NationStates Jolt Archive

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002549346_globewarm11.html

some highlights:

As one study after another has pointed to carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions as the most plausible explanation, the cautious community of science has embraced an idea initially dismissed as far-fetched. The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process. Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse.

"There's an overwhelming consensus among scientists," said UW climate researcher David Battisti, who also was dubious about early claims of greenhouse warming.

Fuel companies contribute to that gap by supporting a small cadre of global-warming skeptics, whose views are widely disseminated by like-minded think tanks and Web sites.

The consensus is most clearly embodied in the reports of the 100-nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established by the United Nations in 1988. Every five to six years, the panel evaluates the science and issues voluminous reports reviewed by more than 2,000 scientists and every member government, including the United States.

The early reports reflected the squishy state of the science, but by 2001, the conclusion was unequivocal: "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

The next IPCC report is due in 2007. Among the new evidence it will include are the deepest ice cores ever drilled, which show carbon-dioxide levels are higher now than any time in the past 650,000 years.

Researchers skeptical of the idea have suggested alternative causes for rising temperatures and carbon-dioxide levels. They've theorized about natural forces that might mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases. But no one has been able to explain it away.

"You would need to develop a Rube Goldberg-type of argument to say climate is not changing because of increasing carbon dioxide," said Battisti, 49, who directs the UW's Earth Initiative to apply science to environmental problems.

Instead, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are increasing at a rate that precisely tracks man's automotive and industrial emissions.

"The process is 1,000 times faster than nature can do it," Battisti said.

But climate researchers say skeptics are recycling discredited arguments or selectively using data to make points. And as Oreskes showed, few skeptics publish in peer-reviewed journals, which check for accuracy and omissions.

and the best quote

"The fact that so many scientists think it's likely a truck is heading for us means that the last thing we want to do is close our eyes and lie down in the road."

Now, can we have some honest debate on this? Please, please read the whole article.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, calls global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people."

I would like to stress though that this scepticism is primarily an American thing. For whatever reason in the town where I grew up the idea of global warming was never questioned.
Maybe people had gotten used to the idea that we're screwing the planet since the Acid Rain business, which never seemed to really get that much attention in the States.

That being said, it's a good think that Bush actually said it clearly. Maybe that is the beginning of a new direction?

There are two major problems on this issue: "Equal coverage" and Unequal Funding.

The first, as the article states, like with Creationism, portrays the scientific community as divided equally, when in fact it is unfair to claim that there is really any disagreement on the matter in any field except the political.

The second, well... of the top sceptical think-tanks, the overwhelming majority are directly and openly funded by Exxon Mobil (some examples, for sir? (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.500)). I don't think I need say much more.

Even if we managed to drop the carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions, fat chance, then the the global warming would still continue for centuries to come. So it looks like its already too late to stop that truck from coming our way.

All we can do now is damage control, but in order to drop the carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions, hell, thats going to take some serious sacrifices! Not going to happen, period.

I never heard anyone questioning Global Warming till I came here - and that's only from people who want corporations to do what ever they want - kind of makes their arguements unconvincing when you know they have an axe to grind in order to stop enviromental regulation as opposed to wanting to know the actual truth.

There IS an arguement against trying to stop global warming now - you could say that if we regulate damage to the enviroment, global warming will still occur, albeit more slowly, and the advancement in technology we gain through not regulating industry would give us a better chance of doing something to save the world. It's debateable whether less enviromental regulation = faster advancements in technology, but it's at least a debate worth having. It's better than putting your fingers in your ears and going "I don't like the consequences if what you say is true, so therefore i'm not listening - la la la la"

Even if we managed to drop the carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions, fat chance, then the the global warming would still continue for centuries to come. So it looks like its already too late to stop that truck from coming our way.

All we can do now is damage control, but in order to drop the carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions, hell, thats going to take some serious sacrifices! Not going to happen, period.

Unfortunately, you are exactly right. We've spent so much time "debating" the issue - which is to say, powerful people with vested interests in CO2-producing industries have continued to deny the existence of a problem for so long, despite it being an indisputable fact - that we've already passed the point of no return.

I have no doubt that humanity will survive the upcoming centuries of chaos - we're very adaptable. We may even come out of this a bit wiser, although much poorer and greatly reduced in numbers. Short-term forecast? Katrina was just a warm-up act. We're going to see coastal cities around the globe submerged, formerly productive land turning to desert, mass extinctions, and a refugee population exceeding a billion people. By 2050.

And the damnable thing is that those same people who denied the problem for so long are now going to blame the existence of the problem on the people who tried to warn them in the first place. The human species has no shame.

:mad:

There is a way to make things greener and cleaner fast: Make it lucrative and profitable for the companies and to some extent individuals.

I never heard anyone questioning Global Warming till I came here


me too. sheep, all of them.

Katrina was just a warm-up act.

Katarina is what made me realize the trouble we're in. I mean, that was just one hurricane hitting a densly populated area. How many disasters like that can the US economy, the holy of holies to some, survive? Oh well, you get what you paid for.

Katrina was not caused by Global Warming but by a natural weather cycle. Hurricane strengths go in cycle and we are in the high end of that cycle. It'll go down and then go back up again.

As for Global Warming, it is a natural phenomenon and that is all I'm saying on this issue.

Katrina was not caused by Global Warming but by a natural weather cycle. Hurricane strengths go in cycle and we are in the high end of that cycle. It'll go down and then go back up again.

As for Global Warming, it is a natural phenomenon and that is all I'm saying on this issue.

all climatic natural disasters have increased in volume, magnitude and frequency over the last few decades.

we know that global warming is natural, but it is being exaserbated by man. thats all *i* will say on this issue.

If anything, this is an argument for more nuclear power. If we replace the fossil fuel plants in the US with nuclear, we're going to cut down on emissions and reduce the nation's dependence on oil at the same time. Plus, the thousands of higher paying, higher skill jobs created as a result will be a far greater boost to the economy than the old fossil fuel plants were.

all climatic natural disasters have increased in volume, magnitude and frequency over the last few decades.

Yea but that doesn't prove Global Warming. It happens. Its been happening since the Great Flood.

If anything, this is an argument for more nuclear power. If we replace the fossil fuel plants in the US with nuclear, we're going to cut down on emissions and reduce the nation's dependence on oil at the same time. Plus, the thousands of higher paying, higher skill jobs created as a result will be a far greater boost to the economy than the old fossil fuel plants were.

Yeah, i'm massively in favour of switching to nuclear power - at least until a better alternative is found. Sure, it *can* be dangerous - but if safety precautions were strictly enforced then the risk would be tiny.

Yea but that doesn't prove Global Warming. It happens. Its been happening since the Great Flood.

Doesn't prove Global Warming? Looks like you slipped up there, pal.

Fact is that Global Warming is a natural phenomen, fact is also that we humans are influencing the process of global warming on this planet to the extend that the whole process takes place at a rate much faster than otherwise would be the case. To argue this with "Its been happening since the Great Flood," only shows you missed the central point of debate.

Yeah, i'm massively in favour of switching to nuclear power - at least until a better alternative is found. Sure, it *can* be dangerous - but if safety precautions were strictly enforced then the risk would be tiny.

Technology has improved a lot, and so these reactors could also be the first steps towards the development of large-scale fusion power.

Large scale fusion reactors are already underway - or at least, one is. The ITER project (I think it's ITER anyway - al these acronyms confuse the hell outta me lol) have finally got round to building their little love child - construction is underway on a fully fledged fusion reactor in France, so they must think they've got something down. I personally think this is possibly the best thing to happen to power tech since... the power equivalent of sliced bread, whatever that may be.

Not entirely sure why they chose France - still, I'm not complaining. Living in Portsmouth as I do (south coast of England for those who don't know) I'll have a prime seat at the fireworks display if things go tits-up. :D

Doesn't prove Global Warming? Looks like you slipped up there, pal.

Nope. I haven't slipped up at all. Just proves a natural Hurricane cycle of powerful and non-powerful hurricanes. Not to mention active and inactive seasons.

Yea but that doesn't prove Global Warming. It happens. Its been happening since the Great Flood.

Cornie, did you read the article? You simply cannot say that if you honestly assess the information.

Let's take this from another direction. What would it take to convince you? This article seems ratgher definitive, especically when combines with all the other Data out there. There was wiggle room in the data a few years ago. That is no longer the case. Science has moves on, and it has definitively proved (as much as science can prove anything,) that Global Warming and man's part in it are real. Read the article.

Read the article.

Read it.

Good Cornie :D

When it comes to global warming, you are obsessed by it. Can't you just lay off?

When it comes to global warming, you are obsessed by it. Can't you just lay off?

Gee, you keep paying attention to that guy holding a gun to your head. Can't you just lay off?

Gallileo, when it comes to the Earth orbiting the Sun, you are obsessed by it. Can't you just lay off?

Mr, King, when it comes to equal rights for blacks, you are obsessed by it. Can't you just lay off?

I'm not obsessed. I'm just completely appalled by otherwise intelligent people who completely refuse to look at the information or even attempt to debate the issue honestly. That global warming is happening and man is involved is painfully obvious at this point. Painfully obvious. And yet people like you just pop in, fail to address the clearcut information and tell us to stop bitching. Just stop it.

Lotus, after reading the article included here, what are your specific problems with it? Where do you think it comes up short, and where do you see it being overhyped? What data do you think is incorrect, and do you have alternate data to help refute it? Can we have an intelligent discussion here? That's all I ask.

Gee, you keep paying attention to that guy holding a gun to your head. Can't you just lay off?

Gallileo, when it comes to the Earth orbiting the Sun, you are obsessed by it. Can't you just lay off?

Mr, King, when it comes to equal rights for blacks, you are obsessed by it. Can't you just lay off?

I'm not obsessed. I'm just completely appalled by otherwise intelligent people who completely refuse to look at the information or even attempt to debate the issue honestly.

Lotus, after reading the article included here, what are your problems with it? Where do you think it comes up short, and where do you see it being overhyped? What data do you think is incorrect, and do you have alternate data to help refute it? Can we have an intelligent discussion here? That's all I ask.

I believe it is entirely correct. I just think that we've turned this from a climatological issue into something far bigger than it needs to be. The same goes for evolution and the like.

I believe it is entirely correct. I just think that we've turned this from a climatological issue into something far bigger than it needs to be. The same goes for evolution and the like.

The thing is that when a problem is real and imminent, sometimes you have to scream to get people's attention. Kinda like yelling "fire!" when there actually is a fire.

From what I see on this forum, there'd still be people staring blankly and saying, "Calm down. It's just swamp gas reflecting off streetlights," while the fire raged around them.

As for Global Warming, it is a natural phenomenon and that is all I'm saying on this issue.

No one is says that Global Warming isn't a natural process, the question is wether we intensify this effect or not.

From the article:

Earth's climate has swung from steamy to icy many times in the past, but scientists believe they know what triggered many of those fluctuations. Erupting volcanoes and slow ocean upwelling release carbon dioxide, which leads to warming. Mountain uplifting and continental drift expose new rock, which absorbs carbon dioxide and causes cooling. Periodic wobbles in the planet's orbit reduce sunlight and set off a feedback loop that results in ice ages.

All of those shifts happened over tens of thousands of years — and science shows none of them is happening now.