Global warming, against predictions, turns out to be a minor blip.

3. Global Warming advocates: "See? It worked!"


 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Puppy: but the great thing about the global warming scam is nothing ever HAS to happen! It's always on the horizon. And since they renamed it Global Climate Change(tm) EVERYTHING is evidence that it's happening. Too Cold? Global Climate Change(tm). Too Hot? Global Climate Change(tm).

100 years from now people can point back and say "People like you said the same thing back in the 1900s" and the response will be "Yes, but Global Climate Change(tm) (or whatever they're calling it in 100 years) could happen any day! It could happen within our lifetimes!" and the scam continues...

Of course, maybe people will wise up and Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change will be a phrase people use to mean "Snake Oil"

Pix
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Geoff, it's worth noting that the Y2K bug did exactly that. And yet -- speaking as an IT guy -- it's a darn good thing we all spent as much money as we did fixing it.
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bokonon:
Geoff, reducing emissions a little is not the only proposed solution, it was just the most publicized/villified one in recent memory.

The ultimate problem is, if we can't convince enough people that there is the problem, there is no point in providing the list of possible solutions (this point is the primary thrust of the movie, according to reviews I've read).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Geoff, it's worth noting that the Y2K bug did exactly that. And yet -- speaking as an IT guy -- it's a darn good thing we all spent as much money as we did fixing it.

---

quote:

---

# Option 1: Improved fuel economy.
# Option 2: Reduced reliance on cars.
# Option 3: More efficient buildings.
# Option 4: Improved power plant efficiency.
# Option 5: Substituting natural gas for coal.
# Option 6: Storage of carbon captured in power plants.
# Option 7: Storage of carbon captured in hydrogen plants.
# Option 8: Storage of carbon captured in synfuels plants.
# Option 9: Nuclear fission.
# Option 10: Wind electricity.
# Option 11: Photovoltaic electricity.
# Option 12: Renewable hydrogen.
# Option 13: Biofuels.
# Option 14: Forest management.
# Option 15: Agricultural soils management.

---

EDIT: BTW, this thread thoroughly puts the lie to its own subject

-Bok
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
BQT, I think you're confusing several issues and that's what's giving you the effect you write about above. I doubt there are that many dogmatic scientists jumping through hoops to "advance global warming". I don't doubt there are plenty of environmental wackos, politicians, and oil company executives that are willing to selectivly twist the facts to illustrate whatever "theory" is most convenient to them at the time, and I know that science reporting in this country is abysmal, with reporters seemingly obligated to give commentary on what a scientific finding "means" regardless of whether they are qualified to make such assertions. And I don't doubt there are a handful of sell-out "scientists" who will prostitute their credentials to lobbying groups, politicians, or for personal notoriety. However, I believe the vast majority of scientists are genuinely concerned with the facts and what they mean, not in how they can use them to support an already drawn conclusion.
 

---

Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
 
Troll Shaman predicts: when stupid humans kill all green things, then Trolls have to eat stupid humans because nothing else left.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
Bao, thank you, that was very well-expressed, and it pretty accurately described my feelings about the subject. You're right, I can't imagine any climatic event that would not be used as evidence in favor of global warming, which makes it much harder to believe the evidence I'm actually given.

I mean, I believe that the climate changes, and that it can have disastrous (or, at times, beneficial) effects on human civilization. The fact of "Global Climate Change" is practically self-evident.

What I have trouble with is the fact that right now, under the umbrella of "Global Warming", we have predictions for the future that vary so widely that it's impossible to prepare for them. Any given region of the planet might be inundated with rain or plunged into drought. It might get hotter or colder or stay the same. Ice might build up or recede. And any of these events would be proof positive of "Global Warming".

How do you prepare for something like that? You'd might as well say, "Anything could happen at any time! Aaaaagh!" And if you said that, well, gosh darn it, the next time "something" happened, you'd be proven right

As to the efforts to reduce our emissions and "prevent" Global Warming ... what is the long-term plan? If we succeed, then what? Do we constantly vary our emissions throughout the rest of future history to keep the Earth's temperature stable? If the earth starts cooling, do we start burning MORE oil and coal to keep it warmer? And then when it warms up, cut them back again?

EDIT: After reading Karl's post, I want to add that I don't think there are malicious scientists twisting evidence to advance global warming. Rather, I think that the systems involved are so complex that it is difficult for a scientist to say, "IF Global Warming is occurring as we predicted, THEN when we do THIS, or observe THAT, you will see EXACTLY THIS RESULT." Then when we see that result, we know it's right, and when we don't see that result, we know it's wrong. That would be a simple, easily-falsifiable, and highly-scientific way to prove Global Warming predictions to be accurate.

Unfortunately, as I said, climate is complex, and doesn't lend itself to that process. So what we get instead is different sets of predictions from different scientists that cover such a wide range of possibilities that anything that happens will prove someone right. I don't see that process giving us any means of making our future predictions more accurate, or advancing the art of climate prediction. It certainly doesn't give skeptics anything to sink their teeth into to start believing.

[ June 13, 2006, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Saying so, doesn't make it so, Geoff. It's complex, but not necessarily intractibly so, as you seem to imply. Looking at the global climate is simpler than predicting whether it will rain excessively in a particular place, in a particular time.

If anything, increased warming will make weather more unpredictable (basic thermodynamics there). We should try to minimize (we will never remove it all) the unpredictability as much as possible, IMO.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
RE: Bok's post on the previous page:

Bok, that article proposes means of stabilizing the CO2 level at 133% of its current level over the next 50 years. If the current level is already disastrous, how does that solve the problem?

For example, the sun reaches its highest point in the sky in the northern hemisphere on June 22nd or so, and then immediately starts to fall ... yet the northern hemisphere doesn't really stop getting warmer until late September because as long as the sun remains above a certain level, the temperature continues to climb, and August ends up being the hottest month.

Similarly, if CO2 levels are high enough RIGHT NOW to cause global warming, then how is stabilizing them at 133% of their current level going to have a sufficient impact to avert disaster? That might stop the warming from accelerating, but it doesn't seem (to me) that such a stabilization would actually stop the warming itself.

Is there some factor that I'm missing here? I only had time to skim the article, so it's possible that I breezed by something that I should have caught ...
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
RE: Bok's post on this page:

quote:

---

Saying so, doesn't make it so, Geoff.

---

quote:

---

It's complex, but not necessarily intractibly so, as you seem to imply. Looking at the global climate is simpler than predicting whether it will rain excessively in a particular place, in a particular time.

---

What I'm saying is that it is inherently sketchy to try and predict the future, and it would be much easier to trust predictions of the future if we had some solid evidence that the methods we were using worked, and took every important factor into account. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the problem, such evidence is particularly difficult to come by.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Because it gives us more time, and is a step in the right direction. The "catastrophe" of global warming isn't some immediate "hit-by-a-comet" change, but over time (a few centuries), it may/will cause serious effects that impact us, as a civilization.

Aside: I just though of another possibly (my speculation, of course). Most of the models assume a steady increase in the CO2 emissions, I bet. No one knows exactly how much in the air at any one time is sustainable, but we aren't in a steady state. Instead we are are increasing that amount, and we're increasing the rate that that amount is increasing

It's like hybrid cars. They are ultimately a dead end, as far as fuel efficiency, but in the mean time, if you can afford it, and it fits your needs, then you really should get one, if you are concerned with CO2 and the like. Because it lowers the emissions now, given more room to find a better solution that will lower them even more.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
 
The following link is to a 2000 year temperture reconstruction using Palentological data by the NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). It shows that the current warming trend began at least four centuries ago, well before the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It started in the Middle of the Little Ice Age (Cool documentary on the History Channel about that the other day, BTW.)

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.htm

The link is from junkscience.com which has lots of great links to information and news stories on "global warming." A little open minded research should show that there is less than anonymity in the scientific community about the issue. Global warming alarmists will argue for the myth of global warming while ingnoring contradictory evidence or alternate explanations.

For example, were told that because of global warming huge chunks of the antarctic are melting and breaking off, and the sea levels will rise and flood Florida and other coastal states. At least so says Al Gore. But there are several studies that show that the Antarctic ice sheet has been growing at an accelerated rate in recent years. Studies show that the Greenland ice sheet is melting at the margins, but the evidence also shows that its growing in the center.

We're shown before and after pictures of Mt Kilimanjaro and told that global warming is the cause for the reduced snow cap. But the same alrmist won't say that maybe the deforrestation around the base of the mountain is the cause. (Less trees equals less humidity and less snow, event though the temperture at the mountain top is still cold enough to make snow.)

Al Gore makes all of these arguements in his movie, but decided to ignore these "inconveinent truths" because they get in the way of his political ambitions.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Al Gore makes all of these arguements in his movie, but decided to ignore these "inconveinent truths" because they get in the way of his political ambitions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Al Gore makes all of these arguements in his movie, but decided to ignore these "inconveinent truths" because they get in the way of his political ambitions.

---

I'm wondering what evidence you have to support your speculation on his motivations.

---

I am going to have to agree with this man. Tom that is.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
But the way you are saying it sounds like it, to me. You make unsupported assertions that it is complex without reading the scientific literature. You say it is too complex, but from most reports, it appears that isn't the case.

Most folks, including Hatrack's resident environmental scientist, The Rabbit, have stated that the peer-reviewed studies have reached a consensus. The only way to have done so is to have ample evidence that supports their models. I'd love to link to those models, and their predictions, but I don't have the subscriptions to the journals, and most of the reports are mostly taking the scientist's statements on that at face value, which won't convince many here. I found at least one article today (from 2/2005) that had it written down that the models had predicted with surprising accuracy the current global trends.

But it also mentioned that the models aren't predicting the weather in, say, the New England states, but rather global temperature/sea level/precipitation totals.

Here is the link in question: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Al Gore makes all of these arguements in his movie, but decided to ignore these "inconveinent truths" because they get in the way of his political ambitions.

---

I'm wondering what evidence you have to support your speculation on his motivations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElJay:
It's an interesting statement of character that you think it's worse to call someone dumb than dishonest.

---

That's very funny. Normally I would agree, but by charitable, I meant not calling him both dishoest and an idiot. I decided to settle on just dishonest, because in the case of a politician like Al Gore, dishonest always seems the safer bet.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
The big problem with the CO2 is that future archaeologists trying to date us will get funky radiocarbon results.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Not at all. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (or in organisms) has no particular effect on radiocarbon dating, as it relies only on the ratio of two carbon isotopes, one of which decays into the other, the ratio of which is roughly the same in the atmosphere and living creatures (due to breathing the atmosphere), and has been determined for many points in the past.

This variation creates some issues, but is hardly insurmountable given good data.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I just dont understand that if Al Gore is so smart, why did he not use the medium that he created, "The Internet" to further this effort, instead of making a motion picture?

I am sorry I just could not resist, I am bored at work.
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
KarlEd,

I probably am confusing several issues- unfortunately as I get older everything gets less clear (and I'm only 25 ). However, my confusion is not from mainstream media reporting, or NPR's Science Fridays. It's reading specialized magazines and seeing them comment on basically, themselves. I have enough to really learn on my plate without trying to learn enough to comprehend highly specialized scientific papers. I'm an electrical engineer, so I have a strong background in sciences and mathematics, but I realize that one cannot become an expert simply by reading enough papers in another field.

Therefore, I've attempted to read more scientific oriented magazines in order to be more literate. I find them very accessible, and with a lot more focus on the science as opposed to mainstream media which is more focused on political/social/economic issues.

I looked up that article I was talking about, and it only shows the first little bit. But the about-face is pretty obvious. If engineers designed like this science is done, your washing machine would take up a thousand square feet, cost $90 per load of laundry, and need to be adjusted every couple of weeks by a specialist.

The whole Global Warming theory seems clunky and pieced together. I don't know if there's a word for it, but it's almost like instead of taking observations and constructing the best theory it's constructing a theory and trying to fit any new observations into it.

I'm not suggesting that all the scientists that believe in it are dishonest. I think sometimes though, we see what we expect to see. My main contention is that I don't see any way for this thoery to be proven wrong. Whenever the data doesn't fit the predictions, instead of looking hard at the current theory I invariably hear, "Yes, although this contradicts computer models, in fact, this does support global warming. You see...."

So it's not the politicization of the issue that's confusing me, it's the community itself.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
BQT, it has momentum. Lots of velocity, and lots of mass, and it's just plowing over anyone who demurs. That's not really how science is done.
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
[aside]

I should have chosen better for my name. The abbreviation, BQT, sounds like some sort of crazy serial killer that keeps body parts in his fridge.

[/aside]
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
Sorry. Do you prefer BaoQingTian, or is there a short form? I try to call people what they'd prefer, particularly since almost everyone ignores my preference of Lisa, rather than StarLisa.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
[aside]

I should have chosen better for my name. The abbreviation, BQT, sounds like some sort of crazy serial killer that keeps body parts in his fridge.

[/aside]

---

quote:

---

The new membranes, developed by researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), could reduce the cost of desalination by 75 percent, compared to reverse osmosis methods used today, the researchers say. The membranes, which sort molecules by size and with electrostatic forces, could also separate various gases, perhaps leading to economical ways to capture carbon dioxide emitted from power plants, to prevent it from entering the atmosphere.

---

quote:

---

Indeed, the LLNL team measures water flow rates up to 10,000 times faster than would be predicted by classical equations, which suggest that flow rates through a pore will slow to a crawl as the diameter drops. "It's something that is quite counter-intuitive," says LLNL chemical engineer Jason Holt, whose findings appeared in the 19 May issue of Science. "As you shrink the pore size, there is a huge enhancement in flow rate."
The surprising results might be due to the smooth interior of the nanotubes, or to physics at this small scale -- more research is needed to understand the mechanisms involved. "In some physical systems the underlying assumptions are not valid at these smaller length scales," says Rod Ruoff, a physical chemist and professor of mechanical engineering at Northwestern University (who was not involved with the work).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
BQT, it has momentum. Lots of velocity, and lots of mass, and it's just plowing over anyone who demurs. That's not really how science is done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
I think the point is that dishonest is recoverable, but dumb is forever. In other words, if he's being dishonest, then there's hope for him.

---

But dumb people can learn things and trust smart people to help them. Dishonest people do things for the wrong reasons, or simply do the wrong things and lie about it.

I dunno, I can make a case for being dumb and for being dishonest, because they both carry advantages and weaknesses. Now being dumb AND dishonest.... well it hasn't worked out well for this administration.
 

---

Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
 
Well, according to the movie, CO2 buildup in the atmosphere can make some areas cooler and others warmer because it alters the paths of globe-spanning wind and ocean currents. As for CO2 concentration increasing and decreasing over time, the movie said that the CO2 level is now much higher than it's been in the past 650,000 years, and that this should be cause for alarm because in the past the Earth's average temperature has always risen and fallen with CO2 levels. And there are indications that this higher CO2 level is causing higher temperatures, such as the fact that the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 14 years.

Of course, it's possible that the methods used to determine past CO2 levels and temperatures are flawed. But until studies showing that appear, I think it's safer to cut back on CO2 emissions, at least in those ways that don't involve much financial sacrifice (which of course will be different for everyone). Once the CO2 is reduced to, say, 1950s levels, there may be other problems; but I don't think "we may cause other problems by solving this one" is a reason not to solve a problem you know about.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Whether or not there is consensus, whether or not there's even majority opinion-- minimizing the use of non-renewable energy sources is just practical sense.

Come on-- I don't need scientists to expound on ocean levels, or rain fall or any of that to know that being a smart consumer of energy (ie, CONSERVATIVE) is at least good for my pocket book.

It makes me happy to drive a car that gets 40 mpg.
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega M.:
As for CO2 concentration increasing and decreasing over time, the movie said that the CO2 level is now much higher than it's been in the past 650,000 years, and that this should be cause for alarm because in the past the Earth's average temperature has always risen and fallen with CO2 levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puppy:
Are people, at this point, willing to abandon this theory if new conflicting evidence appears? Or are we too deeply entrenched?

---

quote:

---

Rabbit has come down pretty solidly in saying that Global Warming is pretty much universally accepted.

---

quote:

---

Probably sounds crazy...

---

It's not crazy, but it's probably less effective for scientific issues than it would be for issues of political policy.
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Hey, you changed it while I was typing

Anyways, poor input and wording on my part. From past posts anyway, she's shown herself to be very much a supporter of the current theory. She'd be a good sounding board for some questions.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
Sorry I nitpicked, BTQ I'm just really itching for someone to answer my questions above, and the last thing I need is another rant from an environmentalist about how everyone smart agrees with him So I'm trying to make sure we all stay focused.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 

quote:

---

It's not crazy, but it's probably less effective for scientific issues than it would be for issues of political policy.

---

Unfortunately, when science overlaps with political policy, it's the only method some of us can find
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Tom,

That's just it though. I think you have a valid point there, and Karl as well when he talks about the poor state of science reporting in this country. I'd really like a completely neutral (as much as that is possible) magazine, website, etc that could address salient issues in science in an even-handed manner.

I run into the same problem with other scientific theories- it's not just exclusive to global warming. It's just a combination of the politicization of the topic and the urgent nature of this particular theory that bumps it up on my personal priority thread (as opposed to say the big bang theory).

Right now, I'm skeptical of what I understand of Global Warming theory. However, I haven't even come close to making up my mind about it. I just don't see a lot of the healthy skepticism in this science. Rather than looking at new evidence that didn't fit the model and developing a new hypothesis it seems like its forced to fit the current theory. Granted, this may be due to the wording of the reporting, but the impression is there for me.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
realclimate.org, while being liable to certain potshots (one of the climatoligists who helps run the site has been the center of attention for a while), seems pretty decent. Run in their free time, but several climate researchers, with fairly in-depth articles, and they respond to very complex critiques, in the comments, so they aren't ignoring people who try to question their articles.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlyingCow:
I am convinced that the global climate is increasing in temperature.

I am convinced that the activities of humans has contributed at least in small part to this, though this small part may be minute.

I am convinced that this change in climate is not solely due to human activity.

I am convinced that even if we stop all climate-affecting activities right now 100%, that the climate will continue to change.

I am convined that we, as humans, have little control over long term changes to the earth's environment. i.e. we will not stop an ice age should one begin to happen, nor will we stop the ice caps from melting entirely should that begin to happen.

I am convinced that the world has been warmer than it is now, and colder than it is now, and it will alternate between extremes whether humans existed or not.

---

quote:

---

I am convinced that there are plenty of other reasons to address environmental concerns and to reduce humanity's impact on its natural environment besides the idea of changing climate. (i.e. massive deforestation is bad for other reasons than its role in changing climate)

---

quote:

---

I am of the opinion that this film should be blasted all over the airwaves 3 times daily, mandatory viewing in all the schools from Kindergarden on to the Universities

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Regardless of those facts, everything he proposes that we do to halt global warming is beneficial for other reasons besides the issue of global warming. There are health reasons, national security reasons, economic reasons, diplomatic reasons, all of which add up to being beneficial to do, that don't really involve any dispute or debate, to the point where we should start doing them now, whilst still continuing this debate on global warming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
Kyoto Protocol anyone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk:
It takes a pinetree 30 years to reach maturity. Y'cut it down, yer wastin' 30 years o' good gardening.

---

quote:

---

I'm just of the opinion that if you offer people a strong, economical, immediate incentive to implement these things they're more likely to do it than they are as some sort of vague, do your part to save the world type of argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
However, I've read that Canada was projecting violations of 56% above treaty levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
The economic cost is considerable. It was estimated at about a 4.2% reduction of the U.S. GDP in 2010. Additionally, the estimated gains were almost insignificant. In bang for the buck terms, the Kyoto Protocol was a resounding failure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
I'm just of the opinion that if you offer people a strong, economical, immediate incentive to implement these things they're more likely to do it than they are as some sort of vague, do your part to save the world type of argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
Has turned out to be untrue for us. While Canadian companies were investing billions in scrubbers and other emissions-reducing devices, the Canadian economy led the G8 in growth. I believe it still does.

---

quote:

---

I think there's a huge demand for both hybrids and alternative fuel if you can get it cheap enough. Just stop trying to sell us on the environment and appeal to corporate greed and the public's cheapness.

---

quote:

---

In the mean time, let's drill locally. The time when we can power the world on a pitcher of water poured into a Mr Fusion is coming, but it's not here yet.

And for god's sake let's keep the government out of it as much as possible! Jeez they've already shown they can't do anything right!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
I think the Kyoto protocol has more than just some issues. It was fundamentally flawed and it's hard to find a story about it now that doesn't include failure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaoQingTian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
[qb]Has turned out to be untrue for us. While Canadian companies were investing billions in scrubbers and other emissions-reducing devices, the Canadian economy led the G8 in growth. I believe it still does.

---

This is disturbing as well. The computer models and top scientists, economists, and advisors turned out to be 100% wrong on this? Yet this is exactly what we are basing our global warming panic on. Only rather than predicting a completely human controlled system, the economy over the span of just a few years, we're attempting to predict an infinitely more complex system of nature and human interaction over the course of a hundred years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BaoQingTian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
Has turned out to be untrue for us. While Canadian companies were investing billions in scrubbers and other emissions-reducing devices, the Canadian economy led the G8 in growth. I believe it still does.

---

This is disturbing as well. The computer models and top scientists, economists, and advisors turned out to be 100% wrong on this? Yet this is exactly what we are basing our global warming panic on. Only rather than predicting a completely human controlled system, the economy over the span of just a few years, we're attempting to predict an infinitely more complex system of nature and human interaction over the course of a hundred years.

---

quote:

---

I'd bet that the climate models are more accurate than most economic models... So why do we listen to economists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bokonon:

Lyr, while hybrids are SOMEWHAT more complex, they aren't a lot more. There is NO second engine. There's a separate motor, but it't much simpler technology than the internal combustion engine itself. They use well known tech in the batters too (NiMH packs, I believe).

--
As for ANWR... If you are ympathetic to the criticism that Kyoto on gives us 6 years extra time, then ANWRs 10 years shouldn't be much of an incentive.

-Bok

---

quote:

---

What exactly is the difference between an engine and a motor? I've always wondered, and sort of been under the impression that there wasn't much of a substantive difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

---

quote:

---

I am convinced that there are plenty of other reasons to address environmental concerns and to reduce humanity's impact on its natural environment besides the idea of changing climate. (i.e. massive deforestation is bad for other reasons than its role in changing climate)

---

quote:

---

To which I would add that I consider myself an envornmentalist even though I reject Al Gore's arguements and message in the movie. You can reject the alarmists in the Al Gore camp, and still consider yourself an environmentalist. What's most distressing about this debate is the "your with us or against us" approach too many global warming advocates take on this issue.

---

In agreement with both of those statements...I don't understand why disbelief in Global Warming would excuse our level of pollution and destruction of resources.

Though I don't believe the assertions on Global Warming are fabricated, even if they were, the methods of stopping/reducing it are beneficial in a many other ways if implemented.
 

---

Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
 
Survival of the fittest.

Vegetarians are fit people. Y'know?
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Has anyone seen this article?

It claims that we are now the hottest the planet has been in 2000 years, which seems very contrary to many other things I've read about climate over the course of recent history.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Such as? the five hottest years on record, and I believe we've kept records for the last 100 years rather well at least, were all in the last what, six years?

Before that, the last really big warming trend was during Medieval Times I believe. We actually talked about this in history class, you can track some of the rise and fall of populations in Europe with the rise and fall of the temperature due to the increased and decreased planting seasons and lack of technology to really get around it.

That was, depending on which part of it you use, about 500 years ago, and if this was hotter than that, then it is indeed the hottest period since 2,000 years ago or so, perhaps more. Depends on how much faith you put into (I believe this is the right term) paleoclimatology, and ice cores (which I believe is basically the same thing).
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
I can't come to any solid conclusion on this issue, partly because so very much BS is thrown around.

Like my professor of computer science (who had a PhD) on a rather hot day in spring (I believe it was a local record) saying "Feel how hot it is outside! Global warming is a fact, not a myth. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded." The simple fact that we were having a record high was enough to convince her beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Yeah, okay, that's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. We'd had several record lows that winter, does that mean that global cooling is happening? In fact, I'm sure that in several places on earth at that exact day, record lows were being recorded.

Such a large amount of people have the same inability to view the subject logically, that it becomes impossible to separate good information from bullcrap.

I am more than willing to believe that global warming is a problem, and even that humans are largely to blame. I am not going to believe that based on "evidence" such as "the planet is the hottest its been in a couple thousand years" and I am certainly NOT going to be swayed by the fact that the last five years in the last 100 were the hottest ones.

Global temperature change is measured in hundreds of thousands of years, NOT the hottest year in the last 100. In a such a complex system as global climate, variations happen.

But people have no perspective. Its a hot day that day in their little corner of the world, and so global warming is obviously the cause .

Charts like this might put this point more in perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
It looks to me like the earth was far hotter than this around 125,000 years ago. Furthermore, it looks like our current temperatures are pretty darn par for the course in regards to how often the temperature spikes happen. In fact, it looks like our warming spike came a bit later than usual. I don't see how I could look at trends like those and not come away with the belief that global warming would happen around this time period, with or without humans here.

The graph does show that temperature and CO2 have a strong correlation, but what has caused the spikes in CO2 in the atmosphere back before human civilization? (I'm asking because I truly don't have any idea, which is one reason I find myself unable to form an opinion.)

Furthermore, something which no one has ever addressed to my satisfaction in these debates is the issue of ice ages.

Okay, its been about 10,000 years since the last Ice Age. Estimates I've seen have put the standard period between (mini)Ice Ages at around 12,000 years. So, what about the next Ice Age? How does that relate to the current warming trend? Do climatologists believe that the current warming will prevent the next Ice Age? If so, isn't that a good thing?

Looking back at the graph, it looks like there are almost always huge drops in temperature not long after a spike. In my mind, a huge temperature drop sounds a lot more damaging to our species than a temperature increase. If we completely remove all human based CO2 production, it looks pretty clearly like we will hit another cool phase.

And what about Volcanic activity? Again, from the graph, large amounts of dust in the air very strongly correlates with a drop in temperature. So will the next super-volcano that erupts plunge us into the next Ice Age? If it did, would there be a global effort to produce large amounts of CO2 to counter-act it?

I have too many questions, and even though I often follow the debates here, I still don't have enough information to form an intelligent conclusion.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Well, NASA released tempature reading on a global level, and they said were are in an overall COOLING trend, despite local hot spots.


Weird.

I'll see if I can find that linky.....
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Well said Xavier. You've put it much better than me some reasons why I've been unable to come to some conclusions on the matter. However, I constantly get my questions dismissed by statements like, "Well, Big Oil is paying out millions to make you confused about this." It gets tiring.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 

quote:

---

Such a large amount of people have the same inability to view the subject logically, that it becomes impossible to separate good information from bullcrap.

---

quote:

---

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."
Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

---

quote:

---

It claims that we are now the hottest the planet has been in 2000 years, which seems very contrary to many other things I've read about climate over the course of recent history.

---

quote:

---

It looks to me like the earth was far hotter than this around 125,000 years ago. Furthermore, it looks like our current temperatures are pretty darn par for the course in regards to how often the temperature spikes happen.

---

quote:

---

At this point, if 1000 scientists were to produce new and conflicting evidence, they'd be shot down one at a time as being vastly outnumbered. Unless they managed to do it all at once.

---

quote:

---

New data has shown that the
European Union (EU) remains embarrassingly off track for meeting its pledges under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN climate-change pact it championed after a US walkout.
ADVERTISEMENT

Instead of falling, EU greenhouse-gas pollution actually rose in the latest year of monitoring, adding to the task of meeting the Kyoto goals, according to figures released by the European Environment Agency (EAA) in Copenhagen.

---