Before we switched over to our new look in September 2007, we had a pretty robust discussion on global warming in the comments section - and thought it was worth preserving...

Global warming comments

For folks who profess to be

Submitted by ewoc on Sun, 2006-12-24 02:04.
For folks who profess to be generally "educated" about the issues, you guys are remarkably clueless about global heating a.k.a. climate change.
By way of background, I am an environmental lawyer with a long history of involvement in this issue. You state that scientists are divided on the issue of whether increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to human activities, and whether increases in global temps are the result of fossil fuel combustion and related activities, or simply a result of natural climate cycles.
You are profoundly misrepresenting the current state of the science, as well as doing a pretty good job of carrying water for the climate sceptics, who are almost to the man (or woman, in extremely rare cases) the fossil fuel industries and their apologists. Even the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the last remaining troglodyte think tanks on climate change issues, now admits that the climate is warming, though they claim that global heating will be good for everyone, a la Putin, who looks forward to a world where warm clothing is no longer necessary in Siberia.
There is virtually no serious debate that current warming trends are not "natural," in any sense of the word, and are so rapid that they represent a threat both to ecosystem stability, and to our economic system (witness the Stern Report to the UK govt issued last month, as well as the IPCC report to be released in February 2007). On your website, you mention that the range of heating in the upcoming IPCC report is as high as 4.5 degrees centigrade this century. Do you have any idea what a more than 10 degree F increase in global temperature would mean? If not, I suggest that you do more research, because it would mean the end of life as we have known it for thousands of years.
The IPCC is a consensus process - there are representatives from most countries, including Saudia Arabia and other OPEC nations. By its very nature, the IPCC could not achieve consensus without watering down its conclusions significantly. If you are familiar with the state of the current science, you will recognize that we are currently increasing CO2 levels by about 3% PER YEAR during the current decade (vs. less than 1% during the 90s, probably a result of Chinese economic growth, achieved by massive burning of coal, and feedback loops kicking in, as in Arctic and Greenland ice sheets melting, and tundra releasing methane on a massive scale)......which if we extrapolate from current levels of 382 ppm, we will achieve levels of 550 ppm within little more than a dozen years. This represents the scientific consensus on the upper levels of what might be considered "safe" CO2 readings in the atmosphere. Many climate scientists believe exceeding that level puts us into the realm of potential catastrophic and uncontrollable changes in our climate. I suggest you do some research into the climate changes already occurring in the Arctic, Siberia, Antarctica, and other Northern regions, which are predicted by the sophisticated computer models to be the "canaries in the coal mine" for anthropogenic climate change.
I would assert that you do your readers little service by minimizing the potential risks posed by the "business as usual" scenario. The weight of the scientific consensus is quite heavily allied against the position of the sceptics, and giving them credence at this point in history is, in my view and the view of many others, a serious mistake. Outside of the US they have little or no credibility, and for very good reasons.

ewoc - thanks for you

Submitted by jkamin on Sun, 2006-12-24 10:24.
ewoc - thanks for you comment. They were all well taken and, after reviewing this page, I agreed with you that some edits were called for. I put more emphasis on this page that, yes, there's no dispute on whether humans are adding to global warming - but that some sceptics still are not 100% convinced humans are adding a significant amount to warming.  (The page had said as much before, but on second look I agreed with you that we may have been too subtle about it.) I also made a note that those sceptics really are in the minority - something that we say on our pro/con page but that, again after reading your comment and reviewing this page, we thought we should bring up front.
On a completely separate note, while we are enormously grateful for your - and all readers' - comments, particularly when they bring more information and understanding to an issue, as yours does, we're also trying to create a site where everyone feels they will be respected (if not necessarily their views).  While we don't mind being called "clueless" (okay, maybe a little), we encourage you to be careful in future comments (which, again, we hope you make) not to disparage the author while disagreeing with their information and views.  Thanks!

Okay, I apologize and agree

Submitted by ewoc on Sun, 2006-12-24 14:11.
Okay, I apologize and agree to tone it down next time!
To explain further, I was taken aback by the content of your piece on climate change, given that you folks seem to be intelligent, rational, and non-ideological.
It seems that many folks in the US (as opposed to Western Europe and other parts of the developed world) have been unduly influenced by the well-funded campaign by Exxon/Mobil and other corporate interests, to make a handful of the same "usual suspect" climate change deniers appear to be a counter-balance to the thousands of scientists in the field whose work indicates the seriousness of this problem. Their work overwhelmingly implies that while we have time to take the necessary steps to stabilize and then reduce carbon emissions and forestall a very bad outcome, we probably don't have a lot of time, given the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and the evidence that feedback loops (read: irreversible) are beginning to kick in. As I suggested, do the math yourself using the figures I provided, and you'll see where we are going....prior increases in carbon were .8%/year, now they are about 3%/year. That's a huge difference!
Key nations in the rest of the world (India, and to an extent, China, for example) point to US inaction, dithering, and denial to support their own policies (although this appears to be changing as both of these huge nations realize the impact that global heating will have on them...). The longer we in the US are persuaded to continue our current approach of doing next to nothing about this problem by the illusion of a "debate" in the scientific community, the greater the chance that when we finally step up and act as the world's leader, it will be very late in the game. I hate to sound too much like a prophet of doom, but all the evidence indicates that this is indeed a challenge that will require a massive coordinated response on a civilization-wide scale if we are to leave our kids (my son is 6 today) a reasonably livable planet.
thanks for listening, and happy holidays.

Just a lot of hot air. There

Submitted by dabal on Fri, 2007-01-19 15:00.
Just a lot of hot air.
There is one significant contributor to the temperature of the Earth, and that is the Sun.
Which, quite simply, is why the rest of the solar system is experiencing the exact same recession of polar ice that our planet is experiencing.
Pollution is a problem. Global warming is a problem.
The latter is a problem man can do NOTHING about, unless he develops a solar shade for the planet and learns how to stop a volcano from erupting (which is, by the way, causing more CO2 contribution to our atmosphere than any other sources combined, by several orders of magnitude).
I don't work for any oil company, and I don't know anyone who does. Your assertion that "global warming skeptics" are all on Exxon's payroll is ludicrous and disingenuous, and indicative of weakness in your own argument, having had to resort to ad hominem attacks of those who do not share your assumptions.
I have more to contribute on the subject, but I will add nothing further until you can counter these observations with something of substance. I won't hold my breath.
Thanks,
Dabal

Unfortunately, science is

Submitted by beaz on Fri, 2007-02-02 14:08.
Unfortunately, science is not based on "consensus", but on fact. Is the earth warming? Evidently so. Is this anything out of the ordinary? Evidently not, hence the ice age. Was that from a lack of auto emissions?
To think that the effect that man has on global warming will contribute to a cataclysmic event/events in the near future is a valid point and should be cause for concern. The problem is how much should we be concerned.
I have yet to lose any sleep over the fear monger scientists who are paid to travel around the world, preaching their "consensus". They need to be sitting at home producing FACT that can be substantiated if any exists.
Natural occurrences have endend life on this planet as many knew it before without burning fossil fuels. Why would we believe we are exempt from such happenings today?

Beaz - So much of what you

Submitted by jkamin on Sun, 2007-02-04 13:01.
Beaz - So much of what you say is right on.
I agree that we as humans tend to have a naive notion that we are somehow exempt from nature doing us in on a whim (even with our experience with 2005's Tsunami and Katrina).
You also have a great point that global warming "science" is not really scientific, given that it doesn't really have a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven (that is, we can't exactly experiment with a bunch of earths to test different theories).
At the same time, even though climate change "science" isn't a science, it doesn't mean it's not useful. Climatology is a lot like economics in that way. Economics can't do experiments, but it can look at the facts it finds in the world, make sense of them as best it can and come up with ideas on how to manipulate economies to avoid risks like hyper-inflation, depression, etc.  Of course there's more room for trial and error with economics, but it still comes down to educated guesswork.
Global warming climatologists are really just doing that - a lot of educated guesswork. Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to come up with a "fact" that humans are warming the earth or a "fact" that we can reverse the process. Even so, just as economists - it can be argued - have done a lot to prevent macroeconomic risks, it may be that climatologists can use their combined intelligent guesswork to ward off a global disaster. (At least, I hope ;-)

ewoc... Thank you for your

Submitted by sjvinc on Tue, 2007-02-06 17:44.
ewoc... Thank you for your comments.
If you do not believe what scientists are warning about today, go take a look at ipcc.ch or ucsusa.org. Look around the area you live in... Have the seasons changed over the past 20 years? Have you noticed a warmer trend? Are you noticing more storms? Be honest with yourself when you think of these things. I think you might just agree things are changing.
To do nothing about global warming is almost criminal, You can do something - we all can. While I might have very little money to make major changes, I have taken some very important steps in lowering the amount of CO2 I produce.I have planted trees in my yard, I currently use energy saver light bulbs in my house (yes, they are as bright as regular light bulbs with a fraction of energy use), I walk, ride a bike or car pool more often, I have consolidated the trips I must make in my vehicle. I plan to switch to an alternative fuel by summers end (Im disabled, money must be saved for these big expenses). The point is, If I can do it and not complain... Others can too.
I almost forgot, This is a democratic society... most of us are going to agree to not agree.
I could say, how do you want to be remembered in history. The problem with global warming, if enough people do nothing and continue to add to the problem - what future will we have to look back on history?
Global Warming:
I highly recommend: An Inconvienent Truth .
IPCC.ch (2/27/2007): Humans are 90% responsible for Global Warming! http://www.ipcc.ch
Want to take action? : http://www.ucsusa.org/

sjvinc - I'm right behind

Submitted by jkamin on Wed, 2007-02-07 14:02.
sjvinc - I'm right behind you on thinking we should collectively be doing something to slow carbon emissions (being a New Yorker who only walks or takes the subway, it's pretty easy for me to do so - although i do occasionally fly and my radiator has been working overtime lately).
At the same time, I have to come to ewoc's defense.  Ewoc - and the many Americans who think we shouldn't being taking aggressive steps to slow carbon emissions - are not in denial, are not delusional and are certainly not criminal.  They actually have what I consider a rational basis for arguing that aggressively curbing carbon emissions is not a wise policy.  I disagree, but it is a reasonable place to stand. 
The basic - non-criminal - argument goes like this: even though global warming is likely and there's even a good chance that humans are at least partly responsible for increasing warming, there is still a great amount of uncertainty about how global warming will play out and how much we can slow or reverse the warming trends.  Even if you look at IPCC's projections, if we stop emitting any carbon into the atmosphere from this moment on, the globe will still get warmer. Radically cutting emissions, meanwhile, can be expensive - for us, but more importantly for developing nations that need cheap energy to develop and help their citizens rise out of poverty. Given the uncertainty of global warming and the certainty of world poverty, does it really make sense to put a damper on development to stop a disaster that may or may not occur?
Again - I don't agree with that argument, but if people like ewoc are right - and we're wrong - then they could very well be calling us criminal in years to come by saying our policies kept many impoverished countries from developing and so continuing poverty, disease, malnourishment, etc.
Whoever's right, I think it's best to leave off calling each other criminals for seeing things differently.  Both you and ewoc have a lot to add to helping us all understand this complicated and important issue.  Thanks for continuing to add to the dialogue!
PS. Sorry if I sound school marmy - I actually had a long discussion with a bunch of people last night about how the two sides of the global warming debate so often simplify and dumb-down the other side's views, so I think I might be being extra sensitive today!

Autobobm Wow SJVINC, you

Submitted by Autobob on Thu, 2007-02-08 14:44.
Autobobm
Wow SJVINC, you have realy bought into the hype! For you to state (unsupported) that man is responsible for 90% of global warming AND THEN recommend Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is absurd! Al Gore's movie has been discredited on so many levels! Please research solar activity vs. climate on a per century basis as apposed to good old Al's 500,000 year chart. You will see that solar activity has a direct effect on climate (more/hotter, less/colder). Also, ewoc mentioned Greenlands ice sheet. Climatologists have stated that these ice sheets are melting at a rate of .7% per century! That's right, less than 1% per 100 years! Do you remember in the 1970's when they told use that the next ice age was coming? They recommended that we spread black soot on the polar ice caps to help them retain some heat! Where would we be today had we listened then? I agree that we should all reduce our carbon footprint, but lets keep our heads about us.

Autobob and cJ readers

Submitted by jkamin on Thu, 2007-02-08 15:38.
Autobob and cJ readers -
While all your comments are thought provoking and edifying, as cJ's editor, I must implore to you take it easy on the rhetoric.
I think you'll agree there are plenty of sites where one can post comments that doubt and denigrate the intelligence of other readers. Please, let's not add citizenJoe to that list.
Let's value each other as thoughtful citizens, working through and trying to understand complex issues.  We gain nothing by telling each other we're "criminal" or we've "bought the hype" or our comments are "absurd" - except perhaps deterring others from adding their thoughtful comments.
Again - please keep the facts, insights and enlightening comments coming - but leave out the disparaging remarks. Thanks! 
Your grateful editor.

Autobobm My appologies to

Submitted by Autobob on Thu, 2007-02-08 16:27.
Autobobm
My appologies to both SJVINC and our grateful editor. I ment no offense, I just get a little hot (excuse the pun) when discussing Al Gore's movie. I have read that the Krakatau eruption in 1883 is said to have released more greenhouse gases than all of the industrial and automotive contributions in the history of mankind. My own research tells me that they have found fosilized palm fronds in the Rocky Mountains, and that glaciers have been receding since the ice age. I recently heard that the Martian ice caps are receding. My own conclusion is that global temperature is cyclical, and though we should always opt to minimize polution, we will not have any great effect one way or the other. I personally have built a very energy efficient home, and I drive a fuel efficient car, and though this does make me feel good environmentally, it makes me feel far better financially. Yes, I admit it, I conserve because it saves me lots of money! This, I have found, is one of the best ways to get others to be fuel efficient.

George Mondie Almost

Submitted by George R. Mondie on Mon, 2007-02-12 17:21.
George Mondie
Almost universally ignored - and sadly ignored in this writeup - is the fact that the Kyoto treaty was overwhelmingly voted down by the U.S. Senate long before George W. Bush was elected president. Its international authors and supporters were recognized by both parties as strongly antagonistic to U.S. interests. Also ignored is the "progress" of signatories as compared to their commitments. Generally, the third world made few commitments, and the signatories in the developed economies have failed to come anywhere near their targets. One "third world" country in particular, China, has rapidly become a major producer of pollutants.
Average (4 votes):

George, What a great point.

Submitted by Autobob on Tue, 2007-02-13 18:16.
George,
What a great point. I have read that not only are non-industrial nation signers allowed to increase their polutants, they may also sell as credits any "allowed" increases that were not met to countries that exceeded their "allowed" polution. This sounds to me like it's all about the money and an ettempt to shift some portion of controll over the United States to the "World Comunity." Tell me how it helps anything if everyone is allowed to continue emisions as they are BUT we must write a healthy check to the non-industrial countries every so often?
Autobob

Just so you know 'it's not

Submitted by mb on Wed, 2007-02-14 20:02.
Just so you know 'it's not all about the US.
The rest of the world is concerned about the future of our planet 'so our children have somewhere to live'
we all want to look after jobs and not be overtaken by other nations, but most of the rest of the world has accepted that we need to do something now to stand any chance of halting sea level rises. Just ask the tsunami survivors how it will affect them
unfortunately all the best efforts of the rest of the world will be negated by the worlds worst polluter U.S.A.
China and India have an excuse for pollution
George W obviously couldn't understand this principal
Thats right if you keep telling yourself everything is cosy it will be ok
'WAKE UP'

Hey MB - Your school marmy

Submitted by jkamin on Wed, 2007-02-14 22:43.
Hey MB - Your school marmy editor has a request - could you please remove the final three lines of your comment?  As you'll see from some of the conversation above, we're really trying to keep all comments respectful of other readers' intelligence. The same goes for politicians. I'm generally not a fan of most (including our president), but at citizenJoe we like to stick to talking about specific policies, not specific politicians. Thanks for understanding!

MB, I'm not sure where you

Submitted by Autobob on Fri, 2007-02-16 11:51.
MB,
I'm not sure where you are arriving at the "best efforts of the rest of the world" conclusion. The industrialized nations have not cut their polutants. This is true accross the board and their position on the Kyoto Treaty does not affect this fact. The non-industrialized nations must first industrialize and add more polutants before they can make any effort to reduce these polutants. Also, please clarify your position that "China and India have an excuse for polution" and what principal our current addministration cannot grasp. It sounds as if there is a double standard here, and your attempt to justify this double standard is not clear. Thank you in advance for helping me see this more clearly.
Autobob

According to an article I

Submitted by msshel0 on Fri, 2007-02-16 12:25.
According to an article I recently read (There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998, The Telegraph, Bob Carter), the average temperature did not increase any from 1998-2005, if the USA has not cut emmisions, then why didn't the temperature continue to increase. The same article also pointed out "...the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate." I don't understand why these things would have occured if man was responsible for global warming. Can someone clarify the science for me?
Thanks,
msshel0

msshel0 - I'm not familiar

Submitted by jkamin on Fri, 2007-02-16 13:21.
msshel0 - I'm not familiar with the Bob Carter article or with the stats on temperature increases from '98-'05, but the cooling from '40 to '65 has been explained to me before.  I'm searching into the hazy recesses of my muddy mind, but I think it goes something like this:
During the relatively stable climate we've been so lucky to live in (since the last ice age), there is a natural ebb and flow of global temperatures of a couple degrees farenheit - that looks kind of like a sine curve (for those not recalling high school trig, that's just a repeating wavey line).  The '40 - '65 dip was one of the natural ebbs.  What global warmist worry, though, is that the whole sine curve is tilted upward. It's like an ant crawling up a staircase - it may be making it's way along a step thinking "wow, this staircase is really flat" but it's obviously missing the fact that overall the staircase is moving up. 
Here's the IPCC's graph of temperatures - including the midcentury dip. A picture may be clearer - http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.24.jpg

JKamin, Please look at this

Submitted by Autobob on Fri, 2007-02-16 15:09.
JKamin,
Please look at this report which states that the IPCC's computer projections are incorrect. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf
I have found as much information against man made global warming theory as I have found for it. I have found articles from the sixties showing the global climate change toward another ice age. Al Gore has stated that the data used in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was exaggerated to show a point. When dealing with science and facts, "exaggerated to show a point" = lied to support a theory. My point here is that if each side does not commit to using science and fact to achieve a conclusion instead of exaggerating fact to achieve a goal, we will never be able to have a concensus in that the truth will lie somewhere between the exaggerations.

Correct me if I'm wrong but

Submitted by SoylentG on Thu, 2007-03-01 03:27.
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't scientists and institutions that are NOT affiliated with big business and oil spend more money on climte change theory and study?? Pretty sure thats true. If anyone has the actual numbers readily available I would be interested to see them.
Also. I thought the recent IPCC study found that there very likely isn't anything that we can do to reduce the possible/very likely human influence on global climate change.
From the study:
"Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected." Thats if levels of CO2s were kept constant at 2000 levels. They weren't and with Chinas economy growing at 10% and their lack of regulation for pollution along with other developing nations, the levels are bound to increase. This isn't to say we should waste fuel and foul up the air. We shouldn't.
I too am bothered by Al Gores film:
I think he should have based his documentary on different documents, on the scientific estimates that reflected the consensus, not the scariest numbers he could muster up. The projected rise in sea levels he used were at the very top of the charts, extreme by the standards of most scientists, the recent IPCC study projects an increase of 7"-23" not 20 feet.
I also think that Gore should conserve energy by using less of his massive home. MY GOD! Surely he could plug off a few rooms. He should conserve energy AND he should invest in alternative energies as well. That is if he really wants to lead. What kind of a wierd sale of indulgences are we getting into when we can buy off wasting energy?
I'm concerned that people ARE treating this stuff like a religion. I like religion, but when people lie to me to get me to do whats "morally right" and scare me into writing a check it smells like bad religion. When people can buy their way out of sin it smells like bad religion. When it gets intwined with my government its a really bad religion.
If Gore wants to do his nation a favor he should just tell us the truth, no matter how inconveniently unscary it might be. The last time somebody exagerrated some figures to scare is into doing the right thing it got us into a messy war. The truth is usually scary enough. I looked up the real numbers on Global Climate Change and they are still plenty scary. But not as scary as bad policies.
Simply put, in my opinion, bad government kills. Inappropriate action could easily lead to economic disturbances that would make lower class Americans very uncomfortable and could literally kill some of our impoverished neighbors. Furthermore, one dollar wasted on a futile cause or a phantom fear (not saying Global Warming is one of these mind you) is one dollar no longer available for immediate problems of human need and suffering. Everybody needs to be involved in cost benefits analysis, even environmentalists.
Finally. This is just my curiosity talking but could it be that there is a primitive biological impulse or need for an apocolyptic myth? Again. If anyone can direct me to the readings I am very interested in that hypothosis/educated guess.

JKamin, Please consider

Submitted by Autobob on Tue, 2007-03-06 11:33.
JKamin,
Please consider removing the false statement "Although citizenJoe presents global warming as a debate, we should note that the majority of scientists and a growing number of economists believe that human activity is a significant cause of global warming" from your "what the debates about" note. This is a myth that has been established and perpetuated by the man made climate change proponents with great help from the liberal media. Please look at this Mercury News article, http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/16836601.htm
which points out many of the contradictions in the IPPC study that are a result of bad models and projections. One of the most interesting points is that the sea level increase is not at all what has been stated "The summary notes an increase in mean sea level of 7 inches during the 20th century, with a forecast rise of an additional 7 to 23 inches by 2100. Observations, however, do not agree with these predictions. Stockholm, which has the world's longest sea level measurement record of about 1,200 years, has shown increases in sea level of only plus-or-minus 0.06 inches per year, with an average very close to zero; these observations are well below the model predictions."
Also, I hate to keep going back to "An Inconvenient Truth", but usually, if you follow a money trail, you can better understand the reason for pushing a certain claim. I have recently read that Al Gore's huge (20 times the average) energy consumption is excused because he purchases "carbon offsets" to become carbon neutral. These "carbon offsets" are actually investments in Generation Investment Management, a company of which he is the Chairman. This company invests in "green companies" among others, but is in business to invest and make a return for their clients. Al Gore buys stocks, not "carbon offsets", and he expects a return on these stocks, and the more people he helps sway to do the same, the more returns he will see! I have not seen any financials for the company, but I would imagine that Al Gore also receives an income for his roll as Chairman of this company. I believe this to be a form of environmental terrorism, when such an effort is made to scare humanity for the end result of personal financial gain.
Autobob

I am rather new to the

Submitted by Irish72 on Thu, 2007-03-15 08:38.
I am rather new to the global warming discussion but after reading the bulk of this thread of discussion I would like to add this thought. Isn't alot of what we are grappling with, when it comes to the issue of global warming, an issue of responsibility. I mean, after all, isn't the whole point of seeking clean renewable sources of energy and good environmental policy about leaving the earth in as good as shape as possible for our children. (Yep, you guessed it...I have a son who's eight and a daughter who's 5) Talking about gloabal warming's future effects is really a discussion about what we can do about it. All statistic battles aside, it really doesn't matter to me if we are causing 90% or 9% or 0.9% of global warming. I think we can all agree that there is strong factual evidence that it is real. In light of that, I have a responsibility to care for the earth. I have a responsibility not just to my kids but to every single person that has added to this discussion. That responsibility is to not trash your world or my world if I can help it. As far as policy is concerned, I would love to see any policy that aids in having a better environment passed. I would love it even more if that policy made caring for our environment more affordable. Until then, I am willing to pay a little bit higher price for the things that help us breathe cleaner air. For me it is more about principle than knowing every single statistic. Not that I don't take in the basic info and numbers but as they say, "It's the principle of the thing." For me, global warming is about the principle of the thing. We have been ENTRUSTED to CARE for the earth and are therefore RESPONSIBLE to do what we can to make it better so that the future can be a brighter...umm...I mean cooler place to live. Thanks to everybody for all of the good info I have seen by reading your comments and thanks for considering these thoughts.

Irish72, Welcome aboard. I

Submitted by Autobob on Thu, 2007-03-15 16:46.
Irish72,
Welcome aboard. I understand your interest in keeping the world a nice place for our kids (mine are 2, 5, and 7), I share that concern. I feel that mankind has done a lot in recent decades to clean-up the environment. I'm originally from Pittsburgh, the former steel capital, and to look at that area compared to the 50's and 60's is a 180º turn around. No longer do the residents die young from black lung disease and fish actually live in the three rivers. My concern is that if we are supposed to naturally cycle through colder and hotter periods, are we being responsible stewards if we attempt to alter that? If we manage to alter the norm, what then will happen when we are supposed to be cycling back toward cold? I fear that our species tries far to hard to control the environment and often makes things worse through the law of unforseen consequences. I believe, as you do, that it is our responsibility to keep the environment as clean as we can, but I do not think we should do anything to try and alter what is more likely than not a natural cycle. As I stated above, what if we had spread black soot on the polar ice caps back in the 1970's, as was sugested, to reduce global cooling? We would probably be much hotter today.
Autobob

So, to all of you on either

Submitted by leishman on Sun, 2007-03-25 09:34.
So, to all of you on either side of the issue, I have a basic question: What, exactly, is the IDEAL temperature of the earth? Or, if you wish to hedge your answer, then What, exactly, is the ideal temperature RANGE of the earth?
Before answering, please consider that fifty thousand years ago, during the last ice age, most of what is now the upper half of the U.S. was covered in hundreds of feet of ice. Is this the IDEAL temperature? Or, to pick a more recent time, it was cold enough in England during the "little ice age" that the Thames froze in London enough to allow a winter ice festival. On the warmer side, Europe had some of its greatest cultural development--and prosperity--during the time of Rome (0 B.C.E.) and the Medieval Warm Period (population growth, Gothic cathedrals); both of these periods were warmer than the present day.
Much like family members arguing over the thermostat setting in the living room, much of the debate on global warming centers on what setting is best, and for whom.
The "science" brought to this issue is in its infancy, and not of much help to us in 2007. The politicization of science cuts both ways. For every "denier" scientist beholden to "big oil", there is a "supporter" scientist who is posturing to keep the next grant coming. The history of science is replete with "consensus" which was dead wrong--just ask Copernicus or Galileo.

My point throughout this

Submitted by Autobob on Mon, 2007-03-26 13:36.
My point throughout this discusion is that it doesn't matter what we think the ideal temperature is, mother nature will cycle the thermostat as she sees fit, and to think we can make any substantial change to that is wrong. Much like a discusion of wheather or not we should stop tectonic plates from shifting because we don't like the earthquakes it causes or stop volcano's from erupting because an island wouldn't look good there. We give ourselves too much credit. Nothing wrong with reducing polution and cleaning up the environment, but to think we are the be-all-end-all is, I think, an ego trip for some.
Autobob

First, those of you claiming

Submitted by Favre4Favre on Tue, 2007-03-27 17:47.
First, those of you claiming co2 is THE cause for global warming need to lay off the koolaid and head to your local library and do some research for yourself. co2 is not the most pervasive green house gas, water vapor is.
Secondly, need to do some reading on the effects of the SUN on our climate and how sun spot activity DIRECTLY CORRELATES to the earths temperature. The effects of solar radiation on our atmosphere, more specifically cloud cover, have more effect on our temp than co2. Core samples have shown much greater co2 levels in the past without the presence on the industrial human.

Favre4favre, Great point.

Submitted by Autobob on Wed, 2007-03-28 13:47.
Favre4favre,
Great point. With water vapor being the main greenhouse gas, and the only bi-product of the hydrogen fuel cell, what happens if we perfect this fuel cell technology. Instead of millions of cars belching slightly dirty co2, we will be pumping huge amounts of additional water vapor into the air. What then? I hope they don't ask that we just start walking everywhere! Whatever we do, there will be someone yelling stop. I think SoylentG had it right with the statement that man has "a primitive biological impulse or need for an apocolyptic myth"
Autobob

Autobob and Favre4Favre -

Submitted by jkamin on Thu, 2007-03-29 08:20.
Autobob and Favre4Favre -
From what I've heard, you're absolutely right, water vapor is by far the biggest greenhouse gas, but what scientists usually say is that there's a big difference between CO2 and water vapor - that is, water vapor cycles in and out of the atmosphere all the time (clouds, rain) but when CO2 gets into the atmosphere it stays there for years (decades of them).  In other words, if we all started putting our kettles to boil or taking steam baths tomorrow, we might be able to get more water vapor into the atmosphere for a day, but the atmosphere would get itself back to water vapor equilibrium by the next thunderstorm.  CO2 doesn't cycle out but sticks around for years warming up the atmosphere (until it's sucked back to earth by plants for photosynthesis, for example).

JKamin, Isn't that sucking

Submitted by Autobob on Thu, 2007-03-29 10:20.
JKamin,
Isn't that sucking back to earth by plants for photosynthesis happening on a daily basis? This is the cycle that produces the oxygen that we need. All of these cycles taking place constantly is what keeps eveything going, correct? I have recently read an article that says that the increased CO2 is actually a result of global warming and that the seas give off more CO2 when warmed. Also, in an article by NASA scientists (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319), they have compared records of the Nile waterlevel with records of increased solar activity and found that solar activity is a reliable indicator of global climate change.
Water vapor cycles, CO2 cycles, solar activity cycles, why do we find it so hard to believe that climate cycles with or without our input?
Autobob

Jkamin The ocean is a great

Submitted by Favre4Favre on Thu, 2007-03-29 10:25.
Jkamin
The ocean is a great "carbon sink" where as much as 50% of our breathable o2 comes from the plant life and the ocean stores up to 50 time what the atmosphere does and it is needed to feed the plants which produce the o2. Without co2 we would not have the o2 we need to survive. Now i am not saying cutting polution is bad, i am just saying if human activity is affecting climate, it is negligable as the amount of co2 in our atmosphere makes up something like .013% of it. If Global Warming was caused by the co2 then the upper atmosphere would be warming faster and more intensly thant the lower or even surface temperature as happens in the green house experiments conducted in the lab show but is not how the planet is warming. The planet is warming but the question is is this bad or unnatural? Compareed to what? Does anyone know what the optimal tempp for earth should be? How does co2 explain the mideval warming period or the little ice age? It doesn't but solar activity can be shown to be directly perportional to the increas or decrease in earths temp. Trying to stop global warming is like trying to stop the tides, cant be done. While everyone is looking at co2 they are ignoring all the other potential factors that humans have no controll over such as solar activity, cosmic radiation, and even our own magnetic field. I am shocked by these so called scientist that wish to stiffel debate because i was taught as a physics major to never stop questioning that which has not yet been proven and to constantly apply the scientific method to all research. Theories are nice, but axioms are better if you wish to pass off something as fact.
The biggest problem i have with GW is the carbon trading scheme. How does taxing co2 reduce the amount produced? This is like saying cigaretts are bad for you and are killing you but instead of taking them away we will prey on your addicition and raise the price. The rich will still be able to afford the extra cost but not the poor so who will suffer? Poor and 3rd world countries. This is just a socialist plan to share wealth and if it goes into effect what say you we start up companies to get an allotment of co2 credits and we then just sell them. That is exsactly what the 3rd world will do and the co2 will remain the same or even increase but by paying we will fell better about ourselves like Gore. A better use of the money they plan to sink into GW would be finding ways to survive off this rock we call earth and slow population growth which is more of an immediate threat thatn co2 and GW.

I love the theory of global

Submitted by melissaegan1 on Sat, 2007-03-31 15:37.
I love the theory of global warming. It's cute, it's a good theory, and I'd love to be able to believe it. Unfourtunately, there just aren't the science or the facts to back it up. In case you haven't noticed, we live in a culture of fear, where the media capitlaizes on that fear to make money. Politicians are using this myth to detract from the real issues, which is the real crime. The Arctic is getting COLDER, the Arctic ice sheet is getting THICKER. The IPCC is run by politicians (how ethical are they?) and any scientist who has voiced a dissenting opinion on pertaining to the so-called "consensus" of scientists about global warming have been ridiculed and silenced. The earth goes through natural heating and cooling periods, such as the medieval warming period in Europe, where temperatures were much higher than at any time in the 20th or 21st centuries. Oh, and the apparent 10 degrees the earth is going to heat up in the next century is based on computer models that are NEVER correct. All past predictions of the implications of "global warming" based on these computer models are way off, so how can we expect the future ones to be accurate? Sea levels have not risen and are not rising, and the global temperature has not raised a degree in the last century. There are some facts for you, and I feel sorry for all of you weak minded, easily influenced people who blindly believe and put your money behind everything you are told. Look at the real facts, not a biased, politically influenced documentary or the fear-mongering media, and maybe you'll be enlightened.

Thank you for showing me

Submitted by Bassman on Wed, 2007-04-04 14:02.
Thank you for showing me that not everyone in the world has gone insane.
As a Ph.D in chemistry, I have worked for several manufacturing companies as an environmental chemist. I have actually prevented pollution on a day to day basis. I have helped reduce chemical cosumption and saved the company money at the same time. Ive actuall done somethig to make the environment better. what I appreciate about this thread is that as more scientific FACTS are brought out and the motives for the GW proponents are exposed, the less I read supporting the high priest of GW, Al Gore. One of the biggest fallicies of the debate is that CO2 is a pollutant. It isn't. As stated above, it's part of the cabon cycle. It keeps life going on this planet. A pollutant harms life.

JKamin, I would like to,

Submitted by Autobob on Fri, 2007-04-06 11:12.
JKamin,
I would like to, once again, respectfully request that you change the note under "What the debate's about" to remove the false statement about the majority of scientists believing that "human activity is a significant cause of global warming". Not only is it not a majority of scientists, but now it seams as if even the scientists are sick of hearing this and are speaking out more and more. You now have what I will call a reducing number of scientists. You ask that we let you know if you have let some slant slip in, and I believe I am doing just that. Thank you in advance for correcting this.
Autobob

Autobob - Thanks for your

Submitted by jkamin on Fri, 2007-04-06 11:23.
Autobob - Thanks for your polite persistence! I'll give a look at the Mercury news article you mentioned above, but it would be great if you could send me other links showing that the majority of scientists don't agree that human activity and CO2 levels are at least partially responsible for the earth's warming. I only ask that, because even the global warming skepdics I talk to and have heard speak (including, for example, Michael Crichton) agree on this point. If, however, I'm missing a large chunk of the literature out there, I'll be happy to learn and, if appropriate, re-edit. Thanks again!

You are realy letting your

Submitted by Autobob on Fri, 2007-04-06 11:49.
You are realy letting your slant slip now. I have not stated anywhere that "the majority of scientists don't agree that human activity and CO2 levels are at least partially responsible for the earth's warming". What I have asked is that you get rid of the statement that "human activity is a significant cause of global warming". This website, http://www.schnittshow.com/globalwarming.html
links 139 articles currently debunking Man Made Global Warming.
Autobob

saving energy is the right

Submitted by j dewar on Sun, 2007-04-08 16:08.
saving energy is the right thing to do.but will somebody show the evidence that proves that man and not the sun is heating the earth as it has done for millions of years.spare a thought for the 4-5million kids who die each year in africa from respiritory illness because they breathe in the fumes from the wood and cow dung their parents have to burn because they have no elctricity due to the opposition to power stations put up by greenpeace and other enviro orgs.anyone who reads this should try living without it for a week never mind all of your life.

if global warming is

Submitted by j dewar on Sun, 2007-04-08 16:11.
if global warming is happening at an alarming rate why has there been no discernable rise in temp the last 8 years.source is the un enviro agency,not the political dept

Ah, Autobob - now I

Submitted by jkamin on Wed, 2007-04-11 01:10.
Ah, Autobob - now I understand! I think what we're really talking about here is the use of the word "significant." Is that right? Can't promise I'll change it, but I do promise that it is at the top of my list to research and consider (not only because of your charming doggedness, but also because I'm curious).
And on a personal note, can you stop accusing me of being biased? It may be true, but we get accused of being right wing/left wing/tools of the establishment/dupes of Al Gore every day - and it just gets tiresome. Other than that - let me once again thanks once for your guidance and for trying to keep us honest. Best, Jk.

It never ceases to amaze me

Submitted by barrywilliams on Wed, 2007-04-11 01:17.
It never ceases to amaze me how arrogant we humans are! I mean, we honestly think that some how we rule the planet!
We think that what we do is indelible . . . permanent.
Here's what WILL kill us:
Earthquakes: Remember that earthquake and subsequent tsunami that wiped out 250,000 on December 26, 2004. Well, that was nothing! There's a big one on the horizon that will make that one seem trivial! Istanbul, Turkey (7 millon people plus) WILL be hit by a massive earthquake which could well kill MILLIONS OF PEOPLE! Estimates are that 50,000 buildings will be leveled!
Volcanoes: There are 30 THOUSAND volcanoes on this planet. Most of them are in the sea floor. However, there are also many Like Mt. Pinatubo, Popocatepetl (within spitting distance of millions of people) and so called super volcanoes like the largest one on the planet, Yellowstone National Park. Any of these could start erupting tomorrow and WIPE OUT the entire planet by blocking out the sun for years. It is NOT a matter of IF they will erupt, it's WHEN and HOW BIG the eruption will be. No way to forecast it.
A rock from space: Again, it's NOT a matter of if it will happen. It will happen again. Period!
Entropy: In a few billion years, there will be nothing left. Not a theory . . . an absolute FACT! Proven! A simple matter of physics.
The sun: Eventually, the Sun will expand and burn the surface of the planet away.
Funny how so much stock is placed in so called "climate models" that the creators purport can forecast the condition of the climate years hence when we aren't even able to accurately forecast the weather a week in advance. The 5 day forecast is considered to have a reliability of somewhere around 20%!
So, we need to find a new crusader to "save" us from all of these looming disasters. Personally, I am not the least bit worried about the natural cycle of climate change that is absolutely inevitable despite what we do or don't do.
Thank you for your rapt attention. ;^)

And one or more things . .

Submitted by barrywilliams on Wed, 2007-04-11 02:31.
And one or more things . . .
How many millions did and will Al Gore make from his Oscar-winning (who cares?) dramatization of speculation about climate change and man's role? His movie isn't a documentary because it doesn't document anything.
A documentary is, by definition, a presentation of facts in an objective and unbiased way.
Examples: A movie about an event in WWII. The recounting of the history of the United States. An exposition of the history of weather prognostication. Grin.
Now the climate-doom-and-gloom-rock-star has proposed some big international soiree to happen in seven international cities simultaneously.
Fame and fortune!
Al Gore is once again relevant! Oh, wait a minute, is now relevant. Think about it. Holding important meetings, testifying as an "expert" before the democrat sycophants in Congress, making movies and generally bloviating as if his first education was a climatologist.
If you want to get the nature of the "expert" I invite you to read his obscure and laughable "From Red Tape to Results: Creating A Government That Works Better & Costs Less" which he authored as Vice President in 1993.
I still get the copy I have out and read it for a few good laughs.
Finally, what about Generation Investment Management (www.generationim.com) of which Mr. Gore is a founding partner. Funny, it's an "Independent, private, owner-managed partnership" set up to invest in green technology. Wonder if the potential to manage billions of dollars in investments could be causing a bias in Mr. Gore's rhetoric?
Just speculating.

JKamin I'm very sorry if I

Submitted by Autobob on Wed, 2007-04-11 08:22.
JKamin
I'm very sorry if I was unclear. That was exactly the point. It seems we cannot find facts to support if or how much Mankind is affecting global warming. I will give you that our actions add something, though I believe it to be miniscule and insignificant. And I in no way meant to offend by saying you let your slant slip. We all have slants and biasis, it's the nature of the beast. I was merely pointing out the slip. Remember, it takes both sides to have a middle. But I think that you can see by the posts, along with the news releases since the inception of this thread, that the more info that comes out the more we realize that this is a natural cycle.
Autobob

For those of you who put so

Submitted by Favre4Favre on Thu, 2007-04-12 10:19.
For those of you who put so much stock in Al "The Goracles" Gore's movie, watch this.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010
Do your own research, consesus is not science!! Global warming has been going on since the planet was formed. If humans and thier industries and cars are the cause of global warming then where are the crusaders cars and factories? The mideval warming period from 1050 to the 1300 shows a warmer temperature than we have today yet less co2 ppm. Hmmm why is that? does that not eliminate co2 as the culprit? Now that the duped SCOTUS has labled green house gasses polution, i expect all those rapid GW cultist to stop taking hot showers. Why? It is because of this ruling that WATER VAPOR is now officially a pollutant... see how ignorant that is? 90% does not an axiom make. There are simply too many factors to consider with regard to GW that to ascribe it to one, co2, is not only wrong its blatant propaganda used to forward a different agenda besides saving the planet.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." Albert Einstein
I'm an inventor. I find
Submitted by Luccon on Thu, 2007-04-12 21:00.
I'm an inventor. I find solutions to problems. Here's my ideal for short city trips (less than 100 km).
1. Have a rain colletion unit = free water.
2. Install a solar panel = almost free power
3. Install a unit that converts the water into hydrogen 24 hour a day at your home.
4. The hydrogen is stored in a carbon fiber bullet proof tank.
5. Convert your car to run on hydrogen (its not as hard as they would have you think). This includes removing the gasoline tank and replacing it with a carbon fiber tank.
6. Fill your car every day from your home storage tank.
7.Also install a water tank on your car and a smaller hydrogen converter which adds some hydrogen as you drive.
As i said in the begining this is for short trips. You would need a second car for long trips that still runs on gasoline. The other draw back is that the government, let alone the oil industry would never allow this to happen. No doubt I'll get some men in black trench coats show up at my door.

Barrywilliams - While many

Submitted by jkamin on Sat, 2007-04-14 07:23.
Barrywilliams - While many of your comments are insightful and thought provoking, and I appreciate your instinct to counsel other readers not to be "condescending and offensive," I hope you will allow me, as the editor, to advise you to take a little more of your own counsel. I'm quoting from an earlier post I made to ewoc.
"we're also trying to create a site where everyone feels they will be respected (if not necessarily their views). While we don't mind being called "clueless" (okay, maybe a little), we encourage you to be careful in future comments (which, again, we hope you make) not to disparage the author while disagreeing with their information and views."
I kept most of your post above because it is, on the whole, thoughtful and thought provoking, but you will notice I removed sentences that unnecessarily questioned the character of another writer. Thanks for understanding that we want Joe to be a place where all readers feel comfortable posting their insights.

It seems our debate has

Submitted by Autobob on Mon, 2007-04-30 16:54.
It seems our debate has ended. Due to the multiple compelling arguments against man-made climate change, and the very few and generally unsuported arguments for, I will now state the winner as...natural cycle.
Thank you to all for participating in this discusion.
Autobob

I am new to this forum, and

Submitted by engrpas on Mon, 2007-05-28 21:03.
I am new to this forum, and have a few observations on perusing the above topic ....
The debate here seems to be a reflection of the world at large - to a large extent driven by ideology and less so by science - somewhat akin to the universe revolving around a flat earth debates of the middle ages.
No global climate model I have seen simulates the cyclic temperature variations over the past century and a half, let alone from the medieval warm period through the little ice age to the present. I suspect it is because the CO2 dependence model does not reflect all the complexities involved in global climate.
No one is able to say how much impact human activity has on the overall CO2 emissions, how much impact CO2 emissions have on greenhouse gases, and how much impact greenhouse gases have on global climate. The relative quantities of these factors are still very speculative, and small differences in assumptions can result in huge differences in the outcomes predicted by the models.
Finally, the ideology or source of livelihood of a scientist is not a valid indicator of any bias in his work. Honest people will present their results honestly, while dishonest people will deceive you - and there are honest and dishonest people across the entire ideological spectrum.
My advice is to continue conserving energy by utilizing more efficient technologies and looking for alternate sources - it will pay off in the longrun. In the meantime, we should refrain from vilifying people with whom we disagree, but debate the issues based on fact, logic and analysis.
Pete

Please treat with great

Submitted by billonesty on Fri, 2007-06-08 10:59.
Please treat with great scepticism any view presented here by anyone who calls himself an "environmental lawyer." These people will have a vested interest in making a strong case for global warming as created by man and which has extreme consequences.
I am one of those who would say that following the environmentalist's prescriptions for reducing global warming would do much more than, as you say it, "end up severely hurting our economy" without doing a thing for the weather.
The prescriptions of the environmentalists would actually cause the death of many people. Drastically cutting back our use of burned fuels to produce the energy needed to support current world economies would cause great hardship with respect to the industries that supply and ensure the purity of our food and water, that heat and light our homes, and that support our health and sanitation industries. There is no amount of alternative sources of energy that could maintain the essential life sustaining industries for the world's 6 billion people. That means some of them would have to die, probably as a result of starvation, lack of water, lack of medical care, and exposure to extremes of weather. These essentials to our life here on earth are maintained by our current consumption of oil, gas, and coal.
Let me make it clear. The environmentalists are not asking us all to make small sacrifices of convenience in order to solve a crisis. They are asking that many die so that others can live.
It is essential then that we get this right. If it is so important that some die so that others can live in a world where rampant global warming was stopped because of their sacrifice, then so be it. But if the global warming nightmare scenarios are fanciful inventions of people hungry for political power, I want to know about it.
Of course Global Warming has
Submitted by MMateev on Sat, 2007-06-16 17:37.
Of course Global Warming has been going on since the beginning of time. BUT, have you ever thought that it might have increased its speed by the help of us people? I mean, sure, the world naturally warms itself, but we are also a major cause to global warming, and we definitely increase the risk of flooding the Earth sooner than we may think. If you take a moment to just recognize how much more we rely on CO2, and how much more we emit into our atmosphere TODAY, it is significantly different from the medival times wouldn't you think so? I agree both on natural Global Warming & Man-made effects. No matter what, there is always more than one side to the story, and unfortunately WE aren't always the "good guys".

How much more do we rely on

Submitted by Autobob on Wed, 2007-06-20 17:06.
How much more do we rely on CO2? Estimates say that we add approximately 1% over what is naturaly accuring. I don't think that your statement that "we are also a major cause to global warming, and we definitely increase the risk of flooding the Earth sooner than we may think" is accurate. When every particle of CO2 has less of an affect than the previouse particle, how is 1% significant?
The oldest measures of sea levels show almost no change. Please tell me how we can consider this catastrophic.
I am all for cleaning up the environment, and I believe we have been doing that on a grand scale for the last several decades. I am against major changes that will greatly affect the worlds economy as well as causing the deaths of millions of people without solid proof that it is necessary.
Remember the DDT ban?
Autobob

Congratulations on a fair

Submitted by dikstr on Mon, 2007-07-23 15:36.
Congratulations on a fair and balanced presentation of the climate change issue. I take exception with only one point and that is the statement in the end note:
"Although citizenJoe presents global warming as a debate, we should note that the majority of scientists and a growing number of economists believe that human activity is a significant cause of global warming"
I believe that representation of a consensus among most climate scientists on the IPCC's anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is incorrect. I work in the field and know of more scientists who are skeptical about anthropogenic CO2's dominant role in global warming than 'true believers'. Most agree that global warming ~ 0.5 C has occured during the past century but believe the databases and theory required to quantify the relative importance of anthropogenic and natural forcings won't be available for decades. Predictions of future of climate and its impact on mankind are at best premature and at worst, 'political' science.
I know many scientists were unwillingly 'co-opted' as authors on the recent IPCC Fourth Assessment report. I was asked to participate in the writing of a section that turned out to be just an effort to get my name on the report and didn't offer a real opportunity to make a substantive contribution. I declined this offer since I disagreed with the relevant section's thesis and was not offered an opportunity to make it a more balanced presentation. This cynical approach to managing the IPCC report was apparently commonplace and was used to give the appearance of widespread consensus.

This politically correct

Submitted by dikstr on Mon, 2007-07-23 18:00.
This politically correct propaganda is scientifically incompetent and incorrect on nearly every point. Its the height of egotism for an attorney to represent himself as an expert on state of the art scientific work. Based on his statements here - he is certainly not! I'm a research scientist in the field and know ewoc's views to be nothing more than the dogma of the anthropomorphic CO2 global warming hypothesis promulgated by the IPCC and its sycophants among the hyper-environmentalist groups.
The representation of on-going climate change (global warming) research as a debate in progress by citizenJoe is a correct characterization of this field of research at present. The observational databases of climate parameters and climate change forcings, both natural and anthropogenic, are of insufficient quality and length to prove or disprove contentions of man's culpability in global warming. Prognostications of gloom and doom caused by anthropogenic CO2 are premature, not justifiable by either data or theory at present.
The IPCC is not a consensus procedure. Many scientists were unwillingly co-opted into co-authorship of the IPCC Forth Assessment. I was offered an opportunity to participate in writing a section that I had to turn down because there was in fact no opportunity for me to influence the content in any significant way. It was just a cynical attempt to get my name included in the list of authors to 'rubber stamp' text that had been prepared behind closed doors to flatter the bias of the IPCC. Judging from communications with my colleagues, mine was not an isolated case. I have participated in many documentation efforts to summarize the state of the art in my field over the years but have rarely experienced the cynical political character of the IPCC process.

Can anybody tell me why we

Submitted by Autobob on Tue, 2007-08-28 08:47.
Can anybody tell me why we are not hearing about reports that seem to dispell the "man made global warming" myth? Please read the link below and let me know your thoughts on why this news would not be just as sensational as all the doom & gloom news. Is it because of the MSM support for the Democratic party and that the global warming poster boy may still announce a possible presidential run?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Content...
rd_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=
Autobob

I'm new to this discussion.

Submitted by BarryAZ1 on Wed, 2007-09-05 01:36.
I'm new to this discussion. I skimmed most of the postings, but I'll admit that I have not read them all in detail.
To the global warming skeptics who have seen An Inconvenient Truth: What is your take on the CO2 graph that Mr. Gore presented? This is the one that starts about 600,000 years ago, shows the cycles over several ice ages, and ends with today's data. I could not find that graph anywhere (at the time), and so I found the original data sources (Vostok ice core data and current Mauna Loa measurements) and plotted them myself.
The data that I was able to find only went back about 420,000 years. It shows a somewhat irregular cyclic pattern, from a minimum of 182 ppmv to 298 ppmv in the Vostok data (ending at about 2350 years ago). The last four ice ages align with the valleys in the graph.
As in the movie, the really striking thing appears when you add the current measurements -- data measured high on Mauna Loa from 1958 to the 2004. On a scale of 4200 centuries the data for these 46 years appears as a vertical line at the end of the graph. It runs from 314 ppmv in 1958 to 377 ppmv in 2004.
As far as I know, this is MEASURED data -- not in dispute.
So we've increased the concentration of CO2 by 26% above the highest of the last four (relatively even) peaks in the known portion of the natural cycle. The range of the known cycle is 116 ppmv (298 - 182). This amount of change corresponds to the difference between a 'warm' period and an ice age. Yet before we are able to halt the rise, it will likely exceed 116 ppmv ABOVE the peaks in the known natural cycle.
It seems clear to me that we have departed from the cycle into a new realm. I would agree with the skeptics' point that we don't know with any certainty what will happen due to this change.
But if I came to you and asked if you thought it prudent to do a GIANT CHEMISTRY EXPERIMENT on the atmosphere, with unknown outcome, and no place to run if the experiment goes bad, would you agree to this?
Yes ... because, gol' darnit, my SUV is SACRED! :-)
The transition to renewable energy is just a CHANGE - a transition. There will be economic winners and losers during that change, but the end result will be a world with:
- Less air pollution
- Less dependence on unstable states (including many that support terrorism)
- A reduction in the unsustainable imbalance of trade
We'll make that transition eventually. We really ought to do it sooner, rather than later, just on its own merits.
I'd like to see Autobob
Submitted by baritonesaxophone on Wed, 2007-09-05 21:37.
I'd like to see Autobob comment on BarryAZ1's posting.

I'd be happy to

Submitted by Autobob on Thu, 2007-09-06 13:33.
I'd be happy to Baritonesaxiphone.
BarryAZ1,
If you take your plotted CO2 graph and overlay a graph of solar cycles I think you will see that CO2 follows solar cycles. The earth releases more CO2 when it's warmer.
I agree that we do not know what the affects of the additional CO2 from the last 65 years are going to be. I am all for cleaning up the environment and alternative fuels, not only for the environment but for national security. I drive a small fuel efficient car and built a very energy efficient house last year.
I am in no way against cleaning up the environment and reducing our need for foreign oil and fosil fuels. What I am against is jumping into something, with partial information, that we know will have very detrimental affects on our economy and way of life.
Is that okay Baritonesaxiphone?
Autobob